# Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons

for the Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities

Stationary Source Division Emissions Assessment Branch
Release Date: March 10, 2000 

# California Environmental Protection Agency 

# Air Resources Board

# -1- TITLE 17. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A PROPOSED AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE FOR EMISSIONS OF CHLORINATED TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS FROM AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ACTIVITIES The Air Resources Board (the ARB or Board) will conduct a public hearing at the time and place noted below to consider adopting a regulation to reduce emissions of chlorinated toxic air contaminants from the use of several automotive consumer products. The proposed regulation is intended to reduce emissions from cleaning and degreasing products that are predominantly used in automotive maintenance and repair activities. The proposed regulation would establish prescriptive standards for these products.
DATE: April 27, 2000
TIME: 9:30 a.m.
PLACE: San Diego County Administration Center

Supervisors Chambers, Room 310 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego, California This item will be considered at a two-day meeting of the ARB, which will commence at 9:30 a.m. on April 27, 2000, and may continue at 8:30 a.m., April 28, 2000. This item may not be considered until April 28, 2000. Please consult the agenda for the meeting, which will be available at least 10 days before April 27, 2000, to determine the time when this item will be considered. This facility is accessible to persons with disabilities. If accommodation is needed, please contact ARB’s Clerk of the Board by April 13, 2000, at (916) 322-5594, or TDD (916) 324-9531, or (800) 700-8326 for TDD calls from outside the Sacramento area, to ensure accommodation.
INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION AND PLAIN ENGLISH POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW
Sections Affected: Proposed adoption of section 93111, title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), and proposed incorporation by reference of “Air Resources Board Test Method 310, Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Consumer Products,” adopted September 25, 1997 as last amended September 3, 1999.

# -2-

Background The California Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Program (Program), established under California law by Assembly Bill 1807 (Chapter 1047, Statutes of 1983) and set forth in Health and Safety Code (HSC) sections 39650 - 39675, requires the ARB to identify and control air toxics in California. The Board identified methylene chloride (MeCl), trichloroethylene (TCE), and perchloroethylene (Perc) as toxic air contaminants (TACs) at its July 1989, October 1990, and October 1991 Board hearings, respectively. Each TAC was identified without a Board-specified threshold exposure level Following the identification of a substance as a TAC, HSC section 39665 requires the ARB, with participation of the air pollution control and air quality management districts, and in consultation with affected sources and interested parties, to prepare a report on the need and appropriate degree of regulation for that substance. HSC section 39665(b) requires that this “needs assessment” address, among other things, the technological feasibility of proposed airborne toxic control measures (ATCMs) and the availability, suitability and relative efficacy of substitute products or processes of a less hazardous nature. A needs assessment for Perc was conducted from 1991 to 1993 as part of the ARB’s development of the ATCM for Emissions of Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning Operations, August 1993 (title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 93109 and 93110). The ARB staff has prepared an Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) for this proposed regulation that serves as the report on the need and appropriate degree of regulation for the two other TACs, MeCl and TCE. Once the ARB has evaluated the need and appropriate degree of regulation for a TAC, HSC section 39666 requires the ARB to adopt regulations (ATCMs) to reduce emissions of the TAC. Since Perc, MeCl, and TCE do not have Board-specified threshold exposure levels, HSC section 39666 also requires that the proposed ATCM be designed to reduce emissions to the lowest level achievable through the application of best available control technology (BACT) or a more effective control method, in consideration of cost, risk, environmental impacts, and other specified factors. In developing the proposed ATCM, state law also requires assessment of the appropriateness of substitute products or processes. It is important to note that the proposed ATCM is not a consumer products regulation. Consumer products regulations are developed under authority granted to the ARB by the California Clean Air Act (1998), and specifically HSC section 41712. HSC section 41712 requires the ARB to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in reactive organic compounds (ROCs) emitted by consumer products (note: ROC is equivalent to VOC). As discussed previously, we are proposing this ATCM under the authority granted to the ARB by Assembly Bill 1807 (The Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Program) as codified in HSC sections 39650 through 39675. However, since the automotive consumer products industry has previously been subject to regulations developed under ARB’s Consumer Products Program, we have used the phrase

# -3-

“consumer products” and definitions similar to those in ARB’s consumer products regulations in an attempt to make our ISOR more familiar and comprehensible to consumer products manufacturers, automotive maintenance and repair (AMR) facility operators, and others who may use these products. Description of the Proposed Regulatory Action The proposed ATCM would minimize emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from AMR activities by regulating automotive consumer product content and usage. Specifically, the proposed ATCM requires that brake cleaners, carburetor or fuel-injection air intake cleaners (carburetor cleaners), engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers manufactured after December 31, 2002 and sold or intended for sale in California not contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE. The proposed ATCM provides that a product is considered to contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE if it has one percent or more (by weight) of any one of the three TACs. This allowed content accounts for the detection limit of the prescribed test method. The proposed ATCM also prohibits AMR facility owners and operators from using these automotive consumer products if they contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE in their facilities after June 30, 2005. Administrative Requirements The proposed regulation would provide manufacturers an 18-month sell-through period for the specified Perc, MeCl, or TCE-containing automotive consumer products manufactured on or before December 31, 2002. The sell-through period would end June 30, 2004. In addition, AMR facility owners and operators would be provided 12 months from the end of the sell-through period to use chlorinated products. For compliance purposes, manufacturers would be required to display a date or date-code on the product container indicating date of manufacture and to provide the date-code key to the ARB.
Variances The proposed regulation is not expected to cause or result in significant economic hardship to any person or manufacturer. However, to further reduce this possibility, any person who cannot comply with the requirements of the proposed ATCM, due to reasons beyond the person’s reasonable control, may apply in writing for a variance. The proposed variance procedures for the ATCM closely mirror other ARB variance procedures specified in ARB regulations.
Test Method Testing is necessary to determine compliance with the proposed standards. The proposed test method is a modification of Air Resources Board Test Method 310, Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Consumer Products, adopted September 25, 1997, as last amended September 3, 1999, which is to be incorporated by reference.

# -4-

Comparable Federal Regulations There are no comparable federal regulations covering emissions from the use of automotive consumer products containing chlorinated toxic air contaminants in automotive maintenance and repair activities. Staff reviewed federal regulations governing worker safety (the requirements for cleaning asbestos brakes and the use of aerosol products in the vicinity of ignition sources) to ensure there were no conflicting provisions.
AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS AND AGENCY CONTACT PERSON The ARB staff has prepared a Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) for the proposed regulatory action which includes the full text of the proposed regulatory language, a summary of the environmental and economic impacts of the proposal, and supporting technical documentation. Copies of the ISOR may be obtained from the ARB’s Public Information Office, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, California 95814, (916) 322-2990, at least 45 days prior to the scheduled hearing (April 27, 2000). To obtain the ISOR in an alternative format, please contact the Air Resources Board ADA Coordinator at (916) 322-4505, TDD (916) 324-9531, or (800) 700-8326 for TDD calls from outside the Sacramento Area. This notice, the ISOR, and all subsequent regulatory documents are being made available on the ARB Internet site for this rulemaking, http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/amr/amr.htm. The staff has also compiled a record which includes all information upon which the proposal is based. This material is available for inspection upon request to the contact person identified below. The ARB has determined that it is not feasible to draft the regulation in plain English due to the technical nature of the regulation; however, a plain English summary of the regulation is available from the agency contact person named in this notice, and is also contained in the ISOR for this regulatory action. Further inquiries regarding this matter should be directed to the agency contact person for this rulemaking, Mr. Tony Andreoni, Manager, Process Evaluation Section, Stationary Source Division, at (916) 324-6021.
COSTS TO PUBLIC AGENCIES AND TO BUSINESSES AND PERSONS AFFECTED The determinations of the Board’s Executive Officer concerning the cost or savings necessarily incurred in reasonable compliance with the proposed regulatory action are presented below. The Executive Officer has determined that the proposed regulatory action will not create costs or savings, as defined in Government Code section 11346.5(a)(6), to any state agency or in federal funding to the State, costs or mandate to any local agency or school district whether or not reimbursable by the State pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with section 17500), Division 4, Title 2 of the Government Code, or other nondiscretionary savings to local agencies. However, the ARB may incur additional implementation or enforcement costs at some future time.

# -5-

In developing this regulatory proposal, the ARB staff evaluated the potential economic impacts on businesses and private persons. The Executive Officer has determined, pursuant to Government Code section 11346.5(a)(3)(B), that the regulation may affect small business. However, the Executive Officer has also determined, pursuant to Government Code section 11346.5(a)(8), that adoption of the proposed regulatory action will not have a significant adverse economic impact on businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. The Executive Officer has determined that there will be no, or an insignificant, potential cost impact, as defined in Government Code section 11346.5(a)(9), on private persons or businesses directly affected resulting from the proposed action. Finally, in accordance with Government Code section 11346.3, the Executive Officer has determined that the proposed regulatory action should have negligible impacts on the creation or elimination of jobs within the State of California, negligible impacts on the creation of new businesses and the elimination of existing businesses within the State of California, and negligible impacts on the expansion of businesses currently doing business within the State of California. A detailed assessment of the economic impacts of the proposed amendments can be found in the ISOR. Before taking final action on the proposed regulatory action, the ARB must determine that no alternative considered by the agency would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons or businesses than the proposed action.
SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS The public may present comments relating to this matter orally or in writing at the hearing, and in writing or by e-mail before the hearing. To be considered by the ARB, written submissions must be addressed to and received by the Clerk of the Board, Air Resources Board, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812, or 2020 L Street, 4th

# Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814, no later than 12:00 noon Pacific Time April 26, 2000, or received by the Clerk of the Board at the hearing. To be considered by the ARB, e-mail submissions must be addressed to amr@listserv.arb.ca.gov and received at the ARB no later than 12:00 noon Pacific Time April 26, 2000. The ARB requests, but does not require 30 copies of any written submission. Also, the ARB requests that written and e-mail statements be filed at least 10 days prior to the hearing so that ARB staff and Board Members have time to fully consider each comment. The ARB encourages members of the public to bring any suggestions for modification of the proposed regulatory action to the attention of staff in advance of the hearing.

# State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD

STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING

Public Hearing to Consider
PROPOSED ADOPTION OF AN AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE FOR EMISSIONS OF CHLORINATED TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS FROM AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ACTIVITIES

To be considered by the Air Resources Board on April 27, 2000, at:

San Diego County Administration Center Supervisors Chambers, Room 310 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego, California

Air Resources Board P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

This report has been prepared by the staff of the California Air Resources Board. Publication does not signify that the contents reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

# State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD

PROPOSED AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE FOR EMISSIONS OF CHLORINATED TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS FROM AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ACTIVITIES

Executive Summary and Technical Support Document

Primary Authors Mark Williams (team lead) Richard A. Boyd II Greg Harris Michele Houghton Michelle Komlenic Tina Najjar Contributing Authors Vernon Hughes Tom Lusk Reza Mahdavi, Ph.D. Tony Servin Hien Tran

Reviewed by: Tony F. Andreoni, Manager, Process Evaluation Section Todd S. Wong, Manager, Emissions Evaluation Section Daniel E. Donohoue, Chief, Emissions Assessment Branch Donald J. Ames, Assistant Chief, Stationary Source Division Peter D. Venturini, Chief, Stationary Source Division

February 2000

# ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to acknowledge the participation and assistance of the consumer products manufacturing industry and its associations, the automotive maintenance and repair industry, district and state agency staff, and others. We thank the automotive maintenance and repair facility representatives for showing us their operations and providing product information. We also wish to acknowledge the technical support we received from the following ARB units: Field Enforcement Section, Compliance Division Program Review Section, Compliance Division Office of Legal Affairs, Executive Office Evaluation Section, Monitoring and Laboratory Division Client Support Services Section, Planning and Technical Support Division Emissions Inventory Methods Section, Planning and Technical Support Division Emissions Inventory Analysis Section, Planning and Technical Support Division Modeling Support Section, Planning and Technical Support Division Implementation Section, Stationary Source Division Measure Development Section, Stationary Source Division

# Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page
Volume I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. Introduction

............................................................ 1 II. History and Background

.................................................. 1 III. Public Outreach

......................................................... 3 IV. Potential Emissions and Health Impacts

...................................... 4 V. Summary of the Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure

...................... 6 VI. Potential Health Impacts of the Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure

.......... 8 VII. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure

............... 9 VIII. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure

.......... 10 IX. Recommendation

....................................................... 13

LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
Table 1: Statewide Emission Estimates from Perc-containing Automotive Consumer

Products

......................................................... 4 Table 2: Requirements of the Proposed ATCM

.................................. 7

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page Volume II: TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
I. Introduction

.......................................................... I-1 A. Overview

...................................................... I-1 B. Purpose

........................................................ I-1 C. Regulatory Authority

............................................. I-2 D. Regulatory Activities

............................................. I-3
II. Public Outreach and Report Preparation

.................................... II-1 A. Outreach Efforts

................................................. II-1 B. Public Involvement

.............................................. II-1 C. Data Collection Tools to Assist in Report Preparation

................... II-3
III. Physical Characteristics, Sources, and Ambient Concentrations of Perchloroethylene, Methylene Chloride, and Trichloroethylene

................................ III-1 A. Perchloroethylene

............................................... III-1 B. Methylene Chloride

............................................. III-7 C. Trichloroethylene

.............................................. III-12
IV. Summary of Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities

................... IV-1 A. Description of Product Categories

.................................. IV-1 B. Users of Automotive Consumer Products in California

................. IV-4 C. How Brake Service and Repair Jobs are Performed

.................... IV-4
V. Emissions From Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities

................ V-1 A. Brake Cleaner and Perc-Containing Automotive Products Survey

......... V-1 B. Automotive Service Facility Questionnaire

........................... V-2 C. Brake/Automotive Repair Shop Survey

.............................. V-8 D. Summary of Emissions

......................................... V-14
VI. Potential Health Impacts of Perchloroethylene, Methylene Chloride, and Trichloroethylene from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities

.......... VI-1 A. An Overview of Health Risk Assessment

............................ VI-1 B. The Tools Used for this Risk Assessment

............................ VI-3 C. Potential Health Effects of Perchloroethylene, Methylene Chloride, and Trichloroethylene

............................................... VI-5 D. Factors that Affect the Outcome of a Health Risk Assessment at Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities

........................ VI-9 E. Summary of Potential Health Impacts from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities

........................................... VI-11 F. Multipathway Health Risk Assessment

............................. VI-45

# TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Contents Page
VII. The Proposed Control Measure and Alternatives

........................... VII-1 A. The Proposed Control Measure

................................... VII-1 B. Basis for the Proposed Regulation

................................. VII-2 C. Alternatives to the Proposed Control Measure

....................... VII-6 D. Evaluation of the Proposed Control Measure

....................... VII-10
VIII. Potential Health Impacts of the Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure

...... VIII-1 A. Statewide Emissions and Risk Reduction Benefits of the Airborne Toxic Control Measure

......................................... VIII-1 B. Potential Adverse Health Effects from Use of Volatile Organic Compounds

.................................................. VIII-1 C. Replacement with Other Toxic Air Contaminants that are Not Volatile Organic Compounds

.................................... VIII-4 D. Replacement with Compounds that are Not Toxic Air Contaminants or Volatile Organic Compounds

.................................. VIII-5 E. Workplace Exposure

........................................... VIII-5
IX. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure

............ IX-1 A. Summary of Economic Impacts

.................................... IX-1 B. Economic Impacts Analysis on California Businesses as Required by The California Administrative Procedure Act

......................... IX-3 C. Analysis of Potential Impacts to California State or Local Agencies

....... IX-9 D. Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of the Proposed ATCM

.............. IX-9
X. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure

........ X-1 A. Legal Requirements Applicable to the Analysis

....................... X-1 B. Potential Waste Water Impacts

.................................... X-1 C. Potential Hazardous Waste Impacts

................................. X-2 D. Potential Air Pollution Impacts

.................................... X-3 E. Formation of Phosgene

.......................................... X-6 F. Potential Flammability of Products that Contain VOCs

................. X-7 G. Reasonably Foreseeable Feasible Mitigation Measures

.................. X-8 H. Reasonably Foreseeable Alternative Means of Compliance with the ATCM

. X-8
XI. References

# TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

APPENDIX A: Proposed Regulation Order: Airborne Toxic Control Measure for

Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants From Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities APPENDIX B: Surveys APPENDIX C: Methodology for Estimating the Potential Health Impacts from

Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities APPENDIX D: Specific and Generic Facility Modeling Results APPENDIX E: Statewide Population Exposure Estimate Modeling Memorandums APPENDIX F: Selection of Specific and Generic Facilities for ISCST3 Modeling APPENDIX G: Compounds in Products APPENDIX H: Examples of Manufacturer Efficacy Claims for Non-Chlorinated Products APPENDIX I: Glossary

# LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page
Table V-1: Summary of Manufacturer Survey Information

........................ V-2 Table V-2: Number of Businesses by SIC Code

................................ V-3 Table V-3: Brake Cleaning Techniques Used in Facility Survey

.................... V-4 Table V-4: Product Formulations Used in Facility Survey

........................ V-4 Table V-5: Aerosol and Bulk Product Usage for Surveyed Facilities

................ V-5 Table V-6: Proportion of Products that Contain Perc

............................ V-6 Table V-7: Proportion of Facility Survey Entries that Contain Perc

................. V-6 Table V-8: Proportion of Manufacturer Survey Entries that Contain Perc

............ V-6 Table V-9: Total Perc Usage

............................................... V-8 Table V-10: Product Formulations Used in Site Visit Facilities

..................... V-9 Table V-11: Use of Portable Brake Cleaning Units in Site Visit Facilities

............ V-10 Table V-12: Summary of Source Characteristics

................................ V-11 Table V-13: Number of Site Visit Facilities with Receptors at Various Distances

...... V-12 Table V-14: Description of Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facility Categories

... V-13 Table V-15: Emission Estimates for Site Visits by Facility Category

................ V-14 Table V-16: Total Emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE Estimated from Site Visits

..... V-14 Table V-17: Estimated Maximum Emissions from the Facility Survey

.............. V-15 Table V-18: Statewide Emission Estimates from Automotive Consumer Products

..... V-15
Table VI-1: Pollutant-Specific Health Effects Values Used for Determining

Potential Health Impacts

......................................... VI-4 Table VI-2: Overview of the Potential Health Impacts for the Fifty-Four

Specific Facilities

.............................................. VI-14 Table VI-3: Summary of the Specific Facility Near-Source Potential Health Impacts

... VI-16 Table VI-4: Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at the Maximum Exposed

Individual Resident from the Specific Facilities

...................... VI-19 Table VI-5: Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at the Maximum Exposed

Individual Worker from the Specific Facilities

....................... VI-22 Table VI-6: Summary of the Potential Regional Population and Individual

Cancer Risk for the Thirteen Specific Facilities Modeled with ISCST3

.... VI-26 Table VI-7: Overview of the Potential Health Impacts for the Three Generic

Facilities Using Off-site Representative Meteorology

.................. VI-28 Table VI-8: Overview of the Potential Health Impacts for the Three

Generic Facilities Using Default Meteorology

....................... VI-29 Table VI-9: Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at Various Distances for Three

Generic Facilities Using Four Different Brake Product Formulations and Four Product Categories at the Meteorological Site Yielding the Highest Concentrations (Anaheim)

....................................... VI-32

# LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table Title Page
Table VI-10: Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at Various Distances for Three

Generic Facilities Using Four Different Brake Product Formulations and Four Product Categories at the Meteorological Site Yielding the Middle Range Concentrations (Burbank)

.................................. VI-34 Table VI-11: Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at Various Distances for Three

Generic Facilities Using Four Different Brake Product Formulations and Four Product Categories at the Meteorological Site Yielding the Lowest Concentrations (Oakland)

....................................... VI-36 Table VI-12: Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at Various Distances for Three

Generic Facilities Using Four Different Brake Product Formulations and Four Product Categories based on Default Meteorological Data

.......... VI-38 Table VI-13: Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at Various Distances for Three

Generic Facilities Using Carburetor Cleaner, Engine Degreaser, and General Degreaser, based on Average Meteorological Data

............. VI-40 Table VI-14: Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at Various Distances for Three

Generic Facilities Using Carburetor Cleaner, Engine Degreaser, and General Degreaser, based on Default Meteorological Data

.............. VI-41 Table VI-15: Air Basin Population-Weighted Perchloroethylene Exposure

based on 1990 Census

.......................................... VI-42 Table VI-16: Estimated Statewide Population-Weighted Perchloroethylene Exposure

... VI-43 Table VI-17: Statewide Average Concentrations for MeCl and TCE

................. VI-43 Table VI-18: Estimated Potential Reductions in Ambient Levels of Perc,

MeCl, and TCE from the Proposed ATCM

.......................... VI-44
Table VII-1: Facility Survey Summary of Chlorinated and Non-chlorinated

Product Usage

................................................ VII-3 Table VII-2: BACT Product Content Limits

................................... VII-6
Table VIII-1: Potential TCE and MeCl Emissions After Removal of Perc from

Aerosol Brake Cleaners

......................................... VIII-3 Table VIII-2: Potential MeCl and TCE Emissions After Removal of Perc from

Aerosol Brake Cleaners

......................................... VIII-5
Table IX-1: Number of Chlorinated TAC and VOC Products Marketed in California

... IX-4 Table IX-2: Affected Product Categories

...................................... IX-5 Table IX-3: Changes in Return on Owner’s Equity for Typical Businesses in

Automotive Consumer Products Industry

............................ IX-6 Table IX-4: Estimated Total Annualized Non-Recurring Fixed Cost to

Comply with the Proposed ATCM

................................ IX-15 Table IX-5: Annual Recurring Cost Calculations for Raw Materials

................ IX-17 Table IX-6: Estimated Impact to Raw Materials Cost Per Unit

.................... IX-19

# LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table Title Page
Table IX-7: Comparison of Raw Materials Cost Impacts for the Proposed ATCM

and ARB Consumer Product Regulations

........................... IX-19 Table IX-8: Estimated Per-Unit Cost Increases from Both Annualized

Non-Recurring and Annual Recurring Costs

......................... IX-21 Table IX-9: Estimated Cost-Effectiveness for Proposed ATCM

................... IX-22 Table IX-10: Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness

................................ IX-23 Table IX-11: Estimated Cost-Effectiveness for Proposed ATCM

................... IX-24 Table IX-12: Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness for Proposed ATCM and

Other ARB Control Measures

.................................... IX-25
Table X-1: Statewide Emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from Automotive Consumer

Products

...................................................... X-3 Table X-2: Potential Maximum Increase in VOC Emissions from a Switch to

VOC-Based Non-Chlorinated Products

.............................. X-4 Table X-3: Approximate Emission Reductions from Proposed ATCM and October 1999

Consumer Products Amendments

.................................. X-4

# State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities

Volume I: Executive Summary

# 1

I. INTRODUCTION This executive summary presents the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) staff’s Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities. The proposed control measure addresses emissions of three toxic air contaminants (TACs): perchloroethylene (Perc), methylene chloride (MeCl), and trichloroethylene (TCE). These TACs are found in automotive consumer products commonly used in automotive maintenance and repair (AMR) activities. Automotive consumer products are aerosol and liquid products that remove grease, grime, and dirt from a variety of automobile parts. They are generally available as pre-packaged aerosol sprays or bulk liquid products that are easily added to refillable pump sprayers. Examples of applications where these products are used include engine degreasing, the servicing of carburetors and throttle bodies, and brake service and repair operations. The majority of these products are used in commercial AMR facilities with much smaller usage from do-it-yourself enthusiasts. This summary is based upon the Technical Support Document (TSD) found in Volume II of this Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR). The TSD provides a more detailed presentation of the technical basis and supporting analyses for the proposed control measure.

II. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
1. Why did we perform this assessment? At its November 21, 1996, hearing, the Board adopted amendments to exempt Perc from the volatile organic compound (VOC) definition in California’s Regulation for Reducing VOC Emissions from Consumer Products (Consumer Products Regulation; section 94521, title 17, California Code of Regulations). This action allowed manufacturers to reformulate consumer products with Perc to meet the VOC limits of the Consumer Products Regulation. During the hearing, the Board expressed concerns about the potential for an increase in the use of Perc in consumer products, and the possible health impacts that might result. Therefore, the Board directed the ARB staff to conduct an assessment under the State’s TAC control program of the need to control Perc use in these products. Staff initially focused on the use of Perc in brake cleaning products because this product category represented the greatest use of Perc among the various products. The preliminary results of this initial assessment were discussed in the Perchloroethylene Needs Assessment for Automotive Consumer Products: Status Report

released in June 1997 (June 1997 Status Report) and presented to the Board at its June 26, 1997, meeting. An additional update on the assessment, incorporating additional data and analyses, was provided to the Board in a May 1998 Memorandum. These documents indicated that, based on the available information, an ATCM should be developed to reduce Perc emissions from brake cleaning products.

# 2

The assessment was later expanded to address the use of MeCl and TCE in brake cleaning products, and the use of all three compounds in carburetor or fuel-injection air intake cleaners (carburetor cleaners), engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers. This expansion was based on information and observations during site visits indicating that: (1) brake cleaning products could potentially be reformulated with MeCl or TCE, and (2) carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers could be used interchangeably with or substituted for brake cleaning products.
2. What authority does the Air Resources Board have to control emissions of TACs? This control measure is developed under the authority of the California Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Program (Air Toxics Program), established under California law by Assembly Bill 1807 and set forth in Health and Safety Code (HSC) sections 39650 thru 39675. The Board identified MeCl, TCE, and Perc as TACs and potential human carcinogens at its July 1989, October 1990, and October 1991 Board hearings, respectively. In each case, the Board determined there was not sufficient available scientific evidence to identify a threshold level of exposure below which no adverse health effects are likely to occur. Following the identification of a substance as a TAC, HSC section 39665 requires the ARB, with participation of the air pollution control and air quality management districts (districts), and in consultation with affected sources and interested parties, to prepare a report on the need and appropriate degree of regulation for that substance. A needs assessment for Perc was conducted from 1991 to 1993 as part of the ARB’s development of the Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Emissions of Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning Operations (Dry Cleaning ATCM), August 1993 (title 17, CCR, sections 93109 and 93110). During that assessment, the ARB staff determined that dry cleaning operations and solvent degreasing operations accounted for about 80 percent of the Perc use in California. Therefore, staff focused their attention on dry cleaning and degreasing uses of Perc first and is now addressing other uses of Perc. Additionally, Volume II of this ISOR serves as the report on the need and appropriate degree of regulation for MeCl and TCE. Once the ARB has evaluated the need and appropriate degree of regulation for a TAC, HSC section 39666 requires the ARB to adopt ATCMs to reduce emissions of that TAC. When adopting ATCMs, HSC section 39666 requires that any control measure for a TAC without a Board-specified threshold level be designed to reduce emissions to the lowest level achievable through the application of best available control technology (BACT) or a more effective control method.
3. Is the proposed ATCM a Consumer Products Regulation? It is important to note that the proposed ATCM is not a consumer products regulation. Consumer products regulations are developed under authority granted to the ARB by the California Clean Air Act (1998), and specifically HSC section 41712. HSC section 41712 requires the ARB to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in reactive organic compounds (ROCs) emitted by consumer products (note: ROC is equivalent to VOC).

# 3

As discussed previously, we are proposing this ATCM under the authority granted to the ARB by Assembly Bill 1807 (the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Program) as codified in HSC sections 39650 through 39675. However, since the automotive consumer products industry has previously been subject to regulations developed under ARB’s Consumer Products Program, we have used the phrase “consumer products” and definitions similar to those in ARB’s consumer products regulations in an attempt to make our ISOR more familiar and comprehensible to consumer products manufacturers, AMR facility operators, and others who may use these products.

III. PUBLIC OUTREACH For this assessment, we developed an extensive outreach program that involved automotive consumer products manufacturers and their associations, AMR facility operators and their associations, national, state and local regulatory agencies, environmental/pollution prevention and public health advocates, and other interested parties. These entities participated in the development and review of the necessary surveys and draft reports, conference calls, working group meetings, and workshops. Outreach efforts also provided participants a forum in which to address their concerns. ARB outreach activities included:



# C the establishment of the Perc Needs Assessment working group;



# C eight meetings, four workshops, and seven conference calls;



# C more than 500 telephone conversations with the working group and facility operators;



# C mailing or faxing working group agendas, minutes, draft surveys, survey analyses, draft and final status reports to over 80 people;



# C mailing workshop notices to over 6,000 people;



# C mailing the Brake Cleaner and Perc-Containing Automotive Products Survey to 37 manufacturers and 23 other interested parties (including associations);



# C mailing the Automotive Repair Facility Survey to 25,000 facilities;



# C visiting a total of 158 AMR facilities to gather information on: (1) the amount of product used for brake service and repair, building dimensions, and receptor locations; (2) aqueous brake cleaning units; and (3) flammability issues;



# C meeting with the Sacramento Valley Fire Marshals Association to discuss flammability issues;



# C reviewing information provided to us by the sanitation districts on increasing concentrations of Perc in the influent to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). Additionally, a representative of the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County presented this information during the May 1999 and January 2000 workshops; and,



# C participating with the Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA) on visits to Los Angeles area AMR facilities conducting brake service and repair operations. These facilities were participants in a study of alternative brake cleaning products and the visits

# 4

provided technical information on the availability, cleaning effectiveness, and relative cost of non-aerosol brake cleaning products.

IV. POTENTIAL EMISSIONS AND HEALTH IMPACTS
1. How much Perc, MeCl, and TCE is emitted from AMR Activities? Automotive consumer products are used in a variety of applications and industries throughout California. They are most commonly used in AMR activities at approximately 25,000 AMR facilities in California (AMR facilities include service stations, fleets, general automotive repair shops, dedicated brake repair shops, and new and used car dealerships). Although brake repair and engine degreasing are common do-it-yourself activities, the vast majority of Californians look to AMR facilities for their maintenance and repair needs. In these facilities, automotive consumer products are used to remove grease, grime, and dirt from a variety of automobile parts. Examples of applications include engine degreasing, the servicing of carburetors and throttle bodies, and brake service and repair operations. These commercial facilities use both aerosol and liquid products (chlorinated and non-chlorinated) contained in a variety of delivery mechanisms. Emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from these products were estimated based on information collected from surveys and site visits to AMR facilities. The surveys conducted included the Brake Cleaner and Perc-Containing Automotive Products (Manufacturer) Survey, the Automotive Service Facility Questionnaire (Facility Survey), and the 1997 Commercial and Consumer Products (Consumer Products) Survey. Additional information was collected from 158 site visits to AMR facilities. Based on the survey data, over 8 million brake service and repair operations (brake jobs) are performed in California each year. Table 1 summarizes the estimated statewide emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from the four automotive consumer product categories.
Table 1. Statewide Emission Estimates from Automotive Consumer Products1



## Compound Emissions [tons/day]
Perc 4.2
MeCl 0.7
TCE 0.3

Total 5.2 1. Source: 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey.

# 5

2. What are the potential health effects associated with exposure to Perc, MeCl, and TCE? Exposure to Perc, MeCl, or TCE may result in both cancer and non-cancer (acute and chronic) health effects to off-site receptors and on-site workers. The primary route of human exposure for these compounds is inhalation. Non-cancer effects from exposure to Perc include headache, dizziness, rapid heartbeat, and liver and kidney damage. Non-cancer effects from exposure to MeCl include cardiac arrhythmia and loss of consciousness. Non-cancer effects from exposure to TCE include headache, nausea, tremors, and respiratory irritation. These health effects may also result from exposures that occur within the workplace for all three compounds. A more detailed discussion of health effects is presented in Chapter VI of the TSD.
3. How were the potential health impacts from AMR facilities assessed? Air dispersion models and pollutant-specific health effects values were used to estimate the potential health impacts from AMR facilities. Information required for the air dispersion model includes emission estimates, physical descriptions of the source, and emission release parameters. Combining estimated concentrations from the air dispersion model with the pollutant-specific health values provides an estimate of the off-site potential cancer and non-cancer health impacts from the emissions of a TAC. The risk assessment methodologies used in assessing potential health impacts were consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) risk assessment guidelines. Additionally, the pollutant-specific health effects values have been approved by the ARB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the air dispersion models have been approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Furthermore, the air dispersion models have been recommended by ARB for use in risk assessments. Health effects values are summarized in Chapter VI of the TSD.
4. What are the potential health impacts to individuals from exposure to AMR activities using products containing Perc, MeCl, or TCE? To assess potential health impacts, ARB staff conducted individual health risk assessments for 54 specific AMR facilities and three generic facilities. These specific and generic facilities represent a broad range of AMR facilities and allow for the reasonable approximation of potential health impacts statewide. The risk assessments were based on Perc-containing brake cleaners using source characteristic information collected during the site visits. Forty-one of the specific facilities were modeled using a screening air dispersion model and the remaining 13 specific facilities were evaluated using a refined air dispersion model. Potential cancer risk in the screening assessments were as high as 50 chances in a million at the near-source location (a near-source location is defined as a minimum modeled distance of 20 meters from the center of the facility) and as high as 60 chances in a million with the refined model. Potential non-cancer acute and chronic hazard indices were both less than one. Generally, hazard indices less than one are not considered to be a concern to public health.

# 6

The generic facility analysis was developed to estimate potential health impacts at a variety of facilities. Potential cancer risk at the generic facilities was as high as 110 chances per million at the near-source location. The modeling results and hazard index estimates show that it is unlikely for significant acute or chronic off-site non-cancer health effects to result from the emissions of Perc-based brake cleaners. Both the chronic and acute hazard indices are less than one at the minimum modeled distance. As previously mentioned, hazard indices less than one are not considered to be a concern to public health. Additional modeling analyses performed for brake cleaners formulated to contain MeCl and/or TCE, and for carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers formulated to contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE indicates that these products would also pose potential adverse health impacts. A more detailed discussion of health impacts is presented in Chapter VI of the TSD.

V. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE
1. What would the proposed ATCM require? The proposed ATCM requires that automotive consumer products (aerosol and liquid brake cleaners, carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers) manufactured after December 31, 2002 for sale or use in California not to contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE. It would also require that automotive consumer products manufactured on or before December 31, 2002 not be sold in California after June 30, 2004 if they contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE. The proposed ATCM accounts for the detection limits of the prescribed test method by providing that a product is considered to contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE if it has one percent or more (by weight) of any of the three compounds Perc, MeCl, or TCE (either alone or in combination). This provision also addresses the issue of inadvertent contamination that may occur when manufacturers convert a production line from one product formulation to another. Table 2 summarizes the requirements of the proposed ATCM.

# 7 Table 2. Requirements of the Proposed ATCM

Applicability Exemptions Requirements Applies to any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures automotive consumer products (aerosol and liquid brake cleaners, carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers) for use in California. Applies to the owner or operator of any AMR facility that uses automotive consumer products in California. Does not apply to any automotive consumer product manufactured in California for shipment and use outside of California. Does not apply to any manufacturer or distributor who sells, supplies, or offers for sale an automotive consumer product intended for shipment and use outside of California. Effective December 31, 2002: Automotive consumer products manufactured after this date for sale or use in California cannot contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE. Effective June 30, 2004: After this date, automotive consumer products manufactured on or before December 31, 2002 that contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE can not be sold or distributed for use in California. Effective June 30, 2005: After this date, AMR facilities can not use automotive consumer products that contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE.



# 2. What is the basis for the proposed ATCM? The proposed ATCM is based on staff’s evaluation of best available control technology (BACT), in consideration of alternative products and processes. In evaluating BACT, information from surveys, site visits, third-party studies, and brake parts manufacturers was analyzed to determine that:



# C brake cleaners, carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers are often used interchangeably;



# C Perc, MeCl, and TCE are suitable and readily available replacements for each other;



# C the removal of Perc alone could result in significantly increased emissions of MeCl and TCE with an associated increase in exposure to these TACs;



# C non-chlorinated products are currently used at nearly two-thirds of AMR facilities;



# C alternative products that use non-chlorinated formulations and alternative processes such as aqueous-based portable brake cleaning units and parts washers are currently in use (62 to 90 percent of automotive consumer products are non-chlorinated and 60 percent of AMR facilities use aqueous-based processes);



# C most manufacturers market both chlorinated and non-chlorinated aerosol and bulk liquid products and claim that both are suitable and effective;

# 8



# C alternative products and processes are effective in cleaning and degreasing based on claims that manufacturers make on the product labels of non-chlorinated products and on their websites;



# C a recently conducted study for the U.S. EPA demonstrated that aqueous-based portable brake cleaning units are effective and less costly than chlorinated products;



# C based on the Facility Survey, brake jobs performed with VOCs used less product than brake jobs performed with Perc, MeCl, or TCE; and,



# C discussions with a variety of facility operators and mechanics indicate that alternative products, including non-chlorinated aerosols and bulk liquids, are suitable and effective cleaning products. As a result, staff considers the proposed ATCM to be technically feasible, providing facility operators and other users with safe, effective, and less-hazardous products.
3. What alternatives to the proposed ATCM did staff consider? HSC section 39665 requires the ARB to consider and evaluate alternatives to the proposed ATCM. Staff identified three alternatives to the proposed control measure: workplace practices, a chlorinated compound limit, and a chlorinated compound phase-out. Each of the three alternatives were evaluated addressing applicability, effectiveness, enforceability, and cost/resource requirements. We determined that these alternatives would not be as effective at reducing emissions of and exposure to Perc, MeCl, and TCE from AMR activities as the proposed control measure. Furthermore, the three alternatives did not meet the HSC section 39666 criterion to reduce emissions to the lowest level achievable through the application of BACT in consideration of cost, risk, and environmental impacts.

VI. POTENTIAL HEALTH IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE
1. How would the proposed ATCM reduce the risk to public health? The proposed ATCM removes Perc, MeCl, and TCE from automotive consumer products. As a result, the emission and health impact (i.e., potential cancer risk) reduction benefits are nearly 100 percent. Potential cancer risk from AMR facilities that use automotive consumer products that contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE will be reduced to essentially zero.
2. What are the potential adverse health impacts from an increased use of VOCs and other TACs? With the removal of Perc, MeCl, and TCE, we expect that many users will look to VOC-based automotive consumer products, thereby increasing the use of VOCs. Appendix G of the TSD contains a listing of the compounds used these products based on the Facility Survey.

# 9

No adverse health impacts from the compounds on this list (other than Perc, MeCl, and TCE) are expected. The apparent use of benzene (which is a TAC as well as a VOC) was a concern for staff; however, upon further investigation, staff learned that it was only used by one manufacturer (in one product) at concentrations less than two percent. Staff intends to monitor the usage of other TACs and will propose amendments to the ATCM if appropriate. Additionally, manufacturers will be advised to not use identified TACs in their product formulations.
3. How would the proposed ATCM affect workplace exposure to Perc, MeCl, and TCE? The proposed ATCM will remove Perc, MeCl, and TCE from automotive consumer products. As a result, worker exposure from products that contain these compounds will be eliminated.

VII. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE
1. What are the expected economic impacts of the proposed ATCM on businesses? No significant economic impacts are expected from the proposed ATCM. Automotive consumer products are manufactured or marketed by 60 companies nationwide, with ten based in California. The California-based companies account for nine percent of chlorinated TAC and VOC products manufactured or marketed in the State. Most manufacturers already have at least one non-chlorinated VOC product on the market that meets the requirements of the proposed ATCM, and, therefore, are not expected to incur additional costs. Those companies that do not currently have non-chlorinated VOC products and choose to formulate one are expected to be able to absorb the cost of reformulation with no adverse impacts on their profitability. The analysis has shown that the raw materials costs for chlorinated TAC products are greater than the raw materials costs for VOC products. As a result, it should be less costly to manufacture non-chlorinated VOC products as opposed to products that contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE. However, there are no noticeable differences between the market prices for chlorinated TAC and VOC products. Therefore, no economic impact on the consumer is expected. The proposed ATCM will primarily impact manufacturers and marketers (companies which outsource the manufacturing of their products). As a result, we do not expect a noticeable change in employment; business creation, elimination or expansion; and business competitiveness in California.
2. Will the proposed amendments be cost-effective? Based on our analyses, we estimate that the cost-effectiveness of the proposed ATCM ranges from essentially no cost to a high of about $0.23 per pound of Perc, MeCl, and TCE

# 10

reduced. The estimated average cost-effectiveness weighted by emissions reductions across all categories is about $0.03 per pound of Perc, MeCl, and TCE reduced. To evaluate the relative impact and effectiveness of the proposed ATCM based on health impact reduction benefits, we calculated the cost per cancer case avoided. The estimated average cost-effectiveness per cancer case avoided is $26,000 with a range of approximately $1,400 to $111,000. The ranges for pound of TAC reduced and cancer cases avoided are significantly less than previously approved ATCMs. In previously approved ATCMs, these amounts have generally fallen within an overall range of $0.64 to $1.77 (adjusted to 1999 dollars) per pound of Perc reduced (1993 Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Operations ATCM, title 17, CCR, section 93109) and $6,600 to $18.6 million (adjusted to 1999 dollars) per cancer case avoided (1992 Non-Ferrous Metal Melting ATCM, title 17, CCR, section 93107).
3. Will consumers have to pay more for consumer products subject to the proposed ATCM? Consumers may have to pay more for some products subject to the proposed ATCM, depending on the extent to which manufacturers are able to pass along their costs to consumers. If all the costs of the proposed ATCM are passed along to consumers, the change in cost per unit would range from no cost to a cost increase of $0.09 per unit, depending on the product category. The average cost per unit, is estimated to be about $0.02. For comparison purposes, this is the same unit sales-weighted average cost increase that was estimated for the October 1999 amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation.

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE
1. What are the expected environmental benefits of the proposed ATCM? The main environmental benefit of the proposed ATCM is the reduction of 5.2 tons per day (tpd) of Perc, MeCl, and TCE emissions in California. Approximately 2.6 tpd of this reduction is expected to occur in the South Coast Air Basin. The proposed ATCM will also affect (positively) wastewater treatment, hazardous waste disposal as well as reduce the potential for the formation of phosgene, thereby extending a greater level of worker and public health protection from these areas. Currently, many wastewater treatment plants do not have the equipment necessary to process industrial wastes such as chlorinated solvents. These solvents have been detected at elevated levels at these same plants and have been linked to increased influent concentrations of Perc at four wastewater treatment plants. The influent concentrations of Perc have been high enough to potentially cause violations of the plants’ discharge limit of 5 micrograms per liter (μg/L).

# 11

Chlorinated automotive consumer products are generally classified as hazardous waste because they contain substances which are listed as toxic substances. Spent baths (as well as other waste disposal containers) contaminated with chlorinated compounds are typically more costly to have removed from the facility and typically do not meet discharge standards set by publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) and sanitation districts. The removal of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from these products should lead to a reduction in the amount of chlorinated solvents reaching the storm drains and the wastewater treatment plants. It will also minimize the possibility of chlorinated solvents contaminating aqueous baths, waste oil containers, and hazardous waste disposal drums thereby significantly reducing hazardous waste contamination and disposal costs. Additionally, the proposed ATCM is expected to have a negligible impact on global warming, will reduce workplace exposure from emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE, and will minimize the potential for phosgene formation (more information on these benefits can be found in Chapter X of the TSD).
2. Are there any potential negative environmental impacts? The October 1999 amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation are expected to obtain a reduction of approximately 3.3 tpd in VOC emissions from automotive consumer products. However, the removal of Perc, MeCl, and TCE as formulation options in the proposed ATCM will adversely impact the reduction in VOC emissions that otherwise would have been realized. The removal of Perc, MeCl, and TCE will reduce emissions of these TACs by approximately 5.2 tpd. If we assume a worse case scenario where all current users of chlorinated products switch to non-chlorinated, VOC-based products with Perc, MeCl, and TCE replaced with VOC compounds (irrespective of any current VOC-based formulation limits), then the theoretical increase in statewide VOC emissions would be approximately 5.2 tpd. However, beginning January 1, 2002, the VOC-content of automotive consumer products is subject to VOC-content limits as specified in the October 1999 amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation. As a result of these technically-feasible limits, post-ATCM VOC emissions would increase by no more than 2.3 tpd statewide. However, ARB staff expects that some users of chlorinated automotive consumer products will choose to consider other non-chlorinated alternatives (such as aqueous-based portable brake cleaning units and parts washers) and not switch exclusively to non-chlorinated VOC products. If this occurs, the increase in VOC emissions related to the proposed ATCM would be less than 2.3 tpd statewide. When total VOC emission reductions from boththe October 1999 amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation and the proposed ATCM are considered, statewide VOC emissions from the four automotive consumer product categories will be reduced by at least one ton per day.
3. What are the impacts on the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Ozone? The proposed ATCM decreases the potential VOC reductions that will be obtained by the October 1999 amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation while achieving substantial reductions in emissions of chlorinated TACs. Perc was considered a VOC in the 1994 ozone SIP

# 12

inventory; therefore, substituting non-chlorinated VOC-based products to replace Perc will have no impact on the 1994 SIP (which covers Ventura County, the Sacramento Metropolitan area, the San Joaquin Valley, San Diego County, and the Southeast Desert). In the context of the 1994 SIP, substituting VOC-based products for MeCl will increase VOC emissions by approximately 0.1 tpd in all the 1994 SIP areas combined. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) revised their federal ozone plan in 1999, and the U.S. EPA has proposed to approve this plan. In the 1999 revision, Perc is not considered a VOC. In the context of the 1999 revision, if VOC-based products are substituted for all the Perc and MeCl currently used in chlorinated products, we expect an increase of approximately one ton per day of VOC in the South Coast Air Basin. The ARB and the SCAQMD will address this shortfall in the next comprehensive revision of the South Coast ozone SIP.
4. Are there any concerns about the potential flammability of automotive consumer products?

Industry groups representing product manufacturers raised the issue that AMR facilities need to continue their usage of chlorinated aerosols, especially in areas where use may occur near flame, heat, or other ignition sources. However, a search of statewide and national databases as well as inquiries to fire departments and associations across the State were unable to locate any reports of fires, injuries, or other incidents related to the use of non-chlorinated products in AMR facilities. Additionally, the California State Fire Marshal’s office indicated that the combustion of gasoline, such as from a leaking fuel line, poses a significantly greater flammability concern than the use of aerosols. During the site visits, ARB staff observed brake service operations at one facility using a flammable, non-chlorinated aerosol product occurring in one service bay and welding operations occurring in another service bay. ARB staff also observed chlorinated products that were listed as flammable on the product label, which indicates that chlorinated products can also be flammable. An additional 16 site visits were conducted to specifically investigate flammability issues. Only one facility reported an incident (non-injury) associated with the use of a flammable product. This facility, however, attributed the incident to a vehicle malfunction and continues to use flammable products almost exclusively. Additionally, none of the facilities visited indicated that flammability concerns were a factor when making decisions on which products to buy (cost was the major factor). Instead, discussions with facility operators indicated that most facilities consider all aerosol products flammable and use common safety precautions when using these products. Therefore, we believe flammability is sufficiently addressed by the use of good operating practices on the part of facility owners, mechanics, and technicians. This belief is

# 13

supported by the fact that most facilities already use a host of flammable products and that non-flammable alternatives such as aqueous-based portable brake cleaning units and water-based aerosol products are readily available and in use.

IX. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the Board adopt the proposed regulation contained in Appendix A of the TSD. The proposed regulation would remove Perc, MeCl, and TCE from automotive consumer products used in AMR activities. In recognition of the requirement to adopt best available control technology when suitable alternatives are available, the proposed regulation would prohibit manufacturers from selling brake cleaners, carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers that contained Perc, MeCl, or TCE in California. Since non-chlorinated VOC-based products in these four categories predominate, alternative products are considered to be technically feasible and available. Additionally, effective non-aerosol products are also readily available. The proposed regulation would also prohibit facility owners or operators from using products containing Perc, MeCl, and TCE for AMR activities. Benefits from the proposed regulation include nearly 100 percent reductions in emissions, exposure, and risk from Perc, MeCl, and TCE-containing brake cleaners, carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers. Additional benefits include reduced waste water and hazardous waste contamination, and reduced workplace exposure.

# State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities

Volume II: Technical Support Document

# I-1



# I. INTRODUCTION

A. Overview The compounds perchloroethylene (Perc), methylene chloride (MeCl), and trichloroethylene (TCE) are found in automotive consumer products commonly used in automotive maintenance and repair activities (AMR activities). The Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) has identified these compounds as toxic air contaminants (TACs) under California’s Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Program. Once the compounds Perc, MeCl, and TCE were identified as TACs, the ARB was required under the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Program to: (1) prepare a report on the need and appropriate degree of regulation for the compounds, and (2) adopt regulations to reduce emissions of the compounds. These regulations are called airborne toxic control measures (ATCMs) or control measures. In this report, we use the terms regulation, control measure, and ATCM interchangeably. State law requires that such control measures for TACs without a Board-specified threshold exposure level be based on the best available control technology or a more effective control method in consideration of cost and risk. This volume of the Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities, presents information on the toxic air contaminant identification and control process, the report preparation process, and previous identification and control (regulatory) activities for Perc, MeCl, and TCE. It also presents information on consumer product regulatory activities. It then presents compound-specific physical characteristics and information on sources and ambient concentrations. That is followed by a discussion of typical automotive maintenance and repair activities, exposure, and health effects for these three compounds. Finally, this volume presents the proposed control measure, and its health, economic, and environmental impacts.
B. Purpose At its November 21, 1996, hearing, the Board adopted amendments to exempt Perc from the volatile organic compound (VOC) definition in California’s Regulation for Reducing VOC Emissions from Consumer Products (Consumer Products Regulation; section 94521, title 17, California Code of Regulations). This action allowed manufacturers to reformulate consumer products with Perc to meet the VOC limits of the Consumer Products Regulation. During the hearing, the Board expressed concerns about the potential for an increase in the use of Perc in consumer products, and the possible health impacts that might result. Therefore, the Board directed the ARB staff to conduct an assessment under the State’s toxic air contaminant control program of the need to control Perc use in consumer products. At the

# I-2

hearing, automotive consumer products, and specifically brake cleaning products, were identified as the consumer products category most likely to contain, or be reformulated to contain, Perc. Consequently, staff initially evaluated Perc use in brake cleaning products. The preliminary results of this initial assessment were discussed in the Perchloroethylene Needs Assessment for Automotive Consumer Products: Status Report released in June 1997 (June 1997 Status Report) and presented to the Board at its June 26, 1997, meeting. An additional update on the assessment, incorporating additional data and analyses, was provided to the Board in a May 1998 Memorandum. These documents indicated that, based on the available information, an ATCM should be developed to reduce Perc emissions from brake cleaning products. Later, as a result of preliminary information raising concerns about compound and product interchangeability, staff extended the evaluation to include the use of Perc, MeCl and TCE, not only in brake cleaning products, but also in carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers. This report presents the information evaluated by the ARB staff, including: (1) analyses of two surveys of automotive consumer products manufacturers and AMR facility operators; (2) site visits to AMR facilities; and (3) chlorinated compound emissions and potential health impacts. It then discusses the recommended control measure and its impacts.
C. Regulatory Authority The California Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Program (Program), established under California law by Assembly Bill 1807 (Chapter 1047, Statutes of 1983) and set forth in Health and Safety Code (HSC) sections 39650 through 39675, is designed to protect public health by reducing emissions of TACs. This law mandates the identification and control of air toxics in California and complements the State’s criteria air pollutant program. The identification phase of the Program requires the ARB, with the participation of other state agencies, to evaluate the health impacts of, and exposure to, substances and to identify those substances which pose the greatest health threat as TACs. ARB’s evaluation is made available to the public and is formally reviewed by the Scientific Review Panel (SRP) established under HSC section 39670. Following ARB’s evaluation and the SRP’s review, the Board identified MeCl, TCE, and Perc as TACs at its July 1989, October 1990, and October 1991 Board hearings, respectively. In each case, the Board determined there was not sufficient available scientific evidence to support the identification of a threshold exposure level (ARB, 1989; ARB, 1990a; ARB, 1991a). A threshold level can be defined as a level of pollutant exposure below which no adverse health effects are likely to occur. In their evaluations of Perc, MeCl, and TCE, staff from the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recommended that Perc, MeCl, and TCE be treated as having no threshold exposure level because: (1) all three compounds are potential human carcinogens, and (2) currently, there is insufficient evidence available to designate an exposure level below which no significant adverse health impacts are anticipated.

# I-3

Following the identification of a substance as a TAC, HSC section 39665 requires the ARB, with participation of the air pollution control and air quality management districts (districts), and in consultation with affected sources and interested parties, to prepare a report on the need and appropriate degree of regulation for that substance. A needs assessment for Perc was conducted from 1991 to 1993 as part of the ARB’s development of the ATCM for Emissions of Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning Operations (Dry Cleaning ATCM), August 1993 (title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 93109 and 93110). During that assessment, the ARB staff determined that dry cleaning operations and solvent degreasing operations accounted for about 80 percent of the Perc use in California (ARB, 1993a). Therefore, staff focused their attention on dry cleaning and degreasing uses of Perc first and is now addressing other uses of Perc. This Initial Statement of Reasons serves as the report on the need and appropriate degree of regulation for MeCl and TCE. It is important to note that the proposed ATCM is not a consumer products regulation. Consumer products regulations are developed under authority granted to the ARB by the California Clean Air Act (1998), and specifically Health and Safety Code section 41712. HSC section 41712 requires the ARB to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in reactive organic compounds (ROCs) emitted by consumer products (note: ROC is equivalent to VOC). As discussed previously, we are proposing this ATCM under the authority granted to the ARB by Assembly Bill 1807 (The Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Program) as codified in HSC sections 39650 through 39675. However, since the automotive consumer products industry has previously been subject to regulations developed under ARB’s Consumer Products Program, we have used the phrase “consumer products” and definitions similar to those in ARB’s consumer products regulations in an attempt to make our ISOR more familiar and comprehensible to consumer products manufacturers, AMR facility operators, and others who may use these products.
D. Regulatory Activities
1. Airborne Toxic Control Measures Once the ARB has evaluated the need and appropriate degree of regulation for a TAC, State law (HSC section 39666) requires the ARB to adopt regulations to reduce emissions of the TAC to the maximum extent feasible in consideration of cost, risk and other factors specified in HSC section 39665. To date, the ARB has developed nine ATCMs. The most recent, the ATCM for Emissions of Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning Operations, August 1993 (title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 93109 and 93110), was expected to result in a 78 percent reduction in statewide Perc emissions from dry cleaning operations when it was fully implemented in 1998.

# I-4

2. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants In the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) identified Perc, MeCl, and TCE as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) because they were either known to have or may have adverse effects on human health or the environment. Health and Safety Code section 39658 (b) requires the Board to designate federal HAPs as TACs, and the Board did so in 1993 (AB 2728, Tanner). Therefore, Perc, MeCl, and TCE are TACs both because they have been identified by the Board through the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Program and because they are HAPs (ARB, 1993b). In December 1994, the U.S. EPA promulgated the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (the Degreasing NESHAP) to address emissions of halogenated solvents, including Perc, MeCl, and TCE from degreasing operations (40 CFR Parts 9 and 63). Under HSC section 39658 (b), which provides that U.S. EPA NESHAPs are also ATCMs under certain circumstances, the Degreasing NESHAP is the State ATCM for degreasing operations; therefore, under HSC section 39666 (d) it must be implemented and enforced by the districts, unless the districts seek and receive approval from the U.S. EPA to implement an alternative control measure. Sources subject to the Degreasing NESHAP were required to comply with the regulation beginning on December 2, 1997.
3. “Hot Spots” In November 1997, ARB staff published the Risk Reduction Audits and Plans Guidelines for Halogenated Solvents Degreasing Operations to assist facilities that have been identified by the districts as significant risk facilities requiring risk reduction audits and plans under Assembly Bill 2588 (the Air Toxics “Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act) and Senate Bill 1731 as set forth in HSC sections 44300 to 44394. This guideline document contains a self-conducted audit and checklist which helps facility operators determine possible options to reduce the potential risk posed by a facility’s degreasing operations. Automotive maintenance and repair facilities may be subject to the “Hot Spots” Program if: (1) they use substances that are included on the Air Toxic Hot Spot Program list of substances required by HSC section 44321, and (2) those substances are used in sufficient quantities to make the facility type subject. However, AMR facilities are not required to complete emission inventory plans or to submit these plans to the districts because they are not included as a specific facility type in Appendix E of the Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines (ARB, 1997e). Although retail gasoline service stations are currently subject to the “Hot Spots” Program, the districts typically require the reporting of only the toxic emissions from gasoline dispensing operations, even if other operations such as brake cleaning operations are occurring at the service station. However, the districts have the authority to evaluate an individual facility under the “Hot Spots” Program and require the facility to comply with the

# I-5

“Hot Spots” Program if they have good cause to believe that the facility may pose a potential threat to public health.
4. Consumer Products The Board not only has the authority to develop control measures to reduce emissions of TACs, it also has the authority to develop regulations to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants such as ozone. This section provides a brief background on the ARB’s authority to regulate consumer products, followed by information on consumer product regulatory activities. In 1988, the Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act (Act), which declared that attainment of the California state ambient air quality standards is necessary to promote and protect public health, particularly that of children, older people, and individuals with respiratory diseases. The Legislature also directed that these standards be attained by the earliest practicable date. California adopted an ambient air quality standard for ozone in 1988. Strategies to reduce ambient ozone concentrations include decreasing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROCs), also known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The Act added HSC section 41712 requiring the ARB to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in VOCs emitted by consumer products. To date, the Board has adopted the following six regulatory actions to fulfill the requirements of the Act as it pertains to consumer products:



# C the Antiperspirant and Deodorant Regulation was approved in November 1989, and required a reduction in VOC emissions from antiperspirants and deodorants;



# C the “Phase I, II, and III” Consumer Products Regulations, and the Midterm Measures II Regulation, were approved in October 1990, January 1992, July 1997, and October 1999, respectively, and required a reduction in VOC emissions from over 40 different consumer products categories; and



# C the Aerosol Coatings Regulation was approved in March 1995, and required emissions reductions from 35 categories of aerosol paints and related coating products. In November 1998, the Board adopted revisions to many of the future effective VOC limits in the aerosol coatings regulation after a review of their technological and commercial feasibility. Relevant to this proposal, the aerosol coatings regulation essentially prohibits “new or increased uses” of Perc. The aerosol coatings regulation allows Perc-containing aerosol coatings to be sold or used in California if they were sold in the State in 1992 and either complied with the standards of the aerosol coatings regulation or could be reformulated to comply with the standards without increasing the Perc content. Perc-containing aerosol coatings that were not sold or used in California in 1992, or those that could not be reformulated to comply with the standards of the aerosol coatings regulation without increasing the Perc content, are not allowed (ARB, 1995).

# II-1



# II. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND REPORT PREPARATION

A. Outreach Efforts Outreach and public participation are important components of ARB’s needs assessment and report preparation process. For this assessment, we developed an outreach program to involve consumer products manufacturers and their associations, AMR facility operators and their associations, national, state and local regulatory agencies, environmental/pollution prevention and public health advocates, and other interested parties. Through these efforts, we have been able to obtain detailed information on the use and emissions of chlorinated automotive consumer products. Additionally, these entities participated in the development and review of the necessary surveys and draft reports, conference calls, working group meetings, and workshops. They also have had a forum to address their concerns. As part of our outreach program, we have made extensive personal contacts with industry and facility representatives as well as other affected parties through meetings, telephone calls, and mail-outs. Activities included:



# C the formation of a Perc Needs Assessment working group;



# C seven conference calls with the working group to discuss our activities;



# C more than 500 telephone conversations with the working group and facility operators;



# C mailing or faxing working group agendas, minutes, draft surveys, survey analyses, draft and final status reports to over 80 people;



# C mailing workshop notices to a mailing list of over 6,000 people;



# C mailing the Brake Cleaner and Perc-Containing Automotive Products Survey to 37 manufacturers and 23 other interested parties (including associations);



# C mailing the Automotive Repair Facility Survey to 25,000 facilities;



# C conducting eight meetings and four workshops;



# C visiting 137 AMR facilities to gather information on the process and amount of brake cleaning products used, building dimensions, and receptor locations;



# C visiting five additional AMR facilities to gather information on aqueous brake cleaning units; and



# C visiting 16 additional AMR facilities and meeting with the Sacramento Valley Fire Marshals Association to discuss flammability issues.
B. Public Involvement As described below, affected industries, other government agencies, and organizations interested in minimizing chlorinated solvent use have been involved in this assessment from the beginning. To increase the general public’s participation in this assessment, we have made

# II-2

information available via the ARB’s Internet web site (http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/acp.htm), and have conducted four public workshops.
1. Industry Involvement Automotive consumer products manufacturers and brake service industry representatives have actively participated in the assessment process, providing technical information, comments and suggestions during the development of surveys, and comments on findings. Industry involvement in the process has also included:



# C more than 250 telephone conversations with ARB staff;



# C the return of 22 of 37 Brake Cleaner and Perc-Containing Automotive Products Surveys representing about 90 percent of California product sales;



# C participation of 18 workgroup representatives to review survey and risk assessment results; and



# C participation in all needs assessment conference calls and workshops.
2. Government Agency Involvement Other local, state, and federal agencies with an interest in potential emissions of, or soil/groundwater contamination by, Perc, MeCl, and TCE have been involved in the assessment process to promote statewide consistency in addressing public health concerns and provide a multi-media perspective. These agencies include: air and sanitation districts, the California Department of Industrial Relations/Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA’s) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Cal/EPA’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the U.S. EPA. We have apprized the air districts of our activities through the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Toxics Committee, and have also requested information that they may have on the brake cleaning process and how districts regulate the AMR industry. This work has included telephone calls to the districts and presentations to the CAPCOA Toxics Committee. We have reviewed information provided to us by the sanitation districts on increasing concentrations of Perc in the influent to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). Additionally, a representative of the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County has presented this information during the May 1999 and January 2000 workshops (CSDLA, 1999b). We have also requested information that other agencies may have on chlorinated solvent cleaning and pollution prevention case studies. Both the U.S. EPA and DTSC have published pollution prevention guides for the automotive maintenance and repair industry that were reviewed in the preparation of this report.

# II-3

3. Private Organization Involvement Two private organizations have also been involved in the assessment process. The Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA) recently partnered with the U.S. EPA (the study’s sponsor), DTSC, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District to conduct a study of the effectiveness of aqueous brake cleaning units. IRTA is a non-profit organization that assists industries, primarily small businesses, in reducing or eliminating their use of ozone depleting substances and chlorinated solvents through demonstration and evaluation of new technologies, solvent substitutes, and process modifications. IRTA invited ARB staff to join them in visits to Los Angeles area automotive repair facilities conducting brake service operations. These facilities were participants in a study of alternative brake cleaning products. IRTA has provided technical information on the availability, cleaning effectiveness, and relative cost of non-aerosol brake cleaning products. Tri-TAC, a technical advisory committee sponsored by the League of California Cities, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, and the California Water Environment Association presented information about the amount of chlorinated solvents reaching POTWs, and has participated in the development of the proposed ATCM.

C. Data Collection Tools to Assist in Report Preparation ARB staff developed three surveys to gather Perc usage and emissions data for use in this assessment: the Brake Cleaner and Perc-Containing Automotive Products Survey (Manufacturer Survey), the Automotive Repair Facility Questionnaire (Facility Survey), and the Brake/Automotive Repair Facility Survey for site visits (Site Visit Survey). Additionally, information from the 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (Consumer Products Survey) was also used.
1. The Manufacturer Survey The Manufacturer Survey was developed to gather current sales and formulation data for both chlorinated and non-chlorinated brake cleaning products from manufacturers. It also requested information on future formulation trends that could increase the Perc content of brake cleaning products and other automotive consumer products.
2. The Facility Survey The Facility Survey was developed to estimate the number of facilities performing brake repair operations, the number of brake jobs performed, and the type and quantity of bulk liquid or aerosol product used.

# II-4

3. The Site Visit Survey The Site Visit Survey was developed to gather AMR facility process information and source characteristic information. Process information includes items such as the number of brake jobs performed per day and the amount and types of solvent used in the process. Process information was used to estimate facility emissions. Source characteristic information includes building dimensions and the location of the residential and off-site worker receptors, and is used, in conjunction with facility emissions and an air dispersion model, to assess potential health impacts from a given facility.
4. The Consumer Products Survey The Consumer Products Survey contains sales and formulation data for all consumer products sold in California, including the four automotive consumer product categories addressd by the proposed ATCM. This survey was conducted in conjunction with the Consumer Products regulations.1 

### The CAS Registry Number or CAS number is a unique accession number assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service, a

division ofthe American Chemical Society.Other than being guaranteed unique to a given compound, this number has no particular meaning. CAS Registry Numbers are assigned to every uniquely-identifiable substance.



# III-1 

# III. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS, SOURCES, AND AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF PERCHLOROETHYLENE , METHYLENE CHLORIDE, AND TRICHLOROETHYLENE

This chapter summarizes the readily-available information on physical properties, sources and emissions, ambient concentrations, indoor sources and concentrations, atmospheric persistence, and Air Toxics “Hot Spots” (AB 2588) risk assessment information for Perc, MeCl, and TCE. The information comes from ARB’s 1997 reference report, Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List – Summariesunless otherwise noted (ARB, 1997b). This chapter also discusses the presence of these compounds in other environmental media as it was presented in the technical support documents for either the proposed identification of the compound as a toxic air contaminant (MeCl and TCE), or the proposed ATCM (Perc).
A. Perchloroethylene
1. Physical Properties of Perc Perc is a volatile chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbon compound containing a double bond. At room temperature, Perc is a non-flammable, colorless, dense liquid with an ethereal odor. Although relatively insoluble in water, it is miscible in alcohol, ether, chloroform, and benzene. Perc decomposes slowly in water to yield trichloroacetic and hydrochloric acids, and is oxidized by strong oxidizing agents.Physical Properties of Perchloroethylene Synonyms: tetrachloroethylene; tetrachloroethene; 1,1,2,2-perchloroethylene; ethylene

tetrachloride; perc; PCE; Nema; Tetracap; Tetropil; Perclene; Ankilostin; Didakene
CAS Number1

# : 127-18-4 Molecular Formula: C2

# Cl4 

# Molecular Weight: 165.85 Boiling Point: 121 o

# C at 760 mm Hg Melting Point: -22 o

# C Vapor Pressure: 18.47 mm Hg at 25 o

# C Vapor Density: 5.7 (air = 1) Density/Specific Gravity: 1.6230 at 20/4 o

# C Log Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient: 3.40 Conversion Factor: 1 ppb = 6.78 μg/m 3

# III-2

2. Sources of Perc Perc is used as a solvent primarily in dry cleaning operations. Perc is also used in degreasing operations, paints and coatings, adhesives, aerosols, specialty chemical production, printing inks, silicones, rug shampoos, and laboratory solvents. There are no producers of Perc in California. The primary stationary sources that have reported emissions of Perc in California are dry cleaning plants, plating and polishing companies, and aircraft manufacturers (ARB, 1999a). Perc was registered for use as a pesticide, however as of August 1, 1990, it is no longer registered for pesticidal use in California.
3. Emissions of Perc The reported emissions of Perc from stationary sources in California are estimated to be at least 4.5 million pounds per year, based on data reported under the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program (AB 2588) from database year 1998 (ARB, 1999a).
4. Natural Occurrence of Perc Perc does not occur naturally in the environment.
5. Ambient Concentrations of Perc Perc is routinely monitored in California by the statewide ARB air toxics network. The ARB’s ambient air monitoring network is designed to obtain ambient background, non-source influenced, concentration levels of air toxics from 21 ambient air toxic monitoring stations located statewide. According to ARB’s toxics database, the 1998 statewide average concentration for Perc is 0.11 parts per billion (ppb) or 0.77 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3

# ). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has compiled ambient concentration data from Columbus, Ohio during 1989 with a mean concentration of 1.59 μg/m 3

# , or 0.23 ppb, and the range varied from 0.21 to 40 μg/m 3

# or 0.03 to 5.90 ppb. They also reported concentrations of Perc from 13 study areas during 1989 to 1991. The overall range of concentrations from these areas were from 0.69 to 104 μg/m 3

# or 0.10 to 15.34 ppb with a mean concentration of 3.6 μg/m 3

# or 0.53 ppb.
6. Indoor Sources and Concentrations of Perc Volatilization from dry cleaned garments is probably the largest source of Perc in indoor air. Brake cleaners, water repellents, and fabric finishes are also important sources of Perc.

# III-3

Results from both indoor and personal monitoring in California homes indicate that people are exposed frequently to Perc from indoor air. The level of exposure varies among homes because of the different numbers and types of emission sources present in individual homes. In a large Southern California study, the 24-hour average concentrations for residential indoor air ranged from 2.27 to 6.72 μg/m 3

# while concurrent outdoor concentrations ranged from 1.74 to 4.41 μg/m 3

# . Using personal nighttime sampling data to approximate indoor air exposure, the 12-hour average indoor nighttime concentrations ranged from 5.45 to 8.56 μg/m 3

# in comparison to the outdoor nighttime concentrations which ranged from 1.24 to 5.72 μg/m 3



# . The most recent California study was conducted in Woodland, California in the spring of 1990. The average concentration of Perc of 124 indoor samples was 1.44 μg/m 3

# . Mean indoor concentrations from the Woodland study are approximately 2.7 times greater than the outdoor mean concentration of 0.53 μg/m 3

# from the same study.
7. Atmospheric Persistence of Perc The dominant tropospheric loss process for Perc is expected to be by reaction with the hydroxyl (OH) radical. The calculated half-life and lifetime for Perc due to gas-phase reaction with the OH radical are 2 months and 3 months, respectively. Both nitrate radical and ozone chemical reaction removal processes are too long to compete with the OH radical reaction. The reaction of the OH radical with Perc has been shown to generate chlorine atoms and that in the atmosphere the reaction forms phosgene and hydrogen chloride as well as other, as yet unidentified, products. Therefore, Perc is sufficiently persistent to be transported throughout an air basin before it is degraded.
8. Health Effects of Perc See Chapter VI.C. for a discussion of the health effects of Perc.
9. AB 2588 Risk Assessment Information The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) reviews risk assessments submitted under the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program (AB 2588). Of the risk assessments reviewed as of April 1996, Perc was the major contributor to the overall cancer risk in 43 of the approximately 550 risk assessments reporting a total cancer risk equal to or greater than 1 in 1 million. Perc contributed to the total cancer risk in 79 of these risk assessments. Perc also was the major contributor to the overall cancer risk in 7 of the approximately 130 risk assessments reporting a total cancer risk equal to or greater than 10 in 1 million, and contributed to a total cancer risk in 34 of these risk assessments. For non-cancer health effects, Perc contributed to the total hazard index in 35 of the approximately 89 risk assessments reporting a total chronic hazard index greater

# III-4

than 1, and presented an individual hazard index greater than 1 in 19 of these risk assessments. Perc also contributed to the total hazard index in 23 of the approximately 107 risk assessments reporting a total acute hazard index greater than 1, and presented an individual hazard index greater than 1 in 4 of these risk assessments.
10. Perc in the Environment (ARB, 1993a) Besides the air, Perc is also found in water, soil, fatty foods, fish, and human blood. This section will discuss the presence of Perc in other environmental media.

a. Ground Water and Soil Perc is a point-source ground water contaminant because of its widespread use and physical characteristics. When waste water containing Perc is discharged into the sewer or Perc is accidentally spilled onto the ground, it can migrate through the soil and into aquifers below. Perc is heavier than water. If discharged into the sewer, Perc can settle to the bottom of the sewer line and migrate through clay sewer pipe into the soil layers and groundwater aquifers. Perc in the sewer pipes can also volatilize to a gas and penetrate the sewer wall. The Perc can then travel through the soil layers into the ground water. If organic carbon is present in the subsurface materials, Perc can decompose under anaerobic conditions through “sequential reduction”. This means that one chlorine atom at a time is removed from the Perc molecule and is replaced with hydrogen atoms. Perc is sequentially reduced to trichloroethene, then to cis-1,2-dichloroethene, and finally to ethene . Perc can also be degraded by bacteria. There are several bacteria involved in the biodegradation of Perc, such as Clostridium cadaveris, Clostridium limosium, gram positive cocci, large gram positive rods, and filaments. In the degradation process, the Perc molecule is slowly broken down into a hydrogenate compound, with chlorine released as chlorine ions.

b. Ocean
Concentrations of Perc in the ocean are used as an indication of the environmental background concentration in surface waters. The average background concentrations of Perc in the North Atlantic Ocean range from 0.1 to 0.5 ppt (parts per trillion).

c. Precipitation Perc can be present in precipitation or rainwater. Rainwater collected in 1982 in the LosAngeles area contained 21 ppt of Perc. Perc levels in rainwater in La Jolla, and snow in southcentral California, ranged from 1.4 to 5.7 ppt. Rainwater collected in Portland, Oregon had Perc levels that ranged from 0.82 to 9.2 ppt. Rainwater in England’s industrial cities contained Perc concentrations up to 150 ppt.

# III-5 d. Food Food products have been found to contain Perc. It is believed that airborne Perc is the primary contaminant mechanism for foods. Perc has been found in foods such as: dairy products (0.3 to 13 micrograms of Perc per kilogram of dairy product (μg/kg)); meat, oils, and fats (0.01 to 7.0 μg/kg); beverages (2.0 to 3.0 μg/kg); fruits and vegetables (0.7 to 2.0 μg/kg); and fresh bread (1 μg/kg).

e. Fish Several European studies have been conducted to determine if Perc accumulates in fish. Eel, cod, coalfish, dogfish, and bid from the Irish Sea were collected and analyzed. Fish tissue concentrations were as high as 43 nanograms of Perc per gram of fish (ng/g) (dry weight). Fifteen species of fish off the coast of Great Britain were found to have Perc levels ranging from between 30 to 100 ng/g.

f. Perc Ingestion by Humans A study in Japan was conducted to determine the Perc blood levels in individuals who consume well water contaminated with Perc. The Perc levels in the well water ranged from 0.001 to 27 ppb. The study concluded that people who did not use well water for drinking or cooking had non-detectable Perc blood levels (detection limit was not reported). Those people who consumed or used well water had Perc blood levels ranging from 0.9 to 5.1 micrograms of Perc per liter of blood (μg/l).

# III-6

B. Methylene Chloride
1. Physical Properties of MeCl MeCl is a volatile, nonflammable, colorless, liquid with a sweetish chloroform-like odor. It is slightly soluble in water and miscible with alcohol, ether, and dimethylformamide. In the absence of moisture, at ordinary temperatures, MeCl is relatively stable. In dry air, MeCl decomposes at temperatures exceeding 120 o

# C. MeCl evaporates relatively quickly from water. Possible thermal breakdown products of MeCl include phosgene, chlorine, and hydrogen chloride. Physical Properties of Methylene Chloride Synonyms: dichloromethane; methylene dichloride; Freon 30; Aerothene NM; Somethine;

methylene bichloride
CAS Number: 75-09-2 Molecular Formula: CH2

# Cl2 

# Molecular Weight: 84.94 Boiling Point: 39.75 o

# C at 760 mm Hg Melting Point: -95 o

# C Vapor Pressure: 349 mm Hg at 20 o

# C Vapor Density: 2.93 (air = 1) Density/Specific Gravity: 1.3255 at 20/4 o

# C Log Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient: 1.30 Conversion Factor: 1 ppm = 3.47 mg/m3



# 2. Sources and Emissions of MeCl MeCl is used as a solvent, a blowing and cleaning agent in the manufacture of polyurethane foam and plastic fabrication, and in paint stripping operations. MeCl is also used in some aerosol consumer products, including aerosol paints, and automotive products. However, most consumer products manufacturers have already voluntarily phased out the use of MeCl. In addition, in the case of aerosol paints, the use will be restricted by a provision in ARB’s regulation, "Regulation for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from Aerosol Coating Products" adopted March 1995. MeCl is also found in textiles, paper, plastic, glass, and pharmaceutical manufacturing. For some categories, such as paint removers and aerosols, emissions from evaporation equal the amount used. Paint removers account for the largest use of MeCl in California, where MeCl is the primary ingredient in paint stripping formulations used for industrial, commercial, military, and domestic applications.

# III-7

The primary stationary sources that have reported emissions of MeCl in California are manufacturers of ophthalmic goods, manufacturers of plastic foam products, and manufacturers of motor vehicles and car bodies (ARB, 1999a). MeCl was registered for use as a pesticide; however as of August 1, 1990, it is no longer registered for pesticidal use in California.
3. Emissions of MeCl The total emissions of MeCl from stationary sources in California are estimated to be approximately 3.5 million pounds per year, based on data reported under the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program (AB 2588) from data base year 1998 (ARB, 1999a).
4. Natural Occurrence of MeCl MeCl does not occur naturally in the environment.
5. Ambient Concentrations of MeCl MeCl is routinely monitored in California by the statewide ARB air toxics network. The ARB’s ambient air monitoring network is designed to obtain ambient backgound, non-source influenced, concentration levels of air toxics from 21 ambient air toxic monitoring stations located statewide. According to ARB’s toxics database, the 1998 statewide average concentration for MeCl is 0.62 parts per billion (ppb) or 2.15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3

# ). The U.S. EPA has also reported concentrations of MeCl from 13 study areas during 1989 to 1991. The overall range of concentrations from these areas were from 0.28 to 492 μg/m 3 

# (0.08 to 140.57 ppb) with an overall mean concentration of 5.6 μg/m 3

# (1.6 ppb).
6. Indoor Sources and Concentrations of MeCl Because MeCl is a constituent in many consumer products, short-term indoor concentrations may be several orders of magnitude higher than ambient concentrations. Results from a chamber study where a paint stripper was being used resulted in breathing zone exposures up to 2,000 parts per million (ppm) averaged over one hour with peak breathing zone concentrations of up to 33,000 ppm. Inhalation of MeCl from the indoor environment is expected to vary depending on the degree and manner of use of products containing MeCl. Data on indoor concentrations of MeCl are extremely limited. During June of 1990, 125 households in Woodland, California were monitored for a variety of toxic air contaminants. Sixty-one homes were sampled for MeCl. The mean of those samples was 83 μg/m 3

# or 23.92 ppb. The detection limit for MeCl was 0.7 μg/m 3

# or 0.20 ppb. The 90th percentile was

# III-8

160 μg/m 3

# or 46.11 ppb, with a range from below the quantifiable limit of 0.7 to 1,700 μg/m 3

# or 0.20 to 489.91 ppb. Mean indoor concentrations are approximately 5.5 times greater than the outdoor mean concentration of 15 μg/m 3

# or 4.32 ppb from the same study. The use of household consumer products containing MeCl may account for its high prevalence in the homes tested. As part of a study conducted in Los Angeles County, the indoor and outdoor air of eight homes was sampled during the summer and analyzed for several compounds including MeCl. For these homes, results show overnight indoor concentrations to range from 3.5 to 12.6 μg/m 3

# or 0.3 to 3.6 ppb with daytime indoor concentrations ranging from 1.05 to 13.65 μg/m 3

# or 0.3 to 3.9 ppb. Overnight outdoor concentrations range from 0.35 to 4.55 μg/m 3

# or 0.1 to 1.3 ppb while daytime outdoor concentrations range from 0.7 to 13.65 μg/m 3

# or 0.2 to 3.9 ppb. The results for this study indicate that indoor concentrations of MeCl in some homes may not be substantially higher than outdoor concentrations.
7. Atmospheric Persistence of MeCl Reaction with hydroxyl radicals is the dominant mechanism removing MeCl from the atmosphere. The calculated half-life and lifetime of MeCl due to gas-phase reaction with the Oh radical are estimated to be about 0.6 years and 0.9 years, respectively. The product of the Oh radical-initiated reaction is formyl chloride, in 100 percent yield.
8. Health Effects of MeCl See Chapter VI.C. for a discussion of the health effects of MeCl.
9. AB 2588 Risk Assessment Information
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment reviews risk assessments submitted under the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program (AB 2588). Of the risk assessments reviewed as of April 1996, MeCl was the major contributor to the overall cancer risk in 30 of the approximately 550 risk assessments reporting a total cancer risk equal to or greater than 1 in 1 million and contributed to the total cancer risk in 112 of these risk assessments. MeCl also was the major contributor to the overall cancer risk in 8 of the approximately 130 risk assessments reporting a total cancer risk equal to or greater than 10 in 1 million, and contributed to the total cancer risk in 44 of these risk assessments. For non-cancer health effects, MeCl contributed to the total hazard index in 24 of the approximately 89 risk assessments reporting a total chronic hazard index greater than 1. MeCl also contributed to the total hazard index in 30 of the approximately 107 risk assessments reporting a total acute hazard index greater than 1, and presented an individual hazard index greater than 1 in 8 of these risk assessments.

# III-9

10. MeCl in the Environment (ARB, 1989) Other routes of exposure to MeCl include the ingestion of drinking water and food products. The following comparisons simply illustrate the extent of exposures to MeCl by routes other than inhalation. The comparisons do not imply that equivalent doses via different exposure routes necessarily result in health effects that are equivalent. ARB staff believe that the greatest contribution to total intake is from inhalation of MeCl. The ARB staff estimate that for the majority of California residents, the intake of MeCl through drinking water is less that 365 μg/year. Between January 1984, and December 1985, the California Department of Health Services (DHS) conducted a study in which groundwater from 2,947 wells, representing 819 public water systems, was analyzed for MeCl. Less than one percent of the wells sampled (eleven wells) contained MeCl at concentrations above the 0.5 μg/liter detection limit. For these eleven wells the median concentration was 3.0 μg/liter, the maximum was 10.0 μg/liter, and the minimum was 0.65 μg/liter. Groundwater supplies roughly 40 percent of California’s domestic use with surface water making up the other 60 percent. The DHS study did not monitor surface waters for MeCl. MeCl released into surface waters is not expected to remain due to its high volatility. The U.S. EPA used results from two major surveys (the National Organics Monitoring Survey and the National Screening Program for Organics in Drinking Water) to predict MeCl concentrations in the potable water of public water systems nationwide. Based on data from both groundwater and surface water, the EPA has estimated that 93.5 percent of U.S. population who are served by public drinking water systems receive water with no MeCl or levels less than 0.5 μg/liter. Furthermore, 99.6 percent of the population receive water with concentrations at or below 10 μg/liter. ARB staff estimated a range of annual intake through drinking water based on the concentrations found in the DHS monitoring study (less than 0.5 to 10.0 μg/liter). Intake is based on an average drinking water consumption of two liters per day, resulting in an intake ranging from less than 365 μg/year to 7300 μg/year. Because MeCl is not expected to remain in surface waters and because MeCl was not detected in over 99 percent of the groundwater wells that DHS tested, ARB staff believe that the overwhelming majority of California population would have annual intakes less than those reported above.

# III-10

C. Trichloroethylene
1. Physical Properties of TCE TCE is a chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbon compound containing a double bond. It is a dense, nonflammable, volatile, colorless liquid which is only slightly soluble in water but miscible with organic solvents and other halogenated compounds. Most fixed and volatile oils are dissolved by TCE. It is lipophilic. TCE has an odor threshold of 28 parts per million (ppm) and smells similar to ether or chloroform. Physical Properties of Trichloroethylene Synonyms: trichloroethene; ethinyl trichloride; Tri-Clene; Trilene; Trichloran; Trichloren;

Westrosol; Gemalgene; Chlorylen; acetylene trichloride; 1,2,2-trichloroethylene
CAS Number: 79-01-6 Molecular Formula C2

# HCl3 

# Molecular Weight: 130.40 Boiling Point: 86.7 o

# C Melting Point: -73 o

# C Flash Point: 89.6 o

# C Vapor Pressure: 100 mm Hg at 32 o

# C Vapor Density: 4.53 Density: 1.4649 at 20/4 o

# C Log Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient: 2.42 Conversion Factor: 1 ppb = 5.33μg/m 3



# 2. Sources of TCE TCE is used in California in a variety of operations and products, including degreasing operations, polyvinyl chloride production, adhesive formulations, and paints and coatings. TCE is also used in miscellaneous chemical synthesis and solvent applications, and as a refrigerant and heat exchange liquid. The major use of TCE in California, and nationwide is as a degreasing solvent. It is not produced in California. Other sources that emit TCE include publicly owned treatment works; groundwater aeration and air strippers; sanitary sewers; surface impoundments; and municipal landfills. TCE is also present in trace concentrations in waste oil. According to the World Health Organization in its review of TCE, the compound is widely distributed in surface water, rain water, and well water. The previously discussed 1984-85 DHS groundwater study sampled for TCE in the same 2,947 wells. TCE was found in 188 wells with a median concentration of 3.2 micrograms per liter (μg/l). A maximum concentration of 538 μg/l was also reported. The DHS noted that those

# III-11

wells supplying heavily urbanized areas generally had the higher concentrations of TCE. The DHS developed an action level for TCE of 5 μg/l. The primary stationary sources that have reported emissions of TCE in California are manufacturers of pens and mechanical pencils, manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and accessories, and blast furnaces and steel mills (ARB, 1999a).
3. Emissions of TCE The total emissions of TCE from stationary sources in California are estimated to be 179,000 pounds per year, based on data reported under the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program (AB 2588) from data base year 1998 (ARB, 1999a). No control measures have been adopted for TCE under California's air toxic program.
4. Natural Occurrence of TCE TCE does not naturally occur in the environment.
5. Ambient Concentrations of TCE TCE is routinely monitored in California by the statewide ARB air toxics network. The ARB’s ambient air monitoring network is designed to obtain ambient backgound, non-source influenced, concentration levels of air toxics from 21 ambient air toxic monitoring stations located statewide. According to ARB’s toxics database, the 1998 statewide average concentration for TCE is 0.03 parts per billion (ppb) or 0.16 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3

# ). The United States Environmental Agency (U.S. EPA) has also compiled ambient air data from Lima, Ohio during 1990 to 1991. The data show a mean concentration of 0.71 μg/m 3

# or 0.13 ppb. They also reported an overall mean concentration of TCE from 11 study areas during 1990 of 2.63 μg/m 3

# or 0.49 ppb.
6. Indoor Sources and Concentrations of TCE TCE has limited use as a solvent in consumer products and indoor concentrations of this chemical have been found to be quite varied. The most recent California study was conducted in Woodland, California during the spring of 1990. The indoor concentration of TCE of 125 homes ranged from 0.30 to 9.3 μg/m 3

# or 0.06 to 1.74 ppb. The average indoor concentration was 0.65 μg/m 3

# or 0.12 ppb. The California Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) studies were conducted during 1984 and 1987. Los Angeles and Contra Costa County were included during 1984, while Los Angeles was the only area for the 1987 study. Investigators collected volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using personal air, outdoor, and fixed-site indoor samplers. Direct

# III-12

comparisons of TCE concentrations indoors and outdoors were matched. Mean indoor concentrations of TCE ranged from 0.63 to 3.97 μg/m 3

# or 0.12 to 0.74 ppb. Median indoor concentrations of TCE are 2 to 5 times greater than ambient concentrations although indoor concentrations appear to be very dependent upon the use of consumer products containing TCE. Concentrations of VOCs in 10 public-access buildings were monitored for three days. Volatile organic compounds were measured at three new buildings before and after occupancy. Mean three-day TCE concentrations after occupancy ranged from 7.94 to 37.68 μg/m 3

# or 1.49 to 7.07 ppb which the authors indicated could have been attributed to use of commercial cleaning products.
7. Atmospheric Persistence of TCE The primary removal mechanism of airborne TCE is its reaction with hydroxyl (OH) radicals in the troposphere. The calculated half-life and lifetime for TCE due to gas-phase reaction with the OH radical are estimated to be 4 days and 6 days, respectively. The reaction forms formyl chloride and phosgene and chlorine atoms (leading to hydrochloric acid formation in the atmosphere), together with other, unidentified, products.
8. Health Effects of TCE See Chapter VI.C. for a discussion of the health effects of TCE.
9. AB 2588 Risk Assessment Information
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment reviews risk assessments submitted under the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program (AB 2588). Of the risk assessments reviewed as of April 1996, TCE was the major contributor to the overall cancer risk in 3 of the approximately 550 risk assessments reporting a total cancer risk equal to or greater than 1 in 1 million and contributed to the total cancer risk in 55 of the risk assessments. TCE also contributed to the total cancer risk in 16 of the approximately 130 risk assessments reporting a total cancer risk equal to or greater than 10 in 1 million. For non-cancer health effects, TCE contributed to the total hazard index in 5 of the approximately 89 risk assessments reporting a total chronic hazard index greater than 1.
10. TCE in the Environment (ARB, 1990) Other routes of exposure to TCE include the ingestion of drinking water and food products. Water appears to present the major source of exposure through ingestion.

# III-13

According to the World Health Organization, in its review of TCE, the compound is widely distributed in surface water, rain water, and well water. For example, McConnel et al. (1975) reported that rain water contained TCE in the range of a few micrograms per liter. Cothern et al. (1986) estimated, based on U.S. EPA surveys, that of the approximately 23 million persons exposed to levels of TCE ranging from 0.5 to 5.0 μg/L, 76 percent of the people obtained their water from surface water supplies. The higher concentrations in this range, however, are thought to come from groundwater systems. The California Department of Health Services measured a number of toxic compounds including TCE in large public water systems in California (January 1984 to December 1985). Approximately 3,000 wells were sampled. TCE was found in 188 of the wells with a median concentration of 3.2 μg/L. A maximum concentration of 538 μg/L was also reported. The CDHS noted that those wells supplying heavily urbanized areas generally had the higher concentrations of TCE. The Department of Health Services developed an action level for TCE of 5 μg/L. This is based on a cancer risk estimate by the National Academy of Science of a 10 -6 

# excess risk of cancer due to lifetime exposure to drinking water containing 5 μg/L TCE. Concentrations of TCE were also measured in tap water during the TEAM 84 studies. For the February and May sampling times in Los Angeles, the weighted median (and range) of TCE concentrations in water were 0.04 (0.03-0.24) μg/L and 0.03 (0.03-0.56) μg/L, respectively. For the Contra Costa samples, the weighted median (and range) of TCE concentrations was 0.05 (0.03-0.09) μg/L. The median levels of TCE in Los Angeles and Contra Costa were very similar, but the maximum concentrations were higher in Los Angeles. There is limited information on the concentrations of TCE found in food, especially in food purchased in California. There are reports of TCE in food measured in European countries. McConnel et al. (1975) reviewed the levels of TCE in foods in Great Britain and Europe and reported a range of 0.02 μg/kg measured in Yugoslavian wine to 60 μg/kg measured in tea. Ofstad et al. (1981) reported on TCE concentrations in fish in Norway. The concentrations of TCE ranged from 5 μg/kg in a commercial salmon fillet to approximately 400 μg/kg in the cod liver oil. Uhler and Diachenko (1987) reported the concentrations of volatile halocarbons in process water as well as in processed foods. Out of 15 processing plants, two had detectable amounts of TCE in the process water. None of the food items measured in the 15 plants had detectable levels of TCE (limit of less than 1 nanogram [ng] per gram of food). Entz and Diachenko (1990) reported the concentrations of TCE in 50 margarine samples purchased in 1980-1982 and 18 samples purchased in 1984, all from the Washington, D.C. area. Out of the 50 samples, one sample had TCE concentrations in the 100-500 ppb ranges, nine samples were in the 10-50 ppb range, seven samples were in the 3-10 ppb range, and 35 samples

# III-14

had undetectable amounts of TCE. Of the 18 samples measured in 1984, three samples were in the 10-50 ppb range, one was in the 3-10 ppb range, and 14 samples had undetectable amounts of TCE.

# IV-1



# IV. SUMMARY OF AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ACTIVITIES

During the needs assessment phase, usage of perchloroethylene (Perc), methylene chloride (MeCl), and trichloroethylene (TCE) was examined in four automotive consumer product categories: brake cleaners, carburetor and fuel-injection air intake cleaners (carburetor cleaners), engine degreasers, and general degreasers (including most aerosols and some bulk parts washers). This chapter provides a description of each product category and information on how and where the products are used (based on information collected from surveys and site visits).
A. Description of Product Categories
1. Brake cleaner Automotive brake cleaners are designed to remove oil, grease, brake fluid, brake pad material, and dirt from motor vehicle brake mechanisms. These products are sometimes labeled for use in cleaning dirt or grease from other motor vehicle parts and may be used interchangeably. Automotive brake cleaners are sold in both aerosol and liquid forms. Aerosol brake cleaners are typically sprayed on the entire brake assembly prior to service or repairs to wet down dust and to remove oil, grease, or other contaminants. Aerosol brake cleaners are also used on individual components after disassembly, often to remove greasy fingerprints or other contaminants from friction surfaces. Liquid or bulk brake cleaners are used primarily by professional mechanics. The solvent-based bulk brake cleaners can be converted in the shop to an aerosol by using a refillable sprayer that is pressurized using the shop air compressor. Once the product is pressurized, it is used in the same way as the pre-packaged aerosol products. Liquid products can also be transferred to hand-held pump sprayers for use. There are also solvent-based and water-based portable brake cleaning units that are comprised of a base reservoir of cleaning solution with a collection pan on top and a nozzle and brush. Mechanics position the unit under the wheel and typically spray down the entire brake assembly with the cleaning solution and use the brush as necessary to clean the brake components. The dirty solution then drips off the brake assembly and is collected in the pan and routed into the reservoir where it may be filtered to remove brake dust, oil and grease. Some companies that supply these devices to shops establish a recycling schedule where they routinely pick up the spent bath solution and replace it with a fresh bath. Other companies aqueous systems depend on the mechanic to replace or recharge the water-based solutions. There are also portable brake cleaning units available that can be filled with the mechanic’s choice of solvent brake cleaner.

# IV-2

2. Carburetor Cleaner Carburetor and fuel-injection air intake cleaners are products designed to remove fuel deposits, oil, dirt, and other contaminants from a carburetor, choke, throttle body of a fuel-injection system, or associated linkages. Carburetor and fuel-injection air intake cleaners are used during routine maintenance and repairs by both “do-it-yourself” and professional mechanics. These products are sometimes also labeled for use in cleaning dirt or grease from other motor vehicle parts, including brake parts. Both aerosol and liquid products are sold, but each form is used in a different manner. The aerosols are used to remove deposits from carburetors, throttle bodies, and associated parts, usually while they are still attached to the engine. Aerosols can be used to remove fuel deposits from the inside surfaces of carburetors by spraying into the carburetor throat while the engine is running, or by spraying the carburetor wells or throttle plate with the engine off and then starting and idling the engine. The solvents in the product combine with the fuel and are carried throughout the inside passages of the carburetor, eventually reaching the combustion chamber. Many automotive maintenance and repair (AMR) facilities that responded in the Facility Survey stated that they also used carburetor cleaners for cleaning brakes. Since aerosol products are designed to be sprayed down the carburetor throat, they are subject to U.S. EPA regulations for fuel additives which require manufacturers to register their formulations. The U.S. EPA also requires manufacturers to collectively fund a literature search on the potential health effects of using their products. Currently, manufacturers can only register formulations with compounds containing five elements: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur. However, formulations containing other elements were registered prior to the 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments. These formulations have been essentially grandfathered from the requirement that they contain only compounds with the five elements mentioned. Some of these grandfathered products contain chlorinated solvents such as MeCl and Perc (ARB, 1999). There are two types of liquid carburetor, choke, or fuel-injection air intake cleaners. The first type is added directly to the fuel lines or the fuel tank of the vehicle to remove deposits from fuel injectors, engine intake valves, and the combustion chamber. These products are often labeled as fuel-injection, intake, or engine deposit cleaners or engine flush or fuel treatments. Carburetor or fuel-injection air intake cleaners that are designed exclusively to be introduced directly to the fuel lines or fuel tank prior to introduction into the carburetor or fuel injectors are not subject to the proposed ATCM. The second type of liquid carburetor cleaner requires carburetors and associated parts to be disassembled and immersed in a container of the liquid product for several minutes or longer. Some products include a basket within the solvent container that can be used to hold the parts that are immersed, while others must be poured into a separate container to soak parts. Often, sensitive parts made of plastic or rubber must be removed prior to immersion to prevent damage. The cleaned parts are then removed from the solution and pressure rinsed with water. These

# IV-3

types of cleaners are often labeled as “Carburetor and Metal Parts Cleaners” or “Carburetor and Cold Parts Cleaners” and indicate that the product may be used for a variety of parts cleaning tasks. Some of the products contain chlorinated solvents such as Perc, MeCl, and monochlorotoluene.
3. Engine Degreasers Engine degreasers are specialty cleaning products designed to remove grease, grime, oil and other contaminants from the external surfaces of automotive engines and other mechanical parts and are available in both aerosol and liquid forms. The liquid forms of engine degreasers can further be broken down into solvent-based or water-based concentrates that need to be diluted with water before use. Engine degreasers can also be used to clean engines on motorcycles, boats, lawnmowers, and other powered vehicles. Typically, the entire cleaning process requires a combination of chemicals, using various combinations of solvents to first dissolve the contaminants, and physical action to remove the engine surface contaminants. As a first step, many products instruct users to apply the product when the engine is still warm. Other products direct the user to leave the engine running when applying the product. Most products direct the user to wait 10 to 15 minutes to allow the solvents to penetrate the oil and grime. For tough-to-remove deposits, the user may need to scrub the soil with a brush. At this point, surfactants in water-based products emulsify the dissolved oil into the water contained in the product. The final step requires the user to rinse the emulsified mixture to wash away the contaminants. Although some product labels direct users to dispose of the wash effluent in accordance with applicable environmental regulations, some facilities may discharge the wash effluent into the sewer system.
4. General Purpose Degreasers General degreasers consist of products designed to remove grease, grime, oil, or other oil-based contaminants from a variety of surfaces. This definition also includes products that are designed to clean miscellaneous metallic parts. These products are currently sold and labeled as solvent parts cleaners or metallic parts cleaners. General degreasers typically do not include products specifically labeled as engine degreasers, tire, gasket or paint removers, or electronics cleaners. This category also does not include general cleaners which are typically defined as products designed for general purpose cleaning, such as floor, kitchen, counter top, bathroom, tile or glass cleaners. For the proposed ATCM, general degreasers can be defined as aerosols labeled to clean automotive parts, bulk solvent parts cleaners that may be dispensed as an aerosol via a pressurized air sprayer or pump sprayer, or bulk liquids sold in containers designed to permit disassembled parts to be immersed within them. Aerosol general degreasers include only metallic parts cleaners and solvent parts cleaners. A metallic parts cleaner is defined as an organic liquid that is designed to dissolve grease, dirt, or other contaminants solely from miscellaneous metallic parts.

# IV-4

B. Users of Automotive Consumer Products in California Automotive consumer products are used in a variety of applications and industries throughout California. They are most commonly used in AMR activities at service stations, fleets, general automotive repair shops, dedicated brake repair shops, and new and used car dealerships. The majority of Californians look to these facilities for their maintenance and repair needs. In these facilities, automotive consumer products remove grease, grime, and dirt from a variety of automobile parts. Examples of applications include engine degreasing, the servicing of carburetors and throttle bodies, and brake service and repair operations. These commercial facilities will use both aerosol and liquid products (chlorinated and non-chlorinated) contained in a variety of delivery mechanisms. However, not all vehicle owners look to commercial facilities for their vehicle care needs. Some owners prefer to perform their own services at their residences or other locations. Since most people do not have the benefit of hydraulic lifts, air compression systems, and specialty tools and equipment, the services that they can perform are generally limited. Nonetheless, brake repair and engine degreasing are common do-it-yourself activities. People who service their own vehicles will also use both aerosol and liquid products, but if they use a liquid, it is more likely to be one that is easily converted into an aerosol or pump sprayer. Some private businesses and government agencies maintain vehicle fleets that are used for a variety of tasks and these fleets can consist of cars, vans, trucks, buses, and other task-specific vehicles. Many fleets operate their own maintenance and repair facilities to handle their maintenance and repair needs. Typically, these fleet operations are indistinguishable from their commercial counterparts with the exception that their services are not available to the general public. Normally, fleet facilities and commercial facilities tend to be similarly equipped and use similar automotive consumer products. Automotive consumer products used for AMR activities are not limited to cars, trucks, and buses, but can also be used in non-traditional applications on a limited basis. These applications include, but are not limited to, off-road vehicles, marine vessels, and aviation. The ARB believes that automotive consumer products are selected for these applications because they are readily available and suitable for light-duty tasks such as small parts cleaning and degreasing.
C. How Brake Service and Repair Jobs Are Performed Surveys and site visits revealed that of the four categories of concern, brake cleaners account for the majority of product usage and that the usage occurs primarily in conjunction with brake service operations. As a result, it is important to have a basic understanding of how brake jobs are performed, especially since products from all four automotive consumer product categories discussed here have been used in conjunction with brake service operations.

# IV-5

1. The Brake Service Process Brake service operations are normally performed directly on the vehicle, with the vehicle raised to a comfortable working height for the mechanic. Brake service operations can include inspections, adjustments, brake pad replacements and rotor resurfacing, and usually require the disassembly, replacement or repair, and reassembly of the brakes. Brake cleaners are routinely used in brake service operations while engine degreasers, carburetor cleaners, and general purpose degreasers are used less frequently. As discussed in the brake cleaner product category description, automotive brake cleaning products are designed to remove oil, grease, brake fluid, brake pad dust, or dirt from motor vehicle brake mechanisms and generally come in either an aerosol or liquid form. Many mechanics have discovered that products in the other three product categories are designed to remove similar types of grease, dirt, and grime, and can be used interchangeably on a variety of applications. Brake cleaners are applied before, during, and after brake disassembly to dissolve contaminants, and sometimes after reassembly as a final cleaning process to remove oil, brake fluid, and fingerprints that may have inadvertently been redeposited on the brake assembly. After application, the brake cleaner and dissolved contaminants either drip off, or are wiped away from the brake parts. Many facilities use portable brake cleaning units for brake service and repair operations. Portable brake cleaning units, which include bird bath type units, can be used independently or in conjunction with an aerosol product depending on mechanic preference. They are typically not used in conjunction with other liquid products with the possible exception of liquid products that can be converted to aerosols or pump sprayers. Mechanics use these units in their initial cleaning step to remove the heavier accumulations of grease, grime, and dirt, but many facilities use these units exclusively. Again, some may use aerosols as a follow-up process to remove oil, brake fluid, and fingerprints that may have inadvertently been redeposited on the brake assembly. Brake parts manufacturers typically issue guidelines and offer instructional materials outlining their recommendations on how their parts should be used in conjunction with brake service operations. When asked about why aqueous based units are demonstrated in their ASE (Automotive Service Excellence) certification clinics, representatives for these manufacturers listed performance, cost, and worker exposure as reasons for not using aerosol products (Raybestos, 1999; Federal-Mogul/Wagner, 1999).
2. Regulatory Issues To control asbestos exposure from brake and clutch surfaces, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration adopted mandatory methods for brake and clutch service beginning on July 3, 1996 (title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 5208, Appendix F). This regulation requires that either a negative pressure enclosure/HEPA vacuum system, or a low pressure/wet cleaning method using an aqueous solution, be used to clean asbestos-containing brake parts during brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair, and assembly operations.

# IV-6

However, we observed that mechanics tend to use any brake cleaning product they choose after the reassembly process to remove fingerprints, residual grease, and brake fluid. In addition, mechanics may use any brake cleaning products, including water, petroleum solvent parts washers, or other brake cleaners for cleaning non-asbestos brakes. For these purposes, some mechanics use aerosol brake cleaners.

# V-1



# V. EMISSIONS FROM AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ACTIVITIES

In order to estimate emissions of perchloroethylene (Perc), methylene chloride (MeCl), and trichloroethylene (TCE) from the four automotive consumer product categories described in Chapter IV, ARB staff used a variety of tools. Specifically, surveys were used to obtain information on product content and composition as well as usage data from automotive maintenance and repair (AMR) facilities statewide. Additionally, site visits were conducted to expand knowledge of AMR activities and how products are used in these activities. This section presents an analysis of the methodologies used to estimate Perc, MeCl, and TCE emissions and summarizes the findings.
A. Brake Cleaner and Perc-Containing Automotive Products (Manufacturer) Survey In March 1997, the ARB surveyed manufacturers of brake cleaning products to gather sales and formulation data for both chlorinated and non-chlorinated brake cleaning products, as well as information on future formulation trends that could increase the Perc content of brake cleaning products and other automotive consumer products (MeCl and TCE information was not collected from this survey). Perc product sales in the Manufacturer Survey responses account for about 90 percent of total statewide Perc brake cleaning product sales based on the ARB’s 1990 Consumer Products Survey (ARB, 1996a). From the returned surveys (22 surveys out of 37), we received information on 89 different brake cleaning products, 33 of which contain Perc. Based on reported sales of over 2,000,000 units ranging in size from 10 ounces to 55 gallons and Perc content from about 22 to 98 percent, Perc usage was estimated to be approximately 2,400,000 pounds per year (lbs/yr) or 178,000 gallons per year (gal/yr) from Perc-containing brake cleaning products. This usage is extrapolated to 100 percent to capture total Perc brake cleaning product sales, and determine that 1996 Perc sales were approximately 2.7 million pounds. Two subsequent ARB consumer product surveys in 1996 and 1998 found approximately 2.7 and 3.0 million pounds of Perc from California brake cleaning product sales. Of this amount, data from the Manufacturer Survey indicated that approximately 290,000 pounds of Perc brake cleaning product sales (10 percent) are used in residential applications. The amount of Perc from the Manufacturer Survey is more than the estimated California Perc use from brake cleaning products in the U.S. EPA 1990 Database (ARB’s 2,700,000 lbs/yr versus U.S. EPA’s 470,000 lbs/yr) (ARB,1996a). It is important to note that the estimate from the U.S. EPA 1990 Database may not be representative of California usage since it was based on a nationwide study. However, some of the difference may be attributed to the reformulation of brake cleaning products that contained 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), which has been phased out

# V-2

under the Montreal Protocol. For comparison, 1991 Perc usage in dry cleaning operations was approximately 14,800,000 lbs/yr or 1,100,000 gal/yr (ARB, 1993a). Table V-1 summarizes the Manufacturer Survey data.

Table V-1. Summary of Manufacturer Survey Information

Product Type Number of

Products Product Size Units Sold in California1

Aerosol (oz) Liquid

(gal) Industrial/

Institutional Retail/

Household
Perc Products 33 10 to 22 1 to 55 1,883,604 254,009
Non-Perc Products 56 12 to 21 1 to 55 2,397,228 377,901



# B. Automotive Service Facility Questionnaire (Facility Survey)
1. Background As previously discussed, California brake cleaning product sales were extrapolated from the Manufacturer Survey responses to determine that brake cleaning products sold in 1996 contained almost 2.7 million pounds of Perc. In order to verify that this amount was used by automotive maintenance and repair facilities, a survey of automotive maintenance and repair facilities was conducted. This survey requested information on the number of facilities performing brake repair operations, the number of brake jobs performed, and the types and quantities of bulk liquid and aerosol products used. The survey mailing list was based on information available from existing databases maintained by the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR), the California Board of Equalization, and the United States Census Bureau. These databases showed that there were about 31,000 to 34,000 facilities in the automotive repair and car dealer standard industrial classification (SIC) codes in California as summarized in Table V-2. The BAR database appeared to be the most comprehensive, and identified facilities that, by their name, would most likely not perform brake services. For example, any facility with the words “body”, “paint”, “transmission”, etc. was removed. In January 1998, surveys were mailed to approximately 25,000 remaining automotive maintenance and repair facilities and 6,820 usable surveys were returned (725 were incomplete and were not considered). The number of usable surveys returned was sufficient to be considered representative and accurate for all facilities statewide (2.5% margin of error, 99% confidence level). A copy of the survey form can be found in Appendix B.

# V-3 Table V-2. Number of Businesses by SIC Code

SIC Business Type Number of Facilities
551 new and used car dealers 2,400
552 used car dealers 6,700
554 gas stations, gas & convenience food stores, other gas & truck stops 9,600 7533-4, 7536-8 general auto repair, other auto repair,

tire retread 12,800 to 14,800 7539 brake and related auto repair
Sources: The California Board of Equalization and the 1992 U.S. Economic Census (http://govinfo.kerr.orst.edu/cgi-bin/econ-list?02-state.cas)



# 2. Summary of Findings Analysis of the survey data allowed for the determination of the number of facilities performing brake jobs, the various techniques used, the number of facilities using chlorinated products, the amount of chlorinated products used, and market share by product type and manufacturer. In some cases, the Facility Survey results were compared to the Manufacturer Survey results in order to correct for any under-reporting that may have occurred. Since the Manufacturer Survey did not collect information regarding MeCl and TCE from the product manufacturers, no adjustments can be made for these two compounds. As a result, emissions of MeCl and TCE from the Facility Survey may be under-reported. Table V-3 summarizes the techniques that automotive maintenance and repair facility operators reported used in conjunction with brake service and repair operations. Of the 4,865 facilities performing brake jobs, 3,561 facilities reported using brake cleaning products, 258 facilities reported using other products such as carburetor cleaners or general purpose degreasers, 409 facilities reported using nothing, and 2,151 facilities reported using a aqueous-based portable brake cleaning unit, generally in conjunction with other products. Based on the techniques used, Table V-4 summarizes the product formulations used in the Facility Survey. Of the 3,561 facilities that reported using brake cleaning products, the majority of the facilities (2,192 facilities or approximately 62 percent) reported using a non-chlorinated brake cleaning product. An additional 1,369 facilities reported using products that contained some combination of Perc, MeCl, and TCE. Table V-5 shows total aerosol and bulk product usage and estimated statewide usage.

# V-4 Table V-3. Brake Cleaning Techniques Used in Facility Survey1



## Cleaning Technique Used Number of Facilities Using Technique Brake cleaning products 3561 Portable brake cleaning unit (aqueous) used in conjunction with aerosols 1514

Portable brake cleaning unit used exclusively 637 Other automotive consumer products2 

## 248 Other cleaning techniques 10 No technique reported3 

## 409 1. A facility may use more than one cleaning technique. 2. Refers to carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers. 3. The survey did not request information on the use of solvent-based portable brake cleaning units. As a result, some facilities that reported using nothing may actually be using these units.



# Table V-4. Product Formulations Used in Facility Survey

Product Formulation Number of Facilities Using Product
Non-Chlorinated Products 2192
Chlorinated Products 1363 1


## Perc Products 836
Perc/MeCl Products 443
Perc/TCE Products 27
Perc/MeCl/TCE Products 44
Other Chlorinated Products2 

## 13
Unknown Formulations 43 1. Note: Thirty-seven facilities used more than one type of chlorinated product. 2. Other chlorinated products include Perc/TCA, TCE, and TCA formulations.



# The Facility Survey contained two fields that requested information on the number of brake jobs performed per week, and the amount of product used per brake job. The product of these two fields is total usage, allowing for verification of usage estimates. Performing this calculation yields 164,000 to 172,000 lbs/year. Although this is only 75 percent of the 218,000 to 228,600 lbs/year of aerosol use identified above, it is reasonable because some products are also used for non-brake applications (based on site visits, see Part C).

# V-5 Table V-5. Aerosol and Bulk Product Usage for Surveyed Facilities1


## Compound Usage Aerosol Use [lbs/yr] Bulk Use

[lbs/yr] Statewide Use

[lbs/yr2

## ]

Perc Brake Use Only 213,800 to 228,500 9,000 to 9,600 824,600 to 881,400

Brake & Non-Brake Use 218,400 to 234,000 9,000 to 9,600 841,600 to 901,500

MeCl Brake Use Only 23,100 to 33,100 900 to 1,000 88,900 to 126,500

Brake & Non-Brake Use 24,200 to 34,800 900 to 1,000 92,900 to 132,800

TCE Brake Use Only 2,800 to 7,200 300 to 400 11,700 to 27,900

Brake & Non-Brake Use 2,900 to 7,700 300 to 400 11,900 to 30,000 1. Rounded to nearest hundred pounds 2. Range of use is due to the range of Perc contents reported in the Manufacturer Survey. Usage is multiplied by the ratio of the total number of facilities (25,243) to the number used in the survey (6820), i.e., 3.701.



# Biases for four areas where potential under-reporting could take place were identified and quantified: (1) the percent of facilities using Perc, (2) the percent of Perc-based products, (3) the amount of Perc used per job, and (4) the number of jobs performed. Each of these evaluations is discussed separately below. Again, this analysis is only conducted for Perc.

a. Percent of facilities using Perc From the survey, 3,561 facilities used Perc or non-chlorinated aerosol products. This accounts for 73 percent of the 4,865 facilities performing brake work. This is consistent with the industry-sponsored study by John Norton of the George Mason University School of Business Administration which showed that 77 percent of the respondents nationwide used aerosols (Norton, 1993). The Facility Survey indicates that about 37 percent of these facilities use Perc-based brake cleaning products (the Norton study did not request information on whether the aerosol cleaners were Perc or non-Perc cleaners). Additionally, the data showed that for facilities using brake cleaners, 37 percent of the brake jobs were performed using a Perc-based brake cleaner. Additionally, 40 percent of the facilities visited during the site visits used a Perc-based product. Therefore, it does not appear that the percent of facilities using Perc has been under-reported.

# V-6 b. Percent of Perc-based products The under-reporting of the percent of Perc-based products can be quantified in one of two ways: (1) by looking at the actual numerical distribution of the different product titles reported, or (2) by identifying the percent of units sold that contain Perc. Table V-6 summarizes the actual number of products and their relative percent and shows that the Facility Survey under-reports the percent of Perc-based products by about 14 percent compared with the Manufacturer Survey

.



# Table V-6. Proportion of Products that Contain Perc
Facility Survey Manufacturer

Survey Total Number of Products 183 1 

## 89 Number of Perc Products 58 33
Percent of Total 32 37 1. There were additional products with unknown formulations, but they were discounted because they only represent 1.6 percent of the total number of product entries.



# Table V-7 presents the number of survey entries, where each entry represents a unit of product, while Table V-8 presents the total number of units sold. Comparing Table V-7 to Table V-8 it is apparent that the Facility Survey under-reports the proportion of survey entries that contain Perc, again by about 14 percent.
Table V-7. Proportion of Facility Survey Entries that Contain Perc Table V-8. Proportion of Manufacturer Survey Entries that

Contain Perc1


## Total Number of Entries 3,622 Total Units Sold 4,280,832 Number of Perc Entries 1,366 Perc Units Sold 1,883,604
Percent of Total 38 Percent of Total 44 1. Units sold include bulk products. However, their numbers constitute less than 0.3 percent of the total.



# This under-reporting is likely a result of the emphasis on Perc in the cover letter that accompanied the Facility Survey, and was observed during a few site visits to facilities that had previously submitted surveys. Correcting this bias requires adding 16 percent ([0.44 - 0.38]/0.38), to the range of product estimated earlier in Table V-5 to yield approximately 144,300 lbs/year. Additionally, if the 1.6 percent of products for which formulation data could not be obtained are assumed to be Perc-based products, then an additional 3,900 to 7,300 lbs/year can be added to the total Perc usage.

# V-7 c. Number of cans used As previously discussed, reported usage was verified by calculating the product of the number of brake jobs per week and the quantity of solvent used per brake job. For some facilities, this calculated usage was higher than the reported usage indicating that some facilities could be under-reporting their true usage. In many cases, this means that product was most likely used for other tasks besides brake service and repair. Extrapolating statewide yields an additional 127,000 to 137,000 pounds per year Perc that could be included in the total Perc usage.

d. Number of Brake Jobs There is a potential for an across the board under-reporting of the number of brake jobs performed which can be approximated by applying the normal brake service frequency to the number of vehicles registered in California. According to the 1996 ARB Mobile Source Emissions Inventory database, there are approximately 24 million vehicles registered in California. Information from the Brake Manufacturer’s Council indicates that light duty cars and trucks, which account for 88 percent of the registered vehicles (ARB, 1998), typically have their brakes serviced every 3.5 years (Brake Pad Partnership Steering Committee, 1999). Providing that fleets and the remaining 12 percent of vehicles (medium and heavy duty trucks and buses) may require more frequent servicing, the average brake service frequency is approximately once every 3 years. The result is 8,067,000 brake jobs per year or 2,747,000 more brake jobs than represented by the extrapolated Facility Survey result of 5,320,000 brake jobs per year. Assuming, based on the Facility Survey, that 73 percent of these additional brake jobs are performed using a cleaning product, that 37 percent of these are Perc, and that each Perc brake job requires approximately 14.4 ounces of product, an additional 668,000 pounds of Perc per year could be included in the total Perc usage.

e. Total usage Adding each of the biases evaluated above to the baseline usage of 901,500 pounds per year (from Table V-5) gives 1,858,100 pounds per year as shown in Table V-9.

# V-8 Table V-9. Total Perc Usage

Baseline Usage Pounds per Year ARB baseline estimate - brake cleaning products (max.) 901,500 Adjustments Potential under-reporting of Perc-based products used 144,300 Potential under-reporting of products with no formulation data 7,300 Potential under-reporting of the amount of Perc used per job 137,000 Potential under-reporting of the number of brake jobs performed 668,000
Total 1,858,100



# The Facility Survey accounts for almost 1.9 million pounds of Perc used per year. Considering the residential usage of approximately 290,000 pounds as discussed in Part A, total Perc usage is almost 2.2 million pounds per year. This is approximately 200,000 pounds less than the amount of Perc brake cleaning product reported sold in the State in the Manufacturer Survey. However, it is about a 750,000 pounds more than the 1.45 million pounds of Perc per year estimated from the amount of Perc that would be used on 24 million vehicles being serviced every 3 years (using Perc for 20 percent of all brake jobs, and 14.4 ounces per job). Therefore, the assignment of these biases is reasonable and appropriate. Facilities that service and repair brakes do not account for the full amount of brake cleaner sold in California. The additional brake cleaner is potentially being used in three additional areas: (1) facilities that were not sent a facility survey; (2) larger residential usage than previously estimated; and, (3) emissions from the more difficult to quantify off-road, marine, and aviation categories.
C. Brake/Automotive Repair Shop Survey (Site Visits) In an effort to increase understanding of AMR activities as related to the use of automotive consumer products, ARB staff conducted site visits to 137 AMR facilities across the state (21 additional visits were conducted to observe aqueous-based brake cleaning equipment and to evaluate flammability issues). The areas visited included Sacramento, San Diego, the Los Angeles area, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the North State area. Facilities in Foothill and Sierra Nevada communities were also visited. During the site visits, process and source characteristic information was collected so that modeling could be performed to estimate the potential health impacts associated with Perc, MeCl, and TCE emissions from the use of automotive consumer products. Information collected included building dimensions, the location of potential residential and off-site worker receptors, and product usage information. The site

# V-9

visits were also an opportunity to talk with shop owners and service technicians about their experiences using chlorinated and non-chlorinated aerosol and liquid products and portable brake cleaning units. The site visits focused primarily on brake cleaning product usage that occurred in conjunction with brake service and repair operations.
1. Product Usage Of the 137 facilities, 55 were using a chlorinated product, most of which were Perc-based. Overall, the majority of facilities were using non-chlorinated products. Table V-10 summarizes the types of aerosol and liquid products used to do brake work at the site visit facilities. Many facilities indicated that they felt that chlorinated and non-chlorinated products performed similarly, although a few mechanics indicated definite preferences. A large motivating factor in determining which product was purchased by the facility at any particular time was cost. When replenishing their supply of aerosol brake cleaners, facilities typically asked their suppliers to send the least expensive product. Depending on pricing at the time, this could be either a chlorinated or non-chlorinated product. Furthermore, due to mechanic preferences, some facilities maintained stocks of both chlorinated and non-chlorinated products.

Table V-10. Product Formulations Used in Site Visit Facilities

Product Formulation1,2 

## Number of Facilities Using Product Product Size Aerosol (oz) Liquid (gal)
Non-Chlorinated Products 82 5 to 19 1 to 55
Chlorinated Products 55 17 to 25 1
Perc Products 43 19 to 20 1
Perc/MeCl Products 10 17 to 25 none observed
Perc/TCE Products 2 18 to 24 none observed 1. The site visits did not reveal any products the were comprised of either MeCl or TCE as the sole chlorinated component or any multicomponent products consisting of Perc, MeCl, and TCE. This does not indicate that these product formulations do not exist. 2. A product is considered chlorinated if it contains Perc, MeCl, or TCE.



# Liquid products are not necessarily convenient to use in the gallon-sized containers they typically come in. As a result, most facilities converted these into aerosol form or into pump sprayers for easier use. The use of portable brake cleaning units (both aqueous and solvent-based) was also prevalent during the site visits. As discussed in Chapter IV, these units can be used either independently or in conjunction with aerosol products. However, a facility

# V-10

that uses both aerosol brake cleaning products and portable brake cleaning units may not necessarily use these products in tandem. One mechanic may prefer to use the aerosol exclusively and another at the same facility may prefer to use the portable unit exclusively. This mode of use between the two products was the most common observed. The data showed that 78 of the 137 facilities were using a portable brake cleaning unit. Table V-11 summarizes site visit observations of whether portable brake cleaning units were used in conjunction with other products. Table V-11. Use of Portable Brake Cleaning Units in Site Visit Facilities

Portable Brake Cleaning Unit Usage Number of Facilities Used in conjunction with aerosols 69 Used exclusively 9
Total: 78



# Portable brake cleaning units gained their popularity as a means to satisfy the asbestos brake dust control regulations. However, many facilities indicated that they also used these units on non-asbestos brakes because they discovered that they worked equally well in controlling brake dust from non-asbestos brakes. Additionally, many shops reported cost savings associated with the use of these units, even after taking into consideration the cost of having the spent baths changed or replaced. In fact, some shops encouraged their technicians to minimize their use of aerosol products in favor of the portable units. Most of the shops that were visited did not have pre-established guidelines outlining how much aerosol product was to be used. Instead, these facilities relied upon what the mechanic felt was an appropriate amount to complete the task. Additionally, some facilities also reported using brake cleaning products for small parts cleaning and degreasing on a limited basis. A common complaint, however, was that some mechanics would use an excessive amount of aerosol product and that it was difficult for the owner or shop foreman to control this usage; even if pre-established usage criteria was in place. Many facilities felt that the use of portable brake cleaning units minimized these problems and reduced operating costs. When using liquid-based cleaning methods such as portable brake cleaners, drying time is a reasonable concern. However, most of the 78 facilities that were using these units indicated that drying time was not an issue. According to the mechanics, since brake jobs are typically performed on a per axle basis, the brake assembly on one end has ample time to dry while the other is being serviced. By the time the tires are re-installed, both assemblies have had ample drying time. None of the facilities visited reported any problems, safety concerns, or customer complaints associated with the use of portable brake cleaning units or other liquid cleaning methods.

# V-11

In addition to aerosols, liquid products, and portable brake cleaning units, other cleaning methods observed included soap and water and brushing. These methods were used at only a few of the facilities visited.
2. Source Characteristics Source characteristic information was needed to estimate potential health impacts and assist in the development of the generic facilities (discussed in Chapter VI and Appendix D). The information collected here includes the number of brake jobs performed at each facility and the physical dimensions of the service area. The number of brake jobs came directly from the facility owners and shop foremen. When obtaining the physical dimensions, only the portion of the facility building where service work was performed (and hence from where any potential emissions would be emanating) was measured. Other areas of the facility, such as the customer waiting area and adjacent storage rooms, were not considered if they were separated by a normally closed door. If the door was normally open, then those areas were considered as part of the area from which emissions would occur. Table V-12 summarizes the average number of brake jobs and building dimensions (in terms of facility volume) for the site visit facilities. A more detailed compilation of source characteristic information for each facility is presented in Appendix D. Table V-12. Summary of Source Characteristics
Average Number of Brake Jobs [jobs/year] Total Number of Brake Jobs [jobs/year] Average Facility Volume [m3

## ] Range of Facility Volumes [m3

## ]
936 111,956 3,769 206 to 70,679



# 3. Receptor Locations Another piece of information collected during the site visits was the location of the nearest residential and off-site worker receptors. The data shows that many receptors tended to be located 50 to 100 meters away from the facility; however, there were a significant number of receptors located less than 30 meters away. Table V-13 summarizes the number of facilities that had receptors located less than 20, 30, 50, and 100 meters away from the facility.

# V-12

Table V-13. Number of Site Visit Facilities with Receptors at Various Distances1


## Receptors Less than 20 meters Receptors Less than 30 meters Receptors Less than 50 meters Receptors Less than 100 meters
Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker
17 45 33 65 48 84 68 103 1. Receptor distances measured from edge of the facility building.



# The facilities with either a residential or off-site worker receptor located nearby tended to be smaller facilities. Larger facilities, which include dealerships and fleets, usually had a buffer created by a large site footprint surrounding the building that housed the service operations. As a result, this limited the proximity of receptors to these facilities. With the smaller facilities, the nearest off-site receptor could be much closer. For all 137 facilities, residential receptor distances ranged from 5 meters to 3219 meters (approx. 2 miles) and off-site worker receptor distances ranged from 2 meters to 483 meters. At the 54 facilities that were modeled, residential receptor distances ranged from 6 meters to 2414 meters (approx. 1.5 miles) and off-site worker receptor distances ranged from 3 meters to 483 meters. See Table VI-2 and Appendix D for more information on modeling results.
4. Emissions from Site Visits The majority of the information collected during the site visits focused primarily on brake service and repair activities. As a result, emissions estimates (as well as potential health impacts) are based primarily on the number of brake jobs performed. Other activities occurring at the facility impact emissions to the extent that any product used on those activities is also used to perform brake work. This impact is included because ARB staff quantified the total usage of the product used to do brake work, even if it was used to complete other tasks. Therefore, emissions and health impacts are associated with overall product usage rather than just brake service and repair activities. In quantifying Perc, MeCl, and TCE emissions from automotive consumer products, ARB staff looked at various studies, including those by the ARB, U.S. EPA, and John Norton of George Mason University (Norton, 1993), and could not find sufficient information representative of California automotive maintenance and repair facilities. Therefore, to estimate emissions from individual automotive maintenance and repair facilities, information from the 137 site visits was used to estimate these emissions. Information was also collected from the California Board of Equalization, the California Department of Consumer Affairs’ Bureau of Automotive Repair, and the United States Economic Census to estimate that there are about 31,000 to 34,000 AMR facilities in California (BOE, 1997a; BOE, 1997b; BAR, 1997; U.S. Economic Census, 1992). Based on the standard

# V-13

industrial classification (SIC) breakdown within the United States Economic Census, approximately 21,000 of these facilities may perform brake services in California. These facilities can be grouped into five categories: service stations, fleets, new and used car dealerships, brake shops, and general automotive repair facilities. Table V-14 gives a description of each facility category. Table V-14. Description of Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facility Categories

Facility Category Category Description
Service Stations Offer automotive repair services where gasoline and other fuels can be purchased. These facilities repair mainly passenger and light-duty vehicles.
Fleets Governmental agencies and private companies operate fleets of vehicles ranging from passenger cars to heavy-duty trucks and buses. Fleet centers typically encompass a large area, which limits how close offsite receptors can be located. New and Used Car Dealerships (Dealerships) Many new and used car dealerships offer a complete range of brake repair services in addition to other automotive repair services. Their services are not limited to customers who purchased a vehicle from them. Brake shops Some shops limit their services to brake service and repair activities. In many cases, however, additional repair services are often available. General Automotive Repair Includes independently-owned shops, franchises, chain shops, tire replacement and repair shops, and passenger car and truck rental and leasing.



# The site visit data indicated that the quantity of Perc, MeCl, and TCE that is emitted per brake job varies with several factors. These factors include the individual mechanic who is servicing the vehicle, the chlorinated content in the product, and the manner in which the product is used. Emissions are also impacted by the size and operating schedule of the facility. Furthermore, the aerosol spray cans that contain the products come in several sizes with the chlorinated content ranging from 20 percent to 99 percent according to manufacturers’ material safety data sheets. As a result, the emission estimates summarized in Tables V-15 and V-16 reflect the variability in Perc, MeCl, and TCE content in brake cleaning products and the use of chlorinated brake cleaning products on small parts cleaning, degreasing, and other activities. Based on observations during site visits, up to 100 percent of the Perc, MeCl, and TCE contained in aerosol products may be emitted to the air when used in these activities.

# V-14 Table V-15. Emission Estimates from Site Visits by Facility Category1



## Facility Category Number of Facilities Visited Range of Annual

Perc Emissions [pounds/year] Range of Annual

MeCl Emissions [pounds/year]2 

## Range of Annual

TCE Emissions [pounds/year]2


## Service Stations 12 20 to 214 0 0
Fleets 6 18 to 1,305 0 0 New and Used Car Dealerships 24 41 to 1,525 0 0 Brake Shops 6 58 to 152 0 0
General Automotive 89 1.6 to 2,091 1.8 to 82 39 to 196 1. Based on usage of brake cleaning products. Emissions based on usage from all four automotive consumer product categories may be higher. 2. MeCl or TCE in brake cleaning products were not observed in use at service stations, fleets, dealerships, or brake shops. Since we didn’t specifically look for MeCl and TCE, this does not indicate that emissions of these pollutants do not occur at these facility categories.



# Table V-16. Total Emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE Estimated from Site Visits

Total Perc Emissions1 

## [pounds/year] Total MeCl Emissions [pounds/year] Total TCE Emissions [pounds/year] 14,886 to 20,066 125 235 1. Some facilities use a Perc-containing brake cleaning product which shows a Perc content range on the Material Safety Data Sheet; therefore, a range is presented for Perc emissions.



# D. Summary of Emissions Emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from the Facility Survey and site visits are presented in Table V-5 and Table V-16 based on facilities that service and repair brakes and use brake cleaning products. The Facility Survey also contains information on emissions from all four automotive consumer product categories under consideration. Table V-17 summarizes the total emissions from all four automotive consumer product categories at all facilities surveyed by the Facility Survey.

# V-15 Table V-17. Estimated Maximum Emissions from the Facility Survey

Compound Emissions [lbs/yr]
Perc 1,858,100
MeCl 224,400
TCE 37,000



# The 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products (consumer product) Survey collected sales data from the four automotive consumer product categories. This survey shows emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE greater than what is represented by the Facility Survey. As mentioned in Part B, this difference can be attributed to: (1) facilities that were not sent a facility survey; (2) larger residential usage than previously estimated; and, (3) emissions from the more difficult to quantify off-road, marine, and aviation categories. Since the consumer product survey represents a more complete picture of total compound emissions, it used to make the final emission estimates. Table V-18 summarizes the estimated statewide emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from the four automotive consumer product categories.

Table V-18. Statewide Emission Estimates from Automotive Consumer Products1



## Compound Emissions [tons/day]
Perc 4.2
MeCl 0.7
TCE 0.3

Total 5.2 1. Source: 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey.

# VI-1



# VI. POTENTIAL HEALTH IMPACTS OF PERCHLOROETHYLENE, METHYLENE CHLORIDE, AND TRICHLOROETHYLENE FROM AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ACTIVITIES

A. An Overview of Health Risk Assessment A health risk assessment (HRA) is an evaluation or report that a risk assessor (e.g., Air Resources Board, district, consultant, or facility operator) develops to describe the potential a person or population may have of developing adverse health effects from exposure to a facility’s emissions. Some health effects that are evaluated could include cancer, developmental effects, or respiratory illness. The pathways that can be included in an HRA depend on the toxic air pollutants that a person (receptor) may be exposed to, and can include breathing, the ingestion of soil, water, crops, fish, meat, milk, and eggs, and dermal exposure. For this HRA, we are evaluating the impacts for Perc, MeCl, and TCE via the breathing or inhalation pathway only. We are not evaluating other pathways of exposure because at this time the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) does not routinely use methods for assessing exposure to volatile compounds such as Perc, MeCl, and TCE by exposure routes other than inhalation. Such multiple exposure pathway (multipathway) assessments are traditionally used for lipophilic (fat-loving), semivolatile, or low volatility compounds such as dioxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Generally, to develop an HRA, the risk assessor would perform or consider information developed under the following four steps. The four steps are Hazard Identification, Dose-Response Assessment, Exposure Assessment, and Risk Characterization.
1. Hazard Identification In the first step, the risk assessor would determine if a hazard exists, and if so, would identify the exact pollutant(s) of concern and the type of effect, such as cancer or respiratory effects. For this assessment, the pollutants of concern (Perc, MeCl, and TCE) have been formally identified under the AB 1807 Program as toxic air contaminants (TACs) through an open, regulatory process by the ARB (ARB 1991a; ARB 1989; ARB 1990a). In addition, Perc, MeCl, and TCE are hazardous air pollutants under the Federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412).
2. Dose-Response Assessment In this step of risk assessment, the assessor would characterize the relationship between a person’s exposure to a pollutant and the incidence or occurrence of an adverse health effect.

# VI-2

This step of the HRA is performed for the ARB by OEHHA. OEHHA supplies these dose-response relationships in the form of cancer potency factors or unit risk factors (URFs) for carcinogenic effects and reference exposure levels (RELs) for non-carcinogenic effects. The URFs and RELs that are used in California can be found in one of three references: (1) The California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program, Risk Assessment Guidelines, October 1993; (2) The OEHHA Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute RELs for Airborne Toxicants, March 1999; and (3) The OEHHA Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part II, Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors, April 1999. The individual URFs and RELs for Perc, MeCl, and TCE that we are using for this HRA are presented in Section B, Part 2.
3. Exposure Assessment In this step of the risk assessment, the risk assessor estimates the extent of public exposure by looking at who is likely to be exposed, how exposure will occur (e.g., inhalation and ingestion), and the magnitude of exposure. For automotive maintenance and repair (AMR) activities, the receptors that are likely to be exposed include residents or off-site workers located near the facility. Onsite workers certainly could also be impacted by the emissions; however, they are not included in this HRA because Cal/OSHA has jurisdiction over on-site workers. More discussion on workplace exposure can be found in Chapter VIII. Exposure was evaluated for Perc, MeCl, and TCE via the breathing or inhalation pathway only. The magnitude of exposure was assessed through the following process. Emissions were quantified using emission factors determined from site visits, facility, and manufacturer surveys, and input from industry representatives. During the site visits, other information such as physical dimensions of the source and receptor locations were obtained. Computer air dispersion modeling was used to provide downwind ground-level concentrations of the TACs at near-source, residential, and off-site worker locations.
4. Risk Characterization This is the final step of risk assessment. In this step, the risk assessor combines information derived from the previous steps. Modeled concentrations, which are determined through exposure assessment, are combined with the URFs (for cancer risk) and RELs (for non-cancer effects) determined under the dose-response assessment. This step integrates this information to quantify the potential cancer risk and non-cancer health impacts.

# VI-3

B. The Tools Used for this Risk Assessment The tools and information that are used to estimate the potential health impacts from a facility include an air dispersion model and pollutant-specific health effects values. Information required for the air dispersion model includes emission estimates, physical descriptions of the source, and emission release parameters. Combining the output from the air dispersion model and the pollutant-specific health values provides an estimate of the off-site potential cancer and non-cancer health impacts from the emissions of a toxic air contaminant. For this assessment, we are estimating the potential health impacts from Perc, MeCl, and TCE emitted during AMR activities. A brief description of the air dispersion modeling and pollutant-specific health effects values is provided in this Chapter. A more detailed discussion, including example calculations for determining individual acute and chronic health impacts and both individual, regional, and statewide cancer risk is presented in Appendix C. Memorandums regarding modeling results can be found in Appendices D and E.
1. Air Dispersion Modeling Air dispersion models are used to estimate the downwind, ground-level concentrations of a pollutant after it is emitted from a facility. The downwind concentration is a function of the quantity of emissions, release parameters at the source, and appropriate meteorological conditions. The two models that were used during this HRA are SCREEN3, version 96043, and ISCST3, version 97363. Appendix D provides additional details on the modeling results. Appendix C provides an example calculation illustrating how the outputs from these models are used to calculate potential health impacts. The U.S. EPA recommends the SCREEN3 model for first order screening calculations and ISCST3 model for refined air dispersion modeling (U.S. EPA, 1995a; U.S. EPA, 1995b). Both models are currently used by the ARB, districts, and other states.
2. Pollutant-Specific Health Effects Values Dose-response or pollutant-specific health effects values are developed to characterize the relationship between a person's exposure to a pollutant and the incidence or occurrence of an adverse health effect. A unit risk factor (URF) or cancer potency factor is used when estimating potential cancer risks and reference exposure levels (RELs) are used to assess potential non-cancer health impacts. As presented in Chapter VI, Section C, exposure to Perc, MeCl, and TCE may result in both cancer and non-cancer health effects. The inhalation URFs and non-cancer acute and chronic RELs that are used for this HRA are listed in Table VI-1. Also included in Table VI-1 are the non-cancer acute and chronic toxicological endpoints for Perc, MeCl, and TCE. During this assessment, new acute RELs were adopted by OEHHA for Perc and MeCl. Table VI-1 reflects the most current OEHHA-adopted health effects values for these compounds. The acute impacts presented in the June 1997 Status Report or Needs Assessment (ARB, 1997a) used the previous acute REL for Perc. In that report, the acute non-cancer results were all reported to be

# VI-4

less than a hazard index of 1.0. Generally, hazard indices of less than 1.0 are not considered to be a concern to public health. A hazard index is the ratio of the modeled concentration for a toxic pollutant and the reference exposure level for that pollutant. Since the current acute Perc REL is 2.94 times higher than the previous REL and it is used as a denominator in non-cancer hazard index calculations, the net result of the current REL, if it were applied to the results presented in the 1997 Needs Assessment, would show a decrease in the acute hazard indices by a factor of 2.94. Currently, OEHHA is in the process of reviewing studies for developing new or updating existing chronic RELs. MeCl and TCE are among the compounds under review. Once the chronic RELs are adopted by OEHHA, they may be used in HRAs. Table VI-1. Pollutant-Specific Health Effects Values Used for Determining Potential Health Impacts1



## Compound Cancer

Unit Risk Factor (ug/m3)-1 

## Non-cancer Reference

Exposure Levels (ug/m3) Toxicological Endpoints

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic
Perchloroethylene (Perc) 5.9 E-6 20,000 35 central nervous system; eye & respiratory irritation kidney; liver and gastrointestinal system
Methylene Chloride (MeCl) 1.0 E-6 14,000 3000 central nervous system central or peripheral

nervous system; liver and gastrointestinal system
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 2.0 E-6 none 640 none central or peripheral nervous system; liver and gastrointestinal system 1. Health effects values and toxicological endpoints were obtained from three sources: A) California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, Revised 1992 Risk Assessment Guidelines, October 1993. B) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part II, Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors, April 1999. C) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants.



# A URF is defined as the estimated upper-confidence limit (usually 95%) probability of a person contracting cancer as a result of constant exposure to a concentration of 1μg/m 3

# over a 70-year lifetime. In other words, using the URF for Perc as an example, which is 5.9 x 10-6

# (microgram per cubic meter)-1

# or (μg/m 3

# )-1

# , the potential excess cancer risk for a person continuously exposed over a 70-year lifetime to 1μg/m 3

# of Perc is estimated to be no greater than 5.9 chances in 1 million (OEHHA, 1999b).

# VI-5

An REL is used as an indicator of potential non-cancer adverse health effects. An REL is defined as a concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated. Reference Exposure Levels are designed to protect most sensitive individuals in the population by including safety factors in their development and can be created for both acute and chronic exposures. An acute exposure is defined as one or a series of short-term exposures generally lasting less than 24 hours. Consistent with risk guidelines, a 1-hour exposure is used to determine acute non-cancer impacts (CAPCOA, 1993). Chronic exposure is defined as long-term exposure usually lasting from one year to a lifetime.
C. Potential Health Effects of Perchloroethylene, Methylene Chloride, and Trichloroethylene This section summarizes the cancer and non-cancer impacts that can result from exposure to Perc, MeCl, and TCE.
1. Perchloroethylene Exposure to Perc may result in both cancer and non-cancer health effects. The probable route of human exposure to Perc is inhalation (ARB, 1997b)

.

a. Cancer The OEHHA staff has performed an extensive assessment of the potential health effects of Perc, reviewing available carcinogenicity data. OEHHA concluded that Perc is a potential human carcinogen with no identifiable threshold below which no carcinogenic effects are likely to occur. The Board formally identified Perc as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) in October 1991 (ARB, 1991a). The State of California under Proposition 65 listed Perc as a carcinogen in April 1988 (OEHHA, 1999c). Table VI-1 presents the current health effects values that are used in this HRA for determining the potential health impacts. In 1990, the U.S. Congress listed Perc as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) in subsection (b) of Section 112 of the Federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412). The U.S. EPA has classified Perc in Group B2/C, as a probable human carcinogen, on the basis of sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in animals and inadequate evidence in humans. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified Perc in Group 2A, as a probable human carcinogen, based on sufficient evidence in animals and limited evidence in humans (ARB, 1997b). Epidemiological studies have provided some indication that the use of dry cleaning solvents, primarily Perc, poses an increased risk of cancer for exposed workers. However, investigators were unable to differentiate among exposures to various solvents, and other possible confounding factors, like smoking, were not evaluated. Perc increased the incidence of hepatocellular tumors in laboratory mice after oral and inhalation exposure and mononuclear cell leukemia and kidney tumors in rats after inhalation (ARB, 1997b).

# VI-6

b. Non-Cancer Short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) exposure to Perc may result in non-cancer health effects. Acute toxic health effects resulting from short term exposure to high levels of Perc may include headaches, dizziness, rapid heartbeat, and irritation or burns on the skin, eyes, or respiratory tract. Massive acute doses can induce central nervous system depression resulting in respiratory failure. Chronic exposure to lower Perc concentration levels may result in dizziness, impaired judgement and perception, and damage to the liver and kidneys (ARB, 1996b). Workers have shown signs of liver toxicity following chronic exposure to Perc, as well as kidney dysfunction and neurological effects. Effects on the liver, kidney, and central nervous systems from chronic inhalation exposure to Perc have been reported in animal studies (ARB, 1997b). In addition to CAPCOA and OEHHA listing Perc as having acute and chronic non-cancer RELs (CAPCOA, 1993; OEHHA, 1999a), the U.S.EPA established an oral Reference Dose (RfD) for Perc of 0.01 milligrams per kilogram per day based on hepatotoxicity in mice and weight gain in rats. The U.S. EPA has not established a Reference Concentration (RfC) for Perc (ARB, 1997b). Table VI-1 presents the current health effects values that are used in this HRA for determining the potential health impacts. Epidemiological studies of women working in the dry cleaning industry showed some adverse reproductive effects, such as menstrual disorders and spontaneous abortions, but study design prevented significant conclusions. Women exposed to drinking water contaminated with solvents including Perc, showed some evidence of birth defects. Inhalation exposure of pregnant rodents to 300 parts per million Perc produced maternal toxicity and fetotoxicity manifested as developmental delays and altered performance in behavioral tests in the offspring of exposed mice and rats. However, Perc is not considered to be a teratogen (ARB, 1997b).
2. Methylene Chloride Exposure to MeCl (also known as dichloromethane) may result in both cancer and non-cancer health effects. The probable route of human exposure to MeCl is inhalation (ARB, 1997b).

a. Cancer The OEHHA staff has performed an extensive assessment of the potential health effects of MeCl, reviewing available carcinogenicity data. The OEHHA staff agreed with U.S. EPA and IARC that MeCl is either a possible or probable human carcinogen with no identifiable threshold

# VI-7

below which no carcinogenic effects are likely to occur. The Board formally identified MeCl as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) in July 1989 (ARB, 1989). The State of California under Proposition 65 listed MeCl as a carcinogen in April 1988 (OEHHA, 1999c). Table VI-1 presents the current health effects values that are used in this HRA for determining the potential health impacts. In 1990, the U.S. Congress listed MeCl as a HAP in subsection (b) of Section 112 of the Federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412). The U.S. EPA has classified MeCl in Group B2, as a probable human carcinogen. The IARC has classified MeCl in Group 2B, as a possible human carcinogen (ARB, 1997b).

b. Non-Cancer Short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) exposure to MeCl may result in non-cancer health effects. MeCl vapor is irritating to the eyes, respiratory tract, and skin. It is also a central nervous system depressant including decreased visual and auditory functions and may cause headache, nausea, and vomiting. Acute toxic health effects resulting from short term exposure to high levels of MeCl may include pulmonary edema, cardiac arrhythmias, and loss of consciousness. Chronic exposure can lead to bone marrow, hepatic, and renal toxicity. MeCl is metabolized by the liver with resultant carboxyhemoglobin formation (ARB, 1997b). In addition to CAPCOA and OEHHA listing MeCl as having acute and chronic non-cancer RELs (CAPCOA, 1993; OEHHA 1999a), the U.S.EPA established an oral Reference Dose (RfD) for MeCl of 0.06 milligrams per kilogram per day based on liver toxicity in rats, and is currently reviewing a Reference Concentration (RfC) (ARB, 1997b). Table VI-1 presents the current health effects values that are used in this HRA for determining the potential health impacts. No information on adverse reproductive effects in humans from inhalation or oral exposure has been found, but fetotoxicity was observed in pregnant rodents exposed by inhalation to high concentrations of MeCl throughout pregnancy as evidenced by reduced fetal body weight and reduced skeletal ossification (ARB, 1997b).
3. Trichloroethylene Exposure to Trichloroethylene (TCE) may result in both cancer and non-cancer health effects. The probable routes of human exposure to TCE are inhalation and ingestion (ARB, 1997b)

.

# VI-8 a. Cancer The OEHHA staff has performed an extensive assessment of the potential health effects of TCE, reviewing available carcinogenicity data. The OEHHA staff agrees with U.S. EPA and IARC that TCE is a probable human carcinogen with no identifiable threshold below which no carcinogenic effects are likely to occur. The Board formally identified TCE as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) in October 1990 (ARB, 1990a). The State of California under Proposition 65 listed TCE as a carcinogen in April, 1988 (OEHHA, 1999c). Table VI-1 presents the current health effects values that are used in this HRA for determining the potential health impacts. In 1990, the U.S. EPA listed TCE as a HAP pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the Federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412). The U.S. EPA has classified TCE in Group B2/C, as a probable human carcinogen. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified TCE in Group 2A, as a probable human carcinogen, based on sufficient evidence in animals and limited evidence in humans (ARB, 1997b). The U.S. EPA considers the epidemiologic data on TCE carcinogenicity in humans to be inconclusive. Increases in testicular cancer have been reported in inhalation studies in animals. Carcinogenic responses to TCE inhalation studies in animals are increased incidences of hepatocellular carcinoma and adenoma in male mice; lung adenocarcinomas and malignant lymphomas in female mice; malignant liver tumors in B6C3F1 mice; and renal tumors in rats (ARB, 1997b).
b. Non-Cancer Short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) exposure to TCE may result in non-cancer health effects. TCE is a central nervous system depressant and has been used as an anesthetic. It is mildly irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract. Occupational exposure to TCE has resulted in nausea, headache, loss of appetite, weakness, dizziness, ataxia, and tremors. Acute exposures to high concentrations has caused irreversible cardiac arrhythmias, nerve and liver damage and death. Chronic exposure to TCE has also been shown to cause respiratory irritation, renal toxicity, and immune system depression. Alcohol consumption in humans increases the toxicity of TCE and causes "degreaser's flush", which are red blotches on the skin (ARB, 1997b).
A chronic non-cancer REL is listed in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Revised 1992, Risk Assessment Guidelines, October 1993. Table VI-1 presents the current health effects values that are used in this HRA for determining the potential health impacts. The U.S. EPA currently is reviewing the Reference Concentration (RfC) and the oral Reference Dose (RfD) for TCE (ARB, 1997b).

# VI-9

There is inadequate information to determine whether TCE causes reproductive toxicity in humans. One study reported increased miscarriages in nurses exposed to TCE as well as other anesthetics. An association was found between elevated levels of contaminants, including TCE, in drinking water and congenital heart disease in children. Other studies have not reported adverse reproductive effects in humans exposed to TCE in drinking water. In animal studies, an increase in abnormal sperm morphology in mice exposed by inhalation was reported. Exposure of rats and mice to TCE by inhalation causes a significant delay in fetal maturation and an increase in embryotoxicity (ARB, 1997b).
D. Factors that Affect the Outcome of a Health Risk Assessment at Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities Factors that affect the outcome of potential health impacts at AMR facilities from the use of aerosol and liquid products that contain some combination of Perc, MeCl, or TCE include: (1) the concentration of Perc, MeCl, or TCE in the product(s) used; (2) the facility operating schedule; (3) product use; (4) the physical dimensions of the facility; and (5) local meteorology. The combinations of these factors will ultimately determine the potential impact. Due to the variability of these factors, the potential health impacts can also vary. For example, if only the Perc-content were to increase, and all other factors were held constant, the resulting potential health impacts would also increase. Ultimately, each scenario of interest must be independently analyzed to determine the impacts of the individual factors. To provide perspective for some of the factors that can affect the HRA results, a discussion looking at the variability of meteorological data sets on specific and generic facilities, the brake job frequency, and building orientation at the generic facilities is provided here for your information. Variability arises from differences in the characteristics of facilities, or inputs used in the models, such as the period of meteorological data, or differences in brake job frequencies week to week. In short, variability can be thought of as the natural variation in conditions or parameters. We are also including a qualitative discussion of the uncertainties in the HRA process. Uncertainty is defined as a lack of knowledge about factors that impact risk where uncertainty may be reduced by further study (U.S. EPA, 1995c). In short, uncertainty can be thought of as the level of confidence in estimating a particular condition or parameter. Variability and uncertainty can be interrelated in the HRA process. Meteorological conditions can be a source of variability in an HRA. Annual average, model-estimated concentrations from representative off-site meteorological data were used to determine the potential cancer risk and non-cancer hazard indices for 13 specific and three generic facilities using ISCST3. Maximum-hourly concentrations were used to determine the non-cancer acute hazard indices. The methods used to obtain these concentration are consistent with current risk assessment guidance (CAPCOA, 1993). The modeling analyses are discussed in Appendix D and example calculations using this information are in Appendix C.

# VI-10

If source-specific operating conditions are held constant, changes in the meteorology will drive any changes in the health impact estimates. That is, because meteorology conditions vary from hour-to-hour and year-to-year, so too will the health impact estimates. In addition, meteorological conditions will vary depending upon which region of the state a facility is located. The meteorology data sets used in this HRA represent collection periods of as long as six years and are representative of 10 different regions. Another situation where variability is present in the HRA is the number of brake jobs performed per week. If all other variables remain constant, the potential health impacts are proportional to the number of jobs performed at the facility; therefore, if half the jobs are performed, then the potential health impacts are halved, if the jobs double, the potential health impacts double. In addition to the number of jobs impacting the results, if the nature of the services provided at the facility changes or the brand of product changes these too can impact results. For this HRA, we used the data from our survey data and site visits to estimate that small (G-01) facilities perform 20 brake jobs per week and medium (G-02), and large (G-03) facilities both perform 60 brake jobs per week. The results in Tables VI-7 to VI-13 reflect this assumption. The building orientation is another parameter that can provide variability in dispersion characteristics and therefore the range of concentration and potential health impacts. For example, rectangular buildings can be arranged so that they are oriented with the smallest side parallel (or at zero degrees), diagonal (or forty-five degrees), or the shorter side perpendicular (ninety degrees) to the predominant wind direction. A building orientation of zero, ninety, and forty-five degrees will yield the highest to lowest concentrations, respectively. For use in modeling generic facilities, the zero orientation was chosen because it is impossible to predict the orientation of the approximately 25,000 AMR facilities in California. By choosing this orientation with default meteorological data, the wind direction is oriented along the length of the rectangle buildings producing maximum concentrations. This practice provides confidence that in most cases we are sure to encompass the potential health impacts of any facility in the State. To evaluate the generic facilities with representative off-site meteorology, the facilities were oriented in the same standard position, however, the representative off-site meteorology was not forced along the length of the rectangle buildings. This exercise provides a range of variability that could result from the three generic facilities using both default and regional meteorological data. See Appendix D for a detailed discussion of the air dispersion modeling methodology used for generic facilities including a sensitivity analysis discussion illustrating the effects of building orientation under default meteorological conditions. Risk assessment is a complex process which requires the integration of many variables that are intended to simulate real-life processes. Although ARB staff used current California risk assessment methodology, including the most recent cancer potency factors and reference exposure levels, and U.S. EPA approved air dispersion models to conduct the health risk assessments, there is uncertainty in health risk assessment.

# VI-11

An example of uncertainty included in the derivation of its health values used in the risk assessment is the extrapolation of toxicity data from animals to humans. Other examples of uncertainty in an HRA are included in the air dispersion models. For example, while representative off-site meteorological data provides an improved estimate of the dispersion of emissions from a facility over default meteorological data, regional meteorological data is not necessarily site specific. Since regional meteorological data for the facility is not compiled at the actual facility site, there is some uncertainty in the modeled results. Due to microenvironmental factors, the representative off-site meteorological data can either overestimate or underestimate modeled concentrations at AMR facilities. It should be noted that when site-specific or representative off-site meteorological data is not available default meteorological data is typically used. Default meteorology data consists of a standard range of tabulated meteorological conditions. The intent of applying default meteorological conditions is to gain an understanding of the worst-case meteorology that could result in a maximum ground-level impact caused by a particular source. Effects of exposure to more than one carcinogen or toxicant are also not quantified in risk assessment (CAPCOA, 1993). For example, compounds may act synergistically where effects are greater than additive. Compounds may also have antagonistic effects where effects are less than additive. In these cases, the risk assessment could overestimate or underestimate the potential risks. Although we are not able to quantify uncertainty in this HRA, to help address the variability in risk assessment, we have provided ranges in our risk assessment results regarding product content and usage, meteorological data sets, building orientation impacts, and receptor type.
E. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities This section presents the potential health impacts from four types of analyses that were performed for AMR facilities. These four analyses include the results from 54 site-specific HRAs at facilities where site visits were completed. For these 54 facilities, the individual carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic impacts at near source, residential, and worker receptor locations were estimated. Secondly, for 13 of these 54 specific facilities, the regional cancer risk was also evaluated. The third exercise was the estimation of individual receptor potential cancer and non-cancer health impacts from three representative generic facilities. These generic facilities were established utilizing the information from the 137 site visits and two surveys that targeted AMR facilities and product manufacturers. The three generic facilities are modeled using ten representative off-site meteorological data sets and also were evaluated with default meteorological conditions to simulate a location where regional meteorological data was not

# VI-12

available. These ten meteorological data sets are the same as the ones used for 13 of the site-specific facilities in exercise one and all of the facilities in exercise two. The fourth analysis uses data from ARB’s ambient monitoring network to estimate the statewide cancer impacts from the use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE in AMR activities.
1. Potential Individual Receptor Impacts at Specific Facilities
The ARB staff conducted individual HRAs for 54 of the facilities staff visited and found to be using Perc, MeCl, or TCE-containing automotive consumer products. These facilities represent a broad range of AMR facilities and allow for a reasonable approximation of health impacts statewide. These 54 facilities are a subset of the 137 AMR facilities where ARB staff has conducted site visits. The other 83 facilities were not assessed because they did not use Perc, MeCl, or TCE-containing products. See Appendix D for a detailed presentation of the air dispersion modeling inputs and results for each of the 54 HRAs. Appendix C provides an example calculation illustrating how the outputs from these models are used to calculate potential health impacts. All 54 HRAs at specific facilities used facility dimensions, emission release characteristics, operating schedule, product use, and product content information that was obtained during the site visits. The two air dispersion models that were used during this HRA are SCREEN3, version 96043, and ISCST3, version 97363. Thirteen of the 54 HRAs were refined HRAs that used representative off-site meteorological data and were performed using the ISCST3 air dispersion model. The selection criteria that was used to determine which facilities would be run with ISCST3 can be found in Appendix F. Forty-one of the HRAs used default meteorological data and the SCREEN3 air dispersion model. Table VI-2 provides an overview of the potential health impacts from the 54 specific facility HRAs. These 54 facilities are divided into three groups. The first group contains 29 facilities that use Perc and were run with default meteorology data. The second group was also run with default meteorology and includes 12 facilities that used products with multicomponent formulations of Perc and MeCl, or Perc and TCE. The third group has 13 facilities, all used Perc, and were run with ISCST3 using representative off-site meteorology data. Table VI-2 also includes columns that reflect the number of facilities in each modeled group and at each receptor type with potential cancer risks above ten chances per million and one chance per million. In addition, also noted in Table VI-2 are the number of facilities with potential non-cancer hazard indices above one. These results are presented for information purposes only. Overall, Table VI-2 shows potential carcinogenic risk ranging from <0.01 to 60 chances per million. All three receptor types, (the near source, maximum exposed individual resident (MEIR), and the maximum exposed individual (off-site) worker (MEIW)) show individual potential cancer risks toward the higher end of this range of potential cancer risk. Regarding non-cancer impacts from the site visits, the modeling results and hazard index estimates show

# VI-13

that it is unlikely for significant acute or chronic non-cancer health effects to result from the emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from these facilities. In addition, both the chronic and acute hazard indices are less than 0.3 at near-source, MEIR, and MEIW locations. Generally, hazard indices less than 1.0 are not considered to be a concern to public health. Tables VI-3 to VI-5 present the individual cancer and non-cancer (acute and chronic) potential health impacts for each of the 54 specific facilities at the near-source, MEIR, and MEIW locations, respectively. Annual average concentrations from representative off-site meteorological data were used to determine the potential cancer risk and non-cancer hazard indices presented for the 13 facilities using ISCST3 in Table VI-2. Maximum-hourly concentrations were used to determine the non-cancer acute hazard indices. The methods used to obtain these concentrations are consistent with current risk assessment guidance (CAPCOA, 1993).

# VI-14

Table VI-2. Overview of the Potential Health Impacts for the Fifty-Four Specific Facilities1


## Grouped Model Runs 2 

## (n=54) Rec.

Type 3 

## Receptor

Distances 4 

## (m) Potential

Cancer Risk 5 

## (x/million) No.

Fac.6 

## Above 10 Per Million No.

Fac.6 

## Above 1 Per Million Range of

Acute Hazard Indices Range of

Chronic Hazard Indices No.

Fac. Above H.I. of 1 6,7



## Perc 8 

## (n=29) (SCREEN3) NS 20 to 30 0.08 to 50 12 24 <0.01 to <0.2 <0.01 to <0.3 0

MEIR 6 to 802 0.01 to 22 5 14 <0.01 to <0.2 <0.01 to <0.2 0
MEIW9 

## 6 to 483 0.02 to 15 1 10 

## 19 <0.01 to <0.211 

## <0.01 to <0.2 11 

## 0

Multiple Component12 

## Product (n=12) (SCREEN3) NS 20 to 25 1 to 46 8 12 <0.01 to <0.2 <0.01 to <0.3 0

MEIR 20 to 2414 <0.01 to 35 2 8 <0.01 to < 0.08 <0.01 to <0.2 0

MEIW9 

## 3 to 49 >0.6 11

## to 23 2 10 

## 10 <0.01 to <0.211 

## <0.01 to <0.3 11 

## 0 10



## Perc 8 

## (n=13) (ISCST3) NS 32 to 51 2 to 60 10 13 <0.01 to <0.2 <0.02 to <0.3 0

MEIR 25 to 146 0.05 to 60 6 10 <0.01 to <0.04 <0.01 to <0.3 0
MEIW9 

## 24 to 151 0.3 to 11 1 11 <0.01 to <0.2 <0.01 to <0.2 0 1. All numbers have been rounded. 2. Modeled facilities are divided into three groups of 29, 12, and 13 facilities. The first group is run using the SCREEN3 model with only Perc-containing products. The second group was run using SCREEN3 with automotive products that contain combination formulations of Perc/MeCl and Perc/TCE. The third group was run using ISCST3 at facilities that use Perc-containing automotive products. 3. Results are presented for three receptor types. NS (near-source) identifies the location closest to the facility where modeled concentrations could be estimated. MEIR (maximum exposed individual resident) represents the residential location that receives the estimated maximum exposure from a facility’s emissions. MEIW (maximum exposed individual (off-site) worker) identifies the off-site industrial or commercial location that receives the estimated maximum exposure from a facility’s emissions. 4. The distance for the near-source receptor is measured from the center of the volume source. The distance listed for the MEIR and MEIW receptors is the estimated distance away from the outside edge of the building to the residential or worker receptor. 5. Potential cancer risk presented in this column reflect the range of results for each modeled group by receptor type. 6. These columns reflect the number of facilities in each modeled group and at each receptor type with potential health impacts above ten chances per million, one chance per million, and hazard indices above one. These results are presented for information purposes only. 7. Includes both chronic and acute hazard indices. 8. These facilities use Perc-containing automotive products which show a Perc content range on the MSDS. 9. Where appropriate, the potential cancer risk estimates are adjusted for a working lifetime of 46 years and to allow for an operating schedule at an off-site facility that does not coincide with, or is shorter than, that of the facility being assessed. 10. The number of facilities may be higher than is listed here because the location of some receptors is closer than the minimum modeled distance. We are unable to predict potential pollutant concentrations and health impacts within the minimum modeled distance. When receptors are located closer than the minimum modeled distance, the potential impacts at the minimum modeled distance are used. 11. The MEIW is located within 20 to 30 meters of the center of the volume source, which is the minimum distance modeled; therefore, the potential health impacts are likely to be greater than those listed here. However, we do not anticipate the impacts to be higher than a hazard index of 1. 12. These facilities use products with multcomponent formulation of Perc/MeCl or Perc/TCE.

# VI-15 a. Potential Health Impacts at the Near Source Location for the Specific Facilities Table VI-3 summarizes the maximum potential cancer and non-cancer health impacts at each of the 54 specific facilities. The maximum potential health impacts are estimated to occur at near-source locations. Overall, Table VI-3 shows potential carcinogenic risk ranging from 0.05 to 60 chances per million. Non-cancer acute and chronic hazard indices are less than 0.3 at near-source location. Generally, hazard indices less than 1.0 are not considered to be a concern to public health. For these 54 facilities, we selected a minimum receptor distance of 20 to 51 meters from the center of the volume source or building to define a near-source location. The reason the minimum modeled distance varies by facility is because the air dispersion models must allow for the building dimensions or footprint. The purpose of estimating the potential health impacts at a near-source location is to illustrate what the potential health impacts can be if a receptor was located close to the facilities which were assessed, rather than having an increased “buffer” distance between the receptor location and the edge of the building. During the 137 site visits, ARB staff observed that receptors are present within 51 meters at 87 of the AMR facilities. For a breakdown of the number of facilities with residential and worker receptors within 20, 30, 50 and 100 meters that were observed during the site visits see Table V-12.

# VI-16 Table VI-3. Summary of the Specific Facility Near-Source

Potential Health Impacts1,2



## Facility (n=54) Facility Type Individual Cancer Risk (per million) Acute Hazard Index Chronic Hazard

Index Group A = Perc-Using Facilities Modeled with SCREEN3 (N=29)
E 3 

## Service Station 2.0 to 2.9 <0.06 <0.02
H 3 

## Fleet 0.3 to 0.4 <0.01 <0.01
L 3 

## Service Station 4.7 to 6.8 <0.2 <0.04
N Dealership 3.7 <0.01 <0.02 Q 3 

## General Automotive 27 to 39 <0.2 <0.2
R 3 

## General Automotive 35 to 50 <0.05 <0.3
V Brake Shop 0.5 <0.01 <0.01
A-13 3 

## General Automotive 0.08 to 0.1 <0.01 <0.01
A-14 3 

## General Automotive 0.6 to 0.9 <0.03 <0.01
A-15 3 

## General Automotive 2.0 to 2.7 <0.04 <0.02
A-163 

## General Automotive 4.0 to 5.9 <0.02 <0.03
A-21 3 

## Brake Shop 3.7 to 5.0 <0.04 <0.03
A-29 3 

## Fleet 24 to 35 <0.05 <0.2
A-30 3 

## Fleet 3.1 to 10 <0.05 <0.06
A-31 3 

## General Automotive 11 to 16 <0.02 <0.08
A-32 3 

## General Automotive 0.6 to 0.9 <0.03 <0.01
A-35 3 

## Brake Shop 3.9 to 5.6 <0.2 <0.03
A-36 3 

## Dealership 22 to 31 <0.04 <0.2
A-50 3 

## General Automotive 5.8 to 8.4 <0.08 <0.05
A-51 3 

## General Automotive 4.7 to 5.2 <0.2 <0.03
A-54 3 

## General Automotive 8.9 to 13 <0.09 <0.07
A-73 3 

## General Automotive 14 to 16 <0.04 <0.08
A-84 General Automotive 23 <0.09 <0.2
A-87 3 

## Dealership 11 to 19 <0.02 <0.1

# VI-17 Table VI-3. Summary of the Specific Facility Near-Source

Potential Health Impacts (continued)1,2



## Facility (n=54) Facility Type Individual Cancer Risk (per million) Acute Hazard Index Chronic Hazard

Index Group A = Perc-Using Facilities Modeled with SCREEN3 (N=29) (continued)
A-88 3 

## General Automotive 8.9 to 22 <0.2 <0.2
A-89 3 

## General Automotive 4.6 to 6.6 <0.01 <0.04
A-90 3 

## Service Station 6.0 to 8.7 <0.3 <0.05
A-93 3 

## General Automotive 10 to 15 <0.08 <0.08
A-94 3 

## Service Station 2.0 to 2.9 <0.04 <0.02 Group B = Multicomponent-Using Facilities Modeled with SCREEN3 4

## (N=12)
D Service Station 18 <0.09 <0.09
G Fleet 22 <0.05 <0.2
M Dealership 46 <0.1 <0.3
S Brake Shop 12 <0.02 <0.06
A-20 General Automotive 27 <0.04 <0.2
A-39 General Automotive 9.7 <0.01 <0.04
A-49 General Automotive 11 <0.09 <0.06
A-63 General Automotive 1.0 <0.04 <0.01
A-71 General Automotive 1.5 <0.06 <0.01
A-72 General Automotive 2.9 <0.2 <0.02
A-82 General Automotive 20 <0.03 <0.1
A-85 General Automotive 43 <0.2 <0.3

Group C = Perc-Using Facilities Modeled with ISCST3 (N=13)
A-07 3 

## General Automotive 13 to 19 <0.04 <0.1
A-08 3 

## General Automotive 29 to 41 <0.02 <0.3
A-09 3 

## General Automotive 41 to 60 <0.02 <0.3
A-28 3 

## Fleet 12 to 18 <0.03 <0.09
A-52 3 

## General Automotive 9.9 to 11 <0.05 <0.06

# VI-18 Table VI-3. Summary of the Specific Facility Near-Source

Potential Health Impacts (continued) 1,2



## Facility (n=54) Facility Type Individual Cancer Risk (per million) Acute Hazard Index Chronic Hazard

Index Group C = Perc-Using Facilities Modeled with ISCST3 (N=13) (continued)
A-83 3 

## General Automotive 12 to 18 <0.02 <0.09
A-86 3 

## Dealership 8.0 to 13 <0.01 <0.07
A-92 3 

## Service Station 3.2 to 4.7 <0.05 <0.03
I 3 

## Fleet 11 to 16 <0.03 <0.08
O 3 

## General Automotive 4.5 to 6.6 <0.2 <0.04
P 3 

## Brake Shop 2.3 to 3.3 <0.01 <0.02
T General Automotive 15 <0.02 <0.08
U 3 

## General Automotive 19 to 28 <0.02 <0.2 1. Near-source is defined as the modeled minimum receptor distance of 20 to 51 meters from the building center, or ranging from 2 to 40 meters away from the outside edge of the building. 2. All numbers have been rounded. 3. These facilities use a Perc-containing automotive products which shows a Perc-content range on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS); therefore, a range is presented for the potential cancer risk. 4. These facilities use products with multicomponent formulations of Perc/MeCl or Perc/TCE.



# b. Potential Health Impacts at the MEIR for the Specific Facilities Table VI-4 summarizes the potential cancer and non-cancer health impacts at the maximum exposed individual resident (MEIR). The MEIR is defined as the residential receptor location that receives the estimated maximum exposure from a facility’s emissions relative to other residential locations. Overall, Table VI-4 shows the MEIR potential carcinogenic risk range from <0.01 to 60 chances per million. Non-cancer acute and chronic hazard indices are less than 0.3 at the MEIR location. Generally, hazard indices less than 1.0 are not considered to be a concern to public health. An example calculation is presented in Appendix C illustrating how a facility’s potential health impacts were assessed. This example shows emission calculations, steps through the air dispersion modeling, and concludes with a calculation of potential health impacts. A contributing factor to any decrease in potential risk at the MEIR is the increased “buffer” distance created by the facility fence line or the location of the nearest resident when compared to the near-source location. The distance to the MEIR at the specific facilities was estimated to range from approximately 6 to 2414 meters.

# VI-19

Table VI-4. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at the Maximum Exposed

Individual Resident (MEIR) from the Specific Facilities1



## Facility (n=54) Facility Type Receptor Distance 2 

## (meters) Individual

Cancer Risk (per million) Acute Hazard Index Chronic Hazard

Index
Group A = Perc-Using Facilities Modeled with SCREEN3 (N=29)
E 3 

## Service Station 801 0.01 to 0.02 <0.01 <0.01
H 3 

## Fleet 802 <0.01 to 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
L 3 

## Service Station 232 0.2 to 0.3 <0.01 <0.01
N Dealership 400 0.07 <0.01 <0.01 Q 3 

## General Automotive 76 7.9 to 11 <0.06 <0.06
R 3 

## General Automotive 46 15 to 22 <0.02 <0.2
V 4 

## Brake Shop 6 >0.5 

# <0.01 5 

# <0.01 5


## A-13 3 

## General Automotive 73 0.01 to 0.02 <0.01 <0.01
A-14 3 

## General Automotive 107 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01
A-15 3 

## General Automotive 76 0.4 to 0.5 <0.01 <0.01
A-163 

## General Automotive 305 0.08 to 0.1 <0.01 <0.01
A-21 3 

## Brake Shop 114 0.4 to 0.5 <0.01 <0.01
A-29 3 

## Fleet 152 3.3 to 4.8 <0.01 <0.03
A-30 3 

## Fleet 483 0.1 to 0.4 <0.01 <0.01
A-31 3 

## General Automotive 229 0.3 to 0.5 <0.01 <0.01
A-32 3 

## General Automotive 137 0.04 to 0.06 <0.01 <0.01
A-35 3 

## Brake Shop 152 0.3 to 0.4 <0.02 <0.01
A-36 3 

## Dealership 152 1.6 to 2.4 <0.01 <0.02
A-50 3 

## General Automotive 15 5.8 to 8.4 <0.08 <0.05
A-51 3 

## General Automotive 23 3.5 to 3.8 <0.2 <0.02
A-54 3 

## General Automotive 38 3.7 to 5.4 <0.05 <0.03
A-73 3 

## General Automotive 322 0.2 to 0.3 <0.01 <0.01
A-84 General Automotive 38 10 <0.05 <0.05

# VI-20

Table VI-4. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at the Maximum Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR) from the Specific Facilities (continued)1



## Facility (n=54) Facility Type Receptor Distance 2 

## (meters) Individual

Cancer Risk (per million) Acute Hazard Index Chronic Hazard

Index
Group A = Perc-Using Facilities Modeled with SCREEN3 (N=29) (continued)
A-87 3 

## Dealership 152 0.9 to 1.5 <0.01 <0.01
A-88 3 

## General Automotive 12 8.9 to 22 <0.2 <0.2
A-89 3 

## General Automotive 76 0.7 to 1.1 <0.01 <0.01
A-90 3,4 

## Service Station 14 >6.0 to >8.7 <0.35 

## <0.055


## A-93 3,4 

## General Automotive 8 >10 to >15 <0.085 

## <0.085


## A-94 3 

## Service Station 23 1.4 to 2.1 <0.04 <0.02

Group B = Multicomponent-Using Facilities Modeled with SCREEN3 6

## (N=12)
D Service Station 152 1.6 <0.01 <0.01
G Fleet 398 1.2 <0.01 <0.01
M Dealership 20 35 <0.08 <0.2
S Brake Shop 460 0.2 <0.01 <0.01
A-20 General Automotive 46 8.1 <0.02 <0.04
A-39 General Automotive 46 3.8 <0.01 <0.02
A-49 General Automotive 30 5.6 <0.06 <0.03
A-63 General Automotive 2414 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
A-71 General Automotive 30 0.8 <0.04 <0.01
A-72 General Automotive 53 0.8 <0.05 <0.01
A-82 General Automotive 37 8.9 <0.02 <0.05
A-85 General Automotive 30 23 <0.08 <0.2

Group C = Perc-Using Facilities Modeled with ISCST3 (N=13)
A-07 3 

## General Automotive 27 13 to 19 <0.03 <0.1
A-08 3 

## General Automotive 27 7.8 to 11 <0.02 <0.06
A-09 3 

## General Automotive 25 41 to 60 <0.02 <0.3
A-28 3 

## Fleet 83 0.9 to 1.4 <0.01 <0.01

# VI-21

Table VI-4. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at the Maximum Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR) from the Specific Facilities (continued) 1



## Facility (n=54) Facility Type Receptor Distance 2 

## (meters) Individual

Cancer Risk (per million) Acute Hazard Index Chronic Hazard

Index
Group C = Perc-Using Facilities Modeled with ISCST3 (N=13) (continued)
A-52 3 

## General Automotive 42 2.8 to 3.0 <0.04 <0.02
A-83 3 

## General Automotive 30 9.7 to 14 <0.02 <0.07
A-86 3 

## Dealership 141 1.3 to 2.2 <0.01 <0.02
A-92 3 

## Service Station 54 0.3 to 0.5 <0.02 <0.01
I 3 

## Fleet 146 1.8 to 2.6 <0.01 <0.02
O 3 

## General Automotive 92 0.05 to 0.07 <0.04 <0.01
P 3 

## Brake Shop 37 0.2 to 0.3 <0.01 <0.01
T General Automotive 27 13 <0.01 <0.07
U 3 

## General Automotive 27 19 to 28 <0.02 <0.2 1. All numbers have been rounded. 2. The distance listed here is the estimated distance away from the outside edge of the building to the MEIR. 3. These facilities use a Perc-containing brake cleaner which shows a Perc-content range on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS); therefore, a range is presented for the potential cancer risk. 4. The MEIR is located closer than 20 meters to the center of the volume source, which is the minimum distance modeled; therefore, the potential health impacts are likely to be greater than those listed here. The impacts shown here are at the near-source location of 20 to 51 meters. 5. The MEIR is located within 20 to 30 meters of the center of the volume source, which is the minimum distance modeled; therefore, the potential health impacts are likely to be greater than those listed here. However, we do not anticipate the impacts to be higher than a hazard index of 1. 6. These facilities use products with multicomponent formulations of Perc/MeCl or Perc/TCE.



# c. Potential Health Impacts at the MEIW for the Specific Facilities Table VI-5 summarizes the potential cancer and non-cancer health impacts at the maximum exposed individual (off-site) worker (MEIW). The MEIW is defined as the off-site industrial or commercial location that receives the estimated maximum exposure from a facility’s emissions relative to other industrial or commercial locations. Overall, Table VI-5 shows the MEIW potential carcinogenic risk range is from 0.02 to 23 chances per million. Non-cancer acute and chronic hazard indices are less than 0.3 at near-source location. Generally, hazard indices less than 1.0 are not considered to be a concern

# VI-22

to public health. An example calculation is presented in Appendix C that illustrates how a facility’s potential health impacts were assessed. This example shows emission calculations, steps through the air dispersion modeling, and concludes with a calculation of potential health impacts. The distance to the MEIW at these facilities was estimated to range from 3 to 483 meters. Using guidance from OEHHA, the exposure period of an off-site worker was adjusted to allow for a shorter working lifetime and a shorter operating schedule. This first adjustment is made to allow for a shorter working lifetime, 46 years, rather than a 70-year exposure lifetime which is assumed for residential exposure. The second adjustment which allows for operating schedules is appropriate only when the operating schedule of the off-site facility does not coincide with, or is shorter than, that of the facility being assessed (OEHHA, 1997). Table VI-5. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at the Maximum Exposed Individual (Off-site) Worker (MEIW) from the Specific Facilities 1



## Facility (n=54) Facility Type Receptor Distance 2 

## (meters) Individual

Cancer Risk 3 

## (per million) Acute Hazard Index Chronic Hazard

Index
Group A = Perc-Using Facilities Modeled with SCREEN3 (N=29)
E 4 

## Service Station 36 0.4 to 0.6 <0.03 <0.01
H 4 

## Fleet 302 0.02 to 0.03 <0.01 <0.01
L 4 

## Service Station 27 1.4 to 2.0 <0.08 <0.03
N Dealership 110 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 Q 4 

## General Automotive 61 5.3 to 7.7 <0.07 <0.07
R 4 

## General Automotive 30 10 to 15 <0.03 <0.2
V 5 

## Brake Shop 18 0.2 <0.01 <0.01
A-13 4 

## General Automotive 18 0.03 to 0.04 <0.01 <0.01
A-14 4,5 

## General Automotive 6 >0.3 to >0.5 <0.03 6 

## <0.01 6


## A-15 4 

## General Automotive 30 0.5 to 0.7 <0.03 <0.01
A-16 4 

## General Automotive 30 0.8 to 1.2 <0.01 <0.02
A-21 4 

## Brake Shop 12 1.4 to 1.9 <0.03 <0.03
A-29 4 

## Fleet 322 0.3 to 0.4 <0.01 <0.01

# VI-23

Table VI-5. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at the Maximum Exposed Individual (Off-site) Worker (MEIW) from the Specific Facilities (continued) 1



## Facility (n=54) Facility Type Receptor Distance 2 

## (meters) Individual

Cancer Risk 3 

## (per million) Acute Hazard Index Chronic Hazard

Index
Group A = Perc-Using Facilities Modeled with SCREEN3 (N=29) (continued)
A-30 4 

## Fleet 483 0.03 to 0.09 <0.01 <0.01
A-31 4,5 

## General Automotive 6 >4.9 to >7.1 <0.02 6 

## <0.08 6


## A-32 4 

## General Automotive 17 0.3 to 0.5 <0.03 <0.01
A-35 4 

## Brake Shop 15 1.7 to 2.5 <0.2 <0.03
A-36 4 

## Dealership 76 2.2 to 3.1 <0.02 <0.04
A-50 4 

## General Automotive 15 2.9 to 4.1 <0.08 <0.05
A-51 4,5 

## General Automotive 6 >2.0 to >2.2 <0.2 6 

## <0.03 6


## A-54 4,5 

## General Automotive 15 >4.3 to >6.2 <0.09 6 

## <0.07 6


## A-73 4 

## General Automotive 15 7.7 to 8.8 <0.04 <0.08
A-84 5 

## General Automotive 9 >7.9 <0.09 6 

## <0.2 6


## A-87 4 

## Dealership 46 2.1 to 3.5 <0.01 <0.04
A-88 4 

## General Automotive 23 2.9 to 7.2 <0.2 <0.08
A-89 4 

## General Automotive 24 1.4 to 2.0 <0.01 <0.02
A-90 4,5 

## Service Station 15 >3.1 to >4.4 <0.3 6 

## <0.05 6


## A-93 4 

## General Automotive 30 2.3 to 3.3 <0.05 <0.04
A-94 4,5 

## Service Station 9 >1.1 to >1.6 <0.04 6 

## <0.02 6



## Group B = Multicomponent-Using Facilities Modeled with SCREEN3 7

## (N=12)
D Service Station 32 3.7 <0.04 <0.04
G Fleet 28 8.7 <0.03 <0.08
M Dealership 15 23 <0.09 <0.2
S Brake Shop 41 2.8 <0.01 <0.03
A-20 General Automotive 49 3.3 <0.02 <0.04
A-39 General Automotive 23 2.6 <0.01 <0.03
A-49 5 

## General Automotive 6 >5.8 <0.09 6 

## <0.06 6


## A-63 5 

## General Automotive 3 >0.6 <0.04 6 

## <0.01 6

# VI-24

Table VI-5. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at the Maximum Exposed Individual (Off-site) Worker (MEIW) from the Specific Facilities (continued)1



## Facility (n=54) Facility Type Receptor Distance 2 

## (meters) Individual

Cancer Risk 3 

## (per million) Acute Hazard Index Chronic Hazard

Index
Group B = Multicomponent-Using Facilities Modeled with SCREEN3 7

## (N=12) (continued)
A-71 5 

## General Automotive 15 >0.8 <0.06 6 

## <0.01 6


## A-72 General Automotive 21 1.1 <0.09 <0.01
A-82 General Automotive 37 3.7 <0.02 <0.05
A-85 5 

## General Automotive 8 >21 <0.2 6 

## <0.3 6



## Group C = Perc-Using Facilities Modeled with ISCST3 (N=13)
A-07 4 

## General Automotive 46 2.3 to 3.4 <0.02 <0.04
A-08 4 

## General Automotive 27 7.9 to 11 <0.02 <0.2
A-09 4 

## General Automotive 25 4.6 to 6.7 <0.02 <0.08
A-28 4 

## Fleet 122 0.3 to 0.4 <0.01 <0.02
A-52 4 

## General Automotive 28 4.5 to 4.9 <0.03 <0.06
A-83 4 

## General Automotive 27 4.3 to 6.2 <0.02 <0.07
A-86 4 

## Dealership 151 0.3 to 0.6 <0.01 <0.01
A-92 4 

## Service Station 28 1.4 to 2.0 <0.05 <0.02
I 4 

## Fleet 84 1.1 to 1.6 <0.02 <0.03
O 4 

## General Automotive 24 2.3 to 3.3 <0.2 <0.03
P 4 

## Brake Shop 27 0.7 to 1.0 <0.01 <0.02
T General Automotive 27 5.7 <0.01 <0.07
U 4 

## General Automotive 27 2.9 to 4.2 <0.01 <0.05 1. All numbers have been rounded. 2. The distance listed here is the estimated distance from the outside edge of the building to the MEIW. 3. Where appropriate, the potential risk estimates are adjusted for a working lifetime of 46 years and to allow for an operating schedule at an off-site facility that does not coincide with, or is shorter than, that of the facility being assessed. 4. These facilities use a Perc-containing brake cleaner which shows a Perc-content range on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS); therefore, a range is presented for the potential cancer risk. 5. The MEIW is located closer than 20 to 51 meters to the center of the volume source, which is the minimum distance modeled; therefore, the potential health impacts are likely to be greater than those listed here. The impacts shown here are at the near-source location of 20 to 51 meters. 6. The MEIW is located within 20 to 30 meters of the center of the volume source, which is the minimum distance modeled; therefore, the potential health impacts are likely to be greater than those listed here. However, we do not anticipate the impacts to be higher than a hazard index of 1. 7. These facilities use products with multicomponent formulations of Perc/MeCl or Perc/TCE.

# VI-25

2. Regional Cancer Risk from Specific Facilities For the 13 specific facilities that were modeled using representative off-site meteorological data and the ISCST3 model, ARB staff has also estimated the potential regional cancer risk on the population surrounding each facility. Regional population exposure to Perc, MeCl, and TCE concentrations from each of the 13 specific facilities was estimated by spatially matching regional population census data collected from the Department of Finance (DOF) and the ISCST3 modeling results. To deal with limitations in the population data resolution, estimates of the high and low ranges of concentration were utilized in this analysis. These concentration estimates result in high and low potential cancer risk estimates. See Appendix D for a detailed presentation of the regional concentrations from the 13 specific facilities. Appendix C provides a more detailed discussion of the methodology and an example calculation that converts the modeled regional concentrations found in Appendix D to cancer risk estimates. Table VI-6 summarizes the data in Appendix D by providing, for each of the 13 specific facilities, the range of annual average concentrations anticipated over a one-kilometer grid-cell centered on each facility. This table also provides the range of corresponding potential cancer risk, the average one-kilometer grid-cell population, and the near source, MEIR, and MEIW individual potential cancer risk. The lower end of the concentration range at each facility provides an estimate of the average concentration that all of the receptors are exposed to within the one-kilometer grid-cell. The upper end of the concentration range illustrates the modeled maximum annual concentration that is anticipated near each facility where high concentration gradients may exist. Due to the resolution of the census data, we are unable to estimate the population exposed to the upper end of the concentration range; however, some of the populous are exposed at or near these concentrations due to the proximity of adjacent receptors as evidenced in the MEIR and MEIW analyses. Overall, Table VI-6 shows that the populous around the 13 specific facilities are exposed to a range of potential cancer risk of 0.006 to 60 chances per million. The range of individual cancer risk estimates are also included in Table VI-6 to put the one-kilometer grid-cell concentrations and risk into perspective with the individual cancer risk shown in Tables VI-2 to VI-5. As stated above, the near source, MEIR, and MEIW locations are indicativeof the upper range of the concentrations and potential cancer risk that is estimated within onekilometer of each of the 13 facilities. As mentioned prior, the spatial resolution of the population data is a limiting factor to this analysis. That is, model results indicate that ambient air concentrations rapidly decrease at distances farther than 100 meters from each facility or one-tenth of a grid-cell. Thus, the reported average concentration experienced within the central one-kilometer square grid-cell is lower that the average concentration experienced within a 100-meter radius of each facility. With the utilized population data and analysis tools, we are unable to quantify the populous living within 100 meters from each source, that will generally experience the higher concentrations. Use of more highly resolved population data, land-use data, and parcel maps

# VI-26

could refine such estimates. Improvements in the availability of digitized census information down to the block level (e.g., 70 to 100 persons) in a Geographic Information System (GIS) format is key to improving the estimation of regional or near field population exposure estimates. In addition to the digitized block level census data, digitized parcel or land use data and high resolution street maps in a GIS format are other key requirements for improving these estimates. Table VI-6. Summary of the Potential Regional Population and Individual Cancer Risk for the Thirteen Specific Facilities Modeled with ISCST3 1,2



## Facility (n=13) Range Of Facility 3



## Specific Annual Average Conc. In One-Kilometer Grid-Cell (ug/m3) Range Of

Cancer Risk In One-Kilometer Grid-Cell (chances per million) 1998

Average Population Within One-Kilometer Grid-Cell Individual Cancer Risk

(chances per million)

Near Source Maximum

Exposed Resident Maximum

Exposed Worker 4


## A-07 4.7 E-3 to 3.3 0.03 to 19 5,843 19 19 3.4
A-08 9.3 E-3 to 7.0 0.05 to 41 5,628 41 11 11
A-09 6.4 E-2 to 10.1 0.4 to 60 2,155 60 60 6.7
A-28 1.0 E-2 to 3.0 0.06 to 18 2,501 18 1.4 0.4
A-52 3.3 E-3 to 1.8 0.02 to 11 3,971 11 3.0 4.9
A-83 2.5 E-2 to 3.0 0.1 to 18 732 18 14 6.2
A-86 9.1 E-3 to 2.2 0.05 to 13 1,845 13 2.2 0.6
A-92 9.8 E-4 to 0.8 0.006 to 4.7 3,399 4.7 0.5 2.0
I 5.8 E-2 to 2.7 0.3 to 16 1,408 16 2.6 1.6
O 1.0 E-2 to 1.1 0.06 to 6.6 1,930 6.6 0.07 3.3
P 4.6 E-3 to 0.6 0.03 to 3.3 2,369 3.3 0.3 1.0
T 4.2 E-3 to 2.5 0.02 to 15 6,603 15 13 5.7
U 2.4 E-2 to 4.7 0.1 to 28 3,683 28 28 4.2 1. All numbers have been rounded. 2. The higher end of the Perc-content range was used for facilities that use Perc-containing automotive products that show a Perc-content range on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). 3. Column entries derived by multiplying the unit emission rate concentrations presented in Appendix C by the upper Perc-content range facility specific emissions rate presented in Table D-17 of Appendix D. 4. Where appropriate, the potential risk estimates are adjusted for a working lifetime of 46 years and to allow for an operating schedule at an off-site facility that does not coincide with, or is shorter than, that of the facility being assessed.

# VI-27

3. Potential Individual Health Impacts from Generic Facilities In addition to assessing the potential health impacts at the 54 specific facilities, ARB staff also conducted an HRA for three representative generic facilities (G-01, G-02, and G-03). These generic facilities were established utilizing the information from the 137 site visits, discussions with industry representatives, and two surveys that targeted AMR facilities and products manufacturers. The characteristics of the generic facilities represent the range of characteristics exhibited by the research of actual facilities and allow for the reasonable approximation of health impacts statewide. The generic facility assessments were run with the ISCST3 air dispersion model and the resulting concentrations were used to estimate individual receptor potential cancer and non-cancer health impacts. The three generic facilities are modeled using ten representative off-site meteorological data sets and also were evaluated with default meteorological conditions to simulate a location where regional meteorological data was not available. These ten meteorological data sets are the same as those used for 13 of the site-specific facilities (group c) in exercise one and all facilities in exercise two. See Appendix F for a discussion outlining how the generic facilities were defined and Appendix D for a list of the meteorologic data sets. Appendix C provides an example calculation illustrating how modeled concentrations are used to estimate potential cancer and non-cancer health impacts. In addition to evaluating these generic facilities for the use of brake cleaning products, estimates of the potential health impacts from the use of engine degreasers, carburetor-choke cleaner, and general degreasers were also completed. Section four of Appendix D includes a detailed presentation of the modeled concentrations from the three generic facilities using all four types of automotive consumer products. Appendix F outlines the emissions, usage, and content assumptions that were used for the three other product categories. The inputs for the generic modeling are listed in Appendix D.
Tables VI-7 and VI-8 provide an overview of the potential health impacts from the three generic facility HRAs using Perc-containing brake cleaners. These tables show the range of cancer and non-cancer health impacts at the minimum modeled distance using representative off-site meteorological data and default conditions, respectively. We are summarizing the health impacts from Perc-only brake products in Tables VI-7 and VI-8, rather than other formulations, because the health impacts of this formulation exhibit the highest potential health impacts. The purpose of showing these health impacts at these receptor distances is because receptors do reside in close proximity to AMR facilities. During the 137 site visits, ARB staff observed that receptors are present within 51 meters at 87 of the AMR facilities. For a breakdown of the number of facilities with residential and worker receptors within 20, 30, 50 and 100 meters that were observed during the site visits see Table V-12.

# VI-28

Table VI-7 shows that the potential carcinogenic risk for a near source, residential receptor over all ten representative off-site meteorological sets range from approximately 18 to 64 chances per million at the smallest facility (G-01). The middle facility (G-02) potential near-source, residential receptor cancer risk ranges from 28 to 110 chances per million and at the largest facility (G-03), the near-source, residential receptor cancer risk ranges from 15 to 50 chances per million. Note, however, that modeled concentrations and potential risk could be either higher or lower depending on the actual building orientation and regional location. See Appendix D for a sensitivity analysis discussion illustrating the effects of building orientation under default meteorological conditions. Table VI-8 which presents the results using default meteorology, shows the facility G-01 near-source, residential receptor cancer risk ranges from 61 to 89 chances per million, facility G-02 near-source, residential receptor cancer risk ranges from 86 to 125 chances per million, and at facility G-03, the residential receptor cancer risk ranges from 38 to 56 chances per million. Regarding non-cancer impacts from the generic facilities, the modeling results and hazard index estimates in Tables VI-7 and VI-8 show that it is unlikely for significant acute or chronic non-cancer health effects to result from the emissions of Perc-containing brake cleaners. Both the chronic and acute hazard indices are less than 0.6 at the minimum modeled distance. Generally, hazard indices less than 1.0 are not considered to be a concern to public health.

Table VI-7. Overview of the Potential Health Impacts for the Three Generic Facilities Using Off-site Representative Meteorology 1



## Generic Facilities Rec.

Type 2 

## Distance

From Building Center 3 

## (m) Off-site Representative Meteorology 4



## Range of Cancer Risk 5 

## (x/million) Range of Acute

Hazard Indices Range of Chronic

Hazard Indices

G-01 Resident 20 18 to 64 <0.05 to <0.09 <0.09 to <0.4

Worker 7.6 to 27

G-02 Resident 20 28 to 110 <0.04 to <0.08 <0.2 to <0.6

Worker 12 to 47

G-03 Resident 30 15 to 50 <0.02 to <0.03 <0.08 to <0.3

Worker 6.3 to 21 1. All numbers have been rounded. 2. Where appropriate, the potential risk estimates are adjusted for a working lifetime of 46 years and to allow for an operating schedule at an off-site facility that does not coincide with, or is shorter than, that of the facility being assessed. 3. The distance listed is the estimated distance from the center of the facility to the receptor. 4. Annual average and maximum hourly concentrations for all ten meteorological sets are listed in Appendix D. 5. The range reflects two common Perc concentrations observed in specific facility modeling.

# VI-29 Table VI-8. Overview of the Potential Health Impacts for the Three Generic Facilities Using Default Meteorology 1



## Generic Facilities Rec.

Type 2 

## Distance

From Building Edge 3 

## (m) Default Conditions 4



## Range of Cancer Risk 5 

## (x/million) Range of Acute

Hazard Indices Range of Chronic

Hazard Indices

G-01 Resident 20 61 to 89 <0.06 to <0.08 <0.3 to <0.5

Worker 26 to 38

G-02 Resident 20 86 to 125 <0.06 to <0.08 <0.5 to <0.6

Worker 36 to 53

G-03 Resident 30 38 to 56 <0.03 to <0.04 <0.3 to <0.4

Worker 16 to 24 1. All numbers have been rounded. 2. Where appropriate, the potential risk estimates are adjusted for a working lifetime of 46 years and to allow for an operating schedule at an off-site facility that does not coincide with, or is shorter than, that of the facility being assessed. 3. The distance listed is the estimated distance from the edge of the facility to the receptor. 4. Meteorological conditions were taken from the SCREEN3 model. See Appendix D for more modeling information. 5. The range reflects two common Perc concentrations observed in specific facility modeling.



# Tables VI-9 to VI-11 present the individual cancer and non-cancer (acute and chronic) potential health impacts for the three generic facilities using three specific meteorological data sets that span the range of modeled concentrations. These three regional meteorological data sets are for Oakland, Burbank, and Anaheim. These three locations provide a lower, medium, and higher concentrations, respectively. To select these three meteorological data sets, we evaluated the annual concentrations from all ten meteorological data sets. All concentrations and resulting potential health impacts are provided for all ten meteorological data sets in Appendix D. Table VI-12 presents the potential health impacts for the three generic facilities using default meteorological conditions. Tables VI-9 to VI-12 also summarize the maximum potential health impacts from the three generic facilities using all four categories of automotive consumer products under the four different meteorological data sets described above. As described above, and in more detail in Chapter 4, the four product categories are brake cleaners, carburetor-choke cleaners, engine degreasers, and general degreasers. In addition to including the total maximum potential health impacts from the four different product categories, we also are presenting four constituent

# VI-30

formulations of brake cleaning products. The four brake cleaner constituent formulations used for this HRA are a Perc-only product (94%), Perc/MeCl (55%/25%), Perc/MeCl/TCE (40%/30%/20%), and Perc/TCE (55%/43%). These are identified in Tables VI-9 to VI-12 as formulations A, B, C, and D. Formulations A’, B’, C’, and D’ include the brake cleaner that is identified by the same letter (e.g., A’ corresponds to A) and include the three other product categories. Overall, Tables VI-9 to VI-12 show that none of the generic facilities, regardless of the brake cleaner formulation or the inclusion of all four product categories, present hazard indices greater than 0.6. Generally, hazard indices less than 1.0 are not considered to be a concern to public health. Table VI-9 lists the results from generic facilities using the Anaheim meteorological data, brake cleaners of various formulations, and include the results from the use of all four product categories. Table VI-9 shows potential carcinogenic risk for a potential near-source, residential receptor range from approximately 35 to 68 chances per million at the smallest facility (G-01). The middle facility (G-02) potential near-source, residential receptor cancer risk ranges from 61 to 112 chances per million and at the largest facility (G-03), the near source, residential receptor cancer risk ranges from 28 to 52 chances per million. Table VI-10 lists the results from generic facilities using the Burbank meteorological data, brake cleaners of various formulations, and include the results from the use of all four product categories. Table VI-10 shows potential carcinogenic risk for a potential near-source, residential receptor range from approximately 26 to 52 chances per million at the smallest facility (G-01). The middle facility (G-02) potential near-source, residential receptor cancer risk ranges from 47 to 88 chances per million and at the largest facility (G-03), the near source, residential receptor cancer risk ranges from 19 to 38 chances per million. Table VI-11 lists the results from generic facilities using the Oakland meteorological data, brake cleaners of various formulations, and include the results from the use of all four product categories. Table VI-11 shows potential carcinogenic risk for a potential near-source, residential receptor range from approximately 15 to 31 chances per million at the smallest facility (G-01). The middle facility (G-02) potential near-source, residential receptor cancer risk ranges from 23 to 45 chances per million and at the largest facility (G-03), the near source, residential receptor cancer risk ranges from 12 to 23 chances per million. Table VI-12 lists the results from generic facilities using default meteorological data, brake cleaners of various formulations, and include the results from the use of all four product categories. Table VI-12 shows potential carcinogenic impacts for a potential near-source, residential receptor range from approximately 49 to 100 chances per million at the smallest facility (G-01). The middle facility (G-02) potential near-source, residential receptor cancer risk ranges from 69 to 130 chances per million and at the largest facility (G-03), the near source, residential receptor cancer risk ranges from 31 to 59 chances per million.

# VI-31

Tables VI-13 and VI-14 itemize the individual product and total potential risk contributions from carburetor-choke cleaners, engine degreasers, and general degreasers under an average meteorological data set and under default conditions, respectively. The average meteorological data set was derived by averaging the modeled concentrations at each receptor distance for all ten representative off-site meteorological sets listed in Appendix D. See Appendix D for a detailed presentation of all modeling results. The emissions, use, and formulation assumptions used for the three product categories are discussed in Appendix F. Table VI-13 shows the individual product and total potential near-source, residential cancer risk for all three generic facilities using the average meteorological data for the three product categories (i.e., carburetor-choke cleaners, engine degreasers, and general degreasers) range from 1.2 to 4.4 chances per million. The non-cancer hazard indices for both acute and chronic impacts are less than 0.1. The results from Table VI-13 are used with all regional meteorological data sets and are included in Tables VI-9 to VI-11 for the A’, B’, C’, and D’ formulation potential health impacts. Table VI-14 shows the individual product and total potential near-source, residential cancer risk at all three generic facilities using the default meteorological data for the three product categories (i.e., carburetor-choke cleaners, engine degreasers, and general degreasers) ranges from 2.3 to 11 chances per million. The non-cancer hazard indices for both acute and chronic impacts are less than 0.1. The results presented in Table VI-14 are used with default meteorological conditions; therefore, they are included in Table VI-12 for the A’, B’, C’, and D’ formulation potential health impacts.

# VI-32

Table VI-9. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at Various Distances for Three Generic Facilities Using Four Different Brake Product Formulations and Four Product Categories at the Meteorological Site Yielding the Highest Concentrations (Anaheim) 1,2



## Fac. Type Formulations Potential Cancer Risk (chances per million) 3,4 

## Hazard Index 5


## 20 Meters 6 

## 30 Meters 40 Meters 100 Meters 20 Meters 20 Meters Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Acute Chronic

G-01 A7 

## 64 27 34 14 21 8.9 4.0 1.7 <0.09 <0.4

A’ 8 

## 68 29 36 15 22 9.5 4.3 1.8 <0.2 <0.4
B9 

## 40 17 21 9.1 13 5.6 2.5 1.1 <0.09 <0.2
B’ 8 

## 44 19 24 10 15 6.2 2.8 1.2 <0.2 <0.2
C10 

## 35 15 19 7.9 12 4.9 2.2 0.9 <0.08 <0.2
C’ 8 

## 40 17 21 8.9 13 5.5 2.5 1.1 <0.2 <0.2
D 11 

## 47 20 25 11 15 6.6 3.0 1.3 <0.06 <0.2
D’ 8 

## 52 22 27 12 17 7.2 3.3 1.4 <0.1 <0.2

G-02 A7 

## 110 47 84 36 54 23 11 4.8 <0.08 <0.6

A’ 8 

## 112 48 86 37 56 24 12 4.9 <0.1 <0.6
B9 

## 69 29 53 23 34 15 7.1 3.0 <0.08 <0.4
B’ 8 

## 72 31 55 24 36 15 7.4 3.2 <0.1 <0.4
C10 

## 61 26 47 20 30 13 6.2 2.7 <0.07 <0.3
C’ 8 

## 63 27 49 21 31 13 6.5 2.8 <0.09 <0.3
D 11 

## 81 35 63 27 40 17 8.4 3.6 <0.05 <0.4
D’ 8 

## 84 36 65 27 42 18 8.6 3.7 <0.07 <0.4

# VI-33

Table VI-9. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at Various Distances for Three Generic Facilities Using Four Different Brake Product Formulations and Four Product Categories at the Meteorological Site Yielding the Highest Concentrations (Anaheim) (continued) 1,2



## Fac. Type Formulations Potential Cancer Risk (chances per million) 3,4 

## Hazard Index 5


## 20 Meters6 

## 30 Meters 40 Meters 100 Meters 30 Meters 30 Meters Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Acute Chronic

G-03 A 7



## -- -- 50 21 39 17 12 5.1 <0.03 <0.3

A’ 8



## -- -- 52 22 40 17 12 5.2 <0.04 <0.3
B9



## -- -- 32 14 25 11 7.5 3.2 <0.03 <0.2
B’ 8



## -- -- 33 14 26 11 7.8 3.3 <0.04 <0.2
C10



## -- -- 28 12 22 9.2 6.6 2.8 <0.03 <0.2
C’ 8



## -- -- 29 12 23 9.6 6.8 2.9 <0.04 <0.2
D 11



## -- -- 37 16 29 12 8.8 3.7 <0.02 <0.2
D’ 8



## -- -- 39 16 30 13 9.1 3.9 <0.03 <0.2 1. All numbers have been rounded. 2. Annual average concentrations for all ten meteorological sets listed in Appendix D were used to determine which meteorological site is presented in this table. The meteorological site that yields the smallest, medium, and largest concentrations may be different when evaluating acute rather than chronic concentrations. We selected meteorological sets based on chronic concentrations since these potentially provide the most significant health impacts. 3. The distance listed is the estimated distance from the center of the facility to the receptor. 4. Where appropriate, the potential risk estimates are adjusted for a working lifetime of 46 years and to allow for an operating schedule at an off-site facility that does not coincide with, or is shorter than, that of the facility being assessed. 5. Hazard index listed here are the highest found for this facility in this meteorological data set. Facility G-03 was at 30 meters. 6. Results are not available for G-03 facilities since the minimum modeled distance is 30 meters. 7. Formulation A is a Perc brake cleaner with 94% Perc by weight. 8. Formulations A’, B’ ,C’, and D’ include the brake cleaner used in the corresponding letter (e.g., A’ corresponds to brake cleaner A) plus the use of carburetor-choke cleaner (CC), engine degreaser (ED), and general degreaser (GD) were modeled with average meteorological data. The health impacts for CC, ED, and GD were derived at each receptor distance using the average concentrations from all ten meteorological sites. See Table VI-12 for the potential health impacts from each individual product type and Appendix D for a detailed presentation of all modeling results. 9. Formulation B is a Perc/MeCl brake cleaner with a 55% and 25% by weight Perc and MeCl content, respectively. 10. Formulation C is a Perc/MeCl/TCE brake cleaner with a 40%, 30%, and 20% by weight Perc, MeCl, and TCE content, respectively. 11. Formulation D is a Perc/TCE brake cleaner with a 55% and 43% by weight Perc and TCE content, respectively.

# VI-34

Table VI-10. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at Various Distances for Three Generic Facilities Using Four Different Brake Product Formulations and Four Product Categories at the Meteorological Site Yielding Middle Range Concentrations (Burbank) 1,2



## Fac. Type Formulations Potential Cancer Risk (chances per million) 3,4 

## Hazard Index 5


## 20 Meters6 

## 30 Meters 40 Meters 100 Meters 20 Meters 20 Meters Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Acute Chronic

G-01 A7 

## 47 20 25 11 16 6.6 3.0 1.3 <0.09 <0.3

A’ 8 

## 52 22 28 12 17 7.3 3.3 1.4 <0.2 <0.3
B9 

## 30 13 16 6.8 9.8 4.2 1.9 0.8 <0.09 <0.2
B’ 8 

## 34 15 18 7.8 11 4.8 2.2 0.9 <0.2 <0.2
C10 

## 26 11 14 5.9 8.6 3.7 1.7 0.7 <0.08 <0.2
C’ 8 

## 31 13 16 6.9 10 4.3 2.0 0.8 <0.2 <0.2
D 11 

## 35 15 19 7.9 12 4.9 2.3 1.0 <0.06 <0.2
D’ 8 

## 40 17 21 8.9 13 5.5 2.5 1.1 <0.1 <0.2

G-02 A7 

## 86 36 63 27 41 17 8.5 3.6 <0.08 <0.5

A’ 8 

## 88 38 65 28 42 18 8.8 3.7 <0.1 <0.5
B9 

## 54 23 40 17 26 11 5.4 2.3 <0.08 <0.3
B’ 8 

## 57 24 42 18 27 11 5.6 2.4 <0.1 <0.3
C10 

## 47 20 35 15 22 9.5 4.7 2.0 <0.07 <0.2
C’ 8 

## 50 21 37 16 24 10 5.0 2.1 <0.09 <0.2
D 11 

## 63 27 47 20 30 13 6.3 2.7 <0.05 <0.3
D’ 8 

## 66 28 49 21 31 13 6.6 2.8 <0.07 <0.3

# VI-35

Table VI-10. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at Various Distances for Three Generic Facilities Using Four Different Brake Product Formulations and Four Product Categories at the Meteorological Site Yielding Middle Range Concentrations (Burbank) (continued)1,2



## Fac. Type Formulations Potential Cancer Risk (chances per million) 3,4 

## Hazard Index 5


## 20 Meters6 

## 30 Meters 40 Meters 100 Meters 30 Meters 30 Meters Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Acute Chronic

G-03 A7



## -- -- 37 16 31 13 9.0 3.8 <0.03 <0.2

A’ 8



## -- -- 38 16 32 14 9.3 3.9 <0.04 <0.2
B9



## -- -- 23 9.9 20 8.4 5.7 2.4 <0.03 <0.2
B’ 8



## -- -- 24 10 21 8.8 6.0 2.5 <0.04 <0.2
C10



## -- -- 19 8.3 16 7.0 4.7 2.0 <0.03 <0.08
C’ 8



## -- -- 21 8.7 17 7.4 5.0 2.1 <0.04 <0.09
D 11



## -- -- 27 12 23 9.9 6.7 2.8 <0.02 <0.2
D’ 8



## -- -- 28 12 24 10 6.9 3.0 <0.03 <0.2 1. All numbers have been rounded. 2. Annual average concentrations for all ten meteorological sets listed in Appendix D were used to determine which meteorological site is presented in this table. The meteorological site that yields the smallest, medium, and largest concentrations may be different when evaluating acute rather than chronic concentrations. We selected meteorological sets based on chronic concentrations since these potentially provide the most significant health impacts. 3. The distance listed is the estimated distance from the center of the facility to the receptor. 4. Where appropriate, the potential risk estimates are adjusted for a working lifetime of 46 years and to allow for an operating schedule at an off-site facility that does not coincide with, or is shorter than, that of the facility being assessed. 5. Hazard index listed here are the highest found for this facility in this meteorological data set. Facility G-03 was at 30 meters. 6. Results are not available for G-03 facilities since the minimum modeled distance is 30 meters. 7. Formulation A is a Perc brake cleaner with 94% Perc by weight. 8. Formulations A’, B’ ,C’, and D’ include the brake cleaner used in the corresponding letter (e.g., A’ corresponds to brake cleaner A) plus the use of carburetor-choke cleaner (CC), engine degreaser (ED), and general degreaser (GD) were modeled with average meteorological data. The health impacts for CC, ED, and GD were derived at each receptor distance using the average concentrations from all ten meteorological sites. See Table VI-12 for the potential health impacts from each individual product type and Appendix D for a detailed presentation of all modeling results. 9. Formulation B is a Perc/MeCl brake cleaner with a 55% and 25% by weight Perc and MeCl content, respectively. 10. Formulation C is a Perc/MeCl/TCE brake cleaner with a 40%, 30%, and 20% by weight Perc, MeCl, and TCE content, respectively. 11. Formulation D is a Perc/TCE brake cleaner with a 55% and 43% by weight Perc and TCE content, respectively.

# VI-36

Table VI-11. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at Various Distances for Three Generic Facilities Using Four Different Brake Product Formulations and Four Product Categories at the Meteorological Site Yielding the Lowest Concentrations (Oakland) 1,2



## Fac. Type Formulations Potential Cancer Risk (chances per million) 3,4 

## Hazard Index 5


## 20 Meters6 

## 30 Meters 40 Meters 100 Meters 20 Meters 20 Meters Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Acute Chronic

G-01 A7 

## 27 11 14 6.1 8.9 3.8 1.8 0.75 <0.08 <0.2

A’ 8 

## 31 13 17 7.1 10 4.4 2.0 0.9 <0.2 <0.2
B9 

## 17 7.2 9.0 3.8 5.6 2.4 1.1 0.47 <0.08 <0.08
B’ 8 

## 21 9.0 11 4.9 7.0 3.0 1.4 0.6 <0.2 <0.09
C10 

## 15 6.3 7.9 3.4 4.9 2.1 1.0 0.4 <0.07 <0.06
C’ 8 

## 19 8.2 10 4.4 6.4 2.7 1.3 0.5 <0.2 <0.07
D 11 

## 20 8.4 11 4.5 6.6 2.8 1.3 0.6 <0.05 <0.08
D’ 8 

## 24 10 13 5.5 8.0 3.4 1.6 0.7 <0.09 <0.09

G-02 A7 

## 42 18 35 15 23 9.8 4.9 2.1 <0.07 <0.3

A’ 8 

## 45 19 37 16 24 10 5.2 2.2 <0.09 <0.3
B9 

## 27 11 22 9.5 15 6.2 3.1 1.3 <0.07 <0.2
B’ 8 

## 29 12 24 10 16 6.7 3.4 1.4 <0.09 <0.2
C10 

## 23 9.9 20 8.3 13 5.4 2.7 1.2 <0.06 <0.1
C’ 8 

## 26 11 21 9.1 14 6.0 3.0 1.3 <0.08 <0.1
D 11 

## 31 13 26 11 17 7.3 3.6 1.6 <0.04 <0.2
D’ 8 

## 34 14 28 12 18 7.8 3.9 1.7 <0.06 <0.2

# VI-37

Table VI-11. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at Various Distances for Three Generic Facilities Using Four Different Brake Product Formulations and Four Product Categories at the Meteorological Site Yielding the Lowest Concentrations (Oakland) (continued)1,2



## Fac. Type Formulations Potential Cancer Risk (chances per million) 3,4 

## Hazard Index 5


## 20 Meters6 

## 30 Meters 40 Meters 100 Meters 30 Meters 30 Meters Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Acute Chronic

G-03 A7



## -- -- 22 9.2 16 6.8 5.2 2.2 <0.03 <0.2

A’ 8



## -- -- 23 9.7 17 7.2 5.5 2.3 <0.03 <0.2
B9



## -- -- 14 5.8 10 4.3 3.3 1.4 <0.02 <0.2
B’ 8



## -- -- 15 6.3 11 4.7 3.6 1.5 <0.03 <0.2
C10



## -- -- 12 5.1 8.8 3.8 2.9 1.2 <0.02 <0.05
C’ 8



## -- -- 13 5.6 9.8 4.2 3.1 1.3 <0.03 <0.05
D 11



## -- -- 16 6.8 12 5.0 3.8 1.6 <0.02 <0.07
D’ 8



## -- -- 17 7.3 13 5.5 4.1 1.8 <0.02 <0.07 1. All numbers have been rounded. 2. Annual average concentrations for all ten meteorological sets listed in Appendix D were used to determine which meteorological site is presented in this table. The meteorological site that yields the smallest, medium, and largest concentrations may be different when evaluating acute rather than chronic concentrations. We selected meteorological sets based on chronic concentrations since these potentially provide the most significant health impacts. 3. The distance listed is the estimated distance from the center of the facility to the receptor. 4. Where appropriate, the potential risk estimates are adjusted for a working lifetime of 46 years and to allow for an operating schedule at an off-site facility that does not coincide with, or is shorter than, that of the facility being assessed. 5. Hazard index listed here are the highest found for this facility in this meteorological data set. Facility G-03 was at 30 meters. 6. Results are not available for G-03 facilities since the minimum modeled distance is 30 meters. 7. Formulation A is a Perc brake cleaner with 94% Perc by weight. 8. Formulations A’, B’ ,C’, and D’ include the brake cleaner used in the corresponding letter (e.g., A’ corresponds to brake cleaner A) plus the use of carburetor-choke cleaner (CC), engine degreaser (ED), and general degreaser (GD) were modeled with average meteorological data. The health impacts for CC, ED, and GD were derived at each receptor distance using the average concentrations from all ten meteorological sites. See Table VI-12 for the potential health impacts from each individual product type and Appendix D for a detailed presentation of all modeling results. 9. Formulation B is a Perc/MeCl brake cleaner with a 55% and 25% by weight Perc and MeCl content, respectively. 10. Formulation C is a Perc/MeCl/TCE brake cleaner with a 40%, 30%, and 20% by weight Perc, MeCl, and TCE content, respectively. 11. Formulation D is a Perc/TCE brake cleaner with a 55% and 43% by weight Perc and TCE content, respectively.

# VI-38

Table VI-12. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at Various Distances for Three Generic Facilities Using Four Different

Brake Product Formulations and Four Product Categories based on Default Meteorological Data 1,2



## Fac. Type Formulations Potential Cancer Risk (chances per million) 3,4 

## Hazard Index 5


## 20 Meters6 

## 30 Meters 40 Meters 100 Meters 20 Meters 20 Meters Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Acute Chronic

G-01 A7 

## 89 38 67 29 52 22 18 7.5 <0.08 <0.5

A’ 8 

## 100 43 75 32 58 25 20 8.4 <0.2 <0.5
B9 

## 56 24 42 18 33 14 11 4.7 <0.08 <0.3
B’ 8 

## 67 29 50 21 39 17 13 5.6 <0.2 <0.3
C10 

## 49 21 37 16 29 12 9.7 4.1 <0.08 <0.2
C’ 8 

## 60 26 45 19 35 15 12 5.0 <0.2 <0.3
D 11 

## 66 28 50 21 38 16 13 5.5 <0.05 <0.3
D’ 8 

## 77 33 58 25 45 19 15 6.4 <0.1 <0.3

G-02 A7 

## 125 53 103 44 86 37 38 16 <0.1 <0.7

A’ 8 

## 130 55 107 46 90 38 39 17 <0.1 <0.7
B9 

## 79 34 65 28 54 23 24 10 <0.08 <0.4
B’ 8 

## 84 36 69 29 58 25 25 11 <0.1 <0.4
C10 

## 69 29 57 24 48 20 21 8.8 <0.07 <0.3
C’ 8 

## 74 31 61 26 51 22 22 9.5 <0.09 <0.3
D 11 

## 92 39 76 32 64 27 28 12 <0.05 <0.4
D’ 8 

## 97 41 80 34 67 29 29 12 <0.07 <0.4

# VI-39

Table VI-12. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at Various Distances for Three Generic Facilities Using Four Different Brake Product Formulations and Four Product Categories based on Default Meteorological Data (continued)1,2



## Fac. Type Formulations Potential Cancer Risk (chances per million) 3,4 

## Hazard Index 5


## 20 Meters6 

## 30 Meters 40 Meters 100 Meters 30 Meters 30 Meters Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Acute Chronic

G-03 A7



## -- -- 56 24 49 21 26 11 <0.04 <0.3

A’ 8



## -- -- 59 25 51 22 27 11 <0.05 <0.3
B9



## -- -- 36 15 31 13 16 6.9 <0.04 <0.2
B’ 8



## -- -- 38 16 33 14 17 7.3 <0.05 <0.2
C10



## -- -- 31 13 27 12 14 6.0 <0.03 <0.2
C’ 8



## -- -- 33 14 29 12 15 6.5 <0.04 <0.2
D 11



## -- -- 42 18 37 16 19 8.1 <0.02 <0.2
D’ 8



## -- -- 44 19 39 16 20 8.5 <0.03 <0.2 1. All numbers have been rounded. 2. Meteorological data conditions from the SCREEN3 dispersion model were used in the ISCST3 model to determine the potential health impacts listed in this table. 3. The distance listed is the estimated distance from the edge of the facility to the receptor. The distance listed for facility G-03 is 30 meters. 4. Where appropriate, the potential risk estimates are adjusted for a working lifetime of 46 years and to allow for an operating schedule at an off-site facility that does not coincide with, or is shorter than, that of the facility being assessed. 5. Hazard indices listed here are the highest found for this facility in this meteorological data set. 6. Results are not available for G-03 facilities since the minimum modeled distance is 30 meters. 7. Formulation A is a Perc brake cleaner with 94% Perc by weight. 8. Formulations A’, B’ ,C’, and D’ include the brake cleaner used in the corresponding letter (e.g., A’ corresponds to brake cleaner A) plus the use of carburetor-choke cleaner (CC), engine degreaser (ED), and general degreaser (GD) were modeled with default meteorological data. The health impacts for CC, ED, and GD were derived at each receptor distance using the default meteorological data conditions from the SCREEN3 air dispersion model. See Table VI-13 for the potential health impacts from each individual product type and Appendix D for a detailed presentation of all modeling results. 9. Formulation B is a Perc/MeCl brake cleaner with a 55% and 25% by weight Perc and MeCl content, respectively. 10. Formulation C is a Perc/MeCl/TCE brake cleaner with a 40%, 30%, and 20% by weight Perc, MeCl, and TCE content, respectively. 11. Formulation D is a Perc/TCE brake cleaner with a 55% and 43% by weight Perc and TCE content, respectively.

# VI-40

Table VI-13. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at Various Distances for Three Generic Facilities Using Carburetor Cleaner, Engine Degreaser, and General Degreaser based on Average Meteorological Data 1,2



## Fac. Type Product

Category Potential Cancer Risk (chances per million) 3,4 

## Hazard Index 5



## 20 Meters6 

## 30 Meters 40 Meters 100 Meters 20 Meters 20 Meters Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Acute Chronic

G-01 CC7 

## 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 <0.03 <0.01

ED 7 

## 2.2 0.9 1.2 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.06 <0.02 <0.01
GD7 

## 1.5 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.04 <0.01 <0.01
Total 9 

## 4.4 1.9 2.4 1.0 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.1 <0.05 <0.01

G-02 CC7 

## 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.09 0.04 0.02 <0.02 <0.01

ED 7 

## 1.3 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.06 <0.01 <0.01
GD7 

## 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.09 0.04 <0.01 <0.01
Total 9 

## 2.6 1.1 2.0 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 <0.02 <0.01

G-03 CC7



## -- -- 0.2 0.08 0.2 0.07 0.05 0.02 <0.01 8 

## <0.01 8



## ED 7



## -- -- 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.06 <0.01 8 

## <0.01 8


## GD7



## -- -- 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.04 <0.01 8 

## <0.01 8


## Total 9



## -- -- 1.2 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 <0.01 8 

## <0.01 8 

### 1. All numbers have been rounded. 2. The modeled concentrations for all ten meteorological sets listed in Appendix D were averaged at each receptor distance to determine the concentrations that would be used to estimate the potential health impacts listed in this table. See Appendix D for a detailed presentation of all modeling results. The potential health impacts in this table were derived from emissions and use information contained in Appendix F. 3. The distance listed is the estimated distance from the center of the facility to the receptor. 4. Where appropriate, the potential risk estimates are adjusted for a working lifetime of 46 years and to allow for an operating schedule at an off-site facility that does not coincide with, or is shorter than, that of the facility being assessed. 5. Hazard indices listed here are the highest found for this facility for the averaged meteorological data set. 6. Results are not available for G-03 facilities since the minimum modeled distance is 30 meters. 7. CC means carburetor-choke cleaner; ED means engine degreaser; GD means general degreaser. 8. Receptor distance of 30 meters 9. The total potential health impacts from carburetor-choke cleaner (CC), engine degreaser (ED), and general degreaser (GD) at each receptor distance are used in Tables VI-8 to VI-10.

# VI-41

Table VI-14. Summary of the Potential Health Impacts at Various Distances for Three Generic Facilities Using Carburetor

Cleaner, Engine Degreaser, and General Degreaser based on Default Meteorological Data 1,2



## Fac. Type Product

Category Potential Cancer Risk (chances per million) 3,4 

## Hazard Index 5



## 20 Meters6 

## 30 Meters 40 Meters 100 Meters 20 Meters 20 Meters Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Resident Worker Acute Chronic

G-01 CC7 

## 1.8 0.8 1.3 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.2 <0.03 <0.01

ED 7 

## 5.3 2.3 4.0 1.7 3.1 1.3 1.0 0.4 <0.02 <0.02
GD7 

## 3.7 1.6 2.8 1.2 2.1 0.9 0.7 0.3 <0.01 <0.01
Total 9 

## 11 4.7 8.1 3.5 6.2 2.6 2.1 0.9 <0.05 <0.03

G-02 CC7 

## 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 <0.02 <0.01

ED 7 

## 2.5 1.1 2.0 0.9 1.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 <0.01 <0.01
GD7 

## 1.7 0.7 1.4 0.6 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 <0.01 <0.01
Total 9 

## 5.0 2.2 4.1 1.8 3.5 1.5 1.5 0.6 <0.03 <0.02

G-03 CC7



## -- -- 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.07 <0.01 8 

## <0.01 8



## ED 7



## -- -- 1.1 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.2 <0.01 8 

## <0.01 8


## GD7



## -- -- 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.2 <0.01 8 

## <0.01 8


## Total9



## -- -- 2.3 1.0 2.0 0.8 1.1 0.5 <0.01 8 

## <0.01 8 

### 1. All numbers have been rounded 2. Meteorological data conditions from the SCREEN3 dispersion model were used in the ISCST3 model to determine the potential health impacts listed in this table. See Appendix D for a detailed presentation of all modeling results. The potential health impacts listed in this table are based on the emissions and use information contained in Appendix F. 3. The distance listed is the estimated distance from the edge of the facility to the receptor. 4. Where appropriate, the potential risk estimates are adjusted for a working lifetime of 46 years and to allow for an operating schedule at an off-site facility that does not coincide with, or is shorter than, that of the facility being assessed. 5. Hazard indices listed here are the highest found for this facility for the default meteorological data set. 6. Results are not available for G-03 facilities since the minimum modeled distance is 30 meters. 7. CC means carburetor-choke cleaner; ED means engine degreaser; GD means general degreaser. 8. Receptor distance of 30 meters 9. The total potential health impacts from carburetor-choke cleaner (CC), engine degreaser (ED), and general degreaser (GD) are used in Table VI-11.

# VI-42

4. Statewide Exposure to Perc, MeCl, and TCE

a. Perchloroethylene Population-Weighted Exposure ARB staff conducted an analysis of the estimated statewide population-weighted exposure to Perc. To do this, ARB staff used data from ARB’s air toxics monitoring network and population data to obtain an estimated population-weighted Perc exposure. ARB staff chose Perc for this analysis because it is the highest contributor to ambient risk of the three compounds affected by this regulation. The statewide population-weighted exposure is based on ambient data collected by the ARB and population figures from the Department of Finance (DOF). The ambient air monitoring network is designed to obtain outdoor ambient background, non-source-influenced, concentration levels of air toxics from 21 ambient air toxics monitoring stations located statewide. The methodology used to complete the analysis of the population exposure estimate of Perc consists of two parts. The first part is an estimate of the Perc exposure in a given air basin, which yields an average exposure for each air basin that was analyzed. Due to data limitations, population exposure estimates were calculated differently for different air basins. Our analysis of the Perc exposure covers six air basins, and approximately 72 percent of the statewide population. The following Table VI-15 shows the estimated air basin population-weighted exposure for the six basins used in this analysis. For a complete discussion on the methodology used in this analysis see Appendix E. As shown in Table VI-15, on average, Perc exposure in the listed air basins has decreased about 50 percent since 1990 levels. There is insufficient data to quantify how the ambient reductions in Perc correspond to reductions in commercial and industrial Perc use. However, reductions in ambient levels of Perc are likely the result of regulations or programs such as the Dry Cleaning ATCM and voluntary modifications to work practices from sources using Perc due to the AB 2588 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program.

# VI-43

Table VI-15. Air Basin Population-Weighted Perchloroethylene Exposure

based on 1990 Census (ppb-year/person)1



## Air Basin 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
South Coast 0.590 0.542 0.430 0.472 0.410 0.392 0.330 0.264
South Central Coast 0.181 0.160 0.124 0.095 0.110 0.100 0.104 0.081 San Diego 0.280 0.261 0.262 0.193 0.204 0.244 0.133 0.124
San Francisco 0.196 0.223 0.158 0.124 0.082 0.091 0.068 0.071 San Joaquin Valley 0.121 0.131 0.105 0.410 0.067 0.070 0.064 0.056
Sacramento Valley 0.070 0.075 0.058 0.051 0.181 0.053 0.054 0.053
1. Only air basins with Perchloroethylene monitoring are included in this table. Air basin population-weighted exposure is calculated using mean of monthly means for all sites within basin. Population exposure units are a concentration for a given duration per person. For this analysis, the units are ppb-year/person.



# In the second part of the analysis, the overall statewide population-weighted exposure was calculated by multiplying the estimated annual average Perc exposure for a given air basin by its population, added across all basins, then divided by the total population of the State. Table VI-16 shows the estimated statewide population-weighted Perc exposure from 1990 to 1997. Table VI-16. Estimated Statewide Population-Weighted Perchloroethylene Exposure (ppb-year/person)1



## 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
0.382 0.362 0.290 0.322 0.262 0.251 0.203 0.168 1. Population exposure units are a concentration for a given duration per person. For this analysis, the units are ppb-year/person



# b. Statewide Exposure to MeCl and TCE To determine ambient concentrations of MeCl and TCE, ARB staff used the statewide average concentrations from ARB’s ambient toxics database. One limitation in using this data is that in many cases MeCl and TCE measurements are below the level of detection (LOD). In these cases, measured values are set to one-half the LOD. For example, over two-thirds of the MeCl measurements are below the LOD; therefore, the statewide average concentration is driven by one-half the LOD, rather than a true ambient mean. Table VI-17 shows the statewide average concentration for MeCl and TCE from 1990 to 1997.

# VI-44

Table VI-17. Statewide Average Concentration for MeCl and TCE (ppb)1



## Compound 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
MeCl 1.09 1.27 0.75 0.93 0.79 0.77 0.66 0.66
TCE 0.115 0.086 0.061 0.036 0.047 0.035 0.034 0.033 1. Used statewide average of monthly average. Data from ARB’s ambient toxics database.



# 5. Potential Reductions in Ambient Levels of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from the Proposed ATCM In addition to the risk reduction benefits for on-site workers and near-source receptors, we would expect a reduction in overall ambient levels of Perc, MeCl, and TCE. By reducing ambient levels of these compounds, overall statewide risk reduction benefits can be achieved. The potential decrease in ambient levels of Perc, MeCl, and TCE emitted by the four product categories can be estimated if we know their contribution to ambient levels. By estimating emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from the four product categories and dividing by total emissions respectively, we can estimate the percentage of Perc, MeCl, and TCE emissions attributed to the four product categories. Table V1-18 shows the reduction in ambient levels we would expect based on the proposed ATCM.

Table VI-18. Estimated Potential Reductions in Ambient Levels of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from the Proposed ATCM

Compound Percent Reduction in Ambient Levels1,2


## Perc 26
MeCl 5
TCE 37 1. Assumes emissions are proportional to ambient levels. 2. Inventory used to determine reduction in ambient levels does not include all sources of emissions; therefore, potential reduction may be slightly overestimated.



# a. Potential Reduction in Ambient Levels of Perc To estimate total statewide emissions of Perc we compiled data from ARB’s 1996 Air Toxic “Hot Spots” Emission Inventory (Hot Spots Inventory), ARB’s 1997 Consumer and Commercial Product Survey (Consumer Products Survey), ARB’s 1997 Aerosol Coatings Inventory, and dry cleaning emissions estimates. To estimate statewide emissions from dry cleaners we used projected post-regulation emissions from the “Technical Support Document:

# VI-45

Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure and Proposed Environmental Training Program for Perchloroethylene Operations, August 27, 1993” (Perc Dry Cleaning TSD) (ARB, 1993a). The Perc Dry Cleaning TSD estimated that dry cleaning emissions would be reduced by 78 percent from 1991 emissions to post-regulation emissions. The ATCM for Perc Dry Cleaning Operations required transfer and vented machines be phased out by October 1998; therefore, to represent 1997 emissions we assumed that approximately 75 percent of transfer and vented machines have been phased out and replaced by converted and closed loop machines. The assumptions used in Chapter 10 of the Perc Dry Cleaning TSD were used to determine that the 1991 estimate of 13.6 tons per day would be reduced to 4.7 tons per day for 1997. We estimated that approximately 16.3 tons per day of Perc are emitted from the sources in the Hot Spots Inventory, Consumer Products Inventory, 1997 Aerosol Coatings Inventory, and estimated dry cleaning emissions. We recognize that these inventories listed above do not include all sources of Perc. For example, degreasing operations not accounted for in the Hot Spots Inventory, could account for a significant contribution to overall Perc emissions. Therefore, this analysis may slightly underestimate total Perc emissions, thereby overestimating the potential ambient contribution from the four product categories. In the future, to allow us to better refine this analysis, ARB is currently in the process of completing an area source inventory for air toxics which will be available in 2000. Based on the Consumer Products Inventory, we determined that Perc emissions from the four product categories account for approximately 4.2 tons per day. If we assume that Perc emissions are directly proportional to ambient levels, then we would expect that ambient concentrations of Perc would be reduced by approximately 26 percent upon full implementation of the proposed ATCM.

b. Potential Reduction in Ambient Levels of MeCl and TCE. To estimate total statewide emissions of MeCl and TCE we compiled data from the Hot Spots Inventory, the Consumer Products Inventory, and the 1997 Aerosol Coatings Inventory. We recognize that these inventories do not include all sources of emissions of MeCl and TCE. For example, there may be some facilities that emit these compounds which were not included in the Hot Spots Inventory. Therefore, this analysis may slightly underestimate the total emissions of MeCl and TCE, thereby overestimating the potential contribution from the four product categories. We estimated that approximately 13.5 tons per day of MeCl and 0.8 tons per day of TCE are emitted from the sources in these inventories. To better refine this analysis, ARB is in the process of completing an area source inventory for air toxics which will be available in 2000. From the Consumer Products Inventory, we determined that MeCl emissions from the four product categories account for approximately 0.7 tons per day, while TCE accounts for approximately 0.3 tons per day. If we assume that MeCl emissions are directly proportional to

# VI-46

ambient levels, then we would expect that ambient concentrations of MeCl would be reduced by approximately 5 percent upon full implementation of the proposed ATCM. Additionally, if we assume that TCE emissions are directly proportional to ambient levels, then we would expect that ambient concentrations of TCE would be reduced by approximately 37 percent upon full implementation of the proposed ATCM.
F. Multipathway Health Risk Assessment In evaluating the potential health effects of a pollutant, it is important to identify the different manners by which an individual could be exposed to the pollutant. The pathways that can be included in an HRA, depend on the toxic air pollutants that a person (receptor) may be exposed to, and can include inhalation, dermal exposure, and the ingestion of soil, water, crops, fish, meat, milk, and eggs. For this HRA, we are evaluating the impacts for Perc, MeCl, and TCE via the breathing or inhalation pathway only. We are not evaluating other pathways of exposure because at this time OEHHA does not routinely use methods for assessing exposure to volatile compounds such as Perc, MeCl, and TCE by exposure routes other than inhalation. Such multiple exposure pathway (multipathway) assessments are traditionally used for lipophilic (fat loving), semivolatile, or low volatility compounds such as dioxins, polycyclic organic compounds (PAHs), or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (CAPCOA, 1993).

# VII - 1



# VII. THE PROPOSED CONTROL MEASURE AND ALTERNATIVES

In the previous two chapters we assessed emissions and potential risk from the use of automotive consumer products containing the toxic air contaminants (TACs) Perc, MeCl, or TCE at automotive maintenance and repair (AMR) facilities. Statewide, we estimated that each day AMR activities emit more than five tons of Perc, MeCl, and TCE to the atmosphere. This chapter describes and provides the basis for the proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities. Included in the basis for the proposed control measure is a discussion of the options that staff evaluated to remove chlorinated compounds from automotive consumer products. This chapter also describes alternatives to, and the technical feasibility of, the proposed control measure.
A. The Proposed Control Measure The proposed control measure would minimize emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from automotive maintenance and repair activities by regulating automotive consumer product content and usage. Specifically, the proposed control measure requires that aerosol and liquid brake cleaners, carburetor or fuel-injection air intake cleaners (carburetor cleaners), engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers sold or intended for sale in California not contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE. The proposed ATCM language provides for the detection limits of the prescribed test method by stating that a product is considered to contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE if it has one percent or more (by weight) of any of the three compounds Perc, MeCl, or TCE. This also addresses the issue of inadvertent contamination that may occur when manufacturers convert a production line from one product to another. The proposed ATCM also prohibits AMR facility owners and operators from using automotive consumer products that contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE in their facilities. The first action ensures that we address residential and off-road use of aerosol and liquid automotive consumer products containing chlorinated compounds and labeled as brake cleaners, carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers as well as commercial use in AMR facilities. The second action ensures that facility operators do not purchase bulk liquid containers of Perc, MeCl, and TCE with the express intent of using it in a spray bottle or compressed air sprayer. The proposed control measure would require the removal of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from any aerosol or liquid brake cleaner, carburetor cleaner, engine degreaser, or general purpose degreaser manufactured after December 31, 2002. Manufacturers would be provided an additional sell-through period of 18 months for chlorinated products manufactured prior to this date.

# VII - 2

Facility owners and operators would be provided an additional year from the end of the sell-through period (June 30, 2004) to deplete their inventories of chlorinated products. The proposed control measure would prohibit facility owners and operators from using chlorinated automotive consumer products in their facilities after June 30, 2005. To determine effective dates under the proposed ATCM, staff established dates consistent with some of the effective dates listed under the Consumer Products Regulation, as amended in October 1999 (ARB,1999b). For example, effective dates for brake cleaners and carburetor cleaners under the Consumer Products Regulation coincide with the December 31, 2002, effective date in the proposed ATCM. The effective date for aerosol general purpose degreasers is January 1, 2002, which is a year sooner that what is required by the proposed ATCM. Forthese categories, automotive consumer products manufactures would most likely conduct a onetime reformulation to comply with both the proposed ATCM and the Consumer Products Regulation. Although the December 31, 2002, effective dates in the proposed ATCM for engine degreasers and non-aerosol general purpose degreasers do not coincide with the Consumer Products Regulation, staff believes automotive consumer products manufactures will have sufficient time to reformulate to meet the December 31, 2002, effective date under the proposed ATCM. Additionally, most manufacturers already market products that comply with the proposed ATCM. Additionally, the 18-month sell-through period under the proposed ATCM would provide sufficient time for businesses to sell automotive consumer products, based on data provided in the Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products, Phase II, Technical Support Document, October 1991 (Phase II TSD). In surveys conducted under the Phase II TSD, the majority of businesses responded that most automotive consumer products are sold within one year (ARB, 1991b). Therefore, we have determined that an 18-month sell-through period is sufficient.
B. Basis For The Proposed Regulation California Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 39665(b) requires the Board to address the technological feasibility of proposed ATCMs. HSC section 39665(b) also requires the Board to address the “availability, suitability and relative efficacy” of substitute products of a less hazardous nature when proposing an ATCM. To evaluate the technological feasibility and availability of the proposed ATCM, staff determined the market share of substitute or alternative products. Staff determined suitability and efficacy by reviewing product labels and interviewing users of both the products for which the limit is proposed and the alternative products.
1. Best Available Control Technology In addition to the issues to be addressed under HSC section 39665(b), HSC section 39666 requires that any control measure for a TAC without a Board-specified threshold level be designed to reduce emissions to the lowest level achievable through the application of best

# VII - 3

available control technology (BACT) or a more effective control method. To determine BACT for automotive maintenance and repair activities for each of the four product categories under the proposed regulation, staff identified whether alternatives existed for a given product category, and then evaluated the availability, suitability, and effectiveness of the alternatives. In evaluating BACT, staff evaluated three options. The first scenario addressed removing Perc from brake cleaning products. In consideration of interchangeability of brake cleaning compounds, the second scenario would additionally remove MeCl and TCE from brake cleaners. Finally, in consideration of the interchangeability of automotive consumer products, the third scenario would remove Perc, MeCl, and TCE from not only brake cleaning products, but the three additional product categories: carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers. The following discussion addresses the HSC section 39665(b) requirements for each of the three scenarios.
2. Scenario 1 - Remove Perc from Brake Cleaning Products Information from the Manufacturer and Facility Surveys indicates that approximately two-thirds of brake cleaning products do not contain Perc. Additionally, the Facility Surveyindicates that more than 60 percent of the facilities that use brake cleaning products use nonchlorinated brake cleaning products (see Table VII-1). Thus, non-chlorinated products are considered to be technically feasible and available. We also found that, in almost all instances, manufacturers of Perc brake cleaning products also market a non-chlorinated product and make similar claims as to suitability on the product label (see Appendix H for examples of manufacturer efficacy claims). Finally, facility operators contacted during staff site visits and representatives of brake parts manufacturers (Raybestos and Federal-Mogul) indicated that non-chlorinated aerosols and water-based brake washers, respectively, were effective brake cleaning products (Raybestos, 1999; Federal-Mogul, 1999). Table VII-1. Facility Survey Summary of Chlorinated and Non-chlorinated Product Usage

Product Category Total Number of Shops Using Product Category Number and (Percent) of Shops using Selected Products

Nonchlorinated Other

Chlorinated 1 

## Perc Only Unknown Formulations
Brake 2,3 

## 3676 2256 (61) 8 (~0) 1364 (37) 48 (<1) Carb and Fuel Injection 4 

## 3508 3162 (90) 291 (8) 0 (0) 55 (<1) Engine Degreaser 4 

## 496 443 (89) 8 (2) 27 (5) 18 (4) General Purpose Degreaser 4 

## 171 163 (95) 0 (0) 0 (0) 8 (5)
1. These products contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE, either alone or in combination. 2. Information is compiled for both bulk and aerosol brake cleaner usage. 3. Number of shops that reported using a brake cleaner, whether they reported doing brakes or not. 4. The survey requested only aerosol product usage for these categories. 5. Numbers have been rounded and may not add to 100 percent.

# VII - 4

We also learned through our survey that almost 25 percent of facilities performing brake work did not use automotive consumer products. Instead they used water or petroleum washers, or in some cases, nothing at all. Additionally, almost 50 percent of the Facility Survey respondents already use a water-based portable brake cleaning unit in conjunction with other products, and 12 percent use a water-based portable brake cleaning unit alone.
3. Scenario 2 - Remove Perc, MeCl and TCE from Brake Cleaning Products Facility Survey respondents also reported using brake cleaning products which were determined to contain MeCl and TCE, usually in conjunction with Perc. Scenario 2 assumes that Perc is no longer available for brake cleaning product formulations and evaluates the effect of brake cleaning products reformulated to contain a large proportion of MeCl or TCE. Based on available formulation data, MeCl and TCE, when used alone would not likely exceed 60 and 45 percent, respectively, and in combination, would not likely exceed 90 percent of the content of a product. The unit risk factor for MeCl is approximately one-sixth that of Perc. Thus, the potential health risk for a product containing 60 percent MeCl (formulations containing 60 percent MeCl were observed during the site visits) would be one-tenth that of a 94 percent Perc product. Similarly, TCE has a unit risk approximately one-third that of Perc, so the potential health risk for a product containing 45 percent TCE (TCE is a VOC and would be limited to 45 percent by the Midterm Measures II Consumer Products Regulation) would be about one-seventh that of a 94 percent Perc product. The potential health risk for a product composed of 45 percent MeCl and 45 percent TCE would be slightly less than one-fourth that of a 94 percent Perc product. While the potential risk for a product containing MeCl, TCE, or both is lower than for Perc, it could still be significant in some instances. For example, generic facility G2 would still exceed a 10 in a million risk level at 20 meters for both the MeCl and TCE products. As such, and in recognition of the statutory requirement for BACT and the availability of suitable and effective alternatives, staff believe that brake cleaning products should not contain MeCl and TCE.
4. Scenario 3 - Also Remove Perc, MeCl and TCE from Carburetor Cleaners,

Engine Degreasers, and General Purpose Degreasers Information from the Facility Survey, as well as discussions with AMR facility operators and the Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA), indicate that many operators use various automotive consumer products interchangeably (IRTA, 1999). For example, a mechanic may use a brake cleaner for engine and/or tool degreasing, or may use an engine degreaser or carburetor cleaner for brake cleaning. While automotive consumer products manufacturers have adamantly stated that they do not condone this activity and believe that each product is best formulated for its intended purpose, many mechanics indicated that these products are used for, and work equally well in, a variety of tasks. Therefore, it is necessary to address the potential risk posed by product interchangeability.

# VII - 5

The practice of mechanics substituting, on an equal basis, carburetor cleaner, engine degreaser, or general purpose degreaser reformulated to contain Perc, MeCl or TCE for brake cleaning products that would no longer contain Perc, MeCl or TCE would result in potential health risks to the public analogous to those identified in section B.3. above. Again, staff evaluated the availability, suitability, and effectiveness of alternatives in the three product categories. Table VII-1 shows the relative proportion and percent of facilities using non-chlorinated carburetor cleaning, engine degreasing and general purpose degreasing products. From the table,it can be seen that the overwhelming majority of facilities (approximately 90 percent) use nonchlorinated carburetor cleaner, engine degreaser, and general purpose degreaser. Additionally, carburetor cleaners are subject to United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) regulations for fuel additives (ARB, 1999b). These regulations require manufacturers to register their formulations and collectively fund a literature search on the potential health effects of the use of their products. Currently, manufacturers can only register formulations with compounds containing five elements: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur. However, formulations containing other elements were registered prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. These formulations have been essentially “grandfathered” from the requirement that they contain only compounds with the five elements mentioned (ARB, 1999b). Some of these grandfathered products contain MeCl and Perc. Since non-chlorinated products in the three categories of interest appear to predominate, staff concluded that alternative products are technically feasibility and available. Additionally, product label claims and discussions with facility operators indicate that the alternative products are both suitable and effective. The number of products in the carburetor cleaner, engine degreaser, and general purpose degreaser categories that contain Perc, MeCl and TCE, either in combination or alone, is small and the products themselves generally only contain a small percentage of the chlorinated compounds. As such, staff conclude that the additional requirement to remove these three compounds from carburetor cleaner, engine degreaser, and general purpose degreaser would not be an overly burdensome requirement and would reduce exposure to these compounds. Based on this evaluation, staff believes that it is appropriate to eliminate the use of Perc, MeCl and TCE in automotive consumer products used in AMR activities, and we established the limits presented in Table VII-2.

# VII - 6 Table VII-2. BACT Product Content Limits

Evaluation Level Product Categories and Compounds Chlorinated Content Limit (percent)
Scenario 1 Perc-containing brake cleaning products <1 1



## Scenario 2 Perc, MeCl, and TCE-containing brake cleaning products <1 1



## Scenario 3 Perc, MeCl and TCE-containing brake cleaners, carburetor

cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers <1 1



### 1. As previously mentioned, the language of the proposed ATCM provides that a product is considered to contain Perc, MeCl, or TCE if it contains one percent or more by weight of any one of the three compounds.



# C. Alternatives to The Proposed Control Measure Alternatives to the proposed control measure, other than taking no action, include workplace practices and two product modification options. We evaluated each of the three alternatives and determined that they would not be as effective at reducing emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from AMR activities as the proposed control measure. We also determined that the three alternatives did not meet the objective of HSC section 39666 to reduce emissions to the lowest level achievable through the application of BACT or a more effective control method in consideration of cost, risk, and environmental impacts. This section discusses each of the three alternatives and provides the reasons they were considered to be less effective than the proposed regulation. For each of the three alternatives evaluated, other than the “No Action” alternative, staff addressed four issues: applicability, effectiveness, enforceability, and cost/resource requirements.
1. Alternative One - No Action The “no action” alternative would not address the potential risk posed by the use of automotive consumer products containing Perc, MeCl, and TCE in AMR activities. As evidenced by the potential health impacts discussed in Chapter VI, this alternative would not be protective of public health.
2. Alternative Two - Workplace Practices The workplace practices alternative would require that AMR facility operators implement process controls including: (1) the use of a reservoir to capture any runoff from the use of brake cleaning products, and (2) the disposal of the runoff as a hazardous waste. This alternative would apply only to the brake cleaning product category.

# VII - 7 a. Applicability This alternative would not address the capture of brake cleaning products used for applications other than brake cleaning. It additionally would not address the capture of carburetor cleaner, engine degreaser, or general purpose degreaser unless they were being used for brake cleaning. Finally, it would not address the use of these products in other industrial, institutional, and residential settings.

b. Effectiveness Information from the manufacturing industry indicates that workplace standards could achieve capture efficiencies of approximately 43 percent for disk brakes and 68 percent for drum brakes (CRC, 1998). Staff estimated that an average facility performs 25 percent of its brake jobs on drum brakes and 75 percent on disk brakes, and would therefore expect to observe an average capture efficiency of 50 percent. Thus, a facility (with a 50 percent capture efficiency) that currently exceeds a 22 chances in a million risk level from automotive maintenance and repair activities would still exceed the10 chances in a million “Hot Spots” notification level established by most air pollution control and air quality management districts (districts) after implementing the workplace standards outlined in this control alternative. Additionally, residual risk posed by these facilities would still have to be addressed. In light of the availability of alternative products that contain no chlorinated compounds, a measure that only addressed 50 percent of emissions would not be considered BACT.

c. Enforceability As part of this alternative, the manufacturing industry indicated that they would participate in an education program by including workplace standard information in their labeling. We believe that, even with an education program, many facilities would not use capture reservoirs in the absence of district inspectors. Discussions with several operators indicate that they would not be inclined to capture runoff unless they were being watched. It is unlikely that this alternative could be adequately enforced by the State’s districts and the Board.

d. Cost and Resource Requirements Currently, many facility operators have either water washers or parts washers in their facilities. The trend in the automotive repair industry appears to be toward a mobile parts washer that could be wheeled under vehicles for performing brake services. The proposed concept would require facility operators to procure another reservoir specifically for brake service operations to avoid contamination of the fluids used in their water washers or parts washers. This is necessary because the hazardous waste companies that collect spent baths set strict limits on the level of contamination by chlorinated solvents. This separate waste stream would result in increased disposal costs and might require modifications to the facility’s DTSC permit for on-site hazardous waste storage.

# VII - 8

As enforcement would be conducted predominantly by the districts, the burden of enforcement costs would fall to them. However, several larger districts already inspect AMR facilities, generally in connection with degreasing rules, and the incremental cost of this alternative would likely be minimal. Cost estimates for district inspectors to enforce the proposed ATCM are addressed in Chapter IX.
3. Alternative Three - Product Modification / Risk-based Content Limits This alternative falls into the product modification category and would require that automotive consumer products manufacturers establish chlorinated compound content limits that would result in the potential risk of a product falling below a prescribed risk level.

a. Applicability This alternative could be applied to the brake cleaner product category alone, or to all four product categories. In either case, this alternative would address both institutional/industrial and residential use. In other words, it provides emissions reductions from both “hot spots” (AMR facilities) and non-“hot spot” area sources (residential usage). It additionally addresses use outside the automotive maintenance and repair activities arena.

b. Effectiveness This alternative would require the establishment of a product content cap based on a corresponding acceptable risk level (an acceptable number of chances in a million), and ignores the requirement for best available control technology. In addition to not addressing the requirement for BACT, this alternative is dependent upon the meteorological data set chosen for modeling. Thus the product content cap necessary to avoid exceeding a set risk level in one geographic location in the State would not be sufficient to avoid exceeding the same risk level in another location. If this alternative addressed Scenario 1, it could lead to increased MeCl and TCE use in brake cleaners. If this alternative addressed Scenario 2, it could lead to increased Perc, MeCl and TCE use in carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers. Regardless of whether this alternative addressed Scenario 1, Scenario 2, or Scenario 3, it would likely result in increased VOC use and emissions. Each subsequent scenario would have greater potential VOC usage and emissions. If manufacturers could market chlorinated automotive consumer products meeting the risk-based content limits prescribed by this alternative, then the continued use of chlorinated compounds would be greater than with Alternative Four or the proposed control measure. Thus, this alternative would likely result in lower VOC use and emissions than Alternative Four or the proposed control measure.

# VII - 9 c. Enforceability Primary responsibility for enforcement of this alternative, as with all ATCMs, would be with the districts. However, HSC section 39669 also grants ARB enforcement authority. As many districts do not have the inherent capability to analyze consumer products, it is possible that the ARB might have to provide laboratory and compliance assistance. This alternative is more enforceable than Alternative Two (workplace standards) because it regulates fewer sources - manufacturers instead of facilities. There is also a clear cut test method for determining compliance versus having to observe facility operators using or not using capture reservoirs.

d. Cost and Resource Requirements This alternative would have a fiscal impact on the State and air districts, as well as an economic impact on business. The impact on AMR facilities would be minimal. The impact on the districts would be dependent upon how heavily they had to rely upon the ARB’s laboratory and compliance resources. If districts elected to establish a memorandum of understanding with the ARB authorizing the ARB’s Compliance Division to enforce the ATCM, then enforcement could be conducted in conjunction with enforcement of the Consumer Products Regulations. In other words, the division of fiscal impacts between state and district entities would depend largely upon where the split in agreed upon enforcement responsibility lies.
4. Alternative Four - Product Modification / Chlorinated Compound Phase Out This alternative also falls into the product modification category and would require that automotive consumer products manufacturers remove chlorinated compounds from the four product categories in discrete steps.

a. Applicability This alternative could be applied to the brake cleaner product category alone, or to all four product categories. In either case, this alternative would address both institutional/industrial and residential use.

b. Effectiveness This alternative would require the removal of one or more of the compounds Perc, MeCl, or TCE from up to four automotive consumer products categories depending upon the control scenario selected, but would accomplish the removal through a series of sequential reductions. As such, it would eventually represent BACT. However, it would not be as effective in reducing chlorinated emissions as the proposed control measure because it would not remove the chlorinated compounds as quickly.

# VII - 10

If this alternative addressed Scenario 1, it could lead to increased MeCl and TCE use in brake cleaners. If this alternative addressed Scenario 2, it could lead to increased Perc, MeCl and TCE use in carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers. Regardless of whether this alternative addressed Scenario 1, Scenario 2, or Scenario 3, it would likely result in increased VOC use and emissions. Each subsequent scenario would have greater potential VOC usage and emissions. This alternative, regardless of scenario, would result in lower VOC use and emissions than the proposed control measure because it would not remove the chlorinated compounds as quickly.

c. Enforceability Primary responsibility for enforcement of this alternative, as with all ATCMs, would be with the districts. However, HSC section 39669 also grants ARB enforcement authority. As many districts do not have the inherent capability to analyze consumer products, it is possible that the ARB might have to provide laboratory and compliance assistance. This alternative is more enforceable than Alternative Two (workplace standards) because it regulates fewer sources - manufacturers instead of facilities. There is also a clear cut test method for determining compliance versus having to observe facility operators using or not using capture reservoirs. This alternative would be more difficult to enforce than the proposed control measure because there could be several intermediate content limits which could have an impact on laboratory testing and the need to re-educate compliance personnel as each new limit became effective.

d. Cost and Resource Requirements This alternative would have a fiscal impact on the State and air districts, as well as an economic impact on business. The impact on AMR facilities would be minimal. The impact on the districts would be dependent upon how heavily they had to rely upon the ARB’s laboratory and compliance resources. If districts elected to establish a memorandum of understanding with the ARB authorizing the ARB’s Compliance Division to enforce the ATCM, then enforcement could be conducted in conjunction with Compliance Division enforcement of the Consumer Products Regulations. In other words, the division of fiscal impacts between state and district entities would depend largely upon where the split in agreed upon enforcement responsibility lies.
D. Evaluation of the Proposed Control Measure In Part B., staff discussed selecting Scenario 3 as the basis for the proposed control measure. Staff addressed the same four issues of applicability, effectiveness, enforceability, and cost/resource requirements when considering the proposed control measure.

# VII - 11

1. Applicability The proposed control measure could be applied to the brake cleaner product category alone, or to all four product categories. In either case, this alternative would address both institutional/industrial and residential use.
2. Effectiveness The proposed control measure would require the removal of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from all four automotive consumer products categories without the use of sequential reductions. As with Alternative Four (phase out), it would represent BACT; however, it would achieve greater emissions reductions because BACT would be achieved much sooner. Again, the proposed control measure could lead to increased MeCl and TCE use in brake cleaners if it addressed Scenario 1. The proposed control measure could lead to increased Perc, MeCl and TCE use in carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers if it addressed Scenario 2. Thus, the proposed control measure addresses Scenario 3. Regardless of whether the proposed control measure addressed Scenario 1, Scenario 2, or Scenario 3, it would likely result in increased VOC use and emissions. Each subsequent scenario would have greater potential VOC usage and emissions. The proposed control measure, regardless of scenario, would result in higher VOC use and emissions than Alternatives Three or Four because it requires that the chlorinated content not exceed one percent, and does not provide for sequential reductions.
3. Enforceability Primary responsibility for enforcement of the proposed control measure, as with all ATCMs, would be with the districts. However, HSC section 39669 also grants ARB enforcement authority. As many districts do not have the inherent capability to analyze consumer products, it is possible that the ARB might have to provide laboratory and compliance assistance. The proposed control measure is more enforceable than Alternative Two (workplace standards) because it regulates fewer sources - manufacturers instead of facilities. There is also a clear cut test method for determining compliance versus having to observe facility operators using or not using capture reservoirs. The proposed control measure would be the easiest to enforce.
4. Cost and Resource Requirements The proposed control measure would have a fiscal impact on the State and air districts, as well as an economic impact on business. The impact on AMR facilities would be minimal. The impact on the districts would be dependent upon how heavily they had to rely upon the ARB’s laboratory and compliance resources. If districts elected to establish a memorandum of understanding with the ARB authorizing the ARB’s Compliance Division to enforce the ATCM,

# VII - 12

then enforcement could be conducted in conjunction with enforcement of the Consumer Products Regulations. In other words, the division of fiscal impacts between state and district entities would depend largely upon where the split in agreed upon enforcement responsibility lies.

# VIII-1



# VIII. POTENTIAL HEALTH IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE

This chapter discusses the potential health impacts of this proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM). The topics addressed below include the benefits of the proposed ATCM toward statewide emissions and potential health impacts, a general assessment of the potential health impacts that could result from the remaining chemical ingredients used in the four product categories, and a general discussion of workplace exposure.
A. Statewide Emissions and Risk Reduction Benefits of the Airborne Toxic Control Measure Since the proposed ATCM would result in the removal of Perc, MeCl, and TCE in the four product categories, the emission and health impact (i.e., potential cancer risk) reduction benefits are 100 percent. A total reduction of 5.17 tons per day of Perc, MeCl, and TCE could be achieved as a result of the proposed ATCM. As presented in Chapter VI, an additional benefit of the proposed ATCM is a reduction in ambient levels of Perc, MeCl, and TCE. Overall we estimated a reduction in ambient levels of Perc by 26 percent, MeCl by 5 percent, and TCE by 37 percent. By reducing ambient levels of these compounds, overall statewide risk reduction benefits can be achieved. In determining the potential reduction in ambient levels from the proposed ATCM, we assumed that a proportionality of emissions can be used to calculate ambient levels of Perc, MeCl, and TCE. In addition, we compiled inventory data to determine the percentage of emissions from the four product categories. This percentage was then applied to the total ambient concentration to determine the percentage of each compound attributed to the four product categories. Note, however that some sources of Perc, MeCl, and TCE emissions may not be accounted for in the inventory data used and therefore the reduction in ambient levels may be slightly overestimated. See Chapter VI, Section 5 for a complete discussion on potential reduction in ambient levels of Perc, MeCl, and TCE.
B. Potential Adverse Health Effects from Use of Volatile Organic Compounds The intent of this exercise was to determine what the potential health impacts could be from the remaining chemical constituents currently used in these four product categories if Perc, MeCl, and TCE are removed and secondly, if only Perc is removed. To perform this evaluation, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) were used to obtain chemical ingredient information for products that AMR facilities reported using in the Facility Survey. The MSDS information was obtained by calling the manufacturers or distributers directly, or if available, from a manufacturer’s web site. In addition, a list of ingredients for these four product categories was obtained from the 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. A complete list of the

# VIII-2

chemical ingredients for the four product categories can be found in Appendix G. The listing of chemical ingredients in Appendix G identifies whether these compounds are regulatory defined as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are identified or candidate toxic air contaminants (TACs) under California’s Air Toxics Program, and whether the substance has approved cancer and non-cancer health effects values. In addition to those currently used in the four automotive consumer product categories, staff intends to monitor the usage of other identified TACs and will propose amendments to the ATCM if appropriate. Additionally, product manufacturers will be advised to not use identified TACs in their product formulations. For this exercise, we assumed that any of the chemical ingredients meeting this criteria could have a maximum content of 45 percent. The 45 percent VOC limit is used because that was the limit established for brake cleaners in the October 1999 Amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation approved by the ARB in October 1999. The VOC content limit for the four product categories range from 35 to 50 percent in the October 1999 amendments.
1. VOCs that are Candidate or Identified TACs

a. Scenario One: Removal of Perc, TCE, and MeCl Under this scenario, we used the information in Appendix G to see what the potential individual health impacts could be for chemical ingredients that are regulatory defined as both volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and candidate or identified TACs if Perc, MeCl, and TCE are removed. As a screen to determine the worst-case scenario, we identified the individual ingredients from Appendix G that have the highest cancer potency and/or lowest non-cancer chronic or acute reference exposure levels (RELs). Benzene is the only ingredient in Appendix G that has a cancer potency factor. Eight ingredients have acute and/or chronic RELs. Of those eight, naphthalene had the lowest chronic REL and benzene had the lowest acute REL. No adverse health impacts from the compounds on this list (other than Perc, MeCl, and TCE) are expected. The apparent use of benzene (which is a TAC as well as a VOC) was a concern for staff; however, upon further investigation, staff learned that it was only used by one manufacturer (in one product) at concentrations less than two percent (a second manufacturer indicated they had one product in which benzene was a contaminant). Staff intends to monitor the usage of other TACs and will propose amendments to the ATCM if appropriate. Additionally, manufacturers will be advised to not use identified TACs in their product formulations.

# VIII-3 b. Scenario Two: Removal of Perc The removal of Perc from the four product categories leaves TCE, a TAC and VOC, as an ingredient with the potential for expanded use in these products. Additionally, MeCl may also be used to further increase the chlorinated content of a reformulated product. Looking specifically at aerosol brake cleaners as an example, TCE (a VOC) is subject to a 45 percent VOC limit as specified in the ARB’s consumer product regulations. While there are no such restrictions for MeCl, however, the total chlorinated content for this exercise is being capped at 90 percent. A 90 percent cap allows for the inclusion of other compounds as well as propellants. Table VIII-1 summarizes the impact of Perc replacement in brake cleaners compared to current emissions.

Table VIII-1. Potential TCE and MeCl Emissions After Removal of Perc from Aerosol Brake Cleaners

Compound Current Emissions

from Brake Cleaners [lbs/yr] 1 

## Emissions With Replacement of Perc [lbs/yr]
45% TCE 45% TCE/45% MeCl
Perc 2,978,400 0 0
MeCl 211,700 0 1,340,280
TCE 58,400 1,340,280 1,340,280 1. Based on ARB surveys.



# From a risk standpoint, the individual potential cancer risk would decrease by approximately 84 percent when compared to the potential individual health risk for AMR facilities using Perc-containing products. An 84 percent decrease would result in a potential cancer risk of approximately 21 chances per million at the near-source (20 meter) location for the generic facilities using default meteorological data. Regarding non-cancer health impacts, the chronic hazard indices for TCE at a 45 percent content level is less than 0.1 for the generic facilities using default meteorological data. Generally, hazard indices less than one are not considered to be a concern to public health. The use of a TCE/MeCl product at a 90 percent combination content level (45 percent each) would result in approximately a 75 percent decrease in the individual potential cancer risk when compared to the potential individual health risk for AMR facilities using Perc-containing products. While this decrease may sound significant, this still could pose a potential cancer risk of approximately 31 chances per million at the near-source (20 meter) location for the generic facilities using default meteorological data. Regarding non-cancer health impacts, the chronic hazard indices for TCE/MeCl product at a 90 percent content level is less than 0.1 for the generic facilities using default meteorological data. Generally, hazard indices less than one are not considered to be a concern to public health.

# VIII-4

2. VOCs that are Not Candidate or Identified TACs The second group of ingredients that were evaluated included those that are VOCs but that are not a candidate or identified TAC. None of the ingredients in Appendix G that meet this criteria have cancer potency factors. One of the ingredients (2-butoxyethanol) listed in Appendix G has both an acute and chronic REL. The acute and chronic hazard indices for this ingredient at the 45 percent content level are less than 0.5 for the generic facilities using default meteorological data. Generally, hazard indices less than one are not considered to be a concern to public health.
C. Replacement With Other Toxic Air Contaminants that are Not Volatile Organic Compounds
1. Scenario One: Removal of Perc, TCE, and MeCl For this portion of the evaluation, we reviewed the ingredients listed in Appendix G to determine if any are candidate or identified TACs that are not classified as VOCs. There are no ingredients which satisfy this criteria and have an approved cancer potency factor. Two ingredients, have an acute and/or chronic RELs. Of those, ammonia had both the lowest chronic and acute RELs. The acute and chronic hazard indices for this ingredient at the 45 percent content level are less than 0.2 for the generic facilities using default meteorological data. Generally, hazard indices less than one are not considered to be a concern to public health. In addition to those currently used in the four automotive consumer product categories, staff intends to monitor the usage of other identified TACs and will propose amendments to the ATCM if appropriate. Additionally, product manufacturers will be advised to not use identified TACs in their product formulations.
2. Scenario Two: Removal of Perc The removal of Perc from the four product categories leaves MeCl, a TAC that is not a VOC, as an ingredient with the potential for expanded use in these products. During the site visits, products were observed with MeCl content as high as 60 percent. Additionally, TCE may be used to further increase the chlorinated content of a reformulated product, subject to the 35 to 50 percent VOC limit specified in the ARB’s consumer product regulations (TCE is a VOC). Again, in order allow for the inclusion of other compounds and propellants for aerosol products, the total chlorinated content for this exercise is being capped at 90 percent. Table VIII-2 summarizes the impact of Perc replacement compared to current emissions for aerosol brake cleaners as an example. From a risk standpoint, the individual potential cancer risk would decrease by approximately 89 percent when compared to the potential individual health risk for AMR facilities using Perc-containing products. An 89 percent decrease would result in a potential

# VIII-5

cancer risk of approximately 14 chances per million at the near-source (20 meter) location for the generic facilities using default meteorological data. Regarding non-cancer health impacts, the acute and chronic hazard indices for MeCl at a 60 percent content level are less than 0.1. Generally, hazard indices less than one are not considered to be a concern to public health.

Table VIII-2. Potential MeCl and TCE Emissions After Removal of Perc from Aerosol Brake Cleaners

Compound Current Emissions

from Brake Cleaners [lbs/yr] 1 

## Emissions With Replacement of Perc [lbs/yr]
60% MeCl 45% MeCl/45% TCE
Perc 2,978,400 0 0
MeCl 211,700 1,787,040 1,340,280
TCE 58,400 0 1,340,280 1. Based on ARB surveys.



# As mentioned above, the use of a TCE/MeCl product at a 90 percent combination content level (45 percent each) would result in approximately 75 percent decrease in the individual potential cancer risk when compared to the potential individual health risk for AMR facilities using Perc-containing products. While this decrease may sound significant, this still could pose a potential cancer risk of approximately 31 chances per million at the near-source (20 meter) location for the generic facilities using default meteorological data. Regarding non-cancer health impacts, the chronic hazard indices for TCE/MeCl product at a 90 percent content level is less than 0.1 for the generic facilities using default meteorological data. Generally, hazard indices less than one are not considered to be a concern to public health.
D. Replacement With Compounds that are Not Toxic Air Contaminants or Volatile Organic Compounds None of the compounds listed in Appendix G of the TSD meet this criteria.

E. Workplace Exposure Perc, TCE and MeCl are probable human carcinogens. The California Department of Industrial Relations-Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) regulates Perc, TCE and MeCl in the workplace environment. To protect worker safety, Cal/OSHA has established a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for the compounds. The PEL is the maximum, eight-hour, time-weighted average concentration for occupational exposure and is 25 ppmv for Perc, TCE and MeCl. Since the proposed ATCM will remove these compounds

# VIII-6

from automotive consumer products, worker exposure to Perc, MeCl, and TCE from automotive consumer product use will be eliminated.

# IX-1



# IX. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE

A. Summary of Economic Impacts No significant economic impacts are expected from the proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM). Automotive consumer products are manufactured or marketed by 60 companies nationwide, with ten based in California. Most manufacturers already have at least one non-chlorinated volatile organic compound (VOC) product on the market that meets the requirements of the proposed ATCM, and therefore, are not expected to incur additional costs. Those companies that do not currently have VOC products and choose to formulate one are expected to be able to absorb the cost of reformulation with no adverse impacts on their profitability. The analysis showed that raw materials costs for chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) products are greater than the raw materials costs for VOC products. As a result, it should be less costly to manufacture non-chlorinated VOC products as opposed to products that contain perchloroethylene (Perc), methylene chloride (MeCl), or trichloroethylene (TCE). However, there are no noticeable differences between the market prices for chlorinated TAC and VOC products. Therefore, there should be no economic impact on the consumer. The economic analysis focused on worse case assumptions. It was assumed that the costs to comply with this ATCM would be the same costs that a company would incur if they were reformulating a product to meet a new VOC limit under the Consumer Products Program. Essentially, each manufacturer and marketer is assumed to “reinvent the same wheel” and directly conduct all reformulation, and research and development efforts. By doing this, we were very conservative in an effort to estimate costs. Overall, most affected businesses will be able to absorb the costs of the proposed ATCM with no significant adverse impacts on their profitability. This finding is indicated by the staff’s analysis of the estimated change in “return on owner’s equity” (ROE). The analysis found that the overall change in ROE ranges from negligible to a decline in ROE of about six percent, with an average decline in ROE of about two percent. However, the proposed ATCM may impose economic hardship on some businesses with small or no margin of profitability. If necessary, these businesses can seek relief under the variance provision of the proposed ATCM. A variance may provide sufficient time to minimize the cost impacts to these businesses. Because the proposed ATCM would not alter significantly the profitability of most businesses, we do not expect a noticeable change in employment; business creation, elimination, or expansion; and business competitiveness in California.

# IX-2

Our analysis shows that the cost-effectiveness of the proposed requirements is similar to the cost-effectiveness of previously approved ATCMs (Perc Dry Cleaning Operations ATCM, Ethylene Oxide ATCM, Non-Ferrous Metal Melting ATCM). The estimated cost-effectiveness of the proposed ATCM for reducing a pound of TAC, specifically Perc, MeCl, and TCE, range from no cost (net savings or no cost) to about $0.23 per pound of TAC reduced (in 1999 dollars). The cost-effectiveness that considers the emission and health impact reduction benefits ranges from approximately $1,400 to $111,000 per cancer case avoided. These ranges are significantly less than previously approved ATCMs, which generally have fallen within an overall range of $0.64 to $1.77 (adjusted to 1999 dollars) per pound of Perc reduced (1993 Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Operations ATCM) and $6,600 to $18.6 million (adjusted to 1999 dollars) per cancer case avoided (1992 Non-Ferrous Metal Melting ATCM). While determining the maximum and minimum cost-effectiveness values is useful for establishing boundaries, it is also useful to determine the average cost-effectiveness of the proposed ATCM. To this end, an estimate of the average cost-effectiveness as an emissions reduction-weighted value provides more insight into the overall cost-effectiveness of the ATCM than a simple arithmetic mean of the calculated individual values. Unlike a simple arithmetic mean, a weighted average accounts for the relative efficiency as well as the relative magnitude of the emission reductions for the ATCM. Overall, the emission reductions-weighted average (ERWA) cost-effectiveness for the proposed ATCM is about $0.03 per pound of TAC reduced. That is, the average cost to reduce one pound of TAC averaged across all the categories subject to the proposed ATCM is less than five cents. This estimated average cost-effectiveness compares favorably with the cost-effectiveness of the ARB programs mentioned previously. One way to project the potential change in product prices is to determine the potential change in raw materials costs, which generally have the biggest influence in product costs for most consumer product categories. Our analysis indicates that raw material costs for chlorinated TAC products are greater than for VOC products which comply with the proposed ATCM. Therefore, raw material cost changes should be negligible (net savings or no cost). Again, this compares favorably to the change in per unit cost projected for the existing consumer product regulations. The analysis assumed the present cost for raw materials. Depending on the formulations chosen by manufacturers and the future price of raw materials, this range may be lower or higher at the actual compliance dates. To the extent that the projected cost savings or increases are ultimately passed on to the consumer, the actual retail price of products after the proposed limits become effective may be higher or lower than suggested by this analysis. Even if all annualized nonrecurring costs (research and development, capital equipment purchases, etc.) and recurring raw material cost increases are factored into the affected products manufacturing costs, the potential increase in production per-unit costs are comparable to existing ARB consumer product regulations. The estimated per-unit cost increases from both annualized nonrecurring and annual recurring costs range from negligible cost (net savings or no cost) to about $0.09 per unit. When averaged over the total number of unit sales in California of regulated products, the unit sales-weighted average cost increase is about $0.02 per unit. As

# IX-3

noted before, these per unit cost increases compare favorably to the change in per unit cost projected for existing ARB consumer product regulations.
B. Economic Impacts Analysis on California Businesses as Required by The California Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
1. Legal Requirements Section 11346.3 of the Government Code requires State agencies to assess the potential for adverse economic impacts on California business enterprises and individuals when proposing to adopt or amend any administrative regulation. The assessment shall include a consideration of the impact of the proposed regulation on California jobs, business expansion, elimination or creation, and the ability of California business to compete with businesses in other states. Also, State agencies are required to estimate the cost or savings to any state or local agency and school district in accordance with instructions adopted by the Department of Finance. The estimate shall include any nondiscretionary cost or savings to local agencies and the cost or savings in federal funding to the state. Health and Safety Code section 57005 requires the ARB to perform an economic impact analysis of submitted alternatives to a proposed regulation before adopting any major regulation. A major regulation is defined as a regulation that will have a potential cost to California business enterprises in an amount exceeding ten million dollars in any single year. The proposed ATCM is not a major regulation.
2. Potential Impact on California Businesses Overall, most affected businesses will be able to absorb the costs of the proposed ATCM with no significant adverse impacts on their profitability. However, the proposed measures may impose economic hardship on some businesses with small or no margin of profitability. If necessary, these businesses can seek relief under the variance provision of the proposed ATCM for extensions to their compliance dates. Such extensions may provide sufficient time to minimize the cost impacts to these businesses. Because the proposed ATCM would not alter significantly the profitability of most businesses, we do not expect a noticeable change in employment; business creation, elimination or expansion; and business competitiveness in California. This portion of the economic impacts analysis is based on a comparison of the return on owners’ equity (ROE) for affected businesses before and after inclusion of the cost to comply with the proposed requirements. The data used in this analysis are obtained from publicly available sources, the ARB’s 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey, and the staff’s cost-effectiveness analysis discussed later in this chapter.

# IX-4

3. Affected Businesses Any business which manufactures or markets chlorinated automotive consumer products would potentially be affected by the proposed ATCM. Also potentially affected are businesses which supply raw materials to these manufacturers or marketers, distribute or retail, and use chlorinated automotive consumer products. The focus of this analysis, however, is on manufacturers or marketers because these businesses are directly affected by the proposed ATCM. Automotive consumer products are manufactured or marketed by 60 companies nationwide, of which ten (mostly medium- or small-sized firms) are based in California according to the ARB’s Consumer Products Registration Database. These companies manufacture and market an estimated total of 186 VOC and 66 chlorinated TAC products. California companies accounted for nine percent of chlorinated TAC and VOC products manufactured or marketed in California as shown in Table IX-1.
Table IX-1. Number of Chlorinated TAC and VOC Products Marketed in California

Product Type California Firms Non-California Firms Total Chlorinated TAC Products 6 9% 60 91% 66 100%
VOC Products 16 9% 170 91% 186 100%

Total 22 230 252
Firms 10 50 60



# All affected products are classified under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2842 or the new North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 325612. A list of these products is provided in Table IX-2. The product category with the most chlorinated TAC products is automotive brake cleaners (2202), followed by general purpose degreasers (5203c), carburetor cleaners (2203), and engine degreasers (2204a).

# IX-5 Table IX-2. Affected Product Categories

Code Category Products VOC Chlorinated

TAC 2202 Automotive Brake Cleaners 61 37 2203 Carburetor Cleaners 45 11 2204a Engine Degreasers 56 6 5203c General Purpose Degreasers (including aerosol Solvent Parts Cleaners) 24 12



# a. Study Approach This study covers one industry with 60 affected businesses. The approach used in evaluating the potential economic impact of the proposed ATCM on these businesses is outlined as follows:



# C A sample of three representative businesses of different sizes was selected from the list of 60 affected businesses based on the size of their sales and number of noncompliant products they manufacture or market;



# C Compliance cost was estimated for each of these businesses;



# C Estimated cost was adjusted for federal and state taxes; and,



# C The three-year average ROE was calculated, where data was available, for each of these businesses by averaging their ROEs for 1996 through 1998. ROE is calculated by dividing the net profit by the net worth. The adjusted cost was then subtracted from net profit data. The results were used to calculate an adjusted three-year average ROE. The adjusted ROE was then compared with the ROE before the subtraction of the adjusted cost to determine the potential impact on the profitability of the business. A reduction of more than 10 percent in profitability is considered to indicate a potential for significant adverse economic impacts. The threshold value of 10 percent has been used consistently by the ARB staff to determine impact severity (ARB, 1990b; ARB, 1991b; ARB, 1995; ARB, 1999b). This threshold is consistent with the thresholds used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and others.
b. Assumptions The ROEs before and after the subtraction of the adjusted compliance costs were calculated for each size business using financial data for 1996 through 1998. The calculations were based on the following assumptions:

# IX-6



# C Selected businesses are representative of affected businesses;



# C All affected businesses were subject to the highest federal and state corporate tax rates of 35 percent and 8.8 percent respectively; and,



# C Affected businesses are not able to increase the prices of their products, nor can they lower their costs of doing business through short-term cost-cutting measures. Given the limitation of available data, staff believes these assumptions are reasonable for most businesses; however, they may not be applicable to all businesses.

c. Results Typical California businesses are affected by the proposed ATCM to the extent that the additional costs imposed by the proposed requirements would change their profitability. A detailed analysis of these costs is provided in the cost-effectiveness section of this report. The cost analysis shows that the estimated annualized costs of reformulating a noncompliant product will range from $1,392 to $17,840, with an average of $9,616 (see Table IX-4). Using ROE to measure profitability, we found that the average ROE of sample businesses in the automotive consumer products industry declined by about 2.04 percent as shown in Table IX-3. This represents a minor change in the average profitability of sample businesses.

Table IX-3. Changes in Return on Owner’s Equity (ROEs) for Typical Businesses in Automotive Consumer Products Industry

Size Change in ROE
Small 6.01%
Medium 0.07% Large 0.04% Average 2.04% Note: all “change in ROEs” shown are negative (i.e., shows a decline in profitability)



# The projected change in profitability of typical businesses in the automotive consumer products industry varied widely. The predicted decline in profitability of sample businesses ranged from a high of about 6.01 percent for a small business to a low of 0.04 percent for a large business, as shown in Table IX-3. This variation in the impact of the proposed ATCM can be attributed mainly to two factors. First, large businesses incur higher costs due to the number of noncompliant (chlorinated TAC) products they manufacture or market. For example, the estimated annualized costs for sample businesses ranged from a high of about $67,300 to a low of about $28,800. Second, the performance of businesses may differ from year to year. Hence,

# IX-7

the average 1996 through 1998 financial data used may not be representative of an average-year performance for some businesses. The estimated changes to ROEs may be high for the following reasons. First, annualized costs of compliance are estimated using, in part, the current prices of raw materials. Raw material prices usually tend to fall as higher demand for these materials induces economy of scale production in the long run. Second, affected businesses probably would not absorb all of the increase in their costs of doing business. They might be able to either pass some of the cost on to consumers in the form of higher prices, reduce their costs, or do both.
4. Potential Impact on Consumers The potential impact of the proposed ATCM on consumers depends upon how it would change the price and performance attributes of chlorinated TAC products. Currently, there are no noticeable differences between the market prices for chlorinated TAC and VOC products. These products are basically interchangeable. According to the industry sources, both chlorinated TAC and VOC products have basically the same performance attributes, except that many chlorinated TAC products are nonflammable while VOC products are typically flammable. (For a discussion of flammability, see Chapter X, Section F). Given the availability of good substitute products, it is unlikely that affected businesses will be able to pass on the cost increases to consumers. Thus, we estimated that the cost increase per unit will range from no change to $0.09, with an average of about $0.02. The proposed ATCM, however, may limit the product choices available to consumers by requiring manufacturers not to sell chlorinated TAC products in California. This may not be a major problem because there is more demand for VOC products than for chlorinated TAC products in the market. According to the ARB 1997 Consumer Products Survey, there are three VOC products in the market for every one chlorinated TAC product. Presently, the market sales for these products is split approximately 60 and 40 percent between VOC and chlorinated TACproducts. According to the industry sources, about 90% of these products are used for nonresidential applications. Automotive repair facilities may have an incentive to reduce their uses of chlorinated TAC products because it would reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated, thus reducing their disposal costs.
5. Potential Impact on Employment The proposed ATCM is not expected to cause a noticeable change in California employment and payroll because the contribution of the affected industry to the California economy is marginal. California accounts for a small share of manufacturing employment for automotive consumer products. According to the 1997 Economic Census, California employment in the industry (NAICS 325612/SIC 2842, which includes establishments engaged in manufacturing and packaging polishes and speciality cleaning preparations) was 1,669 in 1997, or about 7.6 percent of the national employment in the industry. This also represents only

# IX-8

about 0.09 percent of the total manufacturing jobs in California. These employees working in 83 establishments generated about $51 million in payroll, accounting for less than 0.02 percent of total California manufacturing payroll in 1997. Twenty-three establishments had over 20 employees; the rest had less than 20 employees each. The employment in the speciality cleaning preparations industry is unlikely to change significantly as a result of the proposed ATCM. This is because, as shown above, affected manufacturers or marketers are able to absorb the reformulation costs with no significant impact on their profitability. The bulk of brake cleaning products, however, are used by brake repair shops. In 1997, California automotive speciality repair shops (SIC 7539), which included brake repair shops, employed 6,128 persons with a payroll of about $144 million. The employment in these shops is unlikely to be affected adversely by the proposed ATCM. This is because we do not expect a noticeable change in the prices of reformulated products. The availability of good substitute products in the market is likely to prevent affected manufacturers or marketers from passing along the reformulation costs to their consumers in the form of higher prices.
6. Potential Impact on Business Creation, Elimination or Expansion The proposed ATCM would have no noticeable impact on the status of California businesses. This is because the reformulation costs are not expected to impose a significant impact on the profitability of businesses in California. However, some small businesses with little or no margin of profitability may lack the financial resources to reformulate their products in a timely manner. Should the proposed measures impose significant hardship on these businesses, temporary relief in the form of a compliance date extension under the variance provision of the proposed ATCM may be warranted. While some individual businesses may be affected adversely, the proposed ATCM may provide business opportunities for existing California businesses or result in the creation of new businesses. California businesses which supply raw materials or provide consulting services to affected industries may benefit from increased industry spending on reformulation.
7. Potential Impact on Business Competitiveness The proposed ATCM should have no significant impact on the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. Because the proposed ATCM would apply to all businesses that manufacture or market automotive consumer products for sale in California regardless of their location, the staff’s proposal should not present any economic disadvantages specific to California businesses. Of a total of 60 companies involved in manufacturing or marketing automotive consumer products, ten were located in California. Only three of ten California companies manufactured or marketed chlorinated TAC products subject to the proposed ATCM. These companies manufactured or marketed only 6 out of 66 noncompliant TAC products.

# IX-9

Nonetheless, the proposed ATCM may have an adverse impact on the competitive position of some small, marginal businesses in California if these businesses lack resources to develop commercially acceptable products in a timely manner. As stated above, such impacts can be mitigated to a degree with a justifiable compliance extension under the variance provision of the proposed ATCM.
C. Analysis of Potential Impacts to California State or Local Agencies The proposed ATCM should have no economic impact on State agencies. There are no State agencies that manufacture or market automotive consumer products which are subject to the proposed ATCM. However, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) may incur additional implementation or enforcement costs at some future time. The proposed ATCM should have minimal economic impacts on the local air pollution control and air quality management districts (districts). Health and Safety Code section 39666 requires that after the adoption of the proposed ATCM by the Board, the districts must enforce the ATCM or adopt and enforce an equal or more stringent regulation. Beginning in 2005, the districts, during their normal course of business, will be responsible for determining if automotive maintenance and repair (AMR) facilities are using complying automotive consumer products as defined by the proposed ATCM. The inspection for complying automotive consumer products should add very little time to the total time it takes to conduct an inspection. Because AMR facilities are currently not required to be permitted by the districts, we are unable to estimate how many AMR facilities a district will visit during the course of a year. Therefore, the total economic impact on the districts cannot be quantified. However, the cost for a district inspector to perform an AMR facility inspection is estimated to range from $50 to $83 per hour (AQMD, 2000).
D. Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of the Proposed ATCMThis is the first ATCM to address consumer products. Therefore, to evaluate the costeffectiveness for this ATCM, we used methods that have been used in the past for both the Toxic Air Contaminant Control Program and the Consumer Products Program. For a VOC or criteria pollutant regulation, the cost effectiveness is usually assessed on the basis of the cost per pound of pollutant controlled. This type of evaluation allows us to compare the efficiency of the proposed regulation in reducing a pound of pollutant relative to existing regulations. For an air toxics control regulation, we use a method that considers both the quantity and toxicity of the emissions reduced. This measure of cost-effectiveness is based on the calculation of the cost per potential cancer case avoided.
1. Methodology The cost-effectiveness of a standard is generally defined as the ratio of total dollars to be spent to comply with the standard (as an annualized cost) to the mass reduction of the

# IX-10 ATCM 

## (Annualized Fixed Costs)Pre-Reg

# + (Annual Recurring Costs )Pre-Reg



## (Annual Mass Reduction in TAC)Pre-Reg ATCM

ATCM



## 1

- n i) + (1 n i) + (1 i x Costs) (Fixed 

# pollutant(s) to be achieved by complying with that standard (in annual pounds). Annual costs include annualized non-recurring fixed costs (e.g., total research and development, product and consumer testing, equipment purchases/modifications, etc.) and annual recurring costs (e.g., raw materials, labeling, packaging, etc.). As in the past Consumer Products regulations, ARB staff analyzed each product category independently of the others as if it was a separate regulation. By evaluating each product category separately, we can examine the impact that the proposed regulation may have on manufacturers in each category. This is a conservative assumption since we know there will be a sharing of technology between departments of a company that makes products for several product categories. In this analysis, we annualized the non-recurring fixed costs using the Capital Recovery Method, as recommended under guidelines issued by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). Using this method, we multiply the estimated total fixed costs to reformulate a product by the Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) to convert these costs into equal annual payments over a project horizon (i.e., the projected useful life of the investment) at a discount rate (Cal/EPA, 1996). We then sum the annualized fixed costs with the annual recurring costs and divide that sum by the annual emission reductions to calculate the cost-effectiveness for the estimated mass of pollutant(s) reduced. Equation 1 presents the methodology for calculating cost-effectiveness. (1) Cost-Effectiveness =

where: 

# (2) Annualized Fixed Costs =

i(1+i)n 

## /((1+i)n

## -1) = Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) i = discount interest rate over project horizon, in percent
n = number of years in project horizon Fixed Costs = total nonrecurring cost per product category i.e. (Nonrecurring Cost per Product) x (Total Noncompliant Products in the Category) 

# A convenient method for estimating the annual recurring cost component is to separate Equation 1 into two fractions, one for the nonrecurring costs and one for the recurring costs. It can then be shown that the cost-effectiveness fraction for recurring costs can be simplified and calculated as follows:

# IX-11 (Compliant Materials Cost) - (Baseline Materials Cost) (Baseline TAC Emissions) - (Compliant Emissions of TACs) 

# (3) Annual Recurring =

Costs (Emissions)
where,

Baseline Materials Cost = cost of raw materials for each pound of product ($/lb), based on product formulations prior to ATCM implementation
Baseline TAC Emissions = Emission of TACs prior to ATCM implementation Compliant Materials Cost = cost of raw materials for each pound of product ($/lb), based on product formulations that meet the proposed ATCM Compliant TAC Emissions = Emission of TACs after full implementation of ATCM 

# To use Equation 3, we determined the sales-weighted average VOC and chlorinated TAC contents of products in each of the four product categories, based on sales data and the speciated formulations as reported by manufacturers in the ARB’s 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. To the extent feasible, we then determined the detailed formulations which most closely reflect the “typical” (i.e., sales-weighted average) VOC and chlorinated TAC products. These formulations, in turn, were designated as compliant and baseline formulations, respectively. For most ingredients, we used the most recent, distributor-level bulk prices from the Chemical Market Reporter (November 29, 1999),or from information gathered during the October 1999 Amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation, to calculate the baseline and compliant material costs based on these designated formulations

. These analyses are shown in Table IX-5 (pages 17 & 18) and discussed in more detail in “Annual Recurring Cost (Impacts to Raw Materials Cost)” later in Section D-4.
2. Assumptions In this analysis, we made an assumption that the costs to comply with this ATCM would be the same costs that a company would incur if they were reformulating a product to meet a new VOC limit under the Consumer Products Program. For fixed nonrecurring costs, we assumed that all manufacturers will conduct their own research and development, purchase their own equipment, and make all other expenditures and efforts necessary to reformulate their products. Essentially, each manufacturer and marketer is assumed to “reinvent the same wheel” and directly conduct all reformulation and research and development efforts. In reality, however, a large portion of the consumer products market is manufactured by contract fillers. These businesses, who usually conduct their own reformulation efforts in-house, fill products for a large number of consumer product marketers. Contract fillers are therefore able to avoid duplication of reformulation efforts by applying “technology transfer” between product lines of different companies. The full extent to which contract fillers make products for other companies

# IX-12

under each category is unknown. However, to the extent contract fillers are used by companies to make complying products, the actual cost to comply with the ATCM for the entire industry is likely to be less than predicted, resulting in more cost-effective emission reductions than indicated in this analysis. We calculated the cost-effectiveness with an assumed project horizon of 10 years, a commonly cited period for an investment’s useful lifetime in the chemical processing industry. We also assumed a fixed interest rate of 10 percent throughout the project horizon. These assumptions are conservative and constitute standard practice in cost-effectiveness analyses of air pollution regulations, including previous consumer product rulemakings. Based on these assumptions, the Capital Recovery Factor is 0.16274. In the 1997 and 1999 amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation, the Consumer Products staff assumed products reformulated to meet the proposed limits would be marketed throughout the United States by national marketers. Except for the aerosol coatings regulation (title 17, CCR, sections 94520-94528), the Consumer Products staff found that businesses generally formulated products compliant with the Phase I (1990) and Phase II (1991) Consumer Products Regulations and antiperspirant/deodorant regulations for the entire nation, rather than incurring the additional cost of setting up a California versus 49-state product distribution system. We believe the same strategy will be employed by companies subject to the proposed ATCM. We therefore assumed that, for the annualized fixed cost portion of Equation 1 it is appropriate to either use the fixed cost for national production divided by the national emission reductions or, equivalently, use the California-apportioned (by population) annualized fixed cost divided by the California-apportioned emission reductions under the proposed ATCM (ARB, 1999b).For the annual recurring costs, we assumed that to make compliant VOC reformulations would result in cost changes as a result of changes in a product’s raw materials and their associated prices. Changes in packaging, labeling, distribution and other recurring costs were assumed to be negligible relative to baseline levels of these costs. This assumption is based on previous consumer product regulatory experiences. To illustrate, ARB staff conducted a comprehensive technical assessment of the 55 percent VOC hairspray limit, which required extensive reformulations and revolutionary changes to existing products. The hairspray limit is generally considered to be among the most challenging of the consumer product limits; it likely resulted in more changes to the regulated product, relative to pre-regulatory products, than any other VOC limit. However, the staff’s assessment found that changes to recurring costs other than hairspray raw material costs were expected to be negligible (ARB, 1997d). Based on this finding and because there are compliant VOC products currently available, we believe our assumptions regarding the recurring costs are reasonable. In the 1999 Consumer Products amendments, the definition for “general purpose degreaser” was modified to include products that are designed to clean miscellaneous metallic parts. These products are currently sold and labeled as “solvent parts cleaner” or “metallic parts

# IX-13 index 1991 C.E. index 1999 C.E. x dollars) 1991 (in Costs Recurring

- Non = dollars) 1999 (in Costs Recurring

- Non 

# cleaner.” These products have functions similar to general purpose degreasers in that they are designed to remove or dissolve grease, dirt, grime, and other contaminants (ARB, 1999b). In the 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey the general purpose degreaser category was grouped under “household care products.” For the cost analysis, the general purpose degreaser/solvent parts cleaner category was analyzed as a “household” product. For this ATCM, most of the products in the general purpose degreaser/solvent parts cleaner category are for automotive use and were therefore analyzed as automotive products. The difference in the analysis is that the initial “estimated annualized fixed cost to reformulate” is different for the household care and automotive categories.
3. Non-Recurring Fixed Costs In the past, reviews of relevant technical literature and industry trade journals provided little information that could be used to estimate costs directly. This is not surprising, because the consumer products industry is very competitive, and production cost data specific to a company are closely-guarded trade secrets. In addition, ARB staff have had very limited success with cost surveys in the past and did not expect one to provide much useful information in this rulemaking (e.g., during the 1991 consumer products Phase II rulemaking, cost survey responses from only three manufacturers were received out of several hundred that were mailed; ARB, 1991b). Therefore, ARB staff developed estimates for nonrecurring cost based on analogous costs reported by ARB staff for the Phase II Consumer Products rulemaking (ARB,1991b; Appendix D1). The Phase II nonrecurring costs are applicable for this analysis since they were based on staff’s detailed estimates of labor, research and development, equipment purchase, and other costs involved in product reformulations for four generic product categories which included automotive consumer products. This is the same approach that was used for the 1997 and 1999 consumer products amendments. The Phase II nonrecurring investment costs, reported in 1991 dollars, were adjusted to 1999 dollars using a well-established method of ratioing chemical engineering plant cost indices as follows (Peters and Timmerhaus, 1980):

(4)

where, C.E. 1999 index = 1999 Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index = 392.0 C.E. 1991 index = 1991 Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index = 357.6 (Chemical Engineering, November 1999) 

# ARB Consumer Product staff believe the original Phase II cost estimates were beneficial at the time of rulemaking for predicting the costs to comply with those limits. However, in 1997, the ARB Consumer Products staff completed a detailed technical assessment of the hairspray second-tier limit. They believe those original cost estimates grossly overestimated true

# IX-14

nonrecurring costs for Phase II by about a factor of ten. The aforementioned hairspray technical assessment projects industry will spend on average, based on real-world expenditures to date, an estimated $100,000 per noncompliant hairspray product to meet the second-tier limit ($20 to $50 million total cost divided by an estimated 350 noncompliant hairspray products; ARB, 1997c). Because the hairspray category arguably represents a worst-case scenario, with its two-tier limits requiring extensive reformulations, research and development, and consumer/safety testing, they believe the $100,000 per product nonrecurring costs for hairsprays is a reasonable, order-of-magnitude upper boundary for average per-product reformulation costs under most of the proposed new limits. We therefore estimated the nonrecurring costs for the ATCM by adjusting the Phase II estimates to be consistent (same order of magnitude) as the $100,000 per product real-world average expenditures for hairsprays (ARB, 1999b). The number of noncomplying products used for the calculations came from the 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. This survey was mailed to over 3,000 companies nationwide at the end of February 1998. The survey requested data on about 100 categories of consumer products. Extensive outreach efforts were made to maximize the market coverage of the survey. The Consumer Products staff found that the survey and extensive outreach resulted in an estimated 90 percent market coverage for most categories (ARB, 1999b). It is not possible for a survey of this magnitude to reach the entirety of the consumer products industry. Therefore, as a conservative estimate, the number of noncomplying products have been multiplied by a factor of 1.2 to adjust for 80% market coverage. Table IX-4 shows our estimates for per-product and total annualized nonrecurring costs for each of the four product categories subject to the proposed ATCM. As shown, we project a per-product annualized nonrecurring cost ranging from a low of about $8,550 to a high of about $110,000. With approximately 80 noncompliant (chlorinated TAC) products that would need to be reformulated, the overall total annualized fixed cost to industry is projected to range from about $110,000 to $1.4 million dollars per year, with a general breakdown of this range as follows: automotive brake cleaners (56 percent), carburetor or fuel-injection air intake cleaners (17 percent), engine degreasers (9 percent), and general purpose degreasers/solvent parts cleaners (18 percent).
4. Annual Recurring Cost (Impacts to Raw Materials Cost) In this analysis, we evaluated the anticipated cost impacts that the proposed ATCM may have on raw material costs. An evaluation of the impacts to raw material costs provides an indicator of possible impacts to the retail prices of the affected products (assuming the cost impacts are passed on partially or fully to consumers). Because of unpredictable factors such as the highly competitive nature of the consumer products market, it is not possible to accurately predict the final retail price of products that will comply with the proposed ATCM when it become effective. To the extent the cost impacts are passed on to consumers, the final retail prices may be lower or higher than suggested by this analysis.

### Table IX-4. Estimated Total Annualized Non-Recurring Fixed Cost to Comply with Proposed ATCM

Estimated Annualized Fixed Cost to Estimated Annualized Cost Estimated Total One-Time Cost Estimated # of Reformulate All Chlorinated TAC Products to Reformulate Per Product to Reformulate Per Product Chlorinated TAC (dollars per year) (dollars per year) (dollars) Products High Low High Low High Low Category Code D2 = (A x C2) D1 = (A x C1) C2 = (B2 x CRF) C1 = (B1 x CRF) B2 B1 (A) $792,100 $61,784 $17,840 $1,392 $109,620 $8,550 44 Automotive Brake Cleaners 2202 $235,489 $18,368 $17,840 $1,392 $109,620 $8,550 13 Carburetor, Fuel-Injection Cleaners 2203 $128,449 $10,019 $17,840 $1,392 $109,620 $8,550 7 Engine Degreasers 2204a $256,897 $20,038 $17,840 $1,392 $109,620 $8,550 14 G.P. Degreaser/Solvent Parts Cleaner (Aerosol) 5203c 79 SUM = $1,412,936 $110,209 Grand Annual Total 1.2 Market Adjustment = (Prelim 8/99) 392.0 1999 Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index = (dollars per year) (used to estimate total number of chlorinated TAC products in CA) (Final 1991) 357.6 1991 Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index = 10.00% Discount Rate 10 Project Horizon, in years (1) # Chorinated TAC Products = (Market Adj.) x (# Chlorinated TAC Products in Survey) Notes: 0.16275 Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) (Survey is 1997 Consumer and Commerical Products Survey) (2) Estimated Total One-Time Cost to Reformulate from 1991 Consumer Products Report. (See Section IX-C.3)



### IX-15

# IX-16 a. Methodology As discussed previously, we determined the detailed formulations which most closely reflect the “typical” (sales-weighted average) VOC and chlorinated TAC contents. These formulations, in turn, were designated as compliant and baseline formulations, respectively. The average unit size used for these calculations, are the same as the ones used for the VOC products in the 1999 Consumer Products cost calculations. These unit sizes differ from the ones used for the chlorinated TAC products in the risk assessment modeling. As part of the analysis, we compared the chlorinated TAC formulations with both the complying and non-complying VOC formulations that were used for the 1999 Consumer Products cost calculations. The difference in cost was very small, and did not change the final results mentioned below. VOC formulations listed in the tables reflect the formulations that are compliant with the 1999 Consumer Products amendments. Distributor-level ingredient prices from the Chemical Market Reporter (November 29, 1999) or from information gathered during the 1999 Consumer Products regulation were used to calculate the baseline and compliant material costs for these formulations. As noted previously, we assumed changes in packaging, labeling, distribution and other recurring costs to be negligible relative to baseline levels of these costs (ARB, 1997c). The analyses and the detailed formulations evaluated (with individual weight fractions and unit prices per pound) are shown as cost spreadsheets in Table IX-5. While these formulations may not reflect the exact composition of existing noncompliant products and compliant products that will be marketed, we believe they are reasonably representative for the purposes of this analysis.

b. Results As shown in Table IX-6, the raw materials cost for chlorinated TAC products are greater than for VOC products. Table IX-7 shows a comparison of the impacts to raw materials cost under the proposed ATCM relative to those of the ARB consumer product regulations. As shown, the raw materials cost impacts under the proposed limits are comparable to those of other ARB regulations.
5. Analysis of the Combined Impacts on Per-Unit Cost from Recurring and Nonrecurring Costs In this analysis, we evaluated the combined impacts of both recurring (i.e., raw materials costs) and nonrecurring costs from the proposed ATCM on per-unit costs. Although the raw material costs usually constitute the major portion of the compliance costs, the nonrecurring (fixed) cost was the major contributor in this analysis. In performing this analysis, we used the fixed costs, raw material costs, assumptions, and other facts discussed previously.

## Table IX-5. Annual Recurring Cost Calculations for Raw Materials

2203 Formulation: 2202 Formulation: Carburetor, Fuel-Injection Cleaners Category: Automotive Brake Cleaners Category:

Formulation and Cost Comparison Formulation and Cost Comparison VOC 45.00% Typical Chlorinated TAC VOC 45.00% Typical Chlorinated TAC Tier-1 Compliant Formulation Unit Cost Tier-1 Compliant Formulation Unit Cost Cost wt% Cost wt% $/lb Component Cost wt% Cost wt% $/lb Component (B)x(D)/100 (D) (B)x(C)/100 (C) (B) (A) (B)x(D)/100 (D) (B)x(C)/100 (C) (B) (A)

0.070 50.0 0.140 acetone 0.070 50.0 0.140 acetone

0.024 20.0 0.120 toluene 0.024 20.0 0.120 toluene

0.003 5.0 0.006 10.0 0.058 methanol 0.009 15.0 0.058 methanol

0.028 20.0 0.042 30.0 0.140 xylene 0.012 10.0 0.120 heptane

0.005 5.0 0.003 3.0 0.100 carbon dioxide 0.005 5.0 0.010 10.00 0.100 carbon dioxide

0.257 57.00 0.450 methylene chloride 0.140 40.00 0.350 perchloroethylene

0.135 30.00 0.450 methylene chloride

0.130 20.00 0.650 trichloroethylene

100.00% 100.00% SUM 100.00% 100.00% SUM

0.130 0.307 Total Cost , $/Pound 0.120 0.415 Total Cost , $/Pound

-57.7% % Cost Diff. Relative -71.2% % Cost Diff. Relative to Current Product to Current Product

0.11 0.25 Total Cost , $/Unit 0.10 0.34 Total Cost , $/Unit
-$0.00 Annual Recurring Costs C.E., $/lb TAC Reduced -$0.00 Annual Recurring Costs C.E., $/lb TAC Reduced

tons/day 0.31 (1) Statewide 1997 Emissions of Perc, MeCl, & TCE Assume: tons/day 4.45 (1) 1997 Statewide Emissions of Perc, MeCl, & TCE Assume: from Carburetor, Choke Cleaners

from Automotive Brake Cleaners

ounce 13.00 (2) Average unit size = ounce 13.00 (2) Average unit size = (**) Cost-effectiveness values in "( )" are negative (**) Cost-effectiveness values in "( )" are negative (i.e., indicates potential cost savings) (i.e., indicates potential cost savings)


### IX-17

## Table IX-5 (continued). Annual Recurring Cost Calculations for Raw Materials

5203c Formulation: 2204a Formulation: G.P. Degreaser/Solvent Parts Cleaner (Aerosol) Category: Engine Degreasers Category:

Formulation and Cost Comparison Formulation and Cost Comparison VOC 50.00% Typical Chlorinated TAC VOC 35.00% Typical Chlorinated TAC Tier-1 Compliant Formulation Unit Cost Tier-1 Compliant Formulation Unit Cost Cost wt% Cost wt% $/lb Component Cost wt% Cost wt% $/lb Component (B)x(D)/100 (D) (B)x(C)/100 (C) (B) (A) (B)x(D)/100 (D) (B)x(C)/100 (C) (B) (A)

0.005 5.0 0.100 carbon dioxide 0.025 10.0 0.250 HC propellant

0.001 42.0 0.002 water 0.110 10.0 1.100 d-limonene

0.034 10.0 0.340 isopropanol 0.023 5.0 0.460 glycol ether

0.057 3.0 1.900 surfactant/emuls 0.105 15.0 0.700 LVP glycol ether

0.140 20.0 0.700 glycol ether 0.011 10.0 0.106 aromatic solvent

0.220 20.0 1.100 d-limonene 0.001 39.0 0.002 water

0.084 24 0.350 perchloroethylene 0.001 1.0 0.098 ammonia

0.742 72 1.030 111-trichloroethane 0.190 10.0 1.900 surfactant

0.004 4 0.100 carbon dioxide 0.644 99.0 0.650 trichloroethylene

0.001 1.0 0.100 carbon dioxide

100.00% 100.00% SUM 100.00% 100.00% SUM

0.457 0.830 Total Cost , $/Pound 0.465 0.645 Total Cost , $/Pound

-44.9% % Cost Diff. Relative -27.8% % Cost Diff. Relative to Current Product to Current Product

0.43 0.78 Total Cost , $/Unit 0.38 0.52 Total Cost , $/Unit
-$0.00 Annual Recurring Costs C.E., $/lb TAC Reduced -$0.00 Annual Recurring Costs C.E., $/lb TAC Reduced

tons/day 0.31 (1) 1997 Statewide Emissions of Perc, MeCl, & TCE Assume: tons/day 0.1 (1) 1997 Statewide Emissions of Perc, MeCl, & TCE Assume: from G.P. Degreaser/Solvent Parts Cleaner (Aerosol)

from Engine Degreasers (Aerosols)

ounce 15.00 (2) Average unit size = ounce 13.00 (2) Average unit size = (**) Cost-effectiveness values in "( )" are negative (**) Cost-effectiveness values in "( )" are negative (i.e., indicates potential cost savings) (i.e., indicates potential cost savings) 

### IX-18

# IX-19 Table IX-6. Estimated Impacts to Raw Materials Cost Per Unit
Estimated Raw Materials costs, $/Unit of Product
Chlorinated TAC Formulation (Baseline) VOC

Formulation (Compliant) Cost Difference Between

Compliant and Baseline Formulations Code Category (B1) (A1) (A1)-(B1)
2202 Automotive Brake Cleaners $0.34 $0.10 $0.00
2203 Carburetor, Fuel-Injection

Cleaners $0.25 $0.11 $0.00

2204a Engine Degreasers $0.52 $0.38 $0.00
5203c General Purpose/Solvent Parts

Cleaner (aerosol) $0.78 $0.43 $0.00

Max Increase $0.00



# Table IX-7. Comparison of Raw Materials Cost Impacts for the Proposed ATCM and ARB Consumer Product Regulations (unadjusted dollars)

Regulation Cost Impacts (Dollars per Unit of Product) Proposed Chlorinated TAC ATCM $0.00 Mid-Term Measures II, 1999 $0.00 to $0.25 Phase III (Mid-Term Measures 1) Consumer Products Regulation, 1997 $0.00 to $0.60 Hairsprays, 1997 1 

## ($0.10) to $0.45 Phase II Consumer Products Regulation, 1991 <$0.01 to $0.60 1. $0.45/unit reported as a worst-case scenario using high-level of HFC-152a as propellant in “premium” products.

# IX-20

a. Methodology This method differs from the raw materials cost-only analysis in the previous section in that the nonrecurring cost in this analysis is assumed to be “spread out” (i.e., recouped) through the entire California sales volume of each product category. Thus, the total annual recurring and annualized nonrecurring costs reported previously is divided by the number of units sold in California per year to estimate the per-unit cost increase. The California sales volume for a product category is estimated by dividing the total TAC emissions (pounds of TAC per year) for that category by the category’s sales-weighted average TAC content (pounds of TAC per pound of product).
d. Results As shown in Table IX-8, the combined fixed and raw material cost changes to per-unit production costs ranged from no cost increase (net savings or no cost for various categories) to about $0.09 per unit (engine degreaser). Averaged over the sales volume for each category, the unit sales-weighted average cost increase is about $0.02 per unit. For comparison purposes, this is the same unit sales-weighted average cost increase that was estimated for the 1999 Consumer Products amendments.
6. Cost-Effectiveness

a. Cost Per Pound of Emissions Reduced Table IX-9 shows the overall results of our cost-effectiveness analysis, with separate cost-effectiveness fractions representing the annualized nonrecurring and annual recurring costs (see equations 1 and 3). In general, Table IX-9 shows that the annualized recurring costs (i.e., raw materials, labeling, packaging, etc.) have a small impact on overall cost-effectiveness for the affected categories. For the most part, the raw materials cost (i.e., annual recurring cost) for both VOC and chlorinated TAC products are relatively the same. The most significant impact on overall cost-effectiveness is from the annualized nonrecurring fixed costs (i.e., research and development, product testing, etc.). Table IX-9 shows that the estimated cost-effectiveness ranges from a low of $0.00 (net savings or no cost for several categories) to a high of about $0.23 per pound of TAC reduced for the general purpose degreaser/solvent parts cleaner category

. Another useful quantity to report is the emission reductions-weighted average (ERWA) cost-effectiveness. This value is the sum of the products of the emission reductions for each product category and its associated cost-effectiveness, divided by the sum of the total emission reductions for all the product categories. In contrast to a simple arithmetic mean of the reported cost-effectiveness values, the ERWA cost-effectiveness accounts for the relative magnitude of emission reductions and the relative efficiency of the proposed ATCM in achieving those reductions. Thus, the ERWA cost-effectiveness is, in theory, a better indicator of the true average cost-effectiveness for achieving a pound of reduction under the proposed ATCM. As shown in Table IX-9, the ERWA cost-effectiveness is about $0.03 per pound of TAC reduced.

### Table IX-8. Estimated Per-Unit Cost Increases from Both Annualized Non-Recurring and Annual Recurring Costs

Estimated Per Unit Production Cost Increase Estimated Typical Estimated Sales-Wtd Estimated Annualized Fixed Cost to Total Total Total Annual Recurring Annualized Annualized Unit Sales Unit TAC Average TAC Reformulate All Chlorinated TAC Products Cost Cost Cost Cost Difference Nonrecurring Nonrecurring per Day Weight Emissions, Content (dollars per year) Increase Increase Increase Cost Cost in Calif. Mid/Unit High/Unit Low/Unit Cost/Unit High Cost/Unit Low Cost/Unit Ounces tons/day % High Low (K1+K2)/2 K2=(I2+J) K1=(I1+J) (J) (I2=D2*CNF/H) (I1=D1*CNF/H) (H) (G) (F) (E) (D2) (D1) Category Code $0.01 $0.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.02 $0.00 12,171 13 4.45 90.0% $792,100 $61,784 Automotive Brake Cleaners 2202 $0.03 $0.06 $0.00 $0.00 $0.06 $0.00 1,339 13 0.31 57.0% $235,489 $18,368 Carburetor, Fuel-Injection Cleaners 2203 $0.05 $0.09 $0.01 $0.00 $0.09 $0.01 524 13 0.10 47.0% $128,449 $10,019 Engine Degreasers 2204a $0.02 $0.03 $0.00 $0.00 $0.03 $0.00 2,756 15 0.31 24.0% $256,897 $20,038 G.P. Degreaser/Solvent Parts Cleaner (Aerosol) 5203c $0.00 MIN UNIT COST INCREASE 16,789 5.170 $1,412,936 $110,209 SUM $0.09 MAX UNIT COST INCREASE $0.02 SWA-UNIT COST INCREASE Notes: (1) (H) = (Estimated TAC Emissions/Sales-Wtd Ave TAC Content)*2000*16/Typical Unit Weight (2) (I) = Total Annualized Non-recurring Cost / [(H) * 365] (3) (J) = Raw material cost difference between compliant and baseline formulations from Table IX-6 (4) Figures in "( )" are negative (i.e., indicates potential cost savings) 0.13 (5) California-to-National Cost Adjustment Factor (CNF)= (6) Annual Recurring Cost Difference from Table IX-3



### IX-21

### Table IX-9. Estimated Cost-Effectiveness for Proposed ATCM (Cost per Pound of Pollutants Reduced)

Estimated Cost-Effectiveness Estimated Reformulation Costs 1997 Estimated Annualized Fixed Cost to $/lb TAC reduced (in 1999 dollars) Emission Reformulate All Chlorinated TAC Products (in 1999 dollars) Annual Recurring Cost Annualized Non-Recurring Cost Reduc. (dollars per year) $/lb TAC Reduced $/lb TAC Reduced tons/day Ave High Low High Low High Low (O1+O2)/2 O2=(M2+N) O1=(M1+N) (N) M2 = D1*(CNF)/L M1 = D1*(CNF)/L (L) (D2) (D1) Category Code
$0.02 $0.03 $0.00 -$0.00 $0.03 $0.00 4.450 $792,100 $61,784 Automotive Brake Cleaners 2202 $0.07 $0.14 $0.01 -$0.00 $0.14 $0.01 0.310 $235,489 $18,368 Carburetor, Fuel-Injection Cleaners 2203 $0.12 $0.23 $0.02 -$0.00 $0.23 $0.02 0.100 $128,449 $10,019 Engine Degreasers 2204a $0.08 $0.15 $0.01 -$0.00 $0.15 $0.01 0.310 $256,897 $20,038 G.P. Degreaser/Solvent Parts Cleaner (Aerosol) 5203c $0.00 MIN G(1) 5.170 $1,412,936 $110,209 Grand Total $0.23 MAX G(2) $0.03 ERWA-AVG Notes: $99,003 Total industry-wide annual compliance costs = (1) Avg. Cost-Effectiveness shown as "$0.00" means the average of the low and high cost-effectiveness for the category was either 0 or negative. [(ERWA-AVG)*(L)*(365 days/year)*(2000 lbs/ton)] (2) ERWA = emission reduction-weighted average (3) Cost-effectiveness values in "( )" are negative (i.e., indicates potential cost savings) (4) Non-recurring fixed costs annualized by multiplying with the Cost Recovery Factor (CRF) (5) "Emission Reductions" (Column L) reflect 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey results adjusted for market coverage of the survey. (6) For non-recurring costs, "low" and "high" refer to range of estimated fixed costs discussed in Section IX-D.3.

0.13 California-to-National Cost Adjustment Factor (CNF)=



### IX-22

# IX-23

Thus, the average cost to reduce one pound of chlorinated TACs under the proposed ATCM is less than five cents, indicating that total industry-wide annual compliance costs to achieve a reduction of 5.17 tons per day of chlorinated TACs statewide in 1997 should be approximately $99,000 per year. Table IX-10 shows a comparison of the cost-effectiveness for the proposed ATCM relative to the Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Operations ATCM. Of the nine ATCMs adopted by the Board, this is the only one which controls one of the TACs addressed in the proposed ATCM. Table IX-10. Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness (Pound of Pollutant Reduced)

Airborne Toxic Control Measure Cost-Effectiveness Proposed Chlorinated TAC ATCM $0.00 to $0.23 ($0.03 avg.) (Cost per pound of Perc, MeCl, and TCE reduced) Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Operations ATCM, 1993 $0.64-1.77 ($1.29 avg.) (Cost per pound of Perc reduced) (adjusted to 1999 dollars) 1 

### 1. Cost-effectiveness values for Dry Cleaning ATCM adjusted to 1999 dollars using the following Chemical Engineering Plant Cost indices: 359.2 (1993), 392.0 (Preliminary August 1999) from Chemical Engineering, November 1999

.



# b. Cost Per Potential Cancer Case Avoided By removing Perc, MeCl, and TCE from the four automotive consumer product categories, the emission and health impact (i.e., potential cancer risk) reduction benefits are 100 percent. This correlates to a total of 5.17 tons per day emissions reduction of chlorinated TACs. Additionally, based on a 70 year exposure duration, a reduction of approximately 65 total potential excess cancer cases statewide could be achieved by removal of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from the four automotive product categories. To determine the reduction of 65 potential excess cancer cases statewide, we used ambient concentrations and emissions data as presented in Chapter VI. We then determined the individual potential cancer risk for each compound based on its ambient concentration and multiplied this by the percentage of emissions from the four automotive product categories. Finally, we multiplied this number by California’s 1997 population of 33 million. Of the 65 potential cancer cases avoided, approximately 57 are attributed to Perc, 4 to TCE, and 4 to MeCl. To evaluate the relative impact and effectiveness of the proposed control measure, we calculated the cost per cancer case avoided. We again use Equation (1) to calculate cost effectiveness, but instead of using “annual mass reduction in TACs” in the denominator, we use

### Table IX-11. Estimated Cost-Effectiveness for Proposed ATCM (Cost per Cancer Case Avoided)

Estimated Cost-Effectiveness $/Cancer Cases Avoided Total Regulation Total Annualized Recurring Cost Estimated Annualized Fixed Cost to Cost (Raw Materials Cost) Reformulate All Non-Compliant Products Ave High Low ($/year) ($/Pound of Product) (dollars per year) (R1+R2)/2 R2=(Q2*70 yrs/cases) R1=(Q1*70 yrs/cases) (Q2=(D2*CNF)+P) (Q1=(D1*CNF)+P) (P) High (D2) Low (D1) Category Code $59,956.38 $111,236.32 $8,676.43 $102,973 $8,032 $0.00 $792,100 $61,784 Automotive Brake Cleaners 2202 $17,824.87 $33,070.26 $2,579.48 $30,614 $2,388 $0.00 $235,489 $18,368 Carburetor, Fuel-Injection Cleaners 2203 $9,722.66 $18,038.32 $1,406.99 $16,698 $1,302 $0.00 $128,449 $10,019 Engine Degreasers 2204a $19,445.31 $36,076.65 $2,813.98 $33,397 $2,605 $0.00 $256,897 $20,038 G.P. Degreaser/Solvent Parts Cleaner (Aerosol) 5203c $106,949 $198,422 $15,477 $183,682 $14,327 $0.00 $1,412,936 $110,209 Grand Total $1,406.99 MIN Q(1) $111,236.32 MAX Q(2) $25,927.08 AVERAGE Notes: (1) Cost-effectiveness values in "( )" are negative (i.e., indicates potential cost savings) (2) Non-recurring fixed costs annualized by multiplying with the Cost Recovery Factor (CRF) (3) For non-recurring costs, "low" and "high" refer to range of estimated fixed costs discussed in Section IX-E. (4) Total Annual Recurring Cost = [raw material cost difference ($/pound) multiplied by the number of non-complying products] multiplied by 10 years, which is the project horizon

0.13 California-to-National Cost Adjustment Factor (CNF)= 64.8 Total Potential Excess Cancer Cases Avoided (cases) =



### IX-24

# IX-25

the “number of cancer cases avoided.” Table IX-11 shows the average cost per cancer case avoided is about $26,000 with a range of approximately $1,400 to $111,000. Table IX-12 shows a comparison of the cost-effectiveness for the proposed ATCM relative to other ARB control measures. As shown, the staff’s proposal is significantly less than previously approved ARB control measures. Table IX-12. Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness (Cancer Case Avoided) for Proposed ATCM and other ARB Control Measures (adjusted to 1999 dollars)

Airborne Toxic Control Measure Cost-Effectiveness1,2 

## (Dollars per Cancer Case Avoided) Proposed Chlorinated TAC ATCM $1,400-111,000 Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Operations ATCM, 1993 $1.9-4.8 million Ethylene Oxide ATCM for Sterilizers and Aerators, 1990 $2.1-3.2 million Emissions of Toxic Metals from Non-Ferrous Metal Melting, 1992 $6,600-$18.6 million 1. Cost-effectiveness values for ATCMs are based on size of the facility, amount and type of equipment required to meet the control limits, and which control limit is to be met. 2. All cost-effectiveness values have been adjusted to 1999 dollars using the following Chemical Engineering Plant Cost indices: 357.6 (1990), 358.2 (1992), 359.2 (1993), 392.0 (Preliminary August 1999).

# X-1



# X. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE

The intent of the proposed airborne toxic control measure (ATCM) is to protect the public health by reducing the public’s exposure to potentially harmful emissions of TACs. An additional consideration is the impact that the proposed ATCM may have on other areas of the environment. Based on available information, the ARB has determined that no significant adverse environmental impacts should occur. This chapter describes the potential impacts that the proposed ATCM may have on waste water treatment, hazardous waste disposal, and air pollution.
A. Legal Requirements Applicable to the Analysis The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and ARB policy require an analysis to determine the potential adverse environmental impacts of proposed regulations. Since the ARB’s program involving the adoption of regulations has been certified by the Secretary of Resources (see Public Resources Code section 21080.5), the CEQA environmental analysis requirements are allowed to be included in the Initial Statement of Reasons for a rulemaking in lieu of preparing an environmental impact report or negative declaration. In addition, the ARB will respond in writing to all significant environmental issues raised by the public during the public review period or at the Board hearing. These responses will be contained in the Final Statement of Reasons for the ATCM. Public Resources Code section 21159 requires that the environmental impact analysis conducted by ARB include the following: (1) an analysis of the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the methods of compliance; (2) an analysis of reasonably foreseeable feasible mitigation measures; and, (3) an analysis of reasonably foreseeable alternative means of compliance with the ATCM. Regarding reasonably foreseeable mitigation measures, CEQA requires an agency to identify and adopt feasible mitigation measures that would minimize any significant adverse environmental impacts described in the environmental analysis.
B. Potential Waste Water Impacts Sanitation districts have been concerned about the amount of chlorinated compounds found in the waste effluent at treatment plants. Currently, many treatment plants do not have the equipment necessary to process industrial wastes such as chlorinated solvents and these solvents have been detected at elevated levels at some facilities. Over the last several years, increased influent concentrations of Perc were observed at four wastewater treatment plants (Pomona Water Reclamation Plant, City of Los Angeles’ Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant, Joint Water Pollution Control Plant, and East Bay Municipal Utilities District). The influent concentrations of Perc have been high enough to potentially cause violations of the plants’

# X-2

discharge limit of 5 micrograms per liter (μg/L). The data collected from the wastewater treatment plants for 1999 showed median influent levels of 17 μg/L, 78 μg/L, 8 μg/L, and 4 μg/L, respectively (CSDLA, 1999a; CSDLA 1999b). The number of stationary and mobile parts washers being used in AMR facilities has increased over the years to meet federal, state, and local regulations adopted to address environmental and health concerns. Publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) have been concerned about the disposal practices of the spent baths, which are usually classified as hazardous waste and cannot be disposed in the sewer system. In some cases, unused cleaners are also considered hazardous waste. A study conducted in Southern California showed that about three-quarters of spent water baths were classified as hazardous waste. None of these spent baths met discharge standards set by local POTWs or sanitary sewerage districts (DTSC, 1999a). The removal of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from the four automotive consumer products categories should lead to a reduction in the amount of chlorinated solvents reaching the storm drains and the waste water treatment plants.
C. Potential Hazardous Waste Impacts Hazardous waste is regulated in California by both federal and state programs. In California, all hazardous waste must be disposed of at a facility that is registered with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Under these programs, chlorinated automotive consumer products are generally classified as hazardous waste because they contain substances which are listed as toxic substances. An AMR facility will generate spent chlorinated solvent from stationary and portable parts washers and from liquid solvent that is used to wash parts over a collection drum. A hazardous waste hauler is usually contracted to remove the spent solvent from the facility. For a monthly fee, waste haulers will pick-up the spent solvent, clean and maintain the solvent cleaning unit, and refill the unit with clean solvent. Depending on the arrangement, solvent cleaning units may be owned by the shop or leased from a solvent service company. The waste hauler will then recycle the spent solvent to reclaim the chlorinated substances which can then be resold. Based on information collected during site visits, spent baths (as well as other waste disposal containers) contaminated with chlorinated compounds are typically more costly to have removed from the facility. It is expected that the proposed ATCM may increase the usage of stationary and portable parts washers. The removal of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from automotive consumer products will minimize the possibility of chlorinated solvents contaminating aqueous baths, waste oil containers, and hazardous waste disposal drums thereby significantly reducing hazardous waste contamination and disposal costs.

# X-3

D. Potential Air Pollution Impacts
1. Potential Increase in VOC Emissions The Consumer Products Regulation reduces the formation of tropospheric, or ground-level, ozone by reducing VOC emissions from consumer products. Tropospheric ozone formation requires a mix of VOCs, nitrogen oxides, oxygen, and sunlight. Therefore, a reduction in VOC emissions is expected to provide a beneficial environmental impact on air quality and public health by reducing tropospheric ozone formation. Based on the results of the 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey, the products from the four automotive consumer product categories emitted approximately 14.6 tons per day (tpd) of VOCs in California (ARB, 1999b). The October 1999 amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation are expected to obtain a reduction of 3.3 tpd in VOC emissions from automotive consumer products (ARB, 1999b). However, the removal of Perc, MeCl, and TCE as formulation options in the proposed ATCM will adversely impact the reduction in VOC emissions that otherwise would have been realized. Chlorinated automotive consumer products account for approximately 38 percent of the market and their removal will reduce emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE by approximately 5.2 tpd (approximately 3.8 million pounds per year) as shown in Table X-1.

Table X-1. Statewide Emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE

from Automotive Consumer Products

Perc Emissions [tons/day] MeCl Emissions [tons/day] TCE Emissions [tons/day] Total Chlorinated [tons/day]
4.2 0.7 0.3 5.2



# If we assume a worse case scenario where all current users of chlorinated products switch to non-chlorinated, VOC-based products with Perc, MeCl, and TCE replaced with VOC compounds (irrespective of any current VOC-based formulation limits), then the theoretical increase in statewide VOC emissions would be approximately 5.2 tpd. However, beginning January 1, 2002, the VOC-content of automotive consumer products is subject to VOC-content limits as specified in the October 1999 amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation. As a result of these technically-feasible limits, post-ATCM VOC emissions would increase by no more than 2.3 tpd statewide. Table X-2 summarizes the potential increase in VOC emissions.

# X-4 Table X-2. Potential Maximum Increase in VOC Emissions from a Switch to VOC-Based Non-Chlorinated Products

Product Category VOC Limit [%] Potential VOC Emissions [tons/day]
Brake Cleaners 45 2.00
Carburetor Cleaners 45 0.14 Engine Degreasers 35 0.04 General Purpose Degreasers 50 0.16 Total (approx.) 2.3



# ARB staff expects, however, that some users of chlorinated automotive consumer products will choose to consider other non-chlorinated alternatives (such as aqueous-based portable brake cleaning units and parts washers) and not switch exclusively to non-chlorinated VOC products. If this occurs, the increase in VOC emissions related to the proposed ATCM would be less than 2.3 tpd statewide. When total VOC emission reductions from boththe October 1999 amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation and the proposed ATCM are considered, statewide VOC emissions from the four automotive consumer products categories are reduced by at least one ton per day. These reductions are summarized in Table X-3.

Table X-3. Approximate Emission Reductions from Proposed ATCM and October 1999 Consumer Products Amendments1



## Chlorinated TAC Reductions

[tons/day] VOC Reductions [tons/day]
5.2 1.0
1. Total combined emission reductions from the October 1999 Consumer Products Amendments andthe proposed ATCM.



# 2. Impacts on the State Implementation Plan for Ozone The Federal Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 require an ozone attainment plan from every state unable to meet the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. California’s 1994 State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone fulfills this requirement (ARB, 1994). State law provides the legal authority to ARB to develop regulations affecting a variety of mobile sources, fuels, and consumer products. The regulations that have already been adopted, and measures proposed for adoption constitute the ARB’s portion of the SIP. The SIP serves as a road map to guide California to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. The

# X-5

SIP was submitted to the U.S. EPA on November 15, 1994, and the consumer products element was formally approved on August 21, 1995. As previously mentioned, the proposed ATCM decreases the potential VOC reductions that will be obtained by the October 1999 amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation while achieving substantial reductions in emissions of chlorinated TACs. Perc was considered a VOC in the 1994 ozone SIP inventory; therefore, substituting non-chlorinated VOC-based products to replace Perc will have no impact on the 1994 SIP (which covers Ventura County, the Sacramento Metropolitan area, the San Joaquin Valley, San Diego County, and the Southeast Desert). In the context of the 1994 SIP, substituting VOC-based products for MeCl will increase VOC emissions by approximately 0.1 tpd in all the 1994 SIP areas combined. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) revised their federal ozone plan in 1999, and the U.S. EPA has proposed to approve this plan. In the 1999 revision, Perc is not

considered a VOC. In the context of the 1999 revision, if VOC-based products are substituted for all the Perc and MeCl currently used in chlorinated products, we expect an increase of approximately one ton per day of VOC in the South Coast Air Basin. The ARB and the SCAQMD will address this shortfall in the next comprehensive revision of the South Coast ozone SIP.
3. Potential Environmental Impacts on Global Warming and Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Greenhouse gases, which alter the amount of heat, or infrared radiation, that can escape the Earth’s surface, have been linked to a gradual warming of the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. While carbon dioxide (CO2

# ) has been the traditional focus of greenhouse gas concerns, other greenhouse gases include methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons (U.S. EPA, 1998a). In the United States, the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions is from fossil fuel combustion, which accounted for approximately 81 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in 1996 (U.S. EPA, 1998a). Carbon dioxide is used as a propellant in both chlorinated and non-chlorinated aerosol automotive consumer products. Based on data from the 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey, non-chlorinated products typically contain a greater amount of carbon dioxide than their chlorinated counterparts. Since the proposed ATCM does not require a reduction of the amount of aerosol products sold, many users of chlorinated products may switch to non-chlorinated products thereby increasing the amount of carbon dioxide released. However, the use of carbon dioxide as a propellant in automotive consumer products typically results from a recycled by-product of existing processes and, therefore, does not contribute to global warming (ARB, 1995a). Additionally, non-chlorinated aerosols account for nearly 62 percent of the market. As a result, the proposed ATCM is expected to have a negligible impact on global warming.

# X-6

4. South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Toxics Control Plan The South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) is currently in the process of developing a comprehensive control plan designed to obtain significant reduction of toxic emissions in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The plan will address current air toxic levels, control strategies, and projected future air toxic emission levels. The removal of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from automotive consumer products will greatly assist the efforts of the South Coast AQMD in their efforts to reduce toxic emissions. It is expected that the proposed ATCM will reduce toxic emissions in the SCAB by approximately 2.6 tpd. Additionally, combined with the October 1999 amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation, VOC emissions should be reduced by almost 0.5 tpd.
5. Workplace Exposure The California Department of Industrial Relations-Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) regulates the concentration of many TACs and VOCs in the workplace environment. To protect worker safety, Cal/OSHA has established a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for many of these compounds (the PEL is the maximum, eight-hour, time-weighted average concentration for occupational exposure). The combined effect of both the proposed ATCM and the October 1999 amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation is a reduction in VOC emissions. As a result, an increase in workplace exposure from TAC emissions and VOC emissions is not expected.
E. Formation of Phosgene Phosgene is a toxic, colorless, gas or volatile liquid with a suffocating odor that is similar to decaying fruit or moldy hay. It is slightly soluble in water and freely soluble in benzene, toluene, glacial acetic acid, chloroform, and most liquid hydrocarbons. Phosgene is noncombustible but can decompose into hydrochloric acid (HCl) and CO2

# when wetted. As a result, wet phosgene is corrosive and poses an additional hazard from pressure buildup in closed containers. The density of phosgene is more than three times that of air, which means that its concentrated emission plumes tend to settle to the ground and collect in low areas (ARB, 1997b). Phosgene is listed as a TAC and a federal HAP. Phosgene, also known as carbonyl chloride, is not a normal component of welding gases, can be formed by the thermal decomposition of chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g., Perc, TCE, and TCA) when welding is carried out in the presence of solvent vapors. These solvent vapors may be escaping from a nearby degreasing tank, a recently expelled aerosol product, or when solvent is left behind after degreasing (NOHSC, 1999a). Phosgene formation is promoted by ultraviolet radiation, hot metal surfaces, flame, and cigarette smoking (NOHSC, 1999a). The gas-shielded arc welding processes and plasma processes provide greater ultraviolet light intensity than the flux-shielded arc welding processes. Additionally, heat and ultraviolet radiation from the welding arc may react with solvent vapor to produce irritant gases such as acetylchloride and

# X-7

acetylchloride derivatives such as dichloroacetylchloride. There is also evidence of phosgene formation from the photooxidation of chloroethylenes in air such as Perc and TCE (U.S. EPA, 1985). Acute non-cancer affects are of the most concern. Phosgene is extremely irritating to the lungs, and can cause severe respiratory effects, including pulmonary edema. Symptoms of acute exposure include choking, chest constriction, coughing, painful breathing, and bloody sputum. Acute phosgene poisoning may affect the heart, brain, and blood. Symptoms may be delayed up to 24 hours after exposure. Chronic inhalation exposure has been shown to result in some tolerance to acute effects noted in humans, but irreversible emphysema and pulmonary fibrosis may occur (ARB, 1997b). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lists a recommended exposure limit of 0.1 parts per million for phosgene. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also lists a PEL of 0.1 parts per million (NIOSH, 1994). Recognizing these health and safety concerns, both OSHA and Cal/OSHA have taken steps to limit worker exposure to phosgene. OSHA Regulations state that degreasing and cleaning operations that involve chlorinated hydrocarbons shall be located so that vapors from these operations will not reach or be drawn into the area that surrounds any welding operation (Standards-29 CFR, General requirements, Section 1910.252). In addition, compounds such as Perc and TCE should be kept out of areas penetrated by ultraviolet radiation of gas-shielded welding operations. Cal/OSHA regulations for electric welding state that chlorinated solvents shall not be used within 200 feet (61 meters) of the exposed arc. Furthermore, surfaces prepared with chlorinated solvents should be thoroughly dry before welding is performed on them (California Code of Regulations, Subchapter 7, Group 11, Article 90, Section 4853). The removal of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from automotive consumer products in the proposed ATCM will minimize the potential for phosgene formation in the presence of flame or heat sources thereby extending a greater level of worker and public health protection and safety.
F. Potential Flammability of Products that Contain VOCs The June 1997 Status Report, based on the limited data available at the time, considered the flammability of many non-chlorinated aerosols to be a disadvantage when compared to chlorinated aerosols which are typically non-flammable (ARB, 1997a). Industry groups representing product manufacturers have also underscored this concern stating their belief that AMR facilities need to continue their usage of the more toxic chlorinated aerosols, especially in areas where use may occur near flame, heat, or other ignition sources. Since the release of the Status Report, however, more data regarding flammability has become available. A search of statewide and national databases as well as inquiries to fire departments and associations across the state were unable to locate any reports of fires, injuries, or other incidents related to the use of non-chlorinated products in AMR facilities. Additionally, the California State Fire Marshal’s

# X-8

office indicated that the combustion of gasoline, such as from a leaking fuel line, poses a significantly greater flammability concern than the use of aerosols. During the 137 site visits, ARB staff observed brake service operations at one facility using a flammable, non-chlorinated aerosol product occurring in one service bay and welding operations occurring in another service bay. ARB staff also observed chlorinated products that were listed as flammable on the product label, which indicates that chlorinated products can also be flammable. Sixteen additional site visits were conducted to specifically investigate flammability issues. Of these facilities, all 16 used flammable products (non-chlorinated and chlorinated) but only 14 had an ignition source. The types of ignition sources observed included: welding (e.g. arc) equipment, torch (e.g. acetylene) equipment, cigarettes, and space heaters (natural gas and propane, portable, and overhead). Usage of flammable products occurred from approximately 20 to 30 feet from the ignition source with most usage occurring in adjacent service bays. Only one facility reported an incident (non-injury) associated with the use of a flammable product. This facility, however, attributed the incident to a vehicle malfunction and continues to use flammable products almost exclusively. Additionally, none of the facilities visited indicated that flammability concerns were a factor when making decisions on which products to buy (cost was the major factor). Instead, discussions with facility operators indicated that most facilities consider all aerosol products flammable and use common safety precautions when using these products Therefore, flammability is sufficiently addressed by the use of good operating practices on the part of facility owners, mechanics, and technicians. This belief is supported by the fact that most facilities already use a host of flammable products and that non-flammable alternatives such as aqueous-based portable brake cleaning units and water-based aerosol products are readily available and in use.
G. Reasonably Foreseeable Feasible Mitigation Measures As previously discussed, ARB is required to do an analysis of reasonably foreseeable feasible mitigation measures. ARB staff has concluded that no significant adverse environmental impacts should occur from implementation of the proposed ATCM. As a result, no mitigation measures would be necessary.
H. Reasonably Foreseeable Alternative Means of Compliance with the ATCM The ARB is required to do an analysis of reasonably foreseeable alternative means of compliance with the ATCM. Alternatives to the proposed ATCM are discussed in Chapter VII. Based on the discussion in Chapter VII, ARB staff has concluded that the removal of MeCl and TCE from automotive consumer products is appropriate and necessary because of the potential increased use and, therefore, potential increased risk if the use of these two compounds was not so limited. For the same reasons, staff has concluded that the removal of Perc, MeCl, and TCE

# X-9

from carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers, as well as from brake cleaners, is appropriate and necessary.

# XI-1



# XI. REFERENCES

AQMD, 2000. Personal Communication with Jim Guthrie (Bay Area Air Quality Management District), Ben Shaw (South Coast Air Quality Management District), and Mike Gazet (Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District) on hourly cost of district inspectors on January 27, 2000 and February 2, 2000. ARB, 1989. Technical Support Document, Proposed Identification of Methylene Chloride as a Toxic Air Contaminant, Part B Report, California Air Resources Board, May 1989. ARB, 1990a. Staff Report/Executive Summary, and Part B, Proposed Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant, California Air Resources Board, August 1990. ARB, 1990b. Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products, California Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document, August 1990. ARB, 1991a. Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Staff Report/Executive Summary, and Part B, Proposed Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant, California Air Resources Board, August 1991. ARB, 1991b. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - Phase II, Technical Support Document, California Air Resources Board, October 1991. ARB, 1993a. Technical Support Document: Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure And Proposed Environmental Training Program for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Operations, California Air Resources Board, August 1993. ARB, 1993b. The Identification of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants as Toxic Air Contaminants, California Air Resources Board, June 1993. ARB, 1994. The California State Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volume II, California Air Resources Board,November 15, 1994. ARB, 1995. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the California Regulations for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products and Aerosol Coatings,California Air Resources Board, August 11, 1995.

# XI-2

ARB, 1996a. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the California Regulations for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products,California Air Resources Board, October 4, 1996. ARB, 1996b. Curriculum for the Environmental Training Program for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Operations, California Air Resources Board, August 1996. ARB, 1997a. Perchloroethylene Need Assessment for Automotive Consumer Products: Status Report, California Air Resources Board, June 1997. ARB, 1997b. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List - Summaries, California Air Resources Board, September 1997. ARB, 1997c. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation, Volume II, California Air Resources Board, June 6, 1997. ARB, 1997d. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments Pertaining to Hairspray in the California Consumer Products Regulation, Volume II, California Air Resources Board, February 7, 1997. ARB, 1997e. Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines for the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program, California Air Resources Board, May 15, 1997. ARB, 1998. ARB Memo from Dilip Patel to Mark Carlock on County and Subcounty Population Distributions for Calendar Years 1995 and 1996, May 28, 1998. ARB, 1999a. Data retrieved from CEIDARS (California Emission Inventory Development and Reporting System), Data from data base year 1998, Technical Support Division, Special Pollutants Emission Inventory Section, Run date: October 20, 1999. ARB, 1999b. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation,California Air Resources Board, September 10, 1999. BAR, 1997. Telephone conversation with Rob Oglesby, California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair, and Tina Najjar on March 13, 1997. BOE, 1997a. Fax received March 5, 1997 from the Board of Equalization office in Sacramento. BOE, 1997b. Telephone conversation with Wun-Chi Wang, Board of Equalization, and Mark Williams on March 5, 1997.

# XI-3

Brake Pad Partnership Steering Committee, 1999. Telephone conversation with Kelley Moran of the Brake Pad Partnership Steering Committee and Mark Williams on January 12, 1999. Cal/EPA, 1996. Memorandum “Economic Analysis Requirements for the Adoption of Administrative Regulations” to Cal/EPA Executive Officers and Directors from Peter M. Rooney, Undersecretary; December 6, 1996 and “Cal/EPA Guidelines for Evaluating Alternatives to Proposed Major Regulations”, California Environmental Protection Agency. CAPCOA, 1993. CAPCOA Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program - Revised 1992 Risk Assessment Guidelines, Toxics Committee of the California Air Pollution Control Officer Association (CAPCOA), October 1993. Chemical Engineering,Publication of Chemical Week Associates, November 1999. Chemical Market Reporter,Schnell Publishing Company, November 29, 1999. CRC, 1998. Workshop presentation by Richard Miller of CRC, March 17, 1998. CSDLA, 1999a. Correspondence on June 29, 1999, from County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regarding possible water quality impacts from SCAQMD aqueous cleaning rules. CSDLA, 1999b. Correspondence on September 20, 1999, from County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County to California Air Resources Board regarding Perc in Consumer Engine Degreasing Products. DTSC, 1999a. “Switching to Water-Based Cleaners in Repair and Maintenance Parts Cleaning”, Prepared by: Institute for Research and Technical Assistance’s Pollution Prevention Center. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development. February 1999. Federal-Mogul, 1999. Telephone conversation with Rick Kroeger of Federal-Mogul (Wagner) and Mark Williams on November 15, 1999. IRTA, 1999. “Brake Cleaning in Auto Repair Facilities: The Conversion to Water,” prepared by Mike Morris and Katy Wolf of the Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA) for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, September 1999. MarketScope, 1996. “1996 Brake Repair Study”, prepared by MarketScope for Brake and Front End Magazine, May 1996.

# XI-4

NIOSH, 1994. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, publication no. 94-116, June 1994. NOHSC, 1999a. Gases, National Occupational Health & Safety Commission, Commonwealth of Australia, Internet site: http://www.nohsc.gov.au/publications/fulltext/docs/h6/946.htm, November 17, 1999. Norton, 1993. “Usage of Chemical Brake Cleaners in Automotive Repair Facilities”, John Norton, School of Business Administration, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, November 8, 1993. OEHHA, 1997. Telephone conversation with Melanie Marty, Manager, Air Risk Assessment Unit, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and Greg Harris on May 1, 1997. OEHHA, 1999a. Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), March 1999. OEHHA, 1999b. Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part II, Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), April 1999. OEHHA, 1999c. State of California, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Chemical Known To The State To Cause Cancer And Reproductive Toxicity, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, August 1999. Peters and Timmerhaus, 1980. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers, 3rd

# edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Peters, Max S. and Klaus D. Timmerhaus, 1980, pp.160-162. Raybestos, 1999. Telephone conversation with Wally Marciniak, Brake Service Subsidiary of Raybestos, and Mark Williams on August 19, 1999. U.S. Economic Census, 1992. Government Information Sharing Project, Information Services, Oregon State University, Internet Site: http://govinfo.kerr.orst.edu/, March 5, 1997. U.S. EPA, 1985. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Phosgene, EPA-450/4-84-007i, United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), September 1985.

# XI-5

U.S. EPA, 1994a. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Halogenated Solvent Cleaning, 40 CFR Parts 9 and 63, EPA-453/R-94-071, United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, Federal Register: December 2, 1994. U.S. EPA, 1995a. ISCST3 Model User’s Guide, EPA-454/B-95-003a, United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 1995. U.S. EPA, 1995b. SCREEN3 Model User’s Guide, EPA-454/B-95-004, United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 1995. U.S. EPA. 1995c, Guidance for Risk Characterization, United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Science Policy Council. February 1995. U.S. EPA, 1998a. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-1996, EPA 236-R-98-006, United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), March 1998.

# Appendix A Proposed Regulation Order Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities

# A-1 PROPOSED REGULATION ORDER AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE FOR EMISSIONS OF CHLORINATED TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS FROM AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ACTIVITIES Adopt new section 93111, title 17, California Code of Regulations, to read as follows: 17 CCR, section 93111. Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants Airborne Toxic Control Measure--Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities.

(a) Applicability (1) Except as provided in subdivision (b), this section applies to any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures automotive consumer products for use in automotive maintenance or repair activities in California. (2) This section also applies to the owner or operator of any automotive maintenance facility or automotive repair facility that uses automotive consumer products in California. (b) Exemptions (1) This section does not apply to any automotive consumer product manufactured in California for shipment and use outside of California. (2) This section does not apply to a manufacturer or distributor who sells, supplies or offers for sale in California an automotive consumer product that does not comply with the standards specified in subdivision (d) if the manufacturer or distributor can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Executive Officer both of the following: (A) the automotive consumer product is intended for shipment and use outside of California, and (B) the manufacturer or distributor has taken reasonable prudent precautions to assure that the automotive consumer product is not sold, offered for sale, or distributed in California. This subdivision (2) does not apply to manufacturers or distributors of automotive consumer products if the products are sold, supplied, or offered for sale by any person to retail outlets in California. (c) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply: (1) “Aerosol Product” means a pressurized spray system that dispenses product ingredients by means of a propellant or mechanically induced force. Any user-pressurized system that uses compressed air as a propellant is considered to be an “Aerosol Product”. “Aerosol Product” does not include pump sprayers.

# A-2

(2) “ASTM” means the American Society for Testing and Materials. (3) “Automotive Consumer Product” for the purposes of this section, means any of the following chemically formulated aerosol products or liquid products used in automotive maintenance or repair activities: (A) brake cleaners, (B) carburetor or fuel-injection air intake cleaners, (C) engine degreasers, and (D) general purpose degreasers intended for use in automotive maintenance or repair activities. (4) “Automotive Maintenance Facility or Automotive Repair Facility (Facility)” means any establishment at which a person repairs, rebuilds, reconditions, services, or maintains in any way, motor vehicles. “Facility” includes entities required to be registered by the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair, and entities that service or repair a fleet of ten or more motor vehicles. “Facility” does not include private residences or entities that are involved only in motor vehicle body work or painting. (5) “Automotive Maintenance or Repair Activities” means any service, repair, restoration, or modification activity to a motor vehicle in which cleaning or degreasing products could be used including, but not limited to, brake work, engine work, machining operations, and general degreasing of engines, motor vehicles, parts, or tools. (6) “Brake Cleaner” means a cleaning product designed, labeled, promoted or advertised (expressed or implied) to remove oil, grease, brake fluid, brake pad material or dirt from motor vehicle brake mechanisms and parts. (7) “Carburetor or Fuel-Injection Air Intake Cleaner” means a product designed, labeled, promoted or advertised (expressed or implied) to remove fuel deposits, dirt, or other contaminants from a carburetor, choke, throttle body of a fuel-injection system, or associated linkages. “Carburetor or fuel-injection air intake cleaner” does not include products designed exclusively to be introduced directly into the fuel lines or fuel storage tank prior to introduction into the carburetor or fuel injectors. (8) “CAS Registry Number” is a unique accession number assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service, a division of the American Chemical Society. (9) “Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminant” for the purposes of this section, means methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene. (10) “Consumer” means any person who seeks, purchases, or acquires any automotive consumer product for use in automotive maintenance and repair activities. Persons acquiring an automotive consumer product for resale are not “consumers” for that product.

# A-3

(11) “Distributor” means any person to whom an automotive consumer product is sold or supplied for the purposes of resale or distribution in commerce, except that manufacturers, retailers, and consumers are not distributors. (12) “Engine Degreaser” means a cleaning product designed, labeled, promoted or advertised (expressed or implied) to remove grease, grime, oil or other contaminants from the external surfaces of engines and other mechanical parts. (13) “Executive Officer” means the Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board, or his or her delegate. (14) “General Purpose Cleaner” means a product designed for general all-purpose cleaning, in contrast to cleaning products designed to clean specific substrates in certain situations. “General Purpose Cleaner” includes products designed for general floor cleaning, kitchen or counter top cleaning, and cleaners designed to be used on a variety of hard surfaces. (15) “General Purpose Degreaser” means any product designed, labeled, promoted or advertised (expressed or implied) to remove or dissolve grease, grime, oil and other oil-based contaminants from a variety of motor vehicle substrates or surfaces or miscellaneous metallic parts. “General Purpose Degreaser” does not include “Engine Degreaser”or “General Purpose Cleaner”. (16) “Liquid” means a substance or mixture of substances which is capable of a visually detectable flow as determined under ASTM D-4359-90 which is incorporated by reference. “Liquid” does not include powders or other materials that are composed entirely of solid particles. (17) “Liquid Product” means any product that is packaged and sold as a bulk liquid including liquid delivered by pump sprayers. (18) “Manufacturer” means any person who imports, manufactures, assembles, produces, packages, repackages, or relabels an automotive consumer product. (19) “Methylene Chloride” (CAS Registry Number 75-09-2) means the compound with the chemical formula 'CH2

# Cl2

# ', also known by the name ‘dichloromethane’, which has been identified by the Air Resources Board and listed as a toxic air contaminant in section 93000, and which is a hazardous air pollutant designated as a toxic air contaminant in section 93001. (20) “Motor Vehicle” means a self-propelled device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. "Motor vehicle" does not include a self-propelled wheelchair, invalid tricycle, or motorized quadricycle when

# A-4

operated by a person who, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian. (21) “Owner or Operator” means a person who is the owner or the operator of an automotive maintenance facility or an automotive repair facility. (22) “Perchloroethylene (Perc)” (CAS Registry Number 127-18-4) means the compound with the chemical formula 'C2

# Cl4

# ', also known by the name ‘tetrachloroethylene’, which has been identified by the Air Resources Board and listed as a toxic air contaminant in section 93000, and which is a hazardous air pollutant designated as a toxic air contaminant in section 93001. (23) “Person” means “person” as defined in Health and Safety Code section 39047. (24) “Pump Sprayer” means a packaging system in which the product ingredients within the container are not under pressure and in which the product is expelled only while a pumping action is applied to a button, trigger or other actuator. (25) “Retailer” means any person who sells, supplies, or offers for sale automotive consumer products directly to consumers. (26) “Retail Outlet” means any establishment at which automotive consumer products are sold, supplied, or offered for sale directly to consumers. (27) “Trichloroethylene” (CAS Registry Number 79-01-6) means the compound with the chemical formula 'C2

# HCl3

# ', also known by the name ‘TCE’, which has been identified by the Air Resources Board and listed as a toxic air contaminant in section 93000, and which is a hazardous air pollutant designated as a toxic air contaminant in section 93001. (d) Standards for Automotive Consumer Products (1) Except as provided in subdivision (b), subdivision (e) and subdivision (g), after the effective dates specified in the following Table of Standards no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or manufacture for sale in California any automotive consumer product that, at the time of sale or manufacture, contains methylene chloride, perchloroethylene or trichloroethylene.

# A-5 Table of Standards Product Category Effective Date
Brake Cleaner December 31, 2002
Carburetor or December 31, 2002 Fuel-injection Air Intake Cleaners Engine Degreaser December 31, 2002 General Purpose Degreaser December 31, 2002 (2) For the purposes of subdivision (d)(1), a product “contains methylene chloride, perchloroethylene or trichloroethylene” if the product contains 1.0 percent or more by weight (exclusive of the container or packaging) of any one of the compounds methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene as determined by the test method specified in subdivision (h). (3) No owner or operator of an automotive maintenance facility or automotive repair facility shall use an automotive consumer product prohibited under subdivision (d)(1) after June 30, 2005. (e) Sell-through of products (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2), an automotive consumer product manufactured prior to the effective date specified for that product category in the Table of Standards may be sold, supplied, or offered for sale for up to 18 months after the specified effective date. (2) This subdivision (e) does not apply to any automotive consumer product if that product does not display, on the product container or package, the date on which the product was manufactured or a code indicating such date. (f) Administrative Requirements - Code-Dating (1) Each manufacturer of an automotive consumer product subject to this section shall clearly display on each automotive consumer product container or package, the day, month, and year on which the product was manufactured, or a code indicating the day, month, and year of manufacture. This date or code-date shall be displayed on each automotive consumer product container or package manufactured on or after the date no later than twelve months prior to the effective date of the applicable standard specified in subsection (d). No person shall erase, alter, deface or otherwise remove or make illegible

# A-6

any date or code-date from any regulated product container or package without the express authorization of the manufacturer. (2) If a manufacturer uses a code indicating the date of manufacture for any automotive consumer product subject to this section, the manufacturer shall file an explanation of the code with the Executive Officer of the ARB no later than twelve months prior to the effective date of the applicable standard specified in subdivision (d). (g) Variances (1) Applications for variances. Any person who cannot comply with the requirements set forth in subdivision (d) because of extraordinary reasons beyond the person’s reasonable control may apply in writing to the Executive Officer for a variance. The variance application shall set forth: (A) the specific grounds upon which the variance is sought; (B) the proposed date(s) by which compliance with the provisions of subdivision (d) will be achieved; and (C) a compliance report reasonably detailing the method(s) by which compliance will be achieved. (2) Notices and public hearings for variances. Upon receipt of a variance application containing the information required in subdivision (g)(1), the Executive Officer will hold a public hearing to determine whether, under what conditions, and to what extent, a variance from the requirements in subdivision (d) is necessary and will be permitted. The Executive Officer will initiate a hearing no later than 75 days after receipt of a variance application. The Executive Officer will send notice of the time and place of the hearing to the applicant by certified mail not less than 30 days prior to the hearing. The Executive Officer will submit notice of the hearing for publication in the California Regulatory Notice Register, and not less than 30 days prior to the hearing, the Executive Officer will send a notice to every person who requests such notice. The notice will state that the parties may, but need not, be represented by counsel at the hearing. At least 30 days prior to the hearing, the Executive Officer will make the variance application available to the public for inspection. The Executive Officer will allow interested members of the public a reasonable opportunity to testify at the hearing and will consider their testimony. (3) Treatment of confidential information. Information submitted to the Executive Officer by a variance applicant may be claimed as confidential, and such information will be handled in accordance with the procedures specified in sections 91000-91022. The Executive Officer may consider such confidential information in reaching a decision on a variance application.

# A-7

(4) Necessary findings for granting variances. The Executive Officer will not grant a variance unless the Executive Officer finds that: (A) because of reasons beyond the reasonable control of the applicant, requiring compliance with subdivision (d) would result in extraordinary economic hardship to the applicant; and (B) the public interest in mitigating the extraordinary hardship to the applicant by issuing the variance outweighs the public interest in avoiding any increased emissions of toxic air contaminants that would result from issuing the variance; and (C) the compliance report proposed by the applicant can reasonably be implemented and will achieve compliance as expeditiously as possible. (5) Variance orders. Any variance order will specify a final compliance date by which the requirements of subdivision (d) will be achieved. Any variance order will contain a condition that specifies increments of progress necessary to assure timely compliance, and such other conditions that the Executive Officer, in consideration of the testimony received at the hearing, finds necessary to carry out the purposes of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code. (6) Situations in which variances will cease to be effective. A variance will cease to be effective upon failure of the party to whom the variance was granted to comply with any term or condition of the variance. (7) Modification and revocation of variances. Upon the application of any person, the Executive Officer may review, and for good cause, modify or revoke a variance from requirements of subdivision (d) after holding a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (g)(2). (h) Test Methods (1) Air Resources Board Method 310, Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Consumer Products, adopted September 25, 1997, and as last amended on November 16, 1999, is incorporated herein by reference. Sections 3.5 and 3.7 will be used to perform the testing to determine compliance with the requirements of this section. (2) References to “VOC” in Method 310 mean “chlorinated toxic air contaminants” when Method 310 is used to determine compliance with this section. (3) Alternative methods which are shown to accurately determine the concentration of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene in a subject product or its emissions may be used upon written approval of the Executive Officer.

# A-8

Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 39650, 39655, 39656, 39658, 39659, 39665, and 39666, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 39650, 39655, 39656, 39658, 39659, 39665, 39666, and 40000, Health and Safety Code.

# Appendix B Surveys

# B-1

Survey 1. Brake Cleaner and Perc-Containing Automotive Products Survey

# B-2 

# INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE BRAKE CLEANER AND PERC-CONTAINING AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS SURVEY

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS



# C Please type or print legibly in ink when filling out the survey form.



# C Please review the instructions and the survey form prior to filling out the form.



# C We suggest that you make extra copies of the form.



# C If you have any questions on the survey or the information we have requested, please contact Mark Williams of the Air Resources Board (ARB) staff at (916) 327-5633.



# C In order to get accurate data from this survey, we would appreciate it if you would consult your actual sales records for determining California sales.



# C In filling out the survey form if you encounter any questions which do not apply in your situation, please enter “N/A” in the appropriate blanks.



# C If you wish to clarify the information supplied by your company or would like to make additional comments, please use Section V to enter your comments. In clarifying the information your company has supplied, please refer to the appropriate table, column, and row or product name.
SECTION I. COMPANY INFORMATION
Company Name: Enter the entire company name. Division Name: If the respondent to the survey is representing a division of the

company please enter the division name. If the respondent to the survey is representing several divisions being reported under one company, please enter the additional division names in Section IV: Other Information at the end of the survey. Contact Person: Enter the name of the person to be contacted by the ARB if

clarifications are needed. Address: Enter the mailing address of the company or division responsible for

completing the survey. Manufacturer/ Distributor: Check the corresponding box to indicate whether you are a

manufacturer or a distributor or both. Phone/Fax Number: Enter the phone and fax numbers of the contact person.

Confidential Information: If you would like us to treat this information and data in a confidential

manner, please check the box at the bottom of Section I. E-mail Address: Enter the E-mail address of the contact person, if available.

# B-3

SECTION II. BRAKE CLEANER PRODUCT INFORMATION
Column Instructions



# C 1, 8: List all of the products that your company either makes, formulates, fills for

another company, or distributes. After having listed all the applicable products in column 1 of Section II., copy the product names in column 8 of the continuation section (Section II.) at the foot of the page. Be sure to list them in the same order.



# C 2: For those products which you either fill for another company, or distribute, please

list the manufacturer’s name in Section V, Other Comments.



# C 3: Enter the product form as either (A)erosol, (L)iquid, (P)ump spray, (G)el, (S)olid,

or (O)ther. If the product falls into the “Other” category, please specify the form in Section V, Other Comments.



# C 4: What is the weight (ounces) of the product in the container or dispenser? If the

product comes in more than one size, list the different sizes as separate entries. It is permissible to report the product size in fluid ounces or gallons, but we request that you enter either the product density in grams per milliliter (g/ml) or its specific gravity (see Section III.).



# C 5-7: What is the number of units of product sold or distributed in California

(column 5)? If there are multiple sizes, list the number of units sold or distributed for each size. We are also interested in who the end users are. What percentage of the units are sold for industrial use in shops which do automotive brake repair and servicing (column 6)? What percentage of the units are sold through a retail store for individual or home use (column 7)?



# C 9: Write in the percentage of Perc by weight contained in the product. If this is a

non-chlorinated product, please list the main ingredients in Section V, Other Comments.



# C 10: Does the product meet the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) limit of 50 percent

content by weight as required by Article 2 of the Consumer Products Regulation? (Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Section 94509)



# C 11-13: These columns deal with product reformulation. In column 11, please enter

whether your company intends to reformulate the product by simply answering “yes” or “no”. In column 12 we would like you to enter an estimated date when the product will be reformulated, if applicable. This date would be when the product is estimated to be sold as a commercial product. If the product is to be reformulated, please enter whether the Perc content will increase as a result of the reformulation along with an estimate of what the new Perc content (percent weight) will be (column 13).

# B-4

SECTION III. LIQUID BRAKE CLEANERS
Column Instructions



# C 1: Enter any products from Section II. which come in liquid form. These products

would be those where “L” is entered in column 3 of Section II.



# C 2: What is the volume (fluid ounces or gallons) of the product in the container or

dispenser? If the product comes in more than one size, list the different sizes as separate entries. Please note that we are asking for the amount of product measured by volume, and not by weight as was requested in column 4 of Section II.



# C 3: Please enter either the product density in grams per milliliter (g/ml) or its specific

gravity.



# C 4: After product purchase for industrial or home use, does the product need to be

diluted prior to its use or application?



# C 5,6: If the producted is diluted, what is the recommended amount of product (column

5) for the given amount of diluent (column 6) per the container instructions? Please specify whether the amounts are given in terms of volume or weight and the units.



# C 7: If the product is diluted, what is the recommended diluent per the instructions?
SECTION IV. OTHER AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS CONTAINING PERC
Column Instructions



# C 1: This column lists other products which could contain Perc.



# C 2: Please answer “Yes” or “No” in the blank by each product category whether your

company manufactures, formulates, fills, or distributes that type of product. For those products which you either fill for another company, or distribute, please list the manufacturer’s name in Section V, Other Comments.



# C 3: If you answered yes in column 2 to any of the product categories, please answer

whether the product(s) contain Perc?



# C 4-6: These columns deal with product reformulation. In column 4, please enter

whether your company intends to reformulate the product by simply answering “yes” or “no”. In column 5 we would like you to enter an estimated date when the product will be reformulated, if applicable. This date would be when the product is estimated to be sold as a commercial product. If the product is to be reformulated, please enter whether the Perc content will increase as a result of the reformulation along with an estimate of what the new Perc content (percent weight) will be (column 6).

# B-5

SECTION V. OTHER COMMENTS If you wish to clarify the information you have supplied or make additional miscellaneous comments on the survey, please enter the comments in this box. In clarifying the information your company has supplied, please refer to the appropriate table, column and row or product
name.

# B-6

Revised March 26, 1997 SSD/EAB/MDW 

# BRAKE CLEANER AND PERC-CONTAINING AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS SURVEY (Please use extra sheets if necessary)
SECTION I. COMPANY INFORMATION

COMPANY NAME ADDRESS
DIVISION NAME
CONTACT PERSON CITY STATE ZIP

MANUFACTURER? 

# 9 DISTRIBUTOR? 

# 9 PHONE ( ) FAX ( )

CHECK THE BOX IF THIS INFORMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL? 

# 9 E-MAIL ADDRESS



## SECTION II. BRAKE CLEANER PRODUCT INFORMATION (Please see attached instructions)

COLUMN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PRODUCT NAME OWN PRODUCT LINE? FORM NET SIZE (Weight in ounces) UNITS SOLD IN

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTIONAL/

INDUSTRIAL SALES (%) RETAIL/

HOUSEHOLD SALES (%)



## SECTION II. BRAKE CLEANER PRODUCT INFORMATION (Continued)

COLUMN 8 9 10 11 12 13
PRODUCT NAME PERC CONTENT (Weight percent) MEETS

50% VOC LIMIT? WILL PRODUCT

BE REFORMULATED ESTIMATED

REFORMULATION DATE WILL PERC

CONTENT INCREASE WITH REFORMULATION?

# B-7

Revised March 26, 1997 SSD/EAB/MDW 

## SECTION III. BRAKE CLEANER PRODUCT INFORMATION (For liquids only)

COLUMN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PRODUCT NAME NET SIZE (Fluid oz. or gallons) DENSITY(g/ml)/

SPECIFIC GRAVITY IS THE PRODUCT

DILUTED? AMOUNT OF

PRODUCT AMOUNT OF

DILUENT TYPE OF

DILUENT



## SECTION IV. OTHER AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS CONTAINING PERC

COLUMN 1 2 3 4 5 6
PRODUCT CATEGORY DO YOU

MANUFACTURE A PRODUCT IN THIS CATEGORY? DOES IT CONTAIN PERC? WILL THE

PRODUCT BE REFORMULATED? ESTIMATED REFORMULATION DATE WILL PERC

CONTENT INCREASE WITH REFORMULATION? Brake Anti-squeal compounds Bug and tar removers
Carburetor and choke cleaners Engine Degreasers Lubricants (excluding engine oil)
Penetrants Undercoatings Upholstery fabric cleaners



## SECTION V. OTHER COMMENTS

# B-8

Revised March 26, 1997 SSD/EAB/MDW



# CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBMITTAL FORM If you wish to designate any information contained in your survey data asCONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, please provide the data requested below and return it with your completed survey form

. In accordance with Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 91000 to 91022, and the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), the information that a company provides to the Air Resources Board (ARB) may be released (1) to the public upon request, except trade secrets which are not emissions data or other information which is exempt from disclosure or the disclosure of which is prohibited by law, and (2) to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which protects trade secrets as provided in Section 114(c) of the Clean Air Act and amendments thereto (42 USC 7401 et seq.) and in federal regulation, and (3) to other public agencies provided that those agencies preserve the protections afforded information which is identified as a trade secret, or otherwise exempt from disclosure by law (Section 39660(e)). Trade secrets as defined in Government Code Section 6254.7 are not public records and therefore will not be released to the public. However, the California Public Records Act provides that air pollution emission data are always public records, even if the data comes within the definition of trade secrets. On the other hand, the information used to calculate information is a trade secret. If any company believes that any of the information it may provide is a trade secret or otherwise exempt from disclosure under any other provision of law,it must identify the confidential information as such at the time of submission to the ARB and must provide the name address, and telephone number of the individual to be consulted, if the ARB receives a request for disclosure or seeks to disclose the data claimed to be confidential. The ARB may ask the company to provide documentation of its claim of trade secret or exemption at a later date. Data identified as confidential will not be disclosed unless the ARB determines, in accordance with the above referenced regulations, that the data do not qualify for a legal exemption from disclosure. The regulations establish substantial safeguards before any such disclosure.

In accordance with the provisions of Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Section 91000 to 91022, and the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250 et seq.), Company Name: declares that all the information submitted in response to the California Air Resources Board's information request on the brake cleaner and perc-containing automotive products survey is confidential "trade secret" information, and request that it be protected as such from public disclosure. All inquiries pertaining to the confidentiality of this information should be directed to the following person:
Date: Mailing Address: (Signature) (Printed Name) (Title) (Telephone Number)

# B-9 Survey 2. Brake/Automotive Repair Shop Survey

# B-10

Last updated: December 23, 1997



# BRAKE/AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP SURVEY

Date: Facility: Address:

Cross Street: Contact: Title: Phone #: SHOP DESCRIPTION The approximate dimensions of the entire shop area, include units (m. or ft.). Interior dimensions include storage and other areas not partitioned off as separate rooms. Exterior dimensions include all connecting structures.: Interior Height , Width , Length Exterior Height , Width , Length UTM from 1 corner: Type(s) of ventilation used: Wall fan 

# GCeiling or exhaust fan 

# Gopen doors 

# Gother If fan is used give fan specifications(i.e. CFM, or horsepower & size) Nominal Dimensions (include units)


# Number and ave. size of servicing bays: L W Number of normally open doors: H W Number of normally open windows: H W Number of normally open servicing bay doors: H W Nearest offsite receptor distance (incl. units): Business UTM Direction from facility (in degrees) 

# Residential UTM Direction from facility (in degrees) 

# Distance from the facility building to the facility fence line

# B-11

Last updated: December 23, 1997 

# Provide a sketch of the facility, any adjoining structures (for example: if facility is attached to a strip mall or similar), orientation of the nearest receptor, and indicate the direction North):

# B-12

Last updated: December 23, 1997 

# SHOP DESCRIPTION (continued) Normal business operating schedule (e.g. M-F 7am-7pm, Sat-Sun 10am-4pm):

How many bays are used for brake services? Are ventilation practices different between mild and inclement weather? Explain:

OPERATION DESCRIPTION Number of employees: Average number of employees in service area each day: Number of people performing brake services each day: Number of automotive services performed per week: Number of automobiles requiring brake work per week: Number of axles serviced per week: Amount of time to perform a brake job (1 or 2 axles) Are there Proposition 65 warnings posted? Comments:

PRODUCT INFORMATION Number of different brake cleaning product(s) used: Has the shop used any other type of brake cleaner? If so, what type of product was used? What was the outcome? Is there a preference of the type of product used?

If an aqueous type product is used, please list shop’s reasons for using product (i.e. product cheaper, etc.)

If an aqueous product is used, has drying time been a concern in the brake repairs? (Explain)

If an aerosol product is used, list the reasons or situations why the product is used instead of an aqueous product Are the brakes wiped with rags after using the aerosol spray? If yes, how are the rags stored and disposed of? If used, what is the approximate fate of all Perc usage (e.g. 50% air, 40% reclaimed for proper disposal, 9% sewer, 1% storm drain

# )

# B-13

Last updated: December 23, 1997 

# 1. PRODUCT INFORMATION (continued) Ask for a unit of the product(s) used to inspect the label; copy the following information: Product name: Manufacturer: Address: Phone #: e-mail: Part Number: UPC Code: size: (fl oz., wt oz, gal.) Code date: Product form: Aerosol 

# GLiquid 

# GPump Spray 

# GOther Active ingredients:

% Perc: Usage (application) information:

Does the product require dilution (Y / N) Dilute of product into of (amount product) (units) (amount diluent) (units)



# Apply with (diluent used) (application equipment used, wipe, spray bottle, etc.) 

# Number of product units used per week by facility Volume of diluted product used in a week Number of cans aerosol used per brake job Is the product used for any other application other than brakes? If so what other applications is it used for (i.e. general degreasing, etc.): How often and how much of the product used for other purposes: (give time frame and amount used) Did you see a demonstration of the product in use?

# B-14

Last updated: December 23, 1997 

# 2. PRODUCT INFORMATION (continued) Ask for a unit of the product(s) used to inspect the label; copy the following information: Product name: Manufacturer: Address: Phone #: e-mail: Part Number: UPC Code: size: (fl oz., wt oz, gal.) Code date: Product form: Aerosol 

# GLiquid 

# GPump Spray 

# GOther Active ingredients:

% Perc: Usage (application) information:

Does the product require dilution (Y / N) Dilute of product into of (amount product) (units) (amount diluent) (units)



# Apply with (diluent used) (application equipment used, wipe, spray bottle, etc.) 

# Number of product units used per week by facility Volume of diluted product used in a week Number of cans aerosol used per brake job Is the product used for any other application other than brakes? If so what other applications is it used for (i.e. general degreasing, etc.): How often and how much of the product used for other purposes: (give time frame and amount used) Did you see a demonstration of the product in use?

# B-15

Last updated: December 23, 1997 

# 3. PRODUCT INFORMATION (continued) Ask for a unit of the product(s) used to inspect the label; copy the following information: Product name: Manufacturer: Address: Phone #: e-mail: Part Number: UPC Code: size: (fl oz., wt oz, gal.) Code date: Product form: Aerosol 

# GLiquid 

# GPump Spray 

# GOther Active ingredients:

% Perc: Usage (application) information:

Does the product require dilution (Y / N) Dilute of product into of (amount product) (units) (amount diluent) (units)



# Apply with (diluent used) (application equipment used, wipe, spray bottle, etc.) 

# Number of product units used per week by facility Volume of diluted product used in a week Number of cans aerosol used per brake job Is the product used for any other application other than brakes? If so what other applications is it used for (i.e. general degreasing, etc.): How often and how much of the product used for other purposes: (give time frame and amount used) Did you see a demonstration of the product in use?

# B-16

Last updated: December 23, 1997 

# General comments/observations:

# B-17 Survey 3. Automotive Service Facility Questionaire

# B-18 

# AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE FACILITY QUESTIONNAIRE (Please type or print legibly in ink)

I. LABEL AND CONTACT INFORMATION 

# The peel-off label on your envelope is designed to speed questionnaire processing. Please cross out any errors in your facility name or address, print the correct information on the label, and affix it to Section I. where indicated. If the label has been damaged, you may print or type the information requested. Additionally, please enter your phone number and a contact person in the space provided.

Affix the ARB label provided on the envelope here.
FACILITY NAME: CONTACT PERSON:
ADDRESS:
CITY: ZIP: PHONE ( )

II. SOLVENT USAGE INFORMATION 

# Do you use brake cleaners, engine degreasers, carburetor cleaners, or multi-purpose lubricants in your facility?

NO STOP; Ensure Section I. is complete and return the survey package to us in the enclosed envelope. YES CONTINUE; Proceed to Section III.

III. GENERAL PRODUCT INFORMATION 

# Indicate the average number of brake jobs your facility performs each week and the amount of product used for each brake job. For aerosols, usage will be in cans per job; for bulk liquids, usage will be in ounces per job. Also indicate whether you use a water-based brake washer for brake parts cleaning (e.g., Safety-Kleen, Ammco, Bird Bath, etc.) The sections below ask more specific questions about the products you use. Approximately how many brake jobs does your facility perform each week?

___________ If aerosol cans are used, approximately how many cans are used per brake job?

___________ If bulk liquid brake cleaners are used, approximately how many ounces are used per brake job?

___________ Do you use a water-based brake washer? Yes No

IV. AEROSOL BRAKE CLEANER INFORMATION



# C For each aerosol brake cleaning product your facility uses, list the product name, manufacturer (for example: Berryman, CRC, Radiator Specialty Corp., etc.) and product size (in ounces) as listed on the product label.



# C Enter the 12 digit number located at the bottom of the bar code (the numbers circled in the example to the right). Be sure to include the single digits to the left and right of the bars

. If the product label does not have a bar code, please enter the part number, if available.

# B-19 IV. AEROSOL BRAKE CLEANER INFORMATION (continued)



# C Estimate how many cans of product the facility uses each week. Your estimate should include all product used, even if the product is used for other purposes such as general purpose cleaning.

PRODUCT NAME MANUFACTURER PRODUCT SIZE (oz.) 12 DIGIT BAR CODE NUMBER OR PART NUMBER NUMBER OF CANS USED PER WEEK



## V. BULK LIQUID BRAKE CLEANER INFORMATION 

# Complete this section for bulk liquid brake cleaners. Fill out the information the same way as for Section IV., but in column 3 - PRODUCT SIZE, list the volume of the product in gallonsand in column 5 - AMOUNT USED PER MONTH, list the average amount of product used in gallonsper month.

PRODUCT NAME MANUFACTURER PRODUCT SIZE (gal.) 12 DIGIT BAR CODE NUMBER OR PART NUMBER AMOUNT USED PER MONTH



## VI. AEROSOL AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS 

# Complete this section for engine degreasers, carburetor cleaners, and multi-purpose lubricants used by your facility and not listed in Section IV. Fill out the information the same way as for Section IV. Please make additional copies of the survey form if more space is needed.

PRODUCT NAME MANUFACTURER PRODUCT SIZE (oz.) 12 DIGIT BAR CODE NUMBER OR PART NUMBER NUMBER OF CANS USED PER WEEK



# Do you wish to be notified of upcoming workshops/meetings? YES NO Please mail your questionnaire back to us in the enclosed business reply envelope by January 27, 1998. If you have any questions on the questionnaire or the information we have requested, please contact Mark Williams of the Air Resources Board staff at (916) 327-5633. (12/97)

# B-20

Survey 4. Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Facility Flammability Survey

# B-21

Last updated: November 03, 1999 

# VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR FACILITY FLAMMABILITY SURVEY
Date: Facility: Address:

Contact: Title: Phone #: GENERAL INFORMATION Do any of the employees smoke while performing vehicle maintenance or repair? Yes 

# GNo 

# G Types of ignition sources (flame or heat) within facility: Welding 

# GTorch 

# GPropane space heater 

# GLit cigarettes 

# GAC Leak sensor w/ flame 

# G Fan-forced portable space heater 

# Gother Specific ventilation practices associated with use of ignition (flame or heat) sources: Wall fan 

# GCeiling or exhaust fan 

# Gopen doors 

# Gother If an ignition source is present (flame or heat), what is the general proximity of the source to where automotive consumer products are being used? (feet, next bay, etc.)

Number of different automotive cleaning product(s) used: Have there been any accidents or incidents related to the use of flammable products? Yes 

# G No 

# G If yes, state number and explain incident(s):

For the different type of automotive products used in the facility, has product flammability ever been a factor in choosing one product over another? Yes 

# GNo 

# G If yes, why?:

# B-22

Last updated: November 03, 1999 

# PRODUCT INFORMATION Ask for a unit of the product(s) used to inspect the label; copy the following information: 1. Product Type: 

# GBrake Cleaner 

# GCarburetor Cleaner 

# GEngine Degreaser 

# GGeneral Degreaser 

# GOther: Product name: Manufacturer: Part # or UPC code: Product form: Aerosol 

# GLiquid 

# GPump Spray 

# GOther Listed on label as Flammable? Yes 

# GNo 

# G Chlorinated? Yes 

# GNo 

# G Notes:

2. Product Type: 

# GBrake Cleaner 

# GCarburetor Cleaner 

# GEngine Degreaser 

# GGeneral Degreaser 

# GOther: Product name: Manufacturer: Part # or UPC code: Product form: Aerosol 

# GLiquid 

# GPump Spray 

# GOther Listed on label as Flammable? Yes 

# GNo 

# G Chlorinated? Yes 

# GNo 

# G Notes:

3. Product Type: 

# GBrake Cleaner 

# GCarburetor Cleaner 

# GEngine Degreaser 

# GGeneral Degreaser 

# GOther: Product name: Manufacturer: Part # or UPC code: Product form: Aerosol 

# GLiquid 

# GPump Spray 

# GOther Listed on label as Flammable? Yes 

# GNo 

# G Chlorinated? Yes 

# GNo 

# G Notes:

# B-23

Last updated: November 03, 1999 

# PRODUCT INFORMATION (continued)

4. Product Type: 

# GBrake Cleaner 

# GCarburetor Cleaner 

# GEngine Degreaser 

# GGeneral Degreaser 

# GOther: Product name: Manufacturer: Part # or UPC code: Product form: Aerosol 

# GLiquid 

# GPump Spray 

# GOther Listed on label as Flammable? Yes 

# GNo 

# G Chlorinated? Yes 

# GNo 

# G Notes:

5. Product Type: 

# GBrake Cleaner 

# GCarburetor Cleaner 

# GEngine Degreaser 

# GGeneral Degreaser 

# GOther: Product name: Manufacturer: Part # or UPC code: Product form: Aerosol 

# GLiquid 

# GPump Spray 

# GOther Listed on label as Flammable? Yes 

# GNo 

# G Chlorinated? Yes 

# GNo 

# G Notes:

General comments/observations:

# Appendix C Methodology for Estimating the Potential Health Impacts from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities

# C-1

Appendix C. Methodology for Estimating the Potential Health Impacts from Automotive

Maintenance and Repair Facilities

This appendix steps through an example calculation to illustrate the procedures that ARB staff used to estimate the potential health impacts from Perchloroethylene (Perc), Methylene Chloride (MeCl), and Trichloroethylene (TCE) usage in aerosol brake cleaning products at automotive maintenance and repair (AMR) facilities. In order to estimate the impacts, product usage information, physical descriptions of the source, and emission release parameters were collected during site visits. This information is used to estimate the facility’s Perc, MeCl, and TCE emission rates and to model the facility’s emissions using the SCREEN3 and ISCST3 air dispersion models. The modeling results are then used to determine the potential health impacts. The information in this appendix should not be used to compare in any way the SCREEN3 and ISCST3 air dispersion models or their results. ARB staff used the Brake/Automotive Repair Shop survey form in Appendix B to collect the necessary information to model each facility’s potential health impacts. The more pertinent information collected includes the facility’s building dimensions, distance to the nearest residential and business receptors, the operating schedule of the service area, and information about the products and their use in brake cleaning. This example calculation uses data collected from one of the site visits and focuses only on Perc emissions to illustrate the methodology.
A. Chronic and Acute Calculations The calculation begins with the determination of the facility’s Perc usage and Perc emission rate, steps through the modeling inputs, and concludes with the calculation of potential health impacts. For our example, we have selected a minimum receptor distance of 32 meters from the center of the volume source (the building) to define a near-source location. For ease of illustration, we assume that both the maximum exposed individual resident (MEIR) and the maximum exposed individual (offsite) worker (MEIW) occur at this location.
1. Determining a Facility’s Perc Usage In order to determine a facility’s Perc usage, the following information is needed: the weight percent of Perc in the brake cleaning product, the approximate number of product units used per week, and the weight of the product unit itself. Our example facility was using 19 ounce cans of aerosol product with a 94 percent Perc content by weight and they reported using an average of 624 cans of product each year. The weight percent is obtained either directly from the product label or from the material safety data sheet (MSDS) for the product. The Perc usage in terms of grams per year is given by Equation 1.

# C-2

(1)



# It should be noted that MeCl and TCE usage can be calculated by substituting in their corresponding percent content by weight in place of Perc in Equation 1.
2. Determining the Perc Emission Rate With the Perc usage calculated, we now estimate the acute and annualized emission rates in terms of grams per second. These conversions are necessary because they are required input parameters for the SCREEN3 and ISCST3 models. The acute emission rate is determined by calculating the emissions from the number of brake jobs that are performed each hour by the facility. Based on information collected from the site visits, the facilities visited did not perform more than one brake service (job) in any given hour (usually limited by available manpower, tools, and equipment). Our example facility reported that they performed approximately 624 brake services per year (12 services per week). Using this information, Equation 2 calculates the acute emission rate.

(2)



# The annualized Perc emission rate is determined by dividing the Perc usage calculated by Equation 1 by the facility’s reported operating schedule. Our example facility reported that their service area operated 3016 hours per year. Using this information, Equation 3 gives the annualized emission rate uniformly distributed over the operating schedule.

(3)

# C-3

3. Air Dispersion Modeling

a. Running the SCREEN3 Air Dispersion Model Now that we know the facility’s acute and annualized Perc emission rates, physical descriptions of the source, and emission release parameters, we can run the SCREEN3 air dispersion model. Table C-1 summarizes the modeling input parameters for this example. For the AMR facilities, we assumed that the single-story source release height is one-half of the building height. The initial lateral dimension of volume is assumed to be the shortest side of the building exterior divided by the factor 4.3 and the initial vertical dimension of volume is assumed to be the exterior building height divided by the factor 2.15 (U.S. EPA, 1995a). These particular dimension assumptions were selected to represent a modeling scenario that can be generally applied to various sized (e.g., rectangular) AMR facilities. Our example facility is located in an urban area.

Table C-1. SCREEN3 Modeling Input Parameters for Example Facility
Perc Emission Rate (acute) [grams/s] 0.1407 Perc Emission Rate (annualized) [grams/s] 0.0291 Receptor Height [meters] 1 

## 0 Source Release Height [meters] 2 

## 2.3 Initial Lateral Dimension of Volume (σyo

## ) [meters] 3 

## 2.5 Initial Vertical Dimension of Volume (σzo

## ) [meters]4 

## 2.1 Meteorology Option Full (Acute)/Class 4 (Annual) Land Type (Urban or Rural) Urban Receptor Distance (from center of source) 32 Operating Schedule [hrs/yr] 3016 1. Selected by convention as a ground-level receptor. 2. One-half of building height (15 feet, 4.6 meters) 3. Exterior building width (35 feet, 10.7 meters) divided by factor 4.3 per SCREEN3 User’s Guide 4. Exterior building height (15 feet, 2.1 meters) divided by factor 2.15 per SCREEN3 User’s Guide



# The SCREEN3 model uses these inputs to estimate the downwind, ground-level, maximum 1-hour concentrations for designated distances from the center of the volume source. The estimated acute maximum 1-hour concentration at 32 meters from the center of the facility is 1463 μg/m3

# and the estimated annualized (chronic) 1-hour concentration is 176 μg/m3

# . It should be noted that the SCREEN3 model must be run twice; once using the acute emission rate and once using the annualized emission rate.

# C-4

Since potential cancer risks and non-cancer chronic health impacts require an assessment of the annual average concentration of Perc, the U.S. EPA conversion factor of 0.08 (U.S. EPA, 1992) is used to estimate the maximum annual average concentration from the annualized maximum 1-hour concentration. In addition, the maximum annual average concentration is discounted by the operating schedule for the hours the facility does not emit. The maximum annual average concentration is calculated by using Equation 4.

(4)



# Substituting in the example data, Equation 5 gives the maximum annual average concentration of 4.848 μg/m3



# .

(5)



# A summary of the output from the SCREEN3 modeling is shown in Appendix D (Modeling Results). For more information on the SCREEN3 model, please refer to the SCREEN3 model user’s guide (U.S. EPA, 1995).

b. Running the ISCST3 Air Dispersion Model Using Regional-Specific Meteorology Where regional-specific meteorology information is available, the ISCST3 air dispersion model can be used to provide a more refined analysis of a facility’s emissions. Table C-2 summarizes the modeling input parameters for this example using the same example facility and source characteristic assumptions made for SCREEN3. With ISCST3, you have the option of using a meteorological data set that represents the meteorology in the region the facility is located in. As a result, SCREEN3 and ISCST3 may not necessarily yield the same results for a given facility. In order to estimate what the difference would be, both models would need to be run and compared bearing in mind that each models treats the volume source differently. It should be noted that the ISCST3 model must also be run twice if discrete annual and acute emission rates are being used. While this approach is convenient with the SCREEN3 model, the ISCST3 model is considerably more resource intensive and time consuming to execute. Modeling scenarios under ISCST3 can be greatly simplified if an emission rate of 1 gram per second is used (commonly referred to as an unit emission rate).

# C-5 Table C-2. ISCST3 Modeling Input Parameters for Example Facility Using Regional-Specific Meteorology
Perc Emission Rate (acute) [grams/s] 0.1407 Perc Emission Rate (annual) [grams/s] 0.0291 Modeled Unit Emission Rate [grams/s] 1.0 Receptor Height [meters] 1 

## 0 Source Release Height [meters] 2 

## 2.3 Initial Lateral Dimension of Volume (σyo

## ) [meters] 3 

## 4.7 Initial Vertical Dimension of Volume (σzo

## ) [meters] 3 

## 2.1 Averaging Period Hourly and Annual Meteorology Representative Regional Land Type (Urban or Rural) Urban Receptor Locations Cartesian Grid Network4 

## Receptor Distance (from center of source) 32 Operating Schedule [hrs/yr] 3016 1. Selected by convention as a ground-level receptor. 2. One-half of building height (15 feet, 4.6 meters) 3. Calculated per ISCST3 User’s Guide 4. See Appendix D, Section X., Table 2.



# With the unit emission rate, the estimated annual and acute unit concentrations are 113 μg/m3

# and 5027 μg/m3

# , respectively. Equation 6 is then used to calculate the concentrations for the discrete emission rate scenarios given in Equations 2 and 3.

(6)



# Substituting in the emission rates from Equation 2 and 3, Equations 7 and 8 give the maximum annual concentration of 3.288 μg/m3

# and the maximum 1-hour (acute) concentration of 707 μg/m3



# .

(7)

# C-6

(8)



# Since ISCST3 directly calculates the maximum annual and acute concentrations using the facility’s operating schedule when using regional-specific meteorology, neither the 0.08 conversion factor adjustment nor the operating schedule adjustment is required.

c. Running the ISCST3 Air Dispersion Model Using Default Meteorology If regional-specific meteorological data is not available, the ISCST3 model can be run using default meteorological data. The model inputs are substantially similar to those required for regional meteorological data and are summarized in Table C-3.

Table C-3. ISCST3 Modeling Input Parameters for Example Facility Using Default Meteorology
Perc Emission Rate (acute) [grams/s] 0.1407 Perc Emission Rate (annual) [grams/s] 0.0291 Receptor Height [meters] 1 

## 0 Source Release Height [meters] 2 

## 2.3 Initial Lateral Dimension of Volume (σyo

## ) [meters] 3 

## 4.7 Initial Vertical Dimension of Volume (σzo

## ) [meters] 3 

## 2.1 Meteorology Default Land Type (Urban or Rural) Urban Receptor Locations Cartesian Grid Network Receptor Distance (from center of source) 32 Operating Schedule [hrs/yr] 3016 1. Selected by convention as a ground-level receptor. 2. One-half of building height (15 feet, 4.6 meters) 3. Calculated per ISCST3 User’s Guide



# When using default meteorological data, ISCST3 calculates only a maximum 1-hr (acute) concentration instead of both acute and annual concentrations. Under this scenario, again using a unit emission rate, the estimated acute unit concentration is 7845 μg/m3

# at 32 meters from the

# C-7

center of the facility. Equation 6 is again used to calculate the concentrations for the acute emission rate given in Equation 2. Substituting in the acute emission rate from Equation 2, Equation 9 gives the maximum 1-hour (acute) concentration of 1104 μg/m3



# .

(9)



# The maximum annual concentration is calculated by using U.S. EPA conversion factor 0.08 (U.S. EPA, 1992) and adjusting the operating schedule for the hours the facility does not emit, as described by Equation 4. However, the annualized maximum 1-hour concentration must first be calculated as shown in Equation 10. Using Equation 4 with the result from Equation 10, Equation 11 gives the maximum annual average concentration of 6.280 μg/m3



# .

(10)

(11)



# A summary of the output from the ISCST3 modeling is shown in Appendix D (Modeling Results). For more information on the ISCST3 model, please refer to the ISCST3 model user’s guide (U.S. EPA, 1995b).
4. Calculation of Potential Cancer Risk and Non-Cancer Acute and Chronic Hazard Indices In this example, SCREEN3 and the two ISCST3 calculations predicted slightly different maximum concentrations. While either of the three can be used to calculate the potential health impacts, the example calculation will continue with the estimated concentrations from the ISCST3 model using regional-specific meteorological data. We can combine the modeling output with the unit risk factor (cancer effects) or the reference exposure level (non-cancer effects) to determine the potential cancer risk and corresponding acute and chronic hazard indices. The risk assessments are conducted using guidance from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Revised 1992, Air Toxic "Hot Spots" Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (CAPCOA, 1993). For this example, we calculated the potential cancer

# C-8

and non-cancer health impacts at a near-source location of 32 meters from the center of the volume source (five meters away from the edge of the building). We also assumed that a MEIR (resident) and a MEIW (worker) are exposed to the same concentration. The inhalation unit risk factor (URF) for Perc is 5.9 x 10-6 

# (μg/m3

# )-1

# ; the acute non-cancer reference exposure level (REL) is 20.0 x 103 

# μg/m3

# and the chronic REL is 35 μg/m3 

# (CAPCOA, 1993). Equation 12 shows the basic algorithm for determining the potential cancer risk, in chances per million, for a residential location (MEIR).

(12)



# The factor 106

# /million is used to convert the result into the standard reporting unit, chances per million. Substituting in the maximum annual average concentration from Equation 7 and the Perc URF, Equation 13 gives us the potential cancer risk for a residential receptor 32 meters away from the center of the building.

(13)



# Equation 14 gives the formula for calculating the potential risk for an off-site worker (MEIW). Using guidance from OEHHA, the exposure period of an off-site worker is adjusted to allow for a shorter working lifetime and a shorter operating schedule. This first adjustment is made to allow for a shorter working lifetime, 46 years, rather than a 70-year exposure lifetime which is assumed for residential exposure. The second adjustment is appropriate only when the offsite worker schedule does not coincide with or is shorter than that of the facility being assessed (OEHHA, 1997). It is assumed that a nearby worker would be exposed 8 hours a day, 240 days a year (1920 hours/year) for 46 years (CAPCOA, 1993).

(14)



# Substituting in the maximum annual average concentration from Equation 7, the URF, and the operating schedule (3016 hours per year, for this example), Equation 15 gives the risk for an offsite worker.

(15)

# C-9 (17)

(19) 

# Equations 16 and 17 give the formulas for calculating the non-cancer acute and chronic hazard indices, respectively. The acute hazard index is determined by taking the acute maximum 1-hour concentration (acute exposure) and dividing by the acute REL of 20,000 μg/m3



# .

(16)



# Similarly, the chronic hazard index is determined by taking the maximum annual average concentration (chronic exposure) and dividing by the chronic REL of 35 μg/m3

# . Finally, Equations 18 and 19 solve for the acute and chronic hazard indices, respectively.

(18)



# Tables C-3 summarizes the results that have been calculated in this example for ISCST3 using regional-specific meteorology.

Table C-3. Summary of ISCST3 Results from Example Calculation

Parameter Result Reference Perc Emission Rate (acute), [grams/s] 0.1407 Equation 2 Perc Emission Rate (annualized) [grams/s] 0.0291 Equation 3 Maximum Concentration (unit annual), [μg/m3

## ] 113 ISCST3 Model Output Maximum Concentration (unit acute), [μg/m3

## ] 5027 ISCST3 Model Output Maximum Concentration (annual) , [μg/m3

## ] 3.288 Equation 7 Maximum Concentration (acute), [μg/m3

## ] 707 Equation 8 Cancer Risk (Resident) [chances per million] 19.4 Equation 13 Cancer Risk (Worker) [chances per million] 8.1 Equation 15
Non-Cancer Acute Hazard Index 0.035 Equation 18
Non-Cancer Chronic Hazard Index 0.094 Equation 19

# C-10

As previously mentioned, this methodology can be extended to MeCl and TCE (or any other pollutant of interest) by using Equation 1 to calculate MeCl and TCE emission rates. Additionally, the URF and acute and chronic RELs for these toxic pollutants will also be needed. Table C-4 summarizes the necessary health values. A summary of results from the modeling performed on each of the facilities visited, as well as the generic facilities, is presented in Appendix D. Table C-4. Pollutant-Specific Health Values

Pollutant Unit Risk Factor (URF) Acute Reference

Exposure Level Chronic Reference Exposure Level Perchloroethylene (Perc) 5.9 x 10-6

## (μg/m3

## )-1 

## 20,000 μg/m3 

## 35 μg/m3 

## Methylene Chloride (MeCl) 1.0 x 10-6

## (μg/m3

## )-1 

## 14,000 μg/m3 

## 3000 μg/m3 

## Trichloroethylene (TCE) 2.0 x 10-6

## (μg/m3

## )-1 

## none 640 μg/m3



# B. Calculation of the Regional Cancer Risk from Specific Facilities To perform an assessment of the potential regional cancer risk at the thirteen specific facilities an assessor would start by running a refined air dispersion model. For this analysis, concentration estimates were produced using ISCST3 and multiple years of meteorological data. An example of the input for the ISCST3 model is provided in Table C-2. The output from the ISCST3 model consists of concentrations at specified locations around a facility that can be referred to as a grid of receptor points. Based on the spatial resolution of the available population data and existing software tools, a 31-kilometer by 31- kilometer system of one-kilometer, square grid-cells was established for each facility as a spatial basis of analysis. Each grid system is centered on the represented facility. After the modeling is complete, further post processing is performed to produce one concentration estimate per grid-cell. Two receptor networks were used for estimating concentrations with ISCST3 (at each receptor a concentration, exclusive to each facility's emissions, is estimated). One network consists of receptors spaced one-kilometer apart, coincident with the center of each of the one-kilometer, square grid-cells in the 31-kilometer by 31-kilometer grid system. These sparsely spaced receptors are used to represent the homogeneous, low grid-cell concentrations experienced outside of the 9 most central grid-cells where concentrations tend to be less uniform. However, because a large concentration gradient is experienced close to the source (i.e., inhomogeneous emissions), a network consisting of many receptors per grid-cell (100 meters apart) was used. Concentrations estimated at these receptors were averaged, per grid-cell, to produce average concentrations for the nine most central cells.

# C-11

Census tract population data were acquired from the State Department of Finance. Spatially, this data represents California census tract population estimates for 1998, grown from 1990 Census data. A census tract, generally, represents an area larger than one square kilometer. Data processing of population data took into consideration that grid-cell boundaries overlap with census tract boundaries. Where multiple grid-cells split a census block population estimate, the population data for the single census tract is allocated based on the relative area of the census tract falling in each grid-cell. This is consistent with past population exposure analyses and assumes a homogeneous distribution of population within the tract. Population data and modeled concentration results were processed to represent the average population and average concentration within each of the one-kilometer square grid-cells in the 31-kilometer by 31-kilometer grid system. The averaged population and concentration data for each grid-cell were overlaid. The concentration and population estimates were then merged based on the represented grid-cell and frequency distributions of the regional population exposure to each of the annual modeling results were created, based on a uniform range of receptor concentrations. See Appendix D, Section E for a complete listing of all thirteen facilities population exposure estimates and Table C-5 for an example. In Table C-5, the left column presents the modeled annual concentration estimate based on a unit emission rate of one gram per second and the next 6 columns present the estimated population exposed to that concentration per meteorology year. In this example, the five columns right of the concentration are for Oakland 1960 to 1964. The last column is the average population surrounding this facility in Oakland over the years 1960 to 1964. For example, the results from Table C-5 indicate that within one-kilometer of this facility, on average, 5,843 persons are estimated to be exposed to concentrations of 0.163 μg/m3

# up to 6.28 μg/m3

# (based on a one gram per second emissions rate) using Oakland meteorological data for years 1960 through 1964. To make this table more meaningful, the unit emission rates can be converted to potential cancer risk estimates. To perform this calculation the additional information that is needed is actual emission rate for the facility being evaluated and the pollutant-specific unit risk factor (URF). From Table C-3, the annual emission rate for this facility is 0.0291 grams per second. See Appendix D for a listing of the emission rates used for each modeled facility. The URF for Perc is 5.9 x 10-6

# (microgram per cubic meter)-1

# or (μg/m3

# )-1

# . Equation 20 shows the algorithm for converting a unit emission rate into an estimate of the potential cancer risk reported in chances per million.

(20)

# C-12 Table C-5. Example Table of Population Exposure Estimates

μg/m3 

## >= OAK60 OAK61 OAK62 OAK63 OAK64 AVG

0.000 1,300,824 1,300,824 1,300,824 1,300,824 1,300,824 1,300,824
0.001 593,781 610,692 638,801 610,352 618,981 614,521
0.003 377,141 385,071 401,672 391,357 423,603 395,769
0.004 268,996 281,562 283,035 268,881 312,438 282,982
0.006 192,742 203,315 220,437 216,063 234,450 213,401
0.007 176,510 174,360 181,645 165,209 194,184 178,382
0.009 132,661 143,847 149,503 143,106 142,784 142,380
0.010 112,796 115,642 119,774 119,184 131,794 119,838
0.011 103,975 106,927 105,949 105,949 119,588 108,478
0.013 95,571 90,808 99,529 100,217 95,886 96,402
0.014 87,623 86,550 91,753 78,587 87,623 86,427
0.016 80,258 69,719 87,623 70,114 79,699 77,483
0.017 59,443 61,804 61,804 66,517 67,676 63,449
0.020 56,185 58,546 54,494 63,259 55,002 57,497
0.024 52,133 52,133 52,133 56,185 44,033 51,323
0.031 38,289 42,785 38,289 42,785 38,289 40,087
0.041 29,615 33,907 33,907 33,907 29,615 32,190
0.047 25,101 25,101 25,101 25,101 25,101 25,101
0.054 12,008 12,008 20,702 16,407 20,702 16,365
0.163 4,302 4,302 12,008 4,302 4,302 5,843



# The factor 106

# /million in Equation 20 is used to convert the result into the standard reporting unit, chances per million. Substituting in the facility’s actual emission rate from Table C-3, the maximum annual average concentration from the left hand column of Table C-5, and the Perc URF, Equation 21 gives us the potential cancer risk for the population estimates listed in the right six columns.

# C-13

(21)



# Returning to the earlier example from Table C-5, where the results indicate that within one-kilometer of this facility, on average, 5,843 persons are estimated to be exposed to concentrations of 0.163 μg/m3

# to 6.28 μg/m3

# , we now see that this unit-emissions-based concentration translates to an estimated cancer risk of 0.03 chances per million to 19 chances per million. See Table VI-6 in Chapter VI for a list of the estimated regional cancer risks for the one-kilometer grid-cell concentrations at all thirteen specific facilities. Although the potential cancer risk from the one-kilometer grid-cell concentration is not very large, this does not mean that higher potential cancer risks are not present within the one-kilometer grid-cell. High concentration gradients have been shown to exist within 100 meters of a facility. Examples of higher potential cancer risks within the one-kilometer grid-cell at the thirteen specific facilities have been estimated at the near source, MEIR, and MEIW locations and are presented in Table VI-6 in Chapter VI.

# C-14 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C

CAPCOA, 1993. CAPCOA Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program - Revised 1992 Risk Assessment Guidelines, Toxics Committee of the California Air Pollution Control Officer Association (CAPCOA), October 1993. OEHHA, 1997. Telephone conversation with Melanie Marty, Manager, Air Risk Assessment Unit, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and Greg Harris, on May 19, 1997. U.S. EPA, 1992. Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised, United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), October 1992. U.S. EPA, 1995a. ISCST3 Model User’s Guide, EPA-454/B-95-003a, United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 1995. U.S. EPA, 1995b. SCREEN3 Model User’s Guide, EPA-454/B-95-004, United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 1995.

# Appendix D Specific and Generic Facility Modeling Results

# D-1

Appendix D. Specific and Generic Facility Modeling Results This appendix presents the modeling input parameters and results summary for the 54 specific facilities and three generic facilities that were modeled. The modeling utilized both the SCREEN3 and ISCST3 air dispersion models. The ISCST3 model was used for 13 specific facilities and the generic facilities. All other facilities were modeled using SCREEN3.
A. Perchloroethylene-Using Facilities Modeled with SCREEN3 This section summarizes the results from our modeling of the 29 facilities that used perchloroethylene (Perc) brake cleaning products which did not contain either methylene chloride (MeCl) or trichloroethylene (TCE). Tables D-1 thru D-5 present the modeling input parameters for each facility modeled using SCREEN3 . Tables D-6 thru D-11 summarize the modeling results. Table D-1. Modeling Input Parameters for Facilities E, H, L, N, Q, R, and V

Parameter Value1 

## Facility E Facility H Facility L Facility N Facility Q Facility R Facility V Source Type Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Facility Type Service Station Fleet Service Station Dealership General Auto General

Auto Brake

Shop Perc Content [%] 65 to 94 65 to 94 65 to 94 99 65 to 94 65 to 94 90
Perc Emission Rate - Annual 

## [grams/s] 0.0007 to 0.0010 0.0010 to

0.0014 0.0025 to

0.0036 0.00231 0.0260 to 0.0375 0.0227 to

0.0328 0.0002

Perc Emission Rate - Acute [grams/s] 0.0490 to 0.0704 0.0075 to

0.0108 0.1350 to

0.1944 0.0076 0.2925 to 0.4219 0.5562 to

0.0804 0.0052

Receptor Height [m] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source Release Height [m] 2.896 4.572 2.286 2.286 3.048 2.438 2.286
Initial Lateral Dimension of Volume [m] 1.949 12.995 3.573 3.190 4.749 4.253 2.127

Initial Vertical Dimension of Volume [m] 2.694 4.253 2.127 2.127 2.835 2.268 2.127

Met Option - Acute/Annual Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Land Type (Urban or Rural) Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Operating Schedule [hrs/wk] 69 47.5 54 42.5 45 51.5 45
1. These facilities use a brake cleaning product which shows a Perc content range on the MSDS; therefore a range is presented for the Perc emission rate.

# D-2

Table D-2. Modeling Input Parameters for Facilities A-13, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-21, and A-29

Parameter Value1 

## Facility A-13 Facility

A-14 Facility

A-15 Facility

A-16 Facility

A-21 Facility

A-29 Source Type Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Facility Type General Automotive General

Automotive General

Automotive General

Automotive Brake Shop Fleet

Perc Content [%] 65 to 94 65 to 94 70 to 94 65 to 94 70 to 94 65 to 94
Perc Emission Rate - Annual 

## [grams/s] 0.00006 to 0.00009 0.0005 to

0.0007 0.0023 to

0.0033 0.0030 to

0.0044 0.0037 to

0.0050 0.0130 to

0.0188
Perc Emission Rate - Acute [grams/s] 0.0006 to 0.0009 0.0225 to

0.0325 0.0524 to

0.0704 0.0162 to

0.0234 0.0524 to

0.0703 0.0898 to

0.1299 Receptor Height [m] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source Release Height [m] 2.743 2.438 2.286 2.743 2.438 3.810
Initial Lateral Dimension of Volume [m] 3.332 2.481 5.316 3.899 5.671 4.253

Initial Vertical Dimension of Volume [m] 2.552 2.268 2.127 2.552 2.268 3.544

Met Option - Annual Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 

# Met Option- Acute Full Full Full Full Full Full Land Type (Urban or Rural) Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Operating Schedule [hrs/wk] 60.5 47.5 45 64 56.5 90 1. These facilities use a brake cleaning product which shows a Perc content range on the MSDS; therefore a range is presented for the Perc emission rate.

# D-3

Table D-3. Modeling Input Parameters for Facilities A-30, A-31, A-32, A-35, A-36, and A-50

Parameter Value1 

## Facility A-30 Facility

A-31 Facility

A-32 Facility

A-35 Facility

A-36 Facility

A-50 Source Type Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Facility Type Fleet General Automotive General

Automotive Brake Shop Dealership General Automotive Perc Content [%] 25 to 85 65 to 94 65 to 94 65 to 94 65 to 94 65 to 94
Perc Emission Rate - Annual 

## [grams/s] 0.0023 to 0.0078 0.0088 to

0.0127 0.0006 to

0.0009 0.0055 to

0.0079 0.0273 to

0.0394 0.0040 to

0.0057
Perc Emission Rate - Acute [grams/s] 0.0531 to 0.1806 0.0122 to

0.0176 0.0244 to

0.0353 0.2547 to

0.3681 0.0717 to

0.1037 0.0649 to

0.0938 Receptor Height [m] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source Release Height [m] 4.572 2.743 2.591 3.810 3.810 2.438
Initial Lateral Dimension of Volume [m] 5.671 3.190 2.835 4.607 4.253 2.127

Initial Vertical Dimension of Volume [m] 4.253 2.552 2.410 3.544 3.544 2.268

Met Option - Annual Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Met Option - Acute Full Full Full Full Full Full Land Type (Urban or Rural) Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Operating Schedule [hrs/wk] 92.5 55.5 40 46.5 50 49 1. These facilities use a brake cleaning product which shows a Perc content range on the MSDS; therefore a range is presented for the Perc emission rate.

# D-4

Table D-4. Modeling Input Parameters for Facilities A-51, A-54, A-73, A-84, and A-87

Parameter Value1 

## Facility A-51 Facility A-54 Facility A-73 Facility A-84 Facility A-87 Source Type Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Facility Type General Automotive General

Automotive General

Automotive General

Automotive Dealership

Perc Content [%] 90 to 99 65 to 94 65 to 75 89 60 to 99
Perc Emission Rate - Annual 

## [grams/s] 0.0025 to 0.0027 0.0057 to 0.0083 0.0130 to 0.0150 0.0142 0.0187 to 0.0308

Perc Emission Rate - Acute [grams/s] 0.1417 to 0.1558 0.0730 to 0.1056 0.0487 to 0.0562 0.1441 0.0280 to 0.0462

Receptor Height [m] 0 0 0 0 0 Source Release Height [m] 2.438 2.591 3.048 3.353 3.048
Initial Lateral Dimension of Volume [m] 1.559 1.772 2.481 2.481 7.088

Initial Vertical Dimension of Volume [m] 2.268 2.410 2.835 3.119 2.835

Met Option - Annual Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Met Option - Acute Full Full Full Full Full Land Type (Urban or Rural) Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Operating Schedule [hrs/wk] 57 51 45 71 45 1. These facilities use a brake cleaning product which shows a Perc content range on the MSDS; therefore a range is presented for the Perc emission rate.

# D-5

Table D-5. Modeling Input Parameters for Facilities A-88, A-89, A-90, A-93, and A-94

Parameter Value1 

## Facility A-88 Facility A-89 Facility A-90 Facility A-93 Facility A-94 Source Type Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Facility Type General Automotive General

Automotive Service Station General Automotive Service Station

Perc Content [%] 20 to 50 65 to 94 65 to 94 65 to 94 65 to 94
Perc Emission Rate - Annual 

## [grams/s] 0.0090 to 0.0224 0.0039 to 0.0056 0.0041 to 0.0059 0.0088 to 0.0128 0.0015 to 0.0022

Perc Emission Rate - Acute [grams/s] 0.1495 to 0.3739 0.0097 to 0.0141 0.1947 to 0.2814 0.0973 to 0.1407 0.0340 to 0.0493

Receptor Height [m] 0 0 0 0 0 Source Release Height [m] 3.200 2.438 2.591 2.438 2.743
Initial Lateral Dimension of Volume [m] 3.544 3.544 1.772 4.253 1.772

Initial Vertical Dimension of Volume [m] 2.977 2.268 2.410 2.268 2.552

Met Option - Annual Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Met Option - Acute Full Full Full Full Full Land Type (Urban or Rural) Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Operating Schedule [hrs/wk] 50 50 48 55 45 1. These facilities use a brake cleaning product which shows a Perc content range on the MSDS; therefore a range is presented for the Perc emission rate.

# D-6 Table D-6. Summary of Modeling Results for Facilities E, H, L, N, and Q

FACILITY RECEPTOR

TYPE Receptor Distance

[meters] Maximum

1-hour Conc. (acute) [μg/m3

### ] Maximum

1-hour Conc. (annualized) [μg/m3

### ] Maximum

Annual Avg. Conc. [μg/m3

### ] Potential Cancer Risk

[chances per million] Hazard Index

Center1 

### Env.2 

### Resident Worker Acute Chronic

E3 

### Near-Source 20 16 710.0 to 1026 10.29 to 14.87 0.3372 to 0.4872 1.99 to 2.87 0.70 to 1.01 0.0355 to 0.0513 0.0096 to 0.0139

MEIW 40 36 384.9 to 556.2 5.578 to 8.061 0.1828 to 0.2641 1.08 to 1.56 0.38 to 0.55 0.0192 to 0.0278 0.0052 to 0.0075
MEIR 805 801 4.44 to 6.41 0.0642 to 0.0929 0.0021 to 0.0030 0.01 to 0.02 0.00 to 0.01 0.0002 to 0.0003 0.0001 to 0.0001
H3 

### Near-Source 30 2 17.89 to 25.81 2.265 to 3.267 0.0511 to 0.0737 0.30 to 0.43 0.15 to 0.22 0.0009 to 0.0013 0.0015 to 0.0021

MEIW 330 302 2.10 to 3.02 0.2652 to 0.3825 0.0060 to 0.0086 0.04 to 0.05 0.02 to 0.03 0.0001 to 0.0002 0.0002 to 0.0002
MEIR 830 802 0.58 to 0.83 0.0728 to 0.105 0.0016 to 0.0024 < 0.01 to 0.01 < 0.01 to 0.01 <0.0001 0.0000 to 0.0001
L3 

### Near-Source 20 12 1689 to 2439 31.27 to 45.16 0.8019 to 1.1581 4.73 to 6.83 2.13 to 3.07 0.0844 to 0.1219 0.0229 to 0.0331

MEIW 35 27 1096 to 1583 20.3 to 29.31 0.5206 to 0.7516 3.07 to 4.43 1.38 to 1.99 0.0548 to 0.0791 0.0149 to 0.0215
MEIR 240 232 82.89 to 119.7 1.535 to 2.216 0.0394 to 0.0568 0.23 to 0.34 0.10 to 0.15 0.0041 to 0.0060 0.0011 to 0.0016
N Near-Source 20 13 101.8 30.95 0.6247 3.69 2.10 0.0051 0.0178

MEIW 117 110 14.46 4.394 0.0887 0.52 0.30 0.0007 0.0025
MEIR 407 400 2.01 0.6123 0.0124 0.07 0.04 0.0001 0.0004 Q3 

### Near-Source 20 10 2427 to 3509 215.7 to 311.9 4.6095 to 6.6653 27.20 to 39.33 14.66 to 21.20 0.1213 to 0.1754 0.1317 to 0.1904

MEIW 71 61 879.3 to 1271 78.16 to 113 1.6703 to 2.4148 9.85 to 14.25 5.31 to 7.68 0.0440 to 0.0636 0.0477 to 0.0690
MEIR 86 76 701.7 to 1015 62.37 to 90.21 1.3328 to 1.9278 7.86 to 11.37 4.24 to 6.13 0.0351 to 0.0507 0.0381 to 0.0551 1. Distance to receptor measured from the center of the volume source. 2. Distance to receptor measured from the building exterior (envelope). 3. These facilities use a Perc-containing brake cleaner which shows a Perc content range on the Material Safety Data Sheet; therefore, a range is presented for the results.

# D-7 Table D-7. Summary of Modeling Results for Facilities R, V, A-13, A-14, and A-15

FACILITY RECEPTOR

TYPE Receptor Distance

[meters] Maximum

1-hour Conc. (acute) [μg/m3

### ] Maximum

1-hour Conc. (annualized) [μg/m3

### ] Maximum

Annual Avg. Conc. [μg/m3

### ] Potential Cancer Risk

[chances per million] Hazard Index

Center1 

### Env.2 

### Resident Worker Acute Chronic

R3 

### Near-Source 20 11 592.9 to 857.0 242 to 349.8 5.9185 to 8.5549 34.92 to 50.47 16.45 to 23.78 0.0296 to 0.0429 0.1691 to 0.2444

MEIW 39 30 361.9 to 523.3 147.7 to 213.6 3.6122 to 5.2239 21.31 to 30.82 10.04 to 14.52 0.0181 to 0.0262 0.1032 to 0.1493
MEIR 55 46 255.8 to 369.7 104.4 to 150.9 2.5533 to 3.6905 15.06 to 21.77 7.10 to 10.26 0.0128 to 0.0185 0.0730 to 0.1054
V3 

### Near-Source 20 15 86.41 3.837 0.0820 0.48 0.26 0.0043 0.0023

MEIW 23 18 77.38 3.436 0.0734 0.43 0.23 0.0039 0.0021
MEIR4 

### 11 6 >86.41 >3.837 >0.0820 >0.48 >0.26 >0.0043 >0.0023
A-133 

### Near-Source 20 13 6.81 to 10.22 0.4835 to 0.7253 0.0139 to 0.0208 0.08 to 0.12 0.03 to 0.05 0.0003 to 0.0005 0.0004 to 0.0006

MEIW 25 18 5.90 to 8.85 0.3928 to 0.5893 0.0113 to 0.0169 0.07 to 0.10 0.03 to 0.04 0.0003 to 0.0004 0.0003 to 0.0005
MEIR 83 73 1.74 to 2.61 0.0823 to 0.1235 0.0024 to 0.0035 0.01 to 0.02 0.01 to 0.01 0.0001 to 0.0001 0.0001 to 0.0001
A-143 

### Near-Source 20 15 331 to 478 4.67 to 6.76 0.105 to 0.152 0.62 to 0.90 0.32 to 0.46 0.017 to 0.024 0.003 to 0.004

MEIW4 

### 11 6 >331 to >478 >4.67 to >6.76 >0.105 to >0.152 >0.62 to >0.90 >0.32 to >0.46 >0.017 to >0.024 >0.003 to >0.004
MEIR 112 107 47.10 to 68.03 0.4225 to 0.6113 0.0095 to 0.0138 0.06 to 0.08 0.03 to 0.04 0.0024 to 0.0034 0.0003 to 0.0004
A-153 

### Near-Source 20 9 503.7 to 676.7 16.03 to 21.53 0.3426 to 0.4601 2.02 to 2.71 1.09 to 1.46 0.0252 to 0.0338 0.0098 to 0.0131

MEIW 41 30 300.5 to 403.7 7.754 to 10.42 0.1657 to 0.2227 0.98 to 1.31 0.53 to 0.71 0.0150 to 0.0202 0.0047 to 0.0064
MEIR 87 76 131 to 176 2.758 to 3.706 0.0589 to 0.0792 0.35 to 0.47 0.19 to 0.25 0.0066 to 0.0088 0.0017 to 0.0023 1. Distance to receptor measured from the center of the volume source. 2. Distance to receptor measured from the building exterior (envelope). 3. These facilities use a Perc-containing brake cleaner which shows a Perc content range on the Material Safety Data Sheet; therefore, a range is presented for the results. 4. The receptor is located closer than 20 meters to the center of the volume source, which is the minimum distance modeled; therefore, the potential health impacts are likely to be greater than those listed here. However, we do not anticipate that the potential health impacts will be significant. The impacts shown here are at the near-source location of 20 meters.

# D-8 Table D-8. Summary of Modeling Results for Facilities A-16, A-21, A-29, A-30, and A-31

FACILITY RECEPTOR

TYPE Receptor Distance

[meters] Maximum

1-hour Conc. (acute) [μg/m3

### ] Maximum

1-hour Conc. (annualized) [μg/m3

### ] Maximum

Annual Avg. Conc. [μg/m3

### ] Potential Cancer Risk

[chances per million] Hazard Index

Center1 

### Env.2 

### Resident Worker Acute Chronic

A-163 

### Near-Source 20 12 166.9 to 241.1 22.54 to 32.63 0.6851 to 0.9917 4.04 to 5.85 1.53 to 2.22 0.0083 to 0.0121 0.0196 to 0.0283

MEIW 38 30 105.4 to 152.2 11.79 to 17.07 0.3583 to 0.5188 2.11 to 3.06 0.80 to 1.16 0.0053 to 0.0076 0.0102 to 0.0148
MEIR 313 305 6.35 to 9.17 0.4308 to 0.6235 0.0131 to 0.0189 0.08 to 0.11 0.03 to 0.04 0.0003 to 0.0005 0.0004 to 0.0005
A-213 

### Near-Source 20 8 458.4 to 615 23.63 to 31.72 0.6340 to 0.8511 3.74 to 5.02 1.61 to 2.16 0.0229 to 0.0308 0.0181 to 0.0243

MEIW 24 12 414.9 to 556.9 20.32 to 27.28 0.5452 to 0.7320 3.22 to 4.32 1.38 to 1.85 0.0207 to 0.0278 0.0156 to 0.0209
MEIR 126 114 77.06 to 103.4 2.396 to 3.217 0.0643 to 0.0863 0.38 to 0.51 0.16 to 0.22 0.0039 to 0.0052 0.0018 to 0.0025
A-293 

### Near-Source 20 11 665.8 to 963.1 96.39 to 139.4 4.1197 to 5.9579 24.31 to 35.15 6.55 to 9.48 0.0333 to 0.0482 0.1177 to 0.1702

MEIW 331 322 30.85 to 44.62 4.465 to 6.458 0.1908 to 0.2760 1.13 to 1.63 0.30 to 0.44 0.0015 to 0.0022 0.0055 to 0.0079
MEIR 161 152 90.25 to 130.5 13.06 to 18.89 0.5582 to 0.8074 3.29 to 4.76 0.89 to 1.28 0.0045 to 0.0065 0.0159 to 0.0231
A-303 

### Near-Source 20 8 274.8 to 934.5 11.9 to 40.41 0.5227 to 1.7751 3.08 to 10.47 0.81 to 2.75 0.0137 to 0.0467 0.0149 to 0.0507

MEIW 495 483 9.42 to 32.05 0.4081 to 1.386 0.0179 to 0.0609 0.11 to 0.36 0.03 to 0.09 0.0005 to 0.0016 0.0005 to 0.0017
MEIR 495 483 9.42 to 32.05 0.4081 to 1.386 0.0179 to 0.0609 0.11 to 0.36 0.03 to 0.09 0.0005 to 0.0016 0.0005 to 0.0017
A-313 

### Near-Source 20 13 142 to 205 72.24 to 105 1.904 to 2.757 11.23 to 16.3 4.9 to 7.1 0.0071 to 0.0103 0.0544 to 0.0788

MEIW4 

### 13 6 >142 to >205 >72.24 to >105 >1.904 to >2.757 >11.2 to >16.3 >4.9 to >7.1 >0.0071 to >0.0103 >0.0544 to >0.0788
MEIR 226 229 7.63 to 11.01 2.079 to 3.01 0.0548 to 0.0793 0.32 to 0.47 0.14 to 0.02 0.0004 to 0.0006 0.0016 to 0.0023 1. Distance to receptor measured from the center of the volume source. 2. Distance to receptor measured from the building exterior (envelope). 3. These facilities use a Perc-containing brake cleaner which shows a Perc content range on the Material Safety Data Sheet; therefore, a range is presented for the results. 4. The receptor is located closer than 20 meters to the center of the volume source, which is the minimum distance modeled; therefore, the potential health impacts are likely to be greater than those listed here. However, we do not anticipate that the potential health impacts will be significant. The impacts shown here are at the near-source location of 20 meters.

# D-9 Table D-9. Summary of Modeling Results for Facilities A-32, A-35, A-36, A-50, and A-51

FACILITY RECEPTOR

TYPE Receptor Distance

[meters] Maximum

1-hour Conc. (acute) [μg/m3

### ] Maximum

1-hour Conc. (annualized) [μg/m3

### ] Maximum

Annual Avg. Conc. [μg/m3

### ] Potential Cancer Risk

[chances per million] Hazard Index

Center1 

### Env.2 

### Resident Worker Acute Chronic

A-323 

### Near-Source 20 14 318.3 to 460.5 5.507 to 7.945 0.1046 to 0.1509 0.62 to 0.89 0.37 to 0.54 0.0159 to 0.0230 0.0030 to 0.0043

MEIW 23 17 289.4 to 418.7 4.812 to 6.941 0.0914 to 0.1318 0.54 to 0.78 0.33 to 0.47 0.0145 to 0.0209 0.0026 to 0.0038
MEIR 143 137 34.12 to 49.36 0.3528 to 0.509 0.0067 to 0.0097 0.04 to 0.06 0.02 to 0.03 0.0017 to 0.0025 0.0002 to 0.0003
A-353 

### Near-Source 20 10 1790 to 2588 29.68 to 42.9 0.6554 to 0.9473 3.87 to 5.59 2.02 to 2.92 0.0895 to 0.1294 0.0187 to 0.0271

MEIW 25 15 1606 to 2321 25.14 to 36.34 0.5551 to 0.8025 3.28 to 4.73 1.71 to 2.47 0.0803 to 0.1161 0.0159 to 0.0229
MEIR 162 152 249.8 to 361.1 2.294 to 3.316 0.0507 to 0.0732 0.30 to 0.43 0.16 to 0.23 0.0125 to 0.0181 0.0014 to 0.0021
A-363 

### Near-Source 20 11 531.6 to 768.9 154.9 to 223.5 3.678 to 5.307 21.7 to 31.31 10.53 to 15.19 0.0266 to 0.0384 0.1051 to 0.1516

MEIW 85 76 165.6 to 239.5 31.6 to 45.7 0.7517 to 1.085 4.44 to 6.4 2.15 to 3.11 0.0083 to 0.0120 0.0215 to 0.0310
MEIR 161 152 72.06 to 104.2 11.68 to 16.86 0.2773 to 0.4003 1.64 to 2.36 0.79 to 1.15 0.0036 to 0.0052 0.0079 to 0.0114
A-503 

### Near-Source 20 15 1032 to 1491 42.07 to 60.82 0.9789 to 1.415 5.78 to 8.35 2.86 to 4.13 0.0516 to 0.0746 0.0280 to 0.0404

MEIW 20 15 1032 to 1491 42.07 to 60.82 0.9789 to 1.415 5.78 to 8.35 2.86 to 4.13 0.0516 to 0.0746 0.0280 to 0.0404
MEIR 20 15 1032 to 1491 42.07 to 60.82 0.9789 to 1.415 5.78 to 8.35 2.86 to 4.13 0.0516 to 0.0746 0.0280 to 0.0404
A-513 

### Near-Source 20 17 2593 to 2851 29.5 to 32.4 0.799 to 0.876 4.71 to 5.17 2.01 to 2.2 0.1297 to 0.143 0.0228 to 0.0250

MEIW4 

### 9 6 >2593 to >2851 >29.5 to >32.4 >0.799 to >0.876 >4.71 to >5.17 >2.01 to >2.2 >0.1297 to >0.143 >0.0228 to >0.0250
MEIR 26 23 2059 to 2264 21.78 to 23.88 0.5896 to 0.6464 3.48 to 3.81 1.48 to 1.62 0.1030 to 0.1132 0.0168 to 0.0185 1. Distance to receptor measured from the center of the volume source. 2. Distance to receptor measured from the building exterior (envelope). 3. These facilities use a Perc-containing brake cleaner which shows a Perc content range on the Material Safety Data Sheet; therefore, a range is presented for the results. 4. The receptor is located closer than 20 meters to the center of the volume source, which is the minimum distance modeled; therefore, the potential health impacts are likely to be greater than those listed here. However, we do not anticipate that the potential health impacts will be significant. The impacts shown here are at the near-source location of 20 meters.

# D-10 Table D-10. Summary of Modeling Results for Facilities A-54, A-73, A-84, A-87, and A-88

FACILITY RECEPTOR

TYPE Receptor Distance

[meters] Maximum

1-hour Conc. (acute) [μg/m3

### ] Maximum

1-hour Conc. (annualized) [μg/m3

### ] Maximum

Annual Avg. Conc. [μg/m3

### ] Potential Cancer Risk

[chances per million] Hazard Index

Center1 

### Env.2 

### Resident Worker Acute Chronic

A-543 

### Near-Source 20 17 1207 to 1746 62.7 to 90.7 1.517 to 2.195 8.9 to 12.96 4.3 to 6.2 0.0604 to 0.087 0.0434 to 0.0628

MEIW4 

### 18 15 >1207 to >1746 >62.7 to >90.7 >1.517 to >2.195 >8.9 to >12.96 >4.3 to >6.2 >0.0604 to >0.087 >0.0434 to >0.0628
MEIR 41 38 611.8 to 885 25.93 to 37.53 0.6280 to 0.9089 3.71 to 5.36 1.76 to 2.55 0.0306 to 0.0443 0.0179 to 0.0260
A-733 

### Near-Source 20 15 600.5 to 692.9 112.7 to 130 2.408 to 2.778 14.21 to 16.39 7.66 to 8.84 0.0300 to 0.0346 0.0688 to 0.0794

MEIW 20 15 600.5 to 692.9 112.7 to 130 2.408 to 2.778 14.21 to 16.39 7.66 to 8.84 0.0300 to 0.0346 0.0688 to 0.0794
MEIR 327 322 18.24 to 21.05 1.736 to 2.003 0.0371 to 0.0428 0.22 to 0.25 0.12 to 0.14 0.0009 to 0.0011 0.0011 to 0.0012
A-843 

### Near-Source 20 15 1642 115.5 3.894 22.98 7.85 0.0821 0.1113

MEIW 14 9 >1642 >115.5 >3.894 >22.98 >7.85 >0.0821 >0.1113
MEIR 43 38 889.2 50.3 1.696 10.01 3.42 0.0445 0.0485
A-873 

### Near-Source 20 5 174.1 to 287.3 89.58 to 147.5 1.9143 to 3.1521 11.29 to 18.60 6.09 to 10.03 0.0087 to 0.0144 0.0547 to 0.0901

MEIW 61 46 82.78 to 136.6 30.8 to 50.73 0.6582 to 1.084 3.88 to 6.40 2.09 to 3.45 0.0041 to 0.0068 0.0188 to 0.0310
MEIR 167 152 25.02 to 41.29 7.122 to 11.73 0.1522 to 0.2507 0.90 to 1.48 0.48 to 0.80 0.0013 to 0.0021 0.0043 to 0.0072
A-883 

### Near-Source 20 12 1444 to 3611 63.65 to 158.4 1.511 to 3.761 8.92 to 22.19 4.33 to 10.77 0.0722 to 0.1806 0.0432 to 0.1075

MEIW 31 23 1089 to 2725 42.43 to 105.6 1.008 to 2.507 5.94 to 14.79 2.88 to 7.18 0.0545 to 0.1363 0.0288 to 0.0716
MEIR 20 12 1444 to 3611 63.65 to 158.4 1.511 to 3.761 8.92 to 22.19 4.33 to 10.77 0.0722 to 0.1806 0.0432 to 0.1075 1. Distance to receptor measured from the center of the volume source. 2. Distance to receptor measured from the building exterior (envelope). 3. These facilities use a Perc-containing brake cleaner which shows a Perc content range on the Material Safety Data Sheet; therefore, a range is presented for the results. 4. The receptor is located closer than 20 meters to the center of the volume source, which is the minimum distance modeled; therefore, the potential health impacts are likely to be greater than those listed here. However, we do not anticipate that the potential health impacts will be significant. The impacts shown here are at the near-source location of 20 meters.

# D-11 Table D-11. Summary of Modeling Results for Facilities A-89, A-90, A-93, and A-94

FACILITY RECEPTOR

TYPE Receptor Distance

[meters] Maximum

1-hour Conc. (acute) [μg/m3

### ] Maximum

1-hour Conc. (annualized) [μg/m3

### ] Maximum

Annual Avg. Conc. [μg/m3

### ] Potential Cancer Risk

[chances per million] Hazard Index

Center1 

### Env.2 

### Resident Worker Acute Chronic

A-893 

### Near-Source 20 12 116.2 to 169 32.66 to 46.89 0.7755 to 1.113 4.58 to 6.57 2.22 to 3.19 0.0058 to 0.0085 0.0222 to 0.0318

MEIW 32 24 82.48 to 119.9 20.18 to 28.98 0.4792 to 0.6881 2.83 to 4.06 1.37 to 1.97 0.0041 to 0.0060 0.0137 to 0.0197
MEIR 84 76 28.28 to 41.12 5.309 to 7.623 0.1261 to 0.1810 0.74 to 1.07 0.36 to 0.52 0.0014 to 0.0021 0.0036 to 0.0052
A-903 

### Near-Source 20 16 3218 to 4652 44.91 to 64.62 1.024 to 1.473 6.04 to 8.69 3.1 to 4.4 0.1609 to 0.2326 0.0292 to 0.0421

MEIW4 

### 19 15 >3218 to >4652 >44.91 to >64.62 >1.024 to >1.473 >6.04 to >8.69 >3.1 to >4.4 >0.1609 to >0.2326 >0.0292 to >0.0421
MEIR4 

### 18 14 >3218 to >4652 >44.91 to >64.62 >1.024 to >1.473 >6.04 to >8.69 >3.1 to >4.4 >0.1609 to >0.2326 >0.0292 to >0.0421
A-933 

### Near-Source 20 11 1035 to 1497 66.51 to 96.74 1.737 to 2.527 10.3 to 14.9 4.5 to 6.6 0.0518 to 0.0749 0.0496 to 0.0722

MEIW 39 30 632.2 to 914.2 33.38 to 48.55 0.8718 to 1.268 5.14 to 7.48 2.27 to 3.30 0.0316 to 0.0457 0.0249 to 0.0362
MEIR4 

### 17 8 >1035 to >1497 >66.51 to >96.74 >1.737 to >2.527 >10.3 to >14.9 >4.5 to >6.6 >0.0518 to >0.0749 >0.0496 to >0.0722
A-943 

### Near-Source 20 16 538 to 779 15.87 to 23.28 0.339 to 0.498 2.00 to 2.94 1.1 to 1.6 0.0269 to 0.0390 0.0097 to 0.0142

MEIW4 

### 13 9 >538 to >779 >15.87 to >23.28 >0.339 to >0.498 >2.00 to >2.94 >1.1 to >1.6 >0.0269 to >0.0390 >0.0097 to >0.0142
MEIR 27 23 420 to 608.9 11.4 to 16.72 0.2436 to 0.3573 1.44 to 2.11 0.78 to 1.14 0.0210 to 0.0304 0.0070 to 0.0102 1. Distance to receptor measured from the center of the volume source. 2. Distance to receptor measured from the building exterior (envelope). 3. These facilities use a Perc-containing brake cleaner which shows a Perc content range on the Material Safety Data Sheet; therefore, a range is presented for the results. 4. The receptor is located closer than 20 meters to the center of the volume source, which is the minimum distance modeled; therefore, the potential health impacts are likely to be greater than those listed here. However, we do not anticipate that the potential health impacts will be significant. The impacts shown here are at the near-source location of 20 meters.

# D-12 B. Multicomponent-Using Facilities Modeled with SCREEN3 This section summarizes the results from our modeling for the 12 facilities that used products that contained either Perc (P), MeCl (M), or TCE (T) or some combination of the three. Tables D-12 and D-13 present the modeling input parameters and tables D-14 thru D-16 summarize the results. Table D-12. Modeling Input Parameters for Facilities D, G, M, S, A-20, and A-39

Parameter Value Facility D Facility G1 

## Facility M Facility S Facility A-20 Facility A-39 Source Type Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Facility Type Srvc. Sta. Fleet Dealership Brake Shop Gen Auto Gen Auto Chlorinated Content [%] P:55, M:25 P:55, M:25 P:55, M:25 P:55, M:25 P:85, T:10 P:55, M:43
Perc Emission Rate - Ann. [grams/s] 0.0096 0.0408 0.0408 0.0062 0.0146 0.0101

Perc Emission Rate - Acute [grams/s] 0.0859 0.0408 0.1334 0.0124 0.0446 0.0303

MeCl Emission Rate - Ann. [grams/s] 0.0044 0.0185 0.0185 0.0028 N/A 0.0079

MeCl Emission Rate - Acute [grams/s] 0.0394 0.0185 0.0605 0.0056 N/A 0.0237

TCE Emission Rate - Ann. [grams/s] N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0017 N/A

TCE Emission Rate - Acute [grams/s] N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0052 N/A

Receptor Height [m] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source Release Height [m] 2.286 1.829 3.658 

## 2.591 2.743 2.438 4.572
Initial Lateral Dimension of Volume [m] 3.246 2.761 10.07 

## 5.316 2.835 1.772 4.962

Initial Vertical Dimension of Volume [m] 2.127 1.701 2.127 

## 2.410 2.552 2.268 4.253

Met Option - Annual

# /Acute Full Full Full Full Class 4/Full Class 4

# /Full Land Type (Urban or Rural) Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Operating Schedule [hrs/wk] 54 42.5 42.5 50 55 60 1. Due to the relationship between the exterior building dimensions to the location of the actual service area, two SCREEN3 runs were completed. The data in the left-hand column is used to calculate the non-cancer acute hazard index and the data in the right-hand column is used to calculate overall cancer risk and chronic non-cancer hazard index.

# D-13

Table D-13. Modeling Input Parameters for Facilities A-49, A-63, A-71, A-72, A-82, and A-85

Parameter Value Facility A-49 Facility

A-63 Facility

A-71 Facility

A-72 Facility

A-82 Facility

A-85 Source Type Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Facility Type General Automotive General

Automotive General

Automotive General

Automotive General

Automotive General

Automotive Chlorinated Content [%] P:55, M:25 P:55, M:25 P:55, M:25 P:55, M:25 P:98, M:0.5 P:98, M:0.5
Perc Emission Rate - Ann. [grams/s] 0.0091 0.0010 0.0010 0.0027 0.0144 0.0283

Perc Emission Rate - Acute [grams/s] 0.0867 0.0434 0.0434 0.1198 0.0417 0.1388

MeCl Emission Rate - Ann. [grams/s] 0.0042 0.0005 0.0004 0.0012 0.0001 0.0001

MeCl Emission Rate - Acute [grams/s] 0.0394 0.0197 0.0197 0.0544 0.0002 0.0007

TCE Emission Rate - Ann. [grams/s] N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

TCE Emission Rate - Acute [grams/s] N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Receptor Height [m] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source Release Height [m] 2.286 3.810 2.438 2.743 3.048 2.591
Initial Lateral Dimension of Volume [m] 3.544 2.127 1.914 3.544 2.481 1.772

Initial Vertical Dimension of Volume [m] 2.127 3.544 2.268 2.552 2.835 2.410

Met Option - Annual Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Class 4 Met Option - Acute Full Full Full Full Full Full Land Type (Urban or Rural) Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Operating Schedule [hrs/wk] 47.5 42.5 45 45 58 49

# D-14

Table D-14. Summary of Modeling Results for Facilities D, G, M, and S

FACILITY RECEPTOR

TYPE Receptor Distance

[meters] Potential Cancer Risk

[chances per million] Hazard Index

Center1 

## Env.2 

## Resident Worker Acute Chronic
D Near-Source 25 2 17.77 7.99 0.0807 0.0831

MEIW 55 32 8.31 3.73 0.0375 0.0388
MEIR 175 152 1.63 0.73 0.0074 0.0076 G Near-Source 25 3 21.54 12.30 0.0421 0.1007

MEIW 50 28 15.26 8.71 0.0201 0.0713
MEIR 420 398 1.15 0.66 0.0008 0.0054
M Near-Source 20 9 45.66 26.07 0.0960 0.2135

MEIW 26 15 39.50 22.55 0.0831 0.1847
MEIR 31 20 35.01 19.99 0.0736 0.1637 S Near-Source 20 14 11.76 5.71 0.0128 0.0550

MEIW 47 41 5.73 2.78 0.0062 0.0268
MEIR 466 460 0.20 0.10 0.0002 0.0009 1. Distance to receptor measured from the center of the volume source. 2. Distance to receptor measured from the building exterior (envelope).

# D-15

Table D-15. Summary of Modeling Results for Facilities A-20, A-39, A-49, and A-63

FACILITY RECEPTOR

TYPE Receptor Distance

[meters] Potential Cancer Risk

[chances per million] Hazard Index

Center1 

## Env.2 

## Resident Worker Acute Chronic A-20 Near-Source 20 16 26.58 11.73 0.0386 0.1245

MEIW 53 49 7.42 3.27 0.0141 0.0348
MEIR 50 46 8.10 3.57 0.0152 0.0380
A-39 Near-Source 20 9 9.73 3.94 0.0086 0.0389

MEIW 34 23 6.52 2.63 0.0066 0.0261
MEIR 57 46 3.80 1.54 0.0045 0.0152
A-49 Near-Source 20 12 11.33 5.79 0.0899 0.0529

MEIW3 

## 14 6 >11.33 >5.79 >0.0899 >0.0529
MEIR 38 30 5.60 2.86 0.0539 0.0262
A-63 Near-Source 20 15 1.03 0.59 0.0395 0.0048

MEIW3 

## 8 3 >1.03 >0.59 >0.0395 >0.0048
MEIR 2419 2414 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 1. Distance to receptor measured from the center of the volume source. 2. Distance to receptor measured from the building exterior (envelope). 3. The receptor is located closer than 20 meters to the center of the volume source, which is the minimum distance modeled; therefore, the potential health impacts are likely to be greater than those listed here. However, we do not anticipate that the potential health impacts will be significant. The impacts shown here are at the near-source location of 20 meters.

# D-16

Table D-16. Summary of Modeling Results for Facilities A-71, A-72, A-82, and A-85

FACILITY RECEPTOR

TYPE Receptor Distance

[meters] Potential Cancer Risk

[chances per million] Hazard Index

Center1 

## Env.2 

## Resident Worker Acute Chronic
A-71 Near-Source 20 16 1.45 0.78 0.0598 0.0068

MEIW3 

## 19 15 >1.45 >0.78 >0.0598 >0.0068
MEIR 34 30 0.77 0.42 0.0371 0.0036
A-72 Near-Source 20 12 2.85 1.54 0.1080 0.0133

MEIW 29 21 2.03 1.10 0.0842 0.0095
MEIR 61 53 0.77 0.42 0.0407 0.0036
A-82 Near-Source 20 15 20.30 8.49 0.0276 0.0983

MEIW 42 37 8.90 3.72 0.0150 0.0431
MEIR 42 37 8.90 3.72 0.0150 0.0431
A-85 Near-Source 20 16 42.60 21.09 0.1231 0.2062

MEIW3 

## 12 8 >42.60 >21.09 >0.1231 >0.2062
MEIR 34 30 22.74 11.26 0.0765 0.1101 1. Distance to receptor measured from the center of the volume source. 2. Distance to receptor measured from the building exterior (envelope). 3. The receptor is located closer than 20 meters to the center of the volume source, which is the minimum distance modeled; therefore, the potential health impacts are likely to be greater than those listed here. However, we do not anticipate that the potential health impacts will be significant. The impacts shown here are at the near-source location of 20 meters.

# D-17

C. Perchloroethylene-Using Facilities Modeled with ISCST3 This section summarizes the results from our modeling of the 13 facilities that used Perc-containing brake cleaning products which did not contain either MeCl or TCE using regional-specific meteorological (met) data and ISCST3. Tables D-17 thru D-19 present the modeling input parameters and tables D-20 thru D-22 summarize the modeling results. Table D-17. ISCST3 Modeling Parameters - 13 Specific Facilities1



## Facility Facility

Type Emission Rate [g/s] Perc Content [%] Release

Height [m] Approx.

Length [m] Approx.

Width [m] Approx.

Height [m] Dispersion

Coefficient Number of

L x L Volumes Acute Annual
A-07 Gen Auto 0.0973 to 0.1407 0.0201 to 0.0291 65 to 94 2.3 30.5 10.7 4.6 Urban 3
A-08 Gen Auto 0.0487 to 0.0704 0.0330 to 0.0477 65 to 94 2.3 22.9 9.1 4.6 Urban 3
A-09 Gen Auto 0.0604 to 0.0874 0.0594 to 0.0859 65 to 94 3.8 21.3 13.7 7.6 Urban 2
A-28 Fleet 0.0608 to 0.0880 0.0080 to 0.0115 65 to 94 4.5 15.2 15.2 9.1 Urban 1
A-52 Gen Auto 0.1701 to 0.1871 0.0167 to 0.0183 90 to 99 2.3 15.2 7.6 4.6 Urban 2
A-83 Gen Auto 0.0389 to 0.0563 0.0220 to 0.0319 65 to 94 3.0 24.4 9.1 6.1 Urban 3
A-86 Dealership 0.0747 to 0.1232 0.0367 to 0.0606 60 to 99 5.0 53.3 33.5 10.0 Urban 2
A-92 Svc Sta 0.0973 to 0.1407 0.0062 to 0.0090 65 to 94 2.6 15.2 7.6 5.2 Urban 2
I Fleet 0.1817 to 0.2633 0.0236 to 0.0342 65 to 94 4.7 62.8 22.3 9.5 Urban 3
O Gen Auto 0.1946 to 0.2815 0.0087 to 0.0125 65 to 94 3.0 18.3 15.2 6.1 Urban 1
P Brake Shop 0.0182 to 0.0263 0.0043 to 0.0061 65 to 94 3.0 18.3 10.7 6.1 Urban 2
T Gen Auto 0.0374 0.0166 99 3.0 21.3 9.1 6.1 Urban 2
U Gen Auto 0.0389 to 0.0562 0.0097 to 0.0141 65 to 94 3.0 18.3 9.1 6.1 Urban 2 1. All facilities modeled as a volume source with receptor height set to zero. All facilities, except Facility T, use a Perc-containing brake cleaner which shows a Perc content range on the Material Safety Data Sheet; therefore, a range is presented for the results

# D-18

Table D-18. ISCST3 Modeling Parameters - 13 Specific Facilities (cont.)

Facility Operating Schedule

[hrs/wk] Open Hours Open Days Meteorology

Data Set
A-07 58 8:00 am - 6:00 pm 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Mon - Fri

Sat Oakland 1960-64

A-08 59 8:00 am - 6:00 pm 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Mon - Fri

Sat Oakland 1960-64

A-09 59 8:00 am - 6:00 pm 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Mon - Fri

Sat Oakland 1960-64

A-28 122.5 5:00 am - 10:30 pm Mon - Sun McClellan AFB 1953-57
A-52 51 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 8:00 am - 2:00 pm Mon - Fri

Sat LAX 1985-89

A-83 53 8:00 am - 6:00 pm 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Mon - Fri

Sat Redding 1987-89

A-86 60 7:00 am - 6:00 pm 9:00 am - 2:00 pm Mon - Fri

Sat Fresno 1985-89

A-92 47 7:30 am - 4:00 pm 7:30 am - 12:00 pm Mon - Fri

Sat Fresno 1985-89

I 92.5 6:30 am - 1:00 am Mon - Fri Sac Exec 1987, 1989-92
O 45 9:00 am - 6:00 pm Mon - Fri Concord 1991-96
P 60 8:00 am - 6:00 pm Mon - Sat Mather AFB 1953-57
T 56.5 8:00 am - 5:30 pm 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Mon - Fri

Sat Burbank 1958-62

U 60 8:00 am - 6:00 pm Mon - Sat Anaheim 1981



# Table D-19. ISCST3 Modeling Parameters - 13 Specific Facilities (cont.)

ISCST3 Receptor Networks Used Grid Name (Type) Cell Size Number of Cells Location COARSE (Cartesian) 1000 m x 1000 m 31 x 31 = 961 Centered on Source Centroid FINE (Cartesian) 100 m x 100 m 31 x 31 = 961 Centered on Source Centroid VFINE (Cartesian) 20 m x 20 m 26 x 26 = 676 Centered on Source Centroid

# D-19 Table D-20. Detailed Listing of ISCST3 Modeling Results - 13 Specific Facilities

FACILITY RECEPTOR

TYPE Receptor Distance

[meters] Approximate

Direction From Facility [Deg]3 

### Maximum

Annual Concentration [μg/m3

### ] Maximum

Hourly Concentration [μg/m3

### ] Potential Cancer Risk

[chances per million] Hazard Index

Center1 

### Env.2 

### Resident Worker Acute Chronic

A-074 

### Near-Source 32 27 108 2.271 to 3.288 489.1 to 707.3 13.4 to 19.4 5.61 to 8.12 0.0245 to 0.0354 0.0649 to 0.0940

MEIW 51 46 79 0.945 to 1.368 191.1 to 276.3 5.57 to 8.07 2.33 to 3.38 0.0096 to 0.0138 0.0270 to 0.0391
MEIR 32 27 108 2.271 to 3.288 310.9 to 449.7 13.4 to 19.4 5.61 to 8.12 0.0155 to 0.0225 0.0649 to 0.0940
A-084 

### Near-Source 32 27 108 4.851 to 7.012 272.6 to 394.0 28.62 to 41.37 11.77 to 17.01 0.0136 to 0.0197 0.1386 to 0.2003

MEIW 32 27 132 3.234 to 4.675 264.4 to 382.3 19.08 to 27.58 7.85 to 11.34 0.0132 to 0.0191 0.0924 to 0.1336
MEIR 32 27 0 1.320 to 1.908 149.8 to 216.6 7.79 to 11.26 3.20 to 4.63 0.0075 to 0.0108 0.0377 to 0.0545
A-094 

### Near-Source 32 25 108 7.009 to 10.14 207.9 to 300.8 41.35 to 59.80 17.01 to 24.59 0.0104 to 0.0150 0.2003 to 0.2896

MEIW 32 25 0 1.901 to 2.749 140.9 to 203.9 11.21 to 16.22 4.61 to 6.67 0.0070 to 0.0102 0.0543 to 0.0785
MEIR 32 25 108 7.009 to 10.14 186.6 to 270.0 41.35 to 59.80 17.01 to 24.59 0.0093 to 0.0135 0.2003 to 0.2896
A-284 

### Near-Source 32 24 342 2.075 to 3.002 326.5 to 472.6 12.24 to 17.71 2.42 to 3.51 0.0163 to 0.0236 0.0593 to 0.0858

MEIW 130 122 0 0.254 to 0.368 74.72 to 108.2 1.50 to 2.17 0.30 to 0.43 0.0037 to 0.0054 0.0073 to 0.0105
MEIR 91 83 174 0.159 to 0.230 122.8 to 177.7 0.94 to 1.36 0.19 to 0.27 0.0061 to 0.0089 0.0045 to 0.0066
A-524 

### Near-Source 32 28 72 to 108 1.670 to 1.830 866.8 to 953.5 9.85 to 10.80 4.69 to 5.14 0.0433 to 0.0477 0.0477 to 0.0523

MEIW 32 28 108 1.603 to 1.757 477.8 to 525.6 9.46 to 10.37 4.50 to 4.93 0.0239 to 0.0263 0.0458 to 0.0502
MEIR 46 42 311 0.468 to 0.512 697.1 to 766.7 2.76 to 3.02 1.31 to 1.44 0.0349 to 0.0383 0.0134 to 0.0146 1. Distance to receptor measured from the center of the volume source. 2. Distance to receptor measured from the short side of the building exterior (envelope). 3. For near-source, not applicable for acute values. 4. These facilities use a Perc-containing brake cleaner which shows a Perc content range on the Material Safety Data Sheet; therefore, a range is presented for the results.

# D-20 Table D-21. Summary of ISCST3 Modeling Results - 13 Specific Facilities (cont.)

FACILITY RECEPTOR

TYPE Receptor Distance

[meters] Approximate

direction From Facility [Deg] Maximum

Annual Concentration [μg/m3

### ] Maximum

Hourly Concentration [μg/m3

### ] Potential Cancer Risk

[chances per million] Hazard Index

Center1 

### Env.2 

### Resident Worker Acute Chronic

A-834 

### Near-Source 32 27 162 2.090 to 3.031 247.6 to 358.3 12.33 to 17.88 5.65 to 8.19 0.0124 to 0.0179 0.0597 to 0.0866

MEIW 32 27 342 1.584 to 2.297 138.1 to 199.9 9.35 to 13.55 4.28 to 6.20 0.0069 to 0.0100 0.0453 to 0.0656
MEIR 35 30 180 1.650 to 2.393 154.5 to 223.6 9.74 to 14.12 4.46 to 6.46 0.0077 to 0.0112 0.0471 to 0.0684
A-864 

### Near-Source 51 34 101 - 135 1.358 to 2.242 119.1 to 196.4 8.01 to 13.23 3.19 to 5.26 0.0060 to 0.0098 0.0388 to 0.0641

MEIW 168 151 287 0.147 to 0.242 44.60 to 73.55 0.87 to 1.43 0.34 to 0.57 0.0022 to 0.0037 0.0042 to 0.0069
MEIR 158 141 108 0.220 to 0.364 31.75 to 52.36 1.30 to 2.15 0.52 to 0.85 0.0016 to 0.0026 0.0063 to 0.0104
A-924 

### Near-Source 32 28 108 0.546 to 0.792 582.8 to 842.8 3.22 to 4.67 1.66 to 2.41 0.0291 to 0.0421 0.0156 to 0.0226

MEIW 32 28 288 0.452 to 0.657 574.4 to 830.6 2.67 to 3.88 1.38 to 2.00 0.0287 to 0.0415 0.0129 to 0.0188
MEIR 58 54 229 0.056 to 0.081 175.9 to 254.4 0.33 to 0.48 0.17 to 0.25 0.0088 to 0.0127 0.0016 to 0.0023
I4 

### Near-Source 51 40 349 - 11 1.864 to 2.702 405.4 to 587.5 11.00 to 15.94 2.89 to 4.18 0.0203 to 0.0294 0.0533 to 0.0772

MEIW 95 84 18 0.708 to 1.026 174.5 to 252.8 4.18 to 6.05 1.10 to 1.59 0.0087 to 0.0126 0.0202 to 0.0293
MEIR 157 146 27 0.307 to 0.445 120.8 to 175.1 1.81 to 2.62 0.47 to 0.69 0.0060 to 0.0088 0.0088 to 0.0127
O4 

### Near-Source 32 24 162 0.770 to 1.113 1428 to 2065 4.54 to 6.57 2.45 to 3.54 0.0714 to 0.1032 0.0220 to 0.0318

MEIW 32 24 180 0.709 to 1.026 1413 to 2043 4.18 to 6.05 2.26 to 3.26 0.0706 to 0.1021 0.0203 to 0.0293
MEIR 100 92 270 0.009 to 0.013 416.3 to 602.1 0.05 to 0.07 0.03 to 0.04 0.0208 to 0.0301 0.0002 to 0.0004 1. Distance to receptor measured from the center of the volume source. 2. Distance to receptor measured from the short side of the building exterior (envelope). 3. For near-source, not applicable for acute values. 4. These facilities use a Perc-containing brake cleaner which shows a Perc content range on the Material Safety Data Sheet; therefore, a range is presented for the results.

# D-21 Table D-22. Summary of ISCST3 Modeling Results - 13 Specific Facilities (cont.)

FACILITY RECEPTOR

TYPE Receptor Distance

[meters] Approximate

direction From Facility [Deg] Maximum

Annual Concentration [μg/m3

### ] Maximum

Hourly Concentration [μg/m3

### ] Potential Cancer Risk

[chances per million] Hazard Index

Center1 

### Env.2 

### Resident Worker Acute Chronic

P4 

### Near-Source 32 27 342 - 72 0.387 to 0.559 59.83 to 86.43 2.28 to 3.30 0.92 to 1.33 0.0030 to 0.0043 0.0111 to 0.0160

MEIW 32 27 0 0.298 to 0.430 39.65 to 57.29 1.76 to 2.54 0.71 to 1.03 0.0020 to 0.0029 0.0085 to 0.0123
MEIR 42 37 225 0.034 to 0.049 46.15 to 66.67 0.20 to 0.29 0.08 to 0.12 0.0023 to 0.0033 0.0010 to 0.0014
T4 

### Near-Source 32 27 288 - 342 2.517 218.6 14.85 6.38 0.0109 0.0719

MEIW 32 27 0 2.236 117.8 13.19 5.66 0.0059 0.0639
MEIR 32 27 0 2.236 117.8 13.19 5.66 0.0059 0.0639
U4 

### Near-Source 32 27 72 3.279 to 4.738 237.8 to 343.7 19.35 to 27.96 7.82 to 11.31 0.0108 to 0.0156 0.0937 to 0.1354

MEIW 32 27 342 1.207 to 1.743 134.4 to 194.2 7.12 to 10.29 2.88 to 4.16 0.0067 to 0.0097 0.0345 to 0.0498
MEIR 32 27 72 3.279 to 4.738 179.0 to 258.7 19.35 to 27.96 7.82 to 11.31 0.0090 to 0.0129 0.0937 to 0.1354 1. Distance to receptor measured from the center of the volume source. 2. Distance to receptor measured from the short side of the building exterior (envelope). 3. For near-source, not applicable for acute values. 4. These facilities use a Perc-containing brake cleaner which shows a Perc content range on the Material Safety Data Sheet; therefore, a range is presented for the results.

# D-22

D. Generic Facilities This section summarizes the input parameters and results for the three generic facilities that were developed. All generic facility modeling were done using ISCST3 and consider Perc, MeCl, and TCE usage from brake cleaning products, carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general degreasers. Tables D-23 thru D-26 present the modeling input parameters. The modeling results are summarized on pages D-25 thru D-204. For more information on how the generic facilities were developed, please see Appendix F.

Table D-23. ISCST3 Modeling Parameters - 3 Generic Facilities

Facility Applicable

Facility Types Release

Height [m] Approx.

Length [m] Approx.

Width [m] Approx.

Height [m] Number of

L x L Volumes
G-01 General Automotive, Brake Shop, Service Station, Dealership 2.5 12.2 7.6 4.9 2

G-02 General Automotive, Brake Shop, Service Station., Dealership, Fleet 3.8 21.3 13.7 7.6 2

G-03 General Automotive, Dealership, Fleet 3.8 62.5 21.3 7.6 3



# Table D-24. ISCST3 Modeling Parameters - 3 Generic Facilities (cont.)

Facility Operating Schedule

[hrs/wk] Open Hours Open Days Meteorology Data Sets
G-01 G-02 G-03 57 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 8:00 am - 2:00 pm Mon - Fri

Sat Oakland 1960-64

McClellan AFB 1953-57 LAX 1985-89 Redding 1987-89 Fresno 1985-89 Sac Exec 1987, 1989-92 Concord 1991-96 Mather AFB 1953-57 Burbank 1958-62 Anaheim 1981

# D-23 Table D-25. ISCST3 Modeling Parameters - 3 Generic Facilities (cont.)

Facility Base Emission Rates [g/s] 1



## Acute (65%) Annualized

(65%) Acute

(94%) Annualized

(94%)
G-01 0.0973 0.0341 0.1407 0.0494
G-02 0.1946 0.1024 0.2815 0.1481
G-03 0.1946 0.1024 0.2815 0.1481 1. The model is run using a unit emission rate of 1 gram per second. Calculation of base emission rates at 65% and 94% chlorinated content (by weight) simplifies the consideration of the variety of modeling scenarios summarized on pages D-25 through D-204.



# Table D-26. ISCST3 Modeling Parameters - General Assumptions

General Assumptions In conducting the ISCST3 modeling for the generic facilities, the following general assumptions were used:



## < All facilities modeled as volume sources.



## < Dispersion coefficient set to URBAN, receptor height set to ZERO



## < Twenty brake jobs per week (1040 per year) for facility G-01, 60 per week (3120 per year) for facility G-02 and G-03. This estimate is based on data collected from the Brake Cleaner and Perc-Containing Automotive Products (Manufacturers) Survey, the Automotive Service Facility Questionnaire (Facility Survey), and facility site visits (see Appendix B) and is designed such that product usage on other activities is automatically included (see Appendix F).



## < One 19-oz can (539 grams) at 65% and 94% component content per brake job, which is the average chlorinated can size and usage rate supported by the site visits, the Facility Survey, and the Norton Study.



## < Facility operating schedule of 2964 hours per year (57 hours per week), which is the average operating schedule reported during the site visits.



## < No more than one brake job per hour for facility G-01; no more than 2 brake jobs per hour for facilities G-02 and G-03. Based on the operating hours at a facility, the estimated number of service bays, and the reported jobs per week, multiple brake jobs can occur simultaneously at the G-02 and G-03 facilities. This estimate affects acute health impacts.



## < Polar receptor network, centered on source centroid, with 2160 receptors (polar network consists of 60 radials separated by angular distances of 6 degrees and having receptors at the following radial distances: 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 120, 140, 150, 160, 180, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8000, 9000, 10000, and 23000 meters).

# D-24

The generic facilities considered a number of scenarios. Table D-27 summarizes the modeling scenarios that were considered under generic facility modeling. Table D-27. Representative Product Formulations Used in Generic Facility Modeling

Product Category Brake Cleaners Carburetor Cleaners Engine Degreasers General Degreasers
All met locations: 

## o94% Perc 

## o65% Perc Four met locations 1

## : 

## o55% Perc, 25% MeCl 

## o40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE 

## o55% Perc, 43% TCE Single composite based on2

## :


## o68% Perc 

## o57% MeCl Single composite based on2

## :


## o47% Perc 

## o99% TCE Single composite

based on2

## :


## o24% Perc 

## o10% Perc, 86% TCE 

## o51% MeCl 

## o98% TCE 1. Burbank, Anaheim, Oakland and default met for chronic effects; Fresno, Concord, Mather, and default met for acute effects. 2. Composite is based on average of 10 met sets. Default met is considered independently. 

# For more information on how composite formulations were derived, please see Appendix F. Due to the volume of data, the multicomponent products were calculated for the met data sets that gave the lowest, mid-range, and highest potential health impacts for acute and chronic emissions. For chronic emissions (cancer and chronic impacts), the met data sets presented are Oakland (low), Burbank (mid-range), and Anaheim (high). For acute emissions, the met data sets presented are Mather (low), Fresno (mid-range), and Concord (high). Additionally, default meteorology was considered for each of the multicomponent scenarios and composite formulations. Any representative formulation listed within this Appendix does not necessarily represent a specific product from a specific manufacturer. Generic facility modeling results are summarized on pages D-25 through D-204.

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Brake Cleaners Facility G-01 - 65% Perc
Concord Met Set: Burbank Met Set:

0.0973 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0973 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0341 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0341 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0604 12417.79 0.1574 13.84 32.51 161.57 20 0.0604 12417.79 0.1585 13.93 32.73 162.66 20 0.0450 9254.67 0.0840 7.38 17.34 86.18 30 0.0450 9254.67 0.0842 7.40 17.38 86.38 30 0.0346 7114.91 0.0522 4.59 10.78 53.59 40 0.0346 7114.91 0.0521 4.58 10.77 53.51 40 0.0274 5625.45 0.0356 3.13 7.36 36.58 50 0.0274 5625.45 0.0355 3.12 7.33 36.43 50 0.0222 4555.43 0.0259 2.28 5.35 26.58 60 0.0222 4555.43 0.0257 2.26 5.31 26.41 60 0.0154 3163.52 0.0155 1.36 3.19 15.87 80 0.0154 3163.52 0.0153 1.35 3.16 15.71 80 0.0113 2329.1 0.0103 0.90 2.12 10.55 100 0.0113 2329.1 0.0101 0.89 2.09 10.41 100 0.0062 1281.78 0.0048 0.42 1.00 4.95 150 0.0062 1281.78 0.0047 0.42 0.98 4.86 150 0.0040 820.22 0.0028 0.24 0.58 2.86 200 0.0040 820.22 0.0027 0.24 0.57 2.81 200 0.0028 575.61 0.0018 0.16 0.38 1.87 250 0.0028 575.61 0.0018 0.16 0.37 1.83 250 0.0009 189.47 0.0005 0.04 0.10 0.49 500 0.0009 189.47 0.0005 0.04 0.10 0.48 500 0.0003 64.58 0.0001 0.01 0.03 0.14 1000 0.0003 64.58 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.12 1000



## LAX Met Set: Fresno Met Set:

0.0973 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0973 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0341 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0341 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0408 8382.67 0.0920 8.08 18.99 94.40 20 0.0543 11155.5 0.1269 11.16 26.21 130.29 20 0.0292 5996.68 0.0493 4.33 10.18 50.61 30 0.0409 8402.65 0.0671 5.90 13.86 68.87 30 0.0224 4610.19 0.0307 2.70 6.34 31.53 40 0.0317 6521.95 0.0414 3.64 8.54 42.46 40 0.0177 3645.08 0.0210 1.84 4.33 21.53 50 0.0252 5186.31 0.0280 2.46 5.79 28.78 50 0.0144 2951.75 0.0152 1.34 3.15 15.65 60 0.0205 4214.74 0.0203 1.78 4.18 20.79 60 0.0100 2049.84 0.0091 0.80 1.88 9.34 80 0.0143 2937.5 0.0120 1.05 2.47 12.29 80 0.0073 1509.17 0.0060 0.53 1.25 6.20 100 0.0105 2165.55 0.0079 0.69 1.63 8.11 100 0.0046 953.49 0.0028 0.25 0.59 2.91 150 0.0058 1191.61 0.0037 0.32 0.76 3.76 150 0.0036 744.04 0.0016 0.14 0.34 1.68 200 0.0037 761.38 0.0021 0.18 0.43 2.16 200 0.0030 611.79 0.0011 0.09 0.22 1.10 250 0.0026 533.41 0.0014 0.12 0.28 1.40 250 0.0016 331.07 0.0003 0.02 0.06 0.29 500 0.0008 174.25 0.0004 0.03 0.07 0.36 500 0.0009 181.35 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.08 1000 0.0003 58.67 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.09 1000 

## D-25

## Facility G-01 - 65% Perc (cont.)
Mather Met Set: McClellan Met Set:

0.0973 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0973 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0341 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0341 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0412 8470.5 0.0940 8.27 19.42 96.52 20 0.0536 11007.62 0.0985 8.65 20.33 101.05 20 0.0280 5762.29 0.0496 4.36 10.25 50.95 30 0.0413 8490.17 0.0520 4.57 10.74 53.37 30 0.0217 4464.6 0.0306 2.69 6.32 31.40 40 0.0324 6665.94 0.0321 2.82 6.63 32.93 40 0.0172 3545.55 0.0207 1.82 4.28 21.29 50 0.0260 5343.61 0.0218 1.91 4.49 22.34 50 0.0140 2878.6 0.0150 1.32 3.09 15.38 60 0.0213 4368.46 0.0157 1.38 3.25 16.15 60 0.0097 2004.05 0.0089 0.78 1.83 9.10 80 0.0149 3069.77 0.0093 0.82 1.93 9.57 80 0.0072 1477.56 0.0058 0.51 1.21 6.00 100 0.0111 2275.44 0.0062 0.54 1.27 6.32 100 0.0040 819.7 0.0027 0.24 0.56 2.78 150 0.0061 1262.34 0.0029 0.25 0.59 2.93 150 0.0026 527.32 0.0016 0.14 0.32 1.60 200 0.0039 810.41 0.0016 0.14 0.34 1.69 200 0.0018 371.22 0.0010 0.09 0.21 1.03 250 0.0028 569.61 0.0011 0.09 0.22 1.09 250 0.0006 122.78 0.0003 0.02 0.05 0.27 500 0.0009 187.81 0.0003 0.02 0.06 0.28 500 0.0002 41.91 0.0001 0.01 0.01 0.07 1000 0.0003 63.95 0.0001 0.01 0.01 0.07 1000



## Redding Met Set: Oakland Met Set:

0.0973 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0973 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0341 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0341 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0555 11399.88 0.1097 9.64 22.65 112.58 20 0.0512 10519.95 0.0894 7.85 18.45 91.71 20 0.0419 8620.94 0.0582 5.12 12.02 59.73 30 0.0390 8021.08 0.0479 4.21 9.89 49.17 30 0.0325 6686.72 0.0360 3.17 7.44 36.97 40 0.0306 6281.76 0.0299 2.62 6.17 30.65 40 0.0259 5317.3 0.0245 2.15 5.06 25.14 50 0.0245 5029.68 0.0204 1.79 4.21 20.94 50 0.0210 4322.64 0.0177 1.56 3.66 18.21 60 0.0200 4106.19 0.0148 1.30 3.06 15.22 60 0.0147 3016 0.0105 0.93 2.17 10.81 80 0.0140 2877.44 0.0089 0.78 1.83 9.09 80 0.0108 2226.16 0.0070 0.61 1.44 7.16 100 0.0103 2127.42 0.0059 0.52 1.22 6.04 100 0.0060 1228.45 0.0032 0.29 0.67 3.33 150 0.0057 1174.14 0.0028 0.24 0.57 2.83 150 0.0038 789.26 0.0019 0.16 0.39 1.92 200 0.0037 750.86 0.0016 0.14 0.33 1.64 200 0.0027 555.62 0.0012 0.11 0.25 1.25 250 0.0026 526.14 0.0010 0.09 0.22 1.07 250 0.0009 183.77 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.32 500 0.0008 171.69 0.0003 0.02 0.06 0.28 500 0.0003 62.72 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.08 1000 0.0003 57.64 0.0001 0.01 0.01 0.07 1000



## D-26

## Facility G-01 - 65% Perc (cont.)
Anaheim Met Set: Sacramento Met Set:

0.0973 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0973 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0341 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0341 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0604 12413.44 0.2134 18.76 44.06 219.02 20 0.0545 11198.97 0.1029 9.04 21.25 105.61 20 0.0450 9249.49 0.1130 9.93 23.33 115.95 30 0.0415 8535.41 0.0545 4.79 11.26 55.98 30 0.0346 7109.62 0.0697 6.13 14.40 71.59 40 0.0324 6652.15 0.0337 2.96 6.97 34.62 40 0.0273 5620.4 0.0473 4.16 9.78 48.59 50 0.0258 5306.72 0.0229 2.01 4.73 23.52 50 0.0221 4550.74 0.0342 3.01 7.07 35.13 60 0.0210 4323.84 0.0166 1.46 3.43 17.03 60 0.0154 3159.6 0.0203 1.78 4.19 20.81 80 0.0147 3025.89 0.0098 0.86 2.03 10.10 80 0.0113 2325.83 0.0134 1.18 2.77 13.75 100 0.0109 2237.71 0.0065 0.57 1.34 6.68 100 0.0062 1279.62 0.0062 0.55 1.28 6.38 150 0.0060 1238.17 0.0030 0.27 0.63 3.11 150 0.0040 818.68 0.0036 0.31 0.74 3.67 200 0.0039 794.14 0.0017 0.15 0.36 1.79 200 0.0028 574.45 0.0023 0.20 0.48 2.38 250 0.0027 557.98 0.0011 0.10 0.23 1.16 250 0.0009 189.33 0.0006 0.05 0.12 0.61 500 0.0009 184.01 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.30 500 0.0003 64.55 0.0002 0.01 0.03 0.16 1000 0.0003 62.75 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.08 1000



## Default - 0 Met Set:

0.0973 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0341 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0552 11342.73 0.2991 26.29 61.77 307.03 20 0.0413 8496.33 0.2241 19.70 46.27 229.98 30 0.0320 6579.11 0.1735 15.25 35.83 178.09 40 0.0255 5238.72 0.1382 12.14 28.53 141.80 50 0.0208 4269.33 0.1126 9.90 23.25 115.56 60 0.0146 2995.85 0.0790 6.95 16.32 81.09 80 0.0108 2223.11 0.0586 5.15 12.11 60.18 100 0.0060 1239.31 0.0327 2.87 6.75 33.55 150 0.0039 799.09 0.0211 1.85 4.35 21.63 200 0.0027 563.57 0.0149 1.31 3.07 15.25 250 0.0009 187.51 0.0049 0.43 1.02 5.08 500 0.0003 64.26 0.0017 0.15 0.35 1.74 1000



## D-27

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Brake Cleaners Facility G-01 - 94% Perc
Concord Met Set: Burbank Met Set:

0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0874 12417.79 0.2280 20.05 47.09 161.57 20 0.0874 12417.79 0.2296 20.18 47.41 162.66 20 0.0651 9254.67 0.1216 10.69 25.12 86.18 30 0.0651 9254.67 0.1219 10.72 25.18 86.38 30 0.0501 7114.91 0.0756 6.65 15.62 53.59 40 0.0501 7114.91 0.0755 6.64 15.60 53.51 40 0.0396 5625.45 0.0516 4.54 10.66 36.58 50 0.0396 5625.45 0.0514 4.52 10.62 36.43 50 0.0320 4555.43 0.0375 3.30 7.75 26.58 60 0.0320 4555.43 0.0373 3.28 7.70 26.41 60 0.0223 3163.52 0.0224 1.97 4.63 15.87 80 0.0223 3163.52 0.0222 1.95 4.58 15.71 80 0.0164 2329.1 0.0149 1.31 3.07 10.55 100 0.0164 2329.1 0.0147 1.29 3.03 10.41 100 0.0090 1281.78 0.0070 0.61 1.44 4.95 150 0.0090 1281.78 0.0069 0.60 1.42 4.86 150 0.0058 820.22 0.0040 0.35 0.83 2.86 200 0.0058 820.22 0.0040 0.35 0.82 2.81 200 0.0040 575.61 0.0026 0.23 0.55 1.87 250 0.0040 575.61 0.0026 0.23 0.53 1.83 250 0.0013 189.47 0.0007 0.06 0.14 0.49 500 0.0013 189.47 0.0007 0.06 0.14 0.48 500 0.0005 64.58 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.14 1000 0.0005 64.58 0.0002 0.01 0.03 0.12 1000



## LAX Met Set: Fresno Met Set:

0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0590 8382.67 0.1332 11.71 27.51 94.40 20 0.0785 11155.5 0.1839 16.16 37.97 130.29 20 0.0422 5996.68 0.0714 6.28 14.75 50.61 30 0.0591 8402.65 0.0972 8.54 20.07 68.87 30 0.0324 4610.19 0.0445 3.91 9.19 31.53 40 0.0459 6521.95 0.0599 5.27 12.38 42.46 40 0.0256 3645.08 0.0304 2.67 6.28 21.53 50 0.0365 5186.31 0.0406 3.57 8.39 28.78 50 0.0208 2951.75 0.0221 1.94 4.56 15.65 60 0.0297 4214.74 0.0293 2.58 6.06 20.79 60 0.0144 2049.84 0.0132 1.16 2.72 9.34 80 0.0207 2937.5 0.0173 1.52 3.58 12.29 80 0.0106 1509.17 0.0088 0.77 1.81 6.20 100 0.0152 2165.55 0.0114 1.01 2.36 8.11 100 0.0067 953.49 0.0041 0.36 0.85 2.91 150 0.0084 1191.61 0.0053 0.47 1.10 3.76 150 0.0052 744.04 0.0024 0.21 0.49 1.68 200 0.0054 761.38 0.0030 0.27 0.63 2.16 200 0.0043 611.79 0.0016 0.14 0.32 1.10 250 0.0038 533.41 0.0020 0.17 0.41 1.40 250 0.0023 331.07 0.0004 0.04 0.08 0.29 500 0.0012 174.25 0.0005 0.04 0.10 0.36 500 0.0013 181.35 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.08 1000 0.0004 58.67 0.0001 0.01 0.03 0.09 1000 

## D-28

## Facility G-01 - 94% Perc (cont.)
Mather Met Set: McClellan Met Set:

0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0596 8470.5 0.1362 11.98 28.13 96.52 20 0.0774 11007.62 0.1426 12.54 29.45 101.05 20 0.0405 5762.29 0.0719 6.32 14.85 50.95 30 0.0597 8490.17 0.0753 6.62 15.56 53.37 30 0.0314 4464.6 0.0443 3.90 9.15 31.40 40 0.0469 6665.94 0.0465 4.09 9.60 32.93 40 0.0249 3545.55 0.0300 2.64 6.21 21.29 50 0.0376 5343.61 0.0315 2.77 6.51 22.34 50 0.0203 2878.6 0.0217 1.91 4.48 15.38 60 0.0307 4368.46 0.0228 2.00 4.71 16.15 60 0.0141 2004.05 0.0128 1.13 2.65 9.10 80 0.0216 3069.77 0.0135 1.19 2.79 9.57 80 0.0104 1477.56 0.0085 0.74 1.75 6.00 100 0.0160 2275.44 0.0089 0.78 1.84 6.32 100 0.0058 819.7 0.0039 0.34 0.81 2.78 150 0.0089 1262.34 0.0041 0.36 0.85 2.93 150 0.0037 527.32 0.0023 0.20 0.47 1.60 200 0.0057 810.41 0.0024 0.21 0.49 1.69 200 0.0026 371.22 0.0015 0.13 0.30 1.03 250 0.0040 569.61 0.0015 0.14 0.32 1.09 250 0.0009 122.78 0.0004 0.03 0.08 0.27 500 0.0013 187.81 0.0004 0.03 0.08 0.28 500 0.0003 41.91 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.07 1000 0.0004 63.95 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.07 1000



## Redding Met Set: Oakland Met Set:

0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0802 11399.88 0.1589 13.97 32.81 112.58 20 0.0740 10519.95 0.1294 11.38 26.73 91.71 20 0.0606 8620.94 0.0843 7.41 17.41 59.73 30 0.0564 8021.08 0.0694 6.10 14.33 49.17 30 0.0470 6686.72 0.0522 4.59 10.78 36.97 40 0.0442 6281.76 0.0433 3.80 8.93 30.65 40 0.0374 5317.3 0.0355 3.12 7.33 25.14 50 0.0354 5029.68 0.0296 2.60 6.10 20.94 50 0.0304 4322.64 0.0257 2.26 5.31 18.21 60 0.0289 4106.19 0.0215 1.89 4.44 15.22 60 0.0212 3016 0.0153 1.34 3.15 10.81 80 0.0202 2877.44 0.0128 1.13 2.65 9.09 80 0.0157 2226.16 0.0101 0.89 2.09 7.16 100 0.0150 2127.42 0.0085 0.75 1.76 6.04 100 0.0086 1228.45 0.0047 0.41 0.97 3.33 150 0.0083 1174.14 0.0040 0.35 0.82 2.83 150 0.0056 789.26 0.0027 0.24 0.56 1.92 200 0.0053 750.86 0.0023 0.20 0.48 1.64 200 0.0039 555.62 0.0018 0.16 0.36 1.25 250 0.0037 526.14 0.0015 0.13 0.31 1.07 250 0.0013 183.77 0.0005 0.04 0.09 0.32 500 0.0012 171.69 0.0004 0.03 0.08 0.28 500 0.0004 62.72 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.08 1000 0.0004 57.64 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.07 1000



## D-29

## Facility G-01 - 94% Perc (cont.)
Anaheim Met Set: Sacramento Met Set:

0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0873 12413.44 0.3091 27.17 63.84 219.02 20 0.0788 11198.97 0.1491 13.10 30.78 105.61 20 0.0651 9249.49 0.1637 14.39 33.79 115.95 30 0.0600 8535.41 0.0790 6.95 16.32 55.98 30 0.0500 7109.62 0.1010 8.88 20.87 71.59 40 0.0468 6652.15 0.0489 4.30 10.09 34.62 40 0.0395 5620.4 0.0686 6.03 14.16 48.59 50 0.0373 5306.72 0.0332 2.92 6.86 23.52 50 0.0320 4550.74 0.0496 4.36 10.24 35.13 60 0.0304 4323.84 0.0240 2.11 4.96 17.03 60 0.0222 3159.6 0.0294 2.58 6.07 20.81 80 0.0213 3025.89 0.0143 1.25 2.94 10.10 80 0.0164 2325.83 0.0194 1.71 4.01 13.75 100 0.0157 2237.71 0.0094 0.83 1.95 6.68 100 0.0090 1279.62 0.0090 0.79 1.86 6.38 150 0.0087 1238.17 0.0044 0.39 0.91 3.11 150 0.0058 818.68 0.0052 0.46 1.07 3.67 200 0.0056 794.14 0.0025 0.22 0.52 1.79 200 0.0040 574.45 0.0034 0.30 0.69 2.38 250 0.0039 557.98 0.0016 0.14 0.34 1.16 250 0.0013 189.33 0.0009 0.08 0.18 0.61 500 0.0013 184.01 0.0004 0.04 0.09 0.30 500 0.0005 64.55 0.0002 0.02 0.05 0.16 1000 0.0004 62.75 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.08 1000



## Default - 0 Met Set:

0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0798 11342.73 0.4334 38.09 89.49 307.03 20 0.0598 8496.33 0.3246 28.53 67.03 229.98 30 0.0463 6579.11 0.2514 22.09 51.91 178.09 40 0.0369 5238.72 0.2001 17.59 41.33 141.80 50 0.0300 4269.33 0.1631 14.34 33.68 115.56 60 0.0211 2995.85 0.1145 10.06 23.64 81.09 80 0.0156 2223.11 0.0849 7.47 17.54 60.18 100 0.0087 1239.31 0.0473 4.16 9.78 33.55 150 0.0056 799.09 0.0305 2.68 6.30 21.63 200 0.0040 563.57 0.0215 1.89 4.45 15.25 250 0.0013 187.51 0.0072 0.63 1.48 5.08 500 0.0005 64.26 0.0025 0.22 0.51 1.74 1000



## D-30

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Brake Cleaners Facility G-02 - 65% Perc
Concord Met Set: Burbank Met Set:

0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0538 5532.86 0.2846 25.02 58.77 97.28 20 0.0538 5528.38 0.2863 25.17 59.13 97.87 20 0.0471 4845.41 0.2087 18.34 43.09 71.32 30 0.0471 4845.41 0.2105 18.51 43.48 71.96 30 0.0394 4048.28 0.1351 11.88 27.91 46.19 40 0.0394 4048.28 0.1359 11.95 28.06 46.45 40 0.0333 3418.07 0.0944 8.30 19.50 32.27 50 0.0333 3418.07 0.0947 8.32 19.56 32.37 50 0.0284 2918.05 0.0697 6.13 14.40 23.83 60 0.0284 2918.05 0.0697 6.13 14.40 23.83 60 0.0213 2193.5 0.0425 3.74 8.78 14.54 80 0.0213 2193.5 0.0424 3.72 8.75 14.48 80 0.0166 1708.42 0.0287 2.52 5.92 9.80 100 0.0166 1708.42 0.0285 2.50 5.88 9.73 100 0.0100 1026.4 0.0138 1.21 2.84 4.70 150 0.0100 1026.4 0.0136 1.19 2.80 4.64 150 0.0067 690.62 0.0080 0.71 1.66 2.75 200 0.0067 690.62 0.0079 0.70 1.64 2.71 200 0.0049 500.6 0.0053 0.47 1.09 1.81 250 0.0049 500.6 0.0052 0.46 1.07 1.77 250 0.0017 176.69 0.0014 0.12 0.29 0.48 500 0.0017 176.69 0.0014 0.12 0.28 0.47 500 0.0006 62.47 0.0004 0.04 0.08 0.14 1000 0.0006 62.47 0.0004 0.03 0.07 0.12 1000



## LAX Met Set: Fresno Met Set:

0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0432 4438.48 0.1352 11.88 27.92 46.21 20 0.0501 5150.55 0.2120 18.64 43.78 72.47 20 0.0324 3329.4 0.1221 10.73 25.21 41.73 30 0.0421 4329.74 0.1681 14.78 34.72 57.46 30 0.0255 2623.13 0.0795 6.99 16.42 27.17 40 0.0354 3636.07 0.1083 9.52 22.37 37.02 40 0.0215 2214.78 0.0556 4.89 11.49 19.02 50 0.0300 3085.18 0.0752 6.61 15.53 25.71 50 0.0184 1890.78 0.0411 3.62 8.49 14.06 60 0.0258 2652.23 0.0552 4.85 11.40 18.87 60 0.0138 1421.31 0.0251 2.21 5.18 8.58 80 0.0196 2011.93 0.0334 2.93 6.89 11.40 80 0.0113 1161.72 0.0169 1.49 3.50 5.79 100 0.0153 1575.29 0.0223 1.96 4.60 7.62 100 0.0084 864.8 0.0081 0.71 1.67 2.77 150 0.0093 951.66 0.0105 0.93 2.17 3.60 150 0.0067 690.47 0.0047 0.42 0.98 1.62 200 0.0062 641.05 0.0061 0.54 1.26 2.09 200 0.0056 576.01 0.0031 0.28 0.65 1.07 250 0.0045 464.48 0.0040 0.35 0.82 1.36 250 0.0031 321.35 0.0008 0.07 0.18 0.29 500 0.0016 162.91 0.0010 0.09 0.21 0.35 500 0.0017 178.82 0.0002 0.02 0.05 0.08 1000 0.0006 56.88 0.0003 0.02 0.05 0.09 1000 

## D-31

## Facility G-02 - 65% Perc (cont.)
Mather Met Set: McClellan Met Set:

0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0369 3794.23 0.1694 14.89 34.98 57.90 20 0.0481 4940.31 0.1879 16.51 38.79 64.21 20 0.0328 3373.6 0.1248 10.97 25.78 42.67 30 0.0409 4201.41 0.1309 11.50 27.02 44.73 30 0.0251 2579.42 0.0803 7.06 16.58 27.44 40 0.0351 3602.76 0.0841 7.39 17.37 28.75 40 0.0206 2118.71 0.0557 4.90 11.51 19.05 50 0.0302 3101.33 0.0584 5.14 12.07 19.97 50 0.0177 1819.33 0.0409 3.59 8.44 13.97 60 0.0261 2686.93 0.0429 3.77 8.86 14.66 60 0.0134 1377.52 0.0247 2.17 5.10 8.44 80 0.0201 2061.66 0.0259 2.28 5.35 8.86 80 0.0105 1077.14 0.0165 1.45 3.41 5.64 100 0.0158 1627.16 0.0174 1.53 3.59 5.94 100 0.0063 649.65 0.0078 0.68 1.61 2.66 150 0.0097 995.28 0.0082 0.72 1.70 2.81 150 0.0043 438.54 0.0045 0.40 0.94 1.55 200 0.0066 675.35 0.0048 0.42 0.98 1.63 200 0.0031 319.33 0.0030 0.26 0.61 1.01 250 0.0048 491.77 0.0031 0.27 0.64 1.06 250 0.0011 113.98 0.0008 0.07 0.16 0.26 500 0.0017 174.75 0.0008 0.07 0.17 0.28 500 0.0004 40.48 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.07 1000 0.0006 61.83 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.07 1000



## Redding Met Set: Oakland Met Set:

0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0512 5262.77 0.2003 17.61 41.37 68.47 20 0.0456 4685.59 0.1413 12.42 29.19 48.31 20 0.0429 4405.79 0.1458 12.82 30.11 49.83 30 0.0392 4028.18 0.1188 10.44 24.53 40.60 30 0.0362 3722.07 0.0941 8.27 19.43 32.16 40 0.0335 3439.11 0.0773 6.79 15.96 26.41 40 0.0308 3168.63 0.0655 5.76 13.52 22.38 50 0.0286 2941.66 0.0541 4.76 11.18 18.50 50 0.0265 2722.05 0.0482 4.23 9.94 16.46 60 0.0246 2531.88 0.0400 3.52 8.26 13.67 60 0.0201 2063.9 0.0292 2.57 6.04 9.99 80 0.0189 1940.79 0.0244 2.15 5.04 8.35 80 0.0157 1616.3 0.0196 1.72 4.05 6.70 100 0.0149 1529.51 0.0165 1.45 3.40 5.63 100 0.0095 978.01 0.0093 0.82 1.92 3.18 150 0.0091 931.7 0.0079 0.69 1.63 2.70 150 0.0064 660.08 0.0054 0.48 1.12 1.86 200 0.0061 629.79 0.0046 0.41 0.95 1.58 200 0.0047 479.17 0.0035 0.31 0.73 1.21 250 0.0044 457.07 0.0030 0.27 0.63 1.04 250 0.0017 170.6 0.0009 0.08 0.19 0.32 500 0.0016 160.49 0.0008 0.07 0.17 0.28 500 0.0006 60.59 0.0002 0.02 0.05 0.08 1000 0.0005 55.89 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.07 1000



## D-32

## Facility G-02 - 65% Perc (cont.)
Anaheim Met Set: Sacramento Met Set:

0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0530 5444.38 0.3677 32.32 75.94 125.69 20 0.0494 5079.25 0.1853 16.29 38.26 63.33 20 0.0471 4844.11 0.2828 24.86 58.40 96.66 30 0.0419 4307.48 0.1367 12.02 28.23 46.73 30 0.0394 4046.7 0.1824 16.03 37.66 62.33 40 0.0356 3660.84 0.0882 7.75 18.21 30.14 40 0.0332 3416.34 0.1268 11.14 26.18 43.33 50 0.0305 3130.22 0.0613 5.39 12.66 20.96 50 0.0284 2916.25 0.0932 8.19 19.24 31.84 60 0.0263 2698.02 0.0451 3.96 9.31 15.41 60 0.0213 2191.72 0.0563 4.95 11.64 19.26 80 0.0200 2055.28 0.0273 2.40 5.64 9.34 80 0.0166 1706.75 0.0377 3.32 7.79 12.90 100 0.0157 1614.56 0.0183 1.61 3.79 6.27 100 0.0100 1025.07 0.0179 1.57 3.69 6.11 150 0.0095 981.41 0.0087 0.76 1.79 2.97 150 0.0067 689.56 0.0104 0.91 2.14 3.55 200 0.0065 664.04 0.0051 0.44 1.05 1.73 200 0.0049 499.75 0.0068 0.60 1.40 2.32 250 0.0047 482.83 0.0033 0.29 0.68 1.13 250 0.0017 176.33 0.0018 0.15 0.36 0.60 500 0.0017 171.3 0.0009 0.08 0.18 0.30 500 0.0006 62.42 0.0005 0.04 0.10 0.16 1000 0.0006 60.66 0.0002 0.02 0.05 0.08 1000



## Default - 0 Met Set:

0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0513 5276.51 0.4179 36.73 86.29 142.83 20 0.0424 4358.64 0.3452 30.34 71.28 117.98 30 0.0355 3649.09 0.2890 25.40 59.68 98.78 40 0.0301 3094.79 0.2451 21.54 50.61 83.77 50 0.0258 2656.01 0.2103 18.49 43.44 71.89 60 0.0196 2017.70 0.1598 14.05 33.00 54.62 80 0.0154 1586.22 0.1256 11.04 25.94 42.94 100 0.0094 969.72 0.0768 6.75 15.86 26.25 150 0.0064 659.99 0.0523 4.59 10.79 17.86 200 0.0047 482.19 0.0382 3.36 7.89 13.05 250 0.0017 173.33 0.0137 1.21 2.83 4.69 500 0.0006 61.90 0.0049 0.43 1.01 1.68 1000



## D-33

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Brake Cleaners Facility G-02 - 94% Perc
Concord Met Set: Burbank Met Set:

0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0779 5532.86 0.4116 36.18 85.00 97.28 20 0.0778 5528.38 0.4141 36.40 85.52 97.87 20 0.0682 4845.41 0.3018 26.53 62.32 71.32 30 0.0682 4845.41 0.3045 26.77 62.88 71.96 30 0.0570 4048.28 0.1954 17.18 40.36 46.19 40 0.0570 4048.28 0.1965 17.28 40.59 46.45 40 0.0481 3418.07 0.1365 12.00 28.20 32.27 50 0.0481 3418.07 0.1370 12.04 28.28 32.37 50 0.0411 2918.05 0.1008 8.86 20.82 23.83 60 0.0411 2918.05 0.1008 8.86 20.82 23.83 60 0.0309 2193.5 0.0615 5.41 12.70 14.54 80 0.0309 2193.5 0.0613 5.39 12.65 14.48 80 0.0240 1708.42 0.0415 3.65 8.56 9.80 100 0.0240 1708.42 0.0412 3.62 8.50 9.73 100 0.0144 1026.4 0.0199 1.75 4.11 4.70 150 0.0144 1026.4 0.0196 1.73 4.05 4.64 150 0.0097 690.62 0.0116 1.02 2.40 2.75 200 0.0097 690.62 0.0115 1.01 2.37 2.71 200 0.0070 500.6 0.0077 0.67 1.58 1.81 250 0.0070 500.6 0.0075 0.66 1.55 1.77 250 0.0025 176.69 0.0020 0.18 0.42 0.48 500 0.0025 176.69 0.0020 0.17 0.41 0.47 500 0.0009 62.47 0.0006 0.05 0.12 0.14 1000 0.0009 62.47 0.0005 0.04 0.10 0.12 1000



## LAX Met Set: Fresno Met Set:

0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0625 4438.48 0.1955 17.19 40.38 46.21 20 0.0725 5150.55 0.3067 26.96 63.32 72.47 20 0.0469 3329.4 0.1766 15.52 36.46 41.73 30 0.0609 4329.74 0.2431 21.37 50.21 57.46 30 0.0369 2623.13 0.1150 10.11 23.74 27.17 40 0.0512 3636.07 0.1566 13.77 32.35 37.02 40 0.0312 2214.78 0.0805 7.07 16.62 19.02 50 0.0434 3085.18 0.1088 9.56 22.47 25.71 50 0.0266 1890.78 0.0595 5.23 12.29 14.06 60 0.0373 2652.23 0.0798 7.02 16.49 18.87 60 0.0200 1421.31 0.0363 3.19 7.50 8.58 80 0.0283 2011.93 0.0482 4.24 9.96 11.40 80 0.0164 1161.72 0.0245 2.15 5.06 5.79 100 0.0222 1575.29 0.0322 2.83 6.66 7.62 100 0.0122 864.8 0.0117 1.03 2.42 2.77 150 0.0134 951.66 0.0152 1.34 3.15 3.60 150 0.0097 690.47 0.0069 0.60 1.42 1.62 200 0.0090 641.05 0.0088 0.78 1.83 2.09 200 0.0081 576.01 0.0045 0.40 0.93 1.07 250 0.0065 464.48 0.0058 0.51 1.19 1.36 250 0.0045 321.35 0.0012 0.11 0.25 0.29 500 0.0023 162.91 0.0015 0.13 0.31 0.35 500 0.0025 178.82 0.0003 0.03 0.07 0.08 1000 0.0008 56.88 0.0004 0.03 0.08 0.09 1000 

## D-34

## Facility G-02 - 94% Perc (cont.)
Mather Met Set: McClellan Met Set:

0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0534 3794.23 0.2450 21.54 50.59 57.90 20 0.0695 4940.31 0.2717 23.88 56.11 64.21 20 0.0475 3373.6 0.1806 15.87 37.28 42.67 30 0.0591 4201.41 0.1893 16.64 39.08 44.73 30 0.0363 2579.42 0.1161 10.21 23.98 27.44 40 0.0507 3602.76 0.1217 10.69 25.12 28.75 40 0.0298 2118.71 0.0806 7.09 16.65 19.05 50 0.0437 3101.33 0.0845 7.43 17.45 19.97 50 0.0256 1819.33 0.0591 5.20 12.21 13.97 60 0.0378 2686.93 0.0620 5.45 12.81 14.66 60 0.0194 1377.52 0.0357 3.14 7.37 8.44 80 0.0290 2061.66 0.0375 3.30 7.74 8.86 80 0.0152 1077.14 0.0239 2.10 4.93 5.64 100 0.0229 1627.16 0.0251 2.21 5.19 5.94 100 0.0091 649.65 0.0113 0.99 2.32 2.66 150 0.0140 995.28 0.0119 1.05 2.46 2.81 150 0.0062 438.54 0.0066 0.58 1.35 1.55 200 0.0095 675.35 0.0069 0.61 1.42 1.63 200 0.0045 319.33 0.0043 0.38 0.88 1.01 250 0.0069 491.77 0.0045 0.39 0.93 1.06 250 0.0016 113.98 0.0011 0.10 0.23 0.26 500 0.0025 174.75 0.0012 0.10 0.24 0.28 500 0.0006 40.48 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.07 1000 0.0009 61.83 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.07 1000



## Redding Met Set: Oakland Met Set:

0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0741 5262.77 0.2897 25.47 59.83 68.47 20 0.0659 4685.59 0.2044 17.97 42.21 48.31 20 0.0620 4405.79 0.2109 18.53 43.54 49.83 30 0.0567 4028.18 0.1718 15.10 35.48 40.60 30 0.0524 3722.07 0.1361 11.96 28.10 32.16 40 0.0484 3439.11 0.1118 9.82 23.08 26.41 40 0.0446 3168.63 0.0947 8.32 19.56 22.38 50 0.0414 2941.66 0.0783 6.88 16.17 18.50 50 0.0383 2722.05 0.0696 6.12 14.38 16.46 60 0.0356 2531.88 0.0578 5.08 11.94 13.67 60 0.0290 2063.9 0.0423 3.72 8.73 9.99 80 0.0273 1940.79 0.0353 3.11 7.30 8.35 80 0.0227 1616.3 0.0284 2.49 5.85 6.70 100 0.0215 1529.51 0.0238 2.09 4.92 5.63 100 0.0138 978.01 0.0135 1.18 2.78 3.18 150 0.0131 931.7 0.0114 1.00 2.36 2.70 150 0.0093 660.08 0.0079 0.69 1.63 1.86 200 0.0089 629.79 0.0067 0.59 1.38 1.58 200 0.0067 479.17 0.0051 0.45 1.06 1.21 250 0.0064 457.07 0.0044 0.39 0.91 1.04 250 0.0024 170.6 0.0014 0.12 0.28 0.32 500 0.0023 160.49 0.0012 0.10 0.24 0.28 500 0.0009 60.59 0.0003 0.03 0.07 0.08 1000 0.0008 55.89 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.07 1000



## D-35

## Facility G-02 - 94% Perc (cont.)
Anaheim Met Set: Sacramento Met Set:

0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0766 5444.38 0.5318 46.75 109.83 125.69 20 0.0715 5079.25 0.2680 23.56 55.34 63.33 20 0.0682 4844.11 0.4090 35.95 84.46 96.66 30 0.0606 4307.48 0.1977 17.38 40.83 46.73 30 0.0570 4046.7 0.2637 23.18 54.46 62.33 40 0.0515 3660.84 0.1275 11.21 26.34 30.14 40 0.0481 3416.34 0.1833 16.12 37.86 43.33 50 0.0441 3130.22 0.0887 7.80 18.31 20.96 50 0.0410 2916.25 0.1347 11.84 27.82 31.84 60 0.0380 2698.02 0.0652 5.73 13.47 15.41 60 0.0308 2191.72 0.0815 7.16 16.83 19.26 80 0.0289 2055.28 0.0395 3.47 8.16 9.34 80 0.0240 1706.75 0.0546 4.80 11.27 12.90 100 0.0227 1614.56 0.0265 2.33 5.48 6.27 100 0.0144 1025.07 0.0259 2.27 5.34 6.11 150 0.0138 981.41 0.0126 1.10 2.60 2.97 150 0.0097 689.56 0.0150 1.32 3.10 3.55 200 0.0093 664.04 0.0073 0.64 1.51 1.73 200 0.0070 499.75 0.0098 0.86 2.03 2.32 250 0.0068 482.83 0.0048 0.42 0.99 1.13 250 0.0025 176.33 0.0025 0.22 0.52 0.60 500 0.0024 171.3 0.0013 0.11 0.26 0.30 500 0.0009 62.42 0.0007 0.06 0.14 0.16 1000 0.0009 60.66 0.0003 0.03 0.07 0.08 1000



## Default - 0 Met Set:

0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0743 5276.51 0.6044 53.13 124.80 142.83 20 0.0613 4358.64 0.4992 43.88 103.09 117.98 30 0.0514 3649.09 0.4180 36.74 86.31 98.78 40 0.0436 3094.79 0.3545 31.16 73.20 83.77 50 0.0374 2656.01 0.3042 26.74 62.82 71.89 60 0.0284 2017.70 0.2311 20.31 47.72 54.62 80 0.0223 1586.22 0.1817 15.97 37.52 42.94 100 0.0136 969.72 0.1111 9.76 22.94 26.25 150 0.0093 659.99 0.0756 6.64 15.61 17.86 200 0.0068 482.19 0.0552 4.85 11.40 13.05 250 0.0024 173.33 0.0199 1.75 4.10 4.69 500 0.0009 61.90 0.0071 0.62 1.46 1.68 1000



## D-36

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Brake Cleaners Facility G-03 - 65% Perc
Concord Met Set: Burbank Met Set:

0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0131 1344.83 0.0535 4.70 11.04 18.28 20 0.0131 1344.25 0.0524 4.61 10.82 17.91 20 0.0191 1964.95 0.1222 10.74 25.24 41.78 30 0.0191 1964.95 0.1235 10.85 25.50 42.20 30 0.0166 1702.1 0.1037 9.12 21.42 35.45 40 0.0166 1702.1 0.1049 9.22 21.67 35.87 40 0.0257 2643.95 0.0963 8.47 19.89 32.92 50 0.0257 2640.9 0.0966 8.49 19.94 33.01 50 0.0243 2498.24 0.0784 6.89 16.18 26.78 60 0.0243 2498.24 0.0787 6.92 16.26 26.91 60 0.0186 1915.64 0.0459 4.04 9.49 15.70 80 0.0186 1915.64 0.0459 4.03 9.47 15.68 80 0.0147 1511.07 0.0302 2.66 6.24 10.33 100 0.0147 1511.07 0.0301 2.64 6.21 10.28 100 0.0090 927.46 0.0141 1.24 2.91 4.82 150 0.0090 927.46 0.0139 1.22 2.88 4.76 150 0.0062 633.44 0.0082 0.72 1.69 2.79 200 0.0062 633.44 0.0080 0.71 1.66 2.75 200 0.0045 464.37 0.0054 0.47 1.11 1.83 250 0.0045 464.37 0.0052 0.46 1.08 1.79 250 0.0016 169 0.0014 0.12 0.29 0.48 500 0.0016 169 0.0014 0.12 0.28 0.47 500 0.0006 61 0.0004 0.04 0.08 0.14 1000 0.0006 61 0.0004 0.03 0.07 0.12 1000



## LAX Met Set: Fresno Met Set:

0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0097 993.39 0.0541 4.75 11.16 18.48 20 0.0123 1266.24 0.0588 5.17 12.14 20.09 20 0.0124 1273.21 0.0750 6.60 15.50 25.65 30 0.0162 1668.13 0.1009 8.87 20.84 34.50 30 0.0107 1102.9 0.0522 4.59 10.77 17.83 40 0.0143 1472.59 0.0764 6.71 15.77 26.10 40 0.0167 1712.71 0.0477 4.19 9.84 16.29 50 0.0188 1934.45 0.0711 6.25 14.69 24.31 50 0.0158 1618.76 0.0448 3.94 9.25 15.31 60 0.0170 1746.52 0.0612 5.38 12.64 20.92 60 0.0121 1241.26 0.0268 2.35 5.53 9.15 80 0.0137 1403.39 0.0359 3.15 7.41 12.26 80 0.0095 979.11 0.0177 1.56 3.66 6.06 100 0.0114 1167.81 0.0235 2.06 4.85 8.02 100 0.0071 728.7 0.0083 0.73 1.72 2.84 150 0.0074 760.67 0.0108 0.95 2.23 3.69 150 0.0058 601.14 0.0048 0.42 1.00 1.65 200 0.0051 527.81 0.0062 0.55 1.28 2.12 200 0.0050 517.17 0.0032 0.28 0.65 1.08 250 0.0038 395.54 0.0040 0.35 0.83 1.37 250 0.0030 306.22 0.0008 0.07 0.18 0.29 500 0.0015 151.49 0.0010 0.09 0.21 0.35 500 0.0017 175.03 0.0002 0.02 0.05 0.08 1000 0.0005 55.11 0.0003 0.02 0.05 0.09 1000 

## D-37

## Facility G-03 - 65% Perc (cont.)
Mather Met Set: McClellan Met Set:

0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0093 958.09 0.0335 2.95 6.92 11.46 20 0.0129 1324.96 0.0262 2.30 5.41 8.95 20 0.0126 1290.22 0.0733 6.44 15.14 25.06 30 0.0151 1554.15 0.0759 6.67 15.67 25.93 30 0.0121 1240.56 0.0608 5.34 12.55 20.77 40 0.0145 1492.44 0.0675 5.93 13.93 23.06 40 0.0169 1734.69 0.0564 4.96 11.65 19.28 50 0.0172 1764.81 0.0625 5.49 12.90 21.36 50 0.0151 1546.97 0.0461 4.05 9.52 15.76 60 0.0154 1581.78 0.0490 4.31 10.12 16.75 60 0.0103 1057.88 0.0268 2.35 5.53 9.15 80 0.0118 1214.97 0.0282 2.48 5.83 9.65 80 0.0077 790.98 0.0175 1.54 3.61 5.97 100 0.0101 1033.69 0.0184 1.62 3.80 6.29 100 0.0051 526.98 0.0080 0.70 1.66 2.74 150 0.0068 699.04 0.0085 0.74 1.75 2.89 150 0.0036 374.12 0.0046 0.40 0.95 1.57 200 0.0050 517.13 0.0049 0.43 1.00 1.66 200 0.0027 280.03 0.0030 0.26 0.62 1.02 250 0.0039 398.9 0.0032 0.28 0.65 1.08 250 0.0010 105.06 0.0008 0.07 0.16 0.26 500 0.0015 159.29 0.0008 0.07 0.17 0.28 500 0.0004 38.59 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.07 1000 0.0006 59.42 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.07 1000



## Redding Met Set: Oakland Met Set:

0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0117 1203.97 0.0348 3.06 7.20 11.91 20 0.0121 1242.49 0.0456 4.01 9.41 15.58 20 0.0168 1727.12 0.0855 7.52 17.66 29.23 30 0.0142 1456.6 0.0721 6.34 14.89 24.65 30 0.0148 1517.85 0.0732 6.43 15.12 25.02 40 0.0142 1455.87 0.0536 4.71 11.07 18.32 40 0.0206 2116.06 0.0676 5.95 13.97 23.12 50 0.0167 1716.38 0.0491 4.32 10.14 16.79 50 0.0181 1858.14 0.0546 4.80 11.28 18.67 60 0.0158 1622.23 0.0441 3.87 9.10 15.06 60 0.0147 1510.93 0.0317 2.79 6.55 10.84 80 0.0121 1243.92 0.0262 2.30 5.41 8.95 80 0.0119 1227.09 0.0207 1.82 4.28 7.09 100 0.0095 981.21 0.0173 1.52 3.57 5.91 100 0.0076 776.75 0.0096 0.84 1.98 3.27 150 0.0065 669.93 0.0081 0.71 1.67 2.76 150 0.0054 553.96 0.0055 0.48 1.14 1.88 200 0.0047 487.14 0.0047 0.41 0.97 1.60 200 0.0041 416.48 0.0036 0.32 0.74 1.23 250 0.0036 367.88 0.0031 0.27 0.63 1.05 250 0.0015 158.33 0.0009 0.08 0.19 0.32 500 0.0014 145.98 0.0008 0.07 0.17 0.28 500 0.0006 57.91 0.0002 0.02 0.05 0.08 1000 0.0005 53.8 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.07 1000



## D-38

## Facility G-03 - 65% Perc (cont.)
Anaheim Met Set: Sacramento Met Set:

0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0131 1343.62 0.0911 8.01 18.82 31.15 20 0.0126 1295.57 0.0379 3.33 7.82 12.95 20 0.0191 1964.47 0.1689 14.85 34.88 57.73 30 0.0160 1644.39 0.0812 7.14 16.77 27.76 30 0.0166 1701.54 0.1315 11.56 27.16 44.96 40 0.0141 1452.28 0.0667 5.87 13.78 22.81 40 0.0257 2643.73 0.1228 10.80 25.36 41.98 50 0.0183 1884.88 0.0622 5.47 12.84 21.26 50 0.0243 2497.42 0.1038 9.12 21.44 35.48 60 0.0165 1690.83 0.0508 4.47 10.49 17.37 60 0.0186 1914.71 0.0607 5.34 12.54 20.76 80 0.0134 1379.12 0.0296 2.60 6.11 10.12 80 0.0147 1510.1 0.0398 3.50 8.21 13.59 100 0.0110 1135.35 0.0194 1.70 4.00 6.62 100 0.0090 926.57 0.0183 1.61 3.78 6.26 150 0.0073 749.73 0.0089 0.78 1.84 3.05 150 0.0062 632.67 0.0105 0.93 2.17 3.60 200 0.0053 542.55 0.0051 0.45 1.06 1.76 200 0.0045 463.72 0.0068 0.60 1.41 2.34 250 0.0040 411.47 0.0033 0.29 0.69 1.14 250 0.0016 168.65 0.0018 0.16 0.37 0.61 500 0.0015 159.01 0.0009 0.08 0.18 0.30 500 0.0006 60.83 0.0005 0.04 0.10 0.16 1000 0.0006 58.65 0.0002 0.02 0.05 0.08 1000



## Default - 0 Met Set:

0.1946 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1024 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0267 2744.96 0.2174 19.11 44.89 74.30 20 0.0232 2385.45 0.1889 16.61 39.01 64.57 30 0.0203 2088.05 0.1654 14.54 34.15 56.52 40 0.0179 1841.40 0.1458 12.82 30.11 49.84 50 0.0159 1635.59 0.1295 11.39 26.75 44.27 60 0.0128 1315.96 0.1042 9.16 21.52 35.62 80 0.0105 1083.10 0.0858 7.54 17.71 29.32 100 0.0070 718.69 0.0569 5.00 11.75 19.45 150 0.0050 516.25 0.0409 3.59 8.44 13.97 200 0.0038 391.81 0.0310 2.73 6.41 10.61 250 0.0015 154.56 0.0122 1.08 2.53 4.18 500 0.0006 58.40 0.0046 0.41 0.96 1.58 1000



## D-39

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Brake Cleaners Facility G-03 - 94% Perc
Concord Met Set: Burbank Met Set:

0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0189 1344.83 0.0774 6.80 15.97 18.28 20 0.0189 1344.25 0.0758 6.66 15.65 17.91 20 0.0277 1964.95 0.1768 15.54 36.51 41.78 30 0.0277 1964.95 0.1786 15.70 36.87 42.20 30 0.0240 1702.1 0.1500 13.19 30.98 35.45 40 0.0240 1702.1 0.1518 13.34 31.34 35.87 40 0.0372 2643.95 0.1393 12.24 28.77 32.92 50 0.0372 2640.9 0.1397 12.28 28.84 33.01 50 0.0352 2498.24 0.1133 9.96 23.40 26.78 60 0.0352 2498.24 0.1139 10.01 23.51 26.91 60 0.0270 1915.64 0.0664 5.84 13.72 15.70 80 0.0270 1915.64 0.0663 5.83 13.70 15.68 80 0.0213 1511.07 0.0437 3.84 9.03 10.33 100 0.0213 1511.07 0.0435 3.82 8.98 10.28 100 0.0131 927.46 0.0204 1.79 4.21 4.82 150 0.0131 927.46 0.0201 1.77 4.16 4.76 150 0.0089 633.44 0.0118 1.04 2.44 2.79 200 0.0089 633.44 0.0116 1.02 2.40 2.75 200 0.0065 464.37 0.0077 0.68 1.60 1.83 250 0.0065 464.37 0.0076 0.67 1.56 1.79 250 0.0024 169 0.0020 0.18 0.42 0.48 500 0.0024 169 0.0020 0.17 0.41 0.47 500 0.0009 61 0.0006 0.05 0.12 0.14 1000 0.0009 61 0.0005 0.04 0.10 0.12 1000



## LAX Met Set: Fresno Met Set:

0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0140 993.39 0.0782 6.87 16.15 18.48 20 0.0178 1266.24 0.0850 7.47 17.55 20.09 20 0.0179 1273.21 0.1085 9.54 22.41 25.65 30 0.0235 1668.13 0.1460 12.83 30.15 34.50 30 0.0155 1102.9 0.0754 6.63 15.58 17.83 40 0.0207 1472.59 0.1104 9.71 22.81 26.10 40 0.0241 1712.71 0.0689 6.06 14.23 16.29 50 0.0272 1934.45 0.1029 9.04 21.24 24.31 50 0.0228 1618.76 0.0648 5.69 13.38 15.31 60 0.0246 1746.52 0.0885 7.78 18.28 20.92 60 0.0175 1241.26 0.0387 3.40 8.00 9.15 80 0.0198 1403.39 0.0519 4.56 10.71 12.26 80 0.0138 979.11 0.0256 2.25 5.30 6.06 100 0.0164 1167.81 0.0339 2.98 7.01 8.02 100 0.0103 728.7 0.0120 1.06 2.48 2.84 150 0.0107 760.67 0.0156 1.37 3.22 3.69 150 0.0085 601.14 0.0070 0.61 1.44 1.65 200 0.0074 527.81 0.0090 0.79 1.85 2.12 200 0.0073 517.17 0.0046 0.40 0.94 1.08 250 0.0056 395.54 0.0058 0.51 1.20 1.37 250 0.0043 306.22 0.0012 0.11 0.25 0.29 500 0.0021 151.49 0.0015 0.13 0.31 0.35 500 0.0025 175.03 0.0003 0.03 0.07 0.08 1000 0.0008 55.11 0.0004 0.03 0.08 0.09 1000 

## D-40

## Facility G-03 - 94% Perc (cont.)
Mather Met Set: McClellan Met Set:

0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0135 958.09 0.0485 4.26 10.01 11.46 20 0.0186 1324.96 0.0379 3.33 7.82 8.95 20 0.0182 1290.22 0.1060 9.32 21.90 25.06 30 0.0219 1554.15 0.1097 9.64 22.66 25.93 30 0.0175 1240.56 0.0879 7.73 18.15 20.77 40 0.0210 1492.44 0.0976 8.58 20.15 23.06 40 0.0244 1734.69 0.0816 7.17 16.85 19.28 50 0.0248 1764.81 0.0904 7.94 18.66 21.36 50 0.0218 1546.97 0.0667 5.86 13.77 15.76 60 0.0223 1581.78 0.0709 6.23 14.64 16.75 60 0.0149 1057.88 0.0387 3.40 8.00 9.15 80 0.0171 1214.97 0.0408 3.59 8.43 9.65 80 0.0111 790.98 0.0253 2.22 5.22 5.97 100 0.0145 1033.69 0.0266 2.34 5.50 6.29 100 0.0074 526.98 0.0116 1.02 2.39 2.74 150 0.0098 699.04 0.0122 1.07 2.53 2.89 150 0.0053 374.12 0.0066 0.58 1.37 1.57 200 0.0073 517.13 0.0070 0.62 1.45 1.66 200 0.0039 280.03 0.0043 0.38 0.89 1.02 250 0.0056 398.9 0.0046 0.40 0.94 1.08 250 0.0015 105.06 0.0011 0.10 0.23 0.26 500 0.0022 159.29 0.0012 0.10 0.24 0.28 500 0.0005 38.59 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.07 1000 0.0008 59.42 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.07 1000



## Redding Met Set: Oakland Met Set:

0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0169 1203.97 0.0504 4.43 10.41 11.91 20 0.0175 1242.49 0.0659 5.80 13.61 15.58 20 0.0243 1727.12 0.1237 10.87 25.54 29.23 30 0.0205 1456.6 0.1043 9.17 21.54 24.65 30 0.0214 1517.85 0.1059 9.31 21.86 25.02 40 0.0205 1455.87 0.0775 6.81 16.01 18.32 40 0.0298 2116.06 0.0978 8.60 20.20 23.12 50 0.0242 1716.38 0.0710 6.25 14.67 16.79 50 0.0262 1858.14 0.0790 6.94 16.31 18.67 60 0.0228 1622.23 0.0637 5.60 13.16 15.06 60 0.0213 1510.93 0.0459 4.03 9.47 10.84 80 0.0175 1243.92 0.0379 3.33 7.82 8.95 80 0.0173 1227.09 0.0300 2.64 6.20 7.09 100 0.0138 981.21 0.0250 2.20 5.16 5.91 100 0.0109 776.75 0.0138 1.22 2.86 3.27 150 0.0094 669.93 0.0117 1.03 2.41 2.76 150 0.0078 553.96 0.0080 0.70 1.64 1.88 200 0.0069 487.14 0.0068 0.60 1.40 1.60 200 0.0059 416.48 0.0052 0.46 1.07 1.23 250 0.0052 367.88 0.0044 0.39 0.92 1.05 250 0.0022 158.33 0.0014 0.12 0.28 0.32 500 0.0021 145.98 0.0012 0.10 0.24 0.28 500 0.0008 57.91 0.0003 0.03 0.07 0.08 1000 0.0008 53.8 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.07 1000



## D-41

## Facility G-03 - 94% Perc (cont.)
Anaheim Met Set: Sacramento Met Set:

0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0189 1343.62 0.1318 11.59 27.22 31.15 20 0.0182 1295.57 0.0548 4.82 11.32 12.95 20 0.0276 1964.47 0.2443 21.47 50.44 57.73 30 0.0231 1644.39 0.1175 10.33 24.26 27.76 30 0.0239 1701.54 0.1902 16.72 39.29 44.96 40 0.0204 1452.28 0.0965 8.48 19.93 22.81 40 0.0372 2643.73 0.1776 15.61 36.68 41.98 50 0.0265 1884.88 0.0900 7.91 18.58 21.26 50 0.0352 2497.42 0.1501 13.20 31.00 35.48 60 0.0238 1690.83 0.0735 6.46 15.18 17.37 60 0.0269 1914.71 0.0878 7.72 18.14 20.76 80 0.0194 1379.12 0.0428 3.76 8.84 10.12 80 0.0213 1510.1 0.0575 5.05 11.87 13.59 100 0.0160 1135.35 0.0280 2.46 5.78 6.62 100 0.0130 926.57 0.0265 2.33 5.47 6.26 150 0.0106 749.73 0.0129 1.13 2.67 3.05 150 0.0089 632.67 0.0152 1.34 3.15 3.60 200 0.0076 542.55 0.0074 0.65 1.54 1.76 200 0.0065 463.72 0.0099 0.87 2.04 2.34 250 0.0058 411.47 0.0048 0.42 1.00 1.14 250 0.0024 168.65 0.0026 0.23 0.53 0.61 500 0.0022 159.01 0.0013 0.11 0.26 0.30 500 0.0009 60.83 0.0007 0.06 0.14 0.16 1000 0.0008 58.65 0.0003 0.03 0.07 0.08 1000



## Default - 0 Met Set:

0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0386 2744.96 0.3144 27.64 64.92 74.30 20 0.0336 2385.45 0.2732 24.02 56.42 64.57 30 0.0294 2088.05 0.2392 21.02 49.39 56.52 40 0.0259 1841.40 0.2109 18.54 43.55 49.84 50 0.0230 1635.59 0.1873 16.47 38.69 44.27 60 0.0185 1315.96 0.1507 13.25 31.13 35.62 80 0.0152 1083.10 0.1241 10.90 25.62 29.32 100 0.0101 718.69 0.0823 7.24 17.00 19.45 150 0.0073 516.25 0.0591 5.20 12.21 13.97 200 0.0055 391.81 0.0449 3.94 9.27 10.61 250 0.0022 154.56 0.0177 1.56 3.66 4.18 500 0.0008 58.40 0.0067 0.59 1.38 1.58 1000



## D-42

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Multicomponent Impacts - Brake Cleaners - Chronic/Cancer Facility G-01 - 94% Perc

Burbank Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 12417.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 162.66 20 0.0874 12417.79 0.2296 20.18 47.41 162.66 20 0.0000 9254.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 86.38 30 0.0651 9254.67 0.1219 10.72 25.18 86.38 30 0.0000 7114.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 53.51 40 0.0501 7114.91 0.0755 6.64 15.60 53.51 40 0.0000 5625.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.43 50 0.0396 5625.45 0.0514 4.52 10.62 36.43 50 0.0000 4555.43 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.41 60 0.0320 4555.43 0.0373 3.28 7.70 26.41 60 0.0000 3163.52 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.71 80 0.0223 3163.52 0.0222 1.95 4.58 15.71 80 0.0000 2329.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.41 100 0.0164 2329.10 0.0147 1.29 3.03 10.41 100 0.0000 1281.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.86 150 0.0090 1281.78 0.0069 0.60 1.42 4.86 150 0.0000 820.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.81 200 0.0058 820.22 0.0040 0.35 0.82 2.81 200 0.0000 575.61 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.83 250 0.0040 575.61 0.0026 0.23 0.53 1.83 250 0.0000 189.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.48 500 0.0013 189.47 0.0007 0.06 0.14 0.48 500 0.0000 64.58 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000 0.0005 64.58 0.0002 0.01 0.03 0.12 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0874 0.2296 20.18 47.41 20 0.0000 12417.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 162.66 20 0.0651 0.1219 10.72 25.18 30 0.0000 9254.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 86.38 30 0.0501 0.0755 6.64 15.60 40 0.0000 7114.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 53.51 40 0.0396 0.0514 4.52 10.62 50 0.0000 5625.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.43 50 0.0320 0.0373 3.28 7.70 60 0.0000 4555.43 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.41 60 0.0223 0.0222 1.95 4.58 80 0.0000 3163.52 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.71 80 0.0164 0.0147 1.29 3.03 100 0.0000 2329.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.41 100 0.0090 0.0069 0.60 1.42 150 0.0000 1281.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.86 150 0.0058 0.0040 0.35 0.82 200 0.0000 820.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.81 200 0.0040 0.0026 0.23 0.53 250 0.0000 575.61 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.83 250 0.0013 0.0007 0.06 0.14 500 0.0000 189.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.48 500 0.0005 0.0002 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 64.58 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000 

## D-43

## Facility G-01 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Burbank Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0374 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0823 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0131 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0289 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0332 12417.79 0.0007 0.91 2.13 162.66 20 0.0511 12417.79 0.1343 11.81 27.74 162.66 20 0.0247 9254.67 0.0004 0.48 1.13 86.38 30 0.0381 9254.67 0.0713 6.27 14.73 86.38 30 0.0190 7114.91 0.0002 0.30 0.70 53.51 40 0.0293 7114.91 0.0442 3.88 9.12 53.51 40 0.0150 5625.45 0.0002 0.20 0.48 36.43 50 0.0231 5625.45 0.0301 2.64 6.21 36.43 50 0.0122 4555.43 0.0001 0.15 0.35 26.41 60 0.0187 4555.43 0.0218 1.92 4.50 26.41 60 0.0085 3163.52 0.0001 0.09 0.21 15.71 80 0.0130 3163.52 0.0130 1.14 2.68 15.71 80 0.0062 2329.10 4.5E-05 0.06 0.14 10.41 100 0.0096 2329.10 0.0086 0.76 1.78 10.41 100 0.0034 1281.78 2.1E-05 0.03 0.06 4.86 150 0.0053 1281.78 0.0040 0.35 0.83 4.86 150 0.0022 820.22 1.2E-05 0.02 0.04 2.81 200 0.0034 820.22 0.0023 0.20 0.48 2.81 200 0.0015 575.61 8.0E-06 0.01 0.02 1.83 250 0.0024 575.61 0.0015 0.13 0.31 1.83 250 0.0005 189.47 2.1E-06 0.00 0.01 0.48 500 0.0008 189.47 0.0004 0.03 0.08 0.48 500 0.0002 64.58 5.2E-07 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000 0.0003 64.58 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.12 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0843 0.1350 12.71 29.87 20 0.0000 12417.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 162.66 20 0.0628 0.0717 6.75 15.86 30 0.0000 9254.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 86.38 30 0.0483 0.0444 4.18 9.82 40 0.0000 7114.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 53.51 40 0.0382 0.0302 2.85 6.69 50 0.0000 5625.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.43 50 0.0309 0.0219 2.06 4.85 60 0.0000 4555.43 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.41 60 0.0215 0.0130 1.23 2.88 80 0.0000 3163.52 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.71 80 0.0158 0.0086 0.81 1.91 100 0.0000 2329.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.41 100 0.0087 0.0040 0.38 0.89 150 0.0000 1281.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.86 150 0.0056 0.0023 0.22 0.52 200 0.0000 820.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.81 200 0.0039 0.0015 0.14 0.34 250 0.0000 575.61 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.83 250 0.0013 0.0004 0.04 0.09 500 0.0000 189.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.48 500 0.0004 0.0001 0.01 0.02 1000 0.0000 64.58 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000



## D-44

## Facility G-01 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Burbank Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0449 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0158 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0210 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0398 12417.79 0.0009 1.09 2.57 162.66 20 0.0372 12417.79 0.0976 8.58 20.15 162.66 20 0.0297 9254.67 0.0005 0.58 1.36 86.38 30 0.0277 9254.67 0.0518 4.56 10.70 86.38 30 0.0228 7114.91 0.0003 0.36 0.85 53.51 40 0.0213 7114.91 0.0321 2.82 6.63 53.51 40 0.0180 5625.45 0.0002 0.25 0.58 36.43 50 0.0168 5625.45 0.0219 1.92 4.51 36.43 50 0.0146 4555.43 0.0001 0.18 0.42 26.41 60 0.0136 4555.43 0.0158 1.39 3.27 26.41 60 0.0101 3163.52 0.0001 0.11 0.25 15.71 80 0.0095 3163.52 0.0094 0.83 1.95 15.71 80 0.0075 2329.10 0.0001 0.07 0.16 10.41 100 0.0070 2329.10 0.0062 0.55 1.29 10.41 100 0.0041 1281.78 2.6E-05 0.03 0.08 4.86 150 0.0038 1281.78 0.0029 0.26 0.60 4.86 150 0.0026 820.22 1.5E-05 0.02 0.04 2.81 200 0.0025 820.22 0.0017 0.15 0.35 2.81 200 0.0018 575.61 9.6E-06 0.01 0.03 1.83 250 0.0017 575.61 0.0011 0.10 0.23 1.83 250 0.0006 189.47 2.5E-06 0.00 0.01 0.48 500 0.0006 189.47 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.48 500 0.0002 64.58 6.3E-07 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000 0.0002 64.58 0.0001 0.01 0.01 0.12 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0299 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0105 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0770 0.1011 11.13 26.14 20 0.0000 12417.79 0.0027 1.45 3.42 162.66 20 0.0574 0.0537 5.91 13.88 30 0.0000 9254.67 0.0014 0.77 1.81 86.38 30 0.0441 0.0333 3.66 8.60 40 0.0000 7114.91 0.0009 0.48 1.12 53.51 40 0.0349 0.0226 2.49 5.85 50 0.0000 5625.45 0.0006 0.33 0.77 36.43 50 0.0283 0.0164 1.81 4.24 60 0.0000 4555.43 0.0004 0.24 0.55 26.41 60 0.0196 0.0098 1.07 2.52 80 0.0000 3163.52 0.0003 0.14 0.33 15.71 80 0.0144 0.0065 0.71 1.67 100 0.0000 2329.10 0.0002 0.09 0.22 10.41 100 0.0079 0.0030 0.33 0.78 150 0.0000 1281.78 0.0001 0.04 0.10 4.86 150 0.0051 0.0017 0.19 0.45 200 0.0000 820.22 4.6E-05 0.03 0.06 2.81 200 0.0036 0.0011 0.13 0.29 250 0.0000 575.61 3.0E-05 0.02 0.04 1.83 250 0.0012 0.0003 0.03 0.08 500 0.0000 189.47 7.9E-06 0.00 0.01 0.48 500 0.0004 0.0001 0.01 0.02 1000 0.0000 64.58 2.0E-06 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000



## D-45

## Facility G-01 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Burbank Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0823 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0289 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 12417.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 162.66 20 0.0511 12417.79 0.1343 11.81 27.74 162.66 20 0.0000 9254.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 86.38 30 0.0381 9254.67 0.0713 6.27 14.73 86.38 30 0.0000 7114.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 53.51 40 0.0293 7114.91 0.0442 3.88 9.12 53.51 40 0.0000 5625.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.43 50 0.0231 5625.45 0.0301 2.64 6.21 36.43 50 0.0000 4555.43 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.41 60 0.0187 4555.43 0.0218 1.92 4.50 26.41 60 0.0000 3163.52 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.71 80 0.0130 3163.52 0.0130 1.14 2.68 15.71 80 0.0000 2329.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.41 100 0.0096 2329.10 0.0086 0.76 1.78 10.41 100 0.0000 1281.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.86 150 0.0053 1281.78 0.0040 0.35 0.83 4.86 150 0.0000 820.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.81 200 0.0034 820.22 0.0023 0.20 0.48 2.81 200 0.0000 575.61 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.83 250 0.0024 575.61 0.0015 0.13 0.31 1.83 250 0.0000 189.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.48 500 0.0008 189.47 0.0004 0.03 0.08 0.48 500 0.0000 64.58 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000 0.0003 64.58 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.12 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.0644 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0226 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0511 0.1401 14.94 35.09 20 0.0000 12417.79 0.0057 3.13 7.35 162.66 20 0.0381 0.0744 7.93 18.63 30 0.0000 9254.67 0.0031 1.66 3.90 86.38 30 0.0293 0.0461 4.91 11.54 40 0.0000 7114.91 0.0019 1.03 2.42 53.51 40 0.0231 0.0314 3.35 7.86 50 0.0000 5625.45 0.0013 0.70 1.65 36.43 50 0.0187 0.0227 2.43 5.70 60 0.0000 4555.43 0.0009 0.51 1.19 26.41 60 0.0130 0.0135 1.44 3.39 80 0.0000 3163.52 0.0006 0.30 0.71 15.71 80 0.0096 0.0090 0.96 2.25 100 0.0000 2329.10 0.0004 0.20 0.47 10.41 100 0.0053 0.0042 0.45 1.05 150 0.0000 1281.78 0.0002 0.09 0.22 4.86 150 0.0034 0.0024 0.26 0.61 200 0.0000 820.22 0.0001 0.05 0.13 2.81 200 0.0024 0.0016 0.17 0.39 250 0.0000 575.61 0.0001 0.04 0.08 1.83 250 0.0008 0.0004 0.04 0.10 500 0.0000 189.47 1.7E-05 0.01 0.02 0.48 500 0.0003 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 64.58 4.2E-06 0.00 0.01 0.12 1000



## D-46

## Facility G-01 - 94% Perc

Anaheim Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 12413.44 0.0000 0.00 0.00 219.02 20 0.0873 12413.44 0.3091 27.17 63.84 219.02 20 0.0000 9249.49 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.95 30 0.0651 9249.49 0.1637 14.39 33.79 115.95 30 0.0000 7109.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.59 40 0.0500 7109.62 0.1010 8.88 20.87 71.59 40 0.0000 5620.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 48.59 50 0.0395 5620.40 0.0686 6.03 14.16 48.59 50 0.0000 4550.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.13 60 0.0320 4550.74 0.0496 4.36 10.24 35.13 60 0.0000 3159.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.81 80 0.0222 3159.60 0.0294 2.58 6.07 20.81 80 0.0000 2325.83 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.75 100 0.0164 2325.83 0.0194 1.71 4.01 13.75 100 0.0000 1279.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.38 150 0.0090 1279.62 0.0090 0.79 1.86 6.38 150 0.0000 818.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.67 200 0.0058 818.68 0.0052 0.46 1.07 3.67 200 0.0000 574.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.38 250 0.0040 574.45 0.0034 0.30 0.69 2.38 250 0.0000 189.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.61 500 0.0013 189.33 0.0009 0.08 0.18 0.61 500 0.0000 64.55 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.16 1000 0.0005 64.55 0.0002 0.02 0.05 0.16 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0873 0.3091 27.17 63.84 20 0.0000 12413.44 0.0000 0.00 0.00 219.02 20 0.0651 0.1637 14.39 33.79 30 0.0000 9249.49 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.95 30 0.0500 0.1010 8.88 20.87 40 0.0000 7109.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.59 40 0.0395 0.0686 6.03 14.16 50 0.0000 5620.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 48.59 50 0.0320 0.0496 4.36 10.24 60 0.0000 4550.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.13 60 0.0222 0.0294 2.58 6.07 80 0.0000 3159.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.81 80 0.0164 0.0194 1.71 4.01 100 0.0000 2325.83 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.75 100 0.0090 0.0090 0.79 1.86 150 0.0000 1279.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.38 150 0.0058 0.0052 0.46 1.07 200 0.0000 818.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.67 200 0.0040 0.0034 0.30 0.69 250 0.0000 574.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.38 250 0.0013 0.0009 0.08 0.18 500 0.0000 189.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.61 500 0.0005 0.0002 0.02 0.05 1000 0.0000 64.55 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.16 1000



## D-47

## Facility G-01 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Anaheim Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0374 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0823 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0131 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0289 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0332 12413.44 0.0010 1.22 2.87 219.02 20 0.0511 12413.44 0.1808 15.90 37.35 219.02 20 0.0247 9249.49 0.0005 0.65 1.52 115.95 30 0.0381 9249.49 0.0957 8.42 19.77 115.95 30 0.0190 7109.62 0.0003 0.40 0.94 71.59 40 0.0293 7109.62 0.0591 5.20 12.21 71.59 40 0.0150 5620.40 0.0002 0.27 0.64 48.59 50 0.0231 5620.40 0.0401 3.53 8.29 48.59 50 0.0122 4550.74 0.0002 0.20 0.46 35.13 60 0.0187 4550.74 0.0290 2.55 5.99 35.13 60 0.0084 3159.60 0.0001 0.12 0.27 20.81 80 0.0130 3159.60 0.0172 1.51 3.55 20.81 80 0.0062 2325.83 0.0001 0.08 0.18 13.75 100 0.0096 2325.83 0.0114 1.00 2.34 13.75 100 0.0034 1279.62 2.8E-05 0.04 0.08 6.38 150 0.0053 1279.62 0.0053 0.46 1.09 6.38 150 0.0022 818.68 1.6E-05 0.02 0.05 3.67 200 0.0034 818.68 0.0030 0.27 0.63 3.67 200 0.0015 574.45 1.0E-05 0.01 0.03 2.38 250 0.0024 574.45 0.0020 0.17 0.41 2.38 250 0.0005 189.33 2.7E-06 0.00 0.01 0.61 500 0.0008 189.33 0.0005 0.04 0.10 0.61 500 0.0002 64.55 7.0E-07 0.00 0.00 0.16 1000 0.0003 64.55 0.0001 0.01 0.03 0.16 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0842 0.1818 17.12 40.21 20 0.0000 12413.44 0.0000 0.00 0.00 219.02 20 0.0628 0.0962 9.06 21.29 30 0.0000 9249.49 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.95 30 0.0482 0.0594 5.60 13.14 40 0.0000 7109.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.59 40 0.0381 0.0403 3.80 8.92 50 0.0000 5620.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 48.59 50 0.0309 0.0292 2.75 6.45 60 0.0000 4550.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.13 60 0.0214 0.0173 1.63 3.82 80 0.0000 3159.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.81 80 0.0158 0.0114 1.07 2.52 100 0.0000 2325.83 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.75 100 0.0087 0.0053 0.50 1.17 150 0.0000 1279.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.38 150 0.0056 0.0030 0.29 0.67 200 0.0000 818.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.67 200 0.0039 0.0020 0.19 0.44 250 0.0000 574.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.38 250 0.0013 0.0005 0.05 0.11 500 0.0000 189.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.61 500 0.0004 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 64.55 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.16 1000



## D-48

## Facility G-01 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Anaheim Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0449 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0158 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0210 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0398 12413.44 0.0012 1.47 3.46 219.02 20 0.0372 12413.44 0.1314 11.55 27.14 219.02 20 0.0297 9249.49 0.0006 0.78 1.83 115.95 30 0.0277 9249.49 0.0696 6.12 14.37 115.95 30 0.0228 7109.62 0.0004 0.48 1.13 71.59 40 0.0213 7109.62 0.0430 3.78 8.87 71.59 40 0.0180 5620.40 0.0003 0.33 0.77 48.59 50 0.0168 5620.40 0.0292 2.56 6.02 48.59 50 0.0146 4550.74 0.0002 0.24 0.56 35.13 60 0.0136 4550.74 0.0211 1.85 4.35 35.13 60 0.0101 3159.60 0.0001 0.14 0.33 20.81 80 0.0095 3159.60 0.0125 1.10 2.58 20.81 80 0.0075 2325.83 0.0001 0.09 0.22 13.75 100 0.0070 2325.83 0.0083 0.73 1.70 13.75 100 0.0041 1279.62 3.4E-05 0.04 0.10 6.38 150 0.0038 1279.62 0.0038 0.34 0.79 6.38 150 0.0026 818.68 1.9E-05 0.02 0.06 3.67 200 0.0025 818.68 0.0022 0.19 0.45 3.67 200 0.0018 574.45 1.3E-05 0.02 0.04 2.38 250 0.0017 574.45 0.0014 0.13 0.29 2.38 250 0.0006 189.33 3.2E-06 0.00 0.01 0.61 500 0.0006 189.33 0.0004 0.03 0.08 0.61 500 0.0002 64.55 8.4E-07 0.00 0.00 0.16 1000 0.0002 64.55 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.16 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0299 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0105 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0770 0.1362 14.98 35.20 20 0.0000 12413.44 0.0036 1.96 4.60 219.02 20 0.0574 0.0721 7.93 18.63 30 0.0000 9249.49 0.0019 1.04 2.43 115.95 30 0.0441 0.0445 4.90 11.50 40 0.0000 7109.62 0.0012 0.64 1.50 71.59 40 0.0349 0.0302 3.32 7.81 50 0.0000 5620.40 0.0008 0.43 1.02 48.59 50 0.0282 0.0218 2.40 5.65 60 0.0000 4550.74 0.0006 0.31 0.74 35.13 60 0.0196 0.0129 1.42 3.34 80 0.0000 3159.60 0.0003 0.19 0.44 20.81 80 0.0144 0.0085 0.94 2.21 100 0.0000 2325.83 0.0002 0.12 0.29 13.75 100 0.0079 0.0040 0.44 1.03 150 0.0000 1279.62 0.0001 0.06 0.13 6.38 150 0.0051 0.0023 0.25 0.59 200 0.0000 818.68 0.0001 0.03 0.08 3.67 200 0.0036 0.0015 0.16 0.38 250 0.0000 574.45 3.9E-05 0.02 0.05 2.38 250 0.0012 0.0004 0.04 0.10 500 0.0000 189.33 1.0E-05 0.01 0.01 0.61 500 0.0004 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 64.55 2.6E-06 0.00 0.00 0.16 1000



## D-49

## Facility G-01 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Anaheim Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0823 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0289 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 12413.44 0.0000 0.00 0.00 219.02 20 0.0511 12413.44 0.1808 15.90 37.35 219.02 20 0.0000 9249.49 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.95 30 0.0381 9249.49 0.0957 8.42 19.77 115.95 30 0.0000 7109.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.59 40 0.0293 7109.62 0.0591 5.20 12.21 71.59 40 0.0000 5620.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 48.59 50 0.0231 5620.40 0.0401 3.53 8.29 48.59 50 0.0000 4550.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.13 60 0.0187 4550.74 0.0290 2.55 5.99 35.13 60 0.0000 3159.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.81 80 0.0130 3159.60 0.0172 1.51 3.55 20.81 80 0.0000 2325.83 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.75 100 0.0096 2325.83 0.0114 1.00 2.34 13.75 100 0.0000 1279.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.38 150 0.0053 1279.62 0.0053 0.46 1.09 6.38 150 0.0000 818.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.67 200 0.0034 818.68 0.0030 0.27 0.63 3.67 200 0.0000 574.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.38 250 0.0024 574.45 0.0020 0.17 0.41 2.38 250 0.0000 189.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.61 500 0.0008 189.33 0.0005 0.04 0.10 0.61 500 0.0000 64.55 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.16 1000 0.0003 64.55 0.0001 0.01 0.03 0.16 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.0644 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0226 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0511 0.1886 20.11 47.24 20 0.0000 12413.44 0.0077 4.21 9.90 219.02 20 0.0381 0.0998 10.65 25.01 30 0.0000 9249.49 0.0041 2.23 5.24 115.95 30 0.0293 0.0616 6.57 15.44 40 0.0000 7109.62 0.0025 1.38 3.24 71.59 40 0.0231 0.0418 4.46 10.48 50 0.0000 5620.40 0.0017 0.93 2.20 48.59 50 0.0187 0.0302 3.23 7.58 60 0.0000 4550.74 0.0012 0.68 1.59 35.13 60 0.0130 0.0179 1.91 4.49 80 0.0000 3159.60 0.0007 0.40 0.94 20.81 80 0.0096 0.0118 1.26 2.97 100 0.0000 2325.83 0.0005 0.26 0.62 13.75 100 0.0053 0.0055 0.59 1.38 150 0.0000 1279.62 0.0002 0.12 0.29 6.38 150 0.0034 0.0032 0.34 0.79 200 0.0000 818.68 0.0001 0.07 0.17 3.67 200 0.0024 0.0020 0.22 0.51 250 0.0000 574.45 0.0001 0.05 0.11 2.38 250 0.0008 0.0005 0.06 0.13 500 0.0000 189.33 2.2E-05 0.01 0.03 0.61 500 0.0003 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 64.55 5.7E-06 0.00 0.01 0.16 1000



## D-50

## Facility G-01 - 94% Perc

Oakland Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 10519.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 91.71 20 0.0740 10519.95 0.1294 11.38 26.73 91.71 20 0.0000 8021.08 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.17 30 0.0564 8021.08 0.0694 6.10 14.33 49.17 30 0.0000 6281.76 0.0000 0.00 0.00 30.65 40 0.0442 6281.76 0.0433 3.80 8.93 30.65 40 0.0000 5029.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.94 50 0.0354 5029.68 0.0296 2.60 6.10 20.94 50 0.0000 4106.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.22 60 0.0289 4106.19 0.0215 1.89 4.44 15.22 60 0.0000 2877.44 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.09 80 0.0202 2877.44 0.0128 1.13 2.65 9.09 80 0.0000 2127.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.04 100 0.0150 2127.42 0.0085 0.75 1.76 6.04 100 0.0000 1174.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.83 150 0.0083 1174.14 0.0040 0.35 0.82 2.83 150 0.0000 750.86 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.64 200 0.0053 750.86 0.0023 0.20 0.48 1.64 200 0.0000 526.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.07 250 0.0037 526.14 0.0015 0.13 0.31 1.07 250 0.0000 171.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.28 500 0.0012 171.69 0.0004 0.03 0.08 0.28 500 0.0000 57.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0004 57.64 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0740 0.1294 11.38 26.73 20 0.0000 10519.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 91.71 20 0.0564 0.0694 6.10 14.33 30 0.0000 8021.08 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.17 30 0.0442 0.0433 3.80 8.93 40 0.0000 6281.76 0.0000 0.00 0.00 30.65 40 0.0354 0.0296 2.60 6.10 50 0.0000 5029.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.94 50 0.0289 0.0215 1.89 4.44 60 0.0000 4106.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.22 60 0.0202 0.0128 1.13 2.65 80 0.0000 2877.44 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.09 80 0.0150 0.0085 0.75 1.76 100 0.0000 2127.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.04 100 0.0083 0.0040 0.35 0.82 150 0.0000 1174.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.83 150 0.0053 0.0023 0.20 0.48 200 0.0000 750.86 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.64 200 0.0037 0.0015 0.13 0.31 250 0.0000 526.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.07 250 0.0012 0.0004 0.03 0.08 500 0.0000 171.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.28 500 0.0004 0.0001 0.01 0.02 1000 0.0000 57.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-51

## Facility G-01 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Oakland Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0374 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0823 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0131 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0289 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0281 10519.95 0.0004 0.51 1.20 91.71 20 0.0433 10519.95 0.0757 6.66 15.64 91.71 20 0.0214 8021.08 0.0002 0.27 0.64 49.17 30 0.0330 8021.08 0.0406 3.57 8.38 49.17 30 0.0168 6281.76 0.0001 0.17 0.40 30.65 40 0.0258 6281.76 0.0253 2.22 5.23 30.65 40 0.0134 5029.68 0.0001 0.12 0.27 20.94 50 0.0207 5029.68 0.0173 1.52 3.57 20.94 50 0.0110 4106.19 0.0001 0.08 0.20 15.22 60 0.0169 4106.19 0.0126 1.10 2.60 15.22 60 0.0077 2877.44 4.0E-05 0.05 0.12 9.09 80 0.0118 2877.44 0.0075 0.66 1.55 9.09 80 0.0057 2127.42 2.6E-05 0.03 0.08 6.04 100 0.0088 2127.42 0.0050 0.44 1.03 6.04 100 0.0031 1174.14 1.2E-05 0.02 0.04 2.83 150 0.0048 1174.14 0.0023 0.21 0.48 2.83 150 0.0020 750.86 7.2E-06 0.01 0.02 1.64 200 0.0031 750.86 0.0014 0.12 0.28 1.64 200 0.0014 526.14 4.7E-06 0.01 0.01 1.07 250 0.0022 526.14 0.0009 0.08 0.18 1.07 250 0.0005 171.69 1.2E-06 0.00 0.00 0.28 500 0.0007 171.69 0.0002 0.02 0.05 0.28 500 0.0002 57.64 3.1E-07 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0002 57.64 0.0001 0.01 0.01 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0714 0.0761 7.17 16.84 20 0.0000 10519.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 91.71 20 0.0544 0.0408 3.84 9.03 30 0.0000 8021.08 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.17 30 0.0426 0.0254 2.40 5.63 40 0.0000 6281.76 0.0000 0.00 0.00 30.65 40 0.0341 0.0174 1.64 3.84 50 0.0000 5029.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.94 50 0.0279 0.0126 1.19 2.79 60 0.0000 4106.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.22 60 0.0195 0.0075 0.71 1.67 80 0.0000 2877.44 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.09 80 0.0144 0.0050 0.47 1.11 100 0.0000 2127.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.04 100 0.0080 0.0023 0.22 0.52 150 0.0000 1174.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.83 150 0.0051 0.0014 0.13 0.30 200 0.0000 750.86 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.64 200 0.0036 0.0009 0.08 0.20 250 0.0000 526.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.07 250 0.0012 0.0002 0.02 0.05 500 0.0000 171.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.28 500 0.0004 0.0001 0.01 0.01 1000 0.0000 57.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-52

## Facility G-01 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Oakland Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0449 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0158 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0210 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0337 10519.95 0.0005 0.62 1.45 91.71 20 0.0315 10519.95 0.0550 4.84 11.36 91.71 20 0.0257 8021.08 0.0003 0.33 0.78 49.17 30 0.0240 8021.08 0.0295 2.59 6.09 49.17 30 0.0201 6281.76 0.0002 0.21 0.48 30.65 40 0.0188 6281.76 0.0184 1.62 3.80 30.65 40 0.0161 5029.68 0.0001 0.14 0.33 20.94 50 0.0151 5029.68 0.0126 1.10 2.59 20.94 50 0.0132 4106.19 0.0001 0.10 0.24 15.22 60 0.0123 4106.19 0.0091 0.80 1.89 15.22 60 0.0092 2877.44 4.8E-05 0.06 0.14 9.09 80 0.0086 2877.44 0.0055 0.48 1.13 9.09 80 0.0068 2127.42 3.2E-05 0.04 0.10 6.04 100 0.0064 2127.42 0.0036 0.32 0.75 6.04 100 0.0038 1174.14 1.5E-05 0.02 0.04 2.83 150 0.0035 1174.14 0.0017 0.15 0.35 2.83 150 0.0024 750.86 8.6E-06 0.01 0.03 1.64 200 0.0022 750.86 0.0010 0.09 0.20 1.64 200 0.0017 526.14 5.6E-06 0.01 0.02 1.07 250 0.0016 526.14 0.0006 0.06 0.13 1.07 250 0.0006 171.69 1.5E-06 0.00 0.00 0.28 500 0.0005 171.69 0.0002 0.01 0.03 0.28 500 0.0002 57.64 3.7E-07 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0002 57.64 4.2E-05 0.00 0.01 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0299 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0105 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0652 0.0570 6.27 14.74 20 0.0000 10519.95 0.0015 0.82 1.93 91.71 20 0.0497 0.0306 3.36 7.90 30 0.0000 8021.08 0.0008 0.44 1.03 49.17 30 0.0390 0.0191 2.10 4.93 40 0.0000 6281.76 0.0005 0.27 0.64 30.65 40 0.0312 0.0130 1.43 3.37 50 0.0000 5029.68 0.0003 0.19 0.44 20.94 50 0.0255 0.0095 1.04 2.45 60 0.0000 4106.19 0.0002 0.14 0.32 15.22 60 0.0178 0.0057 0.62 1.46 80 0.0000 2877.44 0.0001 0.08 0.19 9.09 80 0.0132 0.0038 0.41 0.97 100 0.0000 2127.42 0.0001 0.05 0.13 6.04 100 0.0073 0.0018 0.19 0.45 150 0.0000 1174.14 4.6E-05 0.03 0.06 2.83 150 0.0047 0.0010 0.11 0.26 200 0.0000 750.86 2.7E-05 0.01 0.03 1.64 200 0.0033 0.0007 0.07 0.17 250 0.0000 526.14 1.8E-05 0.01 0.02 1.07 250 0.0011 0.0002 0.02 0.04 500 0.0000 171.69 4.6E-06 0.00 0.01 0.28 500 0.0004 4.4E-05 0.00 0.01 1000 0.0000 57.64 1.1E-06 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-53

## Facility G-01 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Oakland Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0823 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0289 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 10519.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 91.71 20 0.0433 10519.95 0.0757 6.66 15.64 91.71 20 0.0000 8021.08 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.17 30 0.0330 8021.08 0.0406 3.57 8.38 49.17 30 0.0000 6281.76 0.0000 0.00 0.00 30.65 40 0.0258 6281.76 0.0253 2.22 5.23 30.65 40 0.0000 5029.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.94 50 0.0207 5029.68 0.0173 1.52 3.57 20.94 50 0.0000 4106.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.22 60 0.0169 4106.19 0.0126 1.10 2.60 15.22 60 0.0000 2877.44 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.09 80 0.0118 2877.44 0.0075 0.66 1.55 9.09 80 0.0000 2127.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.04 100 0.0088 2127.42 0.0050 0.44 1.03 6.04 100 0.0000 1174.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.83 150 0.0048 1174.14 0.0023 0.21 0.48 2.83 150 0.0000 750.86 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.64 200 0.0031 750.86 0.0014 0.12 0.28 1.64 200 0.0000 526.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.07 250 0.0022 526.14 0.0009 0.08 0.18 1.07 250 0.0000 171.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.28 500 0.0007 171.69 0.0002 0.02 0.05 0.28 500 0.0000 57.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0002 57.64 0.0001 0.01 0.01 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.0644 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0226 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0433 0.0790 8.42 19.78 20 0.0000 10519.95 0.0032 1.76 4.15 91.71 20 0.0330 0.0423 4.51 10.61 30 0.0000 8021.08 0.0017 0.95 2.22 49.17 30 0.0258 0.0264 2.81 6.61 40 0.0000 6281.76 0.0011 0.59 1.39 30.65 40 0.0207 0.0180 1.92 4.52 50 0.0000 5029.68 0.0007 0.40 0.95 20.94 50 0.0169 0.0131 1.40 3.28 60 0.0000 4106.19 0.0005 0.29 0.69 15.22 60 0.0118 0.0078 0.83 1.96 80 0.0000 2877.44 0.0003 0.17 0.41 9.09 80 0.0088 0.0052 0.55 1.30 100 0.0000 2127.42 0.0002 0.12 0.27 6.04 100 0.0048 0.0024 0.26 0.61 150 0.0000 1174.14 0.0001 0.05 0.13 2.83 150 0.0031 0.0014 0.15 0.35 200 0.0000 750.86 0.0001 0.03 0.07 1.64 200 0.0022 0.0009 0.10 0.23 250 0.0000 526.14 3.8E-05 0.02 0.05 1.07 250 0.0007 0.0002 0.03 0.06 500 0.0000 171.69 9.9E-06 0.01 0.01 0.28 500 0.0002 0.0001 0.01 0.02 1000 0.0000 57.64 2.5E-06 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-54

## Facility G-01 - 94% Perc

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0798 11342.73 0.4334 38.09 89.49 307.03 20 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0598 8496.33 0.3246 28.53 67.03 229.98 30 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0463 6579.11 0.2514 22.09 51.91 178.09 40 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0369 5238.72 0.2001 17.59 41.33 141.80 50 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0300 4269.33 0.1631 14.34 33.68 115.56 60 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0211 2995.85 0.1145 10.06 23.64 81.09 80 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0156 2223.11 0.0849 7.47 17.54 60.18 100 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0087 1239.31 0.0473 4.16 9.78 33.55 150 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0056 799.09 0.0305 2.68 6.30 21.63 200 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0040 563.57 0.0215 1.89 4.45 15.25 250 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0013 187.51 0.0072 0.63 1.48 5.08 500 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000 0.0005 64.26 0.0025 0.22 0.51 1.74 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0798 0.4334 38.09 89.49 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0598 0.3246 28.53 67.03 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0463 0.2514 22.09 51.91 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0369 0.2001 17.59 41.33 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0300 0.1631 14.34 33.68 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0211 0.1145 10.06 23.64 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0156 0.0849 7.47 17.54 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0087 0.0473 4.16 9.78 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0056 0.0305 2.68 6.30 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0040 0.0215 1.89 4.45 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0013 0.0072 0.63 1.48 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0005 0.0025 0.22 0.51 1000 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000



## D-55

## Facility G-01 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0374 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0823 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0131 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0289 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0303 11342.73 0.0013 1.71 4.02 307.03 20 0.0467 11342.73 0.2535 22.29 52.35 307.03 20 0.0227 8496.33 0.0010 1.28 3.01 229.98 30 0.0350 8496.33 0.1899 16.69 39.21 229.98 30 0.0176 6579.11 0.0008 0.99 2.33 178.09 40 0.0271 6579.11 0.1470 12.93 30.37 178.09 40 0.0140 5238.72 0.0006 0.79 1.86 141.80 50 0.0216 5238.72 0.1171 10.29 24.18 141.80 50 0.0114 4269.33 0.0005 0.64 1.51 115.56 60 0.0176 4269.33 0.0954 8.39 19.70 115.56 60 0.0080 2995.85 0.0004 0.45 1.06 81.09 80 0.0123 2995.85 0.0670 5.89 13.83 81.09 80 0.0059 2223.11 0.0003 0.34 0.79 60.18 100 0.0091 2223.11 0.0497 4.37 10.26 60.18 100 0.0033 1239.31 0.0001 0.19 0.44 33.55 150 0.0051 1239.31 0.0277 2.43 5.72 33.55 150 0.0021 799.09 0.0001 0.12 0.28 21.63 200 0.0033 799.09 0.0179 1.57 3.69 21.63 200 0.0015 563.57 0.0001 0.09 0.20 15.25 250 0.0023 563.57 0.0126 1.11 2.60 15.25 250 0.0005 187.51 2.2E-05 0.03 0.07 5.08 500 0.0008 187.51 0.0042 0.37 0.87 5.08 500 0.0002 64.26 7.6E-06 0.01 0.02 1.74 1000 0.0003 64.26 0.0014 0.13 0.30 1.74 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0770 0.2549 24.00 56.37 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0577 0.1909 17.98 42.23 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0446 0.1478 13.92 32.70 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0356 0.1177 11.08 26.04 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0290 0.0959 9.03 21.22 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0203 0.0673 6.34 14.89 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0151 0.0500 4.70 11.05 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0084 0.0278 2.62 6.16 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0054 0.0180 1.69 3.97 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0038 0.0127 1.19 2.80 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0013 0.0042 0.40 0.93 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0004 0.0014 0.14 0.32 1000 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000



## D-56

## Facility G-01 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0449 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0158 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0210 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0364 11342.73 0.0016 2.07 4.85 307.03 20 0.0340 11342.73 0.1842 16.19 38.04 307.03 20 0.0272 8496.33 0.0012 1.55 3.63 229.98 30 0.0254 8496.33 0.1380 12.13 28.49 229.98 30 0.0211 6579.11 0.0009 1.20 2.81 178.09 40 0.0197 6579.11 0.1069 9.39 22.06 178.09 40 0.0168 5238.72 0.0007 0.95 2.24 141.80 50 0.0157 5238.72 0.0851 7.48 17.57 141.80 50 0.0137 4269.33 0.0006 0.78 1.83 115.56 60 0.0128 4269.33 0.0693 6.10 14.32 115.56 60 0.0096 2995.85 0.0004 0.55 1.28 81.09 80 0.0090 2995.85 0.0487 4.28 10.05 81.09 80 0.0071 2223.11 0.0003 0.40 0.95 60.18 100 0.0067 2223.11 0.0361 3.17 7.46 60.18 100 0.0040 1239.31 0.0002 0.23 0.53 33.55 150 0.0037 1239.31 0.0201 1.77 4.16 33.55 150 0.0026 799.09 0.0001 0.15 0.34 21.63 200 0.0024 799.09 0.0130 1.14 2.68 21.63 200 0.0018 563.57 0.0001 0.10 0.24 15.25 250 0.0017 563.57 0.0092 0.80 1.89 15.25 250 0.0006 187.51 2.7E-05 0.03 0.08 5.08 500 0.0006 187.51 0.0030 0.27 0.63 5.08 500 0.0002 64.26 9.2E-06 0.01 0.03 1.74 1000 0.0002 64.26 0.0010 0.09 0.22 1.74 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0299 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0105 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0703 0.1909 21.00 49.34 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0050 2.74 6.45 307.03 20 0.0527 0.1430 15.73 36.96 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0038 2.06 4.83 229.98 30 0.0408 0.1107 12.18 28.62 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0029 1.59 3.74 178.09 40 0.0325 0.0882 9.70 22.79 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0023 1.27 2.98 141.80 50 0.0265 0.0718 7.91 18.57 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0019 1.03 2.43 115.56 60 0.0186 0.0504 5.55 13.03 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0013 0.72 1.70 81.09 80 0.0138 0.0374 4.12 9.67 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0010 0.54 1.26 60.18 100 0.0077 0.0209 2.29 5.39 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0006 0.30 0.70 33.55 150 0.0050 0.0134 1.48 3.48 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0004 0.19 0.45 21.63 200 0.0035 0.0095 1.04 2.45 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0003 0.14 0.32 15.25 250 0.0012 0.0032 0.35 0.82 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0001 0.05 0.11 5.08 500 0.0004 0.0011 0.12 0.28 1000 0.0000 64.26 2.9E-05 0.02 0.04 1.74 1000



## D-57

## Facility G-01 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0823 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0289 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0467 11342.73 0.2535 22.29 52.35 307.03 20 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0350 8496.33 0.1899 16.69 39.21 229.98 30 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0271 6579.11 0.1470 12.93 30.37 178.09 40 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0216 5238.72 0.1171 10.29 24.18 141.80 50 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0176 4269.33 0.0954 8.39 19.70 115.56 60 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0123 2995.85 0.0670 5.89 13.83 81.09 80 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0091 2223.11 0.0497 4.37 10.26 60.18 100 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0051 1239.31 0.0277 2.43 5.72 33.55 150 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0033 799.09 0.0179 1.57 3.69 21.63 200 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0023 563.57 0.0126 1.11 2.60 15.25 250 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0008 187.51 0.0042 0.37 0.87 5.08 500 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000 0.0003 64.26 0.0014 0.13 0.30 1.74 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.0644 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0226 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0467 0.2644 28.19 66.23 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0108 5.91 13.88 307.03 20 0.0350 0.1980 21.12 49.61 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0081 4.43 10.40 229.98 30 0.0271 0.1533 16.35 38.42 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0063 3.43 8.05 178.09 40 0.0216 0.1221 13.02 30.59 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0050 2.73 6.41 141.80 50 0.0176 0.0995 10.61 24.93 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0041 2.22 5.22 115.56 60 0.0123 0.0698 7.45 17.49 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0029 1.56 3.67 81.09 80 0.0091 0.0518 5.53 12.98 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0021 1.16 2.72 60.18 100 0.0051 0.0289 3.08 7.24 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0012 0.65 1.52 33.55 150 0.0033 0.0186 1.99 4.67 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0008 0.42 0.98 21.63 200 0.0023 0.0131 1.40 3.29 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0005 0.29 0.69 15.25 250 0.0008 0.0044 0.47 1.09 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0002 0.10 0.23 5.08 500 0.0003 0.0015 0.16 0.38 1000 0.0000 64.26 0.0001 0.03 0.08 1.74 1000



## D-58

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Multicomponent Impacts - Brake Cleaners - Acute Facility G-01 - 94% Perc

Fresno Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 11155.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 130.29 20 0.0785 11155.50 0.1839 16.16 37.97 130.29 20 0.0000 8402.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 68.87 30 0.0591 8402.65 0.0972 8.54 20.07 68.87 30 0.0000 6521.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.46 40 0.0459 6521.95 0.0599 5.27 12.38 42.46 40 0.0000 5186.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.78 50 0.0365 5186.31 0.0406 3.57 8.39 28.78 50 0.0000 4214.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.79 60 0.0297 4214.74 0.0293 2.58 6.06 20.79 60 0.0000 2937.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.29 80 0.0207 2937.50 0.0173 1.52 3.58 12.29 80 0.0000 2165.55 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.11 100 0.0152 2165.55 0.0114 1.01 2.36 8.11 100 0.0000 1191.61 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.76 150 0.0084 1191.61 0.0053 0.47 1.10 3.76 150 0.0000 761.38 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.16 200 0.0054 761.38 0.0030 0.27 0.63 2.16 200 0.0000 533.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.40 250 0.0038 533.41 0.0020 0.17 0.41 1.40 250 0.0000 174.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0012 174.25 0.0005 0.04 0.10 0.36 500 0.0000 58.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000 0.0004 58.67 0.0001 0.01 0.03 0.09 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0785 0.1839 16.16 37.97 20 0.0000 11155.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 130.29 20 0.0591 0.0972 8.54 20.07 30 0.0000 8402.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 68.87 30 0.0459 0.0599 5.27 12.38 40 0.0000 6521.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.46 40 0.0365 0.0406 3.57 8.39 50 0.0000 5186.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.78 50 0.0297 0.0293 2.58 6.06 60 0.0000 4214.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.79 60 0.0207 0.0173 1.52 3.58 80 0.0000 2937.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.29 80 0.0152 0.0114 1.01 2.36 100 0.0000 2165.55 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.11 100 0.0084 0.0053 0.47 1.10 150 0.0000 1191.61 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.76 150 0.0054 0.0030 0.27 0.63 200 0.0000 761.38 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.16 200 0.0038 0.0020 0.17 0.41 250 0.0000 533.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.40 250 0.0012 0.0005 0.04 0.10 500 0.0000 174.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0004 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 58.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000 

## D-59

## Facility G-01 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Fresno Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0374 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0823 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0131 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0289 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0298 11155.50 0.0006 0.73 1.71 130.29 20 0.0459 11155.50 0.1076 9.46 22.22 130.29 20 0.0224 8402.65 0.0003 0.38 0.90 68.87 30 0.0346 8402.65 0.0569 5.00 11.74 68.87 30 0.0174 6521.95 0.0002 0.24 0.56 42.46 40 0.0268 6521.95 0.0351 3.08 7.24 42.46 40 0.0139 5186.31 0.0001 0.16 0.38 28.78 50 0.0213 5186.31 0.0238 2.09 4.91 28.78 50 0.0113 4214.74 0.0001 0.12 0.27 20.79 60 0.0173 4214.74 0.0172 1.51 3.54 20.79 60 0.0078 2937.50 0.0001 0.07 0.16 12.29 80 0.0121 2937.50 0.0101 0.89 2.10 12.29 80 0.0058 2165.55 3.5E-05 0.05 0.11 8.11 100 0.0089 2165.55 0.0067 0.59 1.38 8.11 100 0.0032 1191.61 1.6E-05 0.02 0.05 3.76 150 0.0049 1191.61 0.0031 0.27 0.64 3.76 150 0.0020 761.38 9.4E-06 0.01 0.03 2.16 200 0.0031 761.38 0.0018 0.16 0.37 2.16 200 0.0014 533.41 6.1E-06 0.01 0.02 1.40 250 0.0022 533.41 0.0012 0.10 0.24 1.40 250 0.0005 174.25 1.6E-06 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0007 174.25 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.36 500 0.0002 58.67 3.9E-07 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000 0.0002 58.67 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.09 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0757 0.1082 10.18 23.92 20 0.0000 11155.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 130.29 20 0.0570 0.0572 5.38 12.65 30 0.0000 8402.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 68.87 30 0.0443 0.0352 3.32 7.80 40 0.0000 6521.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.46 40 0.0352 0.0239 2.25 5.28 50 0.0000 5186.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.78 50 0.0286 0.0173 1.62 3.82 60 0.0000 4214.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.79 60 0.0199 0.0102 0.96 2.26 80 0.0000 2937.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.29 80 0.0147 0.0067 0.63 1.49 100 0.0000 2165.55 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.11 100 0.0081 0.0031 0.29 0.69 150 0.0000 1191.61 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.76 150 0.0052 0.0018 0.17 0.40 200 0.0000 761.38 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.16 200 0.0036 0.0012 0.11 0.26 250 0.0000 533.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.40 250 0.0012 0.0003 0.03 0.07 500 0.0000 174.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0004 0.0001 0.01 0.02 1000 0.0000 58.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000



## D-60

## Facility G-01 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Fresno Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0449 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0158 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0210 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0358 11155.50 0.0007 0.88 2.06 130.29 20 0.0334 11155.50 0.0782 6.87 16.14 130.29 20 0.0269 8402.65 0.0004 0.46 1.09 68.87 30 0.0252 8402.65 0.0413 3.63 8.53 68.87 30 0.0209 6521.95 0.0002 0.29 0.67 42.46 40 0.0195 6521.95 0.0255 2.24 5.26 42.46 40 0.0166 5186.31 0.0002 0.19 0.45 28.78 50 0.0155 5186.31 0.0173 1.52 3.57 28.78 50 0.0135 4214.74 0.0001 0.14 0.33 20.79 60 0.0126 4214.74 0.0125 1.10 2.58 20.79 60 0.0094 2937.50 0.0001 0.08 0.19 12.29 80 0.0088 2937.50 0.0074 0.65 1.52 12.29 80 0.0069 2165.55 4.3E-05 0.05 0.13 8.11 100 0.0065 2165.55 0.0049 0.43 1.00 8.11 100 0.0038 1191.61 2.0E-05 0.03 0.06 3.76 150 0.0036 1191.61 0.0023 0.20 0.47 3.76 150 0.0024 761.38 1.1E-05 0.01 0.03 2.16 200 0.0023 761.38 0.0013 0.11 0.27 2.16 200 0.0017 533.41 7.4E-06 0.01 0.02 1.40 250 0.0016 533.41 0.0008 0.07 0.17 1.40 250 0.0006 174.25 1.9E-06 0.00 0.01 0.36 500 0.0005 174.25 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.36 500 0.0002 58.67 4.7E-07 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000 0.0002 58.67 0.0001 0.00 0.01 0.09 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0299 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0105 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0692 0.0810 8.91 20.94 20 0.0000 11155.50 0.0021 1.16 2.74 130.29 20 0.0521 0.0428 4.71 11.07 30 0.0000 8402.65 0.0011 0.62 1.45 68.87 30 0.0405 0.0264 2.90 6.82 40 0.0000 6521.95 0.0007 0.38 0.89 42.46 40 0.0322 0.0179 1.97 4.62 50 0.0000 5186.31 0.0005 0.26 0.60 28.78 50 0.0261 0.0129 1.42 3.34 60 0.0000 4214.74 0.0003 0.19 0.44 20.79 60 0.0182 0.0076 0.84 1.98 80 0.0000 2937.50 0.0002 0.11 0.26 12.29 80 0.0134 0.0050 0.55 1.30 100 0.0000 2165.55 0.0001 0.07 0.17 8.11 100 0.0074 0.0023 0.26 0.60 150 0.0000 1191.61 0.0001 0.03 0.08 3.76 150 0.0047 0.0013 0.15 0.35 200 0.0000 761.38 3.5E-05 0.02 0.05 2.16 200 0.0033 0.0009 0.10 0.22 250 0.0000 533.41 2.3E-05 0.01 0.03 1.40 250 0.0011 0.0002 0.02 0.06 500 0.0000 174.25 5.9E-06 0.00 0.01 0.36 500 0.0004 0.0001 0.01 0.01 1000 0.0000 58.67 1.5E-06 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000



## D-61

## Facility G-01 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Fresno Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0823 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0289 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 11155.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 130.29 20 0.0459 11155.50 0.1076 9.46 22.22 130.29 20 0.0000 8402.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 68.87 30 0.0346 8402.65 0.0569 5.00 11.74 68.87 30 0.0000 6521.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.46 40 0.0268 6521.95 0.0351 3.08 7.24 42.46 40 0.0000 5186.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.78 50 0.0213 5186.31 0.0238 2.09 4.91 28.78 50 0.0000 4214.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.79 60 0.0173 4214.74 0.0172 1.51 3.54 20.79 60 0.0000 2937.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.29 80 0.0121 2937.50 0.0101 0.89 2.10 12.29 80 0.0000 2165.55 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.11 100 0.0089 2165.55 0.0067 0.59 1.38 8.11 100 0.0000 1191.61 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.76 150 0.0049 1191.61 0.0031 0.27 0.64 3.76 150 0.0000 761.38 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.16 200 0.0031 761.38 0.0018 0.16 0.37 2.16 200 0.0000 533.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.40 250 0.0022 533.41 0.0012 0.10 0.24 1.40 250 0.0000 174.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0007 174.25 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.36 500 0.0000 58.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000 0.0002 58.67 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.09 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.0644 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0226 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0459 0.1122 11.96 28.10 20 0.0000 11155.50 0.0046 2.51 5.89 130.29 20 0.0346 0.0593 6.32 14.86 30 0.0000 8402.65 0.0024 1.33 3.11 68.87 30 0.0268 0.0366 3.90 9.16 40 0.0000 6521.95 0.0015 0.82 1.92 42.46 40 0.0213 0.0248 2.64 6.21 50 0.0000 5186.31 0.0010 0.55 1.30 28.78 50 0.0173 0.0179 1.91 4.48 60 0.0000 4214.74 0.0007 0.40 0.94 20.79 60 0.0121 0.0106 1.13 2.65 80 0.0000 2937.50 0.0004 0.24 0.56 12.29 80 0.0089 0.0070 0.74 1.75 100 0.0000 2165.55 0.0003 0.16 0.37 8.11 100 0.0049 0.0032 0.35 0.81 150 0.0000 1191.61 0.0001 0.07 0.17 3.76 150 0.0031 0.0019 0.20 0.47 200 0.0000 761.38 0.0001 0.04 0.10 2.16 200 0.0022 0.0012 0.13 0.30 250 0.0000 533.41 4.9E-05 0.03 0.06 1.40 250 0.0007 0.0003 0.03 0.08 500 0.0000 174.25 1.3E-05 0.01 0.02 0.36 500 0.0002 0.0001 0.01 0.02 1000 0.0000 58.67 3.2E-06 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000



## D-62

## Facility G-01 - 94% Perc

Concord Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 12417.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 161.57 20 0.0874 12417.79 0.2280 20.05 47.09 161.57 20 0.0000 9254.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 86.18 30 0.0651 9254.67 0.1216 10.69 25.12 86.18 30 0.0000 7114.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 53.59 40 0.0501 7114.91 0.0756 6.65 15.62 53.59 40 0.0000 5625.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.58 50 0.0396 5625.45 0.0516 4.54 10.66 36.58 50 0.0000 4555.43 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.58 60 0.0320 4555.43 0.0375 3.30 7.75 26.58 60 0.0000 3163.52 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.87 80 0.0223 3163.52 0.0224 1.97 4.63 15.87 80 0.0000 2329.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.55 100 0.0164 2329.10 0.0149 1.31 3.07 10.55 100 0.0000 1281.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.95 150 0.0090 1281.78 0.0070 0.61 1.44 4.95 150 0.0000 820.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.86 200 0.0058 820.22 0.0040 0.35 0.83 2.86 200 0.0000 575.61 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.87 250 0.0040 575.61 0.0026 0.23 0.55 1.87 250 0.0000 189.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.49 500 0.0013 189.47 0.0007 0.06 0.14 0.49 500 0.0000 64.58 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.14 1000 0.0005 64.58 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.14 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0874 0.2280 20.05 47.09 20 0.0000 12417.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 161.57 20 0.0651 0.1216 10.69 25.12 30 0.0000 9254.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 86.18 30 0.0501 0.0756 6.65 15.62 40 0.0000 7114.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 53.59 40 0.0396 0.0516 4.54 10.66 50 0.0000 5625.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.58 50 0.0320 0.0375 3.30 7.75 60 0.0000 4555.43 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.58 60 0.0223 0.0224 1.97 4.63 80 0.0000 3163.52 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.87 80 0.0164 0.0149 1.31 3.07 100 0.0000 2329.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.55 100 0.0090 0.0070 0.61 1.44 150 0.0000 1281.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.95 150 0.0058 0.0040 0.35 0.83 200 0.0000 820.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.86 200 0.0040 0.0026 0.23 0.55 250 0.0000 575.61 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.87 250 0.0013 0.0007 0.06 0.14 500 0.0000 189.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.49 500 0.0005 0.0002 0.02 0.04 1000 0.0000 64.58 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.14 1000



## D-63

## Facility G-01 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Concord Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0374 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0823 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0131 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0289 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0332 12417.79 0.0007 0.90 2.12 161.57 20 0.0511 12417.79 0.1334 11.73 27.55 161.57 20 0.0247 9254.67 0.0004 0.48 1.13 86.18 30 0.0381 9254.67 0.0712 6.26 14.69 86.18 30 0.0190 7114.91 0.0002 0.30 0.70 53.59 40 0.0293 7114.91 0.0443 3.89 9.14 53.59 40 0.0150 5625.45 0.0002 0.20 0.48 36.58 50 0.0231 5625.45 0.0302 2.66 6.24 36.58 50 0.0122 4555.43 0.0001 0.15 0.35 26.58 60 0.0187 4555.43 0.0219 1.93 4.53 26.58 60 0.0085 3163.52 0.0001 0.09 0.21 15.87 80 0.0130 3163.52 0.0131 1.15 2.71 15.87 80 0.0062 2329.10 4.6E-05 0.06 0.14 10.55 100 0.0096 2329.10 0.0087 0.77 1.80 10.55 100 0.0034 1281.78 2.2E-05 0.03 0.06 4.95 150 0.0053 1281.78 0.0041 0.36 0.84 4.95 150 0.0022 820.22 1.2E-05 0.02 0.04 2.86 200 0.0034 820.22 0.0024 0.21 0.49 2.86 200 0.0015 575.61 8.2E-06 0.01 0.02 1.87 250 0.0024 575.61 0.0015 0.14 0.32 1.87 250 0.0005 189.47 2.1E-06 0.00 0.01 0.49 500 0.0008 189.47 0.0004 0.04 0.08 0.49 500 0.0002 64.58 6.1E-07 0.00 0.00 0.14 1000 0.0003 64.58 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.14 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0843 0.1341 12.63 29.67 20 0.0000 12417.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 161.57 20 0.0628 0.0715 6.74 15.82 30 0.0000 9254.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 86.18 30 0.0483 0.0445 4.19 9.84 40 0.0000 7114.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 53.59 40 0.0382 0.0304 2.86 6.72 50 0.0000 5625.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.58 50 0.0309 0.0221 2.08 4.88 60 0.0000 4555.43 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.58 60 0.0215 0.0132 1.24 2.91 80 0.0000 3163.52 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.87 80 0.0158 0.0088 0.82 1.94 100 0.0000 2329.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.55 100 0.0087 0.0041 0.39 0.91 150 0.0000 1281.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.95 150 0.0056 0.0024 0.22 0.53 200 0.0000 820.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.86 200 0.0039 0.0016 0.15 0.34 250 0.0000 575.61 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.87 250 0.0013 0.0004 0.04 0.09 500 0.0000 189.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.49 500 0.0004 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 64.58 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.14 1000



## D-64

## Facility G-01 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Concord Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0449 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0158 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0210 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0398 12417.79 0.0009 1.09 2.55 161.57 20 0.0372 12417.79 0.0969 8.52 20.02 161.57 20 0.0297 9254.67 0.0005 0.58 1.36 86.18 30 0.0277 9254.67 0.0517 4.55 10.68 86.18 30 0.0228 7114.91 0.0003 0.36 0.85 53.59 40 0.0213 7114.91 0.0322 2.83 6.64 53.59 40 0.0180 5625.45 0.0002 0.25 0.58 36.58 50 0.0168 5625.45 0.0219 1.93 4.53 36.58 50 0.0146 4555.43 0.0001 0.18 0.42 26.58 60 0.0136 4555.43 0.0159 1.40 3.29 26.58 60 0.0101 3163.52 0.0001 0.11 0.25 15.87 80 0.0095 3163.52 0.0095 0.84 1.97 15.87 80 0.0075 2329.10 0.0001 0.07 0.17 10.55 100 0.0070 2329.10 0.0063 0.56 1.31 10.55 100 0.0041 1281.78 2.6E-05 0.03 0.08 4.95 150 0.0038 1281.78 0.0030 0.26 0.61 4.95 150 0.0026 820.22 1.5E-05 0.02 0.05 2.86 200 0.0025 820.22 0.0017 0.15 0.35 2.86 200 0.0018 575.61 9.8E-06 0.01 0.03 1.87 250 0.0017 575.61 0.0011 0.10 0.23 1.87 250 0.0006 189.47 2.6E-06 0.00 0.01 0.49 500 0.0006 189.47 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.49 500 0.0002 64.58 7.4E-07 0.00 0.00 0.14 1000 0.0002 64.58 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.14 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0299 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0105 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0770 0.1004 11.05 25.96 20 0.0000 12417.79 0.0027 1.44 3.39 161.57 20 0.0574 0.0536 5.90 13.85 30 0.0000 9254.67 0.0014 0.77 1.81 86.18 30 0.0441 0.0333 3.67 8.61 40 0.0000 7114.91 0.0009 0.48 1.13 53.59 40 0.0349 0.0227 2.50 5.88 50 0.0000 5625.45 0.0006 0.33 0.77 36.58 50 0.0283 0.0165 1.82 4.27 60 0.0000 4555.43 0.0004 0.24 0.56 26.58 60 0.0196 0.0099 1.09 2.55 80 0.0000 3163.52 0.0003 0.14 0.33 15.87 80 0.0144 0.0066 0.72 1.70 100 0.0000 2329.10 0.0002 0.09 0.22 10.55 100 0.0079 0.0031 0.34 0.80 150 0.0000 1281.78 0.0001 0.04 0.10 4.95 150 0.0051 0.0018 0.20 0.46 200 0.0000 820.22 4.7E-05 0.03 0.06 2.86 200 0.0036 0.0012 0.13 0.30 250 0.0000 575.61 3.1E-05 0.02 0.04 1.87 250 0.0012 0.0003 0.03 0.08 500 0.0000 189.47 8.0E-06 0.00 0.01 0.49 500 0.0004 0.0001 0.01 0.02 1000 0.0000 64.58 2.3E-06 0.00 0.00 0.14 1000



## D-65

## Facility G-01 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Concord Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0823 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0289 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 12417.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 161.57 20 0.0511 12417.79 0.1334 11.73 27.55 161.57 20 0.0000 9254.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 86.18 30 0.0381 9254.67 0.0712 6.26 14.69 86.18 30 0.0000 7114.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 53.59 40 0.0293 7114.91 0.0443 3.89 9.14 53.59 40 0.0000 5625.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.58 50 0.0231 5625.45 0.0302 2.66 6.24 36.58 50 0.0000 4555.43 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.58 60 0.0187 4555.43 0.0219 1.93 4.53 26.58 60 0.0000 3163.52 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.87 80 0.0130 3163.52 0.0131 1.15 2.71 15.87 80 0.0000 2329.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.55 100 0.0096 2329.10 0.0087 0.77 1.80 10.55 100 0.0000 1281.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.95 150 0.0053 1281.78 0.0041 0.36 0.84 4.95 150 0.0000 820.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.86 200 0.0034 820.22 0.0024 0.21 0.49 2.86 200 0.0000 575.61 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.87 250 0.0024 575.61 0.0015 0.14 0.32 1.87 250 0.0000 189.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.49 500 0.0008 189.47 0.0004 0.04 0.08 0.49 500 0.0000 64.58 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.14 1000 0.0003 64.58 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.14 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.0644 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0226 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0511 0.1391 14.84 34.85 20 0.0000 12417.79 0.0057 3.11 7.30 161.57 20 0.0381 0.0742 7.91 18.59 30 0.0000 9254.67 0.0030 1.66 3.90 86.18 30 0.0293 0.0461 4.92 11.56 40 0.0000 7114.91 0.0019 1.03 2.42 53.59 40 0.0231 0.0315 3.36 7.89 50 0.0000 5625.45 0.0013 0.70 1.65 36.58 50 0.0187 0.0229 2.44 5.73 60 0.0000 4555.43 0.0009 0.51 1.20 26.58 60 0.0130 0.0137 1.46 3.42 80 0.0000 3163.52 0.0006 0.31 0.72 15.87 80 0.0096 0.0091 0.97 2.28 100 0.0000 2329.10 0.0004 0.20 0.48 10.55 100 0.0053 0.0043 0.45 1.07 150 0.0000 1281.78 0.0002 0.10 0.22 4.95 150 0.0034 0.0025 0.26 0.62 200 0.0000 820.22 0.0001 0.06 0.13 2.86 200 0.0024 0.0016 0.17 0.40 250 0.0000 575.61 0.0001 0.04 0.08 1.87 250 0.0008 0.0004 0.04 0.11 500 0.0000 189.47 1.7E-05 0.01 0.02 0.49 500 0.0003 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 64.58 4.9E-06 0.00 0.01 0.14 1000



## D-66

## Facility G-01 - 94% Perc

Mather Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 8470.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 96.52 20 0.0596 8470.50 0.1362 11.98 28.13 96.52 20 0.0000 5762.29 0.0000 0.00 0.00 50.95 30 0.0405 5762.29 0.0719 6.32 14.85 50.95 30 0.0000 4464.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 31.40 40 0.0314 4464.60 0.0443 3.90 9.15 31.40 40 0.0000 3545.55 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.29 50 0.0249 3545.55 0.0300 2.64 6.21 21.29 50 0.0000 2878.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.38 60 0.0203 2878.60 0.0217 1.91 4.48 15.38 60 0.0000 2004.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.10 80 0.0141 2004.05 0.0128 1.13 2.65 9.10 80 0.0000 1477.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.00 100 0.0104 1477.56 0.0085 0.74 1.75 6.00 100 0.0000 819.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.78 150 0.0058 819.70 0.0039 0.34 0.81 2.78 150 0.0000 527.32 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.60 200 0.0037 527.32 0.0023 0.20 0.47 1.60 200 0.0000 371.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.03 250 0.0026 371.22 0.0015 0.13 0.30 1.03 250 0.0000 122.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.27 500 0.0009 122.78 0.0004 0.03 0.08 0.27 500 0.0000 41.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0003 41.91 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0596 0.1362 11.98 28.13 20 0.0000 8470.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 96.52 20 0.0405 0.0719 6.32 14.85 30 0.0000 5762.29 0.0000 0.00 0.00 50.95 30 0.0314 0.0443 3.90 9.15 40 0.0000 4464.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 31.40 40 0.0249 0.0300 2.64 6.21 50 0.0000 3545.55 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.29 50 0.0203 0.0217 1.91 4.48 60 0.0000 2878.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.38 60 0.0141 0.0128 1.13 2.65 80 0.0000 2004.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.10 80 0.0104 0.0085 0.74 1.75 100 0.0000 1477.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.00 100 0.0058 0.0039 0.34 0.81 150 0.0000 819.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.78 150 0.0037 0.0023 0.20 0.47 200 0.0000 527.32 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.60 200 0.0026 0.0015 0.13 0.30 250 0.0000 371.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.03 250 0.0009 0.0004 0.03 0.08 500 0.0000 122.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.27 500 0.0003 0.0001 0.01 0.02 1000 0.0000 41.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-67

## Facility G-01 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Mather Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0374 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0823 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0131 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0289 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0226 8470.50 0.0004 0.54 1.26 96.52 20 0.0349 8470.50 0.0797 7.01 16.46 96.52 20 0.0154 5762.29 0.0002 0.28 0.67 50.95 30 0.0237 5762.29 0.0421 3.70 8.69 50.95 30 0.0119 4464.60 0.0001 0.18 0.41 31.40 40 0.0184 4464.60 0.0259 2.28 5.35 31.40 40 0.0095 3545.55 0.0001 0.12 0.28 21.29 50 0.0146 3545.55 0.0176 1.55 3.63 21.29 50 0.0077 2878.60 0.0001 0.09 0.20 15.38 60 0.0118 2878.60 0.0127 1.12 2.62 15.38 60 0.0054 2004.05 4.0E-05 0.05 0.12 9.10 80 0.0082 2004.05 0.0075 0.66 1.55 9.10 80 0.0039 1477.56 2.6E-05 0.03 0.08 6.00 100 0.0061 1477.56 0.0050 0.44 1.02 6.00 100 0.0022 819.70 1.2E-05 0.02 0.04 2.78 150 0.0034 819.70 0.0023 0.20 0.47 2.78 150 0.0014 527.32 7.0E-06 0.01 0.02 1.60 200 0.0022 527.32 0.0013 0.12 0.27 1.60 200 0.0010 371.22 4.5E-06 0.01 0.01 1.03 250 0.0015 371.22 0.0009 0.07 0.18 1.03 250 0.0003 122.78 1.2E-06 0.00 0.00 0.27 500 0.0005 122.78 0.0002 0.02 0.05 0.27 500 1.1E-04 41.91 3.1E-07 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0002 41.91 0.0001 0.01 0.01 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0575 0.0801 7.54 17.72 20 0.0000 8470.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 96.52 20 0.0391 0.0423 3.98 9.35 30 0.0000 5762.29 0.0000 0.00 0.00 50.95 30 0.0303 0.0261 2.45 5.77 40 0.0000 4464.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 31.40 40 0.0241 0.0177 1.66 3.91 50 0.0000 3545.55 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.29 50 0.0195 0.0128 1.20 2.82 60 0.0000 2878.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.38 60 0.0136 0.0076 0.71 1.67 80 0.0000 2004.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.10 80 0.0100 0.0050 0.47 1.10 100 0.0000 1477.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.00 100 0.0056 0.0023 0.22 0.51 150 0.0000 819.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.78 150 0.0036 0.0013 0.13 0.29 200 0.0000 527.32 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.60 200 0.0025 0.0009 0.08 0.19 250 0.0000 371.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.03 250 0.0008 0.0002 0.02 0.05 500 0.0000 122.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.27 500 0.0003 0.0001 0.01 0.01 1000 0.0000 41.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-68

## Facility G-01 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Mather Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0449 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0158 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0210 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0272 8470.50 0.0005 0.65 1.53 96.52 20 0.0254 8470.50 0.0579 5.09 11.96 96.52 20 0.0185 5762.29 0.0003 0.34 0.81 50.95 30 0.0173 5762.29 0.0306 2.69 6.31 50.95 30 0.0143 4464.60 0.0002 0.21 0.50 31.40 40 0.0134 4464.60 0.0188 1.66 3.89 31.40 40 0.0114 3545.55 0.0001 0.14 0.34 21.29 50 0.0106 3545.55 0.0128 1.12 2.64 21.29 50 0.0092 2878.60 0.0001 0.10 0.24 15.38 60 0.0086 2878.60 0.0092 0.81 1.91 15.38 60 0.0064 2004.05 4.8E-05 0.06 0.14 9.10 80 0.0060 2004.05 0.0055 0.48 1.13 9.10 80 0.0047 1477.56 3.2E-05 0.04 0.09 6.00 100 0.0044 1477.56 0.0036 0.32 0.74 6.00 100 0.0026 819.70 1.5E-05 0.02 0.04 2.78 150 0.0025 819.70 0.0017 0.15 0.34 2.78 150 0.0017 527.32 8.4E-06 0.01 0.03 1.60 200 0.0016 527.32 0.0010 0.08 0.20 1.60 200 0.0012 371.22 5.4E-06 0.01 0.02 1.03 250 0.0011 371.22 0.0006 0.05 0.13 1.03 250 0.0004 122.78 1.4E-06 0.00 0.00 0.27 500 0.0004 122.78 0.0002 0.01 0.03 0.27 500 0.0001 41.91 3.7E-07 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0001 41.91 4.2E-05 0.00 0.01 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0299 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0105 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0525 0.0600 6.60 15.51 20 0.0000 8470.50 0.0016 0.86 2.03 96.52 20 0.0357 0.0317 3.49 8.19 30 0.0000 5762.29 0.0008 0.46 1.07 50.95 30 0.0277 0.0195 2.15 5.05 40 0.0000 4464.60 0.0005 0.28 0.66 31.40 40 0.0220 0.0132 1.46 3.42 50 0.0000 3545.55 0.0003 0.19 0.45 21.29 50 0.0179 0.0096 1.05 2.47 60 0.0000 2878.60 0.0003 0.14 0.32 15.38 60 0.0124 0.0057 0.62 1.46 80 0.0000 2004.05 0.0001 0.08 0.19 9.10 80 0.0092 0.0037 0.41 0.96 100 0.0000 1477.56 0.0001 0.05 0.13 6.00 100 0.0051 0.0017 0.19 0.45 150 0.0000 819.70 4.6E-05 0.02 0.06 2.78 150 0.0033 0.0010 0.11 0.26 200 0.0000 527.32 2.6E-05 0.01 0.03 1.60 200 0.0023 0.0006 0.07 0.17 250 0.0000 371.22 1.7E-05 0.01 0.02 1.03 250 0.0008 0.0002 0.02 0.04 500 0.0000 122.78 4.4E-06 0.00 0.01 0.27 500 0.0003 4.4E-05 0.00 0.01 1000 0.0000 41.91 1.1E-06 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-69

## Facility G-01 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Mather Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0823 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0289 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 8470.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 96.52 20 0.0349 8470.50 0.0797 7.01 16.46 96.52 20 0.0000 5762.29 0.0000 0.00 0.00 50.95 30 0.0237 5762.29 0.0421 3.70 8.69 50.95 30 0.0000 4464.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 31.40 40 0.0184 4464.60 0.0259 2.28 5.35 31.40 40 0.0000 3545.55 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.29 50 0.0146 3545.55 0.0176 1.55 3.63 21.29 50 0.0000 2878.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.38 60 0.0118 2878.60 0.0127 1.12 2.62 15.38 60 0.0000 2004.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.10 80 0.0082 2004.05 0.0075 0.66 1.55 9.10 80 0.0000 1477.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.00 100 0.0061 1477.56 0.0050 0.44 1.02 6.00 100 0.0000 819.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.78 150 0.0034 819.70 0.0023 0.20 0.47 2.78 150 0.0000 527.32 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.60 200 0.0022 527.32 0.0013 0.12 0.27 1.60 200 0.0000 371.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.03 250 0.0015 371.22 0.0009 0.07 0.18 1.03 250 0.0000 122.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.27 500 0.0005 122.78 0.0002 0.02 0.05 0.27 500 0.0000 41.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0002 41.91 0.0001 0.01 0.01 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.0644 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0226 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0349 0.0831 8.86 20.82 20 0.0000 8470.50 0.0034 1.86 4.36 96.52 20 0.0237 0.0439 4.68 10.99 30 0.0000 5762.29 0.0018 0.98 2.30 50.95 30 0.0184 0.0270 2.88 6.77 40 0.0000 4464.60 0.0011 0.60 1.42 31.40 40 0.0146 0.0183 1.95 4.59 50 0.0000 3545.55 0.0008 0.41 0.96 21.29 50 0.0118 0.0132 1.41 3.32 60 0.0000 2878.60 0.0005 0.30 0.70 15.38 60 0.0082 0.0078 0.84 1.96 80 0.0000 2004.05 0.0003 0.18 0.41 9.10 80 0.0061 0.0052 0.55 1.29 100 0.0000 1477.56 0.0002 0.12 0.27 6.00 100 0.0034 0.0024 0.26 0.60 150 0.0000 819.70 0.0001 0.05 0.13 2.78 150 0.0022 0.0014 0.15 0.35 200 0.0000 527.32 0.0001 0.03 0.07 1.60 200 0.0015 0.0009 0.09 0.22 250 0.0000 371.22 3.6E-05 0.02 0.05 1.03 250 0.0005 0.0002 0.02 0.06 500 0.0000 122.78 9.5E-06 0.01 0.01 0.27 500 0.0002 0.0001 0.01 0.02 1000 0.0000 41.91 2.5E-06 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-70

## Facility G-01 - 94% Perc

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1407 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0494 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0798 11342.73 0.4334 38.09 89.49 307.03 20 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0598 8496.33 0.3246 28.53 67.03 229.98 30 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0463 6579.11 0.2514 22.09 51.91 178.09 40 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0369 5238.72 0.2001 17.59 41.33 141.80 50 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0300 4269.33 0.1631 14.34 33.68 115.56 60 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0211 2995.85 0.1145 10.06 23.64 81.09 80 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0156 2223.11 0.0849 7.47 17.54 60.18 100 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0087 1239.31 0.0473 4.16 9.78 33.55 150 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0056 799.09 0.0305 2.68 6.30 21.63 200 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0040 563.57 0.0215 1.89 4.45 15.25 250 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0013 187.51 0.0072 0.63 1.48 5.08 500 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000 0.0005 64.26 0.0025 0.22 0.51 1.74 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0798 0.4334 38.09 89.49 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0598 0.3246 28.53 67.03 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0463 0.2514 22.09 51.91 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0369 0.2001 17.59 41.33 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0300 0.1631 14.34 33.68 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0211 0.1145 10.06 23.64 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0156 0.0849 7.47 17.54 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0087 0.0473 4.16 9.78 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0056 0.0305 2.68 6.30 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0040 0.0215 1.89 4.45 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0013 0.0072 0.63 1.48 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0005 0.0025 0.22 0.51 1000 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000



## D-71

## Facility G-01 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0374 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0823 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0131 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0289 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0303 11342.73 0.0013 1.71 4.02 307.03 20 0.0467 11342.73 0.2535 22.29 52.35 307.03 20 0.0227 8496.33 0.0010 1.28 3.01 229.98 30 0.0350 8496.33 0.1899 16.69 39.21 229.98 30 0.0176 6579.11 0.0008 0.99 2.33 178.09 40 0.0271 6579.11 0.1470 12.93 30.37 178.09 40 0.0140 5238.72 0.0006 0.79 1.86 141.80 50 0.0216 5238.72 0.1171 10.29 24.18 141.80 50 0.0114 4269.33 0.0005 0.64 1.51 115.56 60 0.0176 4269.33 0.0954 8.39 19.70 115.56 60 0.0080 2995.85 0.0004 0.45 1.06 81.09 80 0.0123 2995.85 0.0670 5.89 13.83 81.09 80 0.0059 2223.11 0.0003 0.34 0.79 60.18 100 0.0091 2223.11 0.0497 4.37 10.26 60.18 100 0.0033 1239.31 0.0001 0.19 0.44 33.55 150 0.0051 1239.31 0.0277 2.43 5.72 33.55 150 0.0021 799.09 0.0001 0.12 0.28 21.63 200 0.0033 799.09 0.0179 1.57 3.69 21.63 200 0.0015 563.57 0.0001 0.09 0.20 15.25 250 0.0023 563.57 0.0126 1.11 2.60 15.25 250 0.0005 187.51 2.2E-05 0.03 0.07 5.08 500 0.0008 187.51 0.0042 0.37 0.87 5.08 500 0.0002 64.26 7.6E-06 0.01 0.02 1.74 1000 0.0003 64.26 0.0014 0.13 0.30 1.74 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0770 0.2549 24.00 56.37 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0577 0.1909 17.98 42.23 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0446 0.1478 13.92 32.70 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0356 0.1177 11.08 26.04 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0290 0.0959 9.03 21.22 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0203 0.0673 6.34 14.89 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0151 0.0500 4.70 11.05 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0084 0.0278 2.62 6.16 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0054 0.0180 1.69 3.97 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0038 0.0127 1.19 2.80 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0013 0.0042 0.40 0.93 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0004 0.0014 0.14 0.32 1000 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000



## D-72

## Facility G-01 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0449 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0158 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0210 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0364 11342.73 0.0016 2.07 4.85 307.03 20 0.0340 11342.73 0.1842 16.19 38.04 307.03 20 0.0272 8496.33 0.0012 1.55 3.63 229.98 30 0.0254 8496.33 0.1380 12.13 28.49 229.98 30 0.0211 6579.11 0.0009 1.20 2.81 178.09 40 0.0197 6579.11 0.1069 9.39 22.06 178.09 40 0.0168 5238.72 0.0007 0.95 2.24 141.80 50 0.0157 5238.72 0.0851 7.48 17.57 141.80 50 0.0137 4269.33 0.0006 0.78 1.83 115.56 60 0.0128 4269.33 0.0693 6.10 14.32 115.56 60 0.0096 2995.85 0.0004 0.55 1.28 81.09 80 0.0090 2995.85 0.0487 4.28 10.05 81.09 80 0.0071 2223.11 0.0003 0.40 0.95 60.18 100 0.0067 2223.11 0.0361 3.17 7.46 60.18 100 0.0040 1239.31 0.0002 0.23 0.53 33.55 150 0.0037 1239.31 0.0201 1.77 4.16 33.55 150 0.0026 799.09 0.0001 0.15 0.34 21.63 200 0.0024 799.09 0.0130 1.14 2.68 21.63 200 0.0018 563.57 0.0001 0.10 0.24 15.25 250 0.0017 563.57 0.0092 0.80 1.89 15.25 250 0.0006 187.51 2.7E-05 0.03 0.08 5.08 500 0.0006 187.51 0.0030 0.27 0.63 5.08 500 0.0002 64.26 9.2E-06 0.01 0.03 1.74 1000 0.0002 64.26 0.0010 0.09 0.22 1.74 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0299 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0105 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0703 0.1909 21.00 49.34 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0050 2.74 6.45 307.03 20 0.0527 0.1430 15.73 36.96 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0038 2.06 4.83 229.98 30 0.0408 0.1107 12.18 28.62 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0029 1.59 3.74 178.09 40 0.0325 0.0882 9.70 22.79 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0023 1.27 2.98 141.80 50 0.0265 0.0718 7.91 18.57 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0019 1.03 2.43 115.56 60 0.0186 0.0504 5.55 13.03 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0013 0.72 1.70 81.09 80 0.0138 0.0374 4.12 9.67 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0010 0.54 1.26 60.18 100 0.0077 0.0209 2.29 5.39 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0006 0.30 0.70 33.55 150 0.0050 0.0134 1.48 3.48 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0004 0.19 0.45 21.63 200 0.0035 0.0095 1.04 2.45 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0003 0.14 0.32 15.25 250 0.0012 0.0032 0.35 0.82 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0001 0.05 0.11 5.08 500 0.0004 0.0011 0.12 0.28 1000 0.0000 64.26 2.9E-05 0.02 0.04 1.74 1000



## D-73

## Facility G-01 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0823 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0289 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0467 11342.73 0.2535 22.29 52.35 307.03 20 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0350 8496.33 0.1899 16.69 39.21 229.98 30 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0271 6579.11 0.1470 12.93 30.37 178.09 40 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0216 5238.72 0.1171 10.29 24.18 141.80 50 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0176 4269.33 0.0954 8.39 19.70 115.56 60 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0123 2995.85 0.0670 5.89 13.83 81.09 80 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0091 2223.11 0.0497 4.37 10.26 60.18 100 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0051 1239.31 0.0277 2.43 5.72 33.55 150 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0033 799.09 0.0179 1.57 3.69 21.63 200 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0023 563.57 0.0126 1.11 2.60 15.25 250 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0008 187.51 0.0042 0.37 0.87 5.08 500 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000 0.0003 64.26 0.0014 0.13 0.30 1.74 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.0644 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0226 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0467 0.2644 28.19 66.23 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0108 5.91 13.88 307.03 20 0.0350 0.1980 21.12 49.61 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0081 4.43 10.40 229.98 30 0.0271 0.1533 16.35 38.42 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0063 3.43 8.05 178.09 40 0.0216 0.1221 13.02 30.59 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0050 2.73 6.41 141.80 50 0.0176 0.0995 10.61 24.93 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0041 2.22 5.22 115.56 60 0.0123 0.0698 7.45 17.49 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0029 1.56 3.67 81.09 80 0.0091 0.0518 5.53 12.98 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0021 1.16 2.72 60.18 100 0.0051 0.0289 3.08 7.24 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0012 0.65 1.52 33.55 150 0.0033 0.0186 1.99 4.67 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0008 0.42 0.98 21.63 200 0.0023 0.0131 1.40 3.29 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0005 0.29 0.69 15.25 250 0.0008 0.0044 0.47 1.09 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0002 0.10 0.23 5.08 500 0.0003 0.0015 0.16 0.38 1000 0.0000 64.26 0.0001 0.03 0.08 1.74 1000



## D-74

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Multicomponent Impacts - Brake Cleaners - Chronic/Cancer Facility G-02 - 94% Perc

Burbank Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 5528.38 0.0000 0.00 0.00 97.87 20 0.0778 5528.38 0.4141 36.40 85.52 97.87 20 0.0000 4845.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.96 30 0.0682 4845.41 0.3045 26.77 62.88 71.96 30 0.0000 4048.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 46.45 40 0.0570 4048.28 0.1965 17.28 40.59 46.45 40 0.0000 3418.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 32.37 50 0.0481 3418.07 0.1370 12.04 28.28 32.37 50 0.0000 2918.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 23.83 60 0.0411 2918.05 0.1008 8.86 20.82 23.83 60 0.0000 2193.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 14.48 80 0.0309 2193.50 0.0613 5.39 12.65 14.48 80 0.0000 1708.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.73 100 0.0240 1708.42 0.0412 3.62 8.50 9.73 100 0.0000 1026.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.64 150 0.0144 1026.40 0.0196 1.73 4.05 4.64 150 0.0000 690.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.71 200 0.0097 690.62 0.0115 1.01 2.37 2.71 200 0.0000 500.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.77 250 0.0070 500.60 0.0075 0.66 1.55 1.77 250 0.0000 176.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.47 500 0.0025 176.69 0.0020 0.17 0.41 0.47 500 0.0000 62.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000 0.0009 62.47 0.0005 0.04 0.10 0.12 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0778 0.4141 36.40 85.52 20 0.0000 5528.38 0.0000 0.00 0.00 97.87 20 0.0682 0.3045 26.77 62.88 30 0.0000 4845.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.96 30 0.0570 0.1965 17.28 40.59 40 0.0000 4048.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 46.45 40 0.0481 0.1370 12.04 28.28 50 0.0000 3418.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 32.37 50 0.0411 0.1008 8.86 20.82 60 0.0000 2918.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 23.83 60 0.0309 0.0613 5.39 12.65 80 0.0000 2193.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 14.48 80 0.0240 0.0412 3.62 8.50 100 0.0000 1708.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.73 100 0.0144 0.0196 1.73 4.05 150 0.0000 1026.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.64 150 0.0097 0.0115 1.01 2.37 200 0.0000 690.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.71 200 0.0070 0.0075 0.66 1.55 250 0.0000 500.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.77 250 0.0025 0.0020 0.17 0.41 500 0.0000 176.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.47 500 0.0009 0.0005 0.04 0.10 1000 0.0000 62.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000 

## D-75

## Facility G-02 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Burbank Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0749 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0394 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0296 5528.38 0.0013 1.64 3.86 97.87 20 0.0455 5528.38 0.2424 21.31 50.06 97.87 20 0.0259 4845.41 0.0009 1.21 2.84 71.96 30 0.0399 4845.41 0.1783 15.67 36.81 71.96 30 0.0217 4048.28 0.0006 0.78 1.83 46.45 40 0.0333 4048.28 0.1151 10.11 23.76 46.45 40 0.0183 3418.07 0.0004 0.54 1.28 32.37 50 0.0281 3418.07 0.0802 7.05 16.56 32.37 50 0.0156 2918.05 0.0003 0.40 0.94 23.83 60 0.0240 2918.05 0.0590 5.19 12.19 23.83 60 0.0117 2193.50 0.0002 0.24 0.57 14.48 80 0.0181 2193.50 0.0359 3.15 7.41 14.48 80 0.0091 1708.42 0.0001 0.16 0.38 9.73 100 0.0141 1708.42 0.0241 2.12 4.98 9.73 100 0.0055 1026.40 0.0001 0.08 0.18 4.64 150 0.0085 1026.40 0.0115 1.01 2.37 4.64 150 0.0037 690.62 0.0000 0.05 0.11 2.71 200 0.0057 690.62 0.0067 0.59 1.39 2.71 200 0.0027 500.60 0.0000 0.03 0.07 1.77 250 0.0041 500.60 0.0044 0.39 0.91 1.77 250 0.0009 176.69 0.0000 0.01 0.02 0.47 500 0.0015 176.69 0.0012 0.10 0.24 0.47 500 0.0003 62.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000 0.0005 62.47 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.12 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0751 0.2437 22.95 53.92 20 0.0000 5528.38 0.0000 0.00 0.00 97.87 20 0.0658 0.1792 16.88 39.64 30 0.0000 4845.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.96 30 0.0550 0.1157 10.89 25.59 40 0.0000 4048.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 46.45 40 0.0464 0.0806 7.59 17.83 50 0.0000 3418.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 32.37 50 0.0396 0.0593 5.59 13.13 60 0.0000 2918.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 23.83 60 0.0298 0.0361 3.40 7.98 80 0.0000 2193.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 14.48 80 0.0232 0.0242 2.28 5.36 100 0.0000 1708.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.73 100 0.0139 0.0116 1.09 2.56 150 0.0000 1026.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.64 150 0.0094 0.0067 0.64 1.49 200 0.0000 690.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.71 200 0.0068 0.0044 0.42 0.98 250 0.0000 500.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.77 250 0.0024 0.0012 0.11 0.26 500 0.0000 176.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.47 500 0.0008 0.0003 0.03 0.07 1000 0.0000 62.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000



## D-76

## Facility G-02 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Burbank Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0898 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1198 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0630 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0355 5528.38 0.0015 1.97 4.63 97.87 20 0.0331 5528.38 0.1762 15.49 36.38 97.87 20 0.0311 4845.41 0.0011 1.45 3.40 71.96 30 0.0290 4845.41 0.1295 11.39 26.75 71.96 30 0.0260 4048.28 0.0007 0.94 2.20 46.45 40 0.0242 4048.28 0.0836 7.35 17.27 46.45 40 0.0219 3418.07 0.0005 0.65 1.53 32.37 50 0.0205 3418.07 0.0583 5.12 12.03 32.37 50 0.0187 2918.05 0.0004 0.48 1.13 23.83 60 0.0175 2918.05 0.0429 3.77 8.86 23.83 60 0.0141 2193.50 0.0002 0.29 0.68 14.48 80 0.0131 2193.50 0.0261 2.29 5.38 14.48 80 0.0110 1708.42 0.0002 0.20 0.46 9.73 100 0.0102 1708.42 0.0175 1.54 3.62 9.73 100 0.0066 1026.40 0.0001 0.09 0.22 4.64 150 0.0061 1026.40 0.0084 0.73 1.72 4.64 150 0.0044 690.62 4.3E-05 0.05 0.13 2.71 200 0.0041 690.62 0.0049 0.43 1.01 2.71 200 0.0032 500.60 2.8E-05 0.04 0.08 1.77 250 0.0030 500.60 0.0032 0.28 0.66 1.77 250 0.0011 176.69 7.4E-06 0.01 0.02 0.47 500 0.0011 176.69 0.0008 0.07 0.17 0.47 500 0.0004 62.47 1.9E-06 0.00 0.01 0.12 1000 0.0004 62.47 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.12 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0315 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0686 0.1825 20.08 47.17 20 0.0000 5528.38 0.0048 2.62 6.17 97.87 20 0.0601 0.1342 14.76 34.68 30 0.0000 4845.41 0.0035 1.93 4.53 71.96 30 0.0502 0.0866 9.53 22.39 40 0.0000 4048.28 0.0023 1.25 2.93 46.45 40 0.0424 0.0604 6.64 15.60 50 0.0000 3418.07 0.0016 0.87 2.04 32.37 50 0.0362 0.0444 4.89 11.49 60 0.0000 2918.05 0.0012 0.64 1.50 23.83 60 0.0272 0.0270 2.97 6.98 80 0.0000 2193.50 0.0007 0.39 0.91 14.48 80 0.0212 0.0181 2.00 4.69 100 0.0000 1708.42 0.0005 0.26 0.61 9.73 100 0.0127 0.0087 0.95 2.24 150 0.0000 1026.40 0.0002 0.12 0.29 4.64 150 0.0086 0.0051 0.56 1.31 200 0.0000 690.62 0.0001 0.07 0.17 2.71 200 0.0062 0.0033 0.36 0.85 250 0.0000 500.60 0.0001 0.05 0.11 1.77 250 0.0022 0.0009 0.10 0.23 500 0.0000 176.69 0.0 0.01 0.03 0.47 500 0.0008 0.0002 0.02 0.06 1000 0.0000 62.47 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.12 1000



## D-77

## Facility G-02 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Burbank Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 5528.38 0.0000 0.00 0.00 97.87 20 0.0455 5528.38 0.2424 21.31 50.06 97.87 20 0.0000 4845.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.96 30 0.0399 4845.41 0.1783 15.67 36.81 71.96 30 0.0000 4048.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 46.45 40 0.0333 4048.28 0.1151 10.11 23.76 46.45 40 0.0000 3418.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 32.37 50 0.0281 3418.07 0.0802 7.05 16.56 32.37 50 0.0000 2918.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 23.83 60 0.0240 2918.05 0.0590 5.19 12.19 23.83 60 0.0000 2193.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 14.48 80 0.0181 2193.50 0.0359 3.15 7.41 14.48 80 0.0000 1708.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.73 100 0.0141 1708.42 0.0241 2.12 4.98 9.73 100 0.0000 1026.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.64 150 0.0085 1026.40 0.0115 1.01 2.37 4.64 150 0.0000 690.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.71 200 0.0057 690.62 0.0067 0.59 1.39 2.71 200 0.0000 500.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.77 250 0.0041 500.60 0.0044 0.39 0.91 1.77 250 0.0000 176.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.47 500 0.0015 176.69 0.0012 0.10 0.24 0.47 500 0.0000 62.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000 0.0005 62.47 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.12 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.1288 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0677 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0455 0.2528 26.95 63.32 20 0.0000 5528.38 0.0104 5.64 13.25 97.87 20 0.0399 0.1859 19.82 46.55 30 0.0000 4845.41 0.0076 4.15 9.74 71.96 30 0.0333 0.1200 12.79 30.05 40 0.0000 4048.28 0.0049 2.68 6.29 46.45 40 0.0281 0.0836 8.91 20.94 50 0.0000 3418.07 0.0034 1.87 4.38 32.37 50 0.0240 0.0616 6.56 15.42 60 0.0000 2918.05 0.0025 1.37 3.23 23.83 60 0.0181 0.0374 3.99 9.37 80 0.0000 2193.50 0.0015 0.83 1.96 14.48 80 0.0141 0.0251 2.68 6.29 100 0.0000 1708.42 0.0010 0.56 1.32 9.73 100 0.0085 0.0120 1.28 3.00 150 0.0000 1026.40 0.0005 0.27 0.63 4.64 150 0.0057 0.0070 0.75 1.75 200 0.0000 690.62 0.0003 0.16 0.37 2.71 200 0.0041 0.0046 0.49 1.15 250 0.0000 500.60 0.0002 0.10 0.24 1.77 250 0.0015 0.0012 0.13 0.30 500 0.0000 176.69 5.0E-05 0.03 0.06 0.47 500 0.0005 0.0003 0.03 0.08 1000 0.0000 62.47 1.3E-05 0.01 0.02 0.12 1000



## D-78

## Facility G-02 - 94% Perc

Anaheim Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 5444.38 0.0000 0.00 0.00 125.69 20 0.0766 5444.38 0.5318 46.75 109.83 125.69 20 0.0000 4844.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 96.66 30 0.0682 4844.11 0.4090 35.95 84.46 96.66 30 0.0000 4046.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 62.33 40 0.0570 4046.70 0.2637 23.18 54.46 62.33 40 0.0000 3416.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 43.33 50 0.0481 3416.34 0.1833 16.12 37.86 43.33 50 0.0000 2916.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 31.84 60 0.0410 2916.25 0.1347 11.84 27.82 31.84 60 0.0000 2191.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.26 80 0.0308 2191.72 0.0815 7.16 16.83 19.26 80 0.0000 1706.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.90 100 0.0240 1706.75 0.0546 4.80 11.27 12.90 100 0.0000 1025.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.11 150 0.0144 1025.07 0.0259 2.27 5.34 6.11 150 0.0000 689.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.55 200 0.0097 689.56 0.0150 1.32 3.10 3.55 200 0.0000 499.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.32 250 0.0070 499.75 0.0098 0.86 2.03 2.32 250 0.0000 176.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.60 500 0.0025 176.33 0.0025 0.22 0.52 0.60 500 0.0000 62.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.16 1000 0.0009 62.42 0.0007 0.06 0.14 0.16 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0766 0.5318 46.75 109.83 20 0.0000 5444.38 0.0000 0.00 0.00 125.69 20 0.0682 0.4090 35.95 84.46 30 0.0000 4844.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 96.66 30 0.0570 0.2637 23.18 54.46 40 0.0000 4046.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 62.33 40 0.0481 0.1833 16.12 37.86 50 0.0000 3416.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 43.33 50 0.0410 0.1347 11.84 27.82 60 0.0000 2916.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 31.84 60 0.0308 0.0815 7.16 16.83 80 0.0000 2191.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.26 80 0.0240 0.0546 4.80 11.27 100 0.0000 1706.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.90 100 0.0144 0.0259 2.27 5.34 150 0.0000 1025.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.11 150 0.0097 0.0150 1.32 3.10 200 0.0000 689.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.55 200 0.0070 0.0098 0.86 2.03 250 0.0000 499.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.32 250 0.0025 0.0025 0.22 0.52 500 0.0000 176.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.60 500 0.0009 0.0007 0.06 0.14 1000 0.0000 62.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.16 1000



## D-79

## Facility G-02 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Anaheim Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0749 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0394 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0291 5444.38 0.0017 2.11 4.95 125.69 20 0.0448 5444.38 0.3114 27.37 64.29 125.69 20 0.0259 4844.11 0.0013 1.62 3.81 96.66 30 0.0399 4844.11 0.2394 21.05 49.44 96.66 30 0.0216 4046.70 0.0008 1.05 2.46 62.33 40 0.0333 4046.70 0.1544 13.57 31.88 62.33 40 0.0183 3416.34 0.0006 0.73 1.71 43.33 50 0.0281 3416.34 0.1073 9.44 22.16 43.33 50 0.0156 2916.25 0.0004 0.53 1.25 31.84 60 0.0240 2916.25 0.0789 6.93 16.29 31.84 60 0.0117 2191.72 0.0003 0.32 0.76 19.26 80 0.0180 2191.72 0.0477 4.19 9.85 19.26 80 0.0091 1706.75 0.0002 0.22 0.51 12.90 100 0.0141 1706.75 0.0320 2.81 6.60 12.90 100 0.0055 1025.07 0.0001 0.10 0.24 6.11 150 0.0084 1025.07 0.0151 1.33 3.13 6.11 150 0.0037 689.56 4.7E-05 0.06 0.14 3.55 200 0.0057 689.56 0.0088 0.77 1.82 3.55 200 0.0027 499.75 3.0E-05 0.04 0.09 2.32 250 0.0041 499.75 0.0057 0.51 1.19 2.32 250 0.0009 176.33 7.9E-06 0.01 0.02 0.60 500 0.0015 176.33 0.0015 0.13 0.31 0.60 500 0.0003 62.42 2.1E-06 0.00 0.01 0.16 1000 0.0005 62.42 0.0004 0.03 0.08 0.16 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0740 0.3130 29.48 69.25 20 0.0000 5444.38 0.0000 0.00 0.00 125.69 20 0.0658 0.2407 22.67 53.25 30 0.0000 4844.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 96.66 30 0.0550 0.1552 14.62 34.34 40 0.0000 4046.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 62.33 40 0.0464 0.1079 10.16 23.87 50 0.0000 3416.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 43.33 50 0.0396 0.0793 7.47 17.54 60 0.0000 2916.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 31.84 60 0.0298 0.0480 4.52 10.61 80 0.0000 2191.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.26 80 0.0232 0.0321 3.03 7.11 100 0.0000 1706.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.90 100 0.0139 0.0152 1.43 3.37 150 0.0000 1025.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.11 150 0.0094 0.0088 0.83 1.96 200 0.0000 689.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.55 200 0.0068 0.0058 0.54 1.28 250 0.0000 499.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.32 250 0.0024 0.0015 0.14 0.33 500 0.0000 176.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.60 500 0.0008 0.0004 0.04 0.09 1000 0.0000 62.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.16 1000



## D-80

## Facility G-02 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Anaheim Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0898 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1198 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0630 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0349 5444.38 0.0020 2.53 5.95 125.69 20 0.0326 5444.38 0.2262 19.89 46.72 125.69 20 0.0311 4844.11 0.0015 1.95 4.57 96.66 30 0.0290 4844.11 0.1740 15.29 35.93 96.66 30 0.0260 4046.70 0.0010 1.25 2.95 62.33 40 0.0242 4046.70 0.1122 9.86 23.17 62.33 40 0.0219 3416.34 0.0007 0.87 2.05 43.33 50 0.0205 3416.34 0.0780 6.86 16.11 43.33 50 0.0187 2916.25 0.0005 0.64 1.51 31.84 60 0.0175 2916.25 0.0573 5.04 11.83 31.84 60 0.0141 2191.72 0.0003 0.39 0.91 19.26 80 0.0131 2191.72 0.0347 3.05 7.16 19.26 80 0.0109 1706.75 0.0002 0.26 0.61 12.90 100 0.0102 1706.75 0.0232 2.04 4.79 12.90 100 0.0066 1025.07 0.0001 0.12 0.29 6.11 150 0.0061 1025.07 0.0110 0.97 2.27 6.11 150 0.0044 689.56 0.0001 0.07 0.17 3.55 200 0.0041 689.56 0.0064 0.56 1.32 3.55 200 0.0032 499.75 3.7E-05 0.05 0.11 2.32 250 0.0030 499.75 0.0042 0.37 0.86 2.32 250 0.0011 176.33 9.5E-06 0.01 0.03 0.60 500 0.0011 176.33 0.0011 0.09 0.22 0.60 500 0.0004 62.42 2.5E-06 0.00 0.01 0.16 1000 0.0004 62.42 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.16 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0315 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0675 0.2344 25.79 60.58 20 0.0000 5444.38 0.0062 3.37 7.92 125.69 20 0.0601 0.1803 19.83 46.59 30 0.0000 4844.11 0.0048 2.59 6.09 96.66 30 0.0502 0.1162 12.79 30.04 40 0.0000 4046.70 0.0031 1.67 3.93 62.33 40 0.0424 0.0808 8.89 20.89 50 0.0000 3416.34 0.0021 1.16 2.73 43.33 50 0.0362 0.0594 6.53 15.35 60 0.0000 2916.25 0.0016 0.85 2.01 31.84 60 0.0272 0.0359 3.95 9.28 80 0.0000 2191.72 0.0009 0.52 1.21 19.26 80 0.0212 0.0241 2.65 6.22 100 0.0000 1706.75 0.0006 0.35 0.81 12.90 100 0.0127 0.0114 1.25 2.95 150 0.0000 1025.07 0.0003 0.16 0.38 6.11 150 0.0086 0.0066 0.73 1.71 200 0.0000 689.56 0.0002 0.10 0.22 3.55 200 0.0062 0.0043 0.48 1.12 250 0.0000 499.75 0.0001 0.06 0.15 2.32 250 0.0022 0.0011 0.12 0.29 500 0.0000 176.33 3.0E-05 0.02 0.04 0.60 500 0.0008 0.0003 0.03 0.08 1000 0.0000 62.42 7.9E-06 0.00 0.01 0.16 1000



## D-81

## Facility G-02 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Anaheim Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 5444.38 0.0000 0.00 0.00 125.69 20 0.0448 5444.38 0.3114 27.37 64.29 125.69 20 0.0000 4844.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 96.66 30 0.0399 4844.11 0.2394 21.05 49.44 96.66 30 0.0000 4046.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 62.33 40 0.0333 4046.70 0.1544 13.57 31.88 62.33 40 0.0000 3416.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 43.33 50 0.0281 3416.34 0.1073 9.44 22.16 43.33 50 0.0000 2916.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 31.84 60 0.0240 2916.25 0.0789 6.93 16.29 31.84 60 0.0000 2191.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.26 80 0.0180 2191.72 0.0477 4.19 9.85 19.26 80 0.0000 1706.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.90 100 0.0141 1706.75 0.0320 2.81 6.60 12.90 100 0.0000 1025.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.11 150 0.0084 1025.07 0.0151 1.33 3.13 6.11 150 0.0000 689.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.55 200 0.0057 689.56 0.0088 0.77 1.82 3.55 200 0.0000 499.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.32 250 0.0041 499.75 0.0057 0.51 1.19 2.32 250 0.0000 176.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.60 500 0.0015 176.33 0.0015 0.13 0.31 0.60 500 0.0000 62.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.16 1000 0.0005 62.42 0.0004 0.03 0.08 0.16 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.1288 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0677 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0448 0.3246 34.61 81.31 20 0.0000 5444.38 0.0133 7.24 17.02 125.69 20 0.0399 0.2497 26.62 62.53 30 0.0000 4844.11 0.0102 5.57 13.09 96.66 30 0.0333 0.1610 17.16 40.32 40 0.0000 4046.70 0.0066 3.59 8.44 62.33 40 0.0281 0.1119 11.93 28.03 50 0.0000 3416.34 0.0046 2.50 5.87 43.33 50 0.0240 0.0822 8.77 20.60 60 0.0000 2916.25 0.0034 1.84 4.31 31.84 60 0.0180 0.0497 5.30 12.46 80 0.0000 2191.72 0.0020 1.11 2.61 19.26 80 0.0141 0.0333 3.55 8.35 100 0.0000 1706.75 0.0014 0.74 1.75 12.90 100 0.0084 0.0158 1.68 3.95 150 0.0000 1025.07 0.0006 0.35 0.83 6.11 150 0.0057 0.0092 0.98 2.30 200 0.0000 689.56 0.0004 0.20 0.48 3.55 200 0.0041 0.0060 0.64 1.50 250 0.0000 499.75 0.0002 0.13 0.31 2.32 250 0.0015 0.0015 0.17 0.39 500 0.0000 176.33 0.0001 0.03 0.08 0.60 500 0.0005 0.0004 0.04 0.10 1000 0.0000 62.42 1.7E-05 0.01 0.02 0.16 1000



## D-82

## Facility G-02 - 94% Perc

Oakland Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 4685.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 48.31 20 0.0659 4685.59 0.2044 17.97 42.21 48.31 20 0.0000 4028.18 0.0000 0.00 0.00 40.60 30 0.0567 4028.18 0.1718 15.10 35.48 40.60 30 0.0000 3439.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.41 40 0.0484 3439.11 0.1118 9.82 23.08 26.41 40 0.0000 2941.66 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.50 50 0.0414 2941.66 0.0783 6.88 16.17 18.50 50 0.0000 2531.88 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.67 60 0.0356 2531.88 0.0578 5.08 11.94 13.67 60 0.0000 1940.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.35 80 0.0273 1940.79 0.0353 3.11 7.30 8.35 80 0.0000 1529.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.63 100 0.0215 1529.51 0.0238 2.09 4.92 5.63 100 0.0000 931.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.70 150 0.0131 931.70 0.0114 1.00 2.36 2.70 150 0.0000 629.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 200 0.0089 629.79 0.0067 0.59 1.38 1.58 200 0.0000 457.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.04 250 0.0064 457.07 0.0044 0.39 0.91 1.04 250 0.0000 160.49 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.28 500 0.0023 160.49 0.0012 0.10 0.24 0.28 500 0.0000 55.89 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0008 55.89 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0659 0.2044 17.97 42.21 20 0.0000 4685.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 48.31 20 0.0567 0.1718 15.10 35.48 30 0.0000 4028.18 0.0000 0.00 0.00 40.60 30 0.0484 0.1118 9.82 23.08 40 0.0000 3439.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.41 40 0.0414 0.0783 6.88 16.17 50 0.0000 2941.66 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.50 50 0.0356 0.0578 5.08 11.94 60 0.0000 2531.88 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.67 60 0.0273 0.0353 3.11 7.30 80 0.0000 1940.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.35 80 0.0215 0.0238 2.09 4.92 100 0.0000 1529.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.63 100 0.0131 0.0114 1.00 2.36 150 0.0000 931.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.70 150 0.0089 0.0067 0.59 1.38 200 0.0000 629.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 200 0.0064 0.0044 0.39 0.91 250 0.0000 457.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.04 250 0.0023 0.0012 0.10 0.24 500 0.0000 160.49 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.28 500 0.0008 0.0003 0.03 0.06 1000 0.0000 55.89 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-83

## Facility G-02 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Oakland Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0749 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0394 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0251 4685.59 0.0006 0.81 1.90 48.31 20 0.0386 4685.59 0.1197 10.52 24.71 48.31 20 0.0216 4028.18 0.0005 0.68 1.60 40.60 30 0.0332 4028.18 0.1006 8.84 20.77 40.60 30 0.0184 3439.11 0.0003 0.44 1.04 26.41 40 0.0283 3439.11 0.0654 5.75 13.51 26.41 40 0.0157 2941.66 0.0002 0.31 0.73 18.50 50 0.0242 2941.66 0.0458 4.03 9.46 18.50 50 0.0135 2531.88 0.0002 0.23 0.54 13.67 60 0.0209 2531.88 0.0339 2.98 6.99 13.67 60 0.0104 1940.79 0.0001 0.14 0.33 8.35 80 0.0160 1940.79 0.0207 1.82 4.27 8.35 80 0.0082 1529.51 0.0001 0.09 0.22 5.63 100 0.0126 1529.51 0.0139 1.23 2.88 5.63 100 0.0050 931.70 3.5E-05 0.05 0.11 2.70 150 0.0077 931.70 0.0067 0.59 1.38 2.70 150 0.0034 629.79 2.1E-05 0.03 0.06 1.58 200 0.0052 629.79 0.0039 0.34 0.81 1.58 200 0.0024 457.07 1.4E-05 0.02 0.04 1.04 250 0.0038 457.07 0.0026 0.23 0.53 1.04 250 0.0009 160.49 3.7E-06 0.00 0.01 0.28 500 0.0013 160.49 0.0007 0.06 0.14 0.28 500 0.0003 55.89 9.2E-07 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0005 55.89 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0637 0.1203 11.33 26.62 20 0.0000 4685.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 48.31 20 0.0547 0.1011 9.52 22.37 30 0.0000 4028.18 0.0000 0.00 0.00 40.60 30 0.0467 0.0658 6.19 14.55 40 0.0000 3439.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.41 40 0.0400 0.0461 4.34 10.19 50 0.0000 2941.66 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.50 50 0.0344 0.0340 3.21 7.53 60 0.0000 2531.88 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.67 60 0.0264 0.0208 1.96 4.60 80 0.0000 1940.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.35 80 0.0208 0.0140 1.32 3.10 100 0.0000 1529.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.63 100 0.0127 0.0067 0.63 1.49 150 0.0000 931.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.70 150 0.0086 0.0039 0.37 0.87 200 0.0000 629.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 200 0.0062 0.0026 0.24 0.57 250 0.0000 457.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.04 250 0.0022 0.0007 0.07 0.15 500 0.0000 160.49 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.28 500 0.0008 0.0002 0.02 0.04 1000 0.0000 55.89 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-84

## Facility G-02 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Oakland Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0898 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1198 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0630 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0301 4685.59 0.0008 0.97 2.29 48.31 20 0.0281 4685.59 0.0870 7.64 17.96 48.31 20 0.0258 4028.18 0.0006 0.82 1.92 40.60 30 0.0241 4028.18 0.0731 6.42 15.09 40.60 30 0.0221 3439.11 0.0004 0.53 1.25 26.41 40 0.0206 3439.11 0.0475 4.18 9.82 26.41 40 0.0189 2941.66 0.0003 0.37 0.88 18.50 50 0.0176 2941.66 0.0333 2.93 6.88 18.50 50 0.0162 2531.88 0.0002 0.28 0.65 13.67 60 0.0152 2531.88 0.0246 2.16 5.08 13.67 60 0.0124 1940.79 0.0001 0.17 0.39 8.35 80 0.0116 1940.79 0.0150 1.32 3.10 8.35 80 0.0098 1529.51 0.0001 0.11 0.27 5.63 100 0.0092 1529.51 0.0101 0.89 2.09 5.63 100 0.0060 931.70 4.3E-05 0.05 0.13 2.70 150 0.0056 931.70 0.0049 0.43 1.00 2.70 150 0.0040 629.79 2.5E-05 0.03 0.07 1.58 200 0.0038 629.79 0.0028 0.25 0.59 1.58 200 0.0029 457.07 1.6E-05 0.02 0.05 1.04 250 0.0027 457.07 0.0019 0.16 0.39 1.04 250 0.0010 160.49 4.4E-06 0.01 0.01 0.28 500 0.0010 160.49 0.0005 0.04 0.10 0.28 500 0.0004 55.89 1.1E-06 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0003 55.89 0.0001 0.01 0.03 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0315 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0581 0.0901 9.91 23.29 20 0.0000 4685.59 0.0024 1.30 3.04 48.31 20 0.0500 0.0757 8.33 19.57 30 0.0000 4028.18 0.0020 1.09 2.56 40.60 30 0.0427 0.0493 5.42 12.73 40 0.0000 3439.11 0.0013 0.71 1.66 26.41 40 0.0365 0.0345 3.80 8.92 50 0.0000 2941.66 0.0009 0.50 1.17 18.50 50 0.0314 0.0255 2.80 6.59 60 0.0000 2531.88 0.0007 0.37 0.86 13.67 60 0.0241 0.0156 1.71 4.02 80 0.0000 1940.79 0.0004 0.22 0.53 8.35 80 0.0190 0.0105 1.16 2.71 100 0.0000 1529.51 0.0003 0.15 0.35 5.63 100 0.0116 0.0050 0.55 1.30 150 0.0000 931.70 0.0001 0.07 0.17 2.70 150 0.0078 0.0029 0.32 0.76 200 0.0000 629.79 0.0001 0.04 0.10 1.58 200 0.0057 0.0019 0.21 0.50 250 0.0000 457.07 0.0001 0.03 0.07 1.04 250 0.0020 0.0005 0.06 0.13 500 0.0000 160.49 1.4E-05 0.01 0.02 0.28 500 0.0007 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 55.89 3.4E-06 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-85

## Facility G-02 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Oakland Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 4685.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 48.31 20 0.0386 4685.59 0.1197 10.52 24.71 48.31 20 0.0000 4028.18 0.0000 0.00 0.00 40.60 30 0.0332 4028.18 0.1006 8.84 20.77 40.60 30 0.0000 3439.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.41 40 0.0283 3439.11 0.0654 5.75 13.51 26.41 40 0.0000 2941.66 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.50 50 0.0242 2941.66 0.0458 4.03 9.46 18.50 50 0.0000 2531.88 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.67 60 0.0209 2531.88 0.0339 2.98 6.99 13.67 60 0.0000 1940.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.35 80 0.0160 1940.79 0.0207 1.82 4.27 8.35 80 0.0000 1529.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.63 100 0.0126 1529.51 0.0139 1.23 2.88 5.63 100 0.0000 931.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.70 150 0.0077 931.70 0.0067 0.59 1.38 2.70 150 0.0000 629.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 200 0.0052 629.79 0.0039 0.34 0.81 1.58 200 0.0000 457.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.04 250 0.0038 457.07 0.0026 0.23 0.53 1.04 250 0.0000 160.49 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.28 500 0.0013 160.49 0.0007 0.06 0.14 0.28 500 0.0000 55.89 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0005 55.89 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.1288 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0677 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0386 0.1248 13.30 31.25 20 0.0000 4685.59 0.0051 2.78 6.54 48.31 20 0.0332 0.1049 11.18 26.27 30 0.0000 4028.18 0.0043 2.34 5.50 40.60 30 0.0283 0.0682 7.27 17.09 40 0.0000 3439.11 0.0028 1.52 3.58 26.41 40 0.0242 0.0478 5.09 11.97 50 0.0000 2941.66 0.0020 1.07 2.50 18.50 50 0.0209 0.0353 3.76 8.84 60 0.0000 2531.88 0.0014 0.79 1.85 13.67 60 0.0160 0.0216 2.30 5.40 80 0.0000 1940.79 0.0009 0.48 1.13 8.35 80 0.0126 0.0145 1.55 3.64 100 0.0000 1529.51 0.0006 0.32 0.76 5.63 100 0.0077 0.0070 0.74 1.75 150 0.0000 931.70 0.0003 0.16 0.37 2.70 150 0.0052 0.0041 0.44 1.02 200 0.0000 629.79 0.0002 0.09 0.21 1.58 200 0.0038 0.0027 0.29 0.67 250 0.0000 457.07 0.0001 0.06 0.14 1.04 250 0.0013 0.0007 0.08 0.18 500 0.0000 160.49 3.0E-05 0.02 0.04 0.28 500 0.0005 0.0002 0.02 0.05 1000 0.0000 55.89 7.4E-06 0.00 0.01 0.07 1000



## D-86

## Facility G-02 - 94% Perc

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0743 5276.51 0.6044 53.13 124.80 142.83 20 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0613 4358.64 0.4992 43.88 103.09 117.98 30 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0514 3649.09 0.4180 36.74 86.31 98.78 40 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0436 3094.79 0.3545 31.16 73.20 83.77 50 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0374 2656.01 0.3042 26.74 62.82 71.89 60 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0284 2017.70 0.2311 20.31 47.72 54.62 80 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0223 1586.22 0.1817 15.97 37.52 42.94 100 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0136 969.72 0.1111 9.76 22.94 26.25 150 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0093 659.99 0.0756 6.64 15.61 17.86 200 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0068 482.19 0.0552 4.85 11.40 13.05 250 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0024 173.33 0.0199 1.75 4.10 4.69 500 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000 0.0009 61.90 0.0071 0.62 1.46 1.68 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0743 0.6044 53.13 124.80 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0613 0.4992 43.88 103.09 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0514 0.4180 36.74 86.31 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0436 0.3545 31.16 73.20 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0374 0.3042 26.74 62.82 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0284 0.2311 20.31 47.72 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0223 0.1817 15.97 37.52 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0136 0.1111 9.76 22.94 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0093 0.0756 6.64 15.61 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0068 0.0552 4.85 11.40 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0024 0.0199 1.75 4.10 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0009 0.0071 0.62 1.46 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000



## D-87

## Facility G-02 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0749 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0394 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0282 5276.51 0.0019 2.40 5.63 142.83 20 0.0435 5276.51 0.3538 31.10 73.06 142.83 20 0.0233 4358.64 0.0015 1.98 4.65 117.98 30 0.0359 4358.64 0.2923 25.69 60.35 117.98 30 0.0195 3649.09 0.0013 1.66 3.89 98.78 40 0.0301 3649.09 0.2447 21.51 50.53 98.78 40 0.0166 3094.79 0.0011 1.40 3.30 83.77 50 0.0255 3094.79 0.2075 18.24 42.85 83.77 50 0.0142 2656.01 0.0009 1.21 2.83 71.89 60 0.0219 2656.01 0.1781 15.65 36.78 71.89 60 0.0108 2017.70 0.0007 0.92 2.15 54.62 80 0.0166 2017.70 0.1353 11.89 27.94 54.62 80 0.0085 1586.22 0.0006 0.72 1.69 42.94 100 0.0131 1586.22 0.1064 9.35 21.96 42.94 100 0.0052 969.72 0.0003 0.44 1.03 26.25 150 0.0080 969.72 0.0650 5.72 13.43 26.25 150 0.0035 659.99 0.0002 0.30 0.70 17.86 200 0.0054 659.99 0.0443 3.89 9.14 17.86 200 0.0026 482.19 0.0002 0.22 0.51 13.05 250 0.0040 482.19 0.0323 2.84 6.68 13.05 250 0.0009 173.33 0.0001 0.08 0.18 4.69 500 0.0014 173.33 0.0116 1.02 2.40 4.69 500 0.0003 61.90 2.2E-05 0.03 0.07 1.68 1000 0.0005 61.90 0.0042 0.36 0.86 1.68 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0717 0.3557 33.50 78.69 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0592 0.2938 27.67 65.00 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0496 0.2460 23.16 54.42 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0420 0.2086 19.65 46.15 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0361 0.1790 16.86 39.61 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0274 0.1360 12.81 30.09 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0215 0.1069 10.07 23.66 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0132 0.0654 6.16 14.46 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0090 0.0445 4.19 9.84 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0066 0.0325 3.06 7.19 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0024 0.0117 1.10 2.58 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0008 0.0042 0.39 0.92 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000



## D-88

## Facility G-02 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0898 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1198 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0630 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0338 5276.51 0.0023 2.88 6.76 142.83 20 0.0316 5276.51 0.2571 22.60 53.09 142.83 20 0.0280 4358.64 0.0019 2.38 5.58 117.98 30 0.0261 4358.64 0.2124 18.67 43.85 117.98 30 0.0234 3649.09 0.0016 1.99 4.67 98.78 40 0.0219 3649.09 0.1778 15.63 36.71 98.78 40 0.0199 3094.79 0.0013 1.69 3.96 83.77 50 0.0185 3094.79 0.1508 13.25 31.14 83.77 50 0.0170 2656.01 0.0011 1.45 3.40 71.89 60 0.0159 2656.01 0.1294 11.38 26.72 71.89 60 0.0129 2017.70 0.0009 1.10 2.58 54.62 80 0.0121 2017.70 0.0983 8.64 20.30 54.62 80 0.0102 1586.22 0.0007 0.86 2.03 42.94 100 0.0095 1586.22 0.0773 6.79 15.96 42.94 100 0.0062 969.72 0.0004 0.53 1.24 26.25 150 0.0058 969.72 0.0472 4.15 9.76 26.25 150 0.0042 659.99 0.0003 0.36 0.85 17.86 200 0.0040 659.99 0.0322 2.83 6.64 17.86 200 0.0031 482.19 0.0002 0.26 0.62 13.05 250 0.0029 482.19 0.0235 2.07 4.85 13.05 250 0.0011 173.33 0.0001 0.09 0.22 4.69 500 0.0010 173.33 0.0084 0.74 1.74 4.69 500 0.0004 61.90 2.6E-05 0.03 0.08 1.68 1000 0.0004 61.90 0.0030 0.27 0.62 1.68 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0315 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0655 0.2664 29.30 68.84 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0070 3.83 9.00 142.83 20 0.0541 0.2200 24.21 56.87 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0058 3.16 7.43 117.98 30 0.0453 0.1842 20.27 47.61 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0049 2.65 6.22 98.78 40 0.0384 0.1562 17.19 40.38 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0041 2.25 5.28 83.77 50 0.0329 0.1341 14.75 34.65 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0035 1.93 4.53 71.89 60 0.0250 0.1019 11.21 26.32 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0027 1.46 3.44 54.62 80 0.0197 0.0801 8.81 20.70 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0021 1.15 2.71 42.94 100 0.0120 0.0490 5.39 12.65 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0013 0.70 1.65 26.25 150 0.0082 0.0333 3.67 8.61 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0009 0.48 1.13 17.86 200 0.0060 0.0243 2.68 6.29 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0006 0.35 0.82 13.05 250 0.0022 0.0088 0.96 2.26 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0002 0.13 0.30 4.69 500 0.0008 0.0031 0.34 0.81 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0001 0.04 0.11 1.68 1000



## D-89

## Facility G-02 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0435 5276.51 0.3538 31.10 73.06 142.83 20 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0359 4358.64 0.2923 25.69 60.35 117.98 30 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0301 3649.09 0.2447 21.51 50.53 98.78 40 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0255 3094.79 0.2075 18.24 42.85 83.77 50 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0219 2656.01 0.1781 15.65 36.78 71.89 60 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0166 2017.70 0.1353 11.89 27.94 54.62 80 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0131 1586.22 0.1064 9.35 21.96 42.94 100 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0080 969.72 0.0650 5.72 13.43 26.25 150 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0054 659.99 0.0443 3.89 9.14 17.86 200 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0040 482.19 0.0323 2.84 6.68 13.05 250 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0014 173.33 0.0116 1.02 2.40 4.69 500 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000 0.0005 61.90 0.0042 0.36 0.86 1.68 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.1288 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0677 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0435 0.3689 39.33 92.40 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0151 8.23 19.34 142.83 20 0.0359 0.3047 32.49 76.33 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0125 6.80 15.97 117.98 30 0.0301 0.2551 27.20 63.90 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0104 5.69 13.37 98.78 40 0.0255 0.2164 23.07 54.19 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0089 4.83 11.34 83.77 50 0.0219 0.1857 19.80 46.51 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0076 4.14 9.73 71.89 60 0.0166 0.1411 15.04 35.33 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0058 3.15 7.40 54.62 80 0.0131 0.1109 11.82 27.78 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0045 2.47 5.81 42.94 100 0.0080 0.0678 7.23 16.98 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0028 1.51 3.55 26.25 150 0.0054 0.0461 4.92 11.56 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0019 1.03 2.42 17.86 200 0.0040 0.0337 3.59 8.44 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0014 0.75 1.77 13.05 250 0.0014 0.0121 1.29 3.04 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0005 0.27 0.64 4.69 500 0.0005 0.0043 0.46 1.08 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0002 0.10 0.23 1.68 1000



## D-90

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Multicomponent Impacts - Brake Cleaners - Acute Facility G-02 - 94% Perc

Fresno Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 2850.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 72.47 20 0.0401 2850.30 0.3067 26.96 63.32 72.47 20 0.0000 2669.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 57.46 30 0.0376 2669.99 0.2431 21.37 50.21 57.46 30 0.0000 2147.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 37.02 40 0.0302 2147.67 0.1566 13.77 32.35 37.02 40 0.0000 1809.24 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.71 50 0.0255 1809.24 0.1088 9.56 22.47 25.71 50 0.0000 1526.84 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.87 60 0.0215 1526.84 0.0798 7.02 16.49 18.87 60 0.0000 1127.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.40 80 0.0159 1127.36 0.0482 4.24 9.96 11.40 80 0.0000 865.93 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.62 100 0.0122 865.93 0.0322 2.83 6.66 7.62 100 0.0000 507.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.60 150 0.0071 507.64 0.0152 1.34 3.15 3.60 150 0.0000 335.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.09 200 0.0047 335.73 0.0088 0.78 1.83 2.09 200 0.0000 240.23 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.36 250 0.0034 240.23 0.0058 0.51 1.19 1.36 250 0.0000 81.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.35 500 0.0011 81.50 0.0015 0.13 0.31 0.35 500 0.0000 27.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000 0.0004 27.65 0.0004 0.03 0.08 0.09 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0401 0.3067 26.96 63.32 20 0.0000 2850.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 72.47 20 0.0376 0.2431 21.37 50.21 30 0.0000 2669.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 57.46 30 0.0302 0.1566 13.77 32.35 40 0.0000 2147.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 37.02 40 0.0255 0.1088 9.56 22.47 50 0.0000 1809.24 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.71 50 0.0215 0.0798 7.02 16.49 60 0.0000 1526.84 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.87 60 0.0159 0.0482 4.24 9.96 80 0.0000 1127.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.40 80 0.0122 0.0322 2.83 6.66 100 0.0000 865.93 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.62 100 0.0071 0.0152 1.34 3.15 150 0.0000 507.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.60 150 0.0047 0.0088 0.78 1.83 200 0.0000 335.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.09 200 0.0034 0.0058 0.51 1.19 250 0.0000 240.23 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.36 250 0.0011 0.0015 0.13 0.31 500 0.0000 81.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.35 500 0.0004 0.0004 0.03 0.08 1000 0.0000 27.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000 

## D-91

## Facility G-02 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Fresno Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0749 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0394 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0152 2850.30 0.0010 1.22 2.86 72.47 20 0.0235 2850.30 0.1795 15.78 37.07 72.47 20 0.0143 2669.99 0.0008 0.96 2.26 57.46 30 0.0220 2669.99 0.1423 12.51 29.39 57.46 30 0.0115 2147.67 0.0005 0.62 1.46 37.02 40 0.0177 2147.67 0.0917 8.06 18.94 37.02 40 0.0097 1809.24 0.0003 0.43 1.01 25.71 50 0.0149 1809.24 0.0637 5.60 13.15 25.71 50 0.0082 1526.84 0.0002 0.32 0.74 18.87 60 0.0126 1526.84 0.0467 4.11 9.65 18.87 60 0.0060 1127.36 0.0001 0.19 0.45 11.40 80 0.0093 1127.36 0.0282 2.48 5.83 11.40 80 0.0046 865.93 0.0001 0.13 0.30 7.62 100 0.0071 865.93 0.0189 1.66 3.90 7.62 100 0.0027 507.64 4.7E-05 0.06 0.14 3.60 150 0.0042 507.64 0.0089 0.78 1.84 3.60 150 0.0018 335.73 2.7E-05 0.04 0.08 2.09 200 0.0028 335.73 0.0052 0.46 1.07 2.09 200 0.0013 240.23 1.8E-05 0.02 0.05 1.36 250 0.0020 240.23 0.0034 0.30 0.70 1.36 250 0.0004 81.50 4.6E-06 0.01 0.01 0.35 500 0.0007 81.50 0.0009 0.08 0.18 0.35 500 0.0001 27.65 1.2E-06 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000 0.0002 27.65 0.0002 0.02 0.05 0.09 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0387 0.1805 17.00 39.93 20 0.0000 2850.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 72.47 20 0.0363 0.1431 13.48 31.66 30 0.0000 2669.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 57.46 30 0.0292 0.0922 8.68 20.40 40 0.0000 2147.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 37.02 40 0.0246 0.0640 6.03 14.16 50 0.0000 1809.24 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.71 50 0.0207 0.0470 4.43 10.40 60 0.0000 1526.84 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.87 60 0.0153 0.0284 2.67 6.28 80 0.0000 1127.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.40 80 0.0118 0.0190 1.79 4.20 100 0.0000 865.93 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.62 100 0.0069 0.0090 0.84 1.98 150 0.0000 507.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.60 150 0.0046 0.0052 0.49 1.15 200 0.0000 335.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.09 200 0.0033 0.0034 0.32 0.75 250 0.0000 240.23 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.36 250 0.0011 0.0009 0.08 0.19 500 0.0000 81.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.35 500 0.0004 0.0002 0.02 0.05 1000 0.0000 27.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000



## D-92

## Facility G-02 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Fresno Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0898 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1198 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0630 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0183 2850.30 0.0011 1.46 3.43 72.47 20 0.0171 2850.30 0.1304 11.47 26.94 72.47 20 0.0171 2669.99 0.0009 1.16 2.72 57.46 30 0.0160 2669.99 0.1034 9.09 21.36 57.46 30 0.0138 2147.67 0.0006 0.75 1.75 37.02 40 0.0129 2147.67 0.0666 5.86 13.76 37.02 40 0.0116 1809.24 0.0004 0.52 1.22 25.71 50 0.0108 1809.24 0.0463 4.07 9.56 25.71 50 0.0098 1526.84 0.0003 0.38 0.89 18.87 60 0.0091 1526.84 0.0340 2.99 7.01 18.87 60 0.0072 1127.36 0.0002 0.23 0.54 11.40 80 0.0068 1127.36 0.0205 1.80 4.24 11.40 80 0.0056 865.93 0.0001 0.15 0.36 7.62 100 0.0052 865.93 0.0137 1.21 2.83 7.62 100 0.0033 507.64 0.0001 0.07 0.17 3.60 150 0.0030 507.64 0.0065 0.57 1.34 3.60 150 0.0022 335.73 3.3E-05 0.04 0.10 2.09 200 0.0020 335.73 0.0038 0.33 0.78 2.09 200 0.0015 240.23 2.1E-05 0.03 0.06 1.36 250 0.0014 240.23 0.0024 0.22 0.51 1.36 250 0.0005 81.50 5.5E-06 0.01 0.02 0.35 500 0.0005 81.50 0.0006 0.06 0.13 0.35 500 0.0002 27.65 1.4E-06 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000 0.0002 27.65 0.0002 0.01 0.03 0.09 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0315 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0354 0.1352 14.87 34.93 20 0.0000 2850.30 0.0036 1.94 4.57 72.47 20 0.0331 0.1072 11.79 27.70 30 0.0000 2669.99 0.0028 1.54 3.62 57.46 30 0.0266 0.0690 7.60 17.84 40 0.0000 2147.67 0.0018 0.99 2.33 37.02 40 0.0224 0.0479 5.28 12.39 50 0.0000 1809.24 0.0013 0.69 1.62 25.71 50 0.0189 0.0352 3.87 9.10 60 0.0000 1526.84 0.0009 0.51 1.19 18.87 60 0.0140 0.0213 2.34 5.49 80 0.0000 1127.36 0.0006 0.31 0.72 11.40 80 0.0107 0.0142 1.56 3.67 100 0.0000 865.93 0.0004 0.20 0.48 7.62 100 0.0063 0.0067 0.74 1.74 150 0.0000 507.64 0.0002 0.10 0.23 3.60 150 0.0042 0.0039 0.43 1.01 200 0.0000 335.73 0.0001 0.06 0.13 2.09 200 0.0030 0.0025 0.28 0.66 250 0.0000 240.23 0.0001 0.04 0.09 1.36 250 0.0010 0.0007 0.07 0.17 500 0.0000 81.50 1.7E-05 0.01 0.02 0.35 500 0.0003 0.0002 0.02 0.04 1000 0.0000 27.65 4.4E-06 0.00 0.01 0.09 1000



## D-93

## Facility G-02 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Fresno Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 2850.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 72.47 20 0.0235 2850.30 0.1795 15.78 37.07 72.47 20 0.0000 2669.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 57.46 30 0.0220 2669.99 0.1423 12.51 29.39 57.46 30 0.0000 2147.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 37.02 40 0.0177 2147.67 0.0917 8.06 18.94 37.02 40 0.0000 1809.24 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.71 50 0.0149 1809.24 0.0637 5.60 13.15 25.71 50 0.0000 1526.84 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.87 60 0.0126 1526.84 0.0467 4.11 9.65 18.87 60 0.0000 1127.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.40 80 0.0093 1127.36 0.0282 2.48 5.83 11.40 80 0.0000 865.93 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.62 100 0.0071 865.93 0.0189 1.66 3.90 7.62 100 0.0000 507.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.60 150 0.0042 507.64 0.0089 0.78 1.84 3.60 150 0.0000 335.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.09 200 0.0028 335.73 0.0052 0.46 1.07 2.09 200 0.0000 240.23 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.36 250 0.0020 240.23 0.0034 0.30 0.70 1.36 250 0.0000 81.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.35 500 0.0007 81.50 0.0009 0.08 0.18 0.35 500 0.0000 27.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000 0.0002 27.65 0.0002 0.02 0.05 0.09 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.1288 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0677 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0235 0.1872 19.96 46.88 20 0.0000 2850.30 0.0077 4.18 9.81 72.47 20 0.0220 0.1484 15.82 37.17 30 0.0000 2669.99 0.0061 3.31 7.78 57.46 30 0.0177 0.0956 10.19 23.95 40 0.0000 2147.67 0.0039 2.13 5.01 37.02 40 0.0149 0.0664 7.08 16.63 50 0.0000 1809.24 0.0027 1.48 3.48 25.71 50 0.0126 0.0487 5.20 12.21 60 0.0000 1526.84 0.0020 1.09 2.55 18.87 60 0.0093 0.0294 3.14 7.38 80 0.0000 1127.36 0.0012 0.66 1.54 11.40 80 0.0071 0.0197 2.10 4.93 100 0.0000 865.93 0.0008 0.44 1.03 7.62 100 0.0042 0.0093 0.99 2.33 150 0.0000 507.64 0.0004 0.21 0.49 3.60 150 0.0028 0.0054 0.58 1.35 200 0.0000 335.73 0.0002 0.12 0.28 2.09 200 0.0020 0.0035 0.37 0.88 250 0.0000 240.23 0.0001 0.08 0.18 1.36 250 0.0007 0.0009 0.10 0.23 500 0.0000 81.50 3.7E-05 0.02 0.05 0.35 500 0.0002 0.0002 0.02 0.06 1000 0.0000 27.65 9.5E-06 0.01 0.01 0.09 1000



## D-94

## Facility G-02 - 94% Perc

Concord Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 5532.86 0.0000 0.00 0.00 97.28 20 0.0779 5532.86 0.4116 36.18 85.00 97.28 20 0.0000 4845.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.32 30 0.0682 4845.41 0.3018 26.53 62.32 71.32 30 0.0000 4048.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 46.19 40 0.0570 4048.28 0.1954 17.18 40.36 46.19 40 0.0000 3418.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 32.27 50 0.0481 3418.07 0.1365 12.00 28.20 32.27 50 0.0000 2918.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 23.83 60 0.0411 2918.05 0.1008 8.86 20.82 23.83 60 0.0000 2193.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 14.54 80 0.0309 2193.50 0.0615 5.41 12.70 14.54 80 0.0000 1708.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.80 100 0.0240 1708.42 0.0415 3.65 8.56 9.80 100 0.0000 1026.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.70 150 0.0144 1026.40 0.0199 1.75 4.11 4.70 150 0.0000 690.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.75 200 0.0097 690.62 0.0116 1.02 2.40 2.75 200 0.0000 500.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.81 250 0.0070 500.60 0.0077 0.67 1.58 1.81 250 0.0000 176.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.48 500 0.0025 176.69 0.0020 0.18 0.42 0.48 500 0.0000 62.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.14 1000 0.0009 62.47 0.0006 0.05 0.12 0.14 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0779 0.4116 36.18 85.00 20 0.0000 5532.86 0.0000 0.00 0.00 97.28 20 0.0682 0.3018 26.53 62.32 30 0.0000 4845.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.32 30 0.0570 0.1954 17.18 40.36 40 0.0000 4048.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 46.19 40 0.0481 0.1365 12.00 28.20 50 0.0000 3418.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 32.27 50 0.0411 0.1008 8.86 20.82 60 0.0000 2918.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 23.83 60 0.0309 0.0615 5.41 12.70 80 0.0000 2193.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 14.54 80 0.0240 0.0415 3.65 8.56 100 0.0000 1708.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.80 100 0.0144 0.0199 1.75 4.11 150 0.0000 1026.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.70 150 0.0097 0.0116 1.02 2.40 200 0.0000 690.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.75 200 0.0070 0.0077 0.67 1.58 250 0.0000 500.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.81 250 0.0025 0.0020 0.18 0.42 500 0.0000 176.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.48 500 0.0009 0.0006 0.05 0.12 1000 0.0000 62.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.14 1000



## D-95

## Facility G-02 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Concord Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0749 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0296 5532.86 0.0013 1.63 3.83 97.28 20 0.0456 5532.86 0.2410 21.18 49.76 97.28 20 0.0259 4845.41 0.0009 1.20 2.81 71.32 30 0.0399 4845.41 0.1767 15.53 36.48 71.32 30 0.0217 4048.28 0.0006 0.77 1.82 46.19 40 0.0333 4048.28 0.1144 10.06 23.63 46.19 40 0.0183 3418.07 0.0004 0.54 1.27 32.27 50 0.0281 3418.07 0.0799 7.03 16.51 32.27 50 0.0156 2918.05 0.0003 0.40 0.94 23.83 60 0.0240 2918.05 0.0590 5.19 12.19 23.83 60 0.0117 2193.50 0.0002 0.24 0.57 14.54 80 0.0181 2193.50 0.0360 3.17 7.44 14.54 80 0.0091 1708.42 0.0001 0.16 0.39 9.80 100 0.0141 1708.42 0.0243 2.13 5.01 9.80 100 0.0055 1026.40 0.0001 0.08 0.19 4.70 150 0.0085 1026.40 0.0116 1.02 2.40 4.70 150 0.0037 690.62 3.6E-05 0.05 0.11 2.75 200 0.0057 690.62 0.0068 0.60 1.41 2.75 200 0.0027 500.60 2.4E-05 0.03 0.07 1.81 250 0.0041 500.60 0.0045 0.39 0.93 1.81 250 0.0009 176.69 6.3E-06 0.01 0.02 0.48 500 0.0015 176.69 0.0012 0.10 0.25 0.48 500 0.0003 62.47 1.8E-06 0.00 0.01 0.14 1000 0.0005 62.47 0.0003 0.03 0.07 0.14 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0752 0.2423 22.81 53.59 20 0.0000 5532.86 0.0000 0.00 0.00 97.28 20 0.0658 0.1776 16.73 39.29 30 0.0000 4845.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.32 30 0.0550 0.1150 10.83 25.45 40 0.0000 4048.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 46.19 40 0.0464 0.0804 7.57 17.78 50 0.0000 3418.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 32.27 50 0.0396 0.0593 5.59 13.13 60 0.0000 2918.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 23.83 60 0.0298 0.0362 3.41 8.01 80 0.0000 2193.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 14.54 80 0.0232 0.0244 2.30 5.40 100 0.0000 1708.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.80 100 0.0139 0.0117 1.10 2.59 150 0.0000 1026.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.70 150 0.0094 0.0068 0.64 1.52 200 0.0000 690.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.75 200 0.0068 0.0045 0.42 1.00 250 0.0000 500.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.81 250 0.0024 0.0012 0.11 0.26 500 0.0000 176.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.48 500 0.0008 0.0003 0.03 0.08 1000 0.0000 62.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.14 1000



## D-96

## Facility G-02 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Concord Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0898 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1198 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0630 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0355 5532.86 0.0015 1.96 4.60 97.28 20 0.0331 5532.86 0.1751 15.39 36.16 97.28 20 0.0311 4845.41 0.0011 1.44 3.37 71.32 30 0.0290 4845.41 0.1284 11.28 26.51 71.32 30 0.0260 4048.28 0.0007 0.93 2.18 46.19 40 0.0242 4048.28 0.0831 7.31 17.17 46.19 40 0.0219 3418.07 0.0005 0.65 1.53 32.27 50 0.0205 3418.07 0.0581 5.11 11.99 32.27 50 0.0187 2918.05 0.0004 0.48 1.13 23.83 60 0.0175 2918.05 0.0429 3.77 8.86 23.83 60 0.0141 2193.50 0.0002 0.29 0.69 14.54 80 0.0131 2193.50 0.0262 2.30 5.40 14.54 80 0.0110 1708.42 0.0002 0.20 0.46 9.80 100 0.0102 1708.42 0.0176 1.55 3.64 9.80 100 0.0066 1026.40 0.0001 0.09 0.22 4.70 150 0.0061 1026.40 0.0085 0.74 1.75 4.70 150 0.0044 690.62 4.3E-05 0.06 0.13 2.75 200 0.0041 690.62 0.0050 0.44 1.02 2.75 200 0.0032 500.60 2.9E-05 0.04 0.09 1.81 250 0.0030 500.60 0.0033 0.29 0.67 1.81 250 0.0011 176.69 7.6E-06 0.01 0.02 0.48 500 0.0011 176.69 0.0009 0.08 0.18 0.48 500 0.0004 62.47 2.2E-06 0.00 0.01 0.14 1000 0.0004 62.47 0.0003 0.02 0.05 0.14 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0315 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0686 0.1814 19.96 46.89 20 0.0000 5532.86 0.0048 2.61 6.13 97.28 20 0.0601 0.1330 14.63 34.38 30 0.0000 4845.41 0.0035 1.91 4.49 71.32 30 0.0502 0.0861 9.48 22.26 40 0.0000 4048.28 0.0023 1.24 2.91 46.19 40 0.0424 0.0602 6.62 15.55 50 0.0000 3418.07 0.0016 0.87 2.03 32.27 50 0.0362 0.0444 4.89 11.49 60 0.0000 2918.05 0.0012 0.64 1.50 23.83 60 0.0272 0.0271 2.98 7.01 80 0.0000 2193.50 0.0007 0.39 0.92 14.54 80 0.0212 0.0183 2.01 4.72 100 0.0000 1708.42 0.0005 0.26 0.62 9.80 100 0.0127 0.0088 0.96 2.27 150 0.0000 1026.40 0.0002 0.13 0.30 4.70 150 0.0086 0.0051 0.56 1.33 200 0.0000 690.62 0.0001 0.07 0.17 2.75 200 0.0062 0.0034 0.37 0.87 250 0.0000 500.60 0.0001 0.05 0.11 1.81 250 0.0022 0.0009 0.10 0.23 500 0.0000 176.69 2.4E-05 0.01 0.03 0.48 500 0.0008 0.0003 0.03 0.07 1000 0.0000 62.47 6.9E-06 0.00 0.01 0.14 1000



## D-97

## Facility G-02 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Concord Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 5532.86 0.0000 0.00 0.00 97.28 20 0.0456 5532.86 0.2410 21.18 49.76 97.28 20 0.0000 4845.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.32 30 0.0399 4845.41 0.1767 15.53 36.48 71.32 30 0.0000 4048.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 46.19 40 0.0333 4048.28 0.1144 10.06 23.63 46.19 40 0.0000 3418.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 32.27 50 0.0281 3418.07 0.0799 7.03 16.51 32.27 50 0.0000 2918.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 23.83 60 0.0240 2918.05 0.0590 5.19 12.19 23.83 60 0.0000 2193.50 0.0000 0.00 0.00 14.54 80 0.0181 2193.50 0.0360 3.17 7.44 14.54 80 0.0000 1708.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.80 100 0.0141 1708.42 0.0243 2.13 5.01 9.80 100 0.0000 1026.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.70 150 0.0085 1026.40 0.0116 1.02 2.40 4.70 150 0.0000 690.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.75 200 0.0057 690.62 0.0068 0.60 1.41 2.75 200 0.0000 500.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.81 250 0.0041 500.60 0.0045 0.39 0.93 1.81 250 0.0000 176.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.48 500 0.0015 176.69 0.0012 0.10 0.25 0.48 500 0.0000 62.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.14 1000 0.0005 62.47 0.0003 0.03 0.07 0.14 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.1288 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0677 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0456 0.2513 26.79 62.93 20 0.0000 5532.86 0.0103 5.61 13.17 97.28 20 0.0399 0.1842 19.64 46.14 30 0.0000 4845.41 0.0075 4.11 9.66 71.32 30 0.0333 0.1193 12.72 29.88 40 0.0000 4048.28 0.0049 2.66 6.25 46.19 40 0.0281 0.0834 8.89 20.88 50 0.0000 3418.07 0.0034 1.86 4.37 32.27 50 0.0240 0.0616 6.56 15.42 60 0.0000 2918.05 0.0025 1.37 3.23 23.83 60 0.0181 0.0376 4.00 9.41 80 0.0000 2193.50 0.0015 0.84 1.97 14.54 80 0.0141 0.0253 2.70 6.34 100 0.0000 1708.42 0.0010 0.56 1.33 9.80 100 0.0085 0.0121 1.29 3.04 150 0.0000 1026.40 0.0005 0.27 0.64 4.70 150 0.0057 0.0071 0.76 1.78 200 0.0000 690.62 0.0003 0.16 0.37 2.75 200 0.0041 0.0047 0.50 1.17 250 0.0000 500.60 0.0002 0.10 0.25 1.81 250 0.0015 0.0012 0.13 0.31 500 0.0000 176.69 0.0001 0.03 0.06 0.48 500 0.0005 0.0004 0.04 0.09 1000 0.0000 62.47 1.5E-05 0.01 0.02 0.14 1000



## D-98

## Facility G-02 - 94% Perc

Mather Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 3794.23 0.0000 0.00 0.00 57.90 20 0.0534 3794.23 0.2450 21.54 50.59 57.90 20 0.0000 3373.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.67 30 0.0475 3373.60 0.1806 15.87 37.28 42.67 30 0.0000 2579.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.44 40 0.0363 2579.42 0.1161 10.21 23.98 27.44 40 0.0000 2118.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.05 50 0.0298 2118.71 0.0806 7.09 16.65 19.05 50 0.0000 1819.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 60 0.0256 1819.33 0.0591 5.20 12.21 13.97 60 0.0000 1377.52 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.44 80 0.0194 1377.52 0.0357 3.14 7.37 8.44 80 0.0000 1077.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.64 100 0.0152 1077.14 0.0239 2.10 4.93 5.64 100 0.0000 649.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.66 150 0.0091 649.65 0.0113 0.99 2.32 2.66 150 0.0000 438.54 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.55 200 0.0062 438.54 0.0066 0.58 1.35 1.55 200 0.0000 319.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.01 250 0.0045 319.33 0.0043 0.38 0.88 1.01 250 0.0000 113.98 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.26 500 0.0016 113.98 0.0011 0.10 0.23 0.26 500 0.0000 40.48 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0006 40.48 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0534 0.2450 21.54 50.59 20 0.0000 3794.23 0.0000 0.00 0.00 57.90 20 0.0475 0.1806 15.87 37.28 30 0.0000 3373.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.67 30 0.0363 0.1161 10.21 23.98 40 0.0000 2579.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.44 40 0.0298 0.0806 7.09 16.65 50 0.0000 2118.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.05 50 0.0256 0.0591 5.20 12.21 60 0.0000 1819.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 60 0.0194 0.0357 3.14 7.37 80 0.0000 1377.52 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.44 80 0.0152 0.0239 2.10 4.93 100 0.0000 1077.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.64 100 0.0091 0.0113 0.99 2.32 150 0.0000 649.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.66 150 0.0062 0.0066 0.58 1.35 200 0.0000 438.54 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.55 200 0.0045 0.0043 0.38 0.88 250 0.0000 319.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.01 250 0.0016 0.0011 0.10 0.23 500 0.0000 113.98 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.26 500 0.0006 0.0003 0.03 0.06 1000 0.0000 40.48 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-99

## Facility G-02 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Mather Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0749 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0394 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0203 3794.23 0.0008 0.97 2.28 57.90 20 0.0312 3794.23 0.1434 12.61 29.62 57.90 20 0.0180 3373.60 0.0006 0.72 1.68 42.67 30 0.0278 3373.60 0.1057 9.29 21.83 42.67 30 0.0138 2579.42 0.0004 0.46 1.08 27.44 40 0.0212 2579.42 0.0680 5.98 14.04 27.44 40 0.0113 2118.71 0.0003 0.32 0.75 19.05 50 0.0174 2118.71 0.0472 4.15 9.74 19.05 50 0.0097 1819.33 0.0002 0.23 0.55 13.97 60 0.0150 1819.33 0.0346 3.04 7.15 13.97 60 0.0074 1377.52 0.0001 0.14 0.33 8.44 80 0.0113 1377.52 0.0209 1.84 4.32 8.44 80 0.0058 1077.14 0.0001 0.09 0.22 5.64 100 0.0089 1077.14 0.0140 1.23 2.89 5.64 100 0.0035 649.65 3.5E-05 0.04 0.10 2.66 150 0.0053 649.65 0.0066 0.58 1.36 2.66 150 0.0023 438.54 2.0E-05 0.03 0.06 1.55 200 0.0036 438.54 0.0038 0.34 0.79 1.55 200 0.0017 319.33 1.3E-05 0.02 0.04 1.01 250 0.0026 319.33 0.0025 0.22 0.52 1.01 250 0.0006 113.98 3.4E-06 0.00 0.01 0.26 500 0.0009 113.98 0.0006 0.06 0.13 0.26 500 0.0002 40.48 9.2E-07 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0003 40.48 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0515 0.1442 13.58 31.90 20 0.0000 3794.23 0.0000 0.00 0.00 57.90 20 0.0458 0.1063 10.01 23.51 30 0.0000 3373.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.67 30 0.0350 0.0683 6.44 15.12 40 0.0000 2579.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.44 40 0.0288 0.0474 4.47 10.50 50 0.0000 2118.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.05 50 0.0247 0.0348 3.28 7.70 60 0.0000 1819.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 60 0.0187 0.0210 1.98 4.65 80 0.0000 1377.52 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.44 80 0.0146 0.0140 1.32 3.11 100 0.0000 1077.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.64 100 0.0088 0.0066 0.62 1.47 150 0.0000 649.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.66 150 0.0060 0.0039 0.36 0.85 200 0.0000 438.54 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.55 200 0.0043 0.0025 0.24 0.56 250 0.0000 319.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.01 250 0.0015 0.0006 0.06 0.14 500 0.0000 113.98 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.26 500 0.0005 0.0002 0.02 0.04 1000 0.0000 40.48 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-100

## Facility G-02 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Mather Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0898 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1198 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0630 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0243 3794.23 0.0009 1.17 2.74 57.90 20 0.0227 3794.23 0.1042 9.16 21.52 57.90 20 0.0216 3373.60 0.0007 0.86 2.02 42.67 30 0.0202 3373.60 0.0768 6.75 15.86 42.67 30 0.0165 2579.42 0.0004 0.55 1.30 27.44 40 0.0155 2579.42 0.0494 4.34 10.20 27.44 40 0.0136 2118.71 0.0003 0.38 0.90 19.05 50 0.0127 2118.71 0.0343 3.01 7.08 19.05 50 0.0117 1819.33 0.0002 0.28 0.66 13.97 60 0.0109 1819.33 0.0251 2.21 5.19 13.97 60 0.0088 1377.52 0.0001 0.17 0.40 8.44 80 0.0083 1377.52 0.0152 1.34 3.14 8.44 80 0.0069 1077.14 0.0001 0.11 0.27 5.64 100 0.0065 1077.14 0.0102 0.89 2.10 5.64 100 0.0042 649.65 4.2E-05 0.05 0.13 2.66 150 0.0039 649.65 0.0048 0.42 0.99 2.66 150 0.0028 438.54 2.4E-05 0.03 0.07 1.55 200 0.0026 438.54 0.0028 0.25 0.58 1.55 200 0.0020 319.33 1.6E-05 0.02 0.05 1.01 250 0.0019 319.33 0.0018 0.16 0.38 1.01 250 0.0007 113.98 4.1E-06 0.01 0.01 0.26 500 0.0007 113.98 0.0005 0.04 0.10 0.26 500 0.0003 40.48 1.1E-06 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0002 40.48 0.0001 0.01 0.03 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0315 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0471 0.1080 11.88 27.91 20 0.0000 3794.23 0.0028 1.55 3.65 57.90 20 0.0418 0.0796 8.75 20.57 30 0.0000 3373.60 0.0021 1.14 2.69 42.67 30 0.0320 0.0512 5.63 13.23 40 0.0000 2579.42 0.0014 0.74 1.73 27.44 40 0.0263 0.0355 3.91 9.18 50 0.0000 2118.71 0.0009 0.51 1.20 19.05 50 0.0226 0.0261 2.87 6.73 60 0.0000 1819.33 0.0007 0.37 0.88 13.97 60 0.0171 0.0157 1.73 4.07 80 0.0000 1377.52 0.0004 0.23 0.53 8.44 80 0.0134 0.0105 1.16 2.72 100 0.0000 1077.14 0.0003 0.15 0.36 5.64 100 0.0081 0.0050 0.55 1.28 150 0.0000 649.65 0.0001 0.07 0.17 2.66 150 0.0054 0.0029 0.32 0.75 200 0.0000 438.54 0.0001 0.04 0.10 1.55 200 0.0040 0.0019 0.21 0.49 250 0.0000 319.33 5.0E-05 0.03 0.06 1.01 250 0.0014 0.0005 0.05 0.13 500 0.0000 113.98 1.3E-05 0.01 0.02 0.26 500 0.0005 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 40.48 3.4E-06 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-101

## Facility G-02 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Mather Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 3794.23 0.0000 0.00 0.00 57.90 20 0.0312 3794.23 0.1434 12.61 29.62 57.90 20 0.0000 3373.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.67 30 0.0278 3373.60 0.1057 9.29 21.83 42.67 30 0.0000 2579.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.44 40 0.0212 2579.42 0.0680 5.98 14.04 27.44 40 0.0000 2118.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.05 50 0.0174 2118.71 0.0472 4.15 9.74 19.05 50 0.0000 1819.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 60 0.0150 1819.33 0.0346 3.04 7.15 13.97 60 0.0000 1377.52 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.44 80 0.0113 1377.52 0.0209 1.84 4.32 8.44 80 0.0000 1077.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.64 100 0.0089 1077.14 0.0140 1.23 2.89 5.64 100 0.0000 649.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.66 150 0.0053 649.65 0.0066 0.58 1.36 2.66 150 0.0000 438.54 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.55 200 0.0036 438.54 0.0038 0.34 0.79 1.55 200 0.0000 319.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.01 250 0.0026 319.33 0.0025 0.22 0.52 1.01 250 0.0000 113.98 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.26 500 0.0009 113.98 0.0006 0.06 0.13 0.26 500 0.0000 40.48 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0003 40.48 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.1288 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0677 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0312 0.1496 15.94 37.46 20 0.0000 3794.23 0.0061 3.34 7.84 57.90 20 0.0278 0.1102 11.75 27.60 30 0.0000 3373.60 0.0045 2.46 5.78 42.67 30 0.0212 0.0709 7.56 17.75 40 0.0000 2579.42 0.0029 1.58 3.72 27.44 40 0.0174 0.0492 5.25 12.32 50 0.0000 2118.71 0.0020 1.10 2.58 19.05 50 0.0150 0.0361 3.85 9.04 60 0.0000 1819.33 0.0015 0.81 1.89 13.97 60 0.0113 0.0218 2.32 5.46 80 0.0000 1377.52 0.0009 0.49 1.14 8.44 80 0.0089 0.0146 1.55 3.65 100 0.0000 1077.14 0.0006 0.33 0.76 5.64 100 0.0053 0.0069 0.73 1.72 150 0.0000 649.65 0.0003 0.15 0.36 2.66 150 0.0036 0.0040 0.43 1.00 200 0.0000 438.54 0.0002 0.09 0.21 1.55 200 0.0026 0.0026 0.28 0.65 250 0.0000 319.33 0.0001 0.06 0.14 1.01 250 0.0009 0.0007 0.07 0.17 500 0.0000 113.98 2.8E-05 0.01 0.04 0.26 500 0.0003 0.0002 0.02 0.05 1000 0.0000 40.48 7.4E-06 0.00 0.01 0.07 1000



## D-102

## Facility G-02 - 94% Perc

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0743 5276.51 0.6044 53.13 124.80 142.83 20 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0613 4358.64 0.4992 43.88 103.09 117.98 30 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0514 3649.09 0.4180 36.74 86.31 98.78 40 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0436 3094.79 0.3545 31.16 73.20 83.77 50 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0374 2656.01 0.3042 26.74 62.82 71.89 60 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0284 2017.70 0.2311 20.31 47.72 54.62 80 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0223 1586.22 0.1817 15.97 37.52 42.94 100 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0136 969.72 0.1111 9.76 22.94 26.25 150 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0093 659.99 0.0756 6.64 15.61 17.86 200 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0068 482.19 0.0552 4.85 11.40 13.05 250 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0024 173.33 0.0199 1.75 4.10 4.69 500 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000 0.0009 61.90 0.0071 0.62 1.46 1.68 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0743 0.6044 53.13 124.80 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0613 0.4992 43.88 103.09 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0514 0.4180 36.74 86.31 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0436 0.3545 31.16 73.20 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0374 0.3042 26.74 62.82 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0284 0.2311 20.31 47.72 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0223 0.1817 15.97 37.52 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0136 0.1111 9.76 22.94 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0093 0.0756 6.64 15.61 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0068 0.0552 4.85 11.40 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0024 0.0199 1.75 4.10 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0009 0.0071 0.62 1.46 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000



## D-103

## Facility G-02 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0749 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0394 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0282 5276.51 0.0019 2.40 5.63 142.83 20 0.0435 5276.51 0.3538 31.10 73.06 142.83 20 0.0233 4358.64 0.0015 1.98 4.65 117.98 30 0.0359 4358.64 0.2923 25.69 60.35 117.98 30 0.0195 3649.09 0.0013 1.66 3.89 98.78 40 0.0301 3649.09 0.2447 21.51 50.53 98.78 40 0.0166 3094.79 0.0011 1.40 3.30 83.77 50 0.0255 3094.79 0.2075 18.24 42.85 83.77 50 0.0142 2656.01 0.0009 1.21 2.83 71.89 60 0.0219 2656.01 0.1781 15.65 36.78 71.89 60 0.0108 2017.70 0.0007 0.92 2.15 54.62 80 0.0166 2017.70 0.1353 11.89 27.94 54.62 80 0.0085 1586.22 0.0006 0.72 1.69 42.94 100 0.0131 1586.22 0.1064 9.35 21.96 42.94 100 0.0052 969.72 0.0003 0.44 1.03 26.25 150 0.0080 969.72 0.0650 5.72 13.43 26.25 150 0.0035 659.99 0.0002 0.30 0.70 17.86 200 0.0054 659.99 0.0443 3.89 9.14 17.86 200 0.0026 482.19 0.0002 0.22 0.51 13.05 250 0.0040 482.19 0.0323 2.84 6.68 13.05 250 0.0009 173.33 0.0001 0.08 0.18 4.69 500 0.0014 173.33 0.0116 1.02 2.40 4.69 500 0.0003 61.90 2.2E-05 0.03 0.07 1.68 1000 0.0005 61.90 0.0042 0.36 0.86 1.68 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0717 0.3557 33.50 78.69 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0592 0.2938 27.67 65.00 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0496 0.2460 23.16 54.42 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0420 0.2086 19.65 46.15 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0361 0.1790 16.86 39.61 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0274 0.1360 12.81 30.09 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0215 0.1069 10.07 23.66 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0132 0.0654 6.16 14.46 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0090 0.0445 4.19 9.84 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0066 0.0325 3.06 7.19 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0024 0.0117 1.10 2.58 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0008 0.0042 0.39 0.92 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000



## D-104

## Facility G-02 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0898 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1198 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0630 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0338 5276.51 0.0023 2.88 6.76 142.83 20 0.0316 5276.51 0.2571 22.60 53.09 142.83 20 0.0280 4358.64 0.0019 2.38 5.58 117.98 30 0.0261 4358.64 0.2124 18.67 43.85 117.98 30 0.0234 3649.09 0.0016 1.99 4.67 98.78 40 0.0219 3649.09 0.1778 15.63 36.71 98.78 40 0.0199 3094.79 0.0013 1.69 3.96 83.77 50 0.0185 3094.79 0.1508 13.25 31.14 83.77 50 0.0170 2656.01 0.0011 1.45 3.40 71.89 60 0.0159 2656.01 0.1294 11.38 26.72 71.89 60 0.0129 2017.70 0.0009 1.10 2.58 54.62 80 0.0121 2017.70 0.0983 8.64 20.30 54.62 80 0.0102 1586.22 0.0007 0.86 2.03 42.94 100 0.0095 1586.22 0.0773 6.79 15.96 42.94 100 0.0062 969.72 0.0004 0.53 1.24 26.25 150 0.0058 969.72 0.0472 4.15 9.76 26.25 150 0.0042 659.99 0.0003 0.36 0.85 17.86 200 0.0040 659.99 0.0322 2.83 6.64 17.86 200 0.0031 482.19 0.0002 0.26 0.62 13.05 250 0.0029 482.19 0.0235 2.07 4.85 13.05 250 0.0011 173.33 0.0001 0.09 0.22 4.69 500 0.0010 173.33 0.0084 0.74 1.74 4.69 500 0.0004 61.90 2.6E-05 0.03 0.08 1.68 1000 0.0004 61.90 0.0030 0.27 0.62 1.68 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0315 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0655 0.2664 29.30 68.84 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0070 3.83 9.00 142.83 20 0.0541 0.2200 24.21 56.87 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0058 3.16 7.43 117.98 30 0.0453 0.1842 20.27 47.61 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0049 2.65 6.22 98.78 40 0.0384 0.1562 17.19 40.38 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0041 2.25 5.28 83.77 50 0.0329 0.1341 14.75 34.65 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0035 1.93 4.53 71.89 60 0.0250 0.1019 11.21 26.32 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0027 1.46 3.44 54.62 80 0.0197 0.0801 8.81 20.70 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0021 1.15 2.71 42.94 100 0.0120 0.0490 5.39 12.65 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0013 0.70 1.65 26.25 150 0.0082 0.0333 3.67 8.61 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0009 0.48 1.13 17.86 200 0.0060 0.0243 2.68 6.29 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0006 0.35 0.82 13.05 250 0.0022 0.0088 0.96 2.26 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0002 0.13 0.30 4.69 500 0.0008 0.0031 0.34 0.81 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0001 0.04 0.11 1.68 1000



## D-105

## Facility G-02 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0435 5276.51 0.3538 31.10 73.06 142.83 20 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0359 4358.64 0.2923 25.69 60.35 117.98 30 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0301 3649.09 0.2447 21.51 50.53 98.78 40 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0255 3094.79 0.2075 18.24 42.85 83.77 50 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0219 2656.01 0.1781 15.65 36.78 71.89 60 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0166 2017.70 0.1353 11.89 27.94 54.62 80 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0131 1586.22 0.1064 9.35 21.96 42.94 100 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0080 969.72 0.0650 5.72 13.43 26.25 150 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0054 659.99 0.0443 3.89 9.14 17.86 200 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0040 482.19 0.0323 2.84 6.68 13.05 250 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0014 173.33 0.0116 1.02 2.40 4.69 500 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000 0.0005 61.90 0.0042 0.36 0.86 1.68 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.1288 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0677 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0435 0.3689 39.33 92.40 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0151 8.23 19.34 142.83 20 0.0359 0.3047 32.49 76.33 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0125 6.80 15.97 117.98 30 0.0301 0.2551 27.20 63.90 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0104 5.69 13.37 98.78 40 0.0255 0.2164 23.07 54.19 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0089 4.83 11.34 83.77 50 0.0219 0.1857 19.80 46.51 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0076 4.14 9.73 71.89 60 0.0166 0.1411 15.04 35.33 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0058 3.15 7.40 54.62 80 0.0131 0.1109 11.82 27.78 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0045 2.47 5.81 42.94 100 0.0080 0.0678 7.23 16.98 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0028 1.51 3.55 26.25 150 0.0054 0.0461 4.92 11.56 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0019 1.03 2.42 17.86 200 0.0040 0.0337 3.59 8.44 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0014 0.75 1.77 13.05 250 0.0014 0.0121 1.29 3.04 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0005 0.27 0.64 4.69 500 0.0005 0.0043 0.46 1.08 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0002 0.10 0.23 1.68 1000



## D-106

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Multicomponent Impacts - Brake Cleaners - Chronic/Cancer Facility G-03 - 94% Perc

Burbank Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 1344.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.91 20 0.0189 1344.25 0.0758 6.66 15.65 17.91 20 0.0000 1964.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.20 30 0.0277 1964.95 0.1786 15.70 36.87 42.20 30 0.0000 1702.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.87 40 0.0240 1702.10 0.1518 13.34 31.34 35.87 40 0.0000 2640.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.01 50 0.0372 2640.90 0.1397 12.28 28.84 33.01 50 0.0000 2498.24 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.91 60 0.0352 2498.24 0.1139 10.01 23.51 26.91 60 0.0000 1915.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.68 80 0.0270 1915.64 0.0663 5.83 13.70 15.68 80 0.0000 1511.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.28 100 0.0213 1511.07 0.0435 3.82 8.98 10.28 100 0.0000 927.46 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.76 150 0.0131 927.46 0.0201 1.77 4.16 4.76 150 0.0000 633.44 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.75 200 0.0089 633.44 0.0116 1.02 2.40 2.75 200 0.0000 464.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.79 250 0.0065 464.37 0.0076 0.67 1.56 1.79 250 0.0000 169.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.47 500 0.0024 169.00 0.0020 0.17 0.41 0.47 500 0.0000 61.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000 0.0009 61.00 0.0005 0.04 0.10 0.12 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0189 0.0758 6.66 15.65 20 0.0000 1344.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.91 20 0.0277 0.1786 15.70 36.87 30 0.0000 1964.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.20 30 0.0240 0.1518 13.34 31.34 40 0.0000 1702.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.87 40 0.0372 0.1397 12.28 28.84 50 0.0000 2640.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.01 50 0.0352 0.1139 10.01 23.51 60 0.0000 2498.24 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.91 60 0.0270 0.0663 5.83 13.70 80 0.0000 1915.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.68 80 0.0213 0.0435 3.82 8.98 100 0.0000 1511.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.28 100 0.0131 0.0201 1.77 4.16 150 0.0000 927.46 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.76 150 0.0089 0.0116 1.02 2.40 200 0.0000 633.44 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.75 200 0.0065 0.0076 0.67 1.56 250 0.0000 464.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.79 250 0.0024 0.0020 0.17 0.41 500 0.0000 169.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.47 500 0.0009 0.0005 0.04 0.10 1000 0.0000 61.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000 

## D-107

## Facility G-03 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Burbank Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0749 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0394 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0072 1344.25 0.0002 0.30 0.71 17.91 20 0.0111 1344.25 0.0444 3.90 9.16 17.91 20 0.0105 1964.95 0.0006 0.71 1.66 42.20 30 0.0162 1964.95 0.1045 9.19 21.59 42.20 30 0.0091 1702.10 0.0005 0.60 1.41 35.87 40 0.0140 1702.10 0.0889 7.81 18.35 35.87 40 0.0141 2640.90 0.0004 0.55 1.30 33.01 50 0.0217 2640.90 0.0818 7.19 16.89 33.01 50 0.0134 2498.24 0.0004 0.45 1.06 26.91 60 0.0206 2498.24 0.0667 5.86 13.77 26.91 60 0.0102 1915.64 0.0002 0.26 0.62 15.68 80 0.0158 1915.64 0.0388 3.41 8.02 15.68 80 0.0081 1511.07 0.0001 0.17 0.41 10.28 100 0.0124 1511.07 0.0255 2.24 5.26 10.28 100 0.0050 927.46 0.0001 0.08 0.19 4.76 150 0.0076 927.46 0.0118 1.04 2.43 4.76 150 0.0034 633.44 3.6E-05 0.05 0.11 2.75 200 0.0052 633.44 0.0068 0.60 1.41 2.75 200 0.0025 464.37 2.4E-05 0.03 0.07 1.79 250 0.0038 464.37 0.0044 0.39 0.92 1.79 250 0.0009 169.00 6.2E-06 0.01 0.02 0.47 500 0.0014 169.00 0.0012 0.10 0.24 0.47 500 0.0003 61.00 1.6E-06 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000 0.0005 61.00 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.12 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0183 0.0446 4.20 9.87 20 0.0000 1344.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.91 20 0.0267 0.1051 9.90 23.25 30 0.0000 1964.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.20 30 0.0231 0.0893 8.41 19.76 40 0.0000 1702.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.87 40 0.0359 0.0822 7.74 18.19 50 0.0000 2640.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.01 50 0.0339 0.0670 6.31 14.83 60 0.0000 2498.24 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.91 60 0.0260 0.0390 3.68 8.64 80 0.0000 1915.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.68 80 0.0205 0.0256 2.41 5.66 100 0.0000 1511.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.28 100 0.0126 0.0119 1.12 2.62 150 0.0000 927.46 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.76 150 0.0086 0.0068 0.64 1.52 200 0.0000 633.44 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.75 200 0.0063 0.0045 0.42 0.99 250 0.0000 464.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.79 250 0.0023 0.0012 0.11 0.26 500 0.0000 169.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.47 500 0.0008 0.0003 0.03 0.07 1000 0.0000 61.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000



## D-108

## Facility G-03 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Burbank Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0898 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1198 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0630 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0086 1344.25 0.0002 0.29 0.68 14.40 20 0.0081 1344.25 0.0322 2.83 6.66 17.91 20 0.0126 1964.95 0.0003 0.44 1.04 22.00 30 0.0118 1964.95 0.0760 6.68 15.69 42.20 30 0.0109 1702.10 0.0003 0.34 0.80 17.01 40 0.0102 1702.10 0.0646 5.68 13.33 35.87 40 0.0169 2640.90 0.0002 0.30 0.69 14.68 50 0.0158 2640.90 0.0594 5.22 12.27 33.01 50 0.0160 2498.24 0.0002 0.22 0.53 11.12 60 0.0150 2498.24 0.0484 4.26 10.00 26.91 60 0.0123 1915.64 0.0001 0.13 0.31 6.47 80 0.0115 1915.64 0.0282 2.48 5.83 15.68 80 0.0097 1511.07 0.0001 0.09 0.20 4.24 100 0.0091 1511.07 0.0185 1.63 3.82 10.28 100 0.0059 927.46 3.0E-05 0.04 0.09 1.88 150 0.0056 927.46 0.0086 0.75 1.77 4.76 150 0.0041 633.44 1.7E-05 0.02 0.05 1.05 200 0.0038 633.44 0.0050 0.44 1.02 2.75 200 0.0030 464.37 1.0E-05 0.01 0.03 0.67 250 0.0028 464.37 0.0032 0.28 0.67 1.79 250 0.0011 169.00 2.8E-06 0.00 0.01 0.17 500 0.0010 169.00 0.0008 0.07 0.17 0.47 500 0.0004 61.00 7.0E-07 0.00 0.00 0.04 1000 0.0004 61.00 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.12 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0315 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0167 0.0333 3.60 8.47 20 0.0000 1344.25 0.0009 0.48 1.13 17.91 20 0.0244 0.0784 8.25 19.38 30 0.0000 1964.95 0.0021 1.13 2.66 42.20 30 0.0211 0.0666 6.98 16.40 40 0.0000 1702.10 0.0018 0.96 2.26 35.87 40 0.0328 0.0613 6.40 15.04 50 0.0000 2640.90 0.0016 0.89 2.08 33.01 50 0.0310 0.0499 5.20 12.22 60 0.0000 2498.24 0.0013 0.72 1.70 26.91 60 0.0238 0.0291 3.03 7.12 80 0.0000 1915.64 0.0008 0.42 0.99 15.68 80 0.0187 0.0191 1.99 4.67 100 0.0000 1511.07 0.0005 0.28 0.65 10.28 100 0.0115 0.0088 0.92 2.16 150 0.0000 927.46 0.0002 0.13 0.30 4.76 150 0.0079 0.0051 0.53 1.25 200 0.0000 633.44 0.0001 0.07 0.17 2.75 200 0.0058 0.0033 0.34 0.81 250 0.0000 464.37 0.0001 0.05 0.11 1.79 250 0.0021 0.0009 0.09 0.21 500 0.0000 169.00 2.3E-05 0.01 0.03 0.47 500 0.0008 0.0002 0.02 0.05 1000 0.0000 61.00 5.9E-06 0.00 0.01 0.12 1000



## D-109

## Facility G-03 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Burbank Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 1344.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.91 20 0.0111 1344.25 0.0444 3.90 9.16 17.91 20 0.0000 1964.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.20 30 0.0162 1964.95 0.1045 9.19 21.59 42.20 30 0.0000 1702.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.87 40 0.0140 1702.10 0.0889 7.81 18.35 35.87 40 0.0000 2640.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.01 50 0.0217 2640.90 0.0818 7.19 16.89 33.01 50 0.0000 2498.24 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.91 60 0.0206 2498.24 0.0667 5.86 13.77 26.91 60 0.0000 1915.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.68 80 0.0158 1915.64 0.0388 3.41 8.02 15.68 80 0.0000 1511.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.28 100 0.0124 1511.07 0.0255 2.24 5.26 10.28 100 0.0000 927.46 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.76 150 0.0076 927.46 0.0118 1.04 2.43 4.76 150 0.0000 633.44 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.75 200 0.0052 633.44 0.0068 0.60 1.41 2.75 200 0.0000 464.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.79 250 0.0038 464.37 0.0044 0.39 0.92 1.79 250 0.0000 169.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.47 500 0.0014 169.00 0.0012 0.10 0.24 0.47 500 0.0000 61.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.12 1000 0.0005 61.00 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.12 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.1288 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0677 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0111 0.0463 4.93 11.59 20 0.0000 1344.25 0.0019 1.03 2.43 17.91 20 0.0162 0.1090 11.62 27.30 30 0.0000 1964.95 0.0045 2.43 5.71 42.20 30 0.0140 0.0926 9.88 23.21 40 0.0000 1702.10 0.0038 2.07 4.86 35.87 40 0.0217 0.0853 9.09 21.36 50 0.0000 2640.90 0.0035 1.90 4.47 33.01 50 0.0206 0.0695 7.41 17.41 60 0.0000 2498.24 0.0028 1.55 3.64 26.91 60 0.0158 0.0405 4.32 10.14 80 0.0000 1915.64 0.0017 0.90 2.12 15.68 80 0.0124 0.0266 2.83 6.65 100 0.0000 1511.07 0.0011 0.59 1.39 10.28 100 0.0076 0.0123 1.31 3.08 150 0.0000 927.46 0.0005 0.27 0.64 4.76 150 0.0052 0.0071 0.76 1.78 200 0.0000 633.44 0.0003 0.16 0.37 2.75 200 0.0038 0.0046 0.49 1.16 250 0.0000 464.37 0.0002 0.10 0.24 1.79 250 0.0014 0.0012 0.13 0.30 500 0.0000 169.00 5.0E-05 0.03 0.06 0.47 500 0.0005 0.0003 0.03 0.08 1000 0.0000 61.00 1.3E-05 0.01 0.02 0.12 1000



## D-110

## Facility G-03 - 94% Perc

Anaheim Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 1343.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 31.15 20 0.0189 1343.62 0.1318 11.59 27.22 31.15 20 0.0000 1964.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 57.73 30 0.0276 1964.47 0.2443 21.47 50.44 57.73 30 0.0000 1701.54 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.96 40 0.0239 1701.54 0.1902 16.72 39.29 44.96 40 0.0000 2643.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.98 50 0.0372 2643.73 0.1776 15.61 36.68 41.98 50 0.0000 2497.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.48 60 0.0352 2497.42 0.1501 13.20 31.00 35.48 60 0.0000 1914.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.76 80 0.0269 1914.71 0.0878 7.72 18.14 20.76 80 0.0000 1510.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.59 100 0.0213 1510.10 0.0575 5.05 11.87 13.59 100 0.0000 926.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.26 150 0.0130 926.57 0.0265 2.33 5.47 6.26 150 0.0000 632.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.60 200 0.0089 632.67 0.0152 1.34 3.15 3.60 200 0.0000 463.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.34 250 0.0065 463.72 0.0099 0.87 2.04 2.34 250 0.0000 168.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.61 500 0.0024 168.65 0.0026 0.23 0.53 0.61 500 0.0000 60.83 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.16 1000 0.0009 60.83 0.0007 0.06 0.14 0.16 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0189 0.1318 11.59 27.22 20 0.0000 1343.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 31.15 20 0.0276 0.2443 21.47 50.44 30 0.0000 1964.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 57.73 30 0.0239 0.1902 16.72 39.29 40 0.0000 1701.54 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.96 40 0.0372 0.1776 15.61 36.68 50 0.0000 2643.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.98 50 0.0352 0.1501 13.20 31.00 60 0.0000 2497.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.48 60 0.0269 0.0878 7.72 18.14 80 0.0000 1914.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.76 80 0.0213 0.0575 5.05 11.87 100 0.0000 1510.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.59 100 0.0130 0.0265 2.33 5.47 150 0.0000 926.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.26 150 0.0089 0.0152 1.34 3.15 200 0.0000 632.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.60 200 0.0065 0.0099 0.87 2.04 250 0.0000 463.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.34 250 0.0024 0.0026 0.23 0.53 500 0.0000 168.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.61 500 0.0009 0.0007 0.06 0.14 1000 0.0000 60.83 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.16 1000



## D-111

## Facility G-03 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Anaheim Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0749 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0394 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0072 1343.62 0.0004 0.52 1.23 31.15 20 0.0111 1343.62 0.0772 6.78 15.93 31.15 20 0.0105 1964.47 0.0008 0.97 2.27 57.73 30 0.0162 1964.47 0.1430 12.57 29.53 57.73 30 0.0091 1701.54 0.0006 0.75 1.77 44.96 40 0.0140 1701.54 0.1114 9.79 23.00 44.96 40 0.0141 2643.73 0.0006 0.70 1.65 41.98 50 0.0218 2643.73 0.1040 9.14 21.47 41.98 50 0.0134 2497.42 0.0005 0.60 1.40 35.48 60 0.0206 2497.42 0.0879 7.73 18.15 35.48 60 0.0102 1914.71 0.0003 0.35 0.82 20.76 80 0.0158 1914.71 0.0514 4.52 10.62 20.76 80 0.0081 1510.10 0.0002 0.23 0.54 13.59 100 0.0124 1510.10 0.0337 2.96 6.95 13.59 100 0.0050 926.57 0.0001 0.10 0.25 6.26 150 0.0076 926.57 0.0155 1.36 3.20 6.26 150 0.0034 632.67 4.7E-05 0.06 0.14 3.60 200 0.0052 632.67 0.0089 0.78 1.84 3.60 200 0.0025 463.72 3.1E-05 0.04 0.09 2.34 250 0.0038 463.72 0.0058 0.51 1.20 2.34 250 0.0009 168.65 8.0E-06 0.01 0.02 0.61 500 0.0014 168.65 0.0015 0.13 0.31 0.61 500 0.0003 60.83 2.1E-06 0.00 0.01 0.16 1000 0.0005 60.83 0.0004 0.03 0.08 0.16 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0183 0.0776 7.31 17.16 20 0.0000 1343.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 31.15 20 0.0267 0.1438 13.54 31.81 30 0.0000 1964.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 57.73 30 0.0231 0.1120 10.54 24.77 40 0.0000 1701.54 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.96 40 0.0359 0.1045 9.85 23.13 50 0.0000 2643.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.98 50 0.0339 0.0884 8.32 19.55 60 0.0000 2497.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.48 60 0.0260 0.0517 4.87 11.44 80 0.0000 1914.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.76 80 0.0205 0.0338 3.19 7.49 100 0.0000 1510.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.59 100 0.0126 0.0156 1.47 3.45 150 0.0000 926.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.26 150 0.0086 0.0090 0.84 1.98 200 0.0000 632.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.60 200 0.0063 0.0058 0.55 1.29 250 0.0000 463.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.34 250 0.0023 0.0015 0.14 0.34 500 0.0000 168.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.61 500 0.0008 0.0004 0.04 0.09 1000 0.0000 60.83 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.16 1000



## D-112

## Facility G-03 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Anaheim Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0898 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1198 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0630 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0086 1343.62 0.0005 0.63 1.47 31.15 20 0.0080 1343.62 0.0561 4.93 11.58 31.15 20 0.0126 1964.47 0.0009 1.16 2.73 57.73 30 0.0118 1964.47 0.1039 9.13 21.46 57.73 30 0.0109 1701.54 0.0007 0.91 2.13 44.96 40 0.0102 1701.54 0.0809 7.11 16.71 44.96 40 0.0170 2643.73 0.0007 0.85 1.99 41.98 50 0.0158 2643.73 0.0756 6.64 15.60 41.98 50 0.0160 2497.42 0.0006 0.71 1.68 35.48 60 0.0150 2497.42 0.0639 5.61 13.19 35.48 60 0.0123 1914.71 0.0003 0.42 0.98 20.76 80 0.0115 1914.71 0.0374 3.28 7.72 20.76 80 0.0097 1510.10 0.0002 0.27 0.64 13.59 100 0.0090 1510.10 0.0245 2.15 5.05 13.59 100 0.0059 926.57 0.0001 0.13 0.30 6.26 150 0.0056 926.57 0.0113 0.99 2.33 6.26 150 0.0041 632.67 0.0001 0.07 0.17 3.60 200 0.0038 632.67 0.0065 0.57 1.34 3.60 200 0.0030 463.72 3.7E-05 0.05 0.11 2.34 250 0.0028 463.72 0.0042 0.37 0.87 2.34 250 0.0011 168.65 9.6E-06 0.01 0.03 0.61 500 0.0010 168.65 0.0011 0.10 0.23 0.61 500 0.0004 60.83 2.5E-06 0.00 0.01 0.16 1000 0.0004 60.83 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.16 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0315 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0167 0.0581 6.39 15.01 20 0.0000 1343.62 0.0015 0.84 1.96 31.15 20 0.0244 0.1077 11.84 27.83 30 0.0000 1964.47 0.0028 1.55 3.64 57.73 30 0.0211 0.0838 9.22 21.67 40 0.0000 1701.54 0.0022 1.21 2.83 44.96 40 0.0328 0.0783 8.61 20.23 50 0.0000 2643.73 0.0021 1.13 2.64 41.98 50 0.0310 0.0662 7.28 17.10 60 0.0000 2497.42 0.0017 0.95 2.24 35.48 60 0.0238 0.0387 4.26 10.01 80 0.0000 1914.71 0.0010 0.56 1.31 20.76 80 0.0187 0.0253 2.79 6.55 100 0.0000 1510.10 0.0007 0.36 0.86 13.59 100 0.0115 0.0117 1.28 3.02 150 0.0000 926.57 0.0003 0.17 0.39 6.26 150 0.0078 0.0067 0.74 1.74 200 0.0000 632.67 0.0002 0.10 0.23 3.60 200 0.0058 0.0044 0.48 1.13 250 0.0000 463.72 0.0001 0.06 0.15 2.34 250 0.0021 0.0011 0.13 0.29 500 0.0000 168.65 3.0E-05 0.02 0.04 0.61 500 0.0008 0.0003 0.03 0.08 1000 0.0000 60.83 7.9E-06 0.00 0.01 0.16 1000



## D-113

## Facility G-03 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Anaheim Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 1343.62 0.0000 0.00 0.00 31.15 20 0.0111 1343.62 0.0772 6.78 15.93 31.15 20 0.0000 1964.47 0.0000 0.00 0.00 57.73 30 0.0162 1964.47 0.1430 12.57 29.53 57.73 30 0.0000 1701.54 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.96 40 0.0140 1701.54 0.1114 9.79 23.00 44.96 40 0.0000 2643.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.98 50 0.0218 2643.73 0.1040 9.14 21.47 41.98 50 0.0000 2497.42 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.48 60 0.0206 2497.42 0.0879 7.73 18.15 35.48 60 0.0000 1914.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.76 80 0.0158 1914.71 0.0514 4.52 10.62 20.76 80 0.0000 1510.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.59 100 0.0124 1510.10 0.0337 2.96 6.95 13.59 100 0.0000 926.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 6.26 150 0.0076 926.57 0.0155 1.36 3.20 6.26 150 0.0000 632.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.60 200 0.0052 632.67 0.0089 0.78 1.84 3.60 200 0.0000 463.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.34 250 0.0038 463.72 0.0058 0.51 1.20 2.34 250 0.0000 168.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.61 500 0.0014 168.65 0.0015 0.13 0.31 0.61 500 0.0000 60.83 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.16 1000 0.0005 60.83 0.0004 0.03 0.08 0.16 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.1288 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0677 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0111 0.0805 8.58 20.15 20 0.0000 1343.62 0.0033 1.80 4.22 31.15 20 0.0162 0.1491 15.90 37.35 30 0.0000 1964.47 0.0061 3.33 7.82 57.73 30 0.0140 0.1161 12.38 29.09 40 0.0000 1701.54 0.0048 2.59 6.09 44.96 40 0.0218 0.1084 11.56 27.16 50 0.0000 2643.73 0.0044 2.42 5.68 41.98 50 0.0206 0.0916 9.77 22.95 60 0.0000 2497.42 0.0038 2.04 4.80 35.48 60 0.0158 0.0536 5.72 13.43 80 0.0000 1914.71 0.0022 1.20 2.81 20.76 80 0.0124 0.0351 3.74 8.79 100 0.0000 1510.10 0.0014 0.78 1.84 13.59 100 0.0076 0.0162 1.72 4.05 150 0.0000 926.57 0.0007 0.36 0.85 6.26 150 0.0052 0.0093 0.99 2.33 200 0.0000 632.67 0.0004 0.21 0.49 3.60 200 0.0038 0.0060 0.64 1.51 250 0.0000 463.72 0.0002 0.13 0.32 2.34 250 0.0014 0.0016 0.17 0.39 500 0.0000 168.65 0.0001 0.04 0.08 0.61 500 0.0005 0.0004 0.04 0.10 1000 0.0000 60.83 1.7E-05 0.01 0.02 0.16 1000



## D-114

## Facility G-03 - 94% Perc

Oakland Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 1242.49 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.58 20 0.0175 1242.49 0.0659 5.80 13.61 15.58 20 0.0000 1456.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 24.65 30 0.0205 1456.60 0.1043 9.17 21.54 24.65 30 0.0000 1455.87 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.32 40 0.0205 1455.87 0.0775 6.81 16.01 18.32 40 0.0000 1716.38 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.79 50 0.0242 1716.38 0.0710 6.25 14.67 16.79 50 0.0000 1622.23 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.06 60 0.0228 1622.23 0.0637 5.60 13.16 15.06 60 0.0000 1243.92 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.95 80 0.0175 1243.92 0.0379 3.33 7.82 8.95 80 0.0000 981.21 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.91 100 0.0138 981.21 0.0250 2.20 5.16 5.91 100 0.0000 669.93 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.76 150 0.0094 669.93 0.0117 1.03 2.41 2.76 150 0.0000 487.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.60 200 0.0069 487.14 0.0068 0.60 1.40 1.60 200 0.0000 367.88 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.05 250 0.0052 367.88 0.0044 0.39 0.92 1.05 250 0.0000 145.98 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.28 500 0.0021 145.98 0.0012 0.10 0.24 0.28 500 0.0000 53.80 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0008 53.80 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0175 0.0659 5.80 13.61 20 0.0000 1242.49 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.58 20 0.0205 0.1043 9.17 21.54 30 0.0000 1456.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 24.65 30 0.0205 0.0775 6.81 16.01 40 0.0000 1455.87 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.32 40 0.0242 0.0710 6.25 14.67 50 0.0000 1716.38 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.79 50 0.0228 0.0637 5.60 13.16 60 0.0000 1622.23 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.06 60 0.0175 0.0379 3.33 7.82 80 0.0000 1243.92 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.95 80 0.0138 0.0250 2.20 5.16 100 0.0000 981.21 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.91 100 0.0094 0.0117 1.03 2.41 150 0.0000 669.93 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.76 150 0.0069 0.0068 0.60 1.40 200 0.0000 487.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.60 200 0.0052 0.0044 0.39 0.92 250 0.0000 367.88 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.05 250 0.0021 0.0012 0.10 0.24 500 0.0000 145.98 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.28 500 0.0008 0.0003 0.03 0.06 1000 0.0000 53.80 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-115

## Facility G-03 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Oakland Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0749 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0394 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0066 1242.49 0.0002 0.26 0.61 15.58 20 0.0102 1242.49 0.0659 3.39 7.97 15.58 20 0.0078 1456.60 0.0003 0.41 0.97 24.65 30 0.0120 1456.60 0.1043 5.37 12.61 24.65 30 0.0078 1455.87 0.0002 0.31 0.72 18.32 40 0.0120 1455.87 0.0775 3.99 9.37 18.32 40 0.0092 1716.38 0.0002 0.28 0.66 16.79 50 0.0141 1716.38 0.0710 3.66 8.59 16.79 50 0.0087 1622.23 0.0002 0.25 0.59 15.06 60 0.0134 1622.23 0.0637 3.28 7.70 15.06 60 0.0067 1243.92 0.0001 0.15 0.35 8.95 80 0.0102 1243.92 0.0379 1.95 4.58 8.95 80 0.0052 981.21 0.0001 0.10 0.23 5.91 100 0.0081 981.21 0.0250 1.29 3.02 5.91 100 0.0036 669.93 3.6E-05 0.05 0.11 2.76 150 0.0055 669.93 0.0117 0.60 1.41 2.76 150 0.0026 487.14 2.1E-05 0.03 0.06 1.60 200 0.0040 487.14 0.0068 0.35 0.82 1.60 200 0.0020 367.88 1.4E-05 0.02 0.04 1.05 250 0.0030 367.88 0.0044 0.23 0.54 1.05 250 0.0008 145.98 3.7E-06 0.00 0.01 0.28 500 0.0012 145.98 0.0012 0.06 0.14 0.28 500 0.0003 53.80 9.2E-07 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0004 53.80 0.0003 0.02 0.04 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0169 0.0661 3.65 8.58 20 0.0000 1242.49 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.58 20 0.0198 0.1046 5.78 13.58 30 0.0000 1456.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 24.65 30 0.0198 0.0778 4.30 10.09 40 0.0000 1455.87 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.32 40 0.0233 0.0713 3.94 9.25 50 0.0000 1716.38 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.79 50 0.0220 0.0639 3.53 8.30 60 0.0000 1622.23 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.06 60 0.0169 0.0380 2.10 4.93 80 0.0000 1243.92 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.95 80 0.0133 0.0251 1.39 3.26 100 0.0000 981.21 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.91 100 0.0091 0.0117 0.65 1.52 150 0.0000 669.93 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.76 150 0.0066 0.0068 0.38 0.88 200 0.0000 487.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.60 200 0.0050 0.0045 0.25 0.58 250 0.0000 367.88 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.05 250 0.0020 0.0012 0.07 0.15 500 0.0000 145.98 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.28 500 0.0007 0.0003 0.02 0.04 1000 0.0000 53.80 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-116

## Facility G-03 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Oakland Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0898 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1198 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0630 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0080 1242.49 0.0002 0.31 0.74 15.58 20 0.0074 1242.49 0.0280 2.47 5.79 15.58 20 0.0093 1456.60 0.0004 0.50 1.17 24.65 30 0.0087 1456.60 0.0444 3.90 9.16 24.65 30 0.0093 1455.87 0.0003 0.37 0.87 18.32 40 0.0087 1455.87 0.0330 2.90 6.81 18.32 40 0.0110 1716.38 0.0003 0.34 0.79 16.79 50 0.0103 1716.38 0.0302 2.66 6.24 16.79 50 0.0104 1622.23 0.0002 0.30 0.71 15.06 60 0.0097 1622.23 0.0271 2.38 5.60 15.06 60 0.0080 1243.92 0.0001 0.18 0.42 8.95 80 0.0075 1243.92 0.0161 1.42 3.33 8.95 80 0.0063 981.21 0.0001 0.12 0.28 5.91 100 0.0059 981.21 0.0106 0.94 2.20 5.91 100 0.0043 669.93 4.4E-05 0.06 0.13 2.76 150 0.0040 669.93 0.0050 0.44 1.03 2.76 150 0.0031 487.14 2.5E-05 0.03 0.08 1.60 200 0.0029 487.14 0.0029 0.25 0.59 1.60 200 0.0024 367.88 1.7E-05 0.02 0.05 1.05 250 0.0022 367.88 0.0019 0.17 0.39 1.05 250 0.0009 145.98 4.4E-06 0.01 0.01 0.28 500 0.0009 145.98 0.0005 0.04 0.10 0.28 500 0.0003 53.80 1.1E-06 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0003 53.80 0.0001 0.01 0.03 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0315 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0154 0.0291 3.20 7.51 20 0.0000 1242.49 0.0008 0.42 0.98 15.58 20 0.0181 0.0460 5.06 11.88 30 0.0000 1456.60 0.0012 0.66 1.55 24.65 30 0.0181 0.0342 3.76 8.83 40 0.0000 1455.87 0.0009 0.49 1.15 18.32 40 0.0213 0.0313 3.44 8.09 50 0.0000 1716.38 0.0008 0.45 1.06 16.79 50 0.0201 0.0281 3.09 7.26 60 0.0000 1622.23 0.0007 0.40 0.95 15.06 60 0.0154 0.0167 1.84 4.31 80 0.0000 1243.92 0.0004 0.24 0.56 8.95 80 0.0122 0.0110 1.21 2.85 100 0.0000 981.21 0.0003 0.16 0.37 5.91 100 0.0083 0.0051 0.57 1.33 150 0.0000 669.93 0.0001 0.07 0.17 2.76 150 0.0060 0.0030 0.33 0.77 200 0.0000 487.14 0.0001 0.04 0.10 1.60 200 0.0046 0.0020 0.22 0.51 250 0.0000 367.88 0.0001 0.03 0.07 1.05 250 0.0018 0.0005 0.06 0.13 500 0.0000 145.98 1.4E-05 0.01 0.02 0.28 500 0.0007 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 53.80 3.4E-06 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-117

## Facility G-03 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Oakland Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 1242.49 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.58 20 0.0102 1242.49 0.0386 3.39 7.97 15.58 20 0.0000 1456.60 0.0000 0.00 0.00 24.65 30 0.0120 1456.60 0.0611 5.37 12.61 24.65 30 0.0000 1455.87 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.32 40 0.0120 1455.87 0.0454 3.99 9.37 18.32 40 0.0000 1716.38 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.79 50 0.0141 1716.38 0.0416 3.66 8.59 16.79 50 0.0000 1622.23 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.06 60 0.0134 1622.23 0.0373 3.28 7.70 15.06 60 0.0000 1243.92 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.95 80 0.0102 1243.92 0.0222 1.95 4.58 8.95 80 0.0000 981.21 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.91 100 0.0081 981.21 0.0146 1.29 3.02 5.91 100 0.0000 669.93 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.76 150 0.0055 669.93 0.0068 0.60 1.41 2.76 150 0.0000 487.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.60 200 0.0040 487.14 0.0040 0.35 0.82 1.60 200 0.0000 367.88 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.05 250 0.0030 367.88 0.0026 0.23 0.54 1.05 250 0.0000 145.98 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.28 500 0.0012 145.98 0.0007 0.06 0.14 0.28 500 0.0000 53.80 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0004 53.80 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.1288 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0677 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0102 0.0402 4.29 10.08 20 0.0000 1242.49 0.0016 0.90 2.11 15.58 20 0.0120 0.0637 6.79 15.95 30 0.0000 1456.60 0.0026 1.42 3.34 24.65 30 0.0120 0.0473 5.05 11.85 40 0.0000 1455.87 0.0019 1.06 2.48 18.32 40 0.0141 0.0434 4.62 10.86 50 0.0000 1716.38 0.0018 0.97 2.27 16.79 50 0.0134 0.0389 4.15 9.74 60 0.0000 1622.23 0.0016 0.87 2.04 15.06 60 0.0102 0.0231 2.46 5.79 80 0.0000 1243.92 0.0009 0.52 1.21 8.95 80 0.0081 0.0153 1.63 3.82 100 0.0000 981.21 0.0006 0.34 0.80 5.91 100 0.0055 0.0071 0.76 1.79 150 0.0000 669.93 0.0003 0.16 0.37 2.76 150 0.0040 0.0041 0.44 1.04 200 0.0000 487.14 0.0002 0.09 0.22 1.60 200 0.0030 0.0027 0.29 0.68 250 0.0000 367.88 0.0001 0.06 0.14 1.05 250 0.0012 0.0007 0.08 0.18 500 0.0000 145.98 3.0E-05 0.02 0.04 0.28 500 0.0004 0.0002 0.02 0.05 1000 0.0000 53.80 7.4E-06 0.00 0.01 0.07 1000



## D-118

## Facility G-03 - 94% Perc

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0386 2744.96 0.3144 27.64 64.92 74.30 20 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0336 2385.45 0.2732 24.02 56.42 64.57 30 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0294 2088.05 0.2392 21.02 49.39 56.52 40 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0259 1841.40 0.2109 18.54 43.55 49.84 50 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0230 1635.59 0.1873 16.47 38.69 44.27 60 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0185 1315.96 0.1507 13.25 31.13 35.62 80 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0152 1083.10 0.1241 10.90 25.62 29.32 100 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0101 718.69 0.0823 7.24 17.00 19.45 150 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0073 516.25 0.0591 5.20 12.21 13.97 200 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0055 391.81 0.0449 3.94 9.27 10.61 250 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0022 154.56 0.0177 1.56 3.66 4.18 500 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000 0.0008 58.40 0.0067 0.59 1.38 1.58 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0386 0.3144 27.64 64.92 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0336 0.2732 24.02 56.42 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0294 0.2392 21.02 49.39 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0259 0.2109 18.54 43.55 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0230 0.1873 16.47 38.69 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0185 0.1507 13.25 31.13 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0152 0.1241 10.90 25.62 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0101 0.0823 7.24 17.00 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0073 0.0591 5.20 12.21 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0055 0.0449 3.94 9.27 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0022 0.0177 1.56 3.66 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0008 0.0067 0.59 1.38 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000



## D-119

## Facility G-03 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0749 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0394 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0147 2744.96 0.0010 1.25 2.93 74.30 20 0.0226 2744.96 0.1841 16.18 38.01 74.30 20 0.0128 2385.45 0.0008 1.08 2.54 64.57 30 0.0196 2385.45 0.1600 14.06 33.03 64.57 30 0.0112 2088.05 0.0007 0.95 2.23 56.52 40 0.0172 2088.05 0.1400 12.31 28.91 56.52 40 0.0099 1841.40 0.0007 0.84 1.96 49.84 50 0.0152 1841.40 0.1235 10.85 25.50 49.84 50 0.0088 1635.59 0.0006 0.74 1.74 44.27 60 0.0135 1635.59 0.1097 9.64 22.65 44.27 60 0.0070 1315.96 0.0005 0.60 1.40 35.62 80 0.0108 1315.96 0.0882 7.76 18.22 35.62 80 0.0058 1083.10 0.0004 0.49 1.16 29.32 100 0.0089 1083.10 0.0726 6.38 15.00 29.32 100 0.0038 718.69 0.0003 0.33 0.77 19.45 150 0.0059 718.69 0.0482 4.24 9.95 19.45 150 0.0028 516.25 0.0002 0.23 0.55 13.97 200 0.0043 516.25 0.0346 3.04 7.15 13.97 200 0.0021 391.81 0.0001 0.18 0.42 10.61 250 0.0032 391.81 0.0263 2.31 5.43 10.61 250 0.0008 154.56 0.0001 0.07 0.16 4.18 500 0.0013 154.56 0.0104 0.91 2.14 4.18 500 0.0003 58.40 2.1E-05 0.03 0.06 1.58 1000 0.0005 58.40 0.0039 0.34 0.81 1.58 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0373 0.1850 17.43 40.94 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0324 0.1608 15.14 35.57 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0284 0.1408 13.26 31.14 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0250 0.1241 11.69 27.46 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0222 0.1103 10.38 24.39 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0179 0.0887 8.35 19.62 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0147 0.0730 6.88 16.15 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0098 0.0484 4.56 10.72 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0070 0.0348 3.28 7.70 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0053 0.0264 2.49 5.84 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0021 0.0104 0.98 2.30 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0008 0.0039 0.37 0.87 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000



## D-120

## Facility G-03 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0898 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1198 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0630 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0176 2744.96 0.0012 1.50 3.51 74.30 20 0.0164 2744.96 0.1337 11.76 27.62 74.30 20 0.0153 2385.45 0.0010 1.30 3.05 64.57 30 0.0143 2385.45 0.1162 10.22 24.00 64.57 30 0.0134 2088.05 0.0009 1.14 2.67 56.52 40 0.0125 2088.05 0.1017 8.94 21.01 56.52 40 0.0118 1841.40 0.0008 1.00 2.36 49.84 50 0.0110 1841.40 0.0897 7.89 18.53 49.84 50 0.0105 1635.59 0.0007 0.89 2.09 44.27 60 0.0098 1635.59 0.0797 7.01 16.46 44.27 60 0.0084 1315.96 0.0006 0.72 1.68 35.62 80 0.0079 1315.96 0.0641 5.64 13.24 35.62 80 0.0069 1083.10 0.0005 0.59 1.39 29.32 100 0.0065 1083.10 0.0528 4.64 10.90 29.32 100 0.0046 718.69 0.0003 0.39 0.92 19.45 150 0.0043 718.69 0.0350 3.08 7.23 19.45 150 0.0033 516.25 0.0002 0.28 0.66 13.97 200 0.0031 516.25 0.0252 2.21 5.19 13.97 200 0.0025 391.81 0.0002 0.21 0.50 10.61 250 0.0023 391.81 0.0191 1.68 3.94 10.61 250 0.0010 154.56 0.0001 0.08 0.20 4.18 500 0.0009 154.56 0.0075 0.66 1.56 4.18 500 0.0004 58.40 2.5E-05 0.03 0.07 1.58 1000 0.0003 58.40 0.0028 0.25 0.59 1.58 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0315 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0340 0.1386 15.25 35.81 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0037 1.99 4.68 74.30 20 0.0296 0.1204 13.25 31.12 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0032 1.73 4.07 64.57 30 0.0259 0.1054 11.60 27.24 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0028 1.52 3.56 56.52 40 0.0228 0.0930 10.23 24.02 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0025 1.34 3.14 49.84 50 0.0203 0.0826 9.08 21.34 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0022 1.19 2.79 44.27 60 0.0163 0.0664 7.31 17.17 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0018 0.96 2.24 35.62 80 0.0134 0.0547 6.02 14.13 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0014 0.79 1.85 29.32 100 0.0089 0.0363 3.99 9.38 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0010 0.52 1.23 19.45 150 0.0064 0.0261 2.87 6.74 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0007 0.37 0.88 13.97 200 0.0049 0.0198 2.18 5.11 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0005 0.28 0.67 10.61 250 0.0019 0.0078 0.86 2.02 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0002 0.11 0.26 4.18 500 0.0007 0.0029 0.32 0.76 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0001 0.04 0.10 1.58 1000



## D-121

## Facility G-03 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0226 2744.96 0.1841 16.18 38.01 74.30 20 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0196 2385.45 0.1600 14.06 33.03 64.57 30 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0172 2088.05 0.1400 12.31 28.91 56.52 40 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0152 1841.40 0.1235 10.85 25.50 49.84 50 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0135 1635.59 0.1097 9.64 22.65 44.27 60 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0108 1315.96 0.0882 7.76 18.22 35.62 80 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0089 1083.10 0.0726 6.38 15.00 29.32 100 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0059 718.69 0.0482 4.24 9.95 19.45 150 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0043 516.25 0.0346 3.04 7.15 13.97 200 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0032 391.81 0.0263 2.31 5.43 10.61 250 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0013 154.56 0.0104 0.91 2.14 4.18 500 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000 0.0005 58.40 0.0039 0.34 0.81 1.58 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.1288 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0677 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0226 0.1919 20.46 48.07 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0079 4.28 10.06 74.30 20 0.0196 0.1668 17.78 41.77 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0068 3.72 8.74 64.57 30 0.0172 0.1460 15.56 36.56 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0060 3.26 7.65 56.52 40 0.0152 0.1287 13.73 32.25 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0053 2.87 6.75 49.84 50 0.0135 0.1144 12.19 28.64 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0047 2.55 5.99 44.27 60 0.0108 0.0920 9.81 23.04 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0038 2.05 4.82 35.62 80 0.0089 0.0757 8.07 18.97 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0031 1.69 3.97 29.32 100 0.0059 0.0502 5.36 12.59 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0021 1.12 2.63 19.45 150 0.0043 0.0361 3.85 9.04 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0015 0.81 1.89 13.97 200 0.0032 0.0274 2.92 6.86 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0011 0.61 1.44 10.61 250 0.0013 0.0108 1.15 2.71 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0004 0.24 0.57 4.18 500 0.0005 0.0041 0.44 1.02 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0002 0.09 0.21 1.58 1000



## D-122

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Multicomponent Impacts - Brake Cleaners - Acute Facility G-03 - 94% Perc

Fresno Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 1266.24 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.09 20 0.0178 1266.24 0.0850 7.47 17.55 20.09 20 0.0000 1668.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 34.50 30 0.0235 1668.13 0.1460 12.83 30.15 34.50 30 0.0000 1472.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.10 40 0.0207 1472.59 0.1104 9.71 22.81 26.10 40 0.0000 1934.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 24.31 50 0.0272 1934.45 0.1029 9.04 21.24 24.31 50 0.0000 1746.52 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.92 60 0.0246 1746.52 0.0885 7.78 18.28 20.92 60 0.0000 1403.39 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.26 80 0.0198 1403.39 0.0519 4.56 10.71 12.26 80 0.0000 1167.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0164 1167.81 0.0339 2.98 7.01 8.02 100 0.0000 760.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.69 150 0.0107 760.67 0.0156 1.37 3.22 3.69 150 0.0000 527.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.12 200 0.0074 527.81 0.0090 0.79 1.85 2.12 200 0.0000 395.54 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.37 250 0.0056 395.54 0.0058 0.51 1.20 1.37 250 0.0000 151.49 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.35 500 0.0021 151.49 0.0015 0.13 0.31 0.35 500 0.0000 55.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000 0.0008 55.11 0.0004 0.03 0.08 0.09 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0178 0.0850 7.47 17.55 20 0.0000 1266.24 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.09 20 0.0235 0.1460 12.83 30.15 30 0.0000 1668.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 34.50 30 0.0207 0.1104 9.71 22.81 40 0.0000 1472.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.10 40 0.0272 0.1029 9.04 21.24 50 0.0000 1934.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 24.31 50 0.0246 0.0885 7.78 18.28 60 0.0000 1746.52 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.92 60 0.0198 0.0519 4.56 10.71 80 0.0000 1403.39 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.26 80 0.0164 0.0339 2.98 7.01 100 0.0000 1167.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0107 0.0156 1.37 3.22 150 0.0000 760.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.69 150 0.0074 0.0090 0.79 1.85 200 0.0000 527.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.12 200 0.0056 0.0058 0.51 1.20 250 0.0000 395.54 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.37 250 0.0021 0.0015 0.13 0.31 500 0.0000 151.49 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.35 500 0.0008 0.0004 0.03 0.08 1000 0.0000 55.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000 

## D-123

## Facility G-03 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Fresno Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0749 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0394 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0068 1266.24 0.0003 0.34 0.79 20.09 20 0.0104 1266.24 0.0498 4.37 10.28 20.09 20 0.0089 1668.13 0.0005 0.58 1.36 34.50 30 0.0137 1668.13 0.0855 7.51 17.65 34.50 30 0.0079 1472.59 0.0003 0.44 1.03 26.10 40 0.0121 1472.59 0.0647 5.68 13.35 26.10 40 0.0103 1934.45 0.0003 0.41 0.96 24.31 50 0.0159 1934.45 0.0602 5.29 12.44 24.31 50 0.0093 1746.52 0.0003 0.35 0.82 20.92 60 0.0144 1746.52 0.0518 4.56 10.70 20.92 60 0.0075 1403.39 0.0002 0.21 0.48 12.26 80 0.0116 1403.39 0.0304 2.67 6.27 12.26 80 0.0062 1167.81 0.0001 0.13 0.32 8.02 100 0.0096 1167.81 0.0199 1.75 4.10 8.02 100 0.0041 760.67 4.8E-05 0.06 0.15 3.69 150 0.0063 760.67 0.0091 0.80 1.89 3.69 150 0.0028 527.81 2.8E-05 0.04 0.08 2.12 200 0.0043 527.81 0.0053 0.46 1.08 2.12 200 0.0021 395.54 1.8E-05 0.02 0.05 1.37 250 0.0033 395.54 0.0034 0.30 0.70 1.37 250 0.0008 151.49 4.6E-06 0.01 0.01 0.35 500 0.0012 151.49 0.0009 0.08 0.18 0.35 500 0.0003 55.11 1.2E-06 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000 0.0005 55.11 0.0002 0.02 0.05 0.09 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0172 0.0500 4.71 11.07 20 0.0000 1266.24 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.09 20 0.0227 0.0859 8.09 19.01 30 0.0000 1668.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 34.50 30 0.0200 0.0650 6.12 14.38 40 0.0000 1472.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.10 40 0.0263 0.0605 5.70 13.39 50 0.0000 1934.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 24.31 50 0.0237 0.0521 4.91 11.53 60 0.0000 1746.52 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.92 60 0.0191 0.0305 2.88 6.75 80 0.0000 1403.39 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.26 80 0.0159 0.0200 1.88 4.42 100 0.0000 1167.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0103 0.0092 0.87 2.03 150 0.0000 760.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.69 150 0.0072 0.0053 0.50 1.17 200 0.0000 527.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.12 200 0.0054 0.0034 0.32 0.75 250 0.0000 395.54 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.37 250 0.0021 0.0009 0.08 0.19 500 0.0000 151.49 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.35 500 0.0007 0.0002 0.02 0.05 1000 0.0000 55.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000



## D-124

## Facility G-03 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Fresno Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0898 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1198 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0630 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0081 1266.24 0.0003 0.40 0.95 20.09 20 0.0076 1266.24 0.0362 3.18 7.47 20.09 20 0.0107 1668.13 0.0005 0.69 1.63 34.50 30 0.0100 1668.13 0.0621 5.46 12.82 34.50 30 0.0094 1472.59 0.0004 0.53 1.23 26.10 40 0.0088 1472.59 0.0470 4.13 9.70 26.10 40 0.0124 1934.45 0.0004 0.49 1.15 24.31 50 0.0116 1934.45 0.0438 3.85 9.04 24.31 50 0.0112 1746.52 0.0003 0.42 0.99 20.92 60 0.0105 1746.52 0.0377 3.31 7.78 20.92 60 0.0090 1403.39 0.0002 0.25 0.58 12.26 80 0.0084 1403.39 0.0221 1.94 4.56 12.26 80 0.0075 1167.81 0.0001 0.16 0.38 8.02 100 0.0070 1167.81 0.0144 1.27 2.98 8.02 100 0.0049 760.67 0.0001 0.07 0.17 3.69 150 0.0046 760.67 0.0066 0.58 1.37 3.69 150 0.0034 527.81 3.3E-05 0.04 0.10 2.12 200 0.0032 527.81 0.0038 0.34 0.79 2.12 200 0.0025 395.54 2.2E-05 0.03 0.06 1.37 250 0.0024 395.54 0.0025 0.22 0.51 1.37 250 0.0010 151.49 5.5E-06 0.01 0.02 0.35 500 0.0009 151.49 0.0006 0.06 0.13 0.35 500 0.0004 55.11 1.4E-06 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000 0.0003 55.11 0.0002 0.01 0.03 0.09 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0315 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0157 0.0375 4.12 9.68 20 0.0000 1266.24 0.0010 0.54 1.27 20.09 20 0.0207 0.0643 7.08 16.63 30 0.0000 1668.13 0.0017 0.93 2.17 34.50 30 0.0183 0.0487 5.36 12.58 40 0.0000 1472.59 0.0013 0.70 1.64 26.10 40 0.0240 0.0453 4.99 11.72 50 0.0000 1934.45 0.0012 0.65 1.53 24.31 50 0.0217 0.0390 4.29 10.08 60 0.0000 1746.52 0.0010 0.56 1.32 20.92 60 0.0174 0.0229 2.52 5.91 80 0.0000 1403.39 0.0006 0.33 0.77 12.26 80 0.0145 0.0150 1.65 3.87 100 0.0000 1167.81 0.0004 0.22 0.51 8.02 100 0.0094 0.0069 0.76 1.78 150 0.0000 760.67 0.0002 0.10 0.23 3.69 150 0.0065 0.0040 0.43 1.02 200 0.0000 527.81 0.0001 0.06 0.13 2.12 200 0.0049 0.0026 0.28 0.66 250 0.0000 395.54 0.0001 0.04 0.09 1.37 250 0.0019 0.0007 0.07 0.17 500 0.0000 151.49 1.7E-05 0.01 0.02 0.35 500 0.0007 0.0002 0.02 0.04 1000 0.0000 55.11 4.4E-06 0.00 0.01 0.09 1000



## D-125

## Facility G-03 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Fresno Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 1266.24 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.09 20 0.0104 1266.24 0.0498 4.37 10.28 20.09 20 0.0000 1668.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 34.50 30 0.0137 1668.13 0.0855 7.51 17.65 34.50 30 0.0000 1472.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.10 40 0.0121 1472.59 0.0647 5.68 13.35 26.10 40 0.0000 1934.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 24.31 50 0.0159 1934.45 0.0602 5.29 12.44 24.31 50 0.0000 1746.52 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.92 60 0.0144 1746.52 0.0518 4.56 10.70 20.92 60 0.0000 1403.39 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.26 80 0.0116 1403.39 0.0304 2.67 6.27 12.26 80 0.0000 1167.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0096 1167.81 0.0199 1.75 4.10 8.02 100 0.0000 760.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.69 150 0.0063 760.67 0.0091 0.80 1.89 3.69 150 0.0000 527.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.12 200 0.0043 527.81 0.0053 0.46 1.08 2.12 200 0.0000 395.54 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.37 250 0.0033 395.54 0.0034 0.30 0.70 1.37 250 0.0000 151.49 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.35 500 0.0012 151.49 0.0009 0.08 0.18 0.35 500 0.0000 55.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.09 1000 0.0005 55.11 0.0002 0.02 0.05 0.09 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.1288 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0677 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0104 0.0519 5.53 13.00 20 0.0000 1266.24 0.0021 1.16 2.72 20.09 20 0.0137 0.0891 9.50 22.32 30 0.0000 1668.13 0.0036 1.99 4.67 34.50 30 0.0121 0.0674 7.19 16.88 40 0.0000 1472.59 0.0028 1.50 3.53 26.10 40 0.0159 0.0628 6.69 15.73 50 0.0000 1934.45 0.0026 1.40 3.29 24.31 50 0.0144 0.0540 5.76 13.53 60 0.0000 1746.52 0.0022 1.21 2.83 20.92 60 0.0116 0.0317 3.38 7.93 80 0.0000 1403.39 0.0013 0.71 1.66 12.26 80 0.0096 0.0207 2.21 5.19 100 0.0000 1167.81 0.0008 0.46 1.09 8.02 100 0.0063 0.0095 1.02 2.39 150 0.0000 760.67 0.0004 0.21 0.50 3.69 150 0.0043 0.0055 0.58 1.37 200 0.0000 527.81 0.0002 0.12 0.29 2.12 200 0.0033 0.0035 0.38 0.89 250 0.0000 395.54 0.0001 0.08 0.19 1.37 250 0.0012 0.0009 0.10 0.23 500 0.0000 151.49 3.7E-05 0.02 0.05 0.35 500 0.0005 0.0002 0.02 0.06 1000 0.0000 55.11 9.5E-06 0.01 0.01 0.09 1000



## D-126

## Facility G-03 - 94% Perc

Concord Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 1344.83 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.28 20 0.0189 1344.83 0.0774 6.80 15.97 18.28 20 0.0000 1964.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.78 30 0.0277 1964.95 0.1768 15.54 36.51 41.78 30 0.0000 1702.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.45 40 0.0240 1702.10 0.1500 13.19 30.98 35.45 40 0.0000 2643.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 32.92 50 0.0372 2643.95 0.1393 12.24 28.77 32.92 50 0.0000 2498.24 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.78 60 0.0352 2498.24 0.1133 9.96 23.40 26.78 60 0.0000 1915.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.70 80 0.0270 1915.64 0.0664 5.84 13.72 15.70 80 0.0000 1511.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.33 100 0.0213 1511.07 0.0437 3.84 9.03 10.33 100 0.0000 927.46 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.82 150 0.0131 927.46 0.0204 1.79 4.21 4.82 150 0.0000 633.44 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.79 200 0.0089 633.44 0.0118 1.04 2.44 2.79 200 0.0000 464.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.83 250 0.0065 464.37 0.0077 0.68 1.60 1.83 250 0.0000 169.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.48 500 0.0024 169.00 0.0020 0.18 0.42 0.48 500 0.0000 61.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.14 1000 0.0009 61.00 0.0006 0.05 0.12 0.14 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0189 0.0774 6.80 15.97 20 0.0000 1344.83 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.28 20 0.0277 0.1768 15.54 36.51 30 0.0000 1964.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.78 30 0.0240 0.1500 13.19 30.98 40 0.0000 1702.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.45 40 0.0372 0.1393 12.24 28.77 50 0.0000 2643.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 32.92 50 0.0352 0.1133 9.96 23.40 60 0.0000 2498.24 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.78 60 0.0270 0.0664 5.84 13.72 80 0.0000 1915.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.70 80 0.0213 0.0437 3.84 9.03 100 0.0000 1511.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.33 100 0.0131 0.0204 1.79 4.21 150 0.0000 927.46 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.82 150 0.0089 0.0118 1.04 2.44 200 0.0000 633.44 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.79 200 0.0065 0.0077 0.68 1.60 250 0.0000 464.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.83 250 0.0024 0.0020 0.18 0.42 500 0.0000 169.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.48 500 0.0009 0.0006 0.05 0.12 1000 0.0000 61.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.14 1000



## D-127

## Facility G-03 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Concord Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0749 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0072 1344.83 0.0002 0.31 0.72 18.28 20 0.0111 1344.83 0.0453 3.98 9.35 18.28 20 0.0105 1964.95 0.0005 0.70 1.65 41.78 30 0.0162 1964.95 0.1035 9.10 21.37 41.78 30 0.0091 1702.10 0.0005 0.59 1.40 35.45 40 0.0140 1702.10 0.0878 7.72 18.13 35.45 40 0.0141 2643.95 0.0004 0.55 1.30 32.92 50 0.0218 2643.95 0.0815 7.17 16.84 32.92 50 0.0134 2498.24 0.0004 0.45 1.06 26.78 60 0.0206 2498.24 0.0663 5.83 13.70 26.78 60 0.0102 1915.64 0.0002 0.26 0.62 15.70 80 0.0158 1915.64 0.0389 3.42 8.03 15.70 80 0.0081 1511.07 0.0001 0.17 0.41 10.33 100 0.0124 1511.07 0.0256 2.25 5.28 10.33 100 0.0050 927.46 0.0001 0.08 0.19 4.82 150 0.0076 927.46 0.0119 1.05 2.47 4.82 150 0.0034 633.44 0.0000 0.05 0.11 2.79 200 0.0052 633.44 0.0069 0.61 1.43 2.79 200 0.0025 464.37 0.0000 0.03 0.07 1.83 250 0.0038 464.37 0.0045 0.40 0.94 1.83 250 0.0009 169.00 0.0000 0.01 0.02 0.48 500 0.0014 169.00 0.0012 0.10 0.25 0.48 500 0.0003 61.00 0.0000 0.00 0.01 0.14 1000 0.0005 61.00 0.0003 0.03 0.07 0.14 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0183 0.0455 4.29 10.07 20 0.0000 1344.83 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.28 20 0.0267 0.1040 9.80 23.02 30 0.0000 1964.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.78 30 0.0231 0.0883 8.31 19.53 40 0.0000 1702.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.45 40 0.0359 0.0820 7.72 18.14 50 0.0000 2643.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 32.92 50 0.0339 0.0667 6.28 14.75 60 0.0000 2498.24 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.78 60 0.0260 0.0391 3.68 8.65 80 0.0000 1915.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.70 80 0.0205 0.0257 2.42 5.69 100 0.0000 1511.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.33 100 0.0126 0.0120 1.13 2.66 150 0.0000 927.46 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.82 150 0.0086 0.0069 0.65 1.54 200 0.0000 633.44 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.79 200 0.0063 0.0046 0.43 1.01 250 0.0000 464.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.83 250 0.0023 0.0012 0.11 0.26 500 0.0000 169.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.48 500 0.0008 0.0003 0.03 0.08 1000 0.0000 61.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.14 1000



## D-128

## Facility G-03 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Concord Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0898 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1198 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0630 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0086 1344.83 0.0003 0.37 0.86 18.28 20 0.0081 1344.83 0.0329 2.89 6.79 18.28 20 0.0126 1964.95 0.0007 0.84 1.98 41.78 30 0.0118 1964.95 0.0752 6.61 15.53 41.78 30 0.0109 1702.10 0.0006 0.71 1.68 35.45 40 0.0102 1702.10 0.0638 5.61 13.18 35.45 40 0.0170 2643.95 0.0005 0.66 1.56 32.92 50 0.0158 2643.95 0.0593 5.21 12.24 32.92 50 0.0160 2498.24 0.0004 0.54 1.27 26.78 60 0.0150 2498.24 0.0482 4.24 9.95 26.78 60 0.0123 1915.64 0.0002 0.32 0.74 15.70 80 0.0115 1915.64 0.0283 2.48 5.84 15.70 80 0.0097 1511.07 0.0002 0.21 0.49 10.33 100 0.0091 1511.07 0.0186 1.63 3.84 10.33 100 0.0059 927.46 0.0001 0.10 0.23 4.82 150 0.0056 927.46 0.0087 0.76 1.79 4.82 150 0.0041 633.44 4.4E-05 0.06 0.13 2.79 200 0.0038 633.44 0.0050 0.44 1.04 2.79 200 0.0030 464.37 2.9E-05 0.04 0.09 1.83 250 0.0028 464.37 0.0033 0.29 0.68 1.83 250 0.0011 169.00 7.6E-06 0.01 0.02 0.48 500 0.0010 169.00 0.0009 0.08 0.18 0.48 500 0.0004 61.00 2.2E-06 0.00 0.01 0.14 1000 0.0004 61.00 0.0003 0.02 0.05 0.14 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0315 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0167 0.0341 3.75 8.81 20 0.0000 1344.83 0.0009 0.49 1.15 18.28 20 0.0244 0.0779 8.57 20.14 30 0.0000 1964.95 0.0021 1.12 2.63 41.78 30 0.0211 0.0661 7.27 17.09 40 0.0000 1702.10 0.0017 0.95 2.23 35.45 40 0.0328 0.0614 6.75 15.87 50 0.0000 2643.95 0.0016 0.88 2.07 32.92 50 0.0310 0.0499 5.49 12.91 60 0.0000 2498.24 0.0013 0.72 1.69 26.78 60 0.0238 0.0293 3.22 7.57 80 0.0000 1915.64 0.0008 0.42 0.99 15.70 80 0.0187 0.0193 2.12 4.98 100 0.0000 1511.07 0.0005 0.28 0.65 10.33 100 0.0115 0.0090 0.99 2.32 150 0.0000 927.46 0.0002 0.13 0.30 4.82 150 0.0079 0.0052 0.57 1.34 200 0.0000 633.44 0.0001 0.07 0.18 2.79 200 0.0058 0.0034 0.38 0.88 250 0.0000 464.37 0.0001 0.05 0.12 1.83 250 0.0021 0.0009 0.10 0.23 500 0.0000 169.00 2.4E-05 0.01 0.03 0.48 500 0.0008 0.0003 0.03 0.07 1000 0.0000 61.00 6.9E-06 0.00 0.01 0.14 1000



## D-129

## Facility G-03 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Concord Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 1344.83 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.28 20 0.0111 1344.83 0.0453 3.98 9.35 18.28 20 0.0000 1964.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.78 30 0.0162 1964.95 0.1035 9.10 21.37 41.78 30 0.0000 1702.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.45 40 0.0140 1702.10 0.0878 7.72 18.13 35.45 40 0.0000 2643.95 0.0000 0.00 0.00 32.92 50 0.0218 2643.95 0.0815 7.17 16.84 32.92 50 0.0000 2498.24 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.78 60 0.0206 2498.24 0.0663 5.83 13.70 26.78 60 0.0000 1915.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.70 80 0.0158 1915.64 0.0389 3.42 8.03 15.70 80 0.0000 1511.07 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.33 100 0.0124 1511.07 0.0256 2.25 5.28 10.33 100 0.0000 927.46 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.82 150 0.0076 927.46 0.0119 1.05 2.47 4.82 150 0.0000 633.44 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.79 200 0.0052 633.44 0.0069 0.61 1.43 2.79 200 0.0000 464.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.83 250 0.0038 464.37 0.0045 0.40 0.94 1.83 250 0.0000 169.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.48 500 0.0014 169.00 0.0012 0.10 0.25 0.48 500 0.0000 61.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.14 1000 0.0005 61.00 0.0003 0.03 0.07 0.14 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.1288 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0677 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0111 0.0472 5.03 11.83 20 0.0000 1344.83 0.0019 1.05 2.48 18.28 20 0.0162 0.1079 11.51 27.03 30 0.0000 1964.95 0.0044 2.41 5.66 41.78 30 0.0140 0.0916 9.76 22.93 40 0.0000 1702.10 0.0037 2.04 4.80 35.45 40 0.0218 0.0850 9.07 21.30 50 0.0000 2643.95 0.0035 1.90 4.46 32.92 50 0.0206 0.0692 7.37 17.32 60 0.0000 2498.24 0.0028 1.54 3.63 26.78 60 0.0158 0.0406 4.32 10.16 80 0.0000 1915.64 0.0017 0.90 2.13 15.70 80 0.0124 0.0267 2.84 6.68 100 0.0000 1511.07 0.0011 0.60 1.40 10.33 100 0.0076 0.0124 1.33 3.12 150 0.0000 927.46 0.0005 0.28 0.65 4.82 150 0.0052 0.0072 0.77 1.80 200 0.0000 633.44 0.0003 0.16 0.38 2.79 200 0.0038 0.0047 0.50 1.18 250 0.0000 464.37 0.0002 0.11 0.25 1.83 250 0.0014 0.0012 0.13 0.31 500 0.0000 169.00 0.0001 0.03 0.06 0.48 500 0.0005 0.0004 0.04 0.09 1000 0.0000 61.00 1.5E-05 0.01 0.02 0.14 1000



## D-130

## Facility G-03 - 94% Perc

Mather Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 958.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.46 20 0.0135 958.09 0.0485 4.26 10.01 11.46 20 0.0000 1290.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.06 30 0.0182 1290.22 0.1060 9.32 21.90 25.06 30 0.0000 1240.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.77 40 0.0175 1240.56 0.0879 7.73 18.15 20.77 40 0.0000 1734.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.28 50 0.0244 1734.69 0.0816 7.17 16.85 19.28 50 0.0000 1546.97 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.76 60 0.0218 1546.97 0.0667 5.86 13.77 15.76 60 0.0000 1057.88 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.15 80 0.0149 1057.88 0.0387 3.40 8.00 9.15 80 0.0000 790.98 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.97 100 0.0111 790.98 0.0253 2.22 5.22 5.97 100 0.0000 526.98 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.74 150 0.0074 526.98 0.0116 1.02 2.39 2.74 150 0.0000 374.12 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.57 200 0.0053 374.12 0.0066 0.58 1.37 1.57 200 0.0000 280.03 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.02 250 0.0039 280.03 0.0043 0.38 0.89 1.02 250 0.0000 105.06 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.26 500 0.0015 105.06 0.0011 0.10 0.23 0.26 500 0.0000 38.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0005 38.59 0.0003 0.03 0.06 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0135 0.0485 4.26 10.01 20 0.0000 958.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.46 20 0.0182 0.1060 9.32 21.90 30 0.0000 1290.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.06 30 0.0175 0.0879 7.73 18.15 40 0.0000 1240.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.77 40 0.0244 0.0816 7.17 16.85 50 0.0000 1734.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.28 50 0.0218 0.0667 5.86 13.77 60 0.0000 1546.97 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.76 60 0.0149 0.0387 3.40 8.00 80 0.0000 1057.88 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.15 80 0.0111 0.0253 2.22 5.22 100 0.0000 790.98 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.97 100 0.0074 0.0116 1.02 2.39 150 0.0000 526.98 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.74 150 0.0053 0.0066 0.58 1.37 200 0.0000 374.12 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.57 200 0.0039 0.0043 0.38 0.89 250 0.0000 280.03 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.02 250 0.0015 0.0011 0.10 0.23 500 0.0000 105.06 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.26 500 0.0005 0.0003 0.03 0.06 1000 0.0000 38.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-131

## Facility G-03 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Mather Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0749 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0394 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0051 958.09 0.0002 0.19 0.45 11.46 20 0.0079 958.09 0.0284 2.50 5.86 11.46 20 0.0069 1290.22 0.0003 0.42 0.99 25.06 30 0.0106 1290.22 0.0621 5.46 12.82 25.06 30 0.0066 1240.56 0.0003 0.35 0.82 20.77 40 0.0102 1240.56 0.0515 4.52 10.62 20.77 40 0.0093 1734.69 0.0003 0.32 0.76 19.28 50 0.0143 1734.69 0.0478 4.20 9.86 19.28 50 0.0083 1546.97 0.0002 0.26 0.62 15.76 60 0.0127 1546.97 0.0390 3.43 8.06 15.76 60 0.0057 1057.88 0.0001 0.15 0.36 9.15 80 0.0087 1057.88 0.0227 1.99 4.68 9.15 80 0.0042 790.98 0.0001 0.10 0.24 5.97 100 0.0065 790.98 0.0148 1.30 3.05 5.97 100 0.0028 526.98 3.6E-05 0.05 0.11 2.74 150 0.0043 526.98 0.0068 0.60 1.40 2.74 150 0.0020 374.12 2.1E-05 0.03 0.06 1.57 200 0.0031 374.12 0.0039 0.34 0.80 1.57 200 0.0015 280.03 1.3E-05 0.02 0.04 1.02 250 0.0023 280.03 0.0025 0.22 0.52 1.02 250 0.0006 105.06 3.4E-06 0.00 0.01 0.26 500 0.0009 105.06 0.0006 0.06 0.13 0.26 500 0.0002 38.59 9.2E-07 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0003 38.59 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0130 0.0285 2.69 6.31 20 0.0000 958.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.46 20 0.0175 0.0624 5.88 13.81 30 0.0000 1290.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.06 30 0.0169 0.0517 4.87 11.44 40 0.0000 1240.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.77 40 0.0236 0.0480 4.52 10.62 50 0.0000 1734.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.28 50 0.0210 0.0392 3.70 8.68 60 0.0000 1546.97 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.76 60 0.0144 0.0228 2.15 5.04 80 0.0000 1057.88 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.15 80 0.0107 0.0149 1.40 3.29 100 0.0000 790.98 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.97 100 0.0072 0.0068 0.64 1.51 150 0.0000 526.98 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.74 150 0.0051 0.0039 0.37 0.86 200 0.0000 374.12 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.57 200 0.0038 0.0025 0.24 0.56 250 0.0000 280.03 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.02 250 0.0014 0.0006 0.06 0.14 500 0.0000 105.06 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.26 500 0.0005 0.0002 0.02 0.04 1000 0.0000 38.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-132

## Facility G-03 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Mather Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0898 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1198 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0630 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0061 958.09 0.0002 0.23 0.54 11.46 20 0.0057 958.09 0.0206 1.81 4.26 11.46 20 0.0083 1290.22 0.0004 0.50 1.19 25.06 30 0.0077 1290.22 0.0451 3.97 9.31 25.06 30 0.0080 1240.56 0.0003 0.42 0.98 20.77 40 0.0074 1240.56 0.0374 3.29 7.72 20.77 40 0.0111 1734.69 0.0003 0.39 0.91 19.28 50 0.0104 1734.69 0.0347 3.05 7.17 19.28 50 0.0099 1546.97 0.0002 0.32 0.75 15.76 60 0.0093 1546.97 0.0284 2.49 5.86 15.76 60 0.0068 1057.88 0.0001 0.18 0.43 9.15 80 0.0063 1057.88 0.0165 1.45 3.40 9.15 80 0.0051 790.98 0.0001 0.12 0.28 5.97 100 0.0047 790.98 0.0107 0.94 2.22 5.97 100 0.0034 526.98 4.3E-05 0.06 0.13 2.74 150 0.0032 526.98 0.0049 0.43 1.02 2.74 150 0.0024 374.12 2.5E-05 0.03 0.07 1.57 200 0.0022 374.12 0.0028 0.25 0.58 1.57 200 0.0018 280.03 1.6E-05 0.02 0.05 1.02 250 0.0017 280.03 0.0018 0.16 0.38 1.02 250 0.0007 105.06 4.1E-06 0.01 0.01 0.26 500 0.0006 105.06 0.0005 0.04 0.10 0.26 500 0.0002 38.59 1.1E-06 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0002 38.59 0.0001 0.01 0.03 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0315 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0119 0.0214 2.35 5.52 20 0.0000 958.09 0.0006 0.31 0.72 11.46 20 0.0160 0.0467 5.14 12.08 30 0.0000 1290.22 0.0012 0.67 1.58 25.06 30 0.0154 0.0387 4.26 10.01 40 0.0000 1240.56 0.0010 0.56 1.31 20.77 40 0.0215 0.0360 3.96 9.29 50 0.0000 1734.69 0.0009 0.52 1.21 19.28 50 0.0192 0.0294 3.23 7.60 60 0.0000 1546.97 0.0008 0.42 0.99 15.76 60 0.0131 0.0171 1.88 4.41 80 0.0000 1057.88 0.0005 0.25 0.58 9.15 80 0.0098 0.0111 1.22 2.88 100 0.0000 790.98 0.0003 0.16 0.38 5.97 100 0.0065 0.0051 0.56 1.32 150 0.0000 526.98 0.0001 0.07 0.17 2.74 150 0.0046 0.0029 0.32 0.76 200 0.0000 374.12 0.0001 0.04 0.10 1.57 200 0.0035 0.0019 0.21 0.49 250 0.0000 280.03 0.0001 0.03 0.06 1.02 250 0.0013 0.0005 0.05 0.13 500 0.0000 105.06 1.3E-05 0.01 0.02 0.26 500 0.0005 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 38.59 3.4E-06 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000



## D-133

## Facility G-03 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Mather Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 958.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.46 20 0.0079 958.09 0.0284 2.50 5.86 11.46 20 0.0000 1290.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.06 30 0.0106 1290.22 0.0621 5.46 12.82 25.06 30 0.0000 1240.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.77 40 0.0102 1240.56 0.0515 4.52 10.62 20.77 40 0.0000 1734.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.28 50 0.0143 1734.69 0.0478 4.20 9.86 19.28 50 0.0000 1546.97 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.76 60 0.0127 1546.97 0.0390 3.43 8.06 15.76 60 0.0000 1057.88 0.0000 0.00 0.00 9.15 80 0.0087 1057.88 0.0227 1.99 4.68 9.15 80 0.0000 790.98 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.97 100 0.0065 790.98 0.0148 1.30 3.05 5.97 100 0.0000 526.98 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.74 150 0.0043 526.98 0.0068 0.60 1.40 2.74 150 0.0000 374.12 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.57 200 0.0031 374.12 0.0039 0.34 0.80 1.57 200 0.0000 280.03 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.02 250 0.0023 280.03 0.0025 0.22 0.52 1.02 250 0.0000 105.06 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.26 500 0.0009 105.06 0.0006 0.06 0.13 0.26 500 0.0000 38.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.07 1000 0.0003 38.59 0.0002 0.02 0.04 0.07 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.1288 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0677 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0079 0.0296 3.16 7.41 20 0.0000 958.09 0.0012 0.66 1.55 11.46 20 0.0106 0.0647 6.90 16.21 30 0.0000 1290.22 0.0027 1.44 3.39 25.06 30 0.0102 0.0536 5.72 13.44 40 0.0000 1240.56 0.0022 1.20 2.81 20.77 40 0.0143 0.0498 5.31 12.47 50 0.0000 1734.69 0.0020 1.11 2.61 19.28 50 0.0127 0.0407 4.34 10.20 60 0.0000 1546.97 0.0017 0.91 2.13 15.76 60 0.0087 0.0236 2.52 5.92 80 0.0000 1057.88 0.0010 0.53 1.24 9.15 80 0.0065 0.0154 1.64 3.86 100 0.0000 790.98 0.0006 0.34 0.81 5.97 100 0.0043 0.0071 0.75 1.77 150 0.0000 526.98 0.0003 0.16 0.37 2.74 150 0.0031 0.0041 0.43 1.02 200 0.0000 374.12 0.0002 0.09 0.21 1.57 200 0.0023 0.0026 0.28 0.66 250 0.0000 280.03 0.0001 0.06 0.14 1.02 250 0.0009 0.0007 0.07 0.17 500 0.0000 105.06 2.8E-05 0.01 0.04 0.26 500 0.0003 0.0002 0.02 0.05 1000 0.0000 38.59 7.4E-06 0.00 0.01 0.07 1000



## D-134

## Facility G-03 - 94% Perc

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 94%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.2815 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.1481 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0386 2744.96 0.3144 27.64 64.92 74.30 20 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0336 2385.45 0.2732 24.02 56.42 64.57 30 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0294 2088.05 0.2392 21.02 49.39 56.52 40 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0259 1841.40 0.2109 18.54 43.55 49.84 50 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0230 1635.59 0.1873 16.47 38.69 44.27 60 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0185 1315.96 0.1507 13.25 31.13 35.62 80 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0152 1083.10 0.1241 10.90 25.62 29.32 100 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0101 718.69 0.0823 7.24 17.00 19.45 150 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0073 516.25 0.0591 5.20 12.21 13.97 200 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0055 391.81 0.0449 3.94 9.27 10.61 250 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0022 154.56 0.0177 1.56 3.66 4.18 500 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000 0.0008 58.40 0.0067 0.59 1.38 1.58 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0386 0.3144 27.64 64.92 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0336 0.2732 24.02 56.42 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0294 0.2392 21.02 49.39 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0259 0.2109 18.54 43.55 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0230 0.1873 16.47 38.69 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0185 0.1507 13.25 31.13 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0152 0.1241 10.90 25.62 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0101 0.0823 7.24 17.00 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0073 0.0591 5.20 12.21 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0055 0.0449 3.94 9.27 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0022 0.0177 1.56 3.66 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0008 0.0067 0.59 1.38 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000



## D-135

## Facility G-03 - 55% Perc, 25% MeCl

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 25% Perc 55%

0.0749 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0394 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0147 2744.96 0.0010 1.25 2.93 74.30 20 0.0226 2744.96 0.1841 16.18 38.01 74.30 20 0.0128 2385.45 0.0008 1.08 2.54 64.57 30 0.0196 2385.45 0.1600 14.06 33.03 64.57 30 0.0112 2088.05 0.0007 0.95 2.23 56.52 40 0.0172 2088.05 0.1400 12.31 28.91 56.52 40 0.0099 1841.40 0.0007 0.84 1.96 49.84 50 0.0152 1841.40 0.1235 10.85 25.50 49.84 50 0.0088 1635.59 0.0006 0.74 1.74 44.27 60 0.0135 1635.59 0.1097 9.64 22.65 44.27 60 0.0070 1315.96 0.0005 0.60 1.40 35.62 80 0.0108 1315.96 0.0882 7.76 18.22 35.62 80 0.0058 1083.10 0.0004 0.49 1.16 29.32 100 0.0089 1083.10 0.0726 6.38 15.00 29.32 100 0.0038 718.69 0.0003 0.33 0.77 19.45 150 0.0059 718.69 0.0482 4.24 9.95 19.45 150 0.0028 516.25 0.0002 0.23 0.55 13.97 200 0.0043 516.25 0.0346 3.04 7.15 13.97 200 0.0021 391.81 0.0001 0.18 0.42 10.61 250 0.0032 391.81 0.0263 2.31 5.43 10.61 250 0.0008 154.56 0.0001 0.07 0.16 4.18 500 0.0013 154.56 0.0104 0.91 2.14 4.18 500 0.0003 58.40 2.1E-05 0.03 0.06 1.58 1000 0.0005 58.40 0.0039 0.34 0.81 1.58 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0373 0.1850 17.43 40.94 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0324 0.1608 15.14 35.57 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0284 0.1408 13.26 31.14 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0250 0.1241 11.69 27.46 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0222 0.1103 10.38 24.39 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0179 0.0887 8.35 19.62 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0147 0.0730 6.88 16.15 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0098 0.0484 4.56 10.72 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0070 0.0348 3.28 7.70 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0053 0.0264 2.49 5.84 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0021 0.0104 0.98 2.30 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0008 0.0039 0.37 0.87 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000



## D-136

## Facility G-03 - 40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 30% Perc 40%

0.0898 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1198 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0473 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0630 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0176 2744.96 0.0012 1.50 3.51 74.30 20 0.0164 2744.96 0.1337 11.76 27.62 74.30 20 0.0153 2385.45 0.0010 1.30 3.05 64.57 30 0.0143 2385.45 0.1162 10.22 24.00 64.57 30 0.0134 2088.05 0.0009 1.14 2.67 56.52 40 0.0125 2088.05 0.1017 8.94 21.01 56.52 40 0.0118 1841.40 0.0008 1.00 2.36 49.84 50 0.0110 1841.40 0.0897 7.89 18.53 49.84 50 0.0105 1635.59 0.0007 0.89 2.09 44.27 60 0.0098 1635.59 0.0797 7.01 16.46 44.27 60 0.0084 1315.96 0.0006 0.72 1.68 35.62 80 0.0079 1315.96 0.0641 5.64 13.24 35.62 80 0.0069 1083.10 0.0005 0.59 1.39 29.32 100 0.0065 1083.10 0.0528 4.64 10.90 29.32 100 0.0046 718.69 0.0003 0.39 0.92 19.45 150 0.0043 718.69 0.0350 3.08 7.23 19.45 150 0.0033 516.25 0.0002 0.28 0.66 13.97 200 0.0031 516.25 0.0252 2.21 5.19 13.97 200 0.0025 391.81 0.0002 0.21 0.50 10.61 250 0.0023 391.81 0.0191 1.68 3.94 10.61 250 0.0010 154.56 0.0001 0.08 0.20 4.18 500 0.0009 154.56 0.0075 0.66 1.56 4.18 500 0.0004 58.40 2.5E-05 0.03 0.07 1.58 1000 0.0003 58.40 0.0028 0.25 0.59 1.58 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 20%

0.0599 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0315 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0340 0.1386 15.25 35.81 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0037 1.99 4.68 74.30 20 0.0296 0.1204 13.25 31.12 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0032 1.73 4.07 64.57 30 0.0259 0.1054 11.60 27.24 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0028 1.52 3.56 56.52 40 0.0228 0.0930 10.23 24.02 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0025 1.34 3.14 49.84 50 0.0203 0.0826 9.08 21.34 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0022 1.19 2.79 44.27 60 0.0163 0.0664 7.31 17.17 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0018 0.96 2.24 35.62 80 0.0134 0.0547 6.02 14.13 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0014 0.79 1.85 29.32 100 0.0089 0.0363 3.99 9.38 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0010 0.52 1.23 19.45 150 0.0064 0.0261 2.87 6.74 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0007 0.37 0.88 13.97 200 0.0049 0.0198 2.18 5.11 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0005 0.28 0.67 10.61 250 0.0019 0.0078 0.86 2.02 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0002 0.11 0.26 4.18 500 0.0007 0.0029 0.32 0.76 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0001 0.04 0.10 1.58 1000



## D-137

## Facility G-03 - 55% Perc, 43% TCE

Default -0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 55%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.1647 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0867 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0226 2744.96 0.1841 16.18 38.01 74.30 20 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0196 2385.45 0.1600 14.06 33.03 64.57 30 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0172 2088.05 0.1400 12.31 28.91 56.52 40 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0152 1841.40 0.1235 10.85 25.50 49.84 50 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0135 1635.59 0.1097 9.64 22.65 44.27 60 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0108 1315.96 0.0882 7.76 18.22 35.62 80 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0089 1083.10 0.0726 6.38 15.00 29.32 100 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0059 718.69 0.0482 4.24 9.95 19.45 150 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0043 516.25 0.0346 3.04 7.15 13.97 200 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0032 391.81 0.0263 2.31 5.43 10.61 250 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0013 154.56 0.0104 0.91 2.14 4.18 500 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000 0.0005 58.40 0.0039 0.34 0.81 1.58 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 43%

0.1288 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0677 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0226 0.1919 20.46 48.07 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0079 4.28 10.06 74.30 20 0.0196 0.1668 17.78 41.77 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0068 3.72 8.74 64.57 30 0.0172 0.1460 15.56 36.56 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0060 3.26 7.65 56.52 40 0.0152 0.1287 13.73 32.25 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0053 2.87 6.75 49.84 50 0.0135 0.1144 12.19 28.64 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0047 2.55 5.99 44.27 60 0.0108 0.0920 9.81 23.04 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0038 2.05 4.82 35.62 80 0.0089 0.0757 8.07 18.97 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0031 1.69 3.97 29.32 100 0.0059 0.0502 5.36 12.59 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0021 1.12 2.63 19.45 150 0.0043 0.0361 3.85 9.04 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0015 0.81 1.89 13.97 200 0.0032 0.0274 2.92 6.86 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0011 0.61 1.44 10.61 250 0.0013 0.0108 1.15 2.71 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0004 0.24 0.57 4.18 500 0.0005 0.0041 0.44 1.02 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0002 0.09 0.21 1.58 1000



## D-138

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Multicomponent Impacts - Carburetor Cleaners - Average of 10 Met Sets Facility G-01 - 68% Perc

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 68%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0347 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0041 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 10938.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 127.54 20 0.0190 10938.41 0.0149 1.31 3.09 127.54 20 0.0000 8158.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 67.72 30 0.0142 8158.81 0.0079 0.70 1.64 67.72 30 0.0000 6322.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.93 40 0.0110 6322.28 0.0049 0.43 1.01 41.93 40 0.0000 5024.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.51 50 0.0087 5024.56 0.0033 0.29 0.69 28.51 50 0.0000 4082.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.66 60 0.0071 4082.78 0.0024 0.21 0.50 20.66 60 0.0000 2846.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.27 80 0.0049 2846.71 0.0014 0.13 0.30 12.27 80 0.0000 2100.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.12 100 0.0036 2100.30 0.0010 0.08 0.20 8.12 100 0.0000 1171.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.78 150 0.0020 1171.11 0.0004 0.04 0.09 3.78 150 0.0000 763.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.18 200 0.0013 763.65 0.0003 0.02 0.05 2.18 200 0.0000 545.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.42 250 0.0009 545.14 0.0002 0.01 0.03 1.42 250 0.0000 192.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0003 192.37 4.3E-05 0.00 0.01 0.37 500 0.0000 72.27 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0001 72.27 1.1E-05 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0190 0.0149 1.31 3.09 20 0.0000 10938.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 127.54 20 0.0142 0.0079 0.70 1.64 30 0.0000 8158.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 67.72 30 0.0110 0.0049 0.43 1.01 40 0.0000 6322.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.93 40 0.0087 0.0033 0.29 0.69 50 0.0000 5024.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.51 50 0.0071 0.0024 0.21 0.50 60 0.0000 4082.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.66 60 0.0049 0.0014 0.13 0.30 80 0.0000 2846.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.27 80 0.0036 0.0010 0.08 0.20 100 0.0000 2100.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.12 100 0.0020 0.0004 0.04 0.09 150 0.0000 1171.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.78 150 0.0013 0.0003 0.02 0.05 200 0.0000 763.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.18 200 0.0009 0.0002 0.01 0.03 250 0.0000 545.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.42 250 0.0003 4.3E-05 0.00 0.01 500 0.0000 192.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0001 1.1E-05 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 72.27 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 

## D-139

## Facility G-01 - 57% MeCl

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 57% Perc 0%

0.0314 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0037 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0245 10938.41 0.0002 0.20 0.47 127.54 20 0.0000 10938.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 127.54 20 0.0183 8158.81 0.0001 0.11 0.25 67.72 30 0.0000 8158.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 67.72 30 0.0142 6322.28 0.0001 0.07 0.16 41.93 40 0.0000 6322.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.93 40 0.0113 5024.56 3.5E-05 0.04 0.11 28.51 50 0.0000 5024.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.51 50 0.0092 4082.78 2.5E-05 0.03 0.08 20.66 60 0.0000 4082.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.66 60 0.0064 2846.71 1.5E-05 0.02 0.05 12.27 80 0.0000 2846.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.27 80 0.0047 2100.30 1.0E-05 0.01 0.03 8.12 100 0.0000 2100.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.12 100 0.0026 1171.11 4.7E-06 0.01 0.01 3.78 150 0.0000 1171.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.78 150 0.0017 763.65 2.7E-06 0.00 0.01 2.18 200 0.0000 763.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.18 200 0.0012 545.14 1.7E-06 0.00 0.01 1.42 250 0.0000 545.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.42 250 0.0004 192.37 4.5E-07 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0000 192.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0002 72.27 1.2E-07 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0000 72.27 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0245 0.0002 0.20 0.47 20 0.0000 10938.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 127.54 20 0.0183 0.0001 0.11 0.25 30 0.0000 8158.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 67.72 30 0.0142 0.0001 0.07 0.16 40 0.0000 6322.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.93 40 0.0113 3.5E-05 0.04 0.11 50 0.0000 5024.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.51 50 0.0092 2.5E-05 0.03 0.08 60 0.0000 4082.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.66 60 0.0064 1.5E-05 0.02 0.05 80 0.0000 2846.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.27 80 0.0047 1.0E-05 0.01 0.03 100 0.0000 2100.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.12 100 0.0026 4.7E-06 0.01 0.01 150 0.0000 1171.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.78 150 0.0017 2.7E-06 0.00 0.01 200 0.0000 763.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.18 200 0.0012 1.7E-06 0.00 0.01 250 0.0000 545.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.42 250 0.0004 4.5E-07 0.00 0.00 500 0.0000 192.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0002 1.2E-07 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 72.27 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-140

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from Carburetor Cleaners for Facility G-01

10.4% 68% Perc 1 Weightings: 89.6% 57% MeCl 2



## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center 0.0240 0.0017 0.32 0.74 20 0.0179 0.0009 0.17 0.39 30 0.0138 0.0006 0.10 0.24 40 0.0110 0.0004 0.07 0.17 50 0.0089 0.0003 0.05 0.12 60 0.0062 0.0002 0.03 0.07 80 0.0046 0.0001 0.02 0.05 100 0.0026 0.0001 0.01 0.02 150 0.0017 2.9E-05 0.01 0.01 200 0.0012 1.9E-05 0.00 0.01 250 0.0004 4.9E-06 0.00 0.00 500 0.0002 1.3E-06 0.00 0.00 1000



## D-141

## Facility G-02 - 68% Perc

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 68%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0347 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0041 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 4985.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.17 20 0.0087 4985.68 0.0087 0.76 1.79 74.17 20 0.0000 4251.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.37 30 0.0074 4251.05 0.0066 0.58 1.36 56.37 30 0.0000 3540.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.41 40 0.0061 3540.67 0.0043 0.37 0.88 36.41 40 0.0000 3001.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.36 50 0.0052 3001.30 0.0030 0.26 0.61 25.36 50 0.0000 2575.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.66 60 0.0045 2575.36 0.0022 0.19 0.45 18.66 60 0.0000 1951.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.32 80 0.0034 1951.11 0.0013 0.12 0.27 11.32 80 0.0000 1532.53 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.60 100 0.0027 1532.53 0.0009 0.08 0.18 7.60 100 0.0000 943.04 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.61 150 0.0016 943.04 0.0004 0.04 0.09 3.61 150 0.0000 647.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.11 200 0.0011 647.01 0.0002 0.02 0.05 2.11 200 0.0000 477.16 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 0.0008 477.16 0.0002 0.01 0.03 1.38 250 0.0000 180.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0003 180.51 4.3E-05 0.00 0.01 0.36 500 0.0000 70.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0001 70.25 1.1E-05 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0087 0.0087 0.76 1.79 20 0.0000 4985.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.17 20 0.0074 0.0066 0.58 1.36 30 0.0000 4251.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.37 30 0.0061 0.0043 0.37 0.88 40 0.0000 3540.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.41 40 0.0052 0.0030 0.26 0.61 50 0.0000 3001.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.36 50 0.0045 0.0022 0.19 0.45 60 0.0000 2575.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.66 60 0.0034 0.0013 0.12 0.27 80 0.0000 1951.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.32 80 0.0027 0.0009 0.08 0.18 100 0.0000 1532.53 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.60 100 0.0016 0.0004 0.04 0.09 150 0.0000 943.04 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.61 150 0.0011 0.0002 0.02 0.05 200 0.0000 647.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.11 200 0.0008 0.0002 0.01 0.03 250 0.0000 477.16 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 0.0003 4.3E-05 0.00 0.01 500 0.0000 180.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0001 1.1E-05 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 70.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-142

## Facility G-02 - 57% MeCl

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 57% Perc 0%

0.0314 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0037 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0112 4985.68 0.0001 0.12 0.27 74.17 20 0.0000 4985.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.17 20 0.0095 4251.05 0.0001 0.09 0.21 56.37 30 0.0000 4251.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.37 30 0.0079 3540.67 4.5E-05 0.06 0.13 36.41 40 0.0000 3540.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.41 40 0.0067 3001.30 3.1E-05 0.04 0.09 25.36 50 0.0000 3001.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.36 50 0.0058 2575.36 2.3E-05 0.03 0.07 18.66 60 0.0000 2575.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.66 60 0.0044 1951.11 1.4E-05 0.02 0.04 11.32 80 0.0000 1951.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.32 80 0.0034 1532.53 9.4E-06 0.01 0.03 7.60 100 0.0000 1532.53 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.60 100 0.0021 943.04 4.5E-06 0.01 0.01 3.61 150 0.0000 943.04 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.61 150 0.0015 647.01 2.6E-06 0.00 0.01 2.11 200 0.0000 647.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.11 200 0.0011 477.16 1.7E-06 0.00 0.01 1.38 250 0.0000 477.16 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 0.0004 180.51 4.5E-07 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0000 180.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0002 70.25 1.2E-07 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0000 70.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0112 0.0001 0.12 0.27 20 0.0000 4985.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.17 20 0.0095 0.0001 0.09 0.21 30 0.0000 4251.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.37 30 0.0079 4.5E-05 0.06 0.13 40 0.0000 3540.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.41 40 0.0067 3.1E-05 0.04 0.09 50 0.0000 3001.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.36 50 0.0058 2.3E-05 0.03 0.07 60 0.0000 2575.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.66 60 0.0044 1.4E-05 0.02 0.04 80 0.0000 1951.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.32 80 0.0034 9.4E-06 0.01 0.03 100 0.0000 1532.53 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.60 100 0.0021 4.5E-06 0.01 0.01 150 0.0000 943.04 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.61 150 0.0015 2.6E-06 0.00 0.01 200 0.0000 647.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.11 200 0.0011 1.7E-06 0.00 0.01 250 0.0000 477.16 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 0.0004 4.5E-07 0.00 0.00 500 0.0000 180.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0002 1.2E-07 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 70.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-143

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from Carburetor Cleaners for Facility G-02

10.4% 68% Perc 1 Weightings: 89.6% 57% MeCl 2



## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center 0.0109 0.0010 0.18 0.43 20 0.0093 0.0007 0.14 0.33 30 0.0078 0.0005 0.09 0.21 40 0.0066 0.0003 0.06 0.15 50 0.0056 0.0002 0.05 0.11 60 0.0043 0.0002 0.03 0.07 80 0.0034 0.0001 0.02 0.04 100 0.0021 4.8E-05 0.01 0.02 150 0.0014 2.8E-05 0.01 0.01 200 0.0010 1.8E-05 0.00 0.01 250 0.0004 4.8E-06 0.00 0.00 500 0.0002 1.3E-06 0.00 0.00 1000



## D-144

## Facility G-03 - 68% Perc

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 68%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0347 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0041 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 1231.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.68 20 0.0021 1231.74 0.0020 0.17 0.40 16.68 20 0.0000 1650.82 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.45 30 0.0029 1650.82 0.0039 0.34 0.81 33.45 30 0.0000 1484.02 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.02 40 0.0026 1484.02 0.0032 0.28 0.65 27.02 40 0.0000 2079.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.03 50 0.0036 2079.26 0.0029 0.26 0.61 25.03 50 0.0000 1915.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.90 60 0.0033 1915.91 0.0024 0.22 0.51 20.90 60 0.0000 1479.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.23 80 0.0026 1479.75 0.0014 0.13 0.30 12.23 80 0.0000 1184.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0021 1184.75 0.0009 0.08 0.19 8.02 100 0.0000 769.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.71 150 0.0013 769.33 0.0004 0.04 0.09 3.71 150 0.0000 550.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.14 200 0.0010 550.34 0.0003 0.02 0.05 2.14 200 0.0000 417.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.39 250 0.0007 417.99 0.0002 0.01 0.03 1.39 250 0.0000 169.20 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0003 169.20 4.3E-05 0.00 0.01 0.36 500 0.0000 68.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0001 68.13 1.1E-05 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0021 0.0020 0.17 0.40 20 0.0000 1231.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.68 20 0.0029 0.0039 0.34 0.81 30 0.0000 1650.82 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.45 30 0.0026 0.0032 0.28 0.65 40 0.0000 1484.02 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.02 40 0.0036 0.0029 0.26 0.61 50 0.0000 2079.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.03 50 0.0033 0.0024 0.22 0.51 60 0.0000 1915.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.90 60 0.0026 0.0014 0.13 0.30 80 0.0000 1479.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.23 80 0.0021 0.0009 0.08 0.19 100 0.0000 1184.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0013 0.0004 0.04 0.09 150 0.0000 769.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.71 150 0.0010 0.0003 0.02 0.05 200 0.0000 550.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.14 200 0.0007 0.0002 0.01 0.03 250 0.0000 417.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.39 250 0.0003 4.3E-05 0.00 0.01 500 0.0000 169.20 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0001 1.1E-05 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 68.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-145

## Facility G-03 - 57% MeCl

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 57% Perc 0%

0.0314 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0037 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0028 1231.74 2.1E-05 0.03 0.06 16.68 20 0.0000 1231.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.68 20 0.0037 1650.82 4.1E-05 0.05 0.12 33.45 30 0.0000 1650.82 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.45 30 0.0033 1484.02 3.3E-05 0.04 0.10 27.02 40 0.0000 1484.02 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.02 40 0.0047 2079.26 3.1E-05 0.04 0.09 25.03 50 0.0000 2079.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.03 50 0.0043 1915.91 2.6E-05 0.03 0.08 20.90 60 0.0000 1915.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.90 60 0.0033 1479.75 1.5E-05 0.02 0.05 12.23 80 0.0000 1479.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.23 80 0.0027 1184.75 9.9E-06 0.01 0.03 8.02 100 0.0000 1184.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0017 769.33 4.6E-06 0.01 0.01 3.71 150 0.0000 769.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.71 150 0.0012 550.34 2.6E-06 0.00 0.01 2.14 200 0.0000 550.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.14 200 0.0009 417.99 1.7E-06 0.00 0.01 1.39 250 0.0000 417.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.39 250 0.0004 169.20 4.5E-07 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0000 169.20 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0002 68.13 1.2E-07 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0000 68.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0028 2.1E-05 0.03 0.06 20 0.0000 1231.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.68 20 0.0037 4.1E-05 0.05 0.12 30 0.0000 1650.82 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.45 30 0.0033 3.3E-05 0.04 0.10 40 0.0000 1484.02 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.02 40 0.0047 3.1E-05 0.04 0.09 50 0.0000 2079.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.03 50 0.0043 2.6E-05 0.03 0.08 60 0.0000 1915.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.90 60 0.0033 1.5E-05 0.02 0.05 80 0.0000 1479.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.23 80 0.0027 9.9E-06 0.01 0.03 100 0.0000 1184.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0017 4.6E-06 0.01 0.01 150 0.0000 769.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.71 150 0.0012 2.6E-06 0.00 0.01 200 0.0000 550.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.14 200 0.0009 1.7E-06 0.00 0.01 250 0.0000 417.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.39 250 0.0004 4.5E-07 0.00 0.00 500 0.0000 169.20 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0002 1.2E-07 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 68.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-146

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from Carburetor Cleaners for Facility G-03

10.4% 68% Perc 1 Weightings: 89.6% 57% MeCl 2



## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center 0.0027 0.0002 0.04 0.10 20 0.0036 0.0004 0.08 0.20 30 0.0033 0.0004 0.07 0.16 40 0.0046 0.0003 0.06 0.15 50 0.0042 0.0003 0.05 0.12 60 0.0032 0.0002 0.03 0.07 80 0.0026 0.0001 0.02 0.05 100 0.0017 4.9E-05 0.01 0.02 150 0.0012 2.8E-05 0.01 0.01 200 0.0009 1.9E-05 0.00 0.01 250 0.0004 4.8E-06 0.00 0.00 500 0.0001 1.3E-06 0.00 0.00 1000



## D-147

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Multicomponent Impacts - Carburetor Cleaners - Default Met Facility G-01 - 68% Perc

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 68%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0347 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0041 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0197 11342.73 0.0360 3.16 7.43 307.03 20 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0147 8496.33 0.0269 2.37 5.56 229.98 30 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0114 6579.11 0.0209 1.83 4.31 178.09 40 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0091 5238.72 0.0166 1.46 3.43 141.80 50 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0074 4269.33 0.0135 1.19 2.80 115.56 60 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0052 2995.85 0.0095 0.84 1.96 81.09 80 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0039 2223.11 0.0070 0.62 1.46 60.18 100 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0022 1239.31 0.0039 0.35 0.81 33.55 150 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0014 799.09 0.0025 0.22 0.52 21.63 200 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0010 563.57 0.0018 0.16 0.37 15.25 250 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0003 187.51 0.0006 0.05 0.12 5.08 500 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000 0.0001 64.26 0.0002 0.02 0.04 1.74 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0197 0.0360 3.16 7.43 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0147 0.0269 2.37 5.56 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0114 0.0209 1.83 4.31 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0091 0.0166 1.46 3.43 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0074 0.0135 1.19 2.80 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0052 0.0095 0.84 1.96 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0039 0.0070 0.62 1.46 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0022 0.0039 0.35 0.81 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0014 0.0025 0.22 0.52 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0010 0.0018 0.16 0.37 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0003 0.0006 0.05 0.12 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0001 0.0002 0.02 0.04 1000 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000 

## D-148

## Facility G-01 - 57% MeCl

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 57% Perc 0%

0.0314 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0037 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0254 11342.73 0.0004 0.48 1.14 307.03 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0191 8496.33 0.0003 0.36 0.85 229.98 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0148 6579.11 0.0002 0.28 0.66 178.09 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0117 5238.72 0.0002 0.22 0.52 141.80 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0096 4269.33 0.0001 0.18 0.43 115.56 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0067 2995.85 0.0001 0.13 0.30 81.09 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0050 2223.11 0.0001 0.09 0.22 60.18 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0028 1239.31 4.1E-05 0.05 0.12 33.55 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0018 799.09 2.7E-05 0.03 0.08 21.63 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0013 563.57 1.9E-05 0.02 0.06 15.25 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0004 187.51 6.3E-06 0.01 0.02 5.08 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0001 64.26 2.1E-06 0.00 0.01 1.74 1000 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0254 0.0004 0.48 1.14 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0191 0.0003 0.36 0.85 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0148 0.0002 0.28 0.66 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0117 0.0002 0.22 0.52 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0096 0.0001 0.18 0.43 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0067 0.0001 0.13 0.30 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0050 0.0001 0.09 0.22 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0028 4.1E-05 0.05 0.12 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0018 2.7E-05 0.03 0.08 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0013 1.9E-05 0.02 0.06 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0004 6.3E-06 0.01 0.02 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0001 2.1E-06 0.00 0.01 1000 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000



## D-149

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from Carburetor Cleaners for Facility G-01

10.4% 68% Perc 1 Weightings: 89.6% 57% MeCl 2



## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope 0.0248 0.0041 0.76 1.79 20 0.0186 0.0031 0.57 1.34 30 0.0144 0.0024 0.44 1.04 40 0.0115 0.0019 0.35 0.83 50 0.0094 0.0015 0.29 0.67 60 0.0066 0.0011 0.20 0.47 80 0.0049 0.0008 0.15 0.35 100 0.0027 0.0004 0.08 0.20 150 0.0018 0.0003 0.05 0.13 200 0.0012 0.0002 0.04 0.09 250 0.0004 0.0001 0.01 0.03 500 0.0001 2.3E-05 0.00 0.01 1000



## D-150

## Facility G-02 - 68% Perc

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 68%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0347 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0041 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0092 5276.51 0.0167 1.47 3.45 142.83 20 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0076 4358.64 0.0138 1.21 2.85 117.98 30 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0063 3649.09 0.0116 1.02 2.39 98.78 40 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0054 3094.79 0.0098 0.86 2.03 83.77 50 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0046 2656.01 0.0084 0.74 1.74 71.89 60 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0035 2017.7 0.0064 0.56 1.32 54.62 80 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0028 1586.22 0.0050 0.44 1.04 42.94 100 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0017 969.72 0.0031 0.27 0.63 26.25 150 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0011 659.99 0.0021 0.18 0.43 17.86 200 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0008 482.19 0.0015 0.13 0.32 13.05 250 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0003 173.33 0.0005 0.05 0.11 4.69 500 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000 0.0001 61.9 0.0002 0.02 0.04 1.68 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0092 0.0167 1.47 3.45 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0076 0.0138 1.21 2.85 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0063 0.0116 1.02 2.39 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0054 0.0098 0.86 2.03 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0046 0.0084 0.74 1.74 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0035 0.0064 0.56 1.32 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0028 0.0050 0.44 1.04 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0017 0.0031 0.27 0.63 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0011 0.0021 0.18 0.43 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0008 0.0015 0.13 0.32 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0003 0.0005 0.05 0.11 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0001 0.0002 0.02 0.04 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000



## D-151

## Facility G-02 - 57% MeCl

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 57% Perc 0%

0.0314 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0037 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0118 5276.51 0.0002 0.22 0.53 142.83 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0098 4358.64 0.0001 0.19 0.44 117.98 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0082 3649.09 0.0001 0.16 0.37 98.78 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0069 3094.79 0.0001 0.13 0.31 83.77 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0060 2656.01 0.0001 0.11 0.27 71.89 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0045 2017.70 0.0001 0.09 0.20 54.62 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0036 1586.22 0.0001 0.07 0.16 42.94 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0022 969.72 3.2E-05 0.04 0.10 26.25 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0015 659.99 2.2E-05 0.03 0.07 17.86 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0011 482.19 1.6E-05 0.02 0.05 13.05 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0004 173.33 5.8E-06 0.01 0.02 4.69 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0001 61.90 2.1E-06 0.00 0.01 1.68 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0118 0.0002 0.22 0.53 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0098 0.0001 0.19 0.44 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0082 0.0001 0.16 0.37 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0069 0.0001 0.13 0.31 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0060 0.0001 0.11 0.27 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0045 0.0001 0.09 0.20 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0036 0.0001 0.07 0.16 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0022 3.2E-05 0.04 0.10 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0015 2.2E-05 0.03 0.07 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0011 1.6E-05 0.02 0.05 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0004 5.8E-06 0.01 0.02 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0001 2.1E-06 0.00 0.01 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000



## D-152

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from Carburetor Cleaners for Facility G-02

10.4% 68% Perc 1 Weightings: 89.6% 57% MeCl 2



## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope 0.0116 0.0019 0.35 0.83 20 0.0095 0.0016 0.29 0.69 30 0.0080 0.0013 0.25 0.58 40 0.0068 0.0011 0.21 0.49 50 0.0058 0.0010 0.18 0.42 60 0.0044 0.0007 0.14 0.32 80 0.0035 0.0006 0.11 0.25 100 0.0021 0.0003 0.07 0.15 150 0.0014 0.0002 0.04 0.10 200 0.0011 0.0002 0.03 0.08 250 0.0004 0.0001 0.01 0.03 500 0.0001 2.2E-05 0.00 0.01 1000



## D-153

## Facility G-03 - 68% Perc

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 68%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0347 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0041 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0048 2744.96 0.0087 0.77 1.80 74.30 20 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0041 2385.45 0.0076 0.66 1.56 64.57 30 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0036 2088.05 0.0066 0.58 1.37 56.52 40 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0032 1841.4 0.0058 0.51 1.21 49.84 50 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0028 1635.59 0.0052 0.46 1.07 44.27 60 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0023 1315.96 0.0042 0.37 0.86 35.62 80 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0019 1083.1 0.0034 0.30 0.71 29.32 100 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0012 718.69 0.0023 0.20 0.47 19.45 150 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0009 516.25 0.0016 0.14 0.34 13.97 200 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0007 391.81 0.0012 0.11 0.26 10.61 250 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0003 154.56 0.0005 0.04 0.10 4.18 500 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000 0.0001 58.4 0.0002 0.02 0.04 1.58 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0048 0.0087 0.77 1.80 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0041 0.0076 0.66 1.56 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0036 0.0066 0.58 1.37 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0032 0.0058 0.51 1.21 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0028 0.0052 0.46 1.07 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0023 0.0042 0.37 0.86 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0019 0.0034 0.30 0.71 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0012 0.0023 0.20 0.47 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0009 0.0016 0.14 0.34 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0007 0.0012 0.11 0.26 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0003 0.0005 0.04 0.10 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0001 0.0002 0.02 0.04 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000



## D-154

## Facility G-03 - 57% MeCl

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 57% Perc 0%

0.0314 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0037 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0062 2744.96 0.0001 0.12 0.27 74.30 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0054 2385.45 0.0001 0.10 0.24 64.57 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0047 2088.05 0.0001 0.09 0.21 56.52 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0041 1841.40 0.0001 0.08 0.18 49.84 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0037 1635.59 0.0001 0.07 0.16 44.27 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0030 1315.96 4.4E-05 0.06 0.13 35.62 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0024 1083.10 3.6E-05 0.05 0.11 29.32 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0016 718.69 2.4E-05 0.03 0.07 19.45 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0012 516.25 1.7E-05 0.02 0.05 13.97 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0009 391.81 1.3E-05 0.02 0.04 10.61 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0003 154.56 5.2E-06 0.01 0.02 4.18 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0001 58.40 1.9E-06 0.00 0.01 1.58 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0062 0.0001 0.12 0.27 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0054 0.0001 0.10 0.24 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0047 0.0001 0.09 0.21 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0041 0.0001 0.08 0.18 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0037 0.0001 0.07 0.16 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0030 4.4E-05 0.06 0.13 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0024 3.6E-05 0.05 0.11 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0016 2.4E-05 0.03 0.07 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0012 1.7E-05 0.02 0.05 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0009 1.3E-05 0.02 0.04 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0003 5.2E-06 0.01 0.02 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0001 1.9E-06 0.00 0.01 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000



## D-155

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from Carburetor Cleaners for Facility G-03

10.4% 68% Perc 1 Weightings: 89.6% 57% MeCl 2



## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope 0.0060 0.0010 0.18 0.43 20 0.0052 0.0009 0.16 0.38 30 0.0046 0.0008 0.14 0.33 40 0.0040 0.0007 0.12 0.29 50 0.0036 0.0006 0.11 0.26 60 0.0029 0.0005 0.09 0.21 80 0.0024 0.0004 0.07 0.17 100 0.0016 0.0003 0.05 0.11 150 0.0011 0.0002 0.03 0.08 200 0.0009 0.0001 0.03 0.06 250 0.0003 0.0001 0.01 0.02 500 0.0001 2.1E-05 0.00 0.01 1000



## D-156

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Multicomponent Impacts - Engine Degreasers - Average of 10 Met Sets Facility G-01 - 47% Perc

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 0% 47%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0708 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0035 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 10938.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 127.54 20 0.0387 10938.41 0.0128 1.12 2.63 127.54 20 0.0000 8158.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 67.72 30 0.0289 8158.81 0.0068 0.60 1.40 67.72 30 0.0000 6322.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.93 40 0.0224 6322.28 0.0042 0.37 0.87 41.93 40 0.0000 5024.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.51 50 0.0178 5024.56 0.0029 0.25 0.59 28.51 50 0.0000 4082.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.66 60 0.0145 4082.78 0.0021 0.18 0.43 20.66 60 0.0000 2846.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.27 80 0.0101 2846.71 0.0012 0.11 0.25 12.27 80 0.0000 2100.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.12 100 0.0074 2100.30 0.0008 0.07 0.17 8.12 100 0.0000 1171.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.78 150 0.0041 1171.11 0.0004 0.03 0.08 3.78 150 0.0000 763.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.18 200 0.0027 763.65 0.0002 0.02 0.05 2.18 200 0.0000 545.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.42 250 0.0019 545.14 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1.42 250 0.0000 192.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0007 192.37 3.7E-05 0.00 0.01 0.37 500 0.0000 72.27 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0003 72.27 9.6E-06 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0387 0.0128 1.12 2.63 20 0.0000 10938.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 127.54 20 0.0289 0.0068 0.60 1.40 30 0.0000 8158.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 67.72 30 0.0224 0.0042 0.37 0.87 40 0.0000 6322.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.93 40 0.0178 0.0029 0.25 0.59 50 0.0000 5024.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.51 50 0.0145 0.0021 0.18 0.43 60 0.0000 4082.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.66 60 0.0101 0.0012 0.11 0.25 80 0.0000 2846.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.27 80 0.0074 0.0008 0.07 0.17 100 0.0000 2100.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.12 100 0.0041 0.0004 0.03 0.08 150 0.0000 1171.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.78 150 0.0027 0.0002 0.02 0.05 200 0.0000 763.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.18 200 0.0019 0.0001 0.01 0.03 250 0.0000 545.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.42 250 0.0007 3.7E-05 0.00 0.01 500 0.0000 192.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0003 9.6E-06 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 72.27 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 

## D-157

## Facility G-01 - 99% TCE

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 10938.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 127.54 20 0.0000 10938.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 127.54 20 0.0000 8158.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 67.72 30 0.0000 8158.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 67.72 30 0.0000 6322.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.93 40 0.0000 6322.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.93 40 0.0000 5024.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.51 50 0.0000 5024.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.51 50 0.0000 4082.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.66 60 0.0000 4082.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.66 60 0.0000 2846.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.27 80 0.0000 2846.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.27 80 0.0000 2100.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.12 100 0.0000 2100.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.12 100 0.0000 1171.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.78 150 0.0000 1171.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.78 150 0.0000 763.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.18 200 0.0000 763.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.18 200 0.0000 545.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.42 250 0.0000 545.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.42 250 0.0000 192.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0000 192.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0000 72.27 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0000 72.27 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 99%

0.1492 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0074 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 0.0015 0.80 1.89 20 0.0000 10938.41 0.0015 0.80 1.89 127.54 20 0.0000 0.0008 0.43 1.00 30 0.0000 8158.81 0.0008 0.43 1.00 67.72 30 0.0000 0.0005 0.26 0.62 40 0.0000 6322.28 0.0005 0.26 0.62 41.93 40 0.0000 0.0003 0.18 0.42 50 0.0000 5024.56 0.0003 0.18 0.42 28.51 50 0.0000 0.0002 0.13 0.31 60 0.0000 4082.78 0.0002 0.13 0.31 20.66 60 0.0000 0.0001 0.08 0.18 80 0.0000 2846.71 0.0001 0.08 0.18 12.27 80 0.0000 0.0001 0.05 0.12 100 0.0000 2100.30 0.0001 0.05 0.12 8.12 100 0.0000 4.4E-05 0.02 0.06 150 0.0000 1171.11 4.4E-05 0.02 0.06 3.78 150 0.0000 2.5E-05 0.01 0.03 200 0.0000 763.65 2.5E-05 0.01 0.03 2.18 200 0.0000 1.6E-05 0.01 0.02 250 0.0000 545.14 1.6E-05 0.01 0.02 1.42 250 0.0000 4.3E-06 0.00 0.01 500 0.0000 192.37 4.3E-06 0.00 0.01 0.37 500 0.0000 1.1E-06 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 72.27 1.1E-06 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-158

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from Engine Degreasers for Facility G-01

41.0% 47% Perc 1 Weightings: 59.0% 99% TCE 2



## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center 0.0159 0.0061 0.93 2.19 20 0.0118 0.0032 0.50 1.16 30 0.0092 0.0020 0.31 0.72 40 0.0073 0.0014 0.21 0.49 50 0.0059 0.0010 0.15 0.36 60 0.0041 0.0006 0.09 0.21 80 0.0030 0.0004 0.06 0.14 100 0.0017 0.0002 0.03 0.07 150 0.0011 0.0001 0.02 0.04 200 0.0008 0.0001 0.01 0.02 250 0.0003 1.8E-05 0.00 0.01 500 1.0E-04 4.6E-06 0.00 0.00 1000



## D-159

## Facility G-02 - 47% Perc

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 47%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0708 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0035 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 4985.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.17 20 0.0176 4985.68 0.0074 0.65 1.53 74.17 20 0.0000 4251.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.37 30 0.0150 4251.05 0.0056 0.50 1.16 56.37 30 0.0000 3540.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.41 40 0.0125 3540.67 0.0036 0.32 0.75 36.41 40 0.0000 3001.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.36 50 0.0106 3001.30 0.0025 0.22 0.52 25.36 50 0.0000 2575.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.66 60 0.0091 2575.36 0.0019 0.16 0.39 18.66 60 0.0000 1951.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.32 80 0.0069 1951.11 0.0011 0.10 0.23 11.32 80 0.0000 1532.53 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.60 100 0.0054 1532.53 0.0008 0.07 0.16 7.60 100 0.0000 943.04 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.61 150 0.0033 943.04 0.0004 0.03 0.07 3.61 150 0.0000 647.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.11 200 0.0023 647.01 0.0002 0.02 0.04 2.11 200 0.0000 477.16 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 0.0017 477.16 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1.38 250 0.0000 180.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0006 180.51 3.6E-05 0.00 0.01 0.36 500 0.0000 70.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0002 70.25 9.6E-06 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0176 0.0074 0.65 1.53 20 0.0000 4985.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.17 20 0.0150 0.0056 0.50 1.16 30 0.0000 4251.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.37 30 0.0125 0.0036 0.32 0.75 40 0.0000 3540.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.41 40 0.0106 0.0025 0.22 0.52 50 0.0000 3001.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.36 50 0.0091 0.0019 0.16 0.39 60 0.0000 2575.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.66 60 0.0069 0.0011 0.10 0.23 80 0.0000 1951.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.32 80 0.0054 0.0008 0.07 0.16 100 0.0000 1532.53 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.60 100 0.0033 0.0004 0.03 0.07 150 0.0000 943.04 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.61 150 0.0023 0.0002 0.02 0.04 200 0.0000 647.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.11 200 0.0017 0.0001 0.01 0.03 250 0.0000 477.16 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 0.0006 3.6E-05 0.00 0.01 500 0.0000 180.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0002 9.6E-06 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 70.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-160

## Facility G-02 - 99% TCE

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 4985.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.17 20 0.0000 4985.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.17 20 0.0000 4251.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.37 30 0.0000 4251.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.37 30 0.0000 3540.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.41 40 0.0000 3540.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.41 40 0.0000 3001.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.36 50 0.0000 3001.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.36 50 0.0000 2575.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.66 60 0.0000 2575.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.66 60 0.0000 1951.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.32 80 0.0000 1951.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.32 80 0.0000 1532.53 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.60 100 0.0000 1532.53 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.60 100 0.0000 943.04 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.61 150 0.0000 943.04 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.61 150 0.0000 647.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.11 200 0.0000 647.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.11 200 0.0000 477.16 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 0.0000 477.16 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 0.0000 180.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0000 180.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0000 70.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0000 70.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 99%

0.1492 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0074 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 0.0009 0.47 1.10 20 0.0000 4985.68 0.0009 0.47 1.10 74.17 20 0.0000 0.0007 0.36 0.83 30 0.0000 4251.05 0.0007 0.36 0.83 56.37 30 0.0000 0.0004 0.23 0.54 40 0.0000 3540.67 0.0004 0.23 0.54 36.41 40 0.0000 0.0003 0.16 0.38 50 0.0000 3001.30 0.0003 0.16 0.38 25.36 50 0.0000 0.0002 0.12 0.28 60 0.0000 2575.36 0.0002 0.12 0.28 18.66 60 0.0000 0.0001 0.07 0.17 80 0.0000 1951.11 0.0001 0.07 0.17 11.32 80 0.0000 0.0001 0.05 0.11 100 0.0000 1532.53 0.0001 0.05 0.11 7.60 100 0.0000 4.2E-05 0.02 0.05 150 0.0000 943.04 4.2E-05 0.02 0.05 3.61 150 0.0000 2.4E-05 0.01 0.03 200 0.0000 647.01 2.4E-05 0.01 0.03 2.11 200 0.0000 1.6E-05 0.01 0.02 250 0.0000 477.16 1.6E-05 0.01 0.02 1.38 250 0.0000 4.2E-06 0.00 0.01 500 0.0000 180.51 4.2E-06 0.00 0.01 0.36 500 0.0000 1.1E-06 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 70.25 1.1E-06 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-161

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from Engine Degreasers for Facility G-02

41.0% 24% Perc 1 Weightings: 59.0% 99% TCE 2



## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center 0.0072 0.0035 0.54 1.28 20 0.0062 0.0027 0.41 0.97 30 0.0051 0.0017 0.27 0.63 40 0.0044 0.0012 0.19 0.44 50 0.0037 0.0009 0.14 0.32 60 0.0028 0.0005 0.08 0.19 80 0.0022 0.0004 0.06 0.13 100 0.0014 0.0002 0.03 0.06 150 0.0009 0.0001 0.02 0.04 200 0.0007 0.0001 0.01 0.02 250 0.0003 1.7E-05 0.00 0.01 500 1.0E-04 4.6E-06 0.00 0.00 1000



## D-162

## Facility G-03 - 47% Perc

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 47%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0708 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0035 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 1231.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.68 20 0.0044 1231.74 0.0017 0.15 0.34 16.68 20 0.0000 1650.82 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.45 30 0.0058 1650.82 0.0033 0.29 0.69 33.45 30 0.0000 1484.02 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.02 40 0.0053 1484.02 0.0027 0.24 0.56 27.02 40 0.0000 2079.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.03 50 0.0074 2079.26 0.0025 0.22 0.52 25.03 50 0.0000 1915.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.90 60 0.0068 1915.91 0.0021 0.18 0.43 20.90 60 0.0000 1479.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.23 80 0.0052 1479.75 0.0012 0.11 0.25 12.23 80 0.0000 1184.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0042 1184.75 0.0008 0.07 0.17 8.02 100 0.0000 769.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.71 150 0.0027 769.33 0.0004 0.03 0.08 3.71 150 0.0000 550.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.14 200 0.0019 550.34 0.0002 0.02 0.04 2.14 200 0.0000 417.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.39 250 0.0015 417.99 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1.39 250 0.0000 169.20 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0006 169.20 3.6E-05 0.00 0.01 0.36 500 0.0000 68.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0002 68.13 9.6E-06 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0044 0.0017 0.15 0.34 20 0.0000 1231.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.68 20 0.0058 0.0033 0.29 0.69 30 0.0000 1650.82 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.45 30 0.0053 0.0027 0.24 0.56 40 0.0000 1484.02 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.02 40 0.0074 0.0025 0.22 0.52 50 0.0000 2079.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.03 50 0.0068 0.0021 0.18 0.43 60 0.0000 1915.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.90 60 0.0052 0.0012 0.11 0.25 80 0.0000 1479.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.23 80 0.0042 0.0008 0.07 0.17 100 0.0000 1184.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0027 0.0004 0.03 0.08 150 0.0000 769.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.71 150 0.0019 0.0002 0.02 0.04 200 0.0000 550.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.14 200 0.0015 0.0001 0.01 0.03 250 0.0000 417.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.39 250 0.0006 3.6E-05 0.00 0.01 500 0.0000 169.20 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0002 9.6E-06 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 68.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-163

## Facility G-03 - 99% TCE

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 1231.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.68 20 0.0000 1231.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.68 20 0.0000 1650.82 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.45 30 0.0000 1650.82 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.45 30 0.0000 1484.02 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.02 40 0.0000 1484.02 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.02 40 0.0000 2079.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.03 50 0.0000 2079.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.03 50 0.0000 1915.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.90 60 0.0000 1915.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.90 60 0.0000 1479.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.23 80 0.0000 1479.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.23 80 0.0000 1184.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0000 1184.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0000 769.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.71 150 0.0000 769.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.71 150 0.0000 550.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.14 200 0.0000 550.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.14 200 0.0000 417.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.39 250 0.0000 417.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.39 250 0.0000 169.20 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0000 169.20 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0000 68.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0000 68.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 99%

0.1492 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0074 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 0.0002 0.11 0.25 20 0.0000 1231.74 0.0002 0.11 0.25 16.68 20 0.0000 0.0004 0.21 0.50 30 0.0000 1650.82 0.0004 0.21 0.50 33.45 30 0.0000 0.0003 0.17 0.40 40 0.0000 1484.02 0.0003 0.17 0.40 27.02 40 0.0000 0.0003 0.16 0.37 50 0.0000 2079.26 0.0003 0.16 0.37 25.03 50 0.0000 0.0002 0.13 0.31 60 0.0000 1915.91 0.0002 0.13 0.31 20.90 60 0.0000 0.0001 0.08 0.18 80 0.0000 1479.75 0.0001 0.08 0.18 12.23 80 0.0000 0.0001 0.05 0.12 100 0.0000 1184.75 0.0001 0.05 0.12 8.02 100 0.0000 4.3E-05 0.02 0.05 150 0.0000 769.33 4.3E-05 0.02 0.05 3.71 150 0.0000 2.5E-05 0.01 0.03 200 0.0000 550.34 2.5E-05 0.01 0.03 2.14 200 0.0000 1.6E-05 0.01 0.02 250 0.0000 417.99 1.6E-05 0.01 0.02 1.39 250 0.0000 4.2E-06 0.00 0.01 500 0.0000 169.20 4.2E-06 0.00 0.01 0.36 500 0.0000 1.1E-06 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 68.13 1.1E-06 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-164

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from Engine Degreasers for Facility G-03

41.0% 24% Perc 1 Weightings: 59.0% 99% TCE 2



## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center 0.0018 0.0008 0.12 0.29 20 0.0024 0.0016 0.24 0.58 30 0.0022 0.0013 0.20 0.46 40 0.0030 0.0012 0.18 0.43 50 0.0028 0.0010 0.15 0.36 60 0.0021 0.0006 0.09 0.21 80 0.0017 0.0004 0.06 0.14 100 0.0011 0.0002 0.03 0.06 150 0.0008 0.0001 0.02 0.04 200 0.0006 0.0001 0.01 0.02 250 0.0002 0.0000 0.00 0.01 500 0.0001 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1000



## D-165

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Multicomponent Impacts - Engine Degreasers - Default Met Facility G-01 - 47% Perc

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 0% 47%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0708 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0035 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0402 11342.73 0.0307 2.70 6.34 307.03 20 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0301 8496.33 0.0230 2.02 4.75 229.98 30 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0233 6579.11 0.0178 1.57 3.68 178.09 40 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0185 5238.72 0.0142 1.25 2.93 141.80 50 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0151 4269.33 0.0116 1.02 2.39 115.56 60 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0106 2995.85 0.0081 0.71 1.67 81.09 80 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0079 2223.11 0.0060 0.53 1.24 60.18 100 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0044 1239.31 0.0034 0.29 0.69 33.55 150 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0028 799.09 0.0022 0.19 0.45 21.63 200 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0020 563.57 0.0015 0.13 0.32 15.25 250 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0007 187.51 0.0005 0.04 0.10 5.08 500 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000 0.0002 64.26 0.0002 0.02 0.04 1.74 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0402 0.0307 2.70 6.34 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0301 0.0230 2.02 4.75 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0233 0.0178 1.57 3.68 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0185 0.0142 1.25 2.93 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0151 0.0116 1.02 2.39 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0106 0.0081 0.71 1.67 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0079 0.0060 0.53 1.24 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0044 0.0034 0.29 0.69 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0028 0.0022 0.19 0.45 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0020 0.0015 0.13 0.32 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0007 0.0005 0.04 0.10 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0002 0.0002 0.02 0.04 1000 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000 

## D-166

## Facility G-01 - 99% TCE

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 99%

0.1492 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0074 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 0.0036 1.93 4.54 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0036 1.93 4.54 307.03 20 0.0000 0.0027 1.45 3.40 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0027 1.45 3.40 229.98 30 0.0000 0.0021 1.12 2.64 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0021 1.12 2.64 178.09 40 0.0000 0.0016 0.89 2.10 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0016 0.89 2.10 141.80 50 0.0000 0.0013 0.73 1.71 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0013 0.73 1.71 115.56 60 0.0000 0.0009 0.51 1.20 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0009 0.51 1.20 81.09 80 0.0000 0.0007 0.38 0.89 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0007 0.38 0.89 60.18 100 0.0000 0.0004 0.21 0.50 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0004 0.21 0.50 33.55 150 0.0000 0.0003 0.14 0.32 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0003 0.14 0.32 21.63 200 0.0000 0.0002 0.10 0.23 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0002 0.10 0.23 15.25 250 0.0000 0.0001 0.03 0.08 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0001 0.03 0.08 5.08 500 0.0000 2.0E-05 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 64.26 2.0E-05 0.01 0.03 1.74 1000



## D-167

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from Engine Degreasers for Facility G-01

41.0% 47% Perc 1 Weightings: 59.0% 99% TCE 2



## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope 0.0165 0.0147 2.25 5.28 20 0.0123 0.0110 1.68 3.96 30 0.0095 0.0085 1.30 3.06 40 0.0076 0.0068 1.04 2.44 50 0.0062 0.0055 0.85 1.99 60 0.0043 0.0039 0.59 1.39 80 0.0032 0.0029 0.44 1.03 100 0.0018 0.0016 0.25 0.58 150 0.0012 0.0010 0.16 0.37 200 0.0008 0.0007 0.11 0.26 250 0.0003 0.0002 0.04 0.09 500 0.0001 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1000



## D-168

## Facility G-02 - 47% Perc

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 47%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0708 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0035 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0187 5276.51 0.0143 1.26 2.95 142.83 20 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0154 4358.64 0.0118 1.04 2.44 117.98 30 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0129 3649.09 0.0099 0.87 2.04 98.78 40 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0110 3094.79 0.0084 0.74 1.73 83.77 50 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0094 2656.01 0.0072 0.63 1.48 71.89 60 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0071 2017.7 0.0055 0.48 1.13 54.62 80 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0056 1586.22 0.0043 0.38 0.89 42.94 100 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0034 969.72 0.0026 0.23 0.54 26.25 150 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0023 659.99 0.0018 0.16 0.37 17.86 200 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0017 482.19 0.0013 0.11 0.27 13.05 250 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0006 173.33 0.0005 0.04 0.10 4.69 500 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000 0.0002 61.9 0.0002 0.01 0.03 1.68 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0187 0.0143 1.26 2.95 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0154 0.0118 1.04 2.44 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0129 0.0099 0.87 2.04 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0110 0.0084 0.74 1.73 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0094 0.0072 0.63 1.48 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0071 0.0055 0.48 1.13 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0056 0.0043 0.38 0.89 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0034 0.0026 0.23 0.54 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0023 0.0018 0.16 0.37 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0017 0.0013 0.11 0.27 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0006 0.0005 0.04 0.10 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0002 0.0002 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000



## D-169

## Facility G-02 - 99% TCE

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 99%

0.1492 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0074 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 0.0017 0.90 2.11 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0017 0.90 2.11 142.83 20 0.0000 0.0014 0.74 1.75 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0014 0.74 1.75 117.98 30 0.0000 0.0011 0.62 1.46 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0011 0.62 1.46 98.78 40 0.0000 0.0010 0.53 1.24 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0010 0.53 1.24 83.77 50 0.0000 0.0008 0.45 1.06 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0008 0.45 1.06 71.89 60 0.0000 0.0006 0.34 0.81 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0006 0.34 0.81 54.62 80 0.0000 0.0005 0.27 0.64 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0005 0.27 0.64 42.94 100 0.0000 0.0003 0.17 0.39 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0003 0.17 0.39 26.25 150 0.0000 0.0002 0.11 0.26 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0002 0.11 0.26 17.86 200 0.0000 0.0002 0.08 0.19 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0002 0.08 0.19 13.05 250 0.0000 0.0001 0.03 0.07 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0001 0.03 0.07 4.69 500 0.0000 1.9E-05 0.01 0.02 1000 0.0000 61.90 1.9E-05 0.01 0.02 1.68 1000



## D-170

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from Engine Degreasers for Facility G-02

41.0% 24% Perc 1 Weightings: 59.0% 99% TCE 2



## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope 0.0077 0.0068 1.05 2.46 20 0.0063 0.0056 0.86 2.03 30 0.0053 0.0047 0.72 1.70 40 0.0045 0.0040 0.61 1.44 50 0.0039 0.0034 0.53 1.24 60 0.0029 0.0026 0.40 0.94 80 0.0023 0.0021 0.31 0.74 100 0.0014 0.0013 0.19 0.45 150 0.0010 0.0009 0.13 0.31 200 0.0007 0.0006 0.10 0.22 250 0.0003 0.0002 0.03 0.08 500 0.0001 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1000



## D-171

## Facility G-03 - 47% Perc

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 47%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0708 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0035 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0097 2744.96 0.0074 0.65 1.53 74.30 20 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0084 2385.45 0.0065 0.57 1.33 64.57 30 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0074 2088.05 0.0057 0.50 1.17 56.52 40 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0065 1841.4 0.0050 0.44 1.03 49.84 50 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0058 1635.59 0.0044 0.39 0.91 44.27 60 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0047 1315.96 0.0036 0.31 0.74 35.62 80 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0038 1083.1 0.0029 0.26 0.61 29.32 100 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0025 718.69 0.0019 0.17 0.40 19.45 150 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0018 516.25 0.0014 0.12 0.29 13.97 200 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0014 391.81 0.0011 0.09 0.22 10.61 250 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0005 154.56 0.0004 0.04 0.09 4.18 500 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000 0.0002 58.4 0.0002 0.01 0.03 1.58 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0097 0.0074 0.65 1.53 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0084 0.0065 0.57 1.33 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0074 0.0057 0.50 1.17 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0065 0.0050 0.44 1.03 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0058 0.0044 0.39 0.91 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0047 0.0036 0.31 0.74 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0038 0.0029 0.26 0.61 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0025 0.0019 0.17 0.40 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0018 0.0014 0.12 0.29 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0014 0.0011 0.09 0.22 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0005 0.0004 0.04 0.09 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0002 0.0002 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000



## D-172

## Facility G-03 - 99% TCE

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 99%

0.1492 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0074 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 0.0009 0.47 1.10 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0009 0.47 1.10 74.30 20 0.0000 0.0007 0.41 0.96 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0007 0.41 0.96 64.57 30 0.0000 0.0007 0.36 0.84 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0007 0.36 0.84 56.52 40 0.0000 0.0006 0.31 0.74 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0006 0.31 0.74 49.84 50 0.0000 0.0005 0.28 0.66 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0005 0.28 0.66 44.27 60 0.0000 0.0004 0.22 0.53 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0004 0.22 0.53 35.62 80 0.0000 0.0003 0.18 0.43 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0003 0.18 0.43 29.32 100 0.0000 0.0002 0.12 0.29 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0002 0.12 0.29 19.45 150 0.0000 0.0002 0.09 0.21 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0002 0.09 0.21 13.97 200 0.0000 0.0001 0.07 0.16 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0001 0.07 0.16 10.61 250 0.0000 4.8E-05 0.03 0.06 500 0.0000 154.56 4.8E-05 0.03 0.06 4.18 500 0.0000 1.8E-05 0.01 0.02 1000 0.0000 58.40 1.8E-05 0.01 0.02 1.58 1000



## D-173

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from Engine Degreasers for Facility G-03

41.0% 24% Perc 1 Weightings: 59.0% 99% TCE 2



## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope 0.0040 0.0036 0.54 1.28 20 0.0035 0.0031 0.47 1.11 30 0.0030 0.0027 0.41 0.97 40 0.0027 0.0024 0.36 0.86 50 0.0024 0.0021 0.32 0.76 60 0.0019 0.0017 0.26 0.61 80 0.0016 0.0014 0.21 0.50 100 0.0010 0.0009 0.14 0.33 150 0.0007 0.0007 0.10 0.24 200 0.0006 0.0005 0.08 0.18 250 0.0002 0.0002 0.03 0.07 500 0.0001 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1000



## D-174

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Multicomponent Impacts - General Degreasers - Average of 10 Met Sets Facility G-01 - 24% Perc

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 24%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0151 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0016 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 10938.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 127.54 20 0.0083 10938.41 0.0058 0.51 1.20 127.54 20 0.0000 8158.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 67.72 30 0.0062 8158.81 0.0031 0.27 0.64 67.72 30 0.0000 6322.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.93 40 0.0048 6322.28 0.0019 0.17 0.40 41.93 40 0.0000 5024.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.51 50 0.0038 5024.56 0.0013 0.11 0.27 28.51 50 0.0000 4082.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.66 60 0.0031 4082.78 0.0009 0.08 0.19 20.66 60 0.0000 2846.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.27 80 0.0021 2846.71 0.0006 0.05 0.12 12.27 80 0.0000 2100.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.12 100 0.0016 2100.30 0.0004 0.03 0.08 8.12 100 0.0000 1171.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.78 150 0.0009 1171.11 0.0002 0.02 0.04 3.78 150 0.0000 763.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.18 200 0.0006 763.65 0.0001 0.01 0.02 2.18 200 0.0000 545.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.42 250 0.0004 545.14 0.0001 0.01 0.01 1.42 250 0.0000 192.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0001 192.37 1.7E-05 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0000 72.27 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 5.5E-05 72.27 4.4E-06 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0083 0.0058 0.51 1.20 20 0.0000 10938.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 127.54 20 0.0062 0.0031 0.27 0.64 30 0.0000 8158.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 67.72 30 0.0048 0.0019 0.17 0.40 40 0.0000 6322.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.93 40 0.0038 0.0013 0.11 0.27 50 0.0000 5024.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.51 50 0.0031 0.0009 0.08 0.19 60 0.0000 4082.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.66 60 0.0021 0.0006 0.05 0.12 80 0.0000 2846.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.27 80 0.0016 0.0004 0.03 0.08 100 0.0000 2100.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.12 100 0.0009 0.0002 0.02 0.04 150 0.0000 1171.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.78 150 0.0006 0.0001 0.01 0.02 200 0.0000 763.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.18 200 0.0004 0.0001 0.01 0.01 250 0.0000 545.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.42 250 0.0001 1.7E-05 0.00 0.00 500 0.0000 192.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 5.5E-05 4.4E-06 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 72.27 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 

## D-175

## Facility G-01 - 41% Perc, 55% MeCl

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 55% Perc 41%

0.0347 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0259 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0036 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0027 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0271 10938.41 0.0011 0.20 0.46 127.54 20 0.0142 10938.41 0.0098 0.86 2.03 127.54 20 0.0202 8158.81 0.0006 0.10 0.24 67.72 30 0.0106 8158.81 0.0052 0.46 1.08 67.72 30 0.0157 6322.28 0.0004 0.06 0.15 41.93 40 0.0082 6322.28 0.0032 0.28 0.67 41.93 40 0.0125 5024.56 0.0003 0.04 0.10 28.51 50 0.0065 5024.56 0.0022 0.19 0.45 28.51 50 0.0101 4082.78 0.0002 0.03 0.07 20.66 60 0.0053 4082.78 0.0016 0.14 0.33 20.66 60 0.0071 2846.71 0.0001 0.02 0.04 12.27 80 0.0037 2846.71 0.0009 0.08 0.20 12.27 80 0.0052 2100.30 0.0001 0.01 0.03 8.12 100 0.0027 2100.30 0.0006 0.06 0.13 8.12 100 0.0029 1171.11 3.41E-05 0.01 0.01 3.78 150 0.0015 1171.11 0.0003 0.03 0.06 3.78 150 0.0019 763.65 1.96E-05 0.00 0.01 2.18 200 0.0010 763.65 1.7E-04 0.01 0.03 2.18 200 0.0014 545.14 1.28E-05 0.00 0.01 1.42 250 0.0007 545.14 1.1E-04 0.01 0.02 1.42 250 0.0005 192.37 3.31E-06 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 2.5E-04 192.37 2.8E-05 0.00 0.01 0.37 500 0.0002 72.27 8.64E-07 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 9.4E-05 72.27 7.4E-06 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0413 0.0110 1.06 2.49 20 0.0000 10938.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 127.54 20 0.0308 0.0058 0.56 1.32 30 0.0000 8158.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 67.72 30 0.0239 0.0036 0.35 0.82 40 0.0000 6322.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.93 40 0.0190 0.0025 0.24 0.56 50 0.0000 5024.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.51 50 0.0154 0.0018 0.17 0.40 60 0.0000 4082.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.66 60 0.0107 0.0011 0.10 0.24 80 0.0000 2846.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.27 80 0.0079 0.0007 0.07 0.16 100 0.0000 2100.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.12 100 0.0044 0.0003 0.03 0.07 150 0.0000 1171.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.78 150 0.0029 0.0002 0.02 0.04 200 0.0000 763.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.18 200 0.0021 1.2E-04 0.01 0.03 250 0.0000 545.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.42 250 7.3E-04 3.2E-05 0.00 0.01 500 0.0000 192.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 2.7E-04 8.3E-06 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 72.27 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-176

## Facility G-01 - 46% MeCl

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 46% Perc 0%

0.0290 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0030 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0227 10938.41 0.0001 0.16 0.38 127.54 20 0.0000 10938.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 127.54 20 0.0169 8158.81 0.0001 0.09 0.20 67.72 30 0.0000 8158.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 67.72 30 0.0131 6322.28 4.2E-05 0.05 0.13 41.93 40 0.0000 6322.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.93 40 0.0104 5024.56 2.9E-05 0.04 0.09 28.51 50 0.0000 5024.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.51 50 0.0085 4082.78 2.1E-05 0.03 0.06 20.66 60 0.0000 4082.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.66 60 0.0059 2846.71 1.2E-05 0.02 0.04 12.27 80 0.0000 2846.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.27 80 0.0044 2100.30 8.1E-06 0.01 0.02 8.12 100 0.0000 2100.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.12 100 0.0024 1171.11 3.8E-06 0.00 0.01 3.78 150 0.0000 1171.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.78 150 0.0016 763.65 2.2E-06 0.00 0.01 2.18 200 0.0000 763.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.18 200 0.0011 545.14 1.4E-06 0.00 0.00 1.42 250 0.0000 545.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.42 250 0.0004 192.37 3.7E-07 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0000 192.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0001 72.27 9.6E-08 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0000 72.27 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0227 0.0001 0.16 0.38 20 0.0000 10938.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 127.54 20 0.0169 0.0001 0.09 0.20 30 0.0000 8158.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 67.72 30 0.0131 4.2E-05 0.05 0.13 40 0.0000 6322.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.93 40 0.0104 2.9E-05 0.04 0.09 50 0.0000 5024.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.51 50 0.0085 2.1E-05 0.03 0.06 60 0.0000 4082.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.66 60 0.0059 1.2E-05 0.02 0.04 80 0.0000 2846.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.27 80 0.0044 8.1E-06 0.01 0.02 100 0.0000 2100.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.12 100 0.0024 3.8E-06 0.00 0.01 150 0.0000 1171.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.78 150 0.0016 2.2E-06 0.00 0.01 200 0.0000 763.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.18 200 0.0011 1.4E-06 0.00 0.00 250 0.0000 545.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.42 250 0.0004 3.7E-07 0.00 0.00 500 0.0000 192.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0001 9.6E-08 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 72.27 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-177

## Facility G-01 - 97% TCE

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 10938.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 127.54 20 0.0000 10938.41 0.0000 0.00 0.00 127.54 20 0.0000 8158.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 67.72 30 0.0000 8158.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 67.72 30 0.0000 6322.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.93 40 0.0000 6322.28 0.0000 0.00 0.00 41.93 40 0.0000 5024.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.51 50 0.0000 5024.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 28.51 50 0.0000 4082.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.66 60 0.0000 4082.78 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.66 60 0.0000 2846.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.27 80 0.0000 2846.71 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.27 80 0.0000 2100.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.12 100 0.0000 2100.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.12 100 0.0000 1171.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.78 150 0.0000 1171.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.78 150 0.0000 763.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.18 200 0.0000 763.65 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.18 200 0.0000 545.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.42 250 0.0000 545.14 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.42 250 0.0000 192.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0000 192.37 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0000 72.27 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0000 72.27 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 97%

0.0612 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0064 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 0.0013 0.69 1.63 20 0.0000 10938.41 0.0013 0.69 1.63 127.54 20 0.0000 0.0007 0.37 0.87 30 0.0000 8158.81 0.0007 0.37 0.87 67.72 30 0.0000 0.0004 0.23 0.54 40 0.0000 6322.28 0.0004 0.23 0.54 41.93 40 0.0000 0.0003 0.16 0.36 50 0.0000 5024.56 0.0003 0.16 0.36 28.51 50 0.0000 0.0002 0.11 0.26 60 0.0000 4082.78 0.0002 0.11 0.26 20.66 60 0.0000 0.0001 0.07 0.16 80 0.0000 2846.71 0.0001 0.07 0.16 12.27 80 0.0000 0.0001 0.04 0.10 100 0.0000 2100.30 0.0001 0.04 0.10 8.12 100 0.0000 3.8E-05 0.02 0.05 150 0.0000 1171.11 3.8E-05 0.02 0.05 3.78 150 0.0000 2.2E-05 0.01 0.03 200 0.0000 763.65 2.2E-05 0.01 0.03 2.18 200 0.0000 1.4E-05 0.01 0.02 250 0.0000 545.14 1.4E-05 0.01 0.02 1.42 250 0.0000 3.7E-06 0.00 0.00 500 0.0000 192.37 3.7E-06 0.00 0.00 0.37 500 0.0000 9.6E-07 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 72.27 9.6E-07 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-178

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from General Degreasers for Facility G-01

5.3% 24% Perc 1 Weightings: 1.1% 41% Perc/55% MeCl 2 7.2% 46% MeCl 3 86.0% 97% TCE 4 

## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center 0.0025 0.0015 0.65 1.52 20 0.0019 0.0008 0.34 0.81 30 0.0015 0.0005 0.21 0.50 40 0.0012 0.0003 0.14 0.34 50 0.0009 0.0002 0.10 0.25 60 0.0007 0.0001 0.06 0.15 80 0.0005 0.0001 0.04 0.10 100 0.0003 0.0000 0.02 0.05 150 0.0002 2.6E-05 0.01 0.03 200 0.0001 1.7E-05 0.01 0.02 250 4.4E-05 4.4E-06 0.00 0.00 500 1.7E-05 1.2E-06 0.00 0.00 1000



## D-179

## Facility G-02 - 24% Perc

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 24%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0151 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0016 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 4985.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.17 20 0.0038 4985.68 0.0034 0.30 0.70 74.17 20 0.0000 4251.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.37 30 0.0032 4251.05 0.0026 0.23 0.53 56.37 30 0.0000 3540.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.41 40 0.0027 3540.67 0.0017 0.15 0.34 36.41 40 0.0000 3001.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.36 50 0.0023 3001.30 0.0012 0.10 0.24 25.36 50 0.0000 2575.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.66 60 0.0019 2575.36 0.0009 0.07 0.18 18.66 60 0.0000 1951.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.32 80 0.0015 1951.11 0.0005 0.05 0.11 11.32 80 0.0000 1532.53 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.60 100 0.0012 1532.53 0.0003 0.03 0.07 7.60 100 0.0000 943.04 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.61 150 0.0007 943.04 0.0002 0.01 0.03 3.61 150 0.0000 647.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.11 200 0.0005 647.01 0.0001 0.01 0.02 2.11 200 0.0000 477.16 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 0.0004 477.16 0.0001 0.01 0.01 1.38 250 0.0000 180.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0001 180.51 1.7E-05 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0000 70.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 5.3E-05 70.25 4.4E-06 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0038 0.0034 0.30 0.70 20 0.0000 4985.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.17 20 0.0032 0.0026 0.23 0.53 30 0.0000 4251.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.37 30 0.0027 0.0017 0.15 0.34 40 0.0000 3540.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.41 40 0.0023 0.0012 0.10 0.24 50 0.0000 3001.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.36 50 0.0019 0.0009 0.07 0.18 60 0.0000 2575.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.66 60 0.0015 0.0005 0.05 0.11 80 0.0000 1951.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.32 80 0.0012 0.0003 0.03 0.07 100 0.0000 1532.53 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.60 100 0.0007 0.0002 0.01 0.03 150 0.0000 943.04 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.61 150 0.0005 0.0001 0.01 0.02 200 0.0000 647.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.11 200 0.0004 0.0001 0.01 0.01 250 0.0000 477.16 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 0.0001 1.7E-05 0.00 0.00 500 0.0000 180.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 5.3E-05 4.4E-06 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 70.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-180

## Facility G-02 - 41% Perc, 55% MeCl

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 55% Perc 41%

0.0347 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0259 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0036 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0027 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0124 4985.68 0.0007 0.11 0.27 74.17 20 0.0065 4985.68 0.0057 0.50 1.18 74.17 20 0.0105 4251.05 0.0005 0.09 0.20 56.37 30 0.0055 4251.05 0.0043 0.38 0.90 56.37 30 0.0088 3540.67 0.0003 0.06 0.13 36.41 40 0.0046 3540.67 0.0028 0.25 0.58 36.41 40 0.0074 3001.30 0.0002 0.04 0.09 25.36 50 0.0039 3001.30 0.0020 0.17 0.40 25.36 50 0.0064 2575.36 0.0002 0.03 0.07 18.66 60 0.0033 2575.36 0.0014 0.13 0.30 18.66 60 0.0048 1951.11 0.0001 0.02 0.04 11.32 80 0.0025 1951.11 0.0009 0.08 0.18 11.32 80 0.0038 1532.53 0.0001 0.01 0.03 7.60 100 0.0020 1532.53 0.0006 0.05 0.12 7.60 100 0.0023 943.04 3.3E-05 0.01 0.01 3.61 150 0.0012 943.04 0.0003 0.02 0.06 3.61 150 0.0016 647.01 1.9E-05 0.00 0.01 2.11 200 0.0008 647.01 1.6E-04 0.01 0.03 2.11 200 0.0012 477.16 1.2E-05 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 0.0006 477.16 1.1E-04 0.01 0.02 1.38 250 0.0004 180.51 3.3E-06 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 2.3E-04 180.51 2.8E-05 0.00 0.01 0.36 500 0.0002 70.25 8.6E-07 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 9.1E-05 70.25 7.4E-06 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0188 0.0064 0.62 1.45 20 0.0000 4985.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.17 20 0.0160 0.0049 0.47 1.10 30 0.0000 4251.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.37 30 0.0134 0.0031 0.30 0.71 40 0.0000 3540.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.41 40 0.0113 0.0022 0.21 0.50 50 0.0000 3001.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.36 50 0.0097 0.0016 0.16 0.36 60 0.0000 2575.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.66 60 0.0074 0.0010 0.09 0.22 80 0.0000 1951.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.32 80 0.0058 0.0007 0.06 0.15 100 0.0000 1532.53 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.60 100 0.0036 0.0003 0.03 0.07 150 0.0000 943.04 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.61 150 0.0024 0.0002 0.02 0.04 200 0.0000 647.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.11 200 0.0018 1.2E-04 0.01 0.03 250 0.0000 477.16 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 6.8E-04 3.1E-05 0.00 0.01 500 0.0000 180.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 2.7E-04 8.3E-06 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 70.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-181

## Facility G-02 - 46% MeCl

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 46% Perc 0%

0.0290 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0030 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0103 4985.68 0.0001 0.09 0.22 74.17 20 0.0000 4985.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.17 20 0.0088 4251.05 0.0001 0.07 0.17 56.37 30 0.0000 4251.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.37 30 0.0073 3540.67 3.6E-05 0.05 0.11 36.41 40 0.0000 3540.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.41 40 0.0062 3001.30 2.5E-05 0.03 0.08 25.36 50 0.0000 3001.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.36 50 0.0053 2575.36 1.9E-05 0.02 0.06 18.66 60 0.0000 2575.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.66 60 0.0040 1951.11 1.1E-05 0.01 0.03 11.32 80 0.0000 1951.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.32 80 0.0032 1532.53 7.6E-06 0.01 0.02 7.60 100 0.0000 1532.53 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.60 100 0.0020 943.04 3.6E-06 0.00 0.01 3.61 150 0.0000 943.04 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.61 150 0.0013 647.01 2.1E-06 0.00 0.01 2.11 200 0.0000 647.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.11 200 0.0010 477.16 1.4E-06 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 0.0000 477.16 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 0.0004 180.51 3.6E-07 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0000 180.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0001 70.25 9.6E-08 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0000 70.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0103 0.0001 0.09 0.22 20 0.0000 4985.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.17 20 0.0088 0.0001 0.07 0.17 30 0.0000 4251.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.37 30 0.0073 3.6E-05 0.05 0.11 40 0.0000 3540.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.41 40 0.0062 2.5E-05 0.03 0.08 50 0.0000 3001.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.36 50 0.0053 1.9E-05 0.02 0.06 60 0.0000 2575.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.66 60 0.0040 1.1E-05 0.01 0.03 80 0.0000 1951.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.32 80 0.0032 7.6E-06 0.01 0.02 100 0.0000 1532.53 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.60 100 0.0020 3.6E-06 0.00 0.01 150 0.0000 943.04 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.61 150 0.0013 2.1E-06 0.00 0.01 200 0.0000 647.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.11 200 0.0010 1.4E-06 0.00 0.00 250 0.0000 477.16 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 0.0004 3.6E-07 0.00 0.00 500 0.0000 180.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0001 9.6E-08 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 70.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-182

## Facility G-02 - 97% TCE

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 4985.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.17 20 0.0000 4985.68 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.17 20 0.0000 4251.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.37 30 0.0000 4251.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.37 30 0.0000 3540.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.41 40 0.0000 3540.67 0.0000 0.00 0.00 36.41 40 0.0000 3001.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.36 50 0.0000 3001.30 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.36 50 0.0000 2575.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.66 60 0.0000 2575.36 0.0000 0.00 0.00 18.66 60 0.0000 1951.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.32 80 0.0000 1951.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 11.32 80 0.0000 1532.53 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.60 100 0.0000 1532.53 0.0000 0.00 0.00 7.60 100 0.0000 943.04 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.61 150 0.0000 943.04 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.61 150 0.0000 647.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.11 200 0.0000 647.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.11 200 0.0000 477.16 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 0.0000 477.16 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.38 250 0.0000 180.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0000 180.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0000 70.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0000 70.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 97%

0.0612 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0064 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 0.0007 0.40 0.95 20 0.0000 4985.68 0.0007 0.40 0.95 74.17 20 0.0000 0.0006 0.31 0.72 30 0.0000 4251.05 0.0006 0.31 0.72 56.37 30 0.0000 0.0004 0.20 0.47 40 0.0000 3540.67 0.0004 0.20 0.47 36.41 40 0.0000 0.0003 0.14 0.32 50 0.0000 3001.30 0.0003 0.14 0.32 25.36 50 0.0000 0.0002 0.10 0.24 60 0.0000 2575.36 0.0002 0.10 0.24 18.66 60 0.0000 0.0001 0.06 0.14 80 0.0000 1951.11 0.0001 0.06 0.14 11.32 80 0.0000 0.0001 0.04 0.10 100 0.0000 1532.53 0.0001 0.04 0.10 7.60 100 0.0000 3.6E-05 0.02 0.05 150 0.0000 943.04 3.6E-05 0.02 0.05 3.61 150 0.0000 2.1E-05 0.01 0.03 200 0.0000 647.01 2.1E-05 0.01 0.03 2.11 200 0.0000 1.4E-05 0.01 0.02 250 0.0000 477.16 1.4E-05 0.01 0.02 1.38 250 0.0000 3.6E-06 0.00 0.00 500 0.0000 180.51 3.6E-06 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0000 9.6E-07 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 70.25 9.6E-07 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-183

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from General Degreasers for Facility G-02

5.3% 24% Perc 1 Weightings: 1.1% 41% Perc/55% MeCl 2 7.2% 46% MeCl 3 86.0% 97% TCE 4 

## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center 0.0012 0.0009 0.38 0.89 20 0.0010 0.0007 0.29 0.67 30 0.0008 0.0004 0.19 0.43 40 0.0007 0.0003 0.13 0.30 50 0.0006 0.0002 0.09 0.22 60 0.0005 0.0001 0.06 0.14 80 0.0004 0.0001 0.04 0.09 100 0.0002 4.4E-05 0.02 0.04 150 0.0001 2.5E-05 0.01 0.03 200 0.0001 1.7E-05 0.01 0.02 250 4.2E-05 4.4E-06 0.00 0.00 500 1.6E-05 1.2E-06 0.00 0.00 1000



## D-184

## Facility G-03 - 24% Perc

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 24%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0151 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0016 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 1231.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.68 20 0.0009 1231.74 0.0008 0.07 0.16 16.68 20 0.0000 1650.82 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.45 30 0.0012 1650.82 0.0015 0.13 0.32 33.45 30 0.0000 1484.02 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.02 40 0.0011 1484.02 0.0012 0.11 0.26 27.02 40 0.0000 2079.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.03 50 0.0016 2079.26 0.0011 0.10 0.24 25.03 50 0.0000 1915.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.90 60 0.0014 1915.91 0.0010 0.08 0.20 20.90 60 0.0000 1479.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.23 80 0.0011 1479.75 0.0006 0.05 0.12 12.23 80 0.0000 1184.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0009 1184.75 0.0004 0.03 0.08 8.02 100 0.0000 769.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.71 150 0.0006 769.33 0.0002 0.01 0.04 3.71 150 0.0000 550.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.14 200 0.0004 550.34 0.0001 0.01 0.02 2.14 200 0.0000 417.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.39 250 0.0003 417.99 0.0001 0.01 0.01 1.39 250 0.0000 169.20 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0001 169.20 1.7E-05 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0000 68.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 5.1E-05 68.13 4.4E-06 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0009 0.0008 0.07 0.16 20 0.0000 1231.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.68 20 0.0012 0.0015 0.13 0.32 30 0.0000 1650.82 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.45 30 0.0011 0.0012 0.11 0.26 40 0.0000 1484.02 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.02 40 0.0016 0.0011 0.10 0.24 50 0.0000 2079.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.03 50 0.0014 0.0010 0.08 0.20 60 0.0000 1915.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.90 60 0.0011 0.0006 0.05 0.12 80 0.0000 1479.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.23 80 0.0009 0.0004 0.03 0.08 100 0.0000 1184.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0006 0.0002 0.01 0.04 150 0.0000 769.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.71 150 0.0004 0.0001 0.01 0.02 200 0.0000 550.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.14 200 0.0003 0.0001 0.01 0.01 250 0.0000 417.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.39 250 0.0001 1.7E-05 0.00 0.00 500 0.0000 169.20 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 5.1E-05 4.4E-06 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 68.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-185

## Facility G-03 - 41% Perc, 55% MeCl

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 55% Perc 41%

0.0347 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0259 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0036 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0027 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0031 1231.74 0.0002 0.03 0.06 16.68 20 0.0016 1231.74 0.0013 0.11 0.27 16.68 20 0.0041 1650.82 0.0003 0.05 0.12 33.45 30 0.0021 1650.82 0.0026 0.23 0.53 33.45 30 0.0037 1484.02 0.0002 0.04 0.10 27.02 40 0.0019 1484.02 0.0021 0.18 0.43 27.02 40 0.0052 2079.26 0.0002 0.04 0.09 25.03 50 0.0027 2079.26 0.0019 0.17 0.40 25.03 50 0.0047 1915.91 0.0002 0.03 0.08 20.90 60 0.0025 1915.91 0.0016 0.14 0.33 20.90 60 0.0037 1479.75 0.0001 0.02 0.04 12.23 80 0.0019 1479.75 0.0009 0.08 0.19 12.23 80 0.0029 1184.75 0.0001 0.01 0.03 8.02 100 0.0015 1184.75 0.0006 0.05 0.13 8.02 100 0.0019 769.33 3.3E-05 0.01 0.01 3.71 150 0.0010 769.33 0.0003 0.03 0.06 3.71 150 0.0014 550.34 1.9E-05 0.00 0.01 2.14 200 0.0007 550.34 1.6E-04 0.01 0.03 2.14 200 0.0010 417.99 1.3E-05 0.00 0.01 1.39 250 0.0005 417.99 1.1E-04 0.01 0.02 1.39 250 0.0004 169.20 3.3E-06 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 2.2E-04 169.20 2.8E-05 0.00 0.01 0.36 500 0.0002 68.13 8.6E-07 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 8.8E-05 68.13 7.4E-06 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0.0000 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0000 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0046 0.0014 0.14 0.33 20 0.0000 1231.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.68 20 0.0062 0.0029 0.28 0.65 30 0.0000 1650.82 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.45 30 0.0056 0.0023 0.22 0.53 40 0.0000 1484.02 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.02 40 0.0078 0.0022 0.21 0.49 50 0.0000 2079.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.03 50 0.0072 0.0018 0.17 0.41 60 0.0000 1915.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.90 60 0.0056 0.0011 0.10 0.24 80 0.0000 1479.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.23 80 0.0045 0.0007 0.07 0.16 100 0.0000 1184.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0029 0.0003 0.03 0.07 150 0.0000 769.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.71 150 0.0021 0.0002 0.02 0.04 200 0.0000 550.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.14 200 0.0016 1.2E-04 0.01 0.03 250 0.0000 417.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.39 250 6.4E-04 3.1E-05 0.00 0.01 500 0.0000 169.20 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 2.6E-04 8.3E-06 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 68.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-186

## Facility G-03 - 46% MeCl

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 46% Perc 0%

0.0290 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0030 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0026 1231.74 1.7E-05 0.02 0.05 16.68 20 0.0000 1231.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.68 20 0.0034 1650.82 3.3E-05 0.04 0.10 33.45 30 0.0000 1650.82 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.45 30 0.0031 1484.02 2.7E-05 0.03 0.08 27.02 40 0.0000 1484.02 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.02 40 0.0043 2079.26 2.5E-05 0.03 0.08 25.03 50 0.0000 2079.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.03 50 0.0040 1915.91 2.1E-05 0.03 0.06 20.90 60 0.0000 1915.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.90 60 0.0031 1479.75 1.2E-05 0.02 0.04 12.23 80 0.0000 1479.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.23 80 0.0025 1184.75 8.0E-06 0.01 0.02 8.02 100 0.0000 1184.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0016 769.33 3.7E-06 0.00 0.01 3.71 150 0.0000 769.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.71 150 0.0011 550.34 2.1E-06 0.00 0.01 2.14 200 0.0000 550.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.14 200 0.0009 417.99 1.4E-06 0.00 0.00 1.39 250 0.0000 417.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.39 250 0.0004 169.20 3.6E-07 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0000 169.20 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0001 68.13 9.6E-08 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0000 68.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0026 1.7E-05 0.02 0.05 20 0.0000 1231.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.68 20 0.0034 3.3E-05 0.04 0.10 30 0.0000 1650.82 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.45 30 0.0031 2.7E-05 0.03 0.08 40 0.0000 1484.02 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.02 40 0.0043 2.5E-05 0.03 0.08 50 0.0000 2079.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.03 50 0.0040 2.1E-05 0.03 0.06 60 0.0000 1915.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.90 60 0.0031 1.2E-05 0.02 0.04 80 0.0000 1479.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.23 80 0.0025 8.0E-06 0.01 0.02 100 0.0000 1184.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0016 3.7E-06 0.00 0.01 150 0.0000 769.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.71 150 0.0011 2.1E-06 0.00 0.01 200 0.0000 550.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.14 200 0.0009 1.4E-06 0.00 0.00 250 0.0000 417.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.39 250 0.0004 3.6E-07 0.00 0.00 500 0.0000 169.20 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0001 9.6E-08 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 68.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-187

## Facility G-03 - 97% TCE

Averaged Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 1231.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.68 20 0.0000 1231.74 0.0000 0.00 0.00 16.68 20 0.0000 1650.82 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.45 30 0.0000 1650.82 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.45 30 0.0000 1484.02 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.02 40 0.0000 1484.02 0.0000 0.00 0.00 27.02 40 0.0000 2079.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.03 50 0.0000 2079.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 25.03 50 0.0000 1915.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.90 60 0.0000 1915.91 0.0000 0.00 0.00 20.90 60 0.0000 1479.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.23 80 0.0000 1479.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 12.23 80 0.0000 1184.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0000 1184.75 0.0000 0.00 0.00 8.02 100 0.0000 769.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.71 150 0.0000 769.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 3.71 150 0.0000 550.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.14 200 0.0000 550.34 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2.14 200 0.0000 417.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.39 250 0.0000 417.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.39 250 0.0000 169.20 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0000 169.20 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0000 68.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000 0.0000 68.13 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 98%

0.0612 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0064 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Center 0.0000 0.0002 0.09 0.21 20 0.0000 1231.74 0.0002 0.09 0.21 16.68 20 0.0000 0.0003 0.18 0.43 30 0.0000 1650.82 0.0003 0.18 0.43 33.45 30 0.0000 0.0003 0.15 0.35 40 0.0000 1484.02 0.0003 0.15 0.35 27.02 40 0.0000 0.0003 0.14 0.32 50 0.0000 2079.26 0.0003 0.14 0.32 25.03 50 0.0000 0.0002 0.11 0.27 60 0.0000 1915.91 0.0002 0.11 0.27 20.90 60 0.0000 0.0001 0.07 0.16 80 0.0000 1479.75 0.0001 0.07 0.16 12.23 80 0.0000 0.0001 0.04 0.10 100 0.0000 1184.75 0.0001 0.04 0.10 8.02 100 0.0000 3.7E-05 0.02 0.05 150 0.0000 769.33 3.7E-05 0.02 0.05 3.71 150 0.0000 2.1E-05 0.01 0.03 200 0.0000 550.34 2.1E-05 0.01 0.03 2.14 200 0.0000 1.4E-05 0.01 0.02 250 0.0000 417.99 1.4E-05 0.01 0.02 1.39 250 0.0000 3.6E-06 0.00 0.00 500 0.0000 169.20 3.6E-06 0.00 0.00 0.36 500 0.0000 9.6E-07 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 68.13 9.6E-07 0.00 0.00 0.10 1000



## D-188

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from General Degreasers for Facility G-03

5.3% 24% Perc 1 Weightings: 1.1% 41% Perc/55% MeCl 2 7.2% 46% MeCl 3 86.0% 97% TCE 4 

## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Center 0.0003 0.0002 0.08 0.20 20 0.0004 0.0004 0.17 0.40 30 0.0003 0.0003 0.14 0.32 40 0.0005 0.0003 0.13 0.30 50 0.0004 0.0003 0.11 0.25 60 0.0003 0.0001 0.06 0.15 80 0.0003 0.0001 0.04 0.10 100 0.0002 4.5E-05 0.02 0.04 150 0.0001 2.6E-05 0.01 0.03 200 0.0001 1.7E-05 0.01 0.02 250 3.9E-05 4.4E-06 0.00 0.00 500 1.6E-05 1.2E-06 0.00 0.00 1000



## D-189

# Risk Assessment Summary - 3 Generic Facilities Multicomponent Impacts - General Degreasers - Default Met Facility G-01 - 24% Perc

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 24%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0151 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0016 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0086 11342.73 0.0140 1.23 2.90 307.03 20 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0064 8496.33 0.0105 0.92 2.17 229.98 30 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0050 6579.11 0.0081 0.72 1.68 178.09 40 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0040 5238.72 0.0065 0.57 1.34 141.80 50 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0032 4269.33 0.0053 0.46 1.09 115.56 60 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0023 2995.85 0.0037 0.33 0.77 81.09 80 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0017 2223.11 0.0028 0.24 0.57 60.18 100 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0009 1239.31 0.0015 0.13 0.32 33.55 150 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0006 799.09 0.0010 0.09 0.20 21.63 200 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0004 563.57 0.0007 0.06 0.14 15.25 250 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0001 187.51 0.0002 0.02 0.05 5.08 500 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000 4.9E-05 64.26 0.0001 0.01 0.02 1.74 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0086 0.0140 1.23 2.90 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0064 0.0105 0.92 2.17 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0050 0.0081 0.72 1.68 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0040 0.0065 0.57 1.34 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0032 0.0053 0.46 1.09 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0023 0.0037 0.33 0.77 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0017 0.0028 0.24 0.57 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0009 0.0015 0.13 0.32 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0006 0.0010 0.09 0.20 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0004 0.0007 0.06 0.14 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0001 0.0002 0.02 0.05 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 4.9E-05 0.0001 0.01 0.02 1000 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000 

## D-190

## Facility G-01 - 41% Perc, 55% MeCl

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 55% Perc 41%

0.0347 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0259 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0036 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0027 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0281 11342.73 0.0028 0.47 1.11 307.03 20 0.0147 11342.73 0.0237 2.08 4.89 307.03 20 0.0211 8496.33 0.0021 0.35 0.83 229.98 30 0.0110 8496.33 0.0177 1.56 3.66 229.98 30 0.0163 6579.11 0.0016 0.27 0.64 178.09 40 0.0085 6579.11 0.0137 1.21 2.84 178.09 40 0.0130 5238.72 0.0013 0.22 0.51 141.80 50 0.0068 5238.72 0.0109 0.96 2.26 141.80 50 0.0106 4269.33 0.0010 0.18 0.42 115.56 60 0.0055 4269.33 0.0089 0.78 1.84 115.56 60 0.0074 2995.85 0.0007 0.12 0.29 81.09 80 0.0039 2995.85 0.0063 0.55 1.29 81.09 80 0.0055 2223.11 0.0005 0.09 0.22 60.18 100 0.0029 2223.11 0.0046 0.41 0.96 60.18 100 0.0031 1239.31 0.0003 0.05 0.12 33.55 150 0.0016 1239.31 0.0026 0.23 0.53 33.55 150 0.0020 799.09 0.0002 0.03 0.08 21.63 200 0.0010 799.09 0.0017 0.15 0.34 21.63 200 0.0014 563.57 0.0001 0.02 0.05 15.25 250 0.0007 563.57 0.0012 0.10 0.24 15.25 250 0.0005 187.51 4.57E-05 0.01 0.02 5.08 500 0.0002 187.51 0.0004 0.03 0.08 5.08 500 0.0002 64.26 1.57E-05 0.00 0.01 1.74 1000 0.0001 64.26 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1.74 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0428 0.0264 2.55 6.00 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0321 0.0198 1.91 4.49 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0248 0.0153 1.48 3.48 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0198 0.0122 1.18 2.77 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0161 0.0100 0.96 2.26 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0113 0.0070 0.67 1.58 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0084 0.0052 0.50 1.18 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0047 0.0029 0.28 0.66 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0030 0.0019 0.18 0.42 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0021 0.0013 0.13 0.30 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0007 0.0004 0.04 0.10 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0002 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000



## D-191

## Facility G-01 - 46% MeCl

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 46% Perc 0%

0.0290 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0030 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0235 11342.73 0.0003 0.39 0.92 307.03 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0176 8496.33 0.0002 0.29 0.69 229.98 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0136 6579.11 0.0002 0.23 0.53 178.09 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0109 5238.72 0.0001 0.18 0.43 141.80 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0088 4269.33 0.0001 0.15 0.35 115.56 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0062 2995.85 0.0001 0.10 0.24 81.09 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0046 2223.11 0.0001 0.08 0.18 60.18 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0026 1239.31 3.4E-05 0.04 0.10 33.55 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0017 799.09 2.2E-05 0.03 0.06 21.63 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0012 563.57 1.5E-05 0.02 0.05 15.25 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0004 187.51 5.1E-06 0.01 0.02 5.08 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0001 64.26 1.7E-06 0.00 0.01 1.74 1000 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0235 0.0003 0.39 0.92 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0176 0.0002 0.29 0.69 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0136 0.0002 0.23 0.53 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0109 0.0001 0.18 0.43 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0088 0.0001 0.15 0.35 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0062 0.0001 0.10 0.24 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0046 0.0001 0.08 0.18 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0026 3.4E-05 0.04 0.10 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0017 2.2E-05 0.03 0.06 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0012 1.5E-05 0.02 0.05 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0004 5.1E-06 0.01 0.02 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0001 1.7E-06 0.00 0.01 1000 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000



## D-192

## Facility G-01 - 97% TCE

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0000 0.00 0.00 307.03 20 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 229.98 30 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 178.09 40 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 141.80 50 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 115.56 60 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0000 0.00 0.00 81.09 80 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0000 0.00 0.00 60.18 100 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0000 0.00 0.00 33.55 150 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 21.63 200 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0000 0.00 0.00 15.25 250 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 5.08 500 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000 0.0000 64.26 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.74 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 97%

0.0612 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0064 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 0.0031 1.67 3.93 20 0.0000 11342.73 0.0031 1.67 3.93 307.03 20 0.0000 0.0023 1.25 2.94 30 0.0000 8496.33 0.0023 1.25 2.94 229.98 30 0.0000 0.0018 0.97 2.28 40 0.0000 6579.11 0.0018 0.97 2.28 178.09 40 0.0000 0.0014 0.77 1.82 50 0.0000 5238.72 0.0014 0.77 1.82 141.80 50 0.0000 0.0012 0.63 1.48 60 0.0000 4269.33 0.0012 0.63 1.48 115.56 60 0.0000 0.0008 0.44 1.04 80 0.0000 2995.85 0.0008 0.44 1.04 81.09 80 0.0000 0.0006 0.33 0.77 100 0.0000 2223.11 0.0006 0.33 0.77 60.18 100 0.0000 0.0003 0.18 0.43 150 0.0000 1239.31 0.0003 0.18 0.43 33.55 150 0.0000 0.0002 0.12 0.28 200 0.0000 799.09 0.0002 0.12 0.28 21.63 200 0.0000 0.0002 0.08 0.20 250 0.0000 563.57 0.0002 0.08 0.20 15.25 250 0.0000 0.0001 0.03 0.06 500 0.0000 187.51 0.0001 0.03 0.06 5.08 500 0.0000 1.7E-05 0.01 0.02 1000 0.0000 64.26 1.7E-05 0.01 0.02 1.74 1000



## D-193

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from General Degreasers for Facility G-01

5.3% 24% Perc 1 Weightings: 1.1% 41% Perc/55% MeCl 2 7.2% 46% MeCl 3 86.0% 97% TCE 4 

## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope 0.0026 0.0037 1.56 3.67 20 0.0020 0.0028 1.17 2.75 30 0.0015 0.0021 0.91 2.13 40 0.0012 0.0017 0.72 1.69 50 0.0010 0.0014 0.59 1.38 60 0.0007 0.0010 0.41 0.97 80 0.0005 0.0007 0.31 0.72 100 0.0003 0.0004 0.17 0.40 150 0.0002 0.0003 0.11 0.26 200 0.0001 0.0002 0.08 0.18 250 4.3E-05 0.0001 0.03 0.06 500 1.5E-05 2.1E-05 0.01 0.02 1000



## D-194

## Facility G-02 - 24% Perc

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 24%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0151 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0016 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0040 5276.51 0.0065 0.57 1.35 142.83 20 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0033 4358.64 0.0054 0.47 1.11 117.98 30 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0028 3649.09 0.0045 0.40 0.93 98.78 40 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0023 3094.79 0.0038 0.34 0.79 83.77 50 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0020 2656.01 0.0033 0.29 0.68 71.89 60 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0015 2017.70 0.0025 0.22 0.52 54.62 80 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0012 1586.22 0.0020 0.17 0.41 42.94 100 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0007 969.72 0.0012 0.11 0.25 26.25 150 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0005 659.99 0.0008 0.07 0.17 17.86 200 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0004 482.19 0.0006 0.05 0.12 13.05 250 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0001 173.33 0.0002 0.02 0.04 4.69 500 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000 4.7E-05 61.90 0.0001 0.01 0.02 1.68 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0040 0.0065 0.57 1.35 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0033 0.0054 0.47 1.11 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0028 0.0045 0.40 0.93 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0023 0.0038 0.34 0.79 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0020 0.0033 0.29 0.68 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0015 0.0025 0.22 0.52 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0012 0.0020 0.17 0.41 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0007 0.0012 0.11 0.25 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0005 0.0008 0.07 0.17 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0004 0.0006 0.05 0.12 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0001 0.0002 0.02 0.04 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 4.7E-05 0.0001 0.01 0.02 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000



## D-195

## Facility G-02 - 41% Perc, 55% MeCl

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 55% Perc 41%

0.0347 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0259 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0036 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0027 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0131 5276.51 0.0013 0.22 0.51 142.83 20 0.0068 5276.51 0.0110 0.97 2.28 142.83 20 0.0108 4358.64 0.0011 0.18 0.42 117.98 30 0.0056 4358.64 0.0091 0.80 1.88 117.98 30 0.0090 3649.09 0.0009 0.15 0.36 98.78 40 0.0047 3649.09 0.0076 0.67 1.57 98.78 40 0.0077 3094.79 0.0008 0.13 0.30 83.77 50 0.0040 3094.79 0.0065 0.57 1.33 83.77 50 0.0066 2656.01 0.0006 0.11 0.26 71.89 60 0.0034 2656.01 0.0055 0.49 1.15 71.89 60 0.0050 2017.70 0.0005 0.08 0.20 54.62 80 0.0026 2017.70 0.0042 0.37 0.87 54.62 80 0.0039 1586.22 0.0004 0.07 0.15 42.94 100 0.0021 1586.22 0.0033 0.29 0.68 42.94 100 0.0024 969.72 0.0002 0.04 0.09 26.25 150 0.0013 969.72 0.0020 0.18 0.42 26.25 150 0.0016 659.99 0.0002 0.03 0.06 17.86 200 0.0009 659.99 0.0014 0.12 0.28 17.86 200 0.0012 482.19 0.0001 0.02 0.05 13.05 250 0.0006 482.19 0.0010 0.09 0.21 13.05 250 0.0004 173.33 4.2E-05 0.01 0.02 4.69 500 0.0002 173.33 0.0004 0.03 0.07 4.69 500 0.0002 61.90 1.5E-05 0.00 0.01 1.68 1000 8.0E-05 61.90 0.0001 0.01 0.03 1.68 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0199 0.0123 1.19 2.79 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0164 0.0102 0.98 2.30 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0138 0.0085 0.82 1.93 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0117 0.0072 0.70 1.64 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0100 0.0062 0.60 1.40 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0076 0.0047 0.45 1.07 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0060 0.0037 0.36 0.84 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0037 0.0023 0.22 0.51 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0025 0.0015 0.15 0.35 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0018 0.0011 0.11 0.25 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0007 0.0004 0.04 0.09 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 2.3E-04 1.4E-04 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000



## D-196

## Facility G-02 - 46% MeCl

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 46% Perc 0%

0.0290 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0030 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0109 5276.51 0.0001 0.18 0.43 142.83 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0090 4358.64 0.0001 0.15 0.35 117.98 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0076 3649.09 0.0001 0.13 0.30 98.78 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0064 3094.79 8.4E-05 0.11 0.25 83.77 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0055 2656.01 7.2E-05 0.09 0.22 71.89 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0042 2017.70 5.5E-05 0.07 0.16 54.62 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0033 1586.22 4.3E-05 0.05 0.13 42.94 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0020 969.72 2.6E-05 0.03 0.08 26.25 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0014 659.99 1.8E-05 0.02 0.05 17.86 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0010 482.19 1.3E-05 0.02 0.04 13.05 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0004 173.33 4.7E-06 0.01 0.01 4.69 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0001 61.90 1.7E-06 0.00 0.01 1.68 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0109 0.0001 0.18 0.43 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0090 0.0001 0.15 0.35 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0076 0.0001 0.13 0.30 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0064 8.4E-05 0.11 0.25 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0055 7.2E-05 0.09 0.22 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0042 5.5E-05 0.07 0.16 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0033 4.3E-05 0.05 0.13 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0020 2.6E-05 0.03 0.08 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0014 1.8E-05 0.02 0.05 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0010 1.3E-05 0.02 0.04 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0004 4.7E-06 0.01 0.01 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0001 1.7E-06 0.00 0.01 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000



## D-197

## Facility G-02 - 97% TCE

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0000 0.00 0.00 142.83 20 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0000 0.00 0.00 117.98 30 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0000 0.00 0.00 98.78 40 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0000 0.00 0.00 83.77 50 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 71.89 60 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0000 0.00 0.00 54.62 80 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0000 0.00 0.00 42.94 100 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0000 0.00 0.00 26.25 150 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0000 0.00 0.00 17.86 200 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.05 250 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0000 173.33 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.69 500 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000 0.0000 61.90 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.68 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 97%

0.0612 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0064 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 0.0014 0.78 1.83 20 0.0000 5276.51 0.0014 0.78 1.83 142.83 20 0.0000 0.0012 0.64 1.51 30 0.0000 4358.64 0.0012 0.64 1.51 117.98 30 0.0000 0.0010 0.54 1.26 40 0.0000 3649.09 0.0010 0.54 1.26 98.78 40 0.0000 0.0008 0.46 1.07 50 0.0000 3094.79 0.0008 0.46 1.07 83.77 50 0.0000 0.0007 0.39 0.92 60 0.0000 2656.01 0.0007 0.39 0.92 71.89 60 0.0000 0.0005 0.30 0.70 80 0.0000 2017.70 0.0005 0.30 0.70 54.62 80 0.0000 0.0004 0.23 0.55 100 0.0000 1586.22 0.0004 0.23 0.55 42.94 100 0.0000 0.0003 0.14 0.34 150 0.0000 969.72 0.0003 0.14 0.34 26.25 150 0.0000 0.0002 0.10 0.23 200 0.0000 659.99 0.0002 0.10 0.23 17.86 200 0.0000 0.0001 0.07 0.17 250 0.0000 482.19 0.0001 0.07 0.17 13.05 250 0.0000 4.7E-05 0.03 0.06 500 0.0000 173.33 4.7E-05 0.03 0.06 4.69 500 0.0000 1.7E-05 0.01 0.02 1000 0.0000 61.90 1.7E-05 0.01 0.02 1.68 1000



## D-198

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from General Degreasers for Facility G-02

5.3% 24% Perc 1 Weightings: 1.1% 41% Perc/55% MeCl 2 7.2% 46% MeCl 3 86.0% 97% TCE 4 

## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope 0.0012 0.0017 0.73 1.71 20 0.0010 0.0014 0.60 1.41 30 0.0008 0.0012 0.50 1.18 40 0.0007 0.0010 0.43 1.00 50 0.0006 0.0009 0.37 0.86 60 0.0005 0.0007 0.28 0.65 80 0.0004 0.0005 0.22 0.51 100 0.0002 0.0003 0.13 0.31 150 0.0002 0.0002 0.09 0.21 200 0.0001 0.0002 0.07 0.16 250 4.0E-05 0.0001 0.02 0.06 500 1.4E-05 2.0E-05 0.01 0.02 1000



## D-199

## Facility G-03 - 24% Perc

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 24%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0151 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0016 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0021 2744.96 0.0034 0.30 0.70 74.30 20 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0018 2385.45 0.0030 0.26 0.61 64.57 30 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0016 2088.05 0.0026 0.23 0.53 56.52 40 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0014 1841.40 0.0023 0.20 0.47 49.84 50 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0012 1635.59 0.0020 0.18 0.42 44.27 60 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0010 1315.96 0.0016 0.14 0.34 35.62 80 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0008 1083.10 0.0013 0.12 0.28 29.32 100 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0005 718.69 0.0009 0.08 0.18 19.45 150 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0004 516.25 0.0006 0.06 0.13 13.97 200 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0003 391.81 0.0005 0.04 0.10 10.61 250 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0001 154.56 0.0002 0.02 0.04 4.18 500 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000 4.4E-05 58.40 0.0001 0.01 0.01 1.58 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0021 0.0034 0.30 0.70 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0018 0.0030 0.26 0.61 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0016 0.0026 0.23 0.53 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0014 0.0023 0.20 0.47 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0012 0.0020 0.18 0.42 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0010 0.0016 0.14 0.34 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0008 0.0013 0.12 0.28 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0005 0.0009 0.08 0.18 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0004 0.0006 0.06 0.13 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0003 0.0005 0.04 0.10 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0001 0.0002 0.02 0.04 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 4.4E-05 0.0001 0.01 0.01 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000



## D-200

## Facility G-03 - 41% Perc, 55% MeCl

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 55% Perc 41%

0.0347 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0259 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0036 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0.0027 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0068 2744.96 0.0007 0.11 0.27 74.30 20 0.0036 2744.96 0.0057 0.50 1.18 74.30 20 0.0059 2385.45 0.0006 0.10 0.23 64.57 30 0.0031 2385.45 0.0050 0.44 1.03 64.57 30 0.0052 2088.05 0.0005 0.09 0.20 56.52 40 0.0027 2088.05 0.0044 0.38 0.90 56.52 40 0.0046 1841.40 0.0004 0.08 0.18 49.84 50 0.0024 1841.40 0.0038 0.34 0.79 49.84 50 0.0041 1635.59 0.0004 0.07 0.16 44.27 60 0.0021 1635.59 0.0034 0.30 0.71 44.27 60 0.0033 1315.96 0.0003 0.05 0.13 35.62 80 0.0017 1315.96 0.0027 0.24 0.57 35.62 80 0.0027 1083.10 0.0003 0.04 0.11 29.32 100 0.0014 1083.10 0.0023 0.20 0.47 29.32 100 0.0018 718.69 0.0002 0.03 0.07 19.45 150 0.0009 718.69 0.0015 0.13 0.31 19.45 150 0.0013 516.25 0.0001 0.02 0.05 13.97 200 0.0007 516.25 0.0011 0.09 0.22 13.97 200 0.0010 391.81 0.0001 0.02 0.04 10.61 250 0.0005 391.81 0.0008 0.07 0.17 10.61 250 0.0004 154.56 3.8E-05 0.01 0.02 4.18 500 2.0E-04 154.56 0.0003 0.03 0.07 4.18 500 0.0001 58.40 1.4E-05 0.00 0.01 1.58 1000 7.6E-05 58.40 1.2E-04 0.01 0.03 1.58 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0104 0.0064 0.62 1.45 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0090 0.0056 0.54 1.26 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0079 0.0049 0.47 1.10 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0069 0.0043 0.41 0.97 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0062 0.0038 0.37 0.86 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0050 0.0031 0.30 0.70 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0041 0.0025 0.24 0.57 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0027 0.0017 0.16 0.38 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0019 0.0012 0.12 0.27 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0015 0.0009 0.09 0.21 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 5.8E-04 0.0004 0.03 0.08 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 2.2E-04 1.4E-04 0.01 0.03 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000



## D-201

## Facility G-03 - 46% MeCl

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 46% Perc 0%

0.0290 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0030 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0057 2744.96 0.0001 0.09 0.22 74.30 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0049 2385.45 0.0001 0.08 0.19 64.57 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0043 2088.05 0.0001 0.07 0.17 56.52 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0038 1841.40 0.0000 0.06 0.15 49.84 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0034 1635.59 0.0000 0.06 0.13 44.27 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0027 1315.96 3.6E-05 0.05 0.11 35.62 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0022 1083.10 2.9E-05 0.04 0.09 29.32 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0015 718.69 1.9E-05 0.02 0.06 19.45 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0011 516.25 1.4E-05 0.02 0.04 13.97 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0008 391.81 1.1E-05 0.01 0.03 10.61 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0003 154.56 4.2E-06 0.01 0.01 4.18 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0001 58.40 1.6E-06 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0057 0.0001 0.09 0.22 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0049 0.0001 0.08 0.19 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0043 0.0001 0.07 0.17 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0038 4.98E-05 0.06 0.15 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0034 4.43E-05 0.06 0.13 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0027 3.6E-05 0.05 0.11 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0022 2.9E-05 0.04 0.09 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0015 1.9E-05 0.02 0.06 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0011 1.4E-05 0.02 0.04 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0008 1.1E-05 0.01 0.03 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0003 4.2E-06 0.01 0.01 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0001 1.6E-06 0.00 0.00 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000



## D-202

## Facility G-03 - 97% TCE

Default-0 Met Set: MeCl 0% Perc 0%

0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]: 0 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 74.30 20 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0000 0.00 0.00 64.57 30 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0000 0.00 0.00 56.52 40 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 49.84 50 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0000 0.00 0.00 44.27 60 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0000 0.00 0.00 35.62 80 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0000 0.00 0.00 29.32 100 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0000 0.00 0.00 19.45 150 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0000 0.00 0.00 13.97 200 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0000 0.00 0.00 10.61 250 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0000 154.56 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.18 500 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000 0.0000 58.40 0.0000 0.00 0.00 1.58 1000



## Total Health Impacts TCE 97%

0.0612 Acu Rate [g/s]: 57 op hrs/wk: 0.0064 Ann Rate [g/s]:

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Hazard Index ISC Acute Emis Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] ISC Ann Emis. Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope Acute [ug/m^3] Chronic Worker Resident [ug/m^3] Envelope 0.0000 0.0007 0.40 0.95 20 0.0000 2744.96 0.0007 0.40 0.95 74.30 20 0.0000 0.0006 0.35 0.83 30 0.0000 2385.45 0.0006 0.35 0.83 64.57 30 0.0000 0.0006 0.31 0.72 40 0.0000 2088.05 0.0006 0.31 0.72 56.52 40 0.0000 0.0005 0.27 0.64 50 0.0000 1841.40 0.0005 0.27 0.64 49.84 50 0.0000 0.0004 0.24 0.57 60 0.0000 1635.59 0.0004 0.24 0.57 44.27 60 0.0000 0.0004 0.19 0.46 80 0.0000 1315.96 0.0004 0.19 0.46 35.62 80 0.0000 0.0003 0.16 0.38 100 0.0000 1083.10 0.0003 0.16 0.38 29.32 100 0.0000 0.0002 0.11 0.25 150 0.0000 718.69 0.0002 0.11 0.25 19.45 150 0.0000 0.0001 0.08 0.18 200 0.0000 516.25 0.0001 0.08 0.18 13.97 200 0.0000 0.0001 0.06 0.14 250 0.0000 391.81 0.0001 0.06 0.14 10.61 250 0.0000 4.2E-05 0.02 0.05 500 0.0000 154.56 4.2E-05 0.02 0.05 4.18 500 0.0000 1.6E-05 0.01 0.02 1000 0.0000 58.40 1.6E-05 0.01 0.02 1.58 1000



## D-203

## Averaged Multicomponent Health Impacts from General Degreasers for Facility G-03

5.3% 24% Perc 1 Weightings: 1.1% 41% Perc/55% MeCl 2 7.2% 46% MeCl 3 86.0% 97% TCE 4 

## Total Health Impacts

Hazard Index Harzard Index Cancer Risk [x/million] Distance [m] Acute Chronic Worker Resident Envelope 0.0006 0.0009 0.38 0.89 20 0.0006 0.0008 0.33 0.77 30 0.0005 0.0007 0.29 0.67 40 0.0004 0.0006 0.25 0.60 50 0.0004 0.0005 0.23 0.53 60 0.0003 0.0004 0.18 0.43 80 0.0002 0.0004 0.15 0.35 100 0.0002 0.0002 0.10 0.23 150 0.0001 0.0002 0.07 0.17 200 0.0001 0.0001 0.05 0.13 250 3.6E-05 0.0001 0.02 0.05 500 1.3E-05 1.9E-05 0.01 0.02 1000



## D-204

# D-205

E. Memorandum. Modeling of Perchloroethylene, Methylene Chloride, and Trichloroethylene Emissions from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities (memo starts on the following page)

### Winston H. Hickox Agency Secretary



# California Environmental Protection Agency
Printed on Recycled Paper 

# Air Resources Board Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D. Chairman 2020 L Street • P.O. Box 2815 • Sacramento, California 95812 • www.arb.ca.gov Gray Davis Governor



# MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Wong, Manager

Emissions Evaluation Section Stationary Source Division
FROM: Andrew Ranzieri, Manager

Modeling Support Section Planning and Technical Support Division
DATE: January 11, 2000
SUBJECT: MODELING RESULTS FOR PE RCHLOROETHYLENE (PERC),

METHYLENE CHLORIDE (MECI), AND TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) EMISSIONS FROM AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR FACILITIES (AMR)

Perchloroethylene (Perc), methylene chloride (MeCl), and trichloroethylene (TCE) are common constituents of automotive consumer products used for Automotive Maintenance and Repair (AMR) activities. Per your request, refined air dispersion modeling has been performed to estimate downwind concentrations from AMR facilities. Specifically, this memo addresses the following requests:
1. Estimate the overall maximum hourly and overall maximum annual concentrations of Perc, MeCl, and TCE attributable to specific AMR facilities;
2. Estimate the maximum hourly and maximum annual concentrations of Perc, MeCl, and TCE attributable to specific AMR facilities experienced by the nearest business receptor (NBR), nearest residential receptor (NRR), maximum exposed individual worker (MEIW), and maximum exposed individual resident (MEIR);
3. Estimate the population exposure to Perc, MeCl, and TCE concentrations attributable to specific AMR facilities; and
4. Estimate the range of hourly and annual Perc, MeCl, and TCE concentrations that might result from the individual operation of three hypothetical, generic facilities in several locations throughout the State of California.

# Todd Wong

January 11, 2000 Page 2

Your staff provided information on thirteen specific facilities. This information is based on site visits that your staff performed. In addition, your staff provided information on three generic facilities that were designed to broadly represent the range of facilities that are in operation in California. Generic facilities are labeled G-01, G-02, and G-03. Table 1A provides the coordinates and general location of each specific facility whileTable 1B gives the dimensions and operating schedule for each specific facility. Aboveambient, hourly and annual concentration estimates are provided at locations surrounding each of the facilities. This refined modeling is an enhancement to the screening analyses performed by your staff using the SCREEN3 dispersion model. Discussion of Model Application The ISCST3 (Version 97363) air dispersion model was utilized in this project. The model estimates concentrations at specified receptor locations around each facility, directly caused by each facility’s emissions. The receptors can be defined as individual locations, a gridded network of locations (defined by a number of rows and columns), or a polar network of locations (defined by a number of points along multiple radials, separated by an angular distance). Table 2 provides a description of the receptor networks used in this analysis. The closest receptor utilized for specific facility modeling is approximately 32 meters from the centroid of the source. Concentrations closer than 32 meters to the source centroid could be higher. This distance was selected based upon the size of the largest of the thirteen facilities to eliminate the chance of receptors falling inside the perimeter of each facility. In addition, discrete receptors were used to identify businesses and residences located nearby each of the facilities by your staff. These receptors are discussed in more detail later. Your staff requested the specific polar distances used for generic facility modeling. These distances are provided in the footnotes of Table 2. The ISCST model assumes that emissions are totally inert. That is, there are no chemical reactions involving the emissions that occur between the source and receptor. In addition, the modeling options selected for this project are based on the assumption that pollutant deposition, where emissions can fall-out or deposit on the ground or other surfaces, does not occur. These assumptions keep the total mass of facility-specific Perc, MeCl, and TCE emissions constant, which implies a linear relationship between the magnitude of the brake cleaner emissions and the associated concentration at each receptor. Facility-wide Perc, MeCl, and TCE emissions of 1 gram per second was used. This is referred to as a unit emission rate, which produces corresponding unit concentrations at all modeled receptors. Coupled with the use of a unit emission rate, the linear relationship between emissions released at the source and the directly related

# Todd Wong

January 11, 2000 Page 3

concentrations at receptors surrounding the source allows the effects of multiple facility emission magnitudes to be determined directly. This is done by multiplying the unit concentration estimated at any receptor (using unit emissions) by the specific emission rate for each scenario. Reporting unit concentration results was determined to be most beneficial because a single set of modeling results can be utilized by your staff to estimate the effects of multiple emission-rate scenarios. Thus, your staff must adjust all the concentration estimates reported in this document using facility-specific emissions scenarios in the following manner:

(1)        

=          
×         ion Concentrat Scenario
Rate Emission Scenario
ion Concentrat Unit

There are a number of plausible routes through which emissions can exit a facility. Site visits and surveys indicate that AMR facilities can have a variety of different ventilation systems, including forced-air systems, passive vents, and fans as well as open doors and windows. However, it is assumed that service bay doors are the overwhelming avenues by which Perc, MeCl, and TCE emissions mix with outdoor air. There are several reasons for this assumption. Most notable is that service bay doors are usually left open. This practice is due to both the comfortable California climate and the practicality of leaving the doors open to allow entrance and exit of automobiles. Also, doors are typically left open because closed doors give the appearance that the facility is closed. Service bay doors are typically the car-width, roll-up variety and, as such, provide a large exit area once they are opened. With respect to facility design, there is a desire to maximize the number of service bays per facility, and, as such, service bay doors typically account for the greatest surface area along the front and/or back of a facility. When Perc, MeCl, and TCE emissions immediately leave the facility from the service bay door openings, building-induced wind flow and turbulence patterns affect the dispersion of the emissions as the Perc, MeCl, and TCE mixes with the outside air passing by the structure. The effects on the air flowing immediately around the building are caused by higher pressure at the windward side of the building and lower pressure at the leeward side of the building. The magnitude of these effects is a function of wind speed, building dimensions and building orientation. Based on the processes described above, the facilities were modeled as ISCST3 volume sources using the facility dimensions provided by your staff. Minor adjustments were made to the facility dimensions that were provided in order to adhere to the input requirements of the model. That is, the ISCST3 model is designed to simulate the

# Todd Wong

January 11, 2000 Page 4

dispersion of volume source emissions using volume sources having a square base (i.e., equal length and width). As a result, rectangular buildings, like most of the facilities modeled, are simulated as a series of adjacent volume sources, each having a square foot print. Only two of the facilities modeled are simulated using one volume source (facilities A-28 and O). In addition, the ISCST3 model simulates volume sources as virtual point sources. The details of this methodology are provided in the ISC3 documentation and require three basic input parameters: an initial lateral dimension (sigma x), an initial vertical dimension (sigma y), and the effective release height. The sigma inputs are based on the height of the volume source and the length of each side of each square volume source. To be consistent with initial modeling analyses, the effective emission plume release height is assumed to be half of the building height. Table 3 provides the ISCST3 volume source input parameters used. Due to the assumptions made about the reactivity and deposition of emissions (i.e., none of either), concentrations attributable to each facility are assumed to be dependent solely on the dispersion of facility emissions by the effects of meteorological parameters. The terrain is assumed to be urban, and, as such, urban dispersion coefficients are applied. It should be noted that this analysis does not account for regional, background concentrations or overlapping plumes of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from other sources that could impact any of the receptors modeled. Description of Meteorological Data Used At a fixed geographical location, measured meteorological parameters are expected tofall within historical ranges and to follow a regular, annual pattern with some year-toyear variability. As a result of this consistency, meteorological data that are collected using EPA approved procedures at a specific location can be used in modeling analyses to represent meteorological conditions that are likely to be experienced at the same location in the future. It is also acceptable to utilize off-site meteorological data that are representative of the conditions at the site of analysis (where representativeness is based on specific EPA guidelines). Site-specific meteorological data are not available for any of the specific AMR facilities. Therefore, representative, off-site meteorological data were used. Also, since a few of the thirteen facilities are located in the same general geographical area, some of the thirteen facilities are represented by the same meteorological data. As a result, modeling for the thirteen facilities utilizes ten different off-site meteorological data collection sites, each of which are representative of the meteorological conditions experienced at one or more facilities. To account for year-to-year variability in meteorological conditions experienced in a region, multiple years of meteorological data were used, where available. In total, forty-five meteorological data sets were used,

# Todd Wong

January 11, 2000 Page 5
comprised of one to six years of data per each of the ten meteorological sites. Only one year of meteorological data were available for facility U while three to six years of data were used for the remaining facilities. Table 4 lists the representative meteorological data that were used for each of the thirteen specific facilities. Each generic facility was modeled using all of the specific facility meteorological data sets (i.e., all forty-five meteorological data sets). This was done to broadly assess the level of pollutant concentrations that could be associated with different sizes of service facilities located in the different regions around the state that are represented by the ten different meteorological data collection sites. In addition to using all of the specific facility meteorological data, each generic facility was modeled with default meteorological data (i.e., default meteorological data from the SCREEN model). Three default data sets were used, corresponding to wind directions of 0, 45, and 90 degrees- where zero degrees corresponds to the radial parallel to the longest side of each facility and would yield the highest modeled concentrations. Method for Determination of Hourly Concentrations One purpose of this analysis is to determine the maximum hourly concentration that might be experienced in the area surrounding an AMR facility. Using the ISCST3 model this is determined with facility-specific inputs such as the facility emissions rate, the hourly operating schedule, and the range of observed meteorological conditions that have historically occurred during each facility’s hours of operation. As mentioned earlier, this analysis assumes the facility emission rate to be 1 gram/second (unit emission rate). All of the facilities modeled in this project operate on a consistent weekly schedule, comprised of a combination of the hour-of-day that a facility is open (i.e., 12AM-12PM) per each day-of-week (i.e., Monday-Sunday). All of the schedules were similar in that each AMR facility operates on a fixed weekday operating schedule (e.g., 9AM-5PM, Monday through Friday) where the weekend hours fall within the scheduled weekday hours (e.g., 10AM-2PM, Saturday). An important concept in selecting proper meteorological data inputs for worst-case modeling analyses is that meteorological conditions measured on Saturday at 9AM during year ‘X’ could occur some other year on any day of the week at 9AM. Thus, if an AMR facility is open for business every Saturday at 9AM, then all meteorological conditions historically experienced during that hour of the day, not day of the week, must be considered to estimate the maximum hourly concentration. With this concept in mind, each annual, 24-hour-per-day meteorological data set can be considered to consist of 24 separate data sets (i.e., one per hour of the day, military time). Each of

# Todd Wong

January 11, 2000 Page 6

these 24 fixed-hour data sets represents the range of meteorological conditions that have occurred during the same hour of the day for the entire year. Hourly concentrations were estimated by the ISCST3 model using all of the meteorological conditions that were measured during any hour-of-day that is specified in the operating schedules provided by your staff, irrespective of the day of the week. Since all of the facilities have weekend hours of operation that are a subset of the weekday hours of operation, meteorological data coincident with the Monday through Friday operating hours-of-day were used. For example, a facility might operate Monday through Friday from 9AM to 5PM and on Saturday from 9AM to 2PM (45 hours per week). For this facility, hourly concentrations were estimated by the ISCST3 using meteorological conditions measured any day of the year from 9AM to 5PM (56 hours per week, 52 weeks per year) for all the years of meteorological data available.
Method for Determination of Annual Concentrations Another purpose of this analysis is to determine the maximum annual concentration that might be experienced in the area surrounding a facility. The ISCST model calculates long-term, annual concentrations by averaging all the hourly concentrations determined at each receptor over the year represented by the meteorological data input file. This includes concentrations calculated when the facility is not operating (i.e., null hourly concentrations). Thus, the model averages all of the hourly concentration estimates described in the previous section (Determination of Hourly Concentrations) over all hours of the year. For example, a facility that operates Monday through Friday from 9AM to 5PM and on Saturday from 9AM to 2PM is open 45 hours per week. For this facility, 2340 hourly average concentrations per receptor should be considered in calculating the average concentration per non leap year (45 hours-per-week, 52 weeks per year). However, to account for all possible hourly meteorological conditions associated with each hour of facility operation, more hourly concentrations are calculated than correspond to each facility’s operating schedule (described in the previous paragraph). That is, using the above example facility, 56 hours per week are modeled rather than 45 hours per week. This results in 9 additional hourly concentrations per week, which are used in calculating the annual average. Thus, the annual average concentrations determined by the model are overestimated. To alleviate overestimation of the annual average concentration estimates, the annual average concentrations calculated by the model were adjusted using a factor of scheduled hours per week over the modeled hours per week. For the example facility used above this reduction factor is 0.804, which is equal to 45 operating hours divided by 56 modeled hours. This adjustment method assumes that the 9 additional concentrations per week fall within the weekly average concentrations associated with the specific 45 hour-per-week operating schedule. Table 5 provides the annual

# Todd Wong

January 11, 2000 Page 7

adjustment factors used for each facility. All of the annual concentration estimates provided in this memo have already been adjusted by these factors. Modeling Results for Specific Facilities Grid-Based Receptor Network Results For each hour of meteorological data used, hourly concentrations specific to a facility’s emissions were estimated at each receptor in a gridded network surrounding each of the specific facilities. The utilized receptor networks are described in Table 2. Receptors representing discrete, off-site residences or businesses that might be located in-between the equally spaced, gridded receptors were modeled separately (these results are described in the following section). As described in the previous sections and in Table 4, hourly meteorological conditions from 1 to 6 annual meteorological data sets were used per facility. For each facility and for each year of meteorological data used, the maximum hourly and maximum annual concentrations were determined out of all of the hourly and annual concentrations estimated to occur at any of the receptors in the gridded receptor network. Thus, 1 to 6 maximum hourly concentrations and 1 to 6 maximum annual concentrations were determined per site (i.e., one maximum hourly and one maximum annual concentration per year of meteorological data). Tables 6A and 6B summarize the high, average, and low statistics for the 1 to 6 maximum annual concentrations and 1 to 6 maximum hourly concentrations, respectively, determined for each site. For example, if five years of meteorological data were available for a facility, modeling might result in maximum, annual-average concentration estimates of 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 micrograms per cubic meter. In this case, the high would be 18, the low would be 10, and the average would be 14. Tables 6A and 6B also present the range of distance and direction at which the maximum values occur, since the maximum concentrations could occur at different receptors, depending on the corresponding meteorological conditions that produced each maximum. It should be noted again that facility emissions were limited to each facility’s hours of operation (Table 1) and modeling was limited to distances greater than 32 meters from the centroid of each source. Discrete Receptor Results (Nearest Residence/Business Off-Site Receptor The locations of the nearest business receptor (NBR), nearest residential receptor (NRR), maximum exposed individual worker (MEIW), and maximum exposed individual resident (MEIR) were determined by your staff. Concentrations at these locations were modeled separately as discrete receptors (i.e., stand-alone points on a map). If the distance from the source centroid to the discrete NBR, NRR, MEIW, or MEIR receptor

# Todd Wong

January 11, 2000 Page 8

was determined to be closer than 32 meters, the concentration at 32 meters in the equivalent direction is reported in lieu of the concentration estimated at the discrete business or residential receptor. This was done to stay consistent with the 32-meter, minimum-modeled distance implemented for the receptor network modeling of specific facilities (covered in the previous section). In order to produce these supplemental data points, concentrations were calculated for a polar network of receptors. This polar network consists of 60 receptors where each receptor is spaced 6 degrees apart and located 32 meters from the source centroid. Your staff determined the locations of the NBR and NRR during site visits. These receptors represent the nearest business and residence to each of the facilities. At each receptor, a maximum hourly concentration and a maximum annual concentration was calculated using each of the one to six years of meteorological data associated with each specific facility (Table 4). The high, low, and average of these one to six values for the NBR and NRR are provided in Tables 7A and 7B. The locations of potential MEIW and MEIR receptors were determined by your staff using modeling results for the gridded receptor networks, described in the previous section and identified in Table 2. To estimate the location of potential MEIW and MEIR receptors, your staff utilized plots of modeled concentrations overlaid onto street maps as well as sketches of the residences and businesses in the region surrounding each facility. The sketches were made during site visits. Concentrations at all of the potential MEIW and MEIR locations were modeled as discrete receptors. The business receptor having the highest modeled concentration among all of the identified business receptors delineates it as the maximum exposed individual worker (MEIW). Similarly, the residential receptor having the highest modeled concentration among all of the identified residential receptors delineates that receptor as the maximum exposed individual resident (MEIR). Tables 7C and 7D present the facility-specific annual and hourly concentrations, respectively, at the MEIW and MEIR. Regional Population Impact Results for Specific Facilities Assessing the impact of source-specific emissions on the population surrounding a source consists of analyzing model-estimated concentrations that have been spatially paired to population estimates. In order to perform this type of analysis, concentration data and population data must be processed to represent the same grid-cell in a gridded network of areas surrounding a facility in one of the following four ways:
1. No processing is required if both forms of data have the same spatial resolution and the existing resolution is sufficient for analyses;

# Todd Wong

January 11, 2000 Page 9

2. Concentration data may be processed to match the spatial resolution of the population data;
3. Population data may be processed to match the spatial resolution of the concentration data; or 4. Both the concentration data and population data are processed to another, third spatial resolution. In this analysis, processing option number four was used. Population data from the California Department of Finance (CDF) was used. Specifically, the utilized CDF data is census tract population data for 1990, projected to 1997 using CDF growth factors. Based on previous analyses, the population data were spatially re-allocated from representing census tract populations surrounding each of the facilities to representing populations in 1-kilometer by 1-kilometer areas (square grid-cells) surrounding each facility. In processing the population data, the centroid of each grid-cell was assigned to be coincident with a coarse network modeling receptor (Table 2). Perc, MeCl, and TCE unit concentration data from the modeling analyses were processed to match the 1-kilometer by 1-kilometer grid-cell resolution of the population data. The average of the modeled concentrations for receptors spaced 100 meters apart (Table 2) was used as a representative concentration for each of the nine central 1-kilometer by 1-kilometer grid cells surrounding a facility. Otherwise, the modeled concentrations for receptors spaced 1-kilometer apart were used (Table 2). The reason for using an average concentration is that the modeling analyses presented in the previous section shows that high concentration gradients occur within 100 meters from a facility and, lower, more uniform concentrations are expected to occur at distances beyond 100 meters. A potential drawback to averaging concentrations in the central, grid-cell that contains the AMR facility is that it could underestimate near-source population exposure. That is, all of the 100-meter-spaced receptor concentrations in this grid cell have the same weight in determining the average 1-kilometer by 1- kilometer grid cell concentration. Because there are more receptors beyond 100 meters than inside of 100 meters, the average of all of the receptor concentrations in this grid cell is significantly lower than modeled concentrations within 100 meters from the facility. As a result, the average concentrations within the center 1-kilometer by 1- kilometer grid cell underestimates exposure to Perc, MeCl, or TCE for the population that might be located coincident with high concentration gradients (i.e., generallylocated within 100 meters from an AMR facility). To account for this, the maximummodeled concentration should be considered as an upper bound of exposure within the central grid cell.

# Todd Wong

January 11, 2000 Page 10

After concentration and population data are processed to represent grid-cell areas in the same grid system, concentration thresholds are used to stratify the matched population/km2

# and concentration (ug/m3

# ) data values. Tables 8A through 8M present the cumulative population exposure for the 31-kilometer by 31-kilometer area surrounding each specific facility. These tables show the number of people estimated to be exposed to a specific annual concentration up to the maximum concentration provided in Tables 6 and 7, exclusively from each facility and based on a unit emissionrate. For example, Table 8A represents cumulative population exposure for facility A07, which was modeled using Oakland meteorological data (see Table 4). Table 8A shows that unit emissions from facility A-07 that are under the influence of Oakland 1960 meteorological conditions cause up to 132,661 people to be exposed to Perc, MeCl, and TCE concentrations that can range between 0.09 and 113.00 micrograms per cubic meter. The maximum concentration is considered to account for the effects of averaging 100-meter-spaced receptor concentrations over areas expected to experience a high concentration gradient (this is discussed in the paragraph above). Each table provides an average for the multiple years of data in the last column. Modeling Results for Generic Facilities Descriptions of generic facilities are found in Table 1B and in Table 3. Tables 9A and 9B summarize the generic facility modeling results. Appendix A contains more detailed tables of the maximum concentration per indicated distance for each default meteorological condition and specific facility meteorological site. Summary statistics of maximum values per distance (average, high, and low) are tabulated in the last three columns of Appendix A tables, where the summary values used in Tables 9A and 9B are indicated with boxed borders. Each generic facility was modeled using meteorological data for all 10 sites that were used in specific facility modeling (Table 4). For modeling with these 45 meteorological data sets, a 360-degree polar receptor grid is utilized where angular distances of 6 degrees separate each radial. Each radial has receptors located between 20 meters and 1000 meters from the source centroid. As indicated in the first three columns in each of the tables in Appendix A, each table contains hourly or annual modeling results for one of the generic facilities at specified distances. All distances are from the facility center, except for default meteorology (DFLT_00, DFLT_45, and DFLT_90), which is discussed in the paragraph below. Each record, or line, in each of the tables in Appendix A presents a single hourly or annual concentration for each of the ten meteorological data sets (BUR, CND, FAT, LAX, MCC, MHR, OAK, RED, SAC, and STN071) estimated to occur at the specified distance from the facility centroid. In the last three columns of each line the high, low, and average of

# Todd Wong

January 11, 2000 Page 11

these ten values is provided. For example, one model run was made for facility G-03 per year of Oakland (OAK) meteorological data (1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, and 1964). Each of these five model runs resulted in one hourly maximum and one annual maximum concentration per distance from the source centroid. Among the five maximum hourly concentrations modeled for facility G-03 using the five different years of Oakland meteorological data, the overall maximum hourly value is 1716 ug/m3

# and occurs 20 meters from the center of the facility using 1964 OAK data. Similarly the maximum annual value is 47 ug/m3

# , which occurs 30 meters from the center of the facility using 1962 OAK data. These two concentration values are underlined in the Appendix A tables (without a reference to the associated year of meteorological data). This same process was performed for the remaining 9 meteorological sites, resulting in 10 overall maximum hourly and 10 overall maximum annual values per generic facility and per distance. Tables 9A and 9B provide the ‘high’, ‘low’, and ‘average’ of the 10 overall maximum hourly (i.e., any distance) and 10 overall maximum annual values for each generic facility. These values are found boxed in the Appendix tables as well. Because generic facility modeling included concentration estimates down to 20 meters from the facility centroid, it should be noted that none of the maximum concentrations for any facility, distance, or met year were found to fall within the building footprint. In applying the 45 meteorological data sets to the generic facilities, each generic facility was oriented with the building length along the East-West direction (i.e., x-axis). Thus, concentrations could be higher in situations where the length of the building, as modeled, is not oriented parallel with the prevailing wind direction for each meteorological data set. This is the orientation known to result in maximum concentrations. To gain some understanding as to the variability that might occur from building orientation effects, default meteorological conditions were applied to the generic facilities using three building length orientations: parallel to the wind direction (DFLT_00); 45 degrees to the wind (DFLT_45); and perpendicular to the wind direction(DFLT_90). Maximum concentrations were found to vary by ten percent for facility G01, fifteen percent for facility G-02, and forty percent for facility G-03. The range in variability is dependent upon the facility dimensions. In closing, it should be noted that all concentrations presented in this memo are concentration estimates above background concentrations. Also, the presented analyses give no consideration to background Perc, MeCl, and TCE concentrations or overlapping plumes of these substances from multiple nearby sources simultaneously utilizing Perc, MeCl, and TCE-based products. The overlapping plume case is plausible with specific facilities A-7 and A-8, for example.
Enclosures

# TABLES

# TABLE 1. Description of Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities.

A. Facility Locations. ID General Location UTM Zone UTM East (m) UTM North

(m) A-07 Oakland 10 565380 4186595 A-08 Oakland 10 565363 4186618 A-09 Berkeley 10 562308 4191508 A-28 Sacramento 10 636751 4276869 A-52 Marina Del Rey 11 366347 3761855 A-83 Redding 10 553940 4491121 A-86 Fresno 10 786709 4079569 A-92 Fresno 10 788131 4075093 I Sacramento 10 636216 4268553 O Walnut Creek 10 582393 4197375 P Sacramento 10 642904 4267713 T Glendale 11 384374 3776603 U Garden Grove 11 414841 3736229 

# B. Dimensions and Operating Parameters.

ID L (m) W (m) H (m) Number of Hrs/Wk Hours

Of Operation Days

of Operation A-07 30.5 10.7 4.6 58 8.0a- 6.0p 8.0a- 4.0p M-F

Sat A-08 22.9 9.1 4.6 59 8.0a- 6.0p 8.0a- 5.0p M-F

Sat A-09 21.3 13.7 7.6 59 8.0a- 6.0p 8.0a- 5.0p M-F

Sat A-28 15.2 15.2 9.1 122.5 5.0a-10.5p M-Sun A-52 15.2 7.6 4.6 51 8.0a- 5.0p 8.0a- 2.0p M-F

Sat A-83 24.4 9.1 6.1 53 8.0a- 5.0p 8.0a- 4.0p M-F

Sat A-86 53.3 33.5 10.0 60 7.0a- 6.0p 9.0a- 2.0p M-F

Sat A-92 15.2 7.6 5.2 47 7.5a- 4.0p 7.5a-12.0p M-F

Sat I 62.8 22.3 9.5 92.5 6.5a- 1.0a M-F O 18.3 15.2 6.1 45 9.0a- 6.0p M-F P 18.3 10.7 6.1 60 8.0a- 6.0p M-Sat T 21.3 9.1 6.1 56.5 8.0a- 5.5p 8.0a- 5.0p M-F

Sat U 18.3 9.1 6.1 60 8.0a- 6.0p M-Sat G-01* 12.2 7.6 4.9 57 8.0a- 6.0p 8.0a- 3.0p M-F

Sat G-02* 21.3 13.7 7.6 57 8.0a- 6.0p 8.0a- 3.0p M-F

Sat G-03* 62.5 21.3 7.6 57 8.0a- 6.0p 8.0a- 3.0p M-F

Sat 

# *G-01, G-02, and G-03 are ‘generic’ facilities

# TABLE 2. ISCST3 Receptor Networks Used for Non-Discrete Receptor Modeling

Facility Type Grid Name

(Type) Cell Size Number of Receptors Location Specific COARSE

(Cartesian) 1000m X 1000m 31 X 31 = 961 Centered on Source Centroid Specific FINE

(Cartesian) 100m X 100m 31 X 31 = 961 Centered on Source Centroid Specific VFINE

(Cartesian) 20m X 20m 26 X 26 = 676 Centered on Source Centroid Generic POLARa



## (Polar) Variable.

Depends on distance from source. (360/6) X 36 = 2160 Centered on Source Centroid 

# The polar network consists of 60 radials, spaced 6 degrees apart, having receptors at the following 36 distances (meters): 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 120, 140, 150, 160, 180, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8000, 9000, 10000, and 23000. TABLE 3. ISCST3 Volume Source Input Parameters. Facility Parameters MEASURED (Entire Facility) Facility Parameters USED IN MODELING (Per volume source) Dispersion Parameters USED IN MODELING (Per volume source) IDa 

## L (m) W (m) H (m) Hrs Per Wk # of

L X L Volumes L

(m) H (m) Hrs Per Wk Sigma

- Y Sigma

- Z Release

Heightb 

## (m) A-07 30.5 10.7 4.6 58 3 10.0 4.6 70 4.7 2.1 2.3 A-08 22.9 9.1 4.6 59 3 8.4 4.6 70 3.9 2.1 2.3 A-09 21.3 13.7 7.6 59 2 12.2 7.6 70 5.7 3.5 3.8 A-28 15.2 15.2 9.1 122.5 1 15.2 9.1 122.5 3.5 4.3 4.5 A-52 15.2 7.6 4.6 51 2 7.6 4.6 63 3.5 2.1 2.3 A-83 24.4 9.1 6.1 53 3 9.1 6.1 63 4.3 2.8 3.0 A-86 53.3 33.5 10.0 60 2 30.0 10.0 77 14.0 4.7 5.0 A-92 15.2 7.6 5.2 47 2 7.6 5.2 63 3.5 2.4 2.6 I 62.8 22.3 9.5 92.5 3 21.3 9.5 133 9.9 4.4 4.7 O 18.3 15.2 6.1 45 1 15.2 6.1 63 3.7 2.8 3.0 P 18.3 10.7 6.1 60 2 9.8 6.1 70 4.5 2.8 3.0 T 21.3 9.1 6.1 56.5 2 9.1 6.1 70 4.2 2.8 3.0 U 18.3 9.1 6.1 60 2 9.1 6.1 70 4.3 2.8 3.0 G-01a 

## 12.2 7.6 4.9 57 2 7.0 4.9 70 3.3 2.3 2.5 G-02a 

## 21.3 13.7 7.6 57 2 13.0 7.6 70 6.1 3.5 3.8 G-03a 

## 62.5 21.3 7.6 57 3 20.0 7.6 70 9.3 3.5 3.8 G-01, G-02, and G-03 are ‘generic’ facilities Release height used in modeling is set to half of the building height.

# TABLE 4. Meteorological Data Used for Refined Modeling (ISCST3).

Specific Facility ID (13 Facilities) Meteorological Site Name (10 Sites) Meteorological

Site Abbreviation Number of Years

of Met Data (45 Total) Meteorological Data

Calendar Years Used A-07, A-08, A09 Oakland OAK 5 ‘60-‘64 A-28 McClellan AFB MCC 5 ‘53-‘57

A-52 LAX LAX 5 ‘85-‘89 A-83 Redding RED 3 ‘87-‘89 A-86, A-92 Fresno FAT 5 ‘85-‘89 I Sac Exec. SAC 5 ‘87, ‘89-‘92 O Concord CND 6 ‘91-‘96 P Mather AFB MHR 5 ‘53-‘57 T Burbank BUR 5 ‘58-‘62 U Anaheim STN07161 1 ‘81 

# TABLE 5. Adjustment Factors for Annual Average Concentrations.

ID Specific Hours Per Week Modeled

Hours Per Week Annual

Modeled Concentration Adjustment Factor A-07 58 70 0.829 A-08 59 70 0.843 A-09 59 70 0.843 A-28 122.5 122.5 1.000 A-52 51 63 0.810 A-83 53 63 0.841 A-86 60 77 0.779 A-92 47 63 0.746 I 92.5 133 0.695 O 45 63 0.714 P 60 70 0.857 T 56.5 70 0.807 U 60 70 0.857 G-01a 

## 57 70 0.814 G-02a 

## 57 70 0.814 G-03a 

## 57 70 0.814 a. G-01, G-02, and G-03 are ‘generic’ facilities

# TABLE 6. Specific Facility Impacts on Grid-Based Receptors Per 1 g/s Emission Rate.

A. Maximum ANNUALPerc, MeCl, and TCE Concentrations (ug/m3

# ).Facility ID Site and Years of Met. Data One max. annual concentration generated per year of met data. Direction Rangea 

## (deg.) Distance

Range (m) Highb



## Max. Conc. Lowb



## Max. Conc. Avg.b



## Max. Conc. A-07 Oakland ‘60-‘64 108-108 32-32 120 107 113 A-08 Oakland ‘60-‘64 108-108 32-32 155 140 147 A-09 Oakland ‘60-‘64 108-108 32-32 124 110 118 A-28 McClellan AFB ‘53-‘57 342-342 32-32 322 209 261 A-52 LAX ‘85-‘89 72-108 32-32 104 92 100 A-83 Redding ‘87-‘89 162-162 32-32 100 91 95 A-86 Fresno ‘85-‘89 101-135 42-51 40 34 37 A-92 Fresno ‘85-‘89 108-108 32-32 102 80 88 I Sac Exec. ‘87, ‘89-‘92 349- 11 51-51 83 74 79 O Concord ‘91-‘96 162-162 32-32 97 82 89 P Mather AFB ‘53-‘57 342- 72 32-32 105 78 91 T Burbank ‘58-‘62 288-342 32-32 217 108 152 U Anaheim ‘81 72-72 32-32 337 337 337 Direction is measured clockwise, from North. For each facility, one maximum concentration and associated location was determined per year of meteorological data used for modeling (during hours of operation). For example, facility A-7 has five years of Oakland meteorological data (Table 4; 1960,1961,1962,1963, and 1964). Thus, five maximum annual estimates at five locations resulted for facility A-7. The tabulated high, low, and average concentrations are the high, low, and average statistics based on these concentrations. Therefor, if the concentrations were 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, then the low would be 1, the average would be 3 and the high would be 5 (ug/m3

## ). The distance and direction ranges indicate the variability in location for the estimated maximum concentrations. 

# B. Maximum HOURLYPerc, MeCl, and TCE Concentrations (ug/m3

# ).Facility ID Site and Years of Met. Data One maximum hourly concentration is calculated per year of met data. Direction Rangea 

## (deg.) Distance

Range (m) Highb



## Max. Conc. Lowb



## Max. Conc. Avg.b



## Max. Conc.

A-07 Oakland ‘60-‘64 198- 33 32-42 5027 3799 4614 A-08 Oakland ‘60-‘64 252-288 32-32 5597 4269 5067 A-09 Oakland ‘60-‘64 252-108 32-32 3442 2703 3062 A-28 McClellan AFB ‘53-‘57 288- 18 32-42 5370 3977 5034 A-52 LAX ‘85-‘89 315-342 32-42 5096 4208 4600 A-83 Redding ‘87-‘89 162-198 32-32 6364 4241 5316 A-86 Fresno ‘85-‘89 101-301 51-58 1594 1077 1403 A-92 Fresno ‘85-‘89 135-315 32-42 5990 4383 5015 I Sac Exec. ‘87, ‘89-‘92 135-348 42-51 2231 1489 1995 O Concord ‘91-‘96 342-108 32-32 7335 7323 7329 P Mather AFB ‘53-‘57 252- 72 32-32 3289 2548 2952 T Burbank ‘58-‘62 288-108 32-32 5841 5835 5837 U Anaheim ‘81 108-108 32-32 5554 5554 5554 

# a, b. See Table 6A footnote, above. The same method was used here, but for hourly data.

# TABLE 7. Facility Impacts on Business/ Residence Receptors (1 g/s Emission Rate).

A.NEARESTBusiness/Residential Receptor Maximum ANNUALConcentrations (ug/m3

# ).

Type ID X (m) Y (m) Distancea 

## (m) Directionb



## (deg.) HIGHc 

## LOWc 

## AVGc 

## A-07 -5 20 32 * 348 47 33 41 A-08 10 -10 32 * 132 114 87 98 A-09 0 10 32 * 0 36 27 32 A-28 -80 -90 120 222 4 2 3 A-52 -30 -10 32 252 31 24 29 A-83 -30 0 32 * 270 23 23 23 A-86 60 -160 171 159 4 3 3 A-92 -30 10 32 288 78 70 73 I 30 90 95 18 33 27 30 O 0 -26 32 * 180 89 76 82 P 0 -31 32 * 180 51 27 38 T 0 -30 32 * 180 20 13 17 Bus.
(NBR)

U 91 0 91 90 22 22 22

A-07 10 0 32 * 90 124 107 115 A-08 -40 10 41 284 15 7 12 A-09 30 0 32 * 90 145 126 134 A-28 -90 -10 91 264 6 2 4 A-52 -35 30 46 311 32 26 28 A-83 0 -35 35 180 78 72 75 A-86 250 250 354 45 1 0 1 A-92 -50 -50 71 225 6 5 5 I -130 70 148 298 6 5 6 O -100 0 100 270 2 1 1 P -35 0 35 270 10 5 7 T 0 6 32 * 0 190 96 135 Res.
(NRR)

U 0 6 32 * 0 139 139 139
NOTES: The symbol "*" indicates the receptor is closer than 32 meters from the source centroid. In this case, the concentration is replaced with modeling results for the estimated concentration at 32 meters in the equivalent direction from the source (i.e., +/- 3 degrees). Direction is measured clockwise, from North. For each facility and receptor, one maximum concentration was modeled per year of meteorological data indicated in Table 4 (during hours of operation). For example, facility A-7 has five years of Oakland meteorological data (1960,1961,1962,1963, and 1964). Thus, five maximum estimates were made for each A-7 receptor. The tabulated high, low, and average concentrations are the high, low, and average statistics based on these concentrations. Therefor, if the concentrations were 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, then the low would be 1, the average would be 3 and the high would be 5 (ug/m3

## ).

# TABLE 7 (continued).

B.NEARESTBusiness/Residential Receptor Maximum HOURLYConcentrations (ug/m3

# ).

Type ID X (m) Y (m) Distancea 

## (m) Directionb



## (deg.) HIGHc 

## LOWc 

## AVGc 

## A-07 -5 20 32 * 348 3818 2724 3021 A-08 10 -10 32 * 132 5430 3356 4485 A-09 0 10 32 * 0 2333 1752 1937 A-28 -80 -90 120 222 1404 733 976 A-52 -30 -10 32 252 2496 1914 2311 A-83 -30 0 32 * 270 2966 2095 2654 A-86 60 -160 171 159 439 253 345 A-92 -30 10 32 288 5903 4006 4467 I 30 90 95 18 960 721 771 O 0 -26 32 * 180 7258 6540 7085 P 0 -31 32 * 180 2261 1462 1862 T 0 -30 32 * 180 3148 2948 3059 Bus.
(NBR)

U 91 0 91 90 2399 2399 2399

A-07 10 0 32 * 90 3399 2200 2615 A-08 -40 10 41 284 4340 1836 3605 A-09 30 0 32 * 90 3437 2318 2712 A-28 -90 -10 91 264 1351 1202 1302 A-52 -35 30 46 311 4098 3073 3720 A-83 0 -35 35 180 3972 3742 3865 A-86 250 250 354 45 155 60 121 A-92 -50 -50 71 225 1265 1263 1264 I -130 70 148 298 746 503 592 O -100 0 100 270 2139 1344 1906 P -35 0 35 270 2652 2360 2537 T 0 6 32 * 0 3148 3026 3112 Res.
(NRR)

U 0 6 32 * 0 3107 3107 3107
NOTES: The symbol "*" indicates the receptor is closer than 32 meters from the source centroid. In this case, the concentration is replaced with modeling results for the estimated concentration at 32 meters in the equivalent direction from the source (i.e., +/- 3 degrees). Direction is measured clockwise, from North. For each facility and receptor, one maximum concentration was modeled per year of meteorological data indicated in Table 4 (during hours of operation). For example, facility A-7 has five years of Oakland meteorological data (1960,1961,1962,1963, and 1964). Thus, five maximum estimates were made for each A-7 receptor. The tabulated high, low, and average concentrations are the high, low, and average statistics based on these concentrations. Therefor, if the concentrations were 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, then the low would be 1, the average would be 3 and the high would be 5 (ug/m3

## ).

# TABLE 7 (continued).

C.MAXIMUM Exposed Resident and Off-Site Worker ANNUALConcentrations (ug/m3

# ).

Type ID X (m) Y (m) Distancea 

## (m) Directionb



## (deg.) HIGHc 

## LOWc 

## AVGc 

## A-07 50 10 51 79 51 41 47 A-08 30 30 42 45 32 29 30 A-09 -10 30 32 342 30 20 27 A-28 0 130 130 0 43 23 32 A-52 30 -10 32 108 104 81 96 A-83 -10 30 32 342 73 72 72 A-86 -160 50 168 287 4 4 4 A-92 -30 10 32 288 78 70 73 I 30 90 95 18 33 27 30 O 0 -20 32 * 180 89 76 82 P 0 30 32 * 0 90 50 70 T 0 30 32 * 0 190 96 135 Bus.
(MEIW)

U -10 30 32 342 124 124 124

A-07 30 -10 32 108 124 111 117 A-08 0 30 32 * 0 45 38 40 A-09 30 -10 32 108 126 112 120 A-28 10 -90 91 174 28 17 20 A-52 -40 30 50 307 28 23 25 A-83 10 -50 51 169 49 45 46 A-86 150 -50 158 108 7 6 6 A-92 -50 -30 58 239 11 8 9 I 70 140 157 27 14 12 13 O -100 0 100 270 2 1 1 P -30 -30 42 225 14 5 8 T 30 110 114 15 26 13 19 Res.
(MEIR)

U 30 10 32 72 337 337 337
NOTES: The symbol "*" indicates the receptor is closer than 32 meters from the source centroid. In this case, the concentration is replaced with modeling results for the estimated concentration at 32 meters in the equivalent direction from the source (i.e., +/- 3 degrees). Direction is measured clockwise, from North. For each facility and receptor, one maximum concentration was modeled per year of meteorological data indicated in Table 4 (during hours of operation). For example, facility A-7 has five years of Oakland meteorological data (1960,1961,1962,1963, and 1964). Thus, five maximum estimates were made for each A-7 receptor. The tabulated high, low, and average concentrations are the high, low, and average statistics based on these concentrations. Therefor, if the concentrations were 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, then the low would be 1, the average would be 3 and the high would be 5 (ug/m3

## ).

# TABLE 7 (continued).

D.MAXIMUM Exposed Resident and Off-Site Worker HOURLYConcentrations (ug/m3

# ).

Type ID X (m) Y (m) Distancea 

## (m) Directionb



## (deg.) HIGHc 

## LOWc 

## AVGc 

## A-07 50 10 51 79 1964 1502 1674 A-08 30 30 42 45 3176 1780 2203 A-09 -10 30 32 342 2506 1797 2118 A-28 0 130 130 0 1229 822 1002 A-52 30 -10 32 108 2809 2079 2373 A-83 -10 30 32 342 3550 2837 3142 A-86 -160 50 168 287 597 389 436 A-92 -30 10 32 288 5903 4006 4467 I 30 90 95 18 960 721 771 O 0 -20 32 * 180 7258 6540 7085 P 0 30 32 * 0 2180 1630 1950 T 0 30 32 * 0 3148 3026 3112 Bus.
(MEIW)

U -10 30 32 342 3453 3453 3453

A-07 30 -10 32 108 3196 2331 2732 A-08 0 30 32 * 0 3076 2639 2911 A-09 30 -10 32 108 3089 2335 2609 A-28 10 -90 91 174 2019 1320 1606 A-52 -40 30 50 307 3630 2525 3283 A-83 10 -50 51 169 3739 2467 3016 A-86 150 -50 158 108 425 407 418 A-92 -50 -30 58 239 1808 1514 1604 I 70 140 157 27 665 417 483 O -100 0 100 270 2139 1344 1906 P -30 -30 42 225 2537 1689 2009 T 30 110 114 15 1166 994 1124 Res.
(MEIR)

U 30 10 32 72 4600 4600 4600
NOTES: The symbol "*" indicates the receptor is closer than 32 meters from the source centroid. In this case, the concentration is replaced with modeling results for the estimated concentration at 32 meters in the equivalent direction from the source (i.e., +/- 3 degrees). Direction is measured clockwise, from North. For each facility and receptor, one maximum concentration was modeled per year of meteorological data indicated in Table 4 (during hours of operation). For example, facility A-7 has five years of Oakland meteorological data (1960,1961,1962,1963, and 1964). Thus, five maximum estimates were made for each A-7 receptor. The tabulated high, low, and average concentrations are the high, low, and average statistics based on these concentrations. Therefor, if the concentrations were 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, then the low would be 1, the average would be 3 and the high would be 5 (ug/m3

## ).

# TABLE 8. Specific Facility ANNUAL Population Exposure Estimates.

A. Facility A-07 ug/m3
>= OAK60 OAK61 OAK62 OAK63 OAK64 AVG

0.000 1,300,824 1,300,824 1,300,824 1,300,824 1,300,824 1,300,824 0.001 593,781 610,692 638,801 610,352 618,981 614,521 0.003 377,141 385,071 401,672 391,357 423,603 395,769 0.004 268,996 281,562 283,035 268,881 312,438 282,982 0.006 192,742 203,315 220,437 216,063 234,450 213,401 0.007 176,510 174,360 181,645 165,209 194,184 178,382 0.009 132,661 143,847 149,503 143,106 142,784 142,380 0.010 112,796 115,642 119,774 119,184 131,794 119,838 0.011 103,975 106,927 105,949 105,949 119,588 108,478 0.013 95,571 90,808 99,529 100,217 95,886 96,402 0.014 87,623 86,550 91,753 78,587 87,623 86,427 0.016 80,258 69,719 87,623 70,114 79,699 77,483 0.017 59,443 61,804 61,804 66,517 67,676 63,449 0.020 56,185 58,546 54,494 63,259 55,002 57,497 0.024 52,133 52,133 52,133 56,185 44,033 51,323 0.031 38,289 42,785 38,289 42,785 38,289 40,087 0.041 29,615 33,907 33,907 33,907 29,615 32,190 0.047 25,101 25,101 25,101 25,101 25,101 25,101 0.054 12,008 12,008 20,702 16,407 20,702 16,365 0.163 4,302 4,302 12,008 4,302 4,302 5,843 

# B. Facility A-08 ug/m3
>= OAK60 OAK61 OAK62 OAK63 OAK64 AVG

0.000 1,298,421 1,298,421 1,298,421 1,298,421 1,298,421 1,298,421 0.002 590,998 609,064 642,256 600,990 614,831 611,628 0.003 372,900 377,214 399,569 385,651 420,565 391,180 0.005 261,893 274,300 275,762 261,797 307,484 276,247 0.007 184,887 194,806 212,897 209,257 228,425 206,054 0.008 169,370 166,343 174,693 159,288 187,052 171,349 0.010 126,558 138,071 142,244 138,443 136,695 136,402 0.012 108,318 110,608 115,203 114,991 125,842 114,992 0.013 99,571 102,518 101,459 101,459 114,377 103,877 0.015 91,942 87,863 95,049 96,524 92,286 92,733 0.017 84,017 84,323 87,735 76,691 84,017 83,357 0.019 77,735 68,209 84,017 68,395 76,686 75,008 0.022 58,222 60,385 60,385 65,271 65,342 61,921 0.027 55,503 57,666 53,927 62,552 53,285 56,587 0.030 51,764 51,764 51,764 55,503 43,504 50,860 0.039 38,296 43,057 38,296 43,057 38,296 40,200 0.051 29,753 33,482 33,482 33,482 29,753 31,990 0.059 25,126 25,126 25,126 25,126 25,126 25,126 0.069 11,295 11,295 20,723 15,698 20,723 15,947 0.194 4,211 4,211 11,295 4,211 4,211 5,628

# Table 8 (continued)

C. Facility A-09 ug/m3
>= OAK60 OAK61 OAK62 OAK63 OAK64 AVG

0.000 1,312,711 1,312,711 1,312,711 1,312,711 1,312,711 1,312,711 0.002 461,066 490,388 553,210 496,290 538,802 507,951 0.003 238,173 254,190 260,944 250,042 284,618 257,593 0.005 180,277 185,757 184,326 176,966 204,019 186,269 0.007 141,163 139,784 149,326 149,895 154,487 146,931 0.008 129,661 123,896 131,211 119,883 136,115 128,153 0.010 100,604 107,792 108,405 106,942 108,725 106,494 0.012 88,336 92,591 97,057 94,838 103,117 95,188 0.013 81,759 87,248 87,159 87,159 91,990 87,063 0.015 74,224 78,410 84,116 82,351 74,512 78,723 0.017 70,551 68,201 81,316 55,115 70,551 69,147 0.019 64,602 53,233 66,237 55,034 59,604 59,742 0.022 40,825 45,646 45,646 48,401 52,148 46,533 0.025 36,270 41,091 40,945 41,091 41,992 40,278 0.030 36,043 36,124 36,124 36,270 29,165 34,745 0.039 24,938 25,019 24,938 24,938 24,938 24,954 0.051 18,565 24,038 24,038 24,038 18,565 21,849 0.061 12,930 8,709 12,930 8,709 12,930 11,242 0.067 7,013 7,013 11,234 8,709 11,234 9,041 0.743 2,155 2,155 2,155 2,155 2,155 2,155 

# D. Facility A-28 ug/m3
>= MCC53 MCC54 MCC55 MCC56 MCC57 AVG

0.000 853,095 853,095 853,095 853,095 853,095 853,095 0.005 336,956 244,734 258,971 261,167 304,476 281,261 0.010 152,153 130,058 111,712 118,223 153,537 133,137 0.015 101,215 91,732 74,343 85,137 103,752 91,236 0.020 74,472 72,513 60,757 60,643 80,683 69,814 0.025 56,940 60,365 48,257 51,498 60,060 55,424 0.030 51,002 52,680 44,621 43,235 55,228 49,353 0.035 46,583 46,926 38,132 37,554 47,649 43,369 0.040 42,005 42,711 33,432 35,676 44,600 39,685 0.045 33,304 39,721 30,784 30,490 36,312 34,122 0.050 29,854 36,606 29,768 27,816 32,714 31,352 0.055 28,045 30,502 26,357 25,693 29,550 28,029 0.065 27,308 24,391 21,311 20,938 26,277 24,045 0.075 26,644 24,059 16,667 19,865 23,407 22,128 0.090 18,016 19,815 14,885 13,206 21,023 17,389 0.115 15,591 13,124 9,246 11,339 13,018 12,464 0.190 9,246 9,990 7,821 6,655 9,246 8,592 0.245 6,053 7,478 4,887 4,887 7,821 6,225 0.300 3,520 6,053 3,520 3,520 6,655 4,654 0.890 2,246 3,520 2,246 2,246 2,246 2,501

# Table 8 (continued)

E. Facility A-52 ug/m3
>= LAX85 LAX86 LAX87 LAX88 LAX89 AVG

0.000 1,911,577 1,911,577 1,911,577 1,911,577 1,911,577 1,911,577 0.002 1,130,443 1,228,549 1,037,868 1,014,739 1,036,357 1,089,591 0.003 854,499 937,504 765,428 738,152 725,801 804,277 0.005 652,146 743,174 599,519 569,739 579,928 628,901 0.007 532,602 568,336 432,623 437,277 458,270 485,822 0.008 424,140 392,907 319,160 324,663 367,086 365,591 0.010 345,824 261,121 208,983 234,383 283,070 266,676 0.012 267,884 189,198 148,624 166,623 205,039 195,474 0.013 190,073 135,967 115,113 113,764 146,519 140,287 0.015 148,053 119,347 94,304 98,527 118,533 115,753 0.017 128,942 99,260 87,609 92,729 95,507 100,809 0.019 97,016 89,290 73,257 76,942 86,713 84,644 0.022 82,073 74,752 68,307 66,778 72,393 72,861 0.025 73,257 63,594 58,959 64,584 65,565 65,192 0.027 70,515 61,003 47,844 51,106 60,778 58,249 0.030 56,104 46,885 43,994 43,994 47,038 47,603 0.035 37,278 43,035 34,180 33,428 39,926 37,569 0.040 33,428 35,507 27,682 27,682 27,682 30,396 0.050 27,682 18,396 24,941 24,941 24,941 24,180 0.074 13,494 16,516 13,494 13,494 13,494 14,098 0.084 11,614 10,461 5,559 5,559 7,439 8,126 0.178 5,559 2,912 2,912 2,912 5,559 3,971 

# F. Facility A-83 ug/m3
>= RED87 RED88 RED89 AVG

0.000 112,941 112,941 112,941 112,941 0.002 89,292 89,242 89,142 89,225 0.003 52,432 52,712 52,779 52,641 0.005 37,020 37,554 37,304 37,293 0.006 30,812 30,816 29,777 30,468 0.008 26,178 24,850 26,095 25,708 0.010 21,145 20,579 22,341 21,355 0.011 19,024 16,358 15,791 17,058 0.013 14,959 14,732 13,303 14,331 0.015 12,290 13,610 11,994 12,631 0.018 11,095 11,483 11,095 11,224 0.019 10,441 10,584 10,584 10,536 0.021 9,238 9,930 9,930 9,699 0.024 8,627 9,238 8,627 8,831 0.031 7,773 7,773 7,773 7,773 0.034 6,208 6,971 7,010 6,730 0.037 5,514 5,636 6,369 5,840 0.041 4,873 4,873 4,873 4,873 0.044 4,148 3,041 2,869 3,353 0.099 2,144 2,144 2,144 2,144 0.126 1,460 1,460 1,460 1,460 0.784 732 732 732 732

# Table 8 (continued)

G. Facility A-86 ug/m3
>= FAT85 FAT86 FAT87 FAT88 FAT89 AVG

0.000 477,274 477,274 477,274 477,274 477,274 477,274 0.002 337,850 357,191 365,419 345,969 360,539 353,394 0.005 189,459 195,914 190,852 193,009 198,355 193,518 0.007 122,495 115,982 113,292 127,364 125,293 120,885 0.009 88,155 90,536 89,186 94,273 93,712 91,172 0.012 69,045 65,932 69,097 71,003 67,033 68,422 0.014 61,387 56,575 51,317 57,462 57,647 56,878 0.016 50,274 42,812 43,953 52,206 51,786 48,206 0.019 42,477 36,961 40,079 45,061 42,363 41,388 0.021 36,262 34,734 32,810 38,542 34,233 35,316 0.023 32,264 32,120 30,583 34,166 30,017 31,830 0.026 27,712 29,380 26,620 31,954 25,851 28,303 0.028 24,594 26,532 25,123 26,688 23,237 25,235 0.030 21,993 25,277 21,267 23,495 21,982 22,803 0.035 19,341 18,784 18,086 18,733 18,733 18,735 0.042 14,427 16,132 16,132 16,132 14,427 15,450 0.068 11,486 11,486 11,486 11,486 11,486 11,486 0.079 8,179 10,025 10,025 10,025 9,826 9,616 0.093 6,519 8,179 6,519 8,365 8,365 7,589 0.110 4,654 4,654 4,654 6,519 6,519 5,400 0.150 3,334 1,473 1,473 1,473 1,473 1,845 

# H. Facility A-92 ug/m3
>= FAT85 FAT86 FAT87 FAT88 FAT89 AVG

0.000 480,503 480,503 480,503 480,503 480,503 480,503 0.001 440,557 449,563 444,538 441,142 419,626 439,085 0.003 303,217 322,739 314,524 320,171 298,091 311,748 0.004 215,408 229,536 226,347 243,631 220,907 227,166 0.006 161,621 166,135 164,117 185,768 171,039 169,736 0.007 128,853 126,454 123,923 138,497 121,661 127,878 0.009 104,696 96,909 97,175 97,329 96,405 98,503 0.010 87,407 82,324 74,577 82,633 85,664 82,521 0.012 65,065 62,702 60,778 68,515 74,858 66,384 0.015 51,490 50,656 50,265 57,420 51,468 52,260 0.016 47,845 48,257 46,086 49,518 45,757 47,493 0.018 43,470 44,243 44,612 46,086 43,217 44,326 0.021 28,911 36,404 30,128 34,940 36,658 33,408 0.024 26,364 28,911 26,379 29,584 29,125 28,073 0.028 23,685 21,598 24,277 25,835 23,156 23,710 0.036 19,513 18,656 18,656 18,656 18,656 18,827 0.046 16,571 16,571 16,571 16,571 16,571 16,571 0.061 14,070 14,070 14,070 14,070 14,070 14,070 0.073 7,238 9,135 9,135 11,103 12,173 9,757 0.109 4,648 2,566 2,566 2,566 4,648 3,399

# Table 8 (continued)

I. Facility I ug/m3
>= SAC87 SAC89 SAC90 SAC91 SAC92 AVG

0.000 835,067 835,067 835,067 835,067 835,067 835,067 0.003 616,863 583,043 595,798 660,226 593,897 609,965 0.007 407,925 392,503 382,010 389,060 337,401 381,780 0.010 255,630 260,975 259,979 264,887 243,465 256,987 0.014 190,772 189,272 188,723 195,665 162,879 185,462 0.017 147,049 148,575 140,133 145,184 128,760 141,940 0.021 111,221 114,656 107,673 104,389 93,765 106,341 0.024 92,233 95,042 90,766 91,046 79,814 89,780 0.028 80,336 86,746 74,401 73,027 64,357 75,773 0.031 70,194 67,152 61,781 66,766 58,729 64,924 0.035 61,109 53,007 54,003 59,492 46,362 54,795 0.042 48,541 43,005 45,882 45,436 42,865 45,146 0.049 38,818 38,765 39,701 32,807 34,241 36,866 0.052 36,030 37,839 34,785 31,187 33,037 34,576 0.056 35,420 36,030 30,311 28,527 30,377 32,133 0.063 26,718 30,316 25,514 25,514 24,090 26,430 0.076 24,090 24,090 22,656 20,641 20,641 22,424 0.097 16,129 18,144 18,560 18,210 18,560 17,921 0.132 14,071 10,543 14,330 10,209 10,233 11,877 0.153 6,681 8,744 8,744 4,699 6,681 7,110 0.226 4,699 3,066 3,066 3,066 3,066 3,393 1.685 1,408 1,408 1,408 1,408 1,408 1,408

# Table 8 (continued)

J. Facility O ug/m3
>= CND91 CND92 CND93 CND94 CND95 CND96 AVG

0.000 603,481 603,481 603,481 603,481 603,481 603,481 603,481 0.002 508,112 540,788 554,104 544,946 548,281 455,248 525,247 0.004 365,435 383,659 433,291 398,513 378,358 372,090 388,558 0.006 292,785 310,334 320,173 320,625 299,405 297,826 306,858 0.009 228,054 235,912 258,210 250,769 231,755 241,739 241,073 0.011 188,290 202,250 215,623 209,214 195,479 195,075 200,989 0.013 149,185 165,981 174,375 176,230 163,935 157,113 164,470 0.015 122,756 132,596 141,095 142,698 135,401 124,679 133,204 0.017 102,917 108,755 116,198 124,379 115,768 108,810 112,805 0.019 81,179 89,284 96,943 110,316 99,212 91,766 94,783 0.021 72,324 79,092 79,257 91,625 78,914 74,137 79,225 0.024 59,163 65,619 65,330 72,069 71,828 64,869 66,480 0.026 49,965 53,890 61,623 62,927 56,756 52,949 56,352 0.028 46,466 48,922 45,717 57,013 48,922 46,521 48,927 0.030 44,601 37,355 44,323 49,977 44,618 44,200 44,179 0.032 37,397 34,965 40,283 41,412 38,565 33,361 37,664 0.034 31,722 33,778 37,662 36,192 31,403 30,051 33,468 0.039 24,115 27,615 31,369 31,689 28,782 23,657 27,871 0.043 20,369 17,453 23,501 23,659 19,845 22,015 21,140 0.054 15,428 15,379 17,453 17,453 17,453 15,428 16,432 0.064 13,354 11,717 11,717 15,428 13,354 13,354 13,154 0.084 7,553 7,553 9,644 9,626 7,483 7,553 8,235 0.099 5,410 5,410 7,553 5,410 5,410 5,410 5,767 0.122 3,468 3,468 3,468 5,410 3,468 3,468 3,792 0.827 1,930 1,930 1,930 1,930 1,930 1,930 1,930 

# K. Facility P ug/m3
>= MHR53 MHR54 MHR55 MHR56 MHR57 AVG

0.000 850,528 850,528 850,528 850,528 850,528 850,528 0.002 336,898 369,410 391,227 399,119 386,840 376,699 0.003 122,354 145,148 147,265 180,129 185,226 156,024 0.005 70,818 82,345 81,595 94,854 111,053 88,133 0.007 54,021 58,867 61,688 62,010 68,499 61,017 0.009 44,268 47,769 47,770 49,509 53,389 48,541 0.010 41,246 41,139 40,973 41,324 41,643 41,265 0.012 31,912 35,589 34,948 37,060 37,633 35,428 0.014 30,062 32,358 33,715 33,200 32,912 32,449 0.015 26,538 29,676 27,840 27,586 31,519 28,632 0.019 23,174 26,333 24,904 26,112 28,926 25,890 0.021 21,735 23,951 23,465 23,432 27,197 23,956 0.024 19,615 22,489 20,989 20,956 24,546 21,719 0.033 15,310 13,848 13,848 18,930 18,930 16,173 0.045 12,060 12,060 12,060 12,060 14,839 12,616 0.070 9,053 10,827 9,053 5,517 5,517 7,993 0.747 2,369 2,369 2,369 2,369 2,369 2,369

# Table 8 (continued)

L. Facility T ug/m3
>= BUR58 BUR59 BUR60 BUR61 BUR62 AVG

0.000 3,024,643 3,024,643 3,024,643 3,024,643 3,024,643 3,024,643 0.003 739,728 942,735 632,531 511,097 475,138 660,246 0.006 347,090 418,212 292,115 224,567 225,716 301,540 0.010 229,804 266,095 192,544 151,565 153,430 198,688 0.013 176,395 183,100 157,425 120,645 118,033 151,120 0.016 144,802 159,209 118,996 89,994 99,606 122,521 0.019 128,284 138,963 103,654 81,619 86,028 107,710 0.023 103,748 104,316 75,682 64,699 67,048 83,099 0.026 87,841 94,759 71,483 60,264 63,812 75,632 0.029 77,493 91,123 67,048 54,321 60,086 70,014 0.036 71,483 71,483 53,982 47,020 44,547 57,703 0.039 60,264 67,048 47,783 34,745 34,745 48,917 0.045 48,273 54,555 44,547 28,894 32,255 41,705 0.052 44,547 48,612 28,894 20,072 26,404 33,706 0.065 34,745 34,745 20,072 16,128 16,128 24,364 0.090 16,128 20,072 17,387 7,303 13,443 14,867 0.252 7,303 7,303 7,303 3,802 7,303 6,603

# Table 8 (continued)

M. Facility U ug/m3
>= STN0718 AVG

0.000 1,961,694 1,961,694 0.003 1,219,573 1,219,573 0.007 805,311 805,311 0.010 543,541 543,541 0.014 383,889 383,889 0.017 260,905 260,905 0.021 196,552 196,552 0.024 163,914 163,914 0.027 136,273 136,273 0.031 114,592 114,592 0.034 105,462 105,462 0.038 81,959 81,959 0.041 79,952 79,952 0.045 70,117 70,117 0.048 64,952 64,952 0.051 63,818 63,818 0.058 57,422 57,422 0.062 54,507 54,507 0.065 49,921 49,921 0.069 43,111 43,111 0.086 39,043 39,043 0.089 35,161 35,161 0.093 31,650 31,650 0.103 23,210 23,210 0.106 19,585 19,585 0.209 15,611 15,611 0.237 10,965 10,965 0.254 7,225 7,225 1.714 3,683 3,683

# TABLE 9. Generic Facility Concentration Estimates Per 1 g/s Emission Rate.

A. Maximum ANNUALPerc, MeCl, and TCE Concentrations (ug/m3

# ).

ID Met. Data Used Direction Range (deg.) Distance

Range (m) High

Max. Conc. Low

Max. Conc. Avg.

Max. Conc. G-01 10 Sites, Multi-Year N/A 20 617 198 327 G-02 10 Sites, Multi-Year N/A 20 397 121 198 G-03 10 Sites, Multi-Year N/A 30 154 47 72 NOTE:All met data indicated in Table 9A is used per generic facility. High, low, and average statistics are based on the single highest concentrations estimated per met site (i.e., a sample size of ten, per generic facility). Direction is omitted due to assuming an arbitrary facility orientation (length along X-axis).


# B. Maximum HOURLYPerc, MeCl, and TCE Concentrations (ug/m3

# ).

ID Met. Data Used Direction Range (deg.) Distance

Range 1 

## (m) High

Max. Conc. Low

Max. Conc. Avg.

Max. Conc. G-01 10 Sites, Multi-Year Default ‘screening’ N/A 20 20 12,418

11,343 8,383

10,449 10,938

10,757 G-02 10 Sites, Multi-Year Default ‘screening’ N/A 20 20 5,533

5,277 3,794

4,628 4,986

4,864 G-03 10 Sites, Multi-Year Default ‘screening’ N/A 50 20 2,644

2,745 1,713

1,955 2,079

2,281 NOTE: Building orientation was set up in two different ways. For default, ‘screening’ runs distances are measured from each facility’s leading edge. For all other runs distances are measured from the facility centroid. Thus, default, ‘screening’ distances can be adjusted for comparison by adding half of each facility’s length to these distances and to distance in Appendix A (6, 10, and 30 meters, respectively, for G-01, G-02, and G-03). Thus, the adjusted distances for the indicated maximum hourly screening concentrations for G-01, G-02, and G-03 would be 26 meters, 30 meters, and 50 meters, respectively. All met data indicated in Table 9A is used per generic facility. High, low, and average statistics are based on the single highest concentrations estimated per met site (i.e., a sample size of ten, per generic facility). Direction is omitted due to assuming an arbitrary facility orientation (length along X-axis).

# Appendix A
Generic Facility Maximum Hourly and Maximum Annual

Modeling Results

IMPORTANT NOTE: Building orientation was set up in two different ways. For default, ‘screening’ runs distances are measured from each facility’s leading edge. For all other runs, distances are measured from the facility centroid. This difference has not been accounted for in the following tables. Thus, default, ‘screening’ concentrations at specific distances reported in the following tables can be adjusted for comparison to other concentrations (i.e. from the facility center) by adding half of each facility’s length to the indicated distances (6, 10, and 30 meters, respectively, for G-01, G-02, and G-03).

# Appendix A: ISCST3 Generic Facility Concentration Results vs. Distance Using Default and Regional Met Data

SITENAME PERIOD DISTANCE DFLT_00 DFLT_45 DFLT_90 BUR CND FAT LAX MCC MHR OAK RED SAC STN071 AVERAGE LOW HIGH G01 1-HR 20 1 1343 10449 1048012418 12418 11156 8383 11008 8471 10520 11400 11199 12413 1 0938 8383 12418 G01 1-HR 30 8496 7887 8249 9255 9255 8403 5997 8490 5762 8021 8621 8535 9249 8159 5762 9255 G01 1-HR 40 6579 6106 6464 7115 7115 6522 4610 6666 4465 6282 6687 6652 7110 6322 4465 7115 G01 1-HR 50 5239 4934 5112 5625 5625 5186 3645 5344 3546 5030 5317 5307 5620 5025 3546 5625 G01 1-HR 60 4269 4064 4114 4555 4555 4215 2952 4368 2879 4106 4323 4324 4551 4083 2879 4555 G01 1-HR 70 3547 3404 3460 3764 3764 3490 2439 3634 2382 3411 3581 3588 3760 3381 2382 3764 G01 1-HR 80 2996 2892 2947 3164 3164 2938 2050 3070 2004 2877 3016 3026 3160 2847 2004 3164 G01 1-HR 90 2565 2488 2539 2698 2698 2507 1748 2628 1710 2460 2576 2587 2694 2430 1710 2698 G01 1-HR 100 2223 2165 2210 2329 2329 2166 1509 2275 1478 2127 2226 2238 2326 2100 1478 2329 G01 1-HR 120 1720 1684 1720 1791 1791 1665 1160 1757 1141 1639 1714 1725 1788 1617 1141 1791 G01 1-HR 140 1373 1350 1378 1423 1423 1323 1011 1400 909 1304 1364 1374 1421 1295 909 1423 G01 1-HR 150 1239 1220 1245 1282 1282 1192 953 1262 820 1174 1228 1238 1280 1171 820 1282 G01 1-HR 160 1125 1109 1131 1161 1161 1079 902 1145 743 1064 1113 1122 1159 1065 743 1161 G01 1-HR 180 940 929 947 967 967 899 815 955 621 886 929 936 966 894 621 967 G01 1-HR 200 799 791 805 820 820 761 744 810 527 751 789 794 819 764 527 820 G01 1-HR 250 564 559 568 576 576 533 612 570 371 526 556 558 574 545 371 612 G01 1-HR 300 422 420 426 430 430 398 521 426 278 392 416 417 429 414 278 521 G01 1-HR 350 330 329 333 335 335 310 454 332 217 306 325 326 335 328 217 454 G01 1-HR 400 267 266 269 271 271 250 403 268 175 246 262 263 270 268 175 403 G01 1-HR 450 222 221 223 224 224 206 363 222 145 203 217 218 224 225 145 363 G01 1-HR 500 188 187 189 189 189 174 331 188 123 172 184 184 189 192 123 331 G01 1-HR 600 141 140 142 142 142 130 282 141 92 128 138 138 142 147 92 282 G01 1-HR 700 111 111 111 112 112 102 246 111 72 100 108 108 111 118 72 246 G01 1-HR 800 90 90 91 91 91 83 220 90 59 81 88 88 91 98 59 220 G01 1-HR 900 75 75 76 76 76 69 198 75 49 68 74 74 76 83 49 198 G01 1-HR 1000 64 64 64 65 65 59 181 64 42 58 63 63 65 72 42 181 G01 1-HR 2000 24 24 24 24 24 21 103 23 15 21 23 23 24 30 15 103 G01 1-HR 3000 14 14 14 14 14 12 75 14 9 12 13 13 14 19 9 75 G01 1-HR 4000 10 10 10 10 10 8 61 9 6 8 9 9 10 14 6 61 G01 1-HR 5000 7 7 7 7 7 6 52 7 5 6 7 7 7 11 5 52 G01 1-HR 6000 6 6 6 6 6 5 46 6 4 5 6 6 6 9 4 46 G01 1-HR 7000 5 5 5 5 5 4 41 5 3 4 5 5 5 8 3 41 G01 1-HR 8000 4 4 4 4 4 3 37 4 3 3 4 4 4 7 3 37 G01 1-HR 9000 4 4 4 4 4 3 34 4 2 3 4 4 4 6 2 34 G01 1-HR 10000 3 3 3 3 3 2 32 3 2 2 3 3 3 6 2 32 G01 1-HR 23000 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 18
SITENAME PERIOD DISTANCE DFLT_00 DFLT_45 DFLT_90 BUR CND FAT LAX MCC MHR OAK RED SAC STN071 AVERAGE LOW HIGH G02 1-HR 20 5 277 4688 46285528 5533 5151 4438 4940 3794 4686 5263 5079 5444 4 986 3794 5533 G02 1-HR 30 4359 3967 3997 4845 4845 4330 3329 4201 3374 4028 4406 4307 4844 4251 3329 4845 G02 1-HR 40 3649 3368 3418 4048 4048 3636 2623 3603 2579 3439 3722 3661 4047 3541 2579 4048 G02 1-HR 50 3095 2869 2982 3418 3418 3085 2215 3101 2119 2942 3169 3130 3416 3001 2119 3418 G02 1-HR 60 2656 2459 2596 2918 2918 2652 1891 2687 1819 2532 2722 2698 2916 2575 1819 2918 G02 1-HR 70 2304 2128 2263 2518 2518 2300 1631 2345 1576 2209 2360 2345 2516 2232 1576 2518 G02 1-HR 80 2018 1881 1979 2194 2194 2012 1421 2062 1378 1941 2064 2055 2192 1951 1378 2194 G02 1-HR 90 1782 1674 1739 1928 1928 1774 1249 1825 1214 1717 1820 1815 1926 1720 1214 1928 G02 1-HR 100 1586 1500 1536 1708 1708 1575 1162 1627 1077 1530 1616 1615 1707 1533 1077 1708 G02 1-HR 120 1282 1224 1241 1370 1370 1267 1021 1316 865 1235 1301 1302 1368 1242 865 1370 G02 1-HR 140 1059 1019 1037 1124 1124 1042 911 1088 711 1019 1070 1073 1123 1029 711 1124 G02 1-HR 150 970 936 953 1026 1026 952 865 995 650 932 978 981 1025 943 650 1026 G02 1-HR 160 892 863 879 941 941 873 823 915 596 855 898 901 940 868 596 941 G02 1-HR 180 762 741 755 801 801 743 751 781 507 729 765 768 800 744 507 801 G02 1-HR 200 660 644 657 691 691 641 690 675 439 630 660 664 690 647 439 691 G02 1-HR 250 482 474 483 501 501 464 576 492 319 457 479 483 500 477 319 576 G02 1-HR 300 370 365 372 382 382 354 495 377 245 349 366 369 382 370 245 495 G02 1-HR 350 295 292 297 303 303 281 435 299 195 277 291 294 303 298 195 435 G02 1-HR 400 242 240 243 248 248 229 389 245 159 226 239 240 247 247 159 389 G02 1-HR 450 203 201 204 207 207 191 352 205 134 189 200 201 207 209 134 352 G02 1-HR 500 173 172 174 177 177 163 321 175 114 160 171 171 176 181 114 321 G02 1-HR 600 132 131 133 134 134 123 275 133 87 121 130 130 134 140 87 275 G02 1-HR 700 105 104 105 106 106 97 241 105 69 96 103 103 106 113 69 241 G02 1-HR 800 86 86 86 87 87 80 216 86 56 78 84 84 87 94 56 216 G02 1-HR 900 72 72 73 73 73 67 195 72 47 65 71 71 73 81 47 195 G02 1-HR 1000 62 62 62 62 62 57 179 62 40 56 61 61 62 70 40 179 G02 1-HR 2000 23 23 23 23 23 21 102 23 15 20 23 23 23 30 15 102 G02 1-HR 3000 14 14 14 14 14 12 75 13 9 12 13 13 14 19 9 75 G02 1-HR 4000 9 9 9 9 9 8 61 9 6 8 9 9 9 14 6 61 G02 1-HR 5000 7 7 7 7 7 6 52 7 5 6 7 7 7 11 5 52 G02 1-HR 6000 6 6 6 6 6 5 46 6 4 5 6 6 6 9 4 46 G02 1-HR 7000 5 5 5 5 5 4 41 5 3 4 5 5 5 8 3 41 G02 1-HR 8000 4 4 4 4 4 3 37 4 3 3 4 4 4 7 3 37 G02 1-HR 9000 4 4 4 4 4 3 34 4 2 3 4 4 4 6 2 34 G02 1-HR 10000 3 3 3 3 3 2 32 3 2 2 3 3 3 6 2 32 G02 1-HR 23000 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 18
SITENAME PERIOD DISTANCE DFLT_00 DFLT_45 DFLT_90 BUR CND FAT LAX MCC MHR OAK RED SAC STN071 AVERAGE LOW HIGH G03 1-HR 20 2 745 2144 19551344 1345 1266 993 1325 958 1242 1204 1296 1344 1232 958 1345 G03 1-HR 30 2385 1902 1899 1965 1965 1668 1273 1554 1290 1457 1727 1644 1964 1651 1273 1965 G03 1-HR 40 2088 1703 1724 1702 1702 1473 1103 1492 1241 1456 1518 1452 1702 1484 1103 1702 G03 1-HR 50 1841 1533 1510 2641 2644 1934 1713 1765 1735 17162116 1885 2644 2 079 1713 2644 G03 1-HR 60 1636 1387 1375 2498 2498 1747 1619 1582 1547 1622 1858 1691 2497 1916 1547 2498 G03 1-HR 70 1463 1252 1259 2180 2180 1553 1413 1382 1268 1416 1678 1516 2179 1676 1268 2180 G03 1-HR 80 1316 1139 1153 1916 1916 1403 1241 1215 1058 1244 1511 1379 1915 1480 1058 1916 G03 1-HR 90 1191 1048 1062 1695 1695 1280 1099 1118 896 1101 1361 1252 1695 1319 896 1695 G03 1-HR 100 1083 967 986 1511 1511 1168 979 1034 791 981 1227 1135 1510 1185 791 1511 G03 1-HR 120 909 827 843 1223 1223 977 833 882 667 824 1006 937 1222 980 667 1223 G03 1-HR 140 774 713 723 1012 1012 825 761 754 569 717 837 805 1011 830 569 1012 G03 1-HR 150 719 664 681 927 927 761 729 699 527 670 777 750 927 769 527 927 G03 1-HR 160 669 619 642 853 853 703 699 654 490 627 722 700 852 715 490 853 G03 1-HR 180 585 542 571 730 730 606 645 580 426 551 630 614 730 624 426 730 G03 1-HR 200 516 477 509 633 633 528 601 517 374 487 554 543 633 550 374 633 G03 1-HR 250 392 357 388 464 464 396 517 399 280 368 416 411 464 418 280 517 G03 1-HR 300 310 287 303 358 358 311 454 318 218 292 326 324 357 331 218 454 G03 1-HR 350 252 237 242 286 286 252 404 260 176 238 263 263 285 271 176 404 G03 1-HR 400 210 200 199 235 235 209 365 217 145 199 218 218 235 228 145 365 G03 1-HR 450 179 171 171 198 198 176 333 185 123 169 184 185 197 195 123 333 G03 1-HR 500 155 149 149 169 169 151 306 159 105 146 158 159 169 169 105 306 G03 1-HR 600 120 116 117 129 129 116 265 123 80 113 122 122 129 133 80 265 G03 1-HR 700 96 94 95 103 103 93 234 99 64 90 97 98 102 108 64 234 G03 1-HR 800 80 78 79 84 84 76 210 82 53 74 80 81 84 91 53 210 G03 1-HR 900 68 67 67 71 71 64 191 69 45 63 67 68 71 78 45 191 G03 1-HR 1000 58 58 58 61 61 55 175 59 39 54 58 59 61 68 39 175 G03 1-HR 2000 23 23 23 23 23 21 101 23 15 20 22 22 23 29 15 101 G03 1-HR 3000 13 13 13 14 14 12 74 13 9 11 13 13 14 19 9 74 G03 1-HR 4000 9 9 9 9 9 8 60 9 6 8 9 9 9 14 6 60 G03 1-HR 5000 7 7 7 7 7 6 52 7 5 6 7 7 7 11 5 52 G03 1-HR 6000 6 6 6 6 6 5 45 6 4 5 6 6 6 9 4 45 G03 1-HR 7000 5 5 5 5 5 4 41 5 3 4 5 5 5 8 3 41 G03 1-HR 8000 4 4 4 4 4 3 37 4 3 3 4 4 4 7 3 37 G03 1-HR 9000 4 4 4 4 4 3 34 4 2 3 4 4 4 6 2 34 G03 1-HR 10000 3 3 3 3 3 2 32 3 2 2 3 3 3 6 2 32 G03 1-HR 23000 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 18

# Appendix A: ISCST3 Generic Facility Concentration Results vs. Distance Using Default and Regional Met Data

SITENAME PERIOD DISTANCE DFLT_00 DFLT_45 DFLT_90 BUR CND FAT LAX MCC MHR OAK RED SAC STN071 AVERAGE LOW HIGH G01 ANNUAL 20 Not Applicable w/ Annual 617 266 262 358 291 209 272 198 206 588 3 27 198 617 G01 ANNUAL 30 Not Applicable w/ Annual 353 150 147 216 169 119 151 117 115 328 186 115 353 G01 ANNUAL 40 Not Applicable w/ Annual 227 96 94 144 109 76 96 77 73 209 120 73 227 G01 ANNUAL 50 Not Applicable w/ Annual 158 68 66 102 76 53 67 54 50 145 84 50 158 G01 ANNUAL 60 Not Applicable w/ Annual 116 50 48 76 56 39 49 40 37 106 62 37 116 G01 ANNUAL 70 Not Applicable w/ Annual 88 39 37 59 43 30 38 31 28 81 47 28 88 G01 ANNUAL 80 Not Applicable w/ Annual 70 31 29 47 34 23 30 25 22 64 37 22 70 G01 ANNUAL 90 Not Applicable w/ Annual 56 25 24 39 28 19 24 20 18 52 30 18 56 G01 ANNUAL 100 Not Applicable w/ Annual 47 21 20 32 23 16 20 17 15 43 25 15 47 G01 ANNUAL 120 Not Applicable w/ Annual 33 15 14 23 16 11 14 12 10 30 18 10 33 G01 ANNUAL 140 Not Applicable w/ Annual 25 11 11 18 12 8 11 9 8 23 14 8 25 G01 ANNUAL 150 Not Applicable w/ Annual 22 10 9 16 11 7 9 8 7 20 12 7 22 G01 ANNUAL 160 Not Applicable w/ Annual 19 9 8 14 10 7 8 7 6 18 11 6 19 G01 ANNUAL 180 Not Applicable w/ Annual 15 7 7 11 8 5 7 6 5 14 8 5 15 G01 ANNUAL 200 Not Applicable w/ Annual 13 6 5 9 6 4 5 5 4 12 7 4 13 G01 ANNUAL 250 Not Applicable w/ Annual 8 4 4 6 4 3 4 3 3 8 5 3 8 G01 ANNUAL 300 Not Applicable w/ Annual 6 3 2 4 3 2 3 2 2 5 3 2 6 G01 ANNUAL 350 Not Applicable w/ Annual 4 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 4 2 1 4 G01 ANNUAL 400 Not Applicable w/ Annual 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 G01 ANNUAL 450 Not Applicable w/ Annual 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 G01 ANNUAL 500 Not Applicable w/ Annual 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 G01 ANNUAL 600 Not Applicable w/ Annual 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 G01 ANNUAL 700 Not Applicable w/ Annual 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 G01 ANNUAL 800 Not Applicable w/ Annual 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 G01 ANNUAL 900 Not Applicable w/ Annual 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 G01 ANNUAL 1000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 G01 ANNUAL 2000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G01 ANNUAL 3000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G01 ANNUAL 4000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G01 ANNUAL 5000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G01 ANNUAL 6000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G01 ANNUAL 7000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G01 ANNUAL 8000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G01 ANNUAL 9000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G01 ANNUAL 10000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G01 ANNUAL 23000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SITENAME PERIOD DISTANCE DFLT_00 DFLT_45 DFLT_90 BUR CND FAT LAX MCC MHR OAK RED SAC STN071 AVERAGE LOW HIGH G02 ANNUAL 20 Not Applicable w/ Annual 397 173 155 181 178 135 138 121 135 370 1 98 121 397 G02 ANNUAL 30 Not Applicable w/ Annual 257 114 113 148 121 88 118 82 88 251 138 82 257 G02 ANNUAL 40 Not Applicable w/ Annual 177 77 75 106 84 61 79 58 59 168 94 58 177 G02 ANNUAL 50 Not Applicable w/ Annual 129 55 54 79 62 44 56 43 42 120 69 42 129 G02 ANNUAL 60 Not Applicable w/ Annual 98 42 41 61 47 33 42 33 32 91 52 32 98 G02 ANNUAL 70 Not Applicable w/ Annual 76 33 32 49 37 26 33 26 25 71 41 25 76 G02 ANNUAL 80 Not Applicable w/ Annual 61 27 26 40 30 21 26 21 20 57 33 20 61 G02 ANNUAL 90 Not Applicable w/ Annual 50 22 21 33 25 17 22 18 16 46 27 16 50 G02 ANNUAL 100 Not Applicable w/ Annual 42 18 18 28 21 14 18 15 13 39 23 13 42 G02 ANNUAL 120 Not Applicable w/ Annual 31 14 13 21 15 10 13 11 10 28 16 10 31 G02 ANNUAL 140 Not Applicable w/ Annual 23 10 10 16 11 8 10 8 7 21 13 7 23 G02 ANNUAL 150 Not Applicable w/ Annual 20 9 9 14 10 7 9 7 6 19 11 6 20 G02 ANNUAL 160 Not Applicable w/ Annual 18 8 8 13 9 6 8 7 6 17 10 6 18 G02 ANNUAL 180 Not Applicable w/ Annual 15 7 6 10 7 5 6 5 5 13 8 5 15 G02 ANNUAL 200 Not Applicable w/ Annual 12 6 5 9 6 4 5 4 4 11 7 4 12 G02 ANNUAL 250 Not Applicable w/ Annual 8 4 3 6 4 3 3 3 2 7 4 2 8 G02 ANNUAL 300 Not Applicable w/ Annual 6 3 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 5 3 2 6 G02 ANNUAL 350 Not Applicable w/ Annual 4 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 4 2 1 4 G02 ANNUAL 400 Not Applicable w/ Annual 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 G02 ANNUAL 450 Not Applicable w/ Annual 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 G02 ANNUAL 500 Not Applicable w/ Annual 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 G02 ANNUAL 600 Not Applicable w/ Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 G02 ANNUAL 700 Not Applicable w/ Annual 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 G02 ANNUAL 800 Not Applicable w/ Annual 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 G02 ANNUAL 900 Not Applicable w/ Annual 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 G02 ANNUAL 1000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 G02 ANNUAL 2000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G02 ANNUAL 3000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G02 ANNUAL 4000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G02 ANNUAL 5000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G02 ANNUAL 6000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G02 ANNUAL 7000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G02 ANNUAL 8000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G02 ANNUAL 9000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G02 ANNUAL 10000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G02 ANNUAL 23000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SITENAME PERIOD DISTANCE DFLT_00 DFLT_45 DFLT_90 BUR CND FAT LAX MCC MHR OAK RED SAC STN071 AVERAGE LOW HIGH G03 ANNUAL 20 Not Applicable w/ Annual 71 40 41 45 25 30 32 26 31 90 43 25 90 G03 ANNUAL 30 Not Applicable w/ Annual 154 67 52 59 63 54 4747 54 128 7 2 47 154 G03 ANNUAL 40 Not Applicable w/ Annual 140 64 47 45 57 49 38 44 49 119 65 38 140 G03 ANNUAL 50 Not Applicable w/ Annual 113 57 57 77 43 44 55 38 42 126 65 38 126 G03 ANNUAL 60 Not Applicable w/ Annual 80 41 48 64 34 37 53 27 31 96 51 27 96 G03 ANNUAL 70 Not Applicable w/ Annual 62 31 35 50 28 27 39 21 23 72 39 21 72 G03 ANNUAL 80 Not Applicable w/ Annual 51 24 27 40 24 21 30 17 18 56 31 17 56 G03 ANNUAL 90 Not Applicable w/ Annual 42 20 22 33 20 16 24 15 15 45 25 15 45 G03 ANNUAL 100 Not Applicable w/ Annual 36 17 18 28 17 13 20 12 13 37 21 12 37 G03 ANNUAL 120 Not Applicable w/ Annual 27 12 13 20 13 9 14 9 9 27 15 9 27 G03 ANNUAL 140 Not Applicable w/ Annual 21 9 10 16 10 7 10 7 7 20 12 7 21 G03 ANNUAL 150 Not Applicable w/ Annual 19 8 8 14 9 6 9 7 6 18 10 6 19 G03 ANNUAL 160 Not Applicable w/ Annual 17 8 8 12 8 6 8 6 6 16 9 6 17 G03 ANNUAL 180 Not Applicable w/ Annual 14 6 6 10 7 5 6 5 4 13 8 4 14 G03 ANNUAL 200 Not Applicable w/ Annual 11 5 5 8 6 4 5 4 4 11 6 4 11 G03 ANNUAL 250 Not Applicable w/ Annual 8 4 3 6 4 3 3 3 2 7 4 2 8 G03 ANNUAL 300 Not Applicable w/ Annual 5 3 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 5 3 2 5 G03 ANNUAL 350 Not Applicable w/ Annual 4 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 4 2 1 4 G03 ANNUAL 400 Not Applicable w/ Annual 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 G03 ANNUAL 450 Not Applicable w/ Annual 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 G03 ANNUAL 500 Not Applicable w/ Annual 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 G03 ANNUAL 600 Not Applicable w/ Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 G03 ANNUAL 700 Not Applicable w/ Annual 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 G03 ANNUAL 800 Not Applicable w/ Annual 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 G03 ANNUAL 900 Not Applicable w/ Annual 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 G03 ANNUAL 1000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 G03 ANNUAL 2000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G03 ANNUAL 3000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G03 ANNUAL 4000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G03 ANNUAL 5000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G03 ANNUAL 6000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G03 ANNUAL 7000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G03 ANNUAL 8000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G03 ANNUAL 9000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G03 ANNUAL 10000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G03 ANNUAL 23000 Not Applicable w/ Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

# Appendix E Statewide Population Exposure Estimate Modeling Memorandums

# E-1

Memorandum 1. Analysis and Population Exposure Estimates for Perchloroethylene Needs Assessment for Brake Cleaning Products, Updated With 1997 Data (April 7, 1999)

# E-2 California Environmental Protection Agency

Printed on Recycled Paper 

### Winston H. Hickox Secretary for Environmental Protection 

# Air Resources Board

____________________________________________________________________________ Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D. Chairman 2020 L Street • P.O. Box 2815 • Sacramento, California 95812 • www.arb.ca.gov Gray Davis Governor



# MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Wong, Manager

Emissions Evaluation Section Stationary Source Division
FROM: Bob Effa, Manager

Client Support Services Section Planning & Technical Support Division
DATE: April 7, 1999
SUBJECT: ANALYSIS AND POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES FOR

PERCHLOROETHYLENE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR BRAKE CLEANING PRODUCTS, UPDATED WITH 1997 DATA

This memorandum is in response to your request for an update of an additional year of data to our March 26, 1998, memo of the same subject regarding an analysis of ambient perchloroethylene data and population-weighted exposure. All remarks regarding data and methods used in the previous memo apply to this work. Due to time constraints, we did not attempt to refine the previous analyses. All tables of results follow the same format as those in the March 26, 1998, memo, with the addition of 1997 statistics. The same information for 1990-1996 are reprinted for ease of comparison. In addition, a table displaying site names and their site numbers is part of the new Appendix. The following highlights some additional information.
ADDITIONAL DATA This analysis is based on ambient data collected by the Air Resources Board (ARB) and compiled in the ARB Air Toxics database. The 1997 data were extracted on March 29, 1999. Thus, this analysis does not reflect any changes that may have occurred since that time. In 1997, one site in the San Francisco Bay Area (Richmond) closed and was replaced by a site in San Pablo. Also, the addition of the Salton Sea Air Basin added Calexico to the monitoring network. Since this site only has data from July 1995 to December 1997, and this analysis examines perchloroethylene exposure trends from 1990 to 1997, the data from this site were not used in the calculation of population exposure.

# E-3

Missing data points in 1997 During the analysis of 1997 data, we encountered 5 sites with missing data as shown in Table 1. To develop the population-weighted perchloroethylene exposure estimates, we had to populate the data set with the most accurate data estimates available for the calculation of the mean of monthly means. In the case of Richmond being replaced by San Pablo in the San Francisco Bay Area, we simply combined the data into one set for one site (Richmond). For the other sites with missing 1997 data, we incorporated 1996 data in the same manner used in our previous memo. Riverside-Rubidoux had only one value for 1997; therefore, we used its 1996 data completely in the calculation of population-weighted exposure.
TABLE 1
Perchloroethylene Data Analysis Missing Values in 1997 Data Set and the Mean of Monthly Means Based on Replaced Data

Site Name Year Month(s) Missing Calculated Mean of Monthly Means Richmond-13th St 1997 May-Dec 0.040 ppbv San Pablo-El Portal 1997 Jan-April (replaces Richmond) Chico-Manzanita Ave 1997 May 0.040 ppbv Fremont-Chapel Way 1997 March-September 0.044 ppbv Los Angeles-N. Main St 1997 Aug-September 0.324 ppbv Riverside-Rubidoux 1997 February-Dec 0.175 ppbv
There were no unusual observations in 1997, hence no need for an update to Table 2 of our previous memo.
CLARIFICATION ON METHODOLOGY Although we used the same methodology as that in the March 26, 1998 memo, some clarification is in order. On page 5 of the previous memo, in the second paragraph of the “Methodology” section, the calculation of population exposure estimates for basins other than the South Coast and San Francisco Bay reduces to using the basin-wide mean of monthly mean concentrations, with missing values handled as described above. On page 6 of the previous memo, the second sentence should state that “the overall statewide population-weighted exposure was calculated by multiplying the estimated annual average perchloroethylene exposurefor a given air basin by its population, added across all

# E-4

basins, then divided by the total population of the state”. In other words, the statewide exposure estimate is a weighted average of the basin exposures, with weights determined by the basin populations.On page 8 of the previous memo, the last paragraph should detail the calculation of basinspecific summary statistics as follows. The minimum, maximum, arithmetic mean, standard deviation and the number of sites are calculated from all values from all sites within the basin. For the basin mean of monthly means, the basin monthly mean is first calculated for each month based on site means for the month. Then the twelve basin monthly means are averaged to obtain the basin-wide annual mean of monthly means. Missing 1997 data have been estimated using 1996 information in the calculation of basin-wide mean of monthly means.
UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS There are a number of factors that contribute to uncertainty in the data and in the conclusions drawn from the data. These are not necessarily easy to quantify. Three such factors are discussed below, and they underscore the need to use caution when drawing conclusions from a limited set of data. One source of uncertainty in our results is attributable to having a very limited number of sites throughout the state and to the infrequency of sampling. As discussed in the March 26, 1998, memo, the statewide population-weighted perchloroethylene exposure is calculated based on a limited data set derived from a statewide network of only 21 or 22 sites that collect one 24-hour sample every twelve days. MLD conducts performance audits of the toxics program through both laboratory and field audits. Laboratory audits test the analytical methods and are conducted semi-annually. Field audits test the accuracy of the full toxics sampling procedure through a method referred to as “through-the-probe” (TTP) performance audits. These audits test the sample collection, transport, storage and analytical integrity of the toxics sampling effort. TTP audits are quite time consuming and are only conducted annually at each site. MLD publishes the results on the Internet. For perchloroethylene, the latest TTP audit information on the ARB web site indicates an average accuracy for the 20-plus sites to range from -21.5% to +7.2% between 1993 and 1997. Yet another assumption to keep in mind is that the ambient concentrations of perchloroethylene we used in our analysis represent only outdoor exposures. Essentially, the exposure estimates assume 24 hours a day of outdoor exposure, without considering indoor exposure to this compound. Therefore, caution should be exercised when using these population exposure estimates.
RESULTS The results of the exposure analysis are summarized in Table 3, with 1997 results added to the far-right column. The estimated statewide population-weighted perchloroethylene

# E-5

exposure, shown at the bottom of the table, decreases from 0.203 ppb-year/person in 1996 to0.168 ppb-year/person in 1997. The general trend for statewide perchloroethylene populationweighted exposure is downward in all basins, with the exception occurring in San Francisco Air Basin (slight increase from 0.068 in 1996 to 0.071 ppb-year/person in 1997).
TABLE 3
Estimated Air Basin Population-Weighted* Perchloroethylene Exposure

based on 1990 Census (ppb-year/person**)
Air Basin 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 South Coast 0.590 0.542 0.430 0.472 0.410 0.392 0.330 0.264 South Central Coast 0.181 0.160 0.124 0.095 0.110 0.100 0.104 0.081 San Diego 0.280 0.261 0.262 0.193 0.204 0.244 0.133 0.124 San Francisco 0.196 0.223 0.158 0.124 0.082 0.091 0.068 0.071 San Joaquin Valley 0.121 0.131 0.105 0.410 0.067 0.070 0.064 0.056 Sacramento Valley 0.070 0.075 0.058 0.051 0.181 0.053 0.054 0.053
Air Basin Population Data Used in Calculating Statewide Perchloroethylene Exposure Air Basin 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 South Coast 10684933 10910823 11124105 11206222 11298530 11372003 11441517 11608906 South Central Coast 1041100 1055600 1072600 1080800 1092900 1104100 1108500 1128000 San Diego 2511400 2560800 2611500 2625100 2650700 2669200 2694900 2763400 San Francisco 4324700 4377500 4451700 4511100 4543300 4569800 4649400 4743500 San Joaquin Valley 1977876 2040876 2097395 2130385 2158376 2192027 2226921 2260164 Sacramento Valley 1377350 1413279 1440859 1458943 1469597 1482705 1502236 1524248 SUM 21917359 22358878 22798159 23012550 23213403 23389835 23623474 24028218 

# Estimated Statewide Population-Weighted Perchloroethylene Exposure ppb-year/person** Statewide WTD AVG 0.382 0.362 0.290 0.322 0.262 0.251 0.203 0.168

* Only air basins with perchloroethylene monitoring included in this table. Air basin population-weighted exposure is calculated using mean of monthly means for all sites within basin. ** Population exposure units are a concentration for a given duration per person; For this analysis, the units are ppb-year/person.

# E-6

In summary, this exposure analysis was developed with data from the six air basins listed above. The South Coast and San Francisco Bay basins were population-weighted using census tract data, and the rest of the basins were estimated using basin-wide annual mean of monthly mean concentrations. The six areas represent approximately 72% of the statewide population. Details of the analysis methods can be found in the March 26, 1998, memo.
SUMMARY TABLES IN APPENDIX The site and air basin annual summary statistics have been updated with 1997 results. Table A-3 has also been added to aid in identifying the sites.

cc: Bart Croes, PTSD Hien Tran, PTSD

# E-7 APPENDIX TABLE A-1 Site Summary Table Annual Site Specific Summary Statistics

ARB SITE YEAR Air

Basin County NO_

OBS Site

Mean (ppbv) Standard

Deviation (ppbv) Mean of

Monthly Mean (ppbv) Site

Maximum (ppbv) Site

Minimum (ppbv)

7000069 1990 SC LA 31 1.193 1.087 1.191 5.000 0.200 7000069 1991 SC LA 29 0.761 0.615 0.785 2.400 0.070 7000069 1992 SC LA 30 0.615 0.305 0.609 1.500 0.110 7000069 1993 SC LA 33 0.601 0.472 0.620 1.700 0.040 7000069 1994 SC LA 29 0.641 0.530 0.663 2.100 0.040 7000069 1995 SC LA 31 0.494 0.360 0.487 1.700 0.030 7000069 1996 SC LA 30 0.428 0.230 0.440 1.400 0.090 7000069 1997 SC LA 29 0.379 0.234 0.356 1.200 0.100 7000072 1990 SC LA 31 0.475 0.359 0.477 1.500 0.090 7000072 1991 SC LA 29 0.341 0.292 0.355 1.100 0.040 7000072 1992 SC LA 30 0.353 0.247 0.349 1.200 0.100 7000072 1993 SC LA 32 0.384 0.462 0.433 1.500 0.010 7000072 1994 SC LA 30 0.301 0.335 0.321 1.300 0.010 7000072 1995 SC LA 31 0.317 0.346 0.318 1.600 0.030 7000072 1996 SC LA 25 0.241 0.266 0.226 1.100 0.010 7000072 1997 SC LA 30 0.228 0.182 0.225 0.500 0.020 7000087 1990 SC LA 29 0.545 0.256 0.551 1.100 0.240 7000087 1991 SC LA 28 0.608 0.540 0.604 2.800 0.070 7000087 1992 SC LA 31 0.519 0.209 0.536 1.000 0.200 7000087 1993 SC LA 26 0.535 0.326 0.588 1.100 0.050 7000087 1994 SC LA 30 0.522 0.425 0.503 2.000 0.030 7000087 1995 SC LA 31 0.581 0.380 0.574 1.400 0.060 7000087 1996 SC LA 28 0.492 0.315 0.502 1.500 0.120 7000087 1997 SC LA 22 0.339 0.150 0.337 0.700 0.060 3300144 1990 SC RIV 28 0.235 0.127 0.237 0.440 0.030 3300144 1991 SC RIV 29 0.266 0.200 0.276 0.870 0.060 3300144 1992 SC RIV 30 0.200 0.119 0.201 0.420 0.020 3300144 1993 SC RIV 29 0.199 0.167 0.198 0.700 0.020 3300144 1994 SC RIV 31 0.184 0.181 0.191 0.950 0.020 3300144 1995 SC RIV 31 0.183 0.146 0.177 0.530 0.030 3300144 1996 SC RIV 31 0.178 0.200 0.176 1.100 0.040 3300144 1997 SC RIV 1 0.050 n/a 0.050 0.050 0.050 3600175 1990 SC SBD 27 0.434 0.201 0.423 1.000 0.210 3600175 1991 SC SBD 28 0.675 1.233 0.717 6.800 0.150

## ARB

SITE YEAR Air

Basin County NO_

OBS Site

Mean (ppbv) Standard

Deviation (ppbv) Mean of

Monthly Mean (ppbv) Site

Maximum (ppbv) Site

Minimum (ppbv)



# E-8 3600175 1992 SC SBD 27 0.360 0.180 0.364 0.680 0.070 3600175 1993 SC SBD 29 0.392 0.286 0.398 1.100 0.040 3600175 1994 SC SBD 31 0.284 0.165 0.286 0.820 0.030 3600175 1995 SC SBD 31 0.265 0.143 0.263 0.550 0.060 3600175 1996 SC SBD 28 0.203 0.122 0.199 0.530 0.050 3600175 1997 SC SBD 30 0.198 0.090 0.193 0.400 0.070 4200388 1990 SCC SBA 27 0.171 0.117 0.176 0.540 0.040 4200388 1991 SCC SBA 34 0.133 0.093 0.124 0.420 0.040 4200388 1992 SCC SBA 28 0.098 0.057 0.095 0.310 0.020 4200388 1993 SCC SBA 31 0.075 0.055 0.075 0.280 0.020 4200388 1994 SCC SBA 30 0.092 0.118 0.095 0.490 LOD 4200388 1995 SCC SBA 29 0.075 0.062 0.082 0.280 0.020 4200388 1996 SCC SBA 30 0.120 0.253 0.120 1.400 0.010 4200388 1997 SCC SBA 29 0.103 0.088 0.095 0.300 0.010 5600434 1990 SCC VEN 29 0.190 0.115 0.199 0.520 0.030 5600434 1991 SCC VEN 28 0.186 0.136 0.192 0.670 0.040 5600434 1992 SCC VEN 29 0.149 0.097 0.152 0.450 0.020 5600434 1993 SCC VEN 28 0.116 0.108 0.111 0.580 0.020 5600434 1994 SCC VEN 29 0.129 0.124 0.122 0.490 0.010 5600434 1995 SCC VEN 31 0.126 0.110 0.125 0.440 0.020 5600434 1996 SCC VEN 30 0.087 0.058 0.088 0.300 0.030 5600434 1997 SCC VEN 29 0.061 0.046 0.068 0.200 0.010 8000114 1990 SD SD 31 0.235 0.107 0.236 0.480 0.080 8000114 1991 SD SD 30 0.228 0.129 0.229 0.530 0.060 8000114 1992 SD SD 30 0.213 0.130 0.208 0.650 0.060 8000114 1993 SD SD 31 0.141 0.110 0.144 0.530 0.020 8000114 1994 SD SD 31 0.123 0.121 0.132 0.510 LOD 8000114 1995 SD SD 29 0.147 0.133 0.146 0.540 0.020 8000114 1996 SD SD 27 0.124 0.100 0.129 0.450 0.020 8000114 1997 SD SD 29 0.111 0.099 0.102 0.400 0.010 8000131 1990 SD SD 31 0.324 0.258 0.329 1.100 0.050 8000131 1991 SD SD 29 0.293 0.268 0.308 1.300 0.040 8000131 1992 SD SD 29 0.311 0.222 0.319 0.800 0.060 8000131 1993 SD SD 28 0.245 0.200 0.256 0.890 0.020 8000131 1994 SD SD 29 0.285 0.321 0.291 1.600 0.010 8000131 1995 SD SD 29 0.342 0.585 0.352 3.200 0.040 8000131 1996 SD SD 30 0.142 0.149 0.168 0.580 0.020 8000131 1997 SD SD 26 0.147 0.127 0.146 0.500 0.010

## ARB

SITE YEAR Air

Basin County NO_

OBS Site

Mean (ppbv) Standard

Deviation (ppbv) Mean of

Monthly Mean (ppbv) Site

Maximum (ppbv) Site

Minimum (ppbv)



# E-9 6000336 1990 SFBA ALA 30 0.187 0.137 0.189 0.550 0.040 6000336 1991 SFBA ALA 30 0.210 0.146 0.210 0.540 0.020 6000336 1992 SFBA ALA 30 0.136 0.119 0.134 0.630 0.030 6000336 1993 SFBA ALA 30 0.114 0.103 0.114 0.450 0.010 6000336 1994 SFBA ALA 31 0.095 0.072 0.086 0.290 LOD 6000336 1995 SFBA ALA 30 0.121 0.077 0.118 0.290 0.030 6000336 1996 SFBA ALA 31 0.068 0.043 0.069 0.210 0.010 6000336 1997 SFBA ALA 13 0.062 0.066 0.063 0.200 0.010 0700433 1990 SFBA CC 29 0.121 0.070 0.121 0.300 0.030 0700433 1991 SFBA CC 29 0.148 0.077 0.147 0.310 0.030 0700433 1992 SFBA CC 29 0.097 0.055 0.094 0.240 0.020 0700433 1993 SFBA CC 30 0.092 0.081 0.092 0.420 0.020 0700433 1994 SFBA CC 31 0.057 0.057 0.056 0.260 LOD 0700433 1995 SFBA CC 30 0.043 0.025 0.043 0.100 0.010 0700433 1996 SFBA CC 31 0.030 0.023 0.031 0.090 LOD 0700433 1997 SFBA CC 9 0.068 0.060 0.066 0.200 0.010 0700440 1990 SFBA CC 28 0.325 0.248 0.337 1.000 0.040 0700440 1991 SFBA CC 29 0.438 0.450 0.419 1.700 0.030 0700440 1992 SFBA CC 31 0.391 0.404 0.390 1.600 0.040 0700440 1993 SFBA CC 30 0.207 0.254 0.204 1.100 0.010 0700440 1994 SFBA CC 32 0.102 0.099 0.098 0.390 LOD 0700440 1995 SFBA CC 30 0.157 0.242 0.147 1.100 0.020 0700440 1996 SFBA CC 31 0.082 0.112 0.082 0.600 0.010 0700440 1997 SFBA CC 29 0.097 0.130 0.102 0.400 0.010 0700445 1997 SFBA CC 20 0.030 0.044 0.028 0.200 0.005 4300382 1990 SFBA SCL 27 0.163 0.127 0.161 0.530 0.050 4300382 1991 SFBA SCL 28 0.152 0.098 0.153 0.410 0.040 4300382 1992 SFBA SCL 31 0.100 0.073 0.100 0.370 0.030 4300382 1993 SFBA SCL 30 0.096 0.088 0.094 0.310 0.010 4300382 1994 SFBA SCL 31 0.072 0.091 0.064 0.440 LOD 4300382 1995 SFBA SCL 30 0.074 0.070 0.069 0.350 0.020 4300382 1996 SFBA SCL 31 0.069 0.079 0.068 0.310 LOD 4300382 1997 SFBA SCL 27 0.099 0.122 0.097 0.500 0.005 9000306 1990 SFBA SF 28 0.191 0.103 0.199 0.390 0.040 9000306 1991 SFBA SF 26 0.226 0.182 0.229 0.810 0.030 9000306 1992 SFBA SF 31 0.133 0.081 0.131 0.360 0.030 9000306 1993 SFBA SF 28 0.133 0.108 0.133 0.480 0.010 9000306 1994 SFBA SF 30 0.105 0.100 0.105 0.390 0.010 9000306 1995 SFBA SF 29 0.097 0.083 0.092 0.380 0.020

## ARB

SITE YEAR Air

Basin County NO_

OBS Site

Mean (ppbv) Standard

Deviation (ppbv) Mean of

Monthly Mean (ppbv) Site

Maximum (ppbv) Site

Minimum (ppbv)



# E-10 * Site 1500203 without 28 ppbv value included 

## 9000306 1996 SFBA SF 31 0.084 0.085 0.084 0.420 0.010 9000306 1997 SFBA SF 29 0.065 0.054 0.064 0.200 0.010 1000246 1990 SJV FRE 27 0.117 0.095 0.119 0.470 0.040 1000246 1991 SJV FRE 30 0.140 0.128 0.142 0.690 0.020 1000246 1992 SJV FRE 30 0.103 0.055 0.102 0.270 0.040 1000246 1993 SJV FRE 30 0.098 0.091 0.100 0.450 0.020 1000246 1994 SJV FRE 31 0.063 0.067 0.062 0.250 LOD 1000246 1995 SJV FRE 30 0.068 0.071 0.065 0.310 0.020 1000246 1996 SJV FRE 31 0.040 0.029 0.041 0.150 0.010 1000246 1997 SJV FRE 29 0.044 0.028 0.042 0.100 0.010 1500203 1990 SJV KER 32 0.093 0.058 0.087 0.290 0.030 1500203 1991 SJV KER 29 0.126 0.112 0.127 0.520 0.030 1500203 1992 SJV KER 31 0.077 0.043 0.075 0.200 0.030 1500203 1993 SJV KER 30 1.299 5.306 1.481 28.000 0.010 1500203* 1993 SJV KER 29 0.378 1.678 0.317 9.100 0.010 1500203 1994 SJV KER 9 0.059 0.060 0.050 0.210 0.020 1500255 1994 SJV KER 23 0.054 0.072 0.055 0.330 LOD 1500255 1995 SJV KER 32 0.098 0.182 0.092 1.000 0.010 1500255 1996 SJV KER 32 0.104 0.264 0.119 1.500 LOD 1500255 1997 SJV KER 32 0.036 0.035 0.036 0.200 0.005 3900252 1990 SJV SJ 30 0.129 0.068 0.129 0.300 0.040 3900252 1991 SJV SJ 29 0.115 0.050 0.113 0.220 0.040 3900252 1992 SJV SJ 28 0.120 0.076 0.120 0.380 0.040 3900252 1993 SJV SJ 34 0.125 0.173 0.120 0.860 0.020 3900252 1994 SJV SJ 31 0.066 0.062 0.066 0.240 LOD 3900252 1995 SJV SJ 30 0.063 0.044 0.061 0.220 0.020 3900252 1996 SJV SJ 31 0.069 0.075 0.068 0.350 0.010 3900252 1997 SJV SJ 28 0.096 0.114 0.095 0.400 0.005 5000568 1990 SJV STA 31 0.144 0.097 0.145 0.370 0.040 5000568 1991 SJV STA 30 0.142 0.173 0.150 0.870 0.020 5000568 1992 SJV STA 31 0.120 0.140 0.118 0.790 0.030 5000568 1993 SJV STA 30 0.116 0.178 0.109 0.850 0.020 5000568 1994 SJV STA 31 0.093 0.198 0.087 1.100 LOD 5000568 1995 SJV STA 30 0.052 0.053 0.053 0.230 0.010 5000568 1996 SJV STA 31 0.043 0.042 0.044 0.220 0.010 5000568 1997 SJV STA 29 0.049 0.061 0.050 0.300 0.005 1300698 1997 SS IMP 30 0.105 0.161 0.099 0.800 0.005 0400628 1992 SV BUT 16 0.053 0.033 0.051 0.120 LOD 0400628 1993 SV BUT 30 0.056 0.046 0.057 0.190 LOD

## ARB

SITE YEAR Air

Basin County NO_

OBS Site

Mean (ppbv) Standard

Deviation (ppbv) Mean of

Monthly Mean (ppbv) Site

Maximum (ppbv) Site

Minimum (ppbv)



# E-11 0400628 1994 SV BUT 31 0.299 1.376 0.266 7.700 LOD 0400628 1995 SV BUT 30 0.052 0.052 0.047 0.210 0.010 0400628 1996 SV BUT 31 0.048 0.054 0.049 0.260 LOD 0400628 1997 SV BUT 28 0.041 0.058 0.039 0.300 0.005 0400633 1990 SV BUT 29 0.047 0.016 0.047 0.080 0.020 0400633 1991 SV BUT 28 0.055 0.025 0.054 0.110 0.020 0400633 1992 SV BUT 15 0.047 0.024 0.046 0.090 0.020 3100822 1993 SV PLA 23 0.045 0.024 0.045 0.090 0.010 3100822 1994 SV PLA 31 0.062 0.080 0.065 0.440 LOD 3100822 1995 SV PLA 30 0.054 0.034 0.051 0.160 0.010 3100822 1996 SV PLA 30 0.060 0.070 0.061 0.340 0.010 3100822 1997 SV PLA 29 0.065 0.061 0.065 0.200 0.010 3400293 1990 SV SAC 28 0.092 0.049 0.095 0.260 0.040 3400293 1991 SV SAC 29 0.095 0.047 0.094 0.230 0.030 3400293 1992 SV SAC 31 0.075 0.039 0.076 0.180 0.020 3400293 1993 SV SAC 6 0.053 0.010 0.054 0.070 0.040

# E-12 TABLE A-2 Air Basin Summary Table Air Basin Annual Summary Statistics

Air Basin Year Number

of Sites Air Basin

Arithmetic Mean (ppbv) Standard

Deviation (ppbv) Air Basin

Mean of Monthly Means (ppbv) Air Basin

Maximum (ppbv) Air Basin

Minimum (ppbv)

SC 1990 5 0.588 0.636 0.576 5.000 0.030 SC 1991 5 0.529 0.694 0.530 6.800 0.040 SC 1992 5 0.411 0.263 0.409 1.500 0.020 SC 1993 5 0.424 0.389 0.422 1.700 0.010 SC 1994 5 0.383 0.387 0.386 2.100 0.010 SC 1995 5 0.368 0.327 0.368 1.700 0.030 SC 1996 5 0.309 0.264 0.309 1.500 0.010 SC 1997 5 0.279 0.187 0.255 1.200 0.020 SCC 1990 2 0.181 0.115 0.181 0.540 0.030 SCC 1991 2 0.157 0.116 0.160 0.670 0.040 SCC 1992 2 0.124 0.084 0.124 0.450 0.020 SCC 1993 2 0.094 0.086 0.095 0.580 0.020 SCC 1994 2 0.110 0.121 0.110 0.490 0.005 SCC 1995 2 0.101 0.093 0.100 0.440 0.020 SCC 1996 2 0.104 0.183 0.104 1.400 0.010 SCC 1997 2 0.082 0.073 0.082 0.300 0.010 SD 1990 2 0.280 0.201 0.280 1.100 0.050 SD 1991 2 0.260 0.210 0.261 1.300 0.040 SD 1992 2 0.261 0.186 0.262 0.800 0.060 SD 1993 2 0.190 0.166 0.193 0.890 0.020 SD 1994 2 0.201 0.251 0.204 1.600 0.005 SD 1995 2 0.244 0.432 0.244 3.200 0.020 SD 1996 2 0.134 0.128 0.133 0.580 0.020 SD 1997 2 0.128 0.114 0.124 0.500 0.010 SFBA 1990 5 0.197 0.162 0.197 1.000 0.030 SFBA 1991 5 0.235 0.255 0.235 1.700 0.020 SFBA 1992 5 0.173 0.225 0.172 1.600 0.020 SFBA 1993 5 0.128 0.147 0.128 1.100 0.010 SFBA 1994 5 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.440 0.005 SFBA 1995 5 0.098 0.129 0.098 1.100 0.010 SFBA 1996 5 0.067 0.077 0.067 0.600 0.005 SFBA 1997 5 0.074 0.095 0.070 0.500 0.005 SJV 1990 4 0.121 0.082 0.121 0.470 0.030

## Air

Basin Year Number

of Sites Air Basin

Arithmetic Mean (ppbv) Standard

Deviation (ppbv) Air Basin

Mean of Monthly Means (ppbv) Air Basin

Maximum (ppbv) Air Basin

Minimum (ppbv)



# E-13 SJV 1991 4 0.131 0.123 0.131 0.870 0.020 SJV 1992 4 0.104 0.088 0.105 0.790 0.030 SJV 1993 4 0.400 2.630 0.410 28.000 0.010 SJV* 1993 4 0.176 0.823 0.179 9.100 0.010 SJV 1994 5 0.069 0.113 0.067 1.100 0.005 SJV 1995 4 0.071 0.105 0.070 1.000 0.010 SJV 1996 4 0.064 0.142 0.064 1.500 0.005 SJV 1997 4 0.055 0.070 0.056 0.400 0.005 SS 1997 1 0.105 0.161 0.099 0.800 0.005 SV 1990 2 0.069 0.042 0.070 0.260 0.020 SV 1991 2 0.075 0.043 0.075 0.230 0.020 SV 1992 3 0.063 0.036 0.058 0.180 0.005 SV 1993 3 0.051 0.036 0.051 0.190 0.005 SV 1994 2 0.181 0.974 0.181 7.700 0.005 SV 1995 2 0.053 0.043 0.053 0.210 0.010 SV 1996 2 0.054 0.062 0.054 0.340 0.005 SV 1997 2 0.053 0.061 0.053 0.300 0.005
* SJV value with 28 ppbv value excluded

# E-14 TABLE A-3 Site Identification Table Site Number and Site Name, by Basin and County

ARB Site Site Name Air Basin County
7000069 Burbank-W Palm Avenue SC LA
7000072 North Long Beach SC LA
7000087 Los Angeles-North Main Street SC LA
3300144 Riverside-Rubidoux SC RIV
3600175 Upland-San Bernardino Road SC SBD
4200388 Santa Barbara-W Carillo Street SCC SBA
5600434 Simi Valley-Cochran Street SCC VEN
8000114 Chula Vista SD SD
8000131 El Cajon-Redwood Avenue SD SD
6000336 Fremont-Chapel Way SFBA ALA
0700433 Richmond-13th Street SFBA CC
0700440 Concord-2975 Treat Blvd SFBA CC
0700445 San Pablo-El Portal SFBA CC
4300382 San Jose-4th Street SFBA SCL
9000306 San Francisco-Arkansas Street SFBA SF
1000246 Fresno-1st Street SJV FRE
1500255 Bakersfield-5558 California Avenue SJV KER
3900252 Stockton-Hazelton Street SJV SJ
5000568 Modesto-14th Street SJV STA
1300698 Calexico-Ethel Street SS IMP
0400628 Chico-Manzanita Avenue SV BUT
3100822 Roseville-N Sunrise Blvd SV PLA

# E-15

Memorandum 2. Analysis and Population Exposure Estimates for Perchloroethylene

Needs Assessment for Brake Cleaning Products (March 26, 1998)

# E-16 

# Cal /EPA

California Environmental Protection

Air Resources Board P.O. Box 2815 2020 L Street Sacramento, CA 95812-2815 http://www.arb.ca.g
ov Pete Wilson Governor
Peter M. Rooney Secretary for Environmental Protection 

# MEMORANDUM

TO: Todd Wong

Stationary Source Division FROM: Bob Effa

Technical Support Division DATE: March 26, 1998 SUBJECT: ANALYSIS AND POPULATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES

FOR PERCHLOROETHYLENE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR BRAKE CLEANING PRODUCTS
This memorandum is in response to your request for an analysis of ambient perchlorethylene data and population-weighted exposure. It is our understanding that this analysis is to be used for a perc needs assessment of brake repair facilities to serve as the basis for determining whether an airborne toxic control measure (ATCM) is needed for these products. This analysis is based on ambient data, and as such, includes perchlorethylene emissions from all sources. There is no way to differentiate in the ambient air between perchloroethylene emissions from one source versus another. If the potential risk from brake cleaning products alone is to be assessed, the contribution from other sources would need to be quantified and subtracted from the ambient data.

BACKGROUND This analysis is based on ambient data collected by the Air Resources Board (ARB) and compiled in the ARB Air Toxics database. The data used in this analysis cover the time period from January 2, 1990 to December 29, 1996. All data used in this analysis were extracted on November 14, 1997. As of February 25, 1998, there have been no changes to the data. This analysis does not reflect any changes that may have occurred since that time. The data used in this analysis are available on CD (California Ambient Air Quality Data CD# TSD-97-008) from the Technical Support Division (TSD).

# E-17



# DATA Ambient Sampling and Analysis Perchloroethylene data are collected by the ARB toxics sampling network, which currently consists of 21 monitoring sites located throughout the state. All data used in this analysis were collected during routine toxics pollutant monitoring. They come from a total of 24 sites. Seventeen of these sites have been in operation from 1990 to 1996. Three sites have been closed and replaced by three new sites in the same general area (Bakersfield-Chester Ave with Bakersfield-California Ave, Citrus Heights-Sunrise Blvd with Roseville N. Sunrise Blvd, and Chico-Salem St with Chico-Manzanita Ave). The 24th

# site, in Calexico, has been in operation since July, 1995. Since this site only has data for one complete year (1996), and this analysis examines perchloroethylene trends over 7 years, the data from this site were not used in this analysis. There is also a 25th

# site at Fresno-Olive St., but this site has only one observation and is being discarded. As noted, some sites have moved within air basin boundaries, and this move did not pose a problem for the purpose of our analysis. The data analysis and population exposure estimates presented below are based on data collected from the ARB toxics sampling network. These data are collected over a 24 hour period every twelve days by the Monitoring and Laboratory Division (MLD). The data are analyzed by MLD staff using Method MLD052 (Cryogenic Trap Preconcentration with Capillary Column Gas Chromatography-PID/ECD Detectors). Perchloroethylene concentrations are measured using Electron Capture Detector (ECD). The number of samples available per site during the study period ranged from 42 to 213 observations. Of the 4206 observations collected during this time, 35 were below the limit of detection (LOD) of 0.01 ppbv for the study period. These values pose a problem to the analysis but they cannot be ignored since a mean calculated without these observations would overestimate the true mean. To account for these below LOD values, we estimated their values to be 1⁄2 of the LOD. Missing data points In the course of analyzing the data for this analysis, we found that some data points were missing. This is to be expected, but it can pose problems to the analysis. If the pollutant being measured has seasonal patterns, and several points are missing from the same season, the analysis results could be skewed either high or low. If there are no data collected at a given site during a month, a mean of monthly means cannot be calculated for that year and the rest of the data for that site/year must be thrown out. During this analysis, we encountered 8 sites with missing data as shown in Table 1. To develop the population-weighted perchloroethylene exposure estimates, we had to populate the data set with the most accurate data estimates available. We

# E-18



# used two different methods to estimate the missing data. The first method applied to five sites where data were missing for only one month, with data from adjacent months available. For these sites, we simply took the average of the monthly means from the two adjacent months to impute the missing values. The second method was applied to the remaining three sites. One site was missing only one month of data, but it did not have a value for the previous month available as it was the first month of our sample period (January 1990). The other two sites were missing a three month block of data. All three sites used the same methodology to estimate the missing data. For these sites, we took the mean of monthly means for the months of data available, and for the same months of data in an adjacent (following) year. From this data we calculated the ratio of the mean of monthly means. To complete the data set, we took the months with missing data and populated them with data from an adjacent (following) year. To correct for different magnitudes of emissions from the two years, this data was then adjusted using the ratio of mean of monthly means. For example, we will look at the January 1990 value. To estimate the missing value, we calculated a mean of monthly means using the remaining months of the year (1990) from the site with missing data. We then calculated a mean of monthly means for the following year (1991) using the same months of data. The next step was to calculate the ratio of means of monthly means to account for the difference in air quality for the two years of interest. The January (1990) monthly mean was then imputed by multiplying the January (1991) value by the ratio of the means of monthly means to more accurately describe the missing value. A simpler approach would have been to calculate a mean value from the existing data. The problem with this approach is that you would effectively be populating the missing data with the average site value for the year. Thus, this would not reflect any seasonal patterns the data may possess, and would result in a less accurate estimate that could skew the analysis results.

TABLE 1 Perchloroethylene Data Analysis Missing Values in Data Set Site Name Year Month(s) Missing Calculated Value(s) Chula Vista 1996 September 0.127 ppbv El Cajon-Redwood Ave 1994 December 0.458 ppbv Richmond-13th St 1990 January 0.145 ppbv San Francisco-Arkansas St 1990 May 0.174 ppbv

# Perchloroethylene Data Analysis Missing Values in Data Set

E-19 San Francisco-Arkansas St 1993 December 0.176 ppbv Stockton-Hazelton St 1993 January 0.108 ppbv Fresno-1st St 1990 January-March 0.140, 0.157, 0.077 ppbv North Long Beach 1996 August-October 0.116, 0.168, 0.155 ppbv



# Unusual Observation The highest concentration reported during the study period was 28 ppbv at the Bakersfield-Chester St. site in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin on February 12, 1993. The second highest concentration was 9.1 ppbv at the Bakersfield-Chester St. site on January 31, 1993. The 28 ppbv value is much higher than the remaining data collected and is subject to scrutiny. The Monitoring and Laboratory Division (MLD) checked and confirmed the value. There is no valid reason to discard the value, so it remains in our database. To assess the sensitivity of our estimates to such high concentrations, we performed two analyses by including or excluding the data point. When this value is compared to the remaining values at the Chester St. site, it is more than 21 times higher than the average for that site. A brief summary of the effects of this data point are shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2 Results of Perchloroethylene Data Analysis Bakersfield-Chester St Site for 1993

with 28 ppbv value without 28 ppbv

value Percent

Change Site Arithmetic Mean Concentration 1.299 ppbv 0.378 ppbv -71%

Air Basin Arithmetic Mean Concentration 0.400 ppbv 0.176 ppbv -56%

# Results of Perchloroethylene Data Analysis Bakersfield-Chester St Site for 1993

E-20 Statewide Arithmetic Mean Concentration 0.253 ppbv 0.207 ppbv -18%
Statewide Population-Weighted

Exposure 0.322 ppb/year 0.301 ppb/year -7%


# Unless otherwise noted, all results presented in this report are calculated with the 28 ppbv value included.
Population Data Population data used in the exposure analysis come from two sources: the 1990 census and the California Department of Finance (DOF). The census data is used in the South Coast and San Francisco Air Basins as an input to the population exposure weighting program, while the DOF data is used in all areas to represent the actual population. The study area for this analysis covers six air basins, and approximately 72% of the statewide population.

METHODOLOGY The population exposure estimate consists of two parts. The first part is an estimate of the pollutant exposure in a given air basin. This will yield an average exposure for each air basin in the study. Due to data limitations, population exposure estimates were calculated differently for different air basins. For the South Coast Air Basin and the San Francisco Air Basin, the exposure estimates are calculated using a population exposure weighting program that interpolates site-specific mean of monthly mean perchloroethylene concentrations to population values assigned to census tract centroids (a census tract centroid is the approximate center of a United States Census Bureau census tract). The population exposure weighting program used 1990 census data in the South Coast and San Francisco Air Basins. There are no growth factors available by census tract, so 1990 census data was used for the population estimate for all years of the analysis. For the other air basins for which we have data, the number of monitors are too limited to represent the entire air basin. For those areas, we limited our analysis to the counties which had monitors. First, we computed a “basin wide” mean concentration from the mean of monthly means of the basin. Then, we assumed that all people in counties with monitoring sites are exposed to this estimated mean annual concentration (i.e., if an air basin contains four counties, and only two of the counties

# E-21



# had monitors, the population of the two counties with monitors would be used in the exposure analysis). The population estimates for these areas of the study used DOF data for this step. The results of this first step are presented in the top portion of Table 3. This is the population-weighted perchloroethylene exposure by air basin. For example, the per capita average concentration to which the population in the South Coast Air Basin were exposed during 1990 was 0.590 ppb. This declined to 0.330 ppb for 1996. For the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, the average concentration for the population represented by the four counties included in the analysis was 0.121 ppb in 1990, dropping to 0.064 ppb in 1996. The second step of the exposure calculation was the same for all air basins. The overall statewide population-weighted exposure was calculated by multiplying the estimated annual average perchloroethylene concentration for a given air basin by its population (represented as a fraction of the total of the air basin populations in this study). This value was calculated for each air basin in the study, and the results are summed to create an estimated overall statewide population-weighted exposure estimate. The DOF population figures are shown in the middle portion of Table 3.

RESULTS The results of the exposure analysis are summarized in Table 3. The estimated statewide perchloroethylene exposure, shown at the bottom of the table, decreases from 0.382 to 0.203 ppbv from 1990 to 1996. The highest air basin concentrations (shown at the top of the table ) occurred in the South Coast, where the annual mean perchloroethylene concentrations decreased from 0.590 ppbv in 1990 to 0.330 ppbv in 1996. The general trend for statewide is decreasing, except for a slight increase from 1992 to 1993 due to the 28 ppbv value in the San Joaquin Valley. If the 28 ppbv value is not included in the analysis, the trend decreases for all years.

# E-22 TABLE 3 Estimated Air Basin Population-Weighted* Perchloroethylene Exposure ppb-year/person**
Air Basin 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 South Coast 0.590 0.542 0.430 0.472 0.410 0.392 0.330 South Central Coast 0.181 0.160 0.124 0.095 0.110 0.100 0.104
San Diego 0.280 0.261 0.262 0.193 0.204 0.244 0.133 San Francisco 0.196 0.223 0.158 0.124 0.082 0.091 0.068 San Joaquin Valley 0.121 0.131 0.105 0.410 0.067 0.070 0.064

Sacramento Valley 0.070 0.075 0.058 0.051 0.181 0.053 0.054

Air Basin Population Data Used in Calculating Statewide Perchloroethylene Exposure Air Basin 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 South Coast 10684933 10910823 11124105 11206222 11298530 11372003 11441517 South Central Coast 1041100 1055600 1072600 1080800 1092900 1104100 1108500
San Diego 2511400 2560800 2611500 2625100 2650700 2669200 2694900 San Francisco 4324700 4377500 4451700 4511100 4543300 4569800 4649400 San Joaquin Valley 1977876 2040876 2097395 2130385 2158376 2192027 2226921

Sacramento Valley 1377350 1413279 1440859 1458943 1469597 1482705 1502236

SUM 21917359 22358878 22798159 23012550 23213403 23389835 23623474 

# Estimated Statewide Population-Weighted Perchloroethylene Exposure ppb-year/person**

Statewide WTD AVG 0.382 0.362 0.290 0.322 0.262 0.251 0.203
* Only air basins with perchloroethylene monitoring included in this table. Air basin population-weighted exposure is calculated using mean of monthly means for all sites within basin. ** Population exposure units are a concentration for a given duration per person; For this analysis, the units are ppb-year/person. 

# In summary, this exposure analysis was developed with data from the six areaslisted above. The South Coast and San Francisco Bay Area were populationweighted using census tract data, and the rest of the areas were population-weighted

# E-23



# using county (with monitoring data) population data. The six areas represent approximately 72% of the statewide population.

LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS This analysis was designed to produce a statewide population-weighted perchloroethylene exposure. Ideally, to complete such an analysis, daily perchloroethylene concentrations from all areas of the state would be available. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Currently, our monitoring network operates on a one in twelve day sampling schedule, at only 21 sites within six air basins throughout California. At this time, the minimum number of sites and frequency of sampling required to accurately represent the true statewide exposure are uncertain. Therefore, caution should be exercised when using these exposure estimates. SUMMARY TABLES IN APPENDIX Annual summary statistics for each site during the study period are listed in the appendix in the Site Summary Table. These statistics include the annual site minimum, maximum, arithmetic mean, standard deviation, mean of monthly means, and number of observations. The annual mean concentration for the site is calculated as the mean of monthly means for the site. The standard deviation is calculated using all values rather than the monthly means. When a site contains a reading below the LOD for a particular year, the mean concentration and standard deviation are calculated using 1⁄2 LOD as an estimate for the below LOD value. Basin-specific summary statistics are calculated on an annual basis and are listed in the Appendix in the Air Basin Summary Table. These statistics are calculated using the values from each site within an air basin. These statistics include the minimum and maximum, the arithmetic mean, standard deviation of values from all sites within the air basin, the mean of monthly site means, and the number of sites in the air basin.

cc: Bart Croes, TSD Tom Lusk , TSD

# E-24 APPENDIX
Site Summary Table Annual Site Specific Summary Statistics

ARB SITE YEAR Air

Basin County NO_

OBS Site

Mean (ppbv) Standard

Deviation (ppbv) Mean of

Monthly Mean (ppbv) Site

Maximum (ppbv) Site

Minimum (ppbv)

7000069 1990 SC LA 31 1.193 1.087 1.191 5.000 0.200 7000069 1991 SC LA 29 0.761 0.615 0.785 2.400 0.070 7000069 1992 SC LA 30 0.615 0.305 0.609 1.500 0.110 7000069 1993 SC LA 33 0.601 0.472 0.620 1.700 0.040 7000069 1994 SC LA 29 0.641 0.530 0.663 2.100 0.040 7000069 1995 SC LA 31 0.494 0.360 0.487 1.700 0.030 7000069 1996 SC LA 30 0.428 0.230 0.440 1.400 0.090 7000072 1990 SC LA 31 0.475 0.359 0.477 1.500 0.090 7000072 1991 SC LA 29 0.341 0.292 0.355 1.100 0.040 7000072 1992 SC LA 30 0.353 0.247 0.349 1.200 0.100 7000072 1993 SC LA 32 0.384 0.462 0.433 1.500 0.010 7000072 1994 SC LA 30 0.301 0.335 0.321 1.300 0.010 7000072 1995 SC LA 31 0.317 0.346 0.318 1.600 0.030 7000072 1996 SC LA 25 0.241 0.266 0.226 1.100 0.010 7000087 1990 SC LA 29 0.545 0.256 0.551 1.100 0.240 7000087 1991 SC LA 28 0.608 0.540 0.604 2.800 0.070 7000087 1992 SC LA 31 0.519 0.209 0.536 1.000 0.200 7000087 1993 SC LA 26 0.535 0.326 0.588 1.100 0.050 7000087 1994 SC LA 30 0.522 0.425 0.503 2.000 0.030 7000087 1995 SC LA 31 0.581 0.380 0.574 1.400 0.060 7000087 1996 SC LA 28 0.492 0.315 0.502 1.500 0.120 3300144 1990 SC RIV 28 0.235 0.127 0.237 0.440 0.030 3300144 1991 SC RIV 29 0.266 0.200 0.276 0.870 0.060 3300144 1992 SC RIV 30 0.200 0.119 0.201 0.420 0.020 3300144 1993 SC RIV 29 0.199 0.167 0.198 0.700 0.020 3300144 1994 SC RIV 31 0.184 0.181 0.191 0.950 0.020 3300144 1995 SC RIV 31 0.183 0.146 0.177 0.530 0.030 3300144 1996 SC RIV 31 0.178 0.200 0.176 1.100 0.040 3600175 1990 SC SBD 27 0.434 0.201 0.423 1.000 0.210 3600175 1991 SC SBD 28 0.675 1.233 0.717 6.800 0.150 3600175 1992 SC SBD 27 0.360 0.180 0.364 0.680 0.070 3600175 1993 SC SBD 29 0.392 0.286 0.398 1.100 0.040 3600175 1994 SC SBD 31 0.284 0.165 0.286 0.820 0.030 3600175 1995 SC SBD 31 0.265 0.143 0.263 0.550 0.060

## ARB

SITE YEAR Air

Basin County NO_

OBS Site

Mean (ppbv) Standard

Deviation (ppbv) Mean of

Monthly Mean (ppbv) Site

Maximum (ppbv) Site

Minimum (ppbv)



# E-25 3600175 1996 SC SBD 28 0.203 0.122 0.199 0.530 0.050 4200388 1990 SCC SBA 27 0.171 0.117 0.176 0.540 0.040 4200388 1991 SCC SBA 34 0.133 0.093 0.124 0.420 0.040 4200388 1992 SCC SBA 28 0.098 0.057 0.095 0.310 0.020 4200388 1993 SCC SBA 31 0.075 0.055 0.075 0.280 0.020 4200388 1994 SCC SBA 30 0.092 0.118 0.095 0.490 LOD 4200388 1995 SCC SBA 29 0.075 0.062 0.082 0.280 0.020 4200388 1996 SCC SBA 30 0.120 0.253 0.120 1.400 0.010 5600434 1990 SCC VEN 29 0.190 0.115 0.199 0.520 0.030 5600434 1991 SCC VEN 28 0.186 0.136 0.192 0.670 0.040 5600434 1992 SCC VEN 29 0.149 0.097 0.152 0.450 0.020 5600434 1993 SCC VEN 28 0.116 0.108 0.111 0.580 0.020 5600434 1994 SCC VEN 29 0.129 0.124 0.122 0.490 0.010 5600434 1995 SCC VEN 31 0.126 0.110 0.125 0.440 0.020 5600434 1996 SCC VEN 30 0.087 0.058 0.088 0.300 0.030 8000114 1990 SD SD 31 0.235 0.107 0.236 0.480 0.080 8000114 1991 SD SD 30 0.228 0.129 0.229 0.530 0.060 8000114 1992 SD SD 30 0.213 0.130 0.208 0.650 0.060 8000114 1993 SD SD 31 0.141 0.110 0.144 0.530 0.020 8000114 1994 SD SD 31 0.123 0.121 0.132 0.510 LOD 8000114 1995 SD SD 29 0.147 0.133 0.146 0.540 0.020 8000114 1996 SD SD 27 0.124 0.100 0.129 0.450 0.020 8000131 1990 SD SD 31 0.324 0.258 0.329 1.100 0.050 8000131 1991 SD SD 29 0.293 0.268 0.308 1.300 0.040 8000131 1992 SD SD 29 0.311 0.222 0.319 0.800 0.060 8000131 1993 SD SD 28 0.245 0.200 0.256 0.890 0.020 8000131 1994 SD SD 29 0.285 0.321 0.291 1.600 0.010 8000131 1995 SD SD 29 0.342 0.585 0.352 3.200 0.040 8000131 1996 SD SD 30 0.142 0.149 0.168 0.580 0.020 6000336 1990 SFBA ALA 30 0.187 0.137 0.189 0.550 0.040 6000336 1991 SFBA ALA 30 0.210 0.146 0.210 0.540 0.020 6000336 1992 SFBA ALA 30 0.136 0.119 0.134 0.630 0.030 6000336 1993 SFBA ALA 30 0.114 0.103 0.114 0.450 0.010 6000336 1994 SFBA ALA 31 0.095 0.072 0.086 0.290 LOD 6000336 1995 SFBA ALA 30 0.121 0.077 0.118 0.290 0.030 6000336 1996 SFBA ALA 31 0.068 0.043 0.069 0.210 0.010 0700433 1990 SFBA CC 29 0.121 0.070 0.121 0.300 0.030 0700433 1991 SFBA CC 29 0.148 0.077 0.147 0.310 0.030 0700433 1992 SFBA CC 29 0.097 0.055 0.094 0.240 0.020 0700433 1993 SFBA CC 30 0.092 0.081 0.092 0.420 0.020

## ARB

SITE YEAR Air

Basin County NO_

OBS Site

Mean (ppbv) Standard

Deviation (ppbv) Mean of

Monthly Mean (ppbv) Site

Maximum (ppbv) Site

Minimum (ppbv)

* Site 1500203 without 28 ppbv value included 

# E-26 0700433 1994 SFBA CC 31 0.057 0.057 0.056 0.260 LOD 0700433 1995 SFBA CC 30 0.043 0.025 0.043 0.100 0.010 0700433 1996 SFBA CC 31 0.030 0.023 0.031 0.090 LOD 0700440 1990 SFBA CC 28 0.325 0.248 0.337 1.000 0.040 0700440 1991 SFBA CC 29 0.438 0.450 0.419 1.700 0.030 0700440 1992 SFBA CC 31 0.391 0.404 0.390 1.600 0.040 0700440 1993 SFBA CC 30 0.207 0.254 0.204 1.100 0.010 0700440 1994 SFBA CC 32 0.102 0.099 0.098 0.390 LOD 0700440 1995 SFBA CC 30 0.157 0.242 0.147 1.100 0.020 0700440 1996 SFBA CC 31 0.082 0.112 0.082 0.600 0.010 4300382 1990 SFBA SCL 27 0.163 0.127 0.161 0.530 0.050 4300382 1991 SFBA SCL 28 0.152 0.098 0.153 0.410 0.040 4300382 1992 SFBA SCL 31 0.100 0.073 0.100 0.370 0.030 4300382 1993 SFBA SCL 30 0.096 0.088 0.094 0.310 0.010 4300382 1994 SFBA SCL 31 0.072 0.091 0.064 0.440 LOD 4300382 1995 SFBA SCL 30 0.074 0.070 0.069 0.350 0.020 4300382 1996 SFBA SCL 31 0.069 0.079 0.068 0.310 LOD 9000306 1990 SFBA SF 28 0.191 0.103 0.199 0.390 0.040 9000306 1991 SFBA SF 26 0.226 0.182 0.229 0.810 0.030 9000306 1992 SFBA SF 31 0.133 0.081 0.131 0.360 0.030 9000306 1993 SFBA SF 28 0.133 0.108 0.133 0.480 0.010 9000306 1994 SFBA SF 30 0.105 0.100 0.105 0.390 0.010 9000306 1995 SFBA SF 29 0.097 0.083 0.092 0.380 0.020 9000306 1996 SFBA SF 31 0.084 0.085 0.084 0.420 0.010 1000246 1990 SJV FRE 27 0.117 0.095 0.119 0.470 0.040 1000246 1991 SJV FRE 30 0.140 0.128 0.142 0.690 0.020 1000246 1992 SJV FRE 30 0.103 0.055 0.102 0.270 0.040 1000246 1993 SJV FRE 30 0.098 0.091 0.100 0.450 0.020 1000246 1994 SJV FRE 31 0.063 0.067 0.062 0.250 LOD 1000246 1995 SJV FRE 30 0.068 0.071 0.065 0.310 0.020 1000246 1996 SJV FRE 31 0.040 0.029 0.041 0.150 0.010 1500203 1990 SJV KER 32 0.093 0.058 0.087 0.290 0.030 1500203 1991 SJV KER 29 0.126 0.112 0.127 0.520 0.030 1500203 1992 SJV KER 31 0.077 0.043 0.075 0.200 0.030 1500203 1993 SJV KER 30 1.299 5.306 1.481 28.000 0.010 1500203* 1993 SJV KER 29 0.378 1.678 0.317 9.100 0.010 1500203 1994 SJV KER 9 0.059 0.060 0.050 0.210 0.020 1500255 1994 SJV KER 23 0.054 0.072 0.055 0.330 LOD 1500255 1995 SJV KER 32 0.098 0.182 0.092 1.000 0.010 1500255 1996 SJV KER 32 0.104 0.264 0.119 1.500 LOD

## ARB

SITE YEAR Air

Basin County NO_

OBS Site

Mean (ppbv) Standard

Deviation (ppbv) Mean of

Monthly Mean (ppbv) Site

Maximum (ppbv) Site

Minimum (ppbv)



# E-27 3900252 1990 SJV SJ 30 0.129 0.068 0.129 0.300 0.040 3900252 1991 SJV SJ 29 0.115 0.050 0.113 0.220 0.040 3900252 1992 SJV SJ 28 0.120 0.076 0.120 0.380 0.040 3900252 1993 SJV SJ 34 0.125 0.173 0.120 0.860 0.020 3900252 1994 SJV SJ 31 0.066 0.062 0.066 0.240 LOD 3900252 1995 SJV SJ 30 0.063 0.044 0.061 0.220 0.020 3900252 1996 SJV SJ 31 0.069 0.075 0.068 0.350 0.010 5000568 1990 SJV STA 31 0.144 0.097 0.145 0.370 0.040 5000568 1991 SJV STA 30 0.142 0.173 0.150 0.870 0.020 5000568 1992 SJV STA 31 0.120 0.140 0.118 0.790 0.030 5000568 1993 SJV STA 30 0.116 0.178 0.109 0.850 0.020 5000568 1994 SJV STA 31 0.093 0.198 0.087 1.100 LOD 5000568 1995 SJV STA 30 0.052 0.053 0.053 0.230 0.010 5000568 1996 SJV STA 31 0.043 0.042 0.044 0.220 0.010 0400628 1992 SV BUT 16 0.053 0.033 0.051 0.120 LOD 0400628 1993 SV BUT 30 0.056 0.046 0.057 0.190 LOD 0400628 1994 SV BUT 31 0.299 1.376 0.266 7.700 LOD 0400628 1995 SV BUT 30 0.052 0.052 0.047 0.210 0.010 0400628 1996 SV BUT 31 0.048 0.054 0.049 0.260 LOD 0400633 1990 SV BUT 29 0.047 0.016 0.047 0.080 0.020 0400633 1991 SV BUT 28 0.055 0.025 0.054 0.110 0.020 0400633 1992 SV BUT 15 0.047 0.024 0.046 0.090 0.020 3100822 1993 SV PLA 23 0.045 0.024 0.045 0.090 0.010 3100822 1994 SV PLA 31 0.062 0.080 0.065 0.440 LOD 3100822 1995 SV PLA 30 0.054 0.034 0.051 0.160 0.010 3100822 1996 SV PLA 30 0.060 0.070 0.061 0.340 0.010 3400293 1990 SV SAC 28 0.092 0.049 0.095 0.260 0.040 3400293 1991 SV SAC 29 0.095 0.047 0.094 0.230 0.030 3400293 1992 SV SAC 31 0.075 0.039 0.076 0.180 0.020 3400293 1993 SV SAC 6 0.053 0.010 0.054 0.070 0.040

### * SJV value with 28 ppbv value excluded 

# E-28 Air Basin Summary Table Air Basin Annual Summary Statistics

Air Basin Year Number

of Sites Air Basin

Arithmetic Mean (ppbv) Standard

Deviation (ppbv) Air Basin

Mean of Monthly Means (ppbv) Air Basin

Maximum (ppbv) Air Basin

Minimum (ppbv)

SC 1990 5 0.588 0.636 0.576 5.000 0.030 SC 1991 5 0.529 0.694 0.530 6.800 0.040 SC 1992 5 0.411 0.263 0.409 1.500 0.020 SC 1993 5 0.424 0.389 0.422 1.700 0.010 SC 1994 5 0.383 0.387 0.386 2.100 0.010 SC 1995 5 0.368 0.327 0.368 1.700 0.030 SC 1996 5 0.309 0.264 0.309 1.500 0.010 SCC 1990 2 0.181 0.115 0.181 0.540 0.030 SCC 1991 2 0.157 0.116 0.160 0.670 0.040 SCC 1992 2 0.124 0.084 0.124 0.450 0.020 SCC 1993 2 0.094 0.086 0.095 0.580 0.020 SCC 1994 2 0.110 0.121 0.110 0.490 0.005 SCC 1995 2 0.101 0.093 0.100 0.440 0.020 SCC 1996 2 0.104 0.183 0.104 1.400 0.010 SD 1990 2 0.280 0.201 0.280 1.100 0.050 SD 1991 2 0.260 0.210 0.261 1.300 0.040 SD 1992 2 0.261 0.186 0.262 0.800 0.060 SD 1993 2 0.190 0.166 0.193 0.890 0.020 SD 1994 2 0.201 0.251 0.204 1.600 0.005 SD 1995 2 0.244 0.432 0.244 3.200 0.020 SD 1996 2 0.134 0.128 0.133 0.580 0.020 SFBA 1990 5 0.197 0.162 0.197 1.000 0.030 SFBA 1991 5 0.235 0.255 0.235 1.700 0.020 SFBA 1992 5 0.173 0.225 0.172 1.600 0.020 SFBA 1993 5 0.128 0.147 0.128 1.100 0.010 SFBA 1994 5 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.440 0.005 SFBA 1995 5 0.098 0.129 0.098 1.100 0.010 SFBA 1996 5 0.067 0.077 0.067 0.600 0.005 SJV 1990 4 0.121 0.082 0.121 0.470 0.030 SJV 1991 4 0.131 0.123 0.131 0.870 0.020 SJV 1992 4 0.104 0.088 0.105 0.790 0.030 SJV 1993 4 0.400 2.630 0.410 28.000 0.010 SJV* 1993 4 0.176 0.823 0.179 9.100 0.010 SJV 1994 5 0.069 0.113 0.067 1.100 0.005 SJV 1995 4 0.071 0.105 0.070 1.000 0.010 SJV 1996 4 0.064 0.142 0.064 1.500 0.005 SV 1990 2 0.069 0.042 0.070 0.260 0.020

## Air

Basin Year Number

of Sites Air Basin

Arithmetic Mean (ppbv) Standard

Deviation (ppbv) Air Basin

Mean of Monthly Means (ppbv) Air Basin

Maximum (ppbv) Air Basin

Minimum (ppbv)

* SJV value with 28 ppbv value excluded 

# E-29 SV 1991 2 0.075 0.043 0.075 0.230 0.020 SV 1992 3 0.063 0.036 0.058 0.180 0.005 SV 1993 3 0.051 0.036 0.051 0.190 0.005 SV 1994 2 0.181 0.974 0.181 7.700 0.005 SV 1995 2 0.053 0.043 0.053 0.210 0.010 SV 1996 2 0.054 0.062 0.054 0.340 0.005

# Appendix F Selection of Specific and Generic Facilities for ISCST3 Modeling

# F-1

Appendix F. Selection of Specific and Generic Facilities for ISCST3 Modeling

The majority of the modeling performed was done using the SCREEN3 air dispersion model because it is easy to use and allows the consideration of many modeling scenarios in a relatively short period of time. The ISCST3 air dispersion models offers the opportunity to perform a more refined analysis of a facility’s potential risk; however, modeling scenarios considered under this model are more resource intensive. As a result, only a limited number of facilities could be selected for modeling using ISCST3. Thirteen specific facilities from the site visits as well as 3 generic facilities that were developed to represent a broad range of facilities statewide, were selected. This appendix outlines how the specific facilities were selected, how the generic facilities were developed, and how representative product formulations for the generic facilities were derived.
A. Selection of the 13 Specific Facilities The main goal in selecting the 13 specific facilities was to obtain good representation of the five facility types (general automotive, fleets, service stations, dedicated brake shops, and dealerships) defined in the Status Report (ARB, 1997a) in several locations throughout the state with good population densities. In order to conduct this type of analysis, meteorological (met) and census data needs to be available for any selected area; therefore, facilities located in areas without met data or good census information could not be candidates for selection. Another goal was to select facilities representing five key population areas revealed by the site visits. Those areas are: Sacramento, Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, and the North State area. Combined, these regions represent mostly urban areas which is appropriate because the majority of California’s population lives in largely urban areas. Additionally, potential residential and business receptors in these areas tend to be located nearby the automotive maintenance and repair facilities. The site visits showed that 55 facilities were using chlorinated products, all of which were modeled using the SCREEN3 air dispersion model. Thirty-two of these facilities showed potential risks greater than 10 chances per million (based on Perc usage and modeling using SCREEN3). The 10 chances per million level was selected because it is a common public risk notification level used in many local air districts; it should not be construed as any sort of regulatory guideline. Since public health protection is a major concern, the higher risk facilities were selected as candidates for ISCST3 modeling so long as the above criteria was able to be satisfied. As a result, facilities with lower risk values were selected in some cases to ensure that all the facility types and the five population areas were represented. Using these criteria, 13 specific facilities were selected. Table F-1 summarizes the five regions, the selected met sets for each region, and the represented facility types.

# F-2 Table F-1. Met Data Sets and Facility Types per Region

Geographic Region Met Data Sets Facility Types Los Angeles Anaheim 1981 Burbank 1958-62 LAX 1985-89 General Automotive

North State Redding 1987-89 General Automotive
Sacramento Sac Exec 1987, 1989-92 Mather AFB 1953-57 McClellan AFB 1953-57 Brake Shop Fleet

San Francisco Bay Area Concord 1991-96 Oakland 1960-64 General Automotive

San Joaquin Valley Fresno 1985-89 Dealership Service Station



# B. Development of the 3 Generic Facilities The purpose of developing the 3 generic facilities was to provide a mechanism for estimating potential health impacts for all facilities statewide, including facilities located in areas where met data is not available. The basis for the generic facilities came from the 137 site visits, the statewide survey of automotive maintenance and repair facilities, as well as follow-up visits and telephone calls used to verify collected information. Using this information, the universe of facilities was separated into three representative groups: generic facility G-01 (small), generic facility G-02 (medium), and generic facility G-03 (large). The site visit data was analyzed to determine the source characteristics of the generic facilities. Several approaches were considered including averaging the facility volumes over a specified range and focusing on the smaller facility volumes. These approaches were rejected because they would have either underestimated or overestimated potential health impacts. The data revealed that product usage was not related to facility size which means that both low and high usage rates can be found at small and large facilities. Additionally, a comparison of the facility volumes showed gaps that naturally separated the facilities into five groupings or facility size ranges. The very smallest group and largest group of facilities were excluded to avoid unnecessarily underestimating or overestimating potential health impacts. This approach created a rough cut of facility sizes for each generic facility. Due to the limited availability of modeling resources, one representative building size needed to be selected for each of the three facility size ranges. Before selecting the discrete building size, however, the number of brake jobs that were being performed in each facility size

# F-3

range was examined (note: a typical brake job can consist of either one-axle or two-axle jobs). The data showed that the overall number of brake jobs ranged from 1 to 160 jobs per week and that facilities doing more brake work (and therefore using more chlorinated product) populated all three size ranges. An interesting observation was that the facility with the greatest number of brake jobs was at the lower end of each size range (in terms of facility volume) which indicates that facilities at the higher end of the size range would most likely be able to handle the same throughput. It also means that setting the building size for each generic facility at the lower end of the range would not overestimate potential health impacts. As a result, the building dimensions were set at the lower end of each facility size range. The throughput of brake jobs was then set to approximate the throughput at the lower end facilities. While the throughput of brake jobs for these facilities is higher than others in the range, it creates a health-protective facility that can effectively handle the variations in usage rates. It also allows for the capture of product use on other activities and, therefore, is a more realistic model of total product usage that minimizes the frequency that a generic facility would underestimate potential health impacts. Table F-2 summarizes what had been developed at this point. Table F-2. Proposed Generic Facilities

Facility Facility Size Range (by volume) Proposed Representative Volume Number of Brake Jobs

at Proposed Volume [per week]
G-01 453 m3

## to 2140 m3 

## 453 m3 

## 18
G-02 2230 m3

## to 8494 m3 

## 2230 m3 

## 58
G-03 9241 m3

## to 37167 m3 

## 10157 m3 

## 54



# Now that the generic facilities had been roughly identified, several quality control checks were employed to verify that the building dimensions and throughput of brake jobs were set properly and could adequately characterize automotive service and repair facilities statewide. Sales by facility size and number of service bays reported in the May 1996 Brake & Front End Brake Repair Survey (MarketScope, 1996) were compared to site visit data to check for consistency. This check underscores that the facility size ranges for the generic facilities are consistent with trends that have been observed nationwide. Additionally, the number of bays that were dedicated to brake work were compared with site visit data to determine if they were consistent with the generic volumes and reported number of jobs per week. This comparison was necessary to minimize the possibility that a generic facility would assume that a facility would be doing more work than it was physically capable of doing. Finally, a random selection of respondents to the Automotive Service Facility Questionnaire (Facility Survey) were polled to verify the accuracy of the reported data (a copy of the survey form can be found in Appendix B). Additional site visits were then made to several of these facilities to obtain source characteristic information. The information obtained from these additional site visits confirmed that the

# F-4

building dimensions and throughput of brake jobs for the generic facilities was reasonable. In order to gain an idea of the statewide representativeness of the generic facilities, the sales/service bay distribution reported in the May 1996 Brake & Front EndBrake Repair Survey (MarketScope, 1996) and the distribution of the number of service bays per facility reported in the Norton study (Norton, 1993) was compared to the ARB data. With this information, it was estimated that generic facility G-01 represents approximately 37% of California automotive service facilities, G-02 represents approximately 43%, and G-03 represents approximately 20%. Table F-2 summarizes the generic facility characteristics that were used in the modeling scenarios under ISCST3. A summary of the generic facility modeling results, including modeling input parameters and assumptions, are presented in Appendix D.

Table F-3. Summary of Generic Facility Characteristics

Facility Brake Job

Range [per week] Facility

Volume [m3

## ] Height

[m] Length

[m] Width

[m] Number of Brake Jobs [per week] Represented

Facility Types

G-01 1 to 75 453 4.9 12.2 7.6 20 Brake Shop Dealership General Automotive Service Station
G-02 1 to 115 2230 7.6 21.3 13.7 60 Brake Shop Dealership Fleet General Automotive Service Station
G-03 1 to 160 10157 7.6 62.5 21.3 60 Dealership Fleet General Automotive



# C. Development of Perc, MeCl, and TCE Usage Rates in Brake Cleaners, Carburetor Cleaners, Engine Degreasers, and General Degreasers An important observation made during the site visits was that products labeled as brake cleaners, carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general degreasers were often used on a variety of tasks. For example, several facilities reported using aerosol brake cleaning products to do engine degreasing work while others used general degreasers to clean brake parts. Many technicians indicated that this cross usage occurs because the products in each of these categories are designed to remove grime, grease, oil and dirt and, therefore, are suitable for tasks for which they may not be labeled.

# F-5

Since products from these categories represent a varying range of compositions with regard to Perc, MeCl, and TCE, each category was separated into representative formulations based on available data. The data sources for this exercise where the Facility Survey and the 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. The Facility Survey provided information on product usage rates and was used to estimate the average cans per week of product usage in each category. Formulation information was also extracted from this database. The 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey also contained formulation information as well as sales information. The sales information was used to weight the relative contributions of the formulations into one composite. The site visits also provided usage and formulation information on brake cleaning products. In order to simplify the presentation of data associated with this task, the contributions to total generic facility risk from carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general degreasers is combined into two health impact estimates for each generic facility: one estimate for default meteorology and another which is the average of the health impacts for the 10 specific met locations. Since more information was available for brake cleaners than the other three categories, the representative formulations derived for this category are used discretely for each met set including the default. A summary of the representative product formulations used is presented in Table F-4. Table F-4. Representative Product Formulations Used in Generic Facility Modeling

Product Category Brake Cleaners Carburetor Cleaners Engine Degreasers General Degreasers
All met locations: 

## o94% Perc 

## o65% Perc Four met locations 1

## : 

## o55% Perc, 25% MeCl 

## o40% Perc, 30% MeCl, 20% TCE 

## o55% Perc, 43% TCE Single composite based on2

## :


## o68% Perc 

## o57% MeCl Single composite based on2

## :


## o47% Perc 

## o99% TCE Single composite

based on2

## :


## o24% Perc 

## o41% Perc, 55% MeCl 

## o46% MeCl 

## o97% TCE 1. Burbank, Anaheim, Oakland and default met for chronic effects; Fresno, Concord, Mather, and default met for acute effects. 2. Composite is based on average of 10 met sets. Default meteorology is considered independently. 

# In order to estimate the total health impacts (or some desired subset) at a generic facility, the individual contributions must be added. For example, let’s assume that we are looking at generic facility G-01 located in the Burbank, California area where a 94% Perc brake product is being used. Let’s assume further that this facility also uses products from the other three product categories and that we are interested in estimating potential health impacts at 20 meters from the center of the facility. Using Appendix D, we would look up the corresponding health impact values. Table F-5 summarizes the calculation method and provides give the results.

# F-6 Table F-5. Facility G-01 Health Impacts at Burbank at 20 Meters Using a 94% Perc Aerosol Brake Cleaning Product and other Automotive Consumer Products

Product Category Potential Cancer Risk [chances per million] Hazard Index

Resident Worker Acute Chronic 94% Perc Brake Cleaner1 

## 47.41 20.18 0.0727 0.2296
Carburetor Cleaner 0.74 0.32 0.0164 0.0017 Engine Degreaser 2.19 0.93 0.0109 0.0061 General Purpose Degreaser 1.37 0.58 0.0040 0.0017

Total Impacts: 51.71 22.01 0.1040 0.2391 1. These health values assume a 20 brake job per week throughput and 1 19-oz can per job used. Please see Appendix D for more information.



# If we consider the same example but instead assume that a multicomponent brake cleaning product containing 55% Perc and 25% MeCl is being used, Table F-6 would then summarize the calculation method and provide the results for this scenario.

Table F-6. Facility G-01 Health Impacts at Burbank at 20 Meters Using a Multicomponent Aerosol Brake Cleaning Product and other Automotive Consumer Products

Product Category Potential Cancer Risk [chances per million] Hazard Index

Resident Worker Acute Chronic 55% Perc, 25% MeCl Brake Cleaner1 

## 29.87 12.71 0.0701 0.2303

Carburetor Cleaner 0.74 0.32 0.0164 0.0017 Engine Degreaser 2.19 0.93 0.0109 0.0061 General Purpose Degreaser 1.37 0.58 0.0040 0.0017

Total Impacts: 34.17 14.54 0.1014 0.2398 1. These health values assume a 20 brake job per week throughput and 1 19-oz can per job used. Please see Appendix D for more information.



# Using these examples as a guideline in conjunction with the data in Appendix D, the total potential health impacts at a generic facility under a variety of conditions can be estimated.

# F-7

It is expected that the usage estimates for carburetor cleaners, engine degreasers, and general degreasers underestimate their contribution to the overall risk. This expectation is based on the limited data available with regard to product usage rates in these categories. Due to this limitation, usage rates were capped at three and one-third (3

# a)14-ounce cans per week for carburetor cleaners, three 18-ounce cans per week for engine degreasers, and three 16-ounce cans for general degreasers. These amounts are the average usage rates for each category found in the Facility Survey supported by sales data in the 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. While it seems reasonable that these products would most likely be used at a greater rate than indicated here, the ARB currently does not possess sufficient data to justify higher usage rates. As a result, potential health impacts from these three categories may be underestimated by an unknown degree.

# F-8 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX F

ARB, 1997a. Perchloroethylene Need Assessment for Automotive Consumer Products: Status Report, California Air Resources Board, June 1997. MarketScope, 1996. “1996 Brake Repair Study”, prepared by MarketScope for Brake and Front End Magazine, May 1996. Norton, 1993. “Usage of Chemical Brake Cleaners in Automotive Repair Facilities”, John Norton, School of Business Administration, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, November 8, 1993.

# Appendix G Compounds in Products

# G-1

Appendix G. Compounds in Products The compounds listed in Table H-1 were compiled from material safety data sheets of brake cleaners, carburetor and air intake cleaners, engine degreasers and general purpose degreasers that are currently being used in California or were stated as being used in responses to the Automotive Service Facility Questionnaire (Automotive Survey). Table G-1. Compounds Currently Found In Automotive Consumer Products

COMPOUND NAME CAS No.1 

## VOC 2 

## TAC 3 

## Candidate TAC 4 

## URF 5 

## AREL 6 

## CREL 7



## Acetone 67641 Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates (Petroleum Naphtha) 64742898 Yes

Ammonia 7664417 Yes 3.20e+03 1.00e+02 Aromatic Solvent (petroleum) 68477316 Yes
Benzene 71432 Yes Yes 2.90e-05 1.30e+03 7.10e+01
Butane 106978 Yes
Butanol 78922 Yes Yes 2-Butoxyethanol (EGBE; Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether) 111762 Yes 1.40e+04 2.00e+01

1,2 Butylene Oxide (inhibitor) (1,2 Epoxybutane) 106887 Yes Yes 2.00e+01

Carbon Dioxide 124389
2-Chlorotoluene 95498 Yes Cyclohexane 110827 Yes Yes
Diacetone Alcohol 123422 Yes
Diesel no. 2 68476346 Yes Diethylene Glycol Mono-Butyl Ether 112345 Yes

Dimethoxymethane (inhibitor) 109875 Yes 1,3-Dioxolane 646060 Yes Dipentane 68956569 Yes Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether 34590948 Yes

# G-2

Table G-1. Compounds Currently Found In Automotive Consumer Products (cont.)

COMPOUND NAME CAS No.1 

## VOC 2 

## TAC 3 

## Candidate TAC 4 

## URF 5 

## AREL 6 

## CREL 7



## 2-Ethanol-1,3-Hexanediol 94962 Yes Ethoxylated Alkyl Amine Nonionic Surfactant 9036195 Yes

Ethyl Acetate 141786 Yes Ethyl Benzene 100414 Yes Yes 1.00e+03 Heavy Aromatic Solvent Naptha 64742945 Yes Heptane 142825 Yes
Hexane 110543 Yes Yes 2.00e+02 Hydrocarbon Propellant A-46 (Propane/ Isobutane) 68476868 Yes

Hydrocarbon Propellant A-85 684768857 Yes Hydrotreated Heavy Naphtha 64742489 Yes Hydrotreated Heavy Paraffinic Distillate (Petroleum) 64742547 Yes

Hydrotreated Light Petroleum Distillates 64742478 Yes

Isobutane 75285 Yes
Isohexane 107835 Yes Isopropyl Alcohol 67630 Yes Yes 3.20e+03 Kerosene (fuel oil #1) 8008206 Yes Light Aromatic Solvent Naphtha 64742956 Yes
d-Limonene 5989275 Yes Medium Aliphatic Solvent Naphtha 64742887 Yes
Methanol 67561 Yes Yes 2.80e+04 6.20e+02 Methyl Chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane) 71556 Yes 6.80e+04 3.20e+02

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) 78933 Yes Yes 1.30e+04 1.00e+03 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 108101 Yes Yes

# G-3

Table G-1. Compounds Currently Found In Automotive Consumer Products (cont.)

COMPOUND NAME CAS No.1 

## VOC 2 

## TAC 3 

## Candidate TAC 4 

## URF 5 

## AREL 6 

## CREL 7



## 4-Methyl-2-Pentanol (Methyl Amyl Alcohol ) 108112 Yes

n-Methyl Pyrrolidone 872504 Yes Methylene Chloride 75092 Yes 1.00e-06 1.40e+04 3.00e+03
Mineral Oil 8012951 Yes Mineral Spirits; Stoddard Solv.; Petroleum Distillates 8052413 Yes

Monochlorotoluene 25168052 Yes
Monoethanolamine 141435 Yes Monoisopropylbiphenols 25640782 Yes Morpholine 110918 Yes Naphtha (Benzin) 8030306 Yes Naphthalene 91203 Yes Yes 1.40e+01
Nonane 111842 Yes Nonionic Surfactant NP4/NP9 (p-Nonylphenol Polyethylene Glycol Ether) 26027383 Yes

9-Octadecenoic Acid (2)-Ammonium Salt 544605 Yes

Octylphenolpolyethoxylate 9004879 Yes
Oleic Acid 112801 Yes Perchloroethylene 127184 Yes 5.90e-06 2.00e+04 3.50e+01 Petroleum Products Liquified Gas Sweetened 68476868 Yes

Primary Alcohol Ethoxylate 68131395 Yes Propane 74986 Yes Propane/ Isobutane/ n-Butane 68476857 Yes 2-Propanol Titanate 546689 Yes Propylene Glycol 5131668 Yes

# G-4

Table G-1. Compounds Currently Found In Automotive Consumer Products (cont.)

COMPOUND NAME CAS No.1 

## VOC 2 

## TAC 3 

## Candidate TAC 4 

## URF 5 

## AREL 6 

## CREL 7



## Propylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether (Glycol Ether) 107982 Yes 2.00e+03

Propylene Glycol T-Butyl Ether 57018527 Yes
Sodium Benzoate 532321
Sodium Metasilicate 10213793 Tergitol np-40 (Nonylphenoxypoly(ethylene oxy)ethanol) 9016459 Yes

tert-Butyl Alcohol (inhibitor) 75650 Yes Yes Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate 7320345
Toluene 108883 Yes Yes 3.70e+04 4.00e+02 Trichloroethylene 79016 Yes Yes 2.00e-06 6.40e+02 1,2,4 Trimethylbezene 95636 Yes Yes Trimethylbenzene 25551137 Yes
Water 7732185 Xylene 1330207 Yes Yes 2.20e+04 3.00e+02 1. Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number. 2. Volatile Organic Compound as defined in the Glossary (Appendix I). 3. Substances identified as Toxic Air Contaminants by the Air Resources Board, pursuant to the provisions of AB 1807 and AB 2728, including hazardous air pollutants listed in the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (ARB, 1996). 4. Substances which are being evaluated for review as a Toxic Air Contaminant (ARB, 1996). 5. AB 2588 Hot Spots Unit Risk and Cancer Potency Values (OEHHA, 1999b). 6. Acute Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) (OEHHA, 1999a). 7. Noncancer Reference Exposure Levels (Chronic) (CAPCOA, 1993).

# G-5 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX G ARB, 1996. “Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.” California Air Resources Board. June 1996. OEHHA, 1999a. Part I The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), March 1999. OEHHA, 1999b. Part II Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), April 1999. CAPCOA, 1993. CAPCOA Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Revised 1992 Risk Assessment Guidelines, Toxics Committee of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), October 1993. U.S. EPA, 1996. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Washington , D.C., 1996.

# Appendix H Examples of Manufacturer Efficacy Claims for Non-Chlorinated Products

Note: mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

# Appendix I Glossary

# I-1

Appendix I. Glossary

Acute Exposure: One or a series of short-term exposures generally lasting less than

24 hours. Air Dispersion A mathematical model or computer simulation used to estimate the Model: concentration of toxic air pollutants at specific locations as a result of

mixing in the atmosphere.
Airborne Toxic Section 39655 of the Health and Safety Code, defines an“Airborne Toxic Control Measure: Control Measure” means either of the following:

1) Recommended methods, and, where appropriate, a range of methods, that reduce, avoid, or eliminate the emissions of a toxic air contaminant. Airborne toxic control measures include, but are not limited to, emission limitations, control technologies, the use of operational and maintenance conditions, closed system engineering, design equipment, or work practice standards, and the reduction, avoidance, or elimination of emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications. 2) Emission standards adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 112 of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412).
AMR Activities: means any service, repair, restoration, or modification activity to a motor

vehicle in which cleaning or degreasing products could be used including, but not limited to, brake work, engine work, machining operations, and general degreasing of engines, motor vehicles, parts, or tools.
AMR Facilities: means any entity or entities that repairs, rebuilds, reconditions, services, or

maintains in any way, motor vehicles. “Facility” includes entities required to be registered by the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair, and entities that service or repair a fleet of ten or more motor vehicles. “Facility” does not include private residences or entities that are involved only in motor vehicle body work or painting.
Cancer Risk: The theoretical probability of contracting cancer when exposed for a

lifetime to a given concentration of a substance usually calculated as an upper confidence limit. The maximum estimated risk may be presented as the number of chances in a million of contracting cancer.
Chlorinated means an automotive consumer product (brake cleaner, carburetor cleaner, Automotive engine degreaser, or general purpose degreaser) that contains Consumer Product: perchloroethylene (Perc), methylene chloride (MeCl), or trichloroethylene

(TCE).

# I-2

Chronic Exposure: Long-term exposure usually lasting from one year to a lifetime.
Hazardous Air Means a substance that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has Pollutant or HAP: listed in, or pursuant to, Section 112 subsection (b) of the federal Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S. Code, Section 7412(b)).
Hazard Index: The ratio of the concentration of a toxic pollutant with non-cancer health

effects and the reference exposure level for that pollutant.
Health Risk A comprehensive analysis of the dispersion of hazardous substances in the Assessment (HRA): environment, the potential for human exposure, and a quantitative

assessment of both individual and population-wide health impacts associated with the level of exposure.
Inhalation An estimate, derived by the U.S. EPA (with an uncertainty spanning Reference perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human Concentration (RfC): population, (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without

appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime of exposure. The RfC is derived from a no or lowest observed adverse effect level from human or animal exposures, to which uncertainty or “safety” factors are applied.
MEIR: Maximum exposed individual resident. The residential receptor location

that receives the estimated maximum exposure from a facility’s emissions relative to other residential locations.
MEIW: Maximum exposed individual worker. The off-site industrial or

commercial location that receives the estimated maximum exposure from a facility’s emissions relative to other industrial or commercial locations. This receptor is a subset of non-residential receptors.
Near Source The location closest to a facility where concentrations could be estimated Location: through air dispersion modeling.
Non-cancer Risk: Refers to non-cancer health effects due to acute and/or chronic exposure.

This may be illustrated as an estimate of the hazard index or total hazard index (by endpoint) resulting from exposure to toxic air pollutants.
Non-Residential A receptor that is not residentially located. This category could include Location: receptors at off-site industrial locations, at on-site locations of public

access for acute exposure, or employees at sensitive receptor locations, including but not limited to, schools, hospitals, and care facilities.

# I-3

Reference Exposure These are used as indicators of potential non-cancer adverse health effects. Level (REL): An REL is a concentration level at or below which no adverse health

effects are anticipated. RELs are designed to protect most sensitive individuals in the population by including safety factors in their development.
Risk: The possibility of injury or disease, which may result from exposure to

toxic air pollutants.
Scientific Review A nine-member panel appointed to advise the Air Resources Board Panel on Toxic Air and the Department of Pesticide Regulation in their evaluation of the Contaminants (SRP): adverse health effects toxicity of substances being evaluated as Toxic Air

Contaminants.
Toxic Air Section 39655 of the Health and Safety Code, defines a TAC as an air Contaminant (TAC) pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an

increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412(b)) is a TAC. TACs that are pesticides are regulated in their pesticidal use by the Department of Pesticide Regulation.
Total Hazard Index: The sum of hazard indices for pollutants with non-cancer health effects

that have the same or similar adverse health effects (endpoints).
Unit Risk Factor: The estimated upper-confidence limit (usually 95%) probability of a (URF): person contracting cancer as a result of a constant exposure to 1μg/m 3

# of a

substance over a 70-year lifetime. Volatile Organic Means any compound containing at least one atom of carbon, excluding Compound (VOC): carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or

carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, and excluding the following: (1) methane, methylene chloride (dichloromethane), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform), trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113), 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC-114), chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115), chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22), 1,1,1-trifluoro-2,2-dichloroethane (HCFC-123), 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b), 1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b), 2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124), trifluoromethane (HFC-23), 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134), 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a), pentafluoroethane (HFC-125), 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a), 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a), cyclic,

# I-4 branched, or linear completely methylated siloxanes, the following classes of perfluorocarbons: (A) cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated alkanes; (B) cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated ethers with no unsaturations; (C) cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated tertiary amines with no unsaturations; and (D) sulfur-containing perfluorocarbons with no unsaturations and with the sulfur bonds to carbon and fluorine, and (2) the following low-reactive organic compounds which have been exempted by the U.S. EPA: acetone, ethane, methyl acetate, parachlorobenzotrifluoride (1-chloro-4-trifluoromethyl benzene), perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene).

# I-5 Acronyms

AB Assembly Bill ARB Air Resources Board AMR Activities Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities AMR Facilities Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities APCD Air Pollution Control District AQMD Air Quality Management District ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure BAR California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Act DHS California Departent of Health Services Districts Local Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Management Districts DOF California Department of Finance DTSC California Department of Toxics Substances Control HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant HSC Health and Safety Code IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment MeCl Methylene Chloride (dichloromethane) MEIR Maximum Exposed Individual Resident MEIW Maximum Exposed Individual Worker MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet Perc Perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene) PMI Point of Maximum Impact RfC Reference Concentration RfD Reference Dose REL Reference Exposure Level SB Senate Bill SRP Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants TAC Toxic Air Contaminant TCA 1,1,1-Trichloroethane TCE Trichloroethylene URF Unit Risk Factor U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency VOC Volatile Organic Compound