# Air Toxics Hot Spots **Program Risk Assessment**
**Guidelines**

**The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual**  **for Preparation of Health**
**Risk Assessments**

August **200** 3

**Secretary for Environmental Protection California Environmental Protection Agency** 
**Winston H. Hickox**

**Director**
**Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Joan E. Denton, Ph.D.** 

# Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Environmental Protection Agency 1515 Clay Street, 16 th 

# Floor Oakland, California 94612 (510) 622-3200 The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments

August 2003

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

Editors and Project Leads: Robert Blaisdell, Ph.D. a



### Jam e s F. Collins, Ph.D., D.A.B.T. a 

### Daryn E. Dodge, Ph.D. a 

### Gregory Harris b 

### Melanie A. Marty, Ph.D. a



### Contributing Authors:

Robert Blaisdell, Ph.D. a



### Renee Coad b



### Jam e s F. Collins, Ph.D., D.A.B.T. a 

### Daryn E. Dodge, Ph.D. a 

### Gregory Harris b



### Michele Houghton b



### Michelle Kom l enic b 

### Melanie A. Marty, Ph.D. a 

### Carol McLaughlin b


### M. Beth Schwehr, M.S. b 

### Anthony Servin, P.E. b



### Glen Villa b



### Departm e ntal Reviewers: George V. Alexeeff, Ph.D., D.A.B.T. a



### Support Staff: Laurie Bliss a


### Michelle Johnson a



### Leon Surgeon a

a 

### Office of Environm ental Health Hazard Assessm ent

b 

### California Air Resources Board

i

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

ii

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessm ents. August 2003.

The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program

Guidance Manual for Preparatio n of Health Risk Assessments

Executive S u mm ary ........................................................................................................... ES-1

1. Introduction

............................................................................................................... ......... 1-1

1.1 Developm ent of Guidelines .................................................................................... 1-2

1.2 Use of the Guidance Manual ................................................................................. 1-2

1.3 Who is Required to Conduct a Risk Assessm ent .................................................... 1-3

1.4 The Hot Spots Analysis and Repor ting Program (HARP) Software ...................... 1-3

1.5 Risk Assessm e nt Review Process ........................................................................... 1-4

1.6 Uncertainty in Risk Assessm ent ............................................................................. 1-4

2. Overview of Health Risk Assessm ent ................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 The Model for Risk Assessm ent ............................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Hazard Iden tification .....

......................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Exposure Assessm ent ............................................................................................ 2-1

2.4 Dose-Response Assessment ................................................................................... 2-2

2.5 Risk Characterization ............................................................................................. 2-3

2.5.1 Point Estimate Approach ............................................................................ 2-4

2.5.2 Stochastic E xposure Assessm ent ................................................................ 2-4

2.5.3 Tiered Approach to Risk Assessm ent ......................................................... 2-5

3. Hazard Iden tification – Air Toxi cs Hot Spots Em issions ................................................... 3-1

3.1 The Air Toxics Hot Spots List of Subs tances and Em issions Inventory ................. 3-1

4. Air Dispersion Modeling .......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Air Dispersion Modeling in Exposure Assessm e n t: Overview ............................. 4-1

4.2 Em ission Inventories .............................................................................................. 4-3

i

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessm ents. August 2003.

4.2.1 Air Toxics Hot Spots Em issions ................................................................ 4-3

4.2.1.1 Em ission Estim ates Used in Risk Assessm ent ......................... 4-4

A. Molecular Weight Adjustm e nts for the Em issions of
Metal Com p ounds .......................................................... 4-4

4.2.1.2 Release Param e ters .................................................................. 4-5

4.2.1.3 Operation S c hedule .................................................................. 4-6

4.2.1.4 Em ission Controls .................................................................... 4-6

4.2.2 Landfill Emissions ........

......................................................................... 4-6

4.3 Source Characterization

.................................................................................. 4-7

4.3.1 Classification According to Source T ype ............................................... 4-7

4.3.1.1 Point Sources ........................................................................... 4-7

4.3.1.2 Line Sources ............................................................................ 4-7

4.3.1.3 Area Sources ............................................................................ 4-7

4.3.1.4 Volum e Sources ....................................................................... 4-8

4.3.2 Classification According to Quantity of Sources ...................................... 4-8

4.4 Terrain Characterization ......................................................................................... 4-8

4.4.1 Land Type Classification ....................................................................... 4-8

4.4.1.1 Land Use Procedure .................................................................. 4-9

4.4.1.2 Population Density Procedure ................................................... 4-9

4.4.2 Terrain Topography Classification .................................................... 4-11

4.4.2.1 Sim p le Terrain (also referred to as “Rolling Terrain”) ...........

... 4-11

4.4.2.2 Com p lex Terrain ........................................................................ 4-11

4.5 Level of Detail: Screeni ng vs. Refined Analysis .................................................... 4-11

4.6 Population Exposure

................................................................................................ 4-12

4.6.1 Zone of I m pact ............................................................................................. 4-12

4.6.2 Screening P opulation Estim ates for Risk Assessm e nts ............................... 4-13

ii

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessm ents. August 2003.

4.6.3 Refined Population Estim a tes for Ri sk Assessm e n ts .................................. 4-15

4.6.3.1 Census Tracts ............................................................................. 4-15

4.6.3.2 Subcensus Tract ......................................................................... 4-15

4.6.4 Sensitiv e Receptor Locations ............

.......................................................... 4-16

4.7 Receptor Siting ........................................................................................................ 4- 17

4.7.1 Receptor Po ints .............

............................................................................... 4-17

4.7.2 Centroid Locations ....................................................................................... 4-18

4.8 Meteorological Data ............................................................................................. 4-18

4.9 Model Selection ....................................................................................................... 4-2 0

4.9.1 Recommended Models ................................................................................ 4-20

4.9.2 Alternative Models

...................................................................................... 4-20

4.10 Screening A i r Dispersion Models ........................................................................ 4-23

4.10.1 SCREEN3

................................................................................................... 4-23

4.11 Refined Air Disper sion Models ............................................................................... 4-26

4.11.1 ISCST3

........................................................................................................ 4-27

4.11.1.1 Regulatory Options

.............................................................. 4-27

4.11.1.2 Special Cases ....................................................................... 4-28

a. Building Downwash ................................................ 4-28

b. Area Sources ............................................................ 4-28

c. Volum e Source ........................................................ 4-28

d. Interm ediate Terrain ................................................ 4-28

e. Deposition

................................................................ 4-28

4.11.1.3 HARP Dispersion Analysis ................................................. 4-29

4.12 Modeling S p ecial Cases; Sp ecialized Models ......................................................... 4-29

4.13 Interaction with th e District ..................................................................................... 4-29

iii

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessm ents. August 2003.

5. Exposure Assessm ent – Estim ation of Air Concentration and Dose ................................. 5-1

5.1 Introduction

............................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Criteria for Exposure Pathway Evaluation ............................................................. 5-3

5.3 Estim ation of Concentrations in Air, Soil, and Water .......................................... 5-5

5.3.1 Air

........................................................................................................... 5-5

5.3.2 Soil

........................................................................................................... 5-5

5.3.3 In W a ter .................................................................................................. 5-7

5.3.4 Estim ation of Concentrations in Vegetation and Anim al
Products .................................................................................................. 5-8

1. Vegetation

................................................................................... 5-8

2. Ani m al Products............................................................................5-10

3. Fish Products............................................................................... 5-15

5.4 Estim ation of Dose ............................................................................................... 5-15

5.4.1 Estim ation of Exposure Through Inhalation ............................................. 5-16

5.4.2 Estim ation of Exposure Through Derm al Absorption .............................. 5-17

5.4.3 Estim ation of Exposure Through Ingestion .............................................. 5-18

1. Exposure Through Ingestion of Soil ............................................. 5-18

2. Exposure Through Ingestion of W a t e r ............................................ 5-19

3. Exposure Through Ingestion of Food ........................................... 5-20

a. Plant Products ................................................................ 5-21

b. Ani m al Products (Including Fisher-caught fish................. 5-24

c. Mother’s Milk ................................................................... 5-24

5.5 References for Kow and Doc Values in Table 5.3

6. Dose-Response Assessment for N oncarcinogenic Endpoints.............................................. 6-1

6.1 Derivation of Toxicity Criteria ................................................................................ 6-1

iv

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessm ents. August 2003.

6.2 Description of Acute Reference Exposure Levels .................................................. 6-2

6.3 Description of Chronic Refe rence Exposure Levels .............................................. 6-5

6.4 Description of Chronic Or al (Noninhalation) Reference Exposure Levels ........... 6-10

7. Dose-Response Assessment for Carcinogens ..................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Introduction

............................................................................................................. 7-1

7.2 Definition o f Carcinogenic Potency ........................................................................ 7-1

7.2.1 Description of the Inhalation Cancer Potency Factor ................................. 7-1

7.2.2 Description of the Oral Ca ncer Potency Factor .......................................... 7-2

8. Risk Characterization for Carcinogens a nd Noncarcinogens and the Requirem e nts for Hot Spots Risk Assessm ents .............................................................................................. 8-1

8.1 Introduction

............................................................................................................. 8-1

8.2 Risk Characterization for Cancer Health Effects .................................................... 8-2

8.2.1 Calculating Inhalation C a ncer Risk ............................................................. 8-2

8.2.2 Calculating Cancer Risk Using Diffe rent Exposure Durations ................... 8-3

A. Residential

..................................................................................... 8-5

B. Worker

............................................................................................ 8-5

C. Uses of Exposure Duration Adjustments for On-site Receptors... ..................................................................8-6

8.2.3 Speciation for Specific Classes of Com pounds: Polycyclic Arom atic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Polychlorinated Dibenzo- p -diox i ns (PCDDs) and Dibenzofurans (PCDFs) .................................................................... 8-7

8.2.4 Determ ination of Noninhalati on (Oral) Cancer Risk .................................. 8-8

8.2.5 Evaluation o f Multipath w ay (Inha lation and Noninhalation ) Cancer
Risk ........................................................................................................... 8-9

A. Deposition Rate

............................................................. 8-9

B. Use of Air Dispersion Modeling R e sults for Pastures and Water

Risk Assessm e nt and the HARP Software.............................. 8-9

v

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessm ents. August 2003.

C. Summ ary of the Tiered Appro ach to Risk Assessm e nt ................ 8-10

D. Multip athway Cancer Risk Methodology ................................ 8-11

8.2.6 Risk Characterization for Stocha stic Risk Assessm e nt ............................. 8-12

8.3 Risk Characterization for Noncarcinogens ............................................................. 8-12

A. Evaluation of Background Criteria Pollutants ............................................ 8-14

8.3.1 Noncancer Chronic Inhalation Health Im pacts ........................................... 8-14

8.3.2 Noncancer Chronic Health Im p acts from the Oral Route ........................... 8-14

8.3.3 Evaluation o f Chronic Noncancer M u ltip athway Hazard Quotien t s and Hazard Indices .......

........................................................................ 8-15

8.3.4 Noncancer Acute Health Im pacts ............................................................... 8-15

8.4 Population-Level Risk Estim ates................................................................ 8-17

8.4.1 Carcinogenic Risk ..........................................................................8-17

8.4.2 Population Exposure Estim ates of Noncancer Health Im pacts ................... 8-18

9. Summ ary of the Requirem e nts for a M odeling Protocol and a Health Risk
Assessm ent Report.............................................................................................................. 9-1

9.1 Subm ittal of Modeli ng P r otoco l

........ ..................................................................... 9-1

9.2 Outline for a Health Risk Assessm ent Report .......

................................................. 9-3

10. References

................................................................................................................ ...........10-1

Appendices

Appendix A: Air Toxics Hot Spots Program List of Substances

A-I. Substances For W h ich Em issions Must Be Quantified

A-II Substances For W h ich Producti on, Use, Or Other Pres ence Must Be Reported

A-III Substances W h ich Need Not Be Reported Unles s Manufactured By The Facility

Appendix B: Health and Safety Code Rela ted to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program

Appendix C: Asbestos Quantity Conversion Factors

vi

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessm ents. August 2003.

Appendix D: Risk Assessm e nt Procedures to Evaluate Particulate Em issions from Diesel-Fueled Engines

Appendix E: Toxicity Equivalency F actors for Polychlorinated Dibenzo- p -Dioxins, Dibenzofurans and Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Appendix F: Overview of the Lead Risk Assessm e n t Procedures

Appendix G: PAH Potency Factors and Selecti on of Potency Equivalency Factors (PEF) for PAHs Based on Benzo[a]pyrene Potency

Appendix H: Recommendations for Estim ating C oncentrations of Longer Averaging P e riods
from the Maxim u m One-Hour Concen tration for Screening P u rposes

Appendix I: Calculation Exam ples for Estim ating Potential H ealth Im pacts

Appendix J: Glossary of Acronym s a nd Definitio ns of Selected Term s

Appendix K: HRA For m s and Maps Us ed with Air Dispersion Modeling

Appendix L: OEHHA/ARB Approve d Health Valu es for Use in Hot Spot Facility Risk
Assessm ents

L i s t o f T a b l e s P a g e

Table 4.1 Identification and Cla ssification of Land Use Types..............................4-10

Table 4.2 Recommended Air Dispersion Models.............................................4-22

Table 4.3 Recommended Factors to Convert Maxim u m 1-hour Avg. Concentrations to Other Averaging Periods...........................................................4-23

Table 4.4 Required Input Param e ters to Model a Point Source Using S CREEN3........4-24

Table 4.5 Required Input Param e ters to Model a Flare Using SCREEN3.................4-25

Table 4.6 Required Input Param e ters to Model an Area Source Using SCREEN3......4-25

Table 4.7. Required Input Param e ters to Model a Volum e Source Using SCREEN3....4-26

Table 4.8 Basic Input Param e ters Require d to Model a Point Source U s ing ISCST3...4-27

Table 5.1 Specific Pathways to be Analyzed for Each Multipathway Substance...... 5-4

Table 5.2 Point Estimates for Anim al Pathwa y............................................... 5-11

vii

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table 5.3 Substance S p ecific Default Values for Multipathway Substances.............5-14

Table 5.4 Point Estim ates for Daily Breathing Rate for 9, 30 and 70-Year Exposure Durations (DBR) (L/kg BW * Day) ...................................5-16

Table 5.5 Breathing Rate Dist ributions for 9, 30 And 70-Year Exposure
Durations for Stocha stic Analysis (L/kg BW * Day)...........................5-17

Table 5.6 Recommended Point Estim ate Values for Der m al Pathway for 9, 30 and 70 Year Exposure Durations and W o rker. 1 

### ..................... 5-18

Table 5.7 Soil Ingestion Rates (SIR) for 9, 30 And 70-Year Exposure Durati ons and Off-Site Worker........................................5-19

Table 5.8 Point Estim ate W a ter Consum ption Ingestion Rates (W IR) for 9, 30 and 70-Year Expos ure Durations (m l/kg BW * Day)....................5-20

Table 5.9 W a ter Ingestion Log norm a l Distributions for 9, 30 and 70-Year Exposure Durations (m l/kg BW * Day) (Stochastic Analysis).................5-20

Table 5.10 Point Estimates for Per Capita Food Consum ption Rates (g/kg BW * Day).....................................................................5-22

Table 5.11 Param e tric Models for Ages 0-9 Food Consum ption Distributions (g/kg BW * Day) (Sto chastic Analysis)..........................................5-22

Table 5.12 Param e tric Models for Ages 0-70 Food Consumption Distributions (g/kg BW * Day) (Sto chastic Analysis)..........................................5-23

Table 5.13 Default Values for Fisher–Caught F i sh Consumption (g/kg BW * Day)....5-23

Table 5.14 Param e tric Model for Fisher-Ca ught Fish Consumption Distribution for 9, 30 and 70-Year Exposure S cenarios (g/kg BW *Day) (Stochastic Analysis).................................................................5-23

Table 5.15 Point Estimate Values fo r Breast Milk Consum ption Rate (m l/kg BW * Day)....................................................................5-26

Table 5.16 Param e tric Model for Br east Milk Consum ption Rate for 9, 30 and 70-Year Exposure Durati ons (Stochastic Analysis)..................5-26

Table 5.17 References for Kow Values..........................................................5-26

Table 5.18 References for Koc Values...........................................................5-26

Table 6.1 Acute Reference Exposure Le vels and Target Orga n System s I m pacted......6-3

viii

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table 6.2 Chronic Inhalation Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) and Chronic..........6-6 Hazard Index Target Organ System (s)

Table 6.3. Chronic Noninhalation ‘Ora l’ Reference Exposure Levels (RELs)
and Chronic Hazard I ndex Target Organ System (s)..............................6-12

Table 7.1 Inhalation and Oral Cancer Potency Factors.......................................7-3

Table 8.1 Tiers for Cancer and Non cancer Hot Spots Risk Assessm ents .......... .......8-2

Table 8.2 Adjustm e nt Factors to Convert Inhalation Based Cancer Risk Estim ates for a Residential Receptor to a W o rker Recepto r ................................ 8-6

Table 8.3 Mandatory and Site /Route Dependant Exposure Pathways .....................8-8

Table E-1 Toxicity Equivalency Factors: Chlorinated Dibenzo- p -Dioxins & Dibenzofurans (Relativ e To 2,3,7,8-TCDD).......................................E-2

Table F-1 Percentage of Child ren with Blood Lead Levels ≥ 10 μ g/dl for
Various Air Lead Concentrations at Two Exposure Scenarios..................F-3

Table G-1 Potencies of P AHs and Derivatives.................................................G-2

Table G-2 OEHHA PE F W e i ghting Schem e for PAHs and Their Resulting Cancer Potency Values................................................................G-3

Table H.1 Recommended Factors to Convert Maxim u m 1-Hour Average
Concentrations to Other Averaging Periods........................................H-2

Table H.2 Recommended Factors to Convert Maxim u m 1-Hour Average
Concentrations to Non-Sta ndard Averaging Periods..............................H-3

Table H.3 Maxim u m Annual Average Concentration ( χ /Q) Above
Am bient Conditions - B u rning Barrel Em issions...................................H-11

Table I.1 Annual Average Concentrati ons at the MEIR and Inhalation Cancer Potency Factors.................................................................I-2

Table I.2 Recommended Default Values.........................................................I-3

Table I.3 Calculated Do ses for Substances...................................................... I-3

ix

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table I.4 Hypothetical Facility In halation Can cer Risk... ....................................I-4

Table I.5 Concentrations, Acute RELs, and Target Organ System (s)
for Substances at the ME IR............................................................I-5

Table I.6 Individu al H azard Q uotients and Total Hazard In dex..............................I-6

Table I.7 Annual Average Concentr ations, Chronic RELs, and Target Organ System s for Substances at the MEIR.............................. .........I-8

Table I.8 Substance-S p ecific Inh a lation and N oninhalation Hazard Quotien t s and the Hazard Index by Target Organ System ..................... .............I-10

Table L1 OEHHA/ARB Health Values fo r Use in Hot Spot Facility Risk
Assessm ents.............................................................................L-3

Table L2 OEHHA/ARB Acute R e ference Exposure Values for Use in Hot Spot Facility Risk Assessm ents......................................................L-17

Table L3 OEHHA/ARB Chronic Inhalati on A nd Oral Reference Exposure Levels And Target Organs............................................................L-21

List of Figu res Page

Figure 1 Overview of the Air Dispersion Modeling Process.................................4-2
Figure H.1 Screening F actors to Convert 1-Hr Max. to Longer Avg. Periods...............H-2 Figure H.2 Hourly W i nd Direction - Los Angeles (January and June)........................H-4

Appendix K

Figure 1 Census Tracts View 1...................................................................K-2
Figure 2 Census Tracts View 2...................................................................K-3
Figure 4 USGS 7.5 MinuteT opographic Map...................................................K-4

x

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

ES

- 1 

## Executive Summary

The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2003) (Guidance Manual) is a concise description of the algorithms, recommended exposure variates, and cancer and noncancer health valu es needed to perform a health risk assessment (HRA) under the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (Hot Spots or AB 2588) (AB 2588, Connelly, Statutes of 1987; Health and Safety Code

Section 44300 et seq.) (see Appendix B). The info rmation presented in the Guidance Manual is a compilation of information presented in the four technical support documents (TSDs) released by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) for the Hot Spots Program. The four TSDs underwent p ublic comment and peer review and were adopted for use in the Air Toxics Hot Spots program by the Director of OEHHA. These four TSDs present detailed information on cancer and noncancer health effects values and exposure pathway information. Excerpts of these four documents are presented in this document. All four TSDs are available on OEHHA’s web site at www.oehha.ca.gov . There is relatively little new information in the Guidance Manual since the previously adopt

ed TSDs form the basis of the Guidance Manual.

The Guidance Manual supercedes the risk assessment methods presented in The California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program; Revised 1992; Risk Assessment Guidel ines, October 1993 (CAPCOA, 1993). The Guidance Manual scientifically updates health effects values, exposure pathway variates (e.g., breathing rates), and presents a tiered approach for performing HRAs. The tiered approach provides a risk assessor with flexibility and allows consideration of site

- specific differences. Furthermore, risk assessors can tailor the level of effort and refinement of an HRA by using the point

- estimate exposure assumptions or the

stochastic treatment of data distributions. The four

- tiered approach to risk assessment primarily applies to residential cancer risk assessment. OEHHA is not recommending a stochastic approach (Tier

- 3 and

Tier

- 4) for worker receptors or for noncancer chronic evaluations. Only Tier

- 1 applies to acute exposure evaluations. Compared to the CAPCOA 1993 document, the exposure pathways in the Guidance Manual remain the same, the exposure algorithms are similar, and risk algorithms have been revised to accept the data needed for the tiered risk assessment a pproach.

The Guidance Manual also contains example calculations and an outline for a modeling protocol and a HRA report. A software program, the Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP), has been developed by a contractor in consultation with OEH HA, the Air Resources Board (ARB), and the Air Pollution Control or Air Quality Management District (District) representatives. The HARP software is the recommended model for calculating and presenting HRA results for the Hot Spots Program.

Information o n obtaining the HARP software can be found on the ARB’s web site at www.arb.ca.gov under the Hot Spots Program

. The intent in developing this Guidance Manual and the HARP software is to provide consistent

risk assessm

ent procedures. The use of consistent risk assessment methods and report presentation has many benefits, such as, expediting the preparation and review of HRAs, minimizing revision and resubmission of HRAs, allowing a format for facility comparisons, and cost

- effective implementation of

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

ES

- 2 HRAs and the Hot Spots Program. Risk assessments prepared with this Guidance Manual may be used for permitting new or modified stationary sources, or public notification, and risk reduction requirements of the Hot Spots Pr ogram.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

1

- 1 

## 1. Introduction

1.1 Development of Guidelines

The Hot Spots Act is designed to provide information to state and local agencies and to the general public on the extent of airborne emissions from stationary sources and the potential public h ealth impacts of those emissions. The Hot Spots Act requires that OEHHA develop risk assessment guidelines for the Hot Spots program (Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 44360(b)(2)) (see Appendix B for the text of the HSC). In addition, the Hot Spots A ct specifically requires OEHHA to develop a “likelihood of risks” approach to health risk assessment. In response, OEHHA developed a tiered approach to risk assessment where a point

- estimate approach is first employed. If a more detailed analysis is need

ed, OEHHA has developed a stochastic, or probabilistic, approach using exposure factor distributions that can be applied in a stochastic estimate of the exposure. A detailed presentation of the tiered approach, risk assessment algorithms, selected exposur e variates (e.g., breathing rate), and distributions with a literature review is presented in the Air Toxics Hot Spots
Risk Assessment Guidelines ; Part IV; Exposure Assessment and Stochastic Analysis Technical Support Document (OEHHA, 2000b) (Part IV TSD). A summary of this information can be found in Chapter 5 of this document.

Cancer and noncancer (acute and chronic) dose

- response relationships (health effects values) for many Hot Spots substances are presented in the first three Technical Support Doc uments. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part I; The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants (OEHHA, 1999a) presents acute Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) for 51 toxicants and toxicant compound classes. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part II; Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors (OEHHA, 1999b and 2002) contains inhalation cancer potency factors and oral cancer potency factors fo r 122 toxicants and toxicant compound classes developed by OEHHA or developed by other authoritative bodies and endorsed by OEHHA. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part III; Technical Support Document for the Determination of N

oncancer Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (OEHHA, 2000a) documents the development of chronic noncancer inhalation RELs for 72 toxicants and toxicant classes. The OEHHA website ( www.oehha.ca.gov ) should be consulted for chronic RELs adopted subsequent to (OEHHA, 2000a). In addition, for a small subset of these substances that are subject to airborne deposition and hence human oral and dermal exposure, oral chronic RELs are presented. A summary of cancer and

noncancer health effects values can be found i n Appendix L and Chapters 6 and 7 of the Guidance Manual. All four Technical Support Documents have undergone public and peer review and have been endorsed by the state’s Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants and adopted by OEHHA.

The Guidanc e Manual has also undergone the same public and peer review process.

The Guidance Manual contains a concise description of the algorithms, recommended exposure variates, and cancer and noncancer health values needed to perform a Hot Spots risk assessment under the Hot Spots Act (see Appendix B). The information for the Guidance Manual is taken from the other

four TSDs. The Guidance Manual is the successor document to The CAPCOA Air Toxics “Hot

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

1

- 2 Spots” Program; Revised 1992; Risk Assessment Guidelines, Oc tober 1993 prepared by CAPCOA (CAPCOA, 1993). The Guidance Manual scientifically updates risk assessment variates and presents a tiered approach including a stochastic as well as a point

- estimate approach to exposure and risk assessment. The exposure pat hways remain the same and the algorithms are similar to the
1993 CAPCOA document.

The Guidance Manual is intended to address health risks from airborne contaminants released by stationary sources. Some of the methodology used is common to other regul atory risk assessment applications, particularly for California programs. However, if the reader needs to prepare an HRA under another program, the HRA may need additional analyses. Therefore, appropriate California and federal agencies should be contact ed. For example, if a facility must comply with HRA requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the California Department of Toxic Substances Co ntrol (DTSC) must be contacted to determine if an HRA written to comply with AB 2588 will also satisfy RCRA/CERCLA requirements.

1.2 Use of the Guidance Manual

The intent in developing this Guidance Manual is to provide HRA procedures for use in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program or for the permitting of new or modified stationary sources. See the ARB’s

website at www.arb.ca.gov for more information on the Hot Spots Program and for risk management guidelines that provid e recommendations for permitting new or modified stationary sources. The use of consistent risk assessment procedures and report presentation allows comparison of one facility to another, expedites the review of HRAs by reviewing agencies, and minimizes r evision and resubmission of HRAs. However, OEHHA recognizes that no one risk assessment procedure or set of exposure variates could perfectly address the many types of stationary facilities in diverse locations in California. Therefore

a tiered risk asse ssment approach was developed to provide flexibility and allow consideration of site

specific differences.

These guidelines should be used in conjunction with the emission data collected and reported pursuant to requirements of the ARB’s Emission Inven tory Criteria and Guidelines Regulations (Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Sections 93300

- 93300.5 ), and the Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Report for the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program (EICG Report), which is incorporated by reference therein (ARB, 1997 ) . This regulation outlines requirements for the collection of emission data, based on an inventory plan, which must be approved by the Air Pollution Control or Air Quality Management District (District). The emissions reported under th is program are routine or predictable and include continuous and intermittent releases and predictable process upsets or leaks. Emissions for unpredictable releases (e.g., accidental catastrophic releases) are not reported under this

program.

For landfi ll sites, these guidelines should be applied to the results of the landfill testing required under Health and Safety Code Section 41805.5 as well as to any emissions reported under the emission

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

1

- 3 inventory requirements of the Air Toxics Hot Spots Act (e.g., from flares or other on

- site equipment). Districts should be consulted to determine the specific landfill testing data to be used.

1.3 Who is Required to Conduct a Risk Assessment

The Hot Spots Act requires that each local District determine which faci lities will prepare an HRA. As defined under the Hot Spots Act, an HRA includes a comprehensive analysis of the dispersion of hazardous substances in the environment, their potential for human exposure, and a quantitative

assessment of both individual and populationwide health risks associated with those levels of exposure.

Districts are to determine which facilities will prepare an HRA based on a prioritization process outlined in the law. The process by which Districts identify priority facilities fo r risk assessment involves consideration of potency, toxicity, quantity of emissions, and proximity to sensitive receptors such as hospitals, daycare centers, schools, work

- sites, and residences. The District may also consider other factors that may contr

ibute to an increased potential for significant risk to human receptors. As part of this process Districts are to categorize facilities as high, intermediate, or low priority. The District prioritization process is described in the CAPCOA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Facility Prioritization Guidelines, July 1990 (CAPCOA, 1990) . Consult the District for updates to the Prioritization Guidelines. See the Hot Spots Program on ARB’s web site at www.arb.ca.gov for more inf ormation on facility prioritization procedures.

Facilities designated by a District as “high priority” are required to submit an HRA to the District within 150 days. Districts may grant a 30

- day extension. However, a District may require any facility t o prepare and submit an HRA according to the District priorities established for purposes of the Hot Spots

Act.

1.4 The Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) Software

The ARB and the Districts have identified a critical need for software to a ssist with the programmatic aspects of the Hot Spots Program. HARP is a single integrated software package used by the ARB, OEHHA, Districts, and facility operators to promote statewide consistency, efficiency, and

cost

- effective implementation of HRAs an d the Hot Spots Program. The HARP software package consists of three modules that include: 1) the Emissions Inventory Database Module, 2) the Air Dispersion Modeling Module, and 3) the Risk Analysis and Mapping Module. The user

- friendly Windows

- based

pac kage provides for:

1. Electronic implementation of the risk assessment methods presented in the OEHHA guidelines (Guidance Manual);

2. Electronic data transfer from facilities and Districts;

3. The production of reports;

4. Facility prioritization and identification;

5. Air dispersion modeling (ISCST3) of multiple emission releases or facilities for cumulative impact evaluations;

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

1

- 4 6. A summary report of acute and chronic health hazard quotients or indices, and cancer risk at the point of maximum impact (PMI), maximally expos ed individual resident (MEIR), and the maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW). (Other receptors may be evaluated as needed.);

7. Mapping displays of facility property boundaries, risk isopleths, street maps, and elevation

contours;
8. The ability to displa y combined risk contours from multiple facilities;

9. Output of data for use in other “off

- the

- shelf” Geographic Information Systems (GIS) programs for additional types of analysis; and

10. Census data for determining the number of people exposed at various canc er risk levels and

cancer burden.

1.5 Risk Assessment Review Process

The Hot Spots Act risk assessments are reviewed by the local District and by OEHHA. The Districts focus their review on the emissions data and the air dispersion modeling. OEHHA prov ides comments on the HRA’s general concordance with the Guidelines Manual and the completeness of the reported health risks. The District, taking into account the comments of OEHHA, approves the HRA or returns it to the facility for revision and resubmiss ion. If the HRA is not revised and resubmitted by the facility within 60 days, the District may modify the HRA and approve it as modified. Based on the approved HRA, the District determines if there is a significant health risk associated with emissions from the facility. If the District determines that facility emissions pose a significant health risk, the facility operator provides notice to all exposed individuals regarding the results of the HRA and may be required to take steps to reduce emissions b y implementing a risk reduction audit and plan. Notification is to be made according to procedures specified by the District. Each District determines its own levels of significance for cancer and noncancer health effects for notification and risk reduct ion. See the Hot Spots Program on ARB’s web site at www.arb.ca.gov for more information on significance levels selected by each District.

1.6 Uncertainty in Risk Assessment

OEHHA has striven to use the best science available in developing these risk assessment guidelines. However, there is a great deal of uncertainty associated with the process of risk assessment. The uncertainty arises from lack of data in many areas necessitating the use of assumptions. The

assu mptions used in these guidelines are designed to err on the side of health protection in order to avoid underestimation of risk to the public. Sources of uncertainty, which may either overestimate or underestimate risk, include: 1) extrapolation of toxici ty data in animals to humans, 2) uncertainty in the estimation of emissions, 3) uncertainty in the air dispersion models, and 4) uncertainty in the exposure estimates. Uncertainty may be defined as what is not known and may be reduced with further scienti fic studies. In addition to uncertainty, there is a natural range or variability in the human population in such properties as height, weight, and susceptibility to chemical toxicants. Scientific studies with representative individuals and large enough s ample size can characterize this variability.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

1

- 5 Interactive effects of exposure to more than one carcinogen or toxicant are also not necessarily quantified in the HRA. Cancer risks from all emitted carcinogens are typically added, and hazard quotients f or substances impacting the same target organ/system are added to determine the hazard index (HI). Many examples of additivity and synergism (interactive effects greater than additive) are known. For substances that act synergistically, the HRA could und erestimate the risks. Some substances may have antagonistic effects (lessen the toxic effects produced by another substance). For substances that act antagonistically, the HRA could overestimate the risks.

Other sources of uncertainty, which may under estimate or overestimate risk, can be found in exposure estimates where little or no data are available (e.g., soil half

- life and dermal penetration of some substances from a soil matrix).

The differences among species and within human populations usually cannot be easily quantified and incorporated into risk assessments. Factors including metabolism, target site sensitivity, diet, immunological responses, and genetics may influence the response to toxicants. The human population is

much more diverse bot

h genetically and culturally (e.g., lifestyle, diet) than inbred experimental animals. The intraspecies variability among humans is expected to be much greater than in laboratory animals. Adjustment for tumors at multiple sites induced by some carcinogen s could result in a higher potency. Other uncertainties arise 1) in the assumptions underlying the dose

- response model used, and 2) in extrapolating from large experimental doses, where, for example, other toxic effects may compromise the

assessment of ca

rcinogenic potential, to usually much smaller environmental doses. Also, only single tumor sites induced by a substance are usually considered. When epidemiological data are used to generate a carcinogenic potency, less uncertainty is involved in the ext rapolation from workplace exposures to environmental exposures. However, children, a subpopulation whose hematological, nervous, endocrine, and immune systems, for example, are still developing and who may be more sensitive to the effects of carcinogens o n their developing systems, are not included in the worker population and risk estimates based on occupational epidemiological data are more uncertain for children than adults. Finally, the quantification of each uncertainty applied in the estimate of ca ncer potency is itself uncertain.

Thus, risk estimates generated by an HRA should not be interpreted as the expected rates of disease in the exposed population but rather as estimates of potential risk, based on current knowledge and a number of assumpt

ions. Additionally, the uncertainty factors integrated within the estimates of noncancer RELs are meant to err on the side of public health protection in order to avoid underestimation of risk. Risk assessment is best used as a ruler to compare one sourc e with another and to prioritize concerns. Consistent approaches to risk assessment are necessary to fulfill this function.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

2

- 1 

## 2. Overview of Health Risk Assessment

2.1 The Model for Risk Assessment

The standard approach currently used for health risk assessment (HRA) was originally proposed by the National Academy of Sciences in the 1983 book: Risk Assessment in the Federa l Government: Managing the Process (NAS, 1983) and was updated in the Academy’s 1994 book: Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment (NAS, 1994). The four steps involved in the risk assessment process are 1) hazard identification, 2) exposure assessment, 3) dose

- response assessment, and 4) risk characterization. These four steps are briefly discussed below.

2.2 Hazard Identification

For air toxics sources, hazard identification involves identifying if a hazard exists, and if so, what are the exact pollut ant(s) of concern and whether a pollutant is a potential human carcinogen or is associated with other types of adverse health effects. For the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program (Hot Spots), the emitted substances that are addressed in a risk assessment are fou nd in the list of hazardous substances designated in the ARB’s Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Regulations (Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Sections 93300

- 93300.5), and the Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Report (EICG Report ), which is incorporated by reference therein (ARB,

1997 ) . This list of substances is contained in Appendix A of this document and the EICG Report. The list of substances also identifies those substances that are considered human carcinogens or potential human carcinogens.

2.3 Exposure Assessment

The purpose of the exposure assessment is to estimate the extent of public exposure to each substance for which potential cancer risk or acute and chronic noncancer effects will be evaluated. This

involves emission quantification, modeling of environmental transport, evaluation of environmental fate, identification of exposure routes, identification of exposed populations, and estimation of short

- term and long

- term exposure levels. These activities are desc ribed in Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 5 also discusses the tiered approach to risk assessment.

The ARB’s EICG Report provides assistance in determining those substances that must be evaluated in an HRA and the reporting requirements of facilities, while t he Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) software can be used to model ground level concentrations at specific off

site locations resulting from facility emissions. Currently, the most commonly used air modeling software is the ISCST3 (Industria l Source Complex Dispersion Model). This air modeling software is incorporated into HARP, which allows the user to input all dispersion parameters directly into the program to generate air dispersion data. Alternatively, the air dispersion data may be ge nerated separately from HARP using other air dispersion models, and then imported into HARP to generate risk estimates. Data imported into HARP must already be in the format required by HARP. HARP has the

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

2

- 2 flexibility to generate a summary of the risk dat a necessary for an HRA by either of the above approaches.

Most of the toxicants assessed under the Hot Spots program are volatile organic compounds that remain as gases when emitted into the air. These chemicals are not subject to appreciable deposition to soil, surface waters, or plants. Therefore, human exposure does not occur to any appreciable extent via ingestion or dermal exposure. Significant exposure to these volatile organic toxicants emitted into the air only occurs through the inhalation path way. A small subset of Hot Spots substances, semi

- volatile organic and metal toxicants, is emitted partially or totally as particles subject to deposition. Ingestion and dermal pathways as well as the inhalation pathway must be evaluated for

these chemic als. Table 5.1 in Chapter 5, Table 6.3 in Chapter 6, and Table 7.1 in Chapter 7 list the substances that must be evaluated for multipathway impacts. HARP is designed to assess potential health impacts posed by substances that must be analyzed by a multip athway approach.

2.4 Dose

- Response Assessment

Dose

- response assessment is the process of characterizing the relationship between exposure to an agent and incidence of an adverse health effect in exposed populations. In quantitative carcinogenic

risk asse ssment, the dose

- response relationship is expressed in terms of a potency slope that is used to calculate the probability or risk of cancer associated with an estimated exposure. Cancer potency factors are expressed as the 95 th 

### percent upper confidence li mit of the slope of the dose response curve estimated assuming continuous lifetime exposure to a substance at a dose of one milligram per kilogram of body weight

- day and commonly expressed in units of inverse dose (i.e., (mg/kg/day)

- 1 

### ). It is

assumed in cancer risk assessments that risk is directly proportional to dose and that there is no threshold for carcinogenesis. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has compiled cancer potency factors, which should be used in risk assessment s for the Hot Spots program,

in Table 7.1. For clarity, consistency, and to assure proper use in risk assessment, cancer potencies should not be modified. Cancer potency factors listed in Table 7.1 were derived either by the United

States Environmental P

rotection Agency (U.S. EPA) or by OEHHA and underwent public and peer

review and were adopted for use in the program. Chapter 8 describes procedures for use of potency values in estimating excess cancer risk. For a detailed description of cancer potency factors, refer to The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part II; Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors (OEHHA, 1999b and 2002).

For noncarcinogenic effects, dose

- response data developed from animal or human studies are used to develop acute and chronic noncancer Reference Exposure Levels (RELs). The acute and

chronic RELs are defined as the concentration at which no adverse noncancer adverse health effects are anticipated. The most sensitive health effect is chosen to determine the REL if the chemical affects multiple organ systems. Unlike cancer health effects, noncancer acute and chronic health effects are generally assumed to have thresholds for adverse effects. In other words, acute or chronic injury from a pollutant will not occur until exposure to that pollutant has reached or exceeded a certain concentration (i.e., threshold). The acute and chronic RELs are intended to be below the threshold for health effects for the general populat

ion. The actual threshold for health effects in the general population is generally

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

2

- 3 not known with any precision. Uncertainty factors are applied to the Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Level (LOAEL) or No Observed Adverse Effects Level (NOAEL) or Benchma rk Concentration values from animal or human studies to help ensure that the chronic and acute REL values are below the threshold for human health for nearly all individuals. This guidance manual provides the acute and chronic Reference Exposure Levels in Tables 6.1 and 6.2, respectively. Some substances that pose a chronic inhalation hazard may also present a chronic hazard via non

- inhalation routes of exposure (e.g., ingestion of contaminated water, foods, or soils, and dermal absorption). The ‘oral’ R ELs for these substances are presented in Table 6.3. The methodology and derivations for acute and chronic RELs

are described in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part I; The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants (Part I TSD) (OEHHA 1999a) and Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part III; Technical Support Document for the Determination of Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (Part III TSD)(OEHHA 2000a).

2.5 Risk Characterizati on

This is the final step of risk assessment. In this step, modeled concentrations and public exposure information, which are determined through exposure assessment, are combined with potency factors and RELs that are developed through dose

- response ass essment. The use of cancer potency factors to assess total cancer risk and the use of the hazard index approach for evaluating the potential for noncarcinogenic health effects are described in Chapter 8. Example calculations for determining (inhalation) cancer risk and acute and chronic hazard quotients and hazard indices are presented in Appendix I. Chapter 9 provides an outline that specifies the content and recommended format of HRA

results.

Under the Hot Spots Act, health risk assessments are to qu antify both individual and population

- wide health impacts (Health and Safety Code, Section 44306). The health risk assessments are facility specific and the calculated risk should be combined for all pollutants emitted by a single facility. For example, cancer risk from multiple carcinogens is considered additive. For exposures to multiple non

- carcinogen pollutants, a hazard index approach is applied for air contaminants affecting the same organ system. Any emitted toxicant, that is not included in the quantitative analysis due to lack of a potency value or REL, should be qualitatively identified.

For assessing risk, OEHHA has developed two methods for determining dose via inhalation, dermal absorption, and ingestion pathways. These two methods, the point

- estimate approach and the stochastic exposure assessment approach, are described below and in Chapters 5 and 8. Detailed presentations of these methods can be found in The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part IV; Technical S upport Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic Analysis (OEHHA, 2000b) (Part IV TSD).

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

2

- 4 2.5.1 Point

- Estimate Approach

The traditional approach used in the previous California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) Air Toxics Hot Sp ots Program; Revised 1992; Risk Assessment Guidelines, October 1993 (CAPCOA, 1993) (CAPCOA Guidelines) for exposure and risk assessment has been to assign a single high

- end point

- estimate for each exposure pathway (e.g., breathing rate). A high

- end value was generally chosen so that the potential cancer risk will not be underestimated. However, in the past, the high

- end point

- estimate has not been well defined as to where it fell on a data distribution. An improvement over the single point

- estimate appro ach is to select two values, one representing an average and another representing a defined high

- end value. OEHHA provides information in this document on average and high

- end values for key exposure pathways (e.g., breathing rate). The average and high

- end of point

- estimates in this document are defined in terms of the probability distribution of values for that variate. The mean represents the average values for point

estimates and the 95 th 

### percentiles represent the high

- end point

- estimates from the di stributions identified in OEHHA (2000b). Thus, within the limitations of the data, average, and high

- end point

- estimates are supported by the distribution.

Tier

- 1 of the tiered approach to risk assessment, which is briefly discussed in Section 2.5.3 and presented in more detail in Chapter 8, utilizes a combination of the average and high

- end point

- estimates to more realistically estimate exposure. This method uses high

- end exposure estimates for driving exposure pathways and the average point

- estimate fo r non

- driving exposure pathways. The HARP software can perform this analysis.

In addition to using an estimate of average and high

- end consumption rates, cancer risk evaluations for 9, 30, and 70

- year exposure durations can be presented instead of just a single 70

- year exposure duration. While 9 and 30

- year exposure durations are available to present potential impacts over a range of residency periods, all HRAs must present the results based on 70

- year exposure. The

9

- and 30

- year durations correspond to the central tendency and high

- end estimates for residency time recommended by (U.S. EPA, 1997b). The parameters used for the 9

- year exposure scenario are for
the first 9

- years of life and are thus protective of children. Children have higher intake rate s on a per kilogram body weight basis and thus receive a higher dose from contaminated media. See Chapter 5 for the point

- estimates that can be used to estimate impacts for children. Chapters 5 and 8 discuss how

to calculate cancer risk based on various exposure durations and point

- estimates. Appendix I contains an example calculation and Chapter 9 clarifies how to present the findings in an HRA.

2.5.2 Stochastic Exposure Assessment

OEHHA was directed under Senate Bill (SB) 1731 to develop a “likelihoo d of risk” approach to risk assessment. To satisfy this requirement, OEHHA developed a stochastic approach to risk assessment that utilizes distributions for exposure variates such as breathing rate and water consumption rate rather than a single point

- es timate. The variability in exposure can be propagated through the risk assessment model using the distributions as input and a Monte Carlo or similar method. The result of such an analysis is a range of risks that at least partially characterizes variabi lity in exposure.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

2

- 5 Distributions of key exposure variates that are presented in the Part IV TSD were taken from the literature, if adequate, or developed from raw data of original studies. Intake variates such as vegetable consumption are relatively da ta rich; for these variates reasonable probability distributions can be constructed. However, the data necessary to characterize the variability in risk assessment variates are not always available. For example, for the fate and transport parameters (e.g ., fish bioconcentration factors), there are only a few measurements available which precludes the adequate characterization of a probability distribution. We only developed distributions for those key exposure variates that were adequately characterized by data. Development of distributions is described in detail in the Part IV

TSD.

2.5.3 T iered A pproach to R isk A ssessment

OEHHA recommends using a tiered approach to risk assessment. Tier

- 1 is a standard point

estimate approach using the recommended point

- estimates presented in this document. If site

- specific information is available to modify some point

- estimates developed in the Part IV TSD and is more appropriate to use than the recommended point

- estimates in this document, then Tier

- 2 allows use of

that site

- specific information. In Tier

- 3, a stochastic approach to exposure assessment is used with the data distributions developed in Part IV TSD and presented in this document. Tier

- 4 is also a stochastic approach but allows for utilization of sit e

- specific distributions, if they are justifiable and more appropriate for the site under evaluation than those recommended in this document. Persons preparing

an HRA that has a Tier

- 2 through Tier

- 4 evaluation must also include the results of a Tier

- 1 ev aluation.

Tier

- 1 evaluations are required for all HRAs prepared for the Hot Spots Program. Chapter 8 provides a summary of the tiered approach and the Part IV TSD discusses it in detail. Chapter 9 provides an outline that specifies the content and recom mended format of HRA results.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

3

- 1 

## 3. Hazard Identification

- Air Toxics H ot S pots E missions

3.1 The Air Toxics Hot Spots List of Substances and Emissions Inventory

For air toxics sources, hazard identification involves identifying pollutants of concern and whether these pollutants are po tential human carcinogens or associated with other types of adverse health effects. For the Air Toxics Hot Spots (Hot Spots) Program, the emitted substances that are addressed in a health risk assessment (HRA) are found in the list of hazardous substances designated in the Air Resources Board’s (ARB’s) Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Regulations (Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Sections 93300

- 93300.5), and the Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Report (EICG Report), which is in corporated by reference therein (ARB,

1997 ) . This list of substances is contained in Appendix A of this document and the EICG Report. The list of substances also identifies those substances that are considered human carcinogens or potential

human carcino gens.

The substances included on the Hot Spots Program list of substances are defined in the statute as those substances found on lists developed by the following sources:

• 

### International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC);

• 

### U.S. Environmental Protectio n Agency (U.S. EPA);

• 

### U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP);

• 

### ARB Toxic Air Contaminant Identification Program List;

• 

### Hazard Evaluation System and Information Service (HESIS) (State of California);

• 

### Proposition 65 Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 list of carcinogens and reproductive toxicants (State of California).

All substances emitted by the facility that are on the Hot Spots Act list of substances must be

identified in the HRA.

The ARB EICG Report specifies that each facility subject to the Hot Spots Act must submit an Emission Inventory Report to the local air pollution control or air quality management district. This Emission Inventory Report must identify and account for all listed substances used, manufactured, formulated, or rel

eased by the facility. All routine, predictable releases must be reported. These inventory reports include the emission data necessary to estimate off

- site levels of facility

- released Hot Spots substances. These inventory reports will be discussed in fu rther detail in Chapter 4. See Chapter 9 for an outline that specifies the content and recommended format for presenting the air dispersion modeling and HRA results. As presented in Appendix A, the EICG Report divides the list into three groups for repor

ting purposes. Potency or severity of toxic effects and potential for facility emission were considered in placing compounds into the three groups.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

3

- 2 For the first group (listed in these guidelines in Appendix A

- I), all emissions of these substances

must b e quantified in the HRA. For substances in the second group (listed in these guidelines in Appendix

A

- II), emissions are not quantified; however, facilities must report whether the substance is used, produced, or otherwise present on

- site (i.e., these sub stances are simply listed in a table in the HRA). Lastly, substances in the third group (Appendix A

- III) also only need to be reported in a table in the HRA if they are manufactured by the reporting facility.

Facilities that must comply with the Resourc e Conservation and Recovery Act and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (RCRA/CERCLA) requirements for risk assessment need to consult the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Remedial Project Manager to determine which substances must be evaluated in their risk assessment. Some RCRA/CERCLA facilities may emit substances which are not currently listed under the Hot Spots Program but which may require evaluation in a RCRA/CERCLA risk assessment.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 1 

## 4. Air Dispersion Modeling

The information contained in this section is primarily an abbreviated version of the material found in Chapter II of the Air Toxics Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines ; Part IV; Exposure Assessment and Stochastic Analysis Tec hnical Support Document (OEHHA, 2000b) (Part IV TSD). Several references have been included in this section to indicate those areas that are covered in more detail in the Part IV TSD. However, some air dispersion concepts and procedures have been

added o r updated to assist the reader in the health risk assessment (HRA) process. In particular, a brief summary of the Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) software applicability to air dispersion analysis has been included. The HARP software has b een developed by a contractor through the consultation of OEHHA, Air Resources Board (ARB), and Air Pollution Control or Air Quality Management District (District) representatives. The HARP software is the recommended model for calculating and presenting HRA results for the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program (Hot Spots). Information on obtaining the HARP software can be found under the Hot Spots Program on the ARB’s

web site at www.arb.ca.gov

. See Chapter 9 for an outline t hat specifies the content and recommended format for presenting the air dispersion modeling and HRA results.

Additionally, there are many direct references to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) ISCST3 air dispersion model. Rec ently the U.S. EPA has been promoting a new air dispersion model to effectively replace the ISCST3 model. Currently this new model, AERMOD, is available for testing and review. Once the U.S. EPA adopts the AERMOD air dispersion model into

their list of r

egulatory approved models, the references and recommendations to specific models in this document are likely to change.

4.1 Air Dispersion Modeling in Exposure Assessment: Overview

The concentration of pollutants in ambient air is needed to characteri ze both inhalation and noninhalation exposure pathways. Pollutant concentrations are required in HRA calculations to estimate the potential cancer risk or hazard indices associated with the emissions of any given facility. Although monitoring of a pollut ant provides excellent characterization of its concentrations, it is time consuming, costly, and typically limited to a few receptor locations and snapshots in time. Air dispersion modeling has the advantage of being relatively inexpensive and is less tim e consuming, provided that all the model inputs are available. In addition, air dispersion modeling provides greater flexibility for placement of receptors, assessment of individual and cumulative source contributions, and characterization of

concentratio n over greater spatial extents.

Air dispersion modeling requires the execution of the following steps (see Fig 1):

1. Complete an emission inventory of the toxic releases (Section 4.2);

2. Classify the emissions according to source type and source quant ity (Section 4.3);

3. Classify the analysis according to terrain (Section 4.4);

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 2

Figure 1. Overview of the Air Dispersion Modeling Process.

1. Collect Data from Emissions Inventory (Section 4.2)

2. Classify Emissions According to Source Type and Qu antity (Section 4.3)

3. Classify Analysis According to Terrain (Section 4.4)

4. Determine Level of Detail for Analysis: Screening or Refined (Section 4.5)

5. Describe Population Exposure (Section 4.6)

6. Determine Receptor Locations (Sect ion 4.7)

7. Obtain Meteorological Data (Section 4.8)*

8. Select an Air Dispersion Model (Section 4.9)

9. Prepare Modeling Protocol and Submit to District (Chapter 9)**

10. Perform Air Dispersion Modeling



### Obtain Concentrati

on Field 11. If Necessary, Change

Level of Detail for Analysis

12. Estimate Health Risks

13. If Necessary, Change Level of Detail for Analysis

14. Prepare HRA Report and Submit to District (Chapter 9)

* Some screening models do not require any meteorological data. Reference Exposure
Levels Cancer Potency Factors Other Survey Data

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 3 ** Optional but strongly recommended.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 4 4. Determine level of detail for the analysis: refined or screening analysis (Section 4.5);

5. Identify the population exposure (Section 4.6);

6. Determine the receptor locations where impacts need to be analyzed (Section 4.7);

7. Obtain meteorological data (for refined air dispersion modeling only) (Section 4.8);

8. Select an air dispersion model (Section 4.9);

9. Prepare modeling protocol and submit to the local Air District (Chapter 9);

10. Perform an air dispersion analysis;

11. If necessary, redefine the receptor network and return to Step 10;

12. Perform HRA;

13. If necessary, change from screening to refined model and return to Step 8; and

14. Present t

he HRA results (Chapter 9 provides an outline that specifies the content and recommended format of HRA results).

The output of an air dispersion modeling analysis will be a receptor field of concentrations of the pollutant in ambient air. These concent rations in air need to be coupled with Reference Exposure Levels and cancer potency factors to estimate the hazard indices and potential carcinogenic risks. It should be noted that in the Hot Spots program emissions are considered inert for the purpose of transport and dispersion towards downwind receptors. Atmospheric transformations are not currently

estimated.

4.2 Emission Inventories

The Emission Inventory Reports (Inventory Reports) developed under the Hot Spots Program provide data to be used i

n the HRA and in the air dispersion modeling process. The Inventory Reports contain information regarding emission sources, emitted substances, emission rates, emission factors, process rates, and release parameters (area and volume sources may require ad ditional release data beyond that generally available in Emissions Inventory reports). This information is developed according to the ARB’s Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Regulations (Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Sections 93300

- 93 300.5) , and the Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Report (EICG Report), which is incorporated by reference therein (ARB, 1997 )

.

4.2.1 Air Toxics Hot Spots Emissions

As noted in Chapter 3, Hazard Identification, the HRA should identify all subs tances emitted by the facility, which are on the Hot Spots Act list of substances (see Appendix A of the Guidance Manual or the EICG Report). The EICG Report specifies that Inventory Reports must identify and account for all listed substances used, manufa ctured, formulated, or released by the facility. All routine, predictable releases must be reported. Substances on the “list to be quantified” must be listed with emission quantities in a table in the HRA. For substances in the second and third groups, emissions do not need to be quantified; these substances should be listed in a separate table in the HRA. Chapter 9 provides an outline that specifies the content and recommended format of HRA results.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 5 4.2.1.1 Emission Estimates Used in the Risk Assessm ent

The HRA must include emission estimates for all substances that are required to be quantified in the facility’s emission inventory report. Specifically, HRAs should include both annual average

emissions and maximum 1

- hour emissions for each pollutan t. Emissions for each substance must be reported for individual emitting processes associated with unique devices within a facility. Total facility emissions for an individual air contaminant will be the sum of emissions, reported by process, for that

fa cility. Information on daily and annual hours of operation, and relative monthly activity, must be reported for each emitting process. Devices and emitting processes must be clearly identified and described and must be consistent with those reported in t he emissions inventory report.

The HRA should include tables that present the emission information (i.e., emission rates for each substance released from each process) in a clear and concise manner. The District may allow the facility operator to base t

he HRA on more current emission estimates than those presented in the previously submitted emission inventory report (i.e., actual enforceable emission reductions realized by the time the HRA is submitted to the District). If the District allows the use o f more current emission estimates, the District must review and approve the new emissions estimates prior to use in the HRA. The HRA report must clearly state what emissions are being used and when any reductions became effective. Specifically, a table p resenting emission estimates included in the previously submitted emission inventory report as well as those used for the HRA should be presented. The District should be consulted concerning the specific format for presenting the emission information. Ch apter 9 provides an outline that specifies the content and recommended format of HRA results. A revised emission inventory report must be submitted to the District prior to submitting the HRA and forwarded by the District to the ARB, if revised emission d ata are used.

Facilities that must also comply with RCRA/CERCLA requirements for HRAs need to consult the Cal/EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Remedial Project Manager to determine what constitutes appropriate emissions data for use in the HRA. Source testing may be required for such facilities even if it is not required under the Hot Spots Program. Additional requirements for statistical treatment of source test results may also be imposed by DTSC on

RCRA/CERCLA facilities.

A. Molecula r Weight Adjustments for the Emissions of Metal Compounds

For most of the Hot Spots toxic metals, the OEHHA cancer potency factors apply to the weight of the toxic metal atom contained in the overall compound. Some of the Hot Spots compounds

contain vari

ous elements along with the toxic metal atom (e.g., “Nickel hydroxide”, CAS number

12054

- 48

- 7, has a formula of H 2 

### NiO 2 

### ). Therefore, an adjustment to the reported pounds of the overall compound is needed before applying the OEHHA cancer potency factor for “Nickel and compounds” to such a compound. This ensures that the cancer potency factor is applied only to the fraction of the overall weight of the emissions that are associated with health effects of the metal. In other cases, the

Hot Spots metals are a lready reported as the metal atom equivalent (e.g., CAS 7440

- 02

- 0, “Nickel”), and these cases do not use any further molecular weight adjustment. (Refer to Note [7] in Appendix A,

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 6 List of Substances in the EICG Report for further information on how the em issions of various

Hot Spots metal compounds are reported.)

The appropriate molecular weight adjustment factors (MWAF) to be used along with the OEHHA cancer potency factors for Hot Spots metals can be found in the MWAF column 1 

### of the table containing OEH

HA/ARB Approved Health Values For Use In Hot Spots Facility Risk Assessments that is in Appendix L of this document.

As an example, the compound “Nickel hydroxide” has a molecular formula of H 2 

### NiO 2 

### . The atomic weight of each of the elements in this compo und, and the fraction they represent of the total weight, are therefore as follows:

Element Atomic Weight Fraction of Total Weight = MWAF

1 x Nickel (Ni) 1 x 58.70 58.70 / 92.714 = 0.6332 ( MWAF for Nickel) 2 x Oxygen (O) 2 x 15. 999 2 x Hydrogen (H) 2 x 1.008

------------------------------------------------- Total Molecular Weight of H

2 

### NiO 2 

### : 92.714

So, for example, assume that 100 pounds of “Nickel hydroxide” emissions are reported under CAS

number 12054

- 48

- 7. To get the Nickel atom equivalent of these emissions, multiply by the listed MWAF (0.6332) for Nickel hydroxide:

• 100 pounds x 0.6332 = 63.32 pounds of Nickel atom equivalent.

This step should be completed prior to applying the OEHHA cancer potency factor for “Nickel and compounds” in a calculation for a prioritization score or risk assessment calculation. Note, however, that the HARP software automatically applies the appropriate MWAF for each Hot Spots chemical (by CAS number), so the emissions should n ot be manually adjusted when using HARP. Therefore, if using HARP, you would use 100 pounds for Nickel hydroxide and HARP will make the MWAF adjustment for you.

4.2.1.2 Release Parameters

In order to use air dispersion models, release parameters (e. g., stack height and inside diameter, stack gas exit velocity, release temperature, and emission source location in actual UTM coordinates) need to be reported. The EICG Report specifies that the release parameters must be reported for each

1 The value listed in the MWAF column for Asbestos is not a molecular weight adjustment. This is a conversion factor for adjusting mass and fibers or struct ures. See Appendix C for more information on Asbestos or the EICG report for reporting guidance.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 7 stack, vent, d ucted building, exhaust site, or other site of exhaust release. Additional information may be required to characterize releases from non

- stack (volume and area) sources; see U.S. EPA air dispersion modeling guidelines or specific user's manuals. This inf ormation should also be included in the air dispersion portion of the HRA. This information must be presented in tables included in the HRA. Note that some dimensional units needed for the dispersion model may require conversion from the units reported i

n the Inventory Report (e.g., degrees K vs. degrees F). Chapter 9 provides an outline that specifies the content and recommended format of HRA results.

4.2.1.3 Operation Schedule

The HRA should include a discussion of the facility operation schedule and daily emission patterns. Special weekly or seasonal emission patterns may vary and should be discussed. This is especially important in a refined HRA. Diurnal emission patterns should match the diurnal dispersion

characteristics of the ambient air. Hourly emission scalars are needed to best represent emissions from facilities, especially for diurnal pattern. Air dispersion models, such as ISCST3, readily accept hourly emissions scalars and these scalars are fully functional in the HARP software wi th ISCST3. In addition, for the purposes of exposure adjustment for an off

- site work receptor the emission schedule and exposure schedule should corroborate any exposure adjustment factors. (For example, no exposure adjustment factor should be made when an off

- site receptor and the emissions are on a coincident schedule.) Some fugitive emission patterns may be continuous. Additionally, these data are used for adjustments in a screening air dispersion analysis (see Appendix H for further details). A tab le should be included with the emission schedule on an hourly, weekly and yearly basis. Chapter 9 provides an outline that specifies the content and recommended format of HRA results.

4.2.1.4 Emission Controls

The HRA should include a description of control equipment, the emitting processes it serves, and its efficiency in reducing emissions of substances on the Air Toxics Hot Spots list. The EICG Report requires that this information be included in the Inventory Reports, along with the emission dat a for each emitting process. If the control equipment did not operate full

- time, the reported overall control efficiency must be adjusted to account for downtime of control equipment. Any entrainment of toxic substances to the atmosphere from control equ ipment should be accounted for; this includes fugitive releases during maintenance and cleaning of control devices (e.g., baghouses and cyclones). Contact the District for guidance with control equipment adjustments. Recommended default deposition

rates t hat are used when calculating potential noninhalation health impacts are listed in Section 8.2.4. Chapter 9 provides an outline that specifies the content and recommended format of HRA results.

4.2.2 Landfill Emissions

Emission estimates for landfill s ites should be based on testing required under Health and Safety Code, Section (HSC) 41805.5 (AB 3374, Calderon) and any supplemental AB 2588 source tests or emission estimates used to characterize air toxics emissions from landfill surfaces or through off

- site migration. The District should be consulted to determine the specific Calderon data to be used in the

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 8 HRA. The Hot Spots Program HRA for landfills should also include emissions of listed substances for all applicable power generation and maintenanc e equipment at the landfill site. Processes that need to be addressed include stationary internal combustion engines, flares, evaporation ponds, composting operations, boilers, and gasoline dispensing systems.

4.3 Source Characterization

The types of s ources and quantity of sources at a facility need to be characterized in order to select an appropriate air dispersion model.

4.3.1 Classification According to Source Type

Air dispersion models can be classified according to the type of source that they are designed to simulate, including, but not limited to, point, line, area, and volume sources. Several models have the capability to simulate more than one type of source.

4.3.1.1 Point Sources

Point sources are probably the most common type of sourc e and most air dispersion models have the capability to simulate them. Typical examples of point sources include isolated vents from buildings and exhaust stacks from facility processes.

4.3.1.2 Line Sources

In practical terms, line sources are a special case of either an area or a volume source. Consequently, they are normally modeled using either an area or volume source model as described below. Examples of line sources include conveyor belts and rail lines. A roadway is a unique line

source. Models desi

gned to simulate the enhanced mixing due to motor vehicle movements have been developed (i.e., CALINE4 and CAL3QHCR).

4.3.1.3 Area Sources

Emissions, that are to be modeled as area sources, include fugitive sources characterized by

non

- buoyant emissions containing negligible vertical extent of release (e.g., no plume rise or distributed over a fixed level).

Fugitive particulate (PM 2.5 

### , PM 10 

### , TSP) emission sources include areas of disturbed ground (open pits, unpaved roads, parking lots), which may be p resent during operational phases of a facility’s life. Also included are areas of exposed material (e.g., storage piles and slag dumps) and segments of material transport where potential fugitive emissions may occur (uncovered haul trucks or rail cars,

em issions from unpaved roads). Fugitive emissions may also occur during stages of material handling where particulate material is exposed to the atmosphere (uncovered conveyors, hoppers, and crushers).

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 9 Other fugitive emissions emanating from many points o f release at the same elevation may be modeled as area sources. Examples include fugitive emissions from valves, flanges, venting, and other connections that occur at ground level, or at an elevated level or deck if on a building or structure.

4.3.1.4 Vo lume Sources

Non

- point sources with emissions containing an initial vertical extent should be modeled as volume sources. The initial vertical extent may be due to plume rise or a vertical distribution of numerous smaller sources over a given area. Exam ples of volume sources include buildings with natural fugitive or passive ventilation, and line sources such as conveyor belts and rail lines.

4.3.2 Classification According to Quantity of Sources

The selection of an air dispersion model also requires t he consideration of the number of distinct sources. Some dispersion models are capable of simulating only one source at a time, and therefore are referred to as single

- source models (e.g., SCREEN3).

In some cases, for screening purposes, single

- source m odels may be used in situations involving more than one source using one of the following approaches:

1. Combining all sources into one single “representative” source.

In order to be able to combine all sources into one single source, the individual sour ces must have similar release parameters. For example, when modeling more than one stack as a single “representative” stack, the stack gas exit velocities and temperatures must be similar. In order to obtain a conservative estimate, the values leading to the higher concentration estimates should typically be used (e.g., the lowest stack gas exit velocity and temperature, the height of the shortest stack, and the shortest distance from the receptor to the nearest stack).

2. Run the model separately for ea ch individual source and superimposing the results.

Superposition of results from each source is the approach used by all the Gaussian models capable of simulating more than one source. Simulating sources in this manner may lead to

conservative estimates if worst

- case meteorological data are used or if the approach is used with a model that automatically selects worst

- case meteorological conditions, especially wind direction. The approach will typically be more conservative the farther apart the sources are, because each run would use a different worst

- case wind direction.

Additional guidance regarding source merging is provided by the U.S. EPA (1995a).

4.4 Terrain Characterization

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 10 Two types of terrain characterizations are required to select the app ropriate model. One classification is made according to land type and another one according to terrain topography.

4.4.1 Land Type Classification

Most air dispersion models use different dispersion coefficients (sigmas) depending on the land

use over w

hich the pollutants are being transported. The type of land use is also used by some models to select appropriate wind profile exponents. Traditionally, the land type has been categorized into two broad divisions for the purposes of dispersion modeling: urban and rural. Accepted procedures for determining the appropriate category are those suggested by Irwin (1978): one based on land use classification and the other based on population. AERMOD does not depend on the dispersion coefficients used by mode ls such as ISCST3. Therefore AERMOD does not need to classify the land type into urban or rural. When AERMOD becomes adopted as a Guideline model and is more widely used, these recommendations on land use classifications will need to be modified. Until that time, the following recommendations are relevant.

The land use procedure is generally considered more definitive. Population density should be used with caution and should not be applied to highly industrialized areas where the population density

m ay be low. For example, in low population density areas a rural classification would be indicated, but if the area is sufficiently industrialized the classification should already be “urban” and urban dispersion parameters should be used.

If the facilit y is located in an area where land use or terrain changes abruptly (e.g., on the coast) the District should be consulted concerning the classification. The District may require a classification

that biases estimated concentrations towards over

- prediction. As an alternative, the District may require that receptors be grouped according to the terrain between source and receptor.

4.4.1.1 Land Use Procedure

1. Classify the land use within the total area ‘ A’ , circumscribed by a 3 km radius circle

centered at the so urce, using the meteorological land use typing scheme proposed by Auer (1978) and shown in Table 4.1.

2. If land use types I1, I2, C1, R2 and R3 account for 50 percent or more of the total area

‘ A’ described in (1), use urban dispersion coefficients. Ot herwise, use appropriate rural dispersion coefficients.

4.4.1.2 Population Density Procedure

1. Compute the average population density ( p ) per square kilometer with ‘ A’ as defined in the Land Use procedure described above. (Population estimates are also required to determine the exposed population; for more information see Section 4.6.2 and 4.6.3.).

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 11 2. If p is greater than 750 people/km 2 

### use urban dispersion coefficients; otherwise, use appropriate rural dispersion coefficients.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 12

Table 4.1 Identific ation and classification of land use types (Auer, 1978).

Type Use and Structures Vegetation

I1 Heavy Industrial

Major chemical, steel and fabrication industries; generally 3

- 5 story buildings, flat

roofs Grass and tree growth extremely rare; <5% vegetati on

I2 Light

- moderate industrial

Rail yards, truck depots, warehouses, industrial parks, minor fabrications; generally

1

- 3 story buildings, flat roofs Very limited grass, trees almost totally absent; <5% vegetation

C1 Commercial

Office and apartment build ings, hotels; >10 story heights, flat roofs Limited grass and trees; <15% vegetation

R1 Common residential

Single family dwelling with normal easements; generally one story, pitched roof structures; frequent driveways Abundant grass lawns and light

- modera tely wooded; >70% vegetation

R2 Compact residential

Single, some multiple, family dwelling with close spacing; generally <2 story, pitched roof structures; garages (via alley), no driveways Limited lawn sizes and shade trees; <30% vegetation

R3 Compact r esidential

Old multi

- family dwellings with close (<2 m) lateral separation; generally 2 story, flat roof structures; garages (via alley) and ash pits, no driveways Limited lawn sizes, old established shade trees; <35% vegetation

R4 Estate residential

Expa nsive family dwelling on multi

- acre

tracts Abundant grass lawns and lightly wooded; >80% vegetation

A1 Metropolitan natural

Major municipal, state, or federal parks, golf courses, cemeteries, campuses; occasional single story structures Nearly total grass and lightly wooded; >95% vegetation

A2 Agricultural rural Local crops (e.g., corn, soybean); >95% vegetation

A3 Undeveloped

Uncultivated; wasteland Mostly wild grasses and weeds, lightly wooded; >90% vegetation

A4 Undeveloped rural Heavily wooded; >95% vegetation

A5 Water surfaces

Rivers, lakes

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 13 4.4.2 Terrain Topography Classification

Surface conditions and topographic features generate turbulence, modify vertical and horizontal winds, and change the temperature and humidity distributions in the boundary layer of the atmosphere. These in turn affect pollutant dispersion and various models differ in their needs to adjust for these

variables.

The classification according to terrain topography should ultimately be based on the topography

at the rec eptor location with careful consideration of the topographical features between the receptor and the source. The ISCST3 model uses a screening approach to complex terrain. AERMOD also provides algorithms for complex terrain.

Topography can be classified according to the following sections.

4.4.2.1 Simple Terrain (also referred to as “Rolling Terrain”)

Simple terrain is all terrain located below stack height including gradually rising terrain (i.e., rolling terrain). Note that Flat Terrain also falls in the category of simple terrain.

4.4.2.2 Complex Terrain

Complex terrain is terrain located above plume height. Complex terrain models are necessarily more complicated than simple terrain models. There may be situations in which a facility is “overa ll” located in complex terrain but in which the nearby surroundings of the facility can be considered simple terrain. In such cases, receptors close to the facility in this area of simple terrain will “dominate” the risk analysis and there may be no need to use a complex terrain model.

4.5 Level of Detail: Screening vs. Refined Analysis

Air dispersion models can be classified as “screening” or “refined” according to the level of

detail that is used in the assessment of the concentration estimates. Refined air dispersion models use more robust algorithms that are capable of using representative meteorological data to predict more representative and usually less conservative estimates. Refined air dispersion models are, however,

more resource intensive than their screening counterparts. It is advisable to first use a screening model

to obtain conservative concentration estimates and calculate health risks. If the health risks are estimated to be above the threshold of concern, then use of a refined model t o calculate more representative concentrations and health risk estimates would be warranted. There are situations when screening models represent the only viable alternative (e.g., when representative meteorological data are not available). The HARP soft ware addresses these situations by incorporating the capability of using either representative meteorological data or the default meteorological conditions from the SCREEN3 model as inputs to the ISCST3 air dispersion model.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 14 It is acceptable to use a

refined air dispersion model in a “screening” mode for this program’s HRAs. In this case, worst

- case hourly meteorological data are used to estimate the maximum 1

- hour concentration with the ISCST3 model. Conservative conversion factors are used to esti mate longer term averaging periods based on the maximum 1

- hour concentration. (See Table 4.3 and Appendix H for guidance on the use of the conversion factors.)

4.6 Population Exposure

Population exposure can be assessed by determining the number of pe ople at a particular

cancer risk level such as 1 x 10

- 5 

### or 1 x 10

- 6 

### . For noncancer risk it can be the number of people exposed to the Hazard Index over a certain level such as one or five. The traditional way of estimating population exposure for cancer has been the cancer burden or the number of excess cancer cases in the exposed population.

The detail required for the analysis (e.g., screening or refined), and the procedures to be used in determining geographic resolution and exposed population, requ ire case

- by

- case analysis and professional judgment. The District or reviewing authority should be consulted before beginning the population exposure estimates. As results are generated, further consultation may be necessary. Some suggested approaches a

nd methods for handling the breakdown of population and performance of a screening or detailed risk analysis are provided in this section. In addition, the HARP software can provide population exposure estimates as cancer burden or as the number of person s exposed to a selected potential (user identified) health risk/impact level. Information on obtaining the HARP software can be found under the Hot Spots Program on the ARB’s web site at www.arb.ca.gov . Chapter 9

prov ides an outline that specifies the content and recommended format of HRA results.

4.6.1 Zone of Impact

The first step of population exposure estimate in an HRA is to define the zone of impact. The zone of impact is the area around the facility that is affecte d by the facility’s emissions. This zone is commonly defined as the area surrounding the facility where receptors have a potential multipathway (inhalation and noninhalation exposure) cancer risk greater than 10

- 6 

### (one in a million), an acute (inhalation) hazard index (HI) of 1.0, and/or a chronic multipathway HI of 1.0. Some Districts may prefer to use a cancer risk of 10

- 7 

### or an HI of 0.5 as the zone of impact. Therefore, the District should be consulted before modeling efforts are initiated. If the z one of impact is greater than 25 km from the facility at any point, the District should be consulted. The District may specify limits on the area of the zone of impact. Ideally, these preferences would be discussed with the District before being presente d in the modeling protocol and HRA.

Note that when depicting the HRA results, potential cancer and noncancer isopleths must present the total cancer and noncancer health impacts from both inhalation and noninhalation pathways, when appropriate. The zone of impact should be clearly shown on a map with geographic markers of adequate resolution (see Section 4.6.3.1). The text below discusses methodology for defining the zone

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 15 of impact and has format recommendations. Chapter 9 provides an outline that speci fies the content

and recommended format of all HRA results.

The zone of impact can be defined once the exposure assessment (air dispersion modeling) process has determined the pollutant concentrations at each designated off

- site receptor and a risk

anal ysis (see Chapter 8) has been performed. For clarity, the cancer and noncancer zone(s) of impact should be presented on separate maps. A map illustrating the carcinogenic zone of impact is required. The District may at their discretion ask for the map illustrating the potential carcinogenic zone of impact to identify the zone of impact for the minimum exposure pathways (inhalation, soil, dermal, and mothers milk) and the zone of impact for all applicable pathways of exposure (minimum pathways plus site/ route dependent pathways). Two maps may be needed to accomplish this. The legend of these maps should state the level(s) used for the zone of impact and identify the exposure pathways that were included in

the assessment.

The noncancer maps should also clearly identify the noncancer zones of impact. These include the acute (inhalation) zone of impact and the chronic (including both inhalation, multipathway) zone of impact. The District may at its discretion require separate chronic inhalation and chron ic multipathway zones of impact maps. For clarity, presentation of the two chronic zones of impact may also require two or more maps. The legend of these maps should state the level(s) used for the zone of impact and identify the exposure pathways (and target organs) that were included in the assessment. Further information regarding the methods for determination of hazard indices and cancer risk are discussed in Chapter 8 and Appendices I.

4.6.2 Screening Population Estimates for Risk Assessments

N ot all HRAs require refined population exposure assessments and at times a screening estimate may be appropriate. A screening population estimate should include an estimate of the maximum exposed population. The impact area to be considered should be sel ected to be health protective (i.e., will not underestimate the number of exposed individuals). A health

- protective assumption is to assume that all individuals within a large radius of the facility are exposed to the maximum concentration. If a facility must also comply with the RCRA/CERCLA HRA requirements, health effects to on

- site workers may also need to be addressed. The DTSC’s Remedial Project Manager should be consulted on this issue. The District should be consulted to determine the population estimate to be used for screening purposes. Guidance for one screening method is presented here.

1. Use a screening dispersion model (e.g., SCREEN3) to obtain concentration estimates for each emitted pollutant at varying receptor distances from the source. Several screening models feature the generation of an automatic array of receptors that is particularly useful for determining the zone of impact. In order for the model to generate the array of receptors, the user needs to provide some information norm ally consisting of starting distance, increment, and

number of intervals.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 16 2. Calculate the potential cancer risk and hazard index for each receptor location by using the methods provided in the risk characterization sections of this document (Chapter 8).

3. Fi nd the distance where the potential cancer risk is equal to District specified levels (e.g., 10

- 6 

### ); this may require redefining the receptor array in order to have two receptor locations that bound

a total cancer risk of 10

- 6 

### . This exercise should be repe ated for the noncancer health impacts.

4. Calculate cancer burden by estimating the number of people in the grid and stipulate that all are exposed at the highest level.

4.6.3 Refined Population Estimates for Risk Assessments

The refined HRA requires a more detailed analysis of the population distribution that is exposed to emissions from the facility. These populations can include exposure estimates for workers and residents through the use of land use maps. The District may require that locations wit h high densities of sensitive individuals be identified (e.g., schools, daycare centers, hospitals). The overall exposed residential and worker populations should be apportioned into smaller geographic subareas. The

information needed for each subarea is :

1. the number of exposed persons, and

2. the receptor location at which the calculated ambient air concentration is assumed to be representative of the exposure to the entire population in the subarea.

A multi

- tiered approach is suggested for the populatio n analysis. Census tracts, which the facility could significantly impact, should be identified (see Section 4.6.3.1). A census tract should be divided into smaller subareas if it is close to the facility where ambient concentrations vary widely. The

Dis trict may determine that census tracts provide sufficient resolution near the facility to adequately characterize population exposure or they may prefer the census information to be evaluated using

smaller blocks. Further downwind where ambient concentrat ions are less variable, the census tract level may be acceptable to the District. The District may determine that the aggregation of census tracts (e.g., when the census tracts making up a city are combined) is appropriate for receptors that are

considera ble distances from the facility.

If a facility must also comply with the RCRA/CERCLA HRA requirements, health effects to on

site workers may also need to be addressed. The DTSC’s Remedial Project Manager should be

consulted on this issue. In some case s it may be appropriate to evaluate risks to on

- site receptors. The district should be consulted about special cases for which evaluation of on

- site receptors is appropriate, such as facilities frequented by the public or where people may reside (e.g., mi litary facilities).

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 17 4.6.3.1 Census Tracts

For a refined HRA, the boundaries of census tracts can be used to define the geographic area to be included in the population exposure analysis. Maps showing census tract boundaries and numbers

can be obtained

from “The Thomas Guide ®



### - Census Tract Edition”. Statistics for each census tract can be obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. Numerous additional publicly accessible or commercially available sources of census data can be found on the World Wide Web. A specific example of a census tract is given in Appendix K.

The two basic steps in defining the area under analysis are:

1. Identify the “zone of impact” (as defined previously in Section 4.6.1) on a map detailed enough to provide for resolution of the population to the subcensus tract level. (The

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5

- minute series maps provide sufficient detail.) This is necessary to clearly identify the zone of impact, location of the facility, and sensitive receptors within the zone of impact. If significant development has occurred since the USGS survey, this should be indicated. A specific example of a 7.5

- minute series map is given in Appendix K.

2. Identify all census tracts within the zone of impact using a U.S. Bureau of Cen sus or equivalent map (e.g., Thomas Brothers  

### ). If only a portion of the census tract lies within the zone of impact, the population used in the burden calculation should include the proportion of the population in that isopleth zone. The census tract bo undaries should be transferred to a map, such as a USGS map (referred to hereafter as the “base map”).

An alternative approach for estimating population exposure in heavily populated urban areas is to apportion census tracts to a Cartesian grid cell coor dinate system. This method allows a Cartesian coordinate receptor concentration field to be merged with the population grid cells. Each receptor located on the Cartesian grid must be identified with actual UTM coordinates. This process may be computeriz ed and minimizes manual mapping of centroids and census tracts. The HARP software can provide population exposure estimates as cancer burden or as the number of persons exposed at the block level to a selected potential (user identified) health risk/impac t level.

The District may determine that aggregation of census tracts (e.g., which census tracts making up a city can be combined) is appropriate for receptors that are located at considerable distances from the facility. If the District permits such an approach, it is suggested that the census tract used to represent the aggregate be selected in a manner to ensure that the approach is health protective. For example, the census tract included in the aggregate that is nearest (downwind) to the facility should be used to represent the aggregate.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 18 Subcensus Tract

Within each census tract are smaller population units. These units (urban block groups (BG) and rural enumeration districts (ED)) contain about 1,100 persons. BGs are further broken down int o statistical units called blocks. Blocks are generally bounded by four streets and contain an average of 70 to 100 persons. However, the populations presented above are average figures and population units may vary significantly. In some cases, the EDs are very large and identical to a census tract.

The area requiring detailed (subcensus tract) resolution of the exposed residential and worker population will need to be determined on a case

- by

- case basis through consultation with the District.

The Dis trict may determine that census tracts provide sufficient resolution near the facility to adequately characterize population exposure.

It is necessary to limit the size of the detailed analysis area because inclusion of all subcensus tracts would greatly

increase the resource requirements of the analysis. For example, an urban area of 100,000 persons would involve approximately 25 census tracts, approximately 100 to 150 block groups, and approximately 1,000 to 1,400 blocks. Furthermore, a high degree of resolution at large distances from a source would not significantly affect the analysis because the concentration gradient at these distances is generally small. Thus, the detailed analysis of census tracts within several kilometers of a facility should be sufficient. The District should be consulted to determine the area that requires detailed analysis.

The District should also be consulted to determine the degree of resolution required. In some cases, resolution of residential populations to the BG/ ED level may be sufficient. However, resolution to the block level may also be required for those BG/EDs closest to the facility or those having maximum concentration impacts. The identified employment subareas should be resolved to a similar degree of

r esolution as the residential population. For each subarea analyzed, the number of residents and/or workers exposed should be estimated.

Employment population data can be obtained at the census tract level from the U.S. Census Bureau or from local planni ng agencies. This degree of resolution will generally not be sufficient for most HRAs. For the area requiring detailed analysis, zoning maps, general plans, and other planning documents should be consulted to identify subareas with worker populations.

The boundaries of each residential and employment population area should be transferred to the base map.

4.6.4 Sensitive Receptor Locations

Individuals who may be more sensitive to toxic exposures than the general population are distributed throughout t

he total population. Sensitive populations may include young children and chronically ill individuals. The District may require that locations with high densities of sensitive individuals be identified (e.g., schools, nursing homes, residential care faci lities, daycare centers,

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 19 hospitals). The HRA should state what the District requirements are regarding identification of sensitive receptor locations.

Although sensitive individuals are protected by general assumptions made in the dose response

assessme nt, their identification may be useful to assure the public that such individuals are being considered in the analysis. For cancer and noncancer effects, the identification of sensitive receptor locations may be crucial in evaluating the potential impact of the toxic effect.

4.7 Receptor Siting

4.7.1 Receptor Points

The modeling analysis should contain a network of receptor points with sufficient detail (in number and density) to permit the estimation of the maximum concentrations. Locations that must be

identified include the maximum estimated off

- site impact or point of maximum impact (PMI), the maximum exposed individual at an existing residential receptor (MEIR), and the maximum exposed individual at an existing occupational worker receptor (MEIW). Note, however, some situations may require that on

- site receptor (worker or residential) locations be evaluated. Some examples where the health impacts of on

- site receptors may be appropriate could be military base housing, prisons, universities, or loc ations where the public may have regular access for the appropriate exposure period (e.g., a lunch time café or museum for acute exposures). The risk assessor should contact the District for guidance if on

- site exposure situations are present at the emitt ing facility. These on

- site locations should be included in the HRA. All of these locations (i.e., PMI, MEIR, and MEIW) must be identified for potential multipathway carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects. Some facilities will not have off

site worker s in the vicinity of the facility and will not need to evaluate worker exposure. The approval to omit the MEIW receptor should be verified in writing with the District or reviewing authority and

included in the HRA.

Other sensitive receptor locations m ay also be of interest and required to be included in the HRA. The District or reviewing authority should be consulted to determine which sensitive receptor locations must be included. It is possible that the estimated PMI, MEIR, and MEIW risk for

carcin ogenic, chronic noncarcinogenic, and acute noncarcinogenic health effects occur at different locations. Methods used to determine dose are provided in Chapter 5 and methods for calculating potential health impacts are included in Chapter 8 and Appendix I

.

The results from a screening model (if available) can be used to identify the area(s) where the maximum concentrations are likely to occur. Receptor points should also be located at the population centroids (see Section 4.7.2) and sensitive receptor locations (see Section 4.6.4). The exact configuration of the receptor array used in an analysis will depend on the topography, population distribution patterns, and other site

- specific factors. All receptor locations should be identified in the

HRA usi ng actual UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) coordinates and receptor number. The receptor numbers in the summary tables should match receptor numbers in the computer output. In addition to actual UTM coordinates, the block/street locations (i.e., north side of 3,000 block of Smith

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 20 Street) should be provided for the PMI, MEIR, and MEIW for carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health effects. Chapter 9 provides an outline that specifies the content and recommended format of

HRA results.

To evaluate locali zed impacts, receptor height should be taken into account at the point of maximum impact on a case

- by

- case basis. For example, receptor heights may have to be included to account for receptors significantly above ground level. Flagpole receptors to repre sent the breathing zone, or direct inhalation, of a person may need to be considered when the source to receptor distance is less than a few hundred meters. Consideration must also be given to the multipathway analysis, which requires the deposition at gr ound level. A health protective approach is to select a receptor height from 0 meters to 1.8 meters that will result in the highest predicted downwind concentration. Final approval

lies with the District.

4.7.2 Centroid Locations

For each subarea an

alyzed, a centroid location (the location at which a calculated ambient concentration is assumed to represent the entire subarea) should be determined. When population is uniformly distributed within a population unit, a geographic centroid based on the s hape of the population unit can be used. Where population is not uniformly distributed, a population

- weighted centroid is needed. Another alternative could be to use the concentration at the point of maximum impact (PMI) within that census tract as the c oncentration to which the entire population of that census tract is exposed.

The centroids represent locations that should be included as receptor points in the dispersion modeling analysis. Annual average concentrations should be calculated at each centroid using the modeling procedures presented in this chapter.

For census tracts and BG/EDs, judgments can be made using census tracts maps and street maps to determine the centroid location. At the block level, a geographic centroid is sufficient.

4.8 Meteorological Data

Refined air dispersion models require hourly meteorological data. The first step in obtaining meteorological data should be to check with the District for data availability. Other sources of data

include the National Weather Ser vice (NWS); National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina; military stations; and private networks. Meteorological data for a subset of NWS stations are available from the U.S. EPA Support Center for Regulatory Air Models (SCRAM). The

SCRAM can be accessed at www.epa.gov/scram001/main.htm . All meteorological data sources should be approved by the District. Data not obtained directly from the District should be checked for quality, representativeness, and completeness. U.S. EPA provi des guidance (U.S. EPA, 1995e) for these data. The HRA should indicate if the District required the use of a specified meteorological data set. All memos indicating District approval of meteorological data should be attached in an appendix. The argument that “this is the nearest available meteorological data” does not justify that the data are

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 21 representative. If no representative meteorological data are available, screening procedures should be

used as indicated in Section 4.10.

The analyst should ac quire enough meteorological data to ensure that the worst

- case meteorological conditions are represented in the model results. The period of record, recommended for use in the air dispersion model, is five years. If it is desired to use a single year to represent long

- term averages (i.e., chronic exposure), then the worst

- case year should be used. The worst

- case year should be the year that yields the greatest maximum chronic off

- site risk. If the only adverse health

effects associated with all emitted pollutants from a given facility are acute, the worst

- case year should be the year that yields the greatest maximum acute off

- site risk. With the increasing speeds of today’s desktop computers, processing five years of data should be relatively fast. The refore, we strongly encourage the use of five years of meteorological data when available. However, the District may determine that one year of representative meteorological data is sufficient to adequately characterize the facility’s impact.

Otherwise, to determine annual average concentrations for analysis of chronic health effects, the data can be averaged, if a minimum of three years of meteorological data is available. For calculation of

the one

- hour maximum concentrations needed to evaluate acute effects, the worst

- case year should be used in conjunction with the maximum hourly emission rate. For example, the annual average

concentration and one

- hour maximum concentration at a single receptor for five years of meteorological

data are calculated be low:

Year Annual Average

( μ g/m 3 

### ) Maximum One

- Hour

( μ g/m 3 

### )

1 7 100

2 5 80

3 9 90

4 8 110

5 6 90

5

- year average 7

In the above example, the long

- term average concentration over five years is 7.0 μ g/m 3 

### . Therefore, 7

μ g/m 3 

### should be used to evaluate carcinogenic and chronic effects (i.e., annual average concentration).

The one

- hour maximum concentration is the highest one

- hour concentration in the five

- year period. Therefore, 110 μ g/m 3 

### is the pea

k one

- hour concentration that should be used to evaluate acute effects.

During the transitional period from night to day (i.e., the first one to three hours of daylight) the meteorological processor may interpolate some very low mixing heights. This is a period of time in which the mixing height may be growing rapidly. When predicted concentrations are high and the mixing height is very low for the corresponding averaging period, the modeling results deserve additional

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 22 consideration. For receptors in t he near field, it is within the model formulation to accept a very low mixing height for short durations. However, it would be unlikely that the very low mixing height would persist long enough for the pollutants to travel into the far field. In the even t that the analyst identifies any of these time periods, they should be discussed with the District on a case

- by

- case basis.

More information on sources of meteorological data, as well as representativeness and completeness of meteorological data, can be found in Chapter 2 of the Part IV TSD.

4.9 Model Selection

There are several air dispersion models that can be used to estimate pollutant concentrations and new ones are likely to be developed. U.S. EPA is in the process of adding new models to the preferred list of models: ISC

- PRIME, AERMOD, AERMOD

- PRIME, and CalPuff. The latest version

of the U.S. EPA recommended models can be found at the SCRAM Bulletin Board located at www.epa.gov/scram001 . However, any model, whether a U.S. EPA guideline model or otherwise, must be approved for use by the local air district. Recommended models and guidelines for using alternative models are presented in this section. New models placed on U.S. EPA’s preferred list of models (i.e., ISC

- PRIME, AERMOD, AERMOD

- PRIME, and CalPuff) can be considered at that time. All air dispersion models used to estimate pollutant concentrations for HRA analyses must be in the public domain. Classification according to terrain, source type, and level of analysis is necessary before selecting a model (see Section 4.4). The selection of averaging times in the modeling analysis is based on the health effects of concern. Annual average concentrations are required for an analysis of

carcin ogenic or other chronic effects. One

- hour maximum concentrations are generally required for analysis of acute effects. There are a few pollutants that require averaging times up to 7 hours; these

can be found in Table 6.1.

4.9.1 Recommended Models

Rec ommended air dispersion models to estimate concentrations for HRA analyses are shown in Table 4.2. Currently, SCREEN3 and ISCST3 are the two preferred models for HRAs. This could change when the U.S. EPA places ISC

- PRIME, AERMOD, AERMOD

- PRIME, and CalPuf

f on the preferred list. Some of the names of the air dispersion models reflect the version number at the time of the writing of this document. The most current version of the models should be used for the HRA analysis. More than one model may be necess ary in some situations, for example, when modeling scenarios have receptors in simple and complex terrain. Some facilities may also require models capable of handling special circumstances such as building downwash, dispersion near coastal areas,

etc. Se e Chapter 2 of the Part IV TSD for more information on modeling special cases and for specific information including inputs and default option settings for most of the models presented in Table 4.2.

To further facilitate the model selection, the Distric t should be consulted for additional recommendations on the appropriate model(s) or a protocol can be submitted for District review and approval (see Chapter 9). A brief description of the preferred screening model, SCREEN 3, and the preferred refined mod el, ISCST3, are discussed below.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 23 4.9.2 Alternative Models

Alternative models are acceptable if applicability is demonstrated or if they produce results identical or superior to those obtained using one of the preferred models shown in Table 4.2. For mo re information on the applicability of alternative models refer to the following documents:

• U.S. EPA (1986) Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)

• U.S. EPA (1992a) Protocol for Determining the Best Performing Model

• U.S. EPA (1985a) Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Models

– Experience with Implementation

• U.S. EPA (1984) Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Models (Revised)

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

4

- 24

TABLE 4.2 Recommended Air Dispersion Models

AVERAGING TERRAIN SINGLE SOURCE MULTIPLE SOURCE

PERIOD TYPE RURAL URBAN RURAL URBAN

SHORT

TERM SIMPLE ISCST3 RAM

ISCST3 ISCST3 RAM

ISCST3



### (1

- 24 hour avg)
COMPLEX CTDMPLUS CTDMPLUS CTDMPLUS CTDMPLUS



### LONG TERM SIMPLE ISCST3

ISCLT3 RAM

ISCST3 ISCLT3 ISCST3

ISCLT3 CDM20 / RAM

ISCST3

ISCLT3



### (Monthly

An nual) COMPLEX CTDMPLUS CTDMPLUS CTDMPLUS CTDMPLUS



### SHORT

TERM SIMPLE SCREEN3 SCREEN3 SCREEN3 SCREEN3



### (1

- 24 hour avg)

COMPLEX ISCST3
RTDM,

CTSCREEN

VALLEY SCRN SHORTZ

CTSCREEN

VALLEY SCRN ISCST3

CTSCREEN*

VALLEY SCRN SHORTZ

CTSCREEN*

VALLEY SCRN



### LONG TERM SIMPLE SCREEN3 SCREEN3 SCREEN3 SCREEN3



### (Monthly

Annual) COMPLEX ISCST3

RTDM LONGZ ISCST3 LONGZ



### Generally speaking, ISCST3 and SCREEN3 are the models that are used in most cases in the Hot Spots Program. Other models in this list may be consider ed on a case

- by

- case basis. Additionally, newer models (e.g., ISC

- PRIME, AERMOD, AERMOD

- PRIME, and/or CalPuff) may be added to

this list at a future date.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program G uidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

4

- 25 4.10 Screening Air Dispersion Models

A screening model may be used to estimate a maximum concen tration that is biased toward overestimation of public exposure. Use of screening models in place of refined modeling procedures is optional unless the District specifically requires the use of a refined model. Screening models are normally used when no representative meteorological data are available and may be used as a preliminary estimate to determine if a more detailed assessment is warranted.

Some screening models provide only 1

- hour average concentration estimates. Maximum

1

- hour concentration averages can be converted to other averaging periods through consultation and approval by the District. Appendix H describes the use of the conversion factors. Because of variations in local meteorology and source types, the exact factor selected may var y from one district to another. Table 4.3 provides guidance on the range and typical values applied. The conversion factors are designed to bias predicted longer

- term averaging periods towards overestimation.

Table 4.3. Recommended Factors to Convert Maximum 1

- hour Avg. Concentrations

to Other Averaging Periods (U.S. EPA, 1995a; ARB, 1994).

Averaging Time Range Typical Recommended

3 hours 0.8

- 1.0 0.9

8 hours 0.5

- 0.9 0.7

24 hours 0.2

- 0.6 0.4

30 days 0.2

- 0.3 0.3

Annual 0.06

- 0.1 0.08

4.10.1 SCREEN3

The SCREEN3 model is among the most widely used model primarily because it has been periodically updated to reflect changes in air dispersion modeling practices and theories. The SCREEN3 model represents a good balance between ease of use and the capabilities and flexibility of the algorithms. In addition, the calculations performed by the model are very well documented (U.S. EPA, 1995a). The SCREEN3 User’s Guide (U.S. EPA, 1995d) also presents technical information and provides referenc es to other support documents. The dispersion algorithms used in SCREEN3 are consistent with ISCST3. (With the implementation of AERMOD, which is expected in the future, SCREEN3 may need to be superseded with a model that is compatible with AERMOD.)

Th e most important difference between the SCREEN3 model and refined models such as ISCST3 is the meteorological data used to estimate pollutant concentrations. The SCREEN3 model

can assume worst

- case meteorology, which greatly simplifies the resources and t ime normally

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program G uidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

4

- 26 associated with obtaining meteorological data. Consequently, more conservative (higher concentration) estimates are normally obtained. Alternatively, a single stability class and wind speed may also be

entered.

Number of Sources and Type

SC REEN3 was designed to simulate only a single source at a time. However, more than one source may be modeled by consolidating the emissions into one emission point or by individually running each point source and adding the results. SCREEN3 can be used to model point sources, flare releases, and simple area and volume sources. Input parameters required for various source

- types are shown in Tables 4.4 (point), 4.5 (flare release), 4.6 (area), and 4.7 (volume).

Table 4.4. Required Input Parameters to Mo del a Point Source Using SCREEN3.

Emission Rate (g/s)

Stack Height (m)

Stack Inside Diameter (m)

Stack Gas Exit Velocity (m/s) or Volumetric Flow Rate (ACFM, m 3 /s)

Stack Gas Temperature (K)

Ambient Temperature (K)

Receptor Height Above Ground (m)

R eceptor Distance from the Source (m) [discrete distance or automated array]

Land Type [urban or rural]

Meteorology [option “1” (full meteorology) is normally selected]

In Addition, for building downwash calculations
Building Height (m)

Minimum Horizo ntal Dimension (m)
Maximum Horizontal Dimension (m)

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program G uidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

4

- 27

Table 4.5. Required Input Parameters to Model a Flare Using SCREEN3.

Emission Rate (g/s)

Flare Stack Height (m)

Total Heat Release (cal/s)

Receptor Height Above Ground (m)

Receptor Distance from

the Source (m)

Land Type [urban or rural]

Meteorology [option “1” (full meteorology) is normally selected]

In Addition, for building downwash calculations
Building Height (m)
Minimum Horizontal Dimension (m)
Maximum Horizontal Dimension (m)

Table 4.6. Required Input Parameters to Model an Area Source Using SCREEN3.

Emission Rate (g/s

- m

2 )

Source Release Height (m)

Length of Larger Side of the Rectangular Area (m)

Length of Smaller Side of the Rectangular Area (m)

Receptor Height Above Ground (m)

Receptor Distance from the Source (m)

Land Type [urban or rural]

Meteorology [option “1” (full meteorology) is normally selected] [wind direction optional]

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program G uidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

4

- 28 Regulatory Options

SCREEN3 algorithms contain all regulatory options internally coded including stack

- tip downwash and buoyancy

- induced dispersion. These regulatory options are the default settings of the parameters so the user does not need to set any switches during a run.

Special Cases

SCREEN3 has the capability to model several special cases by setting switches in the input file or by responding to on

- screen questions (if run interactively). The special cases include:

• simple elevated terrain

• plume impaction in complex terrain using VALLEY model 24

- hr screening procedure

• building downwash (only for flat and simple elevated terrain)

• cavity region concentrations (The PRIME algorithms included with ISCST3

- PRIME sh ould be used for estimates in the cavity zone)

• inversion break

- up fumigation (only for rural inland sites with stack heights greater than or equal to 10 m and flat terrain)

• shoreline fumigation (for sources within 3,000 m from a large body of water)

• plume rise for flare releases

4.11 Refined Air Dispersion Models

Refined air dispersion models are designed to provide more representative concentration estimates than screening models. In general, the algorithms of refined models are more robust and h ave the capability to account for site

- specific meteorological conditions. For more information regarding general aspects of model selection see Section 4.9. Table 4.7. Required Input Parameters to Model a Volume Source Using SCREEN3.

Emission R

ate (g/s)

Source Release Height (m)

Initial Lateral Dimension of Volume (m)

Initial Vertical Dimension of Volume (m)

Receptor Height Above Ground (m)

Receptor Distance from the Source (m)

Land Type [urban or rural]

Meteorology [option “1” (full mete orology) is normally selected]

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program G uidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

4

- 29 4.11.1 ISCST3

The ISCST3 model (U.S. EPA, 1995b; 1995c) is a steady

- state Gaussian plume model, whi ch can be used to assess pollutant concentrations from a wide variety of sources associated with an industrial source complex. The ISCST3 model can be used for multiple sources in urban or rural terrain. The model includes the algorithms of the complex t errain model COMPLEX I. The user can specify if calculations are to be made for simple terrain, complex terrain, or both. However since COMPLEX 1 is a screening model, the ISCST3 model is only a screening tool for receptors in complex terrain. The ISCST 3 model can calculate concentration averages for 1

- hour or for the entire meteorological data period (e.g., annual or intermediate time periods such as 24

- hour averages). A summary of basic input parameters needed to model a point source is shown in Table 4.8. Guidance on additional input requirements (e.g., for area and volume sources) may be found in the ISC Users Guide. (ISCST3 may be replaced with AERMOD in the future pending promulgation by the U.S. EPA.)

Table 4.8. Basic Input Parameters Require d to Model a Point Source Using ISCST3.

Land Use Urban or Rural

Averaging Period

Emission Rate (g/s)

Stack Height (m)

Stack Gas Exit Temperature (K)

Stack Gas Exit Velocity (m/s)

Stack Diameter (m)

Receptor Locations (x,y) coordinates (m) dis crete points; polar array; Cartesian array;

Meteorology may be supplied by preprocessor, e.g., PCRAMMET

Anemometer Height (m)



### 4.11.1.1 Regulatory Options

Regulatory application of the ISCST3 model requires the selection of specific switches (i.e., al gorithms) during a model run. All the regulatory options can be set by selecting the DFAULT keyword. The regulatory options, automatically selected when the DFAULT keyword is used, are:

• Stack

- tip downwash (except for Schulman

- Scire downwash)

• Buoyanc y

- induced dispersion (except for Schulman

- Scire downwash)

• Final plume rise (except for building downwash)

• Treatment of calms

• Default values for wind profile exponents

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program G uidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

4

- 30 • Default values for vertical potential temperature gradients

• Use upper

- bound con

centration estimates for sources influenced by building downwash from

super

- squat buildings

4.11.1.2 Special Cases

a. Building Downwash

The ISC models automatically determine if the plume is affected by the wake region of buildings

when their dimensions are given. Including building dimensions in the model input does not necessarily mean that there will be downwash. See Chapter 2 of the Part IV TSD for guidance on how to determine when downwash is likely to occur.

b. Area Sources

The area source algo rithms in ISCST3 use an integration technique that allows placement of receptors within the area source. Additionally, initial dispersion in the vertical can be included to

simulate sources with vertical extent.

c. Volume Sources

The volume source al

gorithms in ISCST3 require an estimate of the initial distribution of the emission source in the horizontal and the vertical. Tables that provide information on how to estimate the initial distribution for different sources are given in the ISC3 User’s Gu ide (U.S. EPA, 1995b; 1995c).

d. Intermediate Terrain

When simple and complex terrain algorithms are selected by the user, ISCST3 will select the higher impact from the two algorithms on an hour

- by

- hour, source

- by

- source, and receptor

- by

receptor basis for all receptors located in intermediate terrain (U.S. EPA, 1995b). Alternatively, the pollution concentrations in the receptor field may be generated separately from HARP using other approved air dispersion models. HARP has the flexibility to generate a summary of the risk data necessary for an HRA by either approach: ISCST3 internal to HARP or the use of other approved models outside of HARP.

In addition, the HARP software also incorporates the capability of using either user supplied representative m

eteorological data or the worst

- case meteorological conditions from the SCREEN3 model as inputs to the ISCST3 air dispersion model. Information on obtaining the HARP software can

be found on the ARB’s web site at www.ar b.ca.gov . Chapter 9 provides an outline that specifies the

content and recommended format of HRA results.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program G uidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

4

- 31 e. Deposition

The ISC models contain algorithms to model settling and deposition and require additional information such as the particle size dis tribution. For more information consult the ISC3 User’s Guide (U.S. EPA, 1995b). Note that, when performing the HRA modeling, a deposition rate will be requested and used for the noninhalation pathway exposure (see Section 8.2.5.A).

4.11.1.3 HARP Dispersion Anal ysis

It is highly recommended that air dispersion analysis be performed using the HARP software. HARP can perform refined dispersion analysis by utilizing the U.S. EPA standard program ISCST3 (Industrial Source Complex

–Short Term 3). In addition, HAR P directly links the ISCST3 outputs with risk assessment modules eliminating the need for intermediate processing by the user.

4.12 Modeling Special Cases; Specialized Models

Special situations arise in modeling some sources that require consider able professional judgment; these include building down

- wash effects, wet and dry deposition, short term emissions (i.e., significantly less than 1

- hour), fumigation effects, rain

- cap on stack, and landfill sites. Details for these special modeling situat

ions and specific models can be found in Chapter 2 of the Part IV TSD. It is recommended that the reader consider retaining professional consultation services if the procedures are unfamiliar. Some models have been developed for application to very speci fic conditions. Examples include models capable of simulating sources where both land and water surfaces affect the dispersion of pollutants and models designed to simulate emissions from specific industries.

4.13 Interaction with the District

The ri sk assessor must contact the District to determine if there are any specific modeling requirements. Examples of such requirements may include specific receptor location guidance, specific usage of meteorological data, and specific report format (input and output). See Chapter 9 for information on the format and content of modeling protocols and HRAs.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.



## 5. Exposure Assessment - Estimation of Concentrati o n and Dose

5.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a summ ary of how toxicant ground level air concentrations
estim ated from air dispersion m odeling or m on itoring results are used to determ ine dose at

recep tors of interest. Th is chapter includes a ll th e algorithm s and data (e.g. , point-estimates, distributions, and transfer fact ors ) tha t are n eeded to dete rm ine the substan c e-spe c if ic
concentratio n in exposure m e dia and the dose at a recep tor of interest. Th e determ ination of

exposure co ncentration s and dose precede th e calcul ations of potential health im pacts. See Chapter 8 and Appendix I for information on calculating potential health impacts.

At m i nim u m, three receptors are evaluated in H o t Spots health risk assessm e nts (HRA) (see Section 4.7);, these are:

1) the Point of Maxim u m I m pact (PMI), 2) the Maxim a lly Exposed Individual Resident (ME I R), and 3) the Maxim a lly Exposed Individual Worker (MEIW )

.

The PMI is defined as th e recep tor p o int(s ) with the highest acute, ch ronic, or cancer
health im pa cts outside the facility boundary. Th e facility boundary is defined as the property line. Often the fence is on the property line. The MEIR is defined as the existing off-site residence(s) (e.g., house or apartm ent) with the highest acute , chronic, or cancer health im pacts. The MEIW i s defined as the highest acute, chr onic, or cancer health im pa cts at an existing off-site workplace. Note, however, that occasio na lly som e situations m a y require that on-site

recep tor (wo r ker or res i d e ntial) locations be evalu a ted. Som e ex am ples where th e health im pacts of on-site receptors m a y be appropriate could b e m ilitary bas e housing, p r isons, un iversities, o r locations where the public m a y have regular ac cess for the appropriate exposure period (e.g., a
lunch tim e c a fé or m u se um for acute exposures ). The risk assessor should contact the Air
Pollution Control o r Air Quality M a n a gem e nt Distri ct (District) for guida n ce if on-site exposure
situations exist at the emitting facility. These on-site locatio ns should be included in the health
risk assessm ent (HRA).

If

the f acility em its m u ltiple subs tan ces f r om two or m o re stacks, the ac ute, chron i c, and
cancer health im pacts at the PMI m a y be located at different physical lo cations. The MEIR or
MEIW canc e r, acute, and chronic receptors m a y also be at diffe rent locations. In addition, it

m a y be necessary to d e term ine ri sks at sensitive recepto rs (e.g

., schools, d a ycare, eldercare, and hospitals). The District or re viewing authority should be consu lted in orde r to de term ine the appropriate sensitive re ceptors for evaluation.

The process for determ ining dose at the recep tor location, and ultim at ely p o tential health
im pacts, will lik ely in clu d e air d i spersion m odeling, and, with less frequency, air m onitoring data. Air dispersion m odeling com b ines the facil ity em issions and release param e ters and uses default or site-specific me teorological conditions to es tim a te downwind, ground-level concentrations at various (user- defined) receptor locations. Ai r dispersion modeling is described in Chapter 4 and is pre s e n ted in de tail in th e Air T o xics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment

5-1

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

5-2 

### Guidelines; Part IV; Technical Support Docu ment for Exposure Assessm ent and Stochastic Analysis (OEHHA, 2000b) (Part IV TSD).

In summ ary, the process of using air disper sion modeling results as the basis of an HRA
follows thes e four steps.

• 

### Air dispersion m odeling is used to estim at e an an nual-av erag e and m a ximum one, four, six, and seven-hour ground level concentratio ns. The air dispersi on m odeling results are expressed as an air concentration or in term s of ( C hi over Q) for each receptor po int. (Chi over Q) is the m odeled downwind air conc entration based on an emission rate of one

gram per second. (Chi over Q) is expressed in units of m i crogram s per cubic m e ter per

gram per second, or ( μ 

### g/m 3 

### )/(g/s). ( C hi over Q) is som e tim es written as ( χ 

### /Q) and is

som e tim e s ref e rred to as the dilution f actor.

• 

### W h en m u ltiple substanc es are evalu a ted, th e χ 

### /Q is norm a lly utilized s i nce it is bas e d on

an em ission rate of one gram per second. The χ 

### /Q at the recep tor poin t of interes t is

m u ltiplied b y the substa nce-spe c if ic em ission ra te (in g / s) to yield the sub s tance

- spec if ic ground-level concentration (GLC) in units of μ 

### g/m 3 

### . The following equations illustrate this poin t

.



# ( ) rate emission unit with results model from

, in over 3 

###   

 

  

 

=

s g m g Q Chi Q μ χ 

# ( )

substance 

### Q Q GLC      

= χ

     

= 

### s g rate emission specific substance substance 

### Q

• 

### The applicable exposure pathways (e.g., inha lation, soil, fish) ar e identified for the

em itted subs tances and the recep tor location s are identified. This dete rm ines which exposure algorithm s in this chapter are ulti m a tely used to estim a te dose. After the exposure pathways are identified, the fate and transport algorithm s described in this chapter are used to estim a te c oncentrations in the applicable exposure m e dia (e.g., soil or water) and the exposure algorithm s are used to determ ine the substance-specific dose.

• 

### The dose is used with cancer and no ncancer h eal th value s to calcu late the potential he alth
im pacts for the recep tor (Chapter 8). An exam ple calcu lation using the h i gh-end poin t

estim ates for the inhalation (breathing) e xposure pathway can be found in Appendix I.

The algorith m s in this chapter are als o used to calculate m e dia concentrations and dos e in
the rare in stance for the Hot S pots program when m onitoring equi pm ent were used rather than air dispersion m odeling to obtain a re ceptor ’ s sub s tance

- spec if ic GLC. One situ ation that is specific to monitored data is the treatm ent of results below the sam p ling m e thod level of
detec tion (L OD). In short, it is s t and a rd risk asse ssm ent practice when m o nitor i ng re su lts a r e reported both above and below the L OD to us e one-half of the LOD for t hose sam p le

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

concentratio ns repor ted below the L OD. If all te sting or m onitor i ng re sults f a ll be low the LOD,
then assessors should contact th e District for appropriate proc edures. For more information about reporting em issions under the Hot Spots Program , see the ARB’s Emission Inventory
Criteria a n d Guidelines Regulation s (Title 17, Californ ia Cod e of Regula t ions, Section s 93300- 93300.5)

, and the Emission Inventor y Criteria an d Guideline s Report (EI C G Report), which is incorporated by reference therein (A RB, 1997 )

.

The HARP software is th e recomm ended m odel for calculatin g and presen ting HRA results for the Hot Spots Program . A contra ctor, through consultati on with OEHHA, Air
Resources B o ard (ARB), and District repres entatives, developed the HARP software.
Inform ation on obtaining the HARP s o ftware can be found on the ARB’s web site at
www.arb.ca. gov under the Hot Spots Program

.

5.2 Criteria for Exposure Pathway Evaluation



### In order to d e term ine total dose to th e recep to r th e applicable pathways of exposure need
to be iden tif ied. The inh a lation path way m u st be evalua ted f o r all Hot Spots substan ces em itted by the facility. A s m all subset of Hot Spots subs tances is subject to deposition on to the soil, plants, and water bodies. These substances need to be evaluate d by the appropriate noninhalation pathways, as well as by the inhalati on pathway, and the results m u st be presented
in all HRAs. These subs tances inclu d e sem i -vol atile organ i c chem icals and heavy m e tals. Such
substance s a r e ref e r

r ed to as m u ltipathway substances. Two steps a r e use d to dete rm ine if a substance sh ould be eva l uated f o r m u ltip athway im pacts:

• 

### Step one is to see if the substance or its group (e.g., dioxins, P AHs) is listed in Table 5.1.

• 

### Step two is to determ ine if the substance has an oral reference exposure level (REL) listed in Table 6.3, or if it has an oral cancer slope factor listed in Table 7.1. Oral or noninhalation exposure pathways include the ingestion of soil, fisher caught fish, drinking water from surface waters, mothe r’s m ilk, hom egrown produce, beef, pork, chicken, egg s and cow’s m ilk. The derm al pathway is also evaluated via contact with

contam inated soil.

For all m u ltipathway sub s tances, the m i nim u m exposure pathways that m u st be evaluated at every residential site (in addition to inhalatio n) are soil ingestion and derm al exposure. If dioxins, f u ra ns, or PCBs are em itted, then the b r e a st-m ilk con s um ption pathway also b ecom e s

m a ndatory. The other exposure pathways (e.g., th e ingestion of hom e grown produce or fish) are evaluated on a site-by-site basis. If the resi dent can be exposed through an im pacted exposure pathway, then it m u st be included in the HRA. However, if there were no vegetable gardens or
fruit trees within th e zon e of im pact for a facil ity, for exam ple, then the p r o duce pathways would
not be evaluated. Note that on- s ite r e siden tia l re ceptors are p o tentially su bject to inha lation and noninhalation exposure pathways. Table 8.2 iden tifies the residential and worker receptor exposure pathways that are m a ndatory and t hose that are dependent on the site-specific
decisions. While residents can be exposed though several exposur e pathways, worker receptors are only evaluated for inhalation, soil i ngestion, and derm al exposure using single point-estim a t es.

5-3

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table 5.1 shows the m u l tipathway substances tha t , based on a v ailab l e sc ie ntif ic da ta, c a n be considered for each n oninhalation exposure pathway. The exposure pathways that are evaluated for a substance depend on two factors: 1) whether the substa nce i s consi d er ed a

m u ltipathwa y substance f o r the Hot Spots Progr am (Table 5.1), and 2) w h at the site-s pecif i c conditions are. A m u ltipathway subs tance m a y be excluded f r om a particular exposu r e pathway because its p hysical-chem i cal properties can precl ude sign ificant exposure via the p a th way. For

exam ple, som e water-so l uble ch em i cals do no t appr eciably b i oaccum u late in fish; therefore, the fish pathway is not appropriate. In addition, if a particular exposure pathway is not impacted by the facility o r is not p r es ent at the receptor s i te, then the pathway is not evaluated. For exam ple,
if surface waters are no t im pacted by the facility , or the water s ource is impacted but never used for drinking water, then the drinki ng water pathway is not evaluated.

Table 5.1 Specific Path ways to be Anal yzed for each Multipathway Substance

Subs tanceSoil IngestionDermalMeat,Milk &Egg IngestionFishIngestionExposedVegetableIngestionLeafyVegetableIngestionProtectedVegetableIngestionRootVegetableIngestionWaterIngestionBreast MilkIngestion

4, 4 ' -Methy lene dianiline X X X X X X X X

Creosotes X X X X X X X

Di eth y l h e xyl p h th al a t e X X X X X X X X

Hexachlor o c y clohexane s X X X X X X
PAHs X X X X X X X
PCBs X X X X X X X X
C a d m iu m & co m p o u nd s X X X X X X X X X
Chr o mium VI & c o mpounds X X X X X X X X X

Inor ganic ars e nic & c o mp ounds X X X X X X X X X Bery llium & co mpo u nds X X X X X X X X X
Lead & compounds X X X X X X X X X

Mercur y & c o mpounds X X X X X X X X X
Nickel X X X X X X X X Fluorides (Inc luding hydrogen
fluoride ) To be de term ined

D i ox in s & f u ra n s X X X X X X X X



### 5-4

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

5.3 Estima tion of Concentr ations in Air, Soil, and Water



### Once em issions exit the source, th e s ubstan ces w ill b e dispe r s e d in the air. The substances in the exhaust gas with high vapor pr e ssures will r e m a in largely in the vap o r phase, and substances with lower vapor pressures will te nd to adsorb to fly ash or other particulate

m a tter. The em ission plum e may contain both vapor phase substances and particulates. A single

sem i volatile organic toxicant can p a rtition as a va por and in to a particulate

. Particula t e s will deposit at a rate that is depende nt on the particle size. The su bstances will deposit on vegetation, on soil, and in water. Use the 0.02 m/s factor for em ission sources th at have verifiable particulate m a tter control devices or for e m issi on sources that m a y be uncontrolled but only em it particula t e m a tter that is less than 2. 5 m i crons (e.g., internal com bustion engines pow ered by

com p ressed natura l gas )

. The f o llowing algo rith m s are used to estim a te concentr ation s in
environm ental m e dia including air, soil, water, vegetation, and anim al products.

5.3.1 Air



### The concentration of the substance in air at ground level (GLC) is a function of the
f acility em ission ra te and the dilution f actor ( χ /Q) at the points under evaluation.

a. Formula 5.3.1 A : GLC = E-rate * 

## χ /Q (E Q 5. 3. 1 A)



### 1> GLC = Ground-level concentration ( μ 

### g/m 3 

### )
2> E-rate = Substa nce em ission rate (g /sec)

3 > 

## χ /Q = Dilution factor provided by dispersion m odeling ( μ 

### g/m 3 

### /g/sec)

b. Recommended values for EQ 5.3.1 A :



### 1> E-rate = Facility s p ecific, subs tance em ission rate

2 > 

## χ /Q = For point of interes t , s ite specific, from dispersion m odeling

c. Assumptions for EQ 5.3.1 A :



### 1> No plume depletion
2> Em issio n rate is con s tant, i.e., assum e s steady state

5.3.2 Soil



### The average concentration of the substance in s o il (Cs) is a f uncti on of the deposition,

accum u latio n period, ch em ical specific soil hal f-life, m i xing depth, and s o il bulk d e n s ity.

a. Formula 5.3.2 A : C s 

### = Dep * X / (K s 

### * SD * BD * T t 

### ) (E Q 5. 3. 2 A)



### 1 > C s 

### = Average s o il concentrati on over the evaluation period ( μ 

### g/ kg) 2> Dep = Deposition on th e affected so il area per day ( μ 

### g/m 2 

### /d)

5-5

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

a> Formula 5.3.2 B : Dep = GLC * Dep-r a te * 86,400 (E Q 5. 3. 2 B )



### 1: GLC = Ground-level concentration ( μ 

### g/m 3 

### )
2: Dep-ra te = Verti cal rate of deposition (m /sec) 3: 86,400 = Seconds per day conversion factor (sec/d)

b> Recommended default values for EQ 5.3.2 B :



### 1: GLC = Calculated above in E Q 5.3.1 A 2: Dep-rate = Use 0.02 m e ters/second for controlled or
0.05 m e ters/second for uncontrolled sources.

c> Assumptions for EQ 5.3.2 B :



### 1: Deposition rate rem a ins constant

3 > X 

### = Integral function

a> Formula 5.3.2 C : X = [{e -Ks * Tf 

### - e -Ks * To 

### } / K s 

### ] + T t (E Q 5. 3. 2 C)



### 1: e = 2.718
2 : K s 

### = Soil e lim inatio n constan t 3 : T f 

### = End of evaluation period (d)
4 : T o 

### = Beginning of evaluation period (d)
5 : T t 

### = Total days of exposure period Tf-To (d)

a: Formula 5.3.2 D : K s 

### = 0.693 / t 1/2 ( E Q 5.3.2 D )



### 1) 0.693 = Natural log of 2
2 ) t 1/2 

### = Chem ical specific so il half-life (d )

b: Recommended default values for EQ 5.3.2 D :



### 1 ) t 1/2 

### = See Table 5.3

b> Recommended default values for EQ 5.3.2 C :



### 1 : K s 

### = Calculated above in E Q 5.3.2 D
2 : T f 

### = 25,550 (d) = 70 yr (for 9, 30 a nd 70 years). Identifies the total

num b er of days of soil deposition.

= 9,490 (d) = 26 years f o r nursing m o ther in m o t h er’s m ilk pathway
3 : T o 

### = 0 (d) The initial tim e (start peri od) of exposure to all receptors that
are im pacted by the soil pathway. Used for direct soil exposure to a worker, reside ntial adults (9, 30, and 70-years ) , a nd child ren. Also used a s the in itial tim e f o r

5-6

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

determ ining the concen tr ation in soil that is used f o r estim ating the dose from the ingestion of breast m ilk.

4> SD = Soil m i xing depth (m )
5> BD = Soil bulk density (kg/m 3 

### )

b. Recommended default values for EQ 5.3.2 A :



### 1> Dep = Calculated above in E Q 5.3.2 B
2> X = Calculated above in E Q 5.3.2 C
3 > K s 

### = Calculated above in E Q 5.3.2 D
4> SD = 0.01 (m ) for playground se tting (soil ingestion and derm al pathways) and 0.15 (m ) for agricultural setting (produce and m eat pathways).
5> BD = 1,333 (kg/m 3 

### )
6> T t 

### = 25,550 (d) = 70 (yr) for 9, 30 and 70 year exposure
durations and m o ther’s m ilk pathway = 25,550 (d) for adult in m o ther's m ilk pathway

c. Assumptions for EQ 5.3.2 A :



### 1> Substances are uniform ly m i xed in soil.
2> Substances are not leach ed or wa shed away, except where ev idence ex ists

to the con t ra ry. 3> For a receptor ingesting mother's m ilk, the m o ther is exposed for 26 years, the
child receiv es m ilk for one year (the last y ear of m a ternal ex posure), and then is exposed to all other pathways for 9, 30 or 70 years.
4> It is assum e d that toxica nts accum u la te in the so il for 70 years from deposition.

5.3.3 In Water



### The average concentration of the substance in water (C
w 

### ) is a function of direct deposition and m a terial carried in by surface run-o ff. However, only the contribution from direct deposition will be con s idered a t this tim e.

a. Formula 5.3.3 A : C
w 

### = C dep w (E Q 5. 3. 3 A)



### 1 > C
w 

### = Average con c entration in w a ter ( μ 

### g/kg)

2 > C depw 

### = Contribution due to direct deposition ( μ 

### g/kg)

a> Formula 5.3.3 B : C depw 

### = Dep * SA * 365 / (WV * VC) (E Q 5. 3. 3 B )



### 1: Dep = Deposition on water body per day ( μ 

### g/m 2 

### /d)
2: SA = W a ter surface area (m 2 

### )
3: 365 = Days per year (d/yr)

5-7

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

4: WV = W a ter volum e (kg)
5: VC = Num b er of volum e changes per year

b> Recommended default values for EQ 5.3.3 B :



### 1: Dep = Calculated above in E Q 5.3.2 B
2: SA = Site sp ecific water su rface area (m 2 

### )
3 : W V = S i t e sp ecific water volum e in (kg)
4 : V C = S i t e s p e c i f i c num ber of volum e changes per year (SA, W V , a nd VC values can be acquired from the applicable Departm e nt of W a ter Resources (DWR) Regional office)

c> Assumptions for E Q 5.3.3 B :



### 1: All m a terial deposited in to the water rem a ins suspended or dissolved
in the water colum n and is ava ilab l e f o r bioconc e n tra tion in f i sh.

5.3.4 Estima tion of Concentr ations in Vegetation and Animal Pr oducts



### Estim ates of the concen tration of the substa nce in vegetation and anim als require the use
of

the results of the air, water, and s o il env i ron m ental f a te evalua tion. Plants and a n im als will be exposed to the substances at the concentrations previously calculated in S ection 5.31 to 5.33
above.

1. Vegetation



### The average concentration of a substance in and on vegetation (C f 

### ) is a function of direct deposition of the substance onto the vegetation and of root translocation or uptake from soil

contam inated by the sub s tance.

a. Formula 5.3.4.1 A : C
v 

### = C de p v 

### * GRAF + C tra n s (E Q 5. 3. 4. 1 A)



### 1 > C
v 

### = Average concentratio n in and on specific types of vegetation ( μ 

### g/kg)

2 > C depv 

### = Concentration due to direct deposition ( μ 

### g/kg)
3> GRAF = Gastrointestin al Relative Absorption Fraction

a> Formula 5.3.4.1 B :

C depv 

### = [Dep * IF / (k * Y)] * (1 - e -k T 

### )] (E Q 5. 3. 4. 1 B )



### 1: Dep = Deposition on affected vegetation per day ( μ 

### g/ m 2 

### /d)
2: IF = Interception fraction
3: k = W eathering constant (d -1 

### )
4 : Y = Y i e l d ( k g / m 2 

### )
5: e = Base of natural logarithm (2.718)

5-8

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

6: T = Growth period (d)

b> Recommended default values for EQ 5.3.4.1 B :



### 1: Dep = Calculated above in E Q 5.3.2 B
2 : I F = C r o p s p e c i f i c

a: Root crops = 0
b: Leafy crops = 0.2

c: Protected crops = 0
d: Exposed crops = 0.1
3: k = 0.1 (d -1 

### )
4: Y = 2 (kg/m 2 

### ) for root, leafy, protected, exposed and pasture [CA Departm e nt of Food and Agriculture dot

ma p s ]
5: T = 45 (d) for leafy crops

T = 90 (d) for exposed crops

c> Assumptions for E Q 5.3.4.1 B :



### 1: No deposition on root or protected crops

3> GRAF = Gastrointestin al Relative Absorption Fraction 0.43 for dioxins; 1.0 for all other chem icals

The term GRAF 

### , or gastroin tes tina l rela tive abso rption f a c t or , is def i ned a s the f r ac tio n of contam inant absorb ed by the GI tract relative to the fractio n of contam i n ant absorb ed from the

m a trix (feed, water, other) used in the study(ies) that is the ba sis of either the cancer potency factor (CPF) or the reference exposure level (RE L ). If no data are available to distinguish absorption in the toxicity study from absorption from the environm ental matrix in question, i.e., soil, then GRAF = 1. The GRAF allows for adjustm e nt f o r absorp tio n f r om a soil m a trix if
it is known to be different from absor p tion across the GI tract in the study used to calculate the
CPF or REL. In m o st instances, the GRAF will be 1 (Table 5.3).

4 > C trans 

### = Concentration due to ro ot translocation or uptake ( μ 

### g/kg)

a> Formula 5.3.4.1 C : C tra n s 

### = C s 

### * UF 2 (E Q 5. 3. 4. 1 C)



### 1 : C s 

### = Average s o il concentration ( μ 

### g/kg)
2 : U F 2 

### = Uptake factor based on soil concentration

b> Recommended default values for EQ 5.3.4.1 C :



### 1 : C s 

### = Calculated above in E Q 5.3.2 A
2 : U F 2 

### = Inorganic com pounds --see T a ble 5.3

5-9

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

1) Formula 5.3.4.1 D : (for organic compounds)

U F 2 

### = [(0.03 * K ow 0. 77 

### ) + 0.82] / [(K oc 

### )(F oc 

### )] (E Q 5. 3. 4. 1 D)



### a) 0.03 = Em pirical constant b ) K ow 

### = Octanol: water partition factor c) 0.77 = Em pirical constant d) 0.82 = Em pirical constant

e ) K oc 

### = Organic carbon partition coefficient
f ) F oc 

### = Fraction organic carbon in soil

2) Recommended default values for EQ 5.3.4.1 D :



### a ) K ow 

### = Chem ical specific, see Tab l e 5.3
b ) K oc 

### = Chem ical specific, see Tab l e 5.3

c ) F oc 

### = 0.1
2. Animal Products



### The average concentration of the substance in anim al products (C fa 

### ) depends on which routes of exposure exist for the anim als. An im al exposure routes in clude inhalation, soil ingestion, ingestion of contam inated feed and pasture, and ingestion of contam inated water.

a. Formula EQ 5.3.4.2 E :

C fa 

### = (Inhalation + Water ingestion + Feed ingestion + (E Q 5. 3. 4. 2 E ) 

### Pasture/Gr az ing ingestion + Soil in gestion) * T c o



### 1 > C fa 

### = Average concentratio n in farm anim als
and their products ( μ 

### g/kg)

2 > Inhalation 

### = Dose through inhalation ( μ 

### g/d)

a> Formula 5.3.4.2 F : Inhalation = BR A 

### * GLC (E Q 5. 3. 4. 2 F )



### 1 : B R A 

### = Inhalatio n rate f o r an im al (m 3 

### /d)

2: GLC = Ground-level concentration ( μ 

### g/m 3 

### )

b> Recommended default values for EQ 5.3.4.2 F :



### 1 : B R A 

### = See Table 5.2
2: GLC = Calculated above in E Q 5.3.1 A

c> Assumptions for E Q 5.3.4.2 F :



### 1: All m a terial inhaled is 100% absorbed

5-10

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

3 > Water ingestion 

### = Dose through w a ter ingestion ( μ 

### g/d)

a> Formula EQ 5.3.4.2 G :

Water ingestion = WIR a 

### * FSW * C
w (E Q 5. 3. 4. 2 G )



### 1 : W I R a 

### = W a ter ing e stion f o r an im al (kg/d)
2: FSW = Fraction of water ingested from a
contam inated body of water

3 : C
w 

### = Average concentratio n in water ( μ 

### g/kg)
For water 1 kg = 1 L

b>Recommended default values for EQ 5.3.4.2 G :



### 1 : W I R a 

### = See Table 5.2
2: FSW = Site sp ecific, need to s u rvey, fraction of water ingestion p r actices in affected area

3 : C
w 

### = Calculated above in E Q 5.3.3 A

Table 5.2 Point Estimates for Animal Pathway *



### Paramete r Beef Cattle Lactating Dairy
Cattle Pigs Poultry



### BW (body weight) (kg) 5 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 2

BR A 

### (inhalation rate) (m 3 

### /d) 1 0 0 1 0 0 7 0

. 4

WI R a 

### (water ingestion) (kg/d)** 4 0 8 0 8 0

. 2 FIR (feed ingestion) (kg/d) 8 1 6 2 0

. 1

FS f 

### (soil fraction of feed) 0

. 0 1 0

. 0 1 N A N A FSp (soil fraction of pasture) 0

. 0 5 0

. 0 5 0

. 0 4 0

. 0 2

Beef and dairy ca tt le food from pasture grazing is assu m e d to be leaf y ve getation (grass) an d account for 0.5 o f the cattle’s diet.
For pigs, the default assu m e s a pig’ s diet consists of eq ual por tions of all plant ty pes exposed, leafy

, p r otected and r oot. T he default

assu m p tion is that 0. 1 of the diet is ho m e gr own. T h e d e fault assu m p tion for chickens is that pastur e is co m posed of equal

pr opor tions all plant ty pes with 0. 05 ho m e gr own. Agr i cultur a l m i xing depth sho u ld be used for calculating soil concentr ation for feed and past ur e contam ination.
NA Not applicable. A ssu m e F S f is equal to zero.
* See Section 7 of Technical Supp ort Document for E x p o sure A ssessment and Stoch a stic A nalysis ( O

E

H

HA, 2000b) f o r

sour ce of
these values.

** 1 kg=1 L for water



### 4 > Feed ingestion 

### = Dose through the ingestion of feed ( μ 

### g/d) that is
harvested after it is im pacted by source em issions

a> Formula EQ 5.3.4.2 H :

Feed ingestion = (1 - FG) * FIR * L * C f (E Q 5. 3. 4. 2 H )



### 5-11

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

1 : F G = F r a c t i on of Diet provided by grazing
2: FIR = Feed ingestion rate (kg/d)
3: L = fraction o f locally g r o w n (source impacted) feed that is not pasture

4 : C f 

### = Concentration in feed ( μ 

### g/kg)

b> Recommended default values EQ 5.3.4.2 H :



### 1: FG = Site sp ecific fraction of diet provided by grazing (need to su rvey)
2: FIR = See Table 5.2
3 L = S i t e s p e c i f i c , fraction of locally grown (source
im pacted) feed that is no t pastu r e 4 : C f 

### = As calculated above in EQ 5.3.4.1 A

5 > Pasture/Gr az ing ingestion 

### = Dose through pasture/grazing ( μ 

### g/d)

a> Formula EQ 5.3.4.2 I :

Pasture/Gr az ing ingestion = FG * C
v 

### * FIR (E Q 5. 3. 4. 2 I )



### 1 : F G = F r a c t i on of Diet provided by grazing

2 : C
v 

### = Concentr ation in pasture/grazing m a terial ( μ 

### g/kg)
3: FIR = Feed ingestion rate (kg/d)

b> Recommended default values EQ 5.3.4.2 J :



### 1: FG = Site sp ecific fraction of diet provided by grazing (need to su rvey)
2 : C
v 

### = As calculated above in EQ 5.3.4.1 A
3: FIR = See Table 5.2

6 > Soil ing e stion 

### = Dose through soil ingestion ( μ 

### g/kg)

a> Formula EQ 5.3.4.2 K : Soil ingestion = SI a 

### * C s ( E Q 5.3.4.2 K)



### 1 : S I a 

### = Soil ing e s tion r a te f o r anim al (kg/d )

a: Formula EQ 5.3.4.2 L :

S I a 

### = [(1 - FG) * FS f 

### * FIR] +[ FG * FS p 

### * FIR] (E Q 5. 3. 4. 2 L )



### 1) FG = Fraction of diet provided by grazing
2 ) F S f 

### = Soil ing e s t ed as a fraction of feed ingested 3) FIR = Feed ingestion rate (kg/d)

5-12

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

4 ) F S p 

### = Soil ingested as a fraction of pasture ingested

b: Recommended default values for EQ 5.3.4.2 L :



### 1 ) F G = S i t e specific fraction of diet provided by grazing
2 ) F S f 

### = See Table 5.2
3 ) F I R = S e e T a b l e 5

. 2
4 ) F S p 

### = See Table 5.2

2 : C s 

### = Average soil concentration ( μ 

### g/kg)

b> Recommended default values for EQ 5.3.4.2 K :



### 1 : S I a 

### = Calculated above
2 : C s 

### = Calculated above in E Q 5.3.2 A

7 > Tco 

### = Trans f er coefficient of contaminant from diet to
anim al product (d/kg)

a> Recommended default values :



### 1: T CO 

### = S EE 

### T AB LE 

### 5.3

b> Recommended default values EQ 5.3.4.2 J :



### 1: FG = Site sp ecific fraction of diet provided by grazing (need to su rvey)
2 : C f 

### = As calculated above in EQ 5.3.4.1 A
3: FIR = See Table 5.2

5-13The Air Toxics Hot Spots ProgramGuidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.Table 5.3Substance Specific Default Values for Multipathway Substances(1)Feedto meat, milk,eggsTransfer Coefficients3[Tco(d/kg)]RootUptakeFactors(forinorganic compounds)MultipathwaySubstanceLogKoc2LogKow2FishBiocon.FactorTcoMeatTcoMilkTco3EggRootLeafyExposed&ProtectedGRAF4Dermal5Absorp.Fact.(ABS)Soil HalfLife (days)Arsenic (inorganic)NA6NA4.0 x 10+02.0 x 10-36.2 x 10-52.0 x 10-34.0 x 10-44.0 x 10-39.0 x 10-41.00.041.0 x 10+8Beryllium &CompoundsNANA1.9 x 10+11.0 x 10-39.1 x 10-71.0 x 10-32.0 x 10-31.0 x 10-32.0 x 10-41.00.011.0 x 10+8Cadmium &CompoundsNANA3.66x10+25.5 x 10-41.0 x 10-35.5 x 10-44.0 x 10-26.0 x 10-22.0 x 10-21.00.0011.0 x 10+8CreosotesNANA5.83x10+23.4 x 10-21.6 x 10-23.4 x 10-2NANANA1.00.135.7 x 10+2ChromiumVI& CmpdsNANA2.0 x 10+09.2 x 10-31.0 x 10-59.2 x 10-31.0 x 10-38.0 x 10-47.0 x 10-41.00.011.0 x 10+8Diethylhexylphthalate4.725.114.83x10+2NANANANANANA1.00.102.3x10+1DioxinsandFuransNANA1.9 x 10+44.0 x 10-14.0 x 10-24.0 x 10-1NANANA0.430.024.72x10+3HexachlorocyclohexanesNANA4.56x10+2NANANANANANA1.00.106.7x10+1Lead &Compounds(inorganic)NANA1.55x10+24.0 x 10-42.6 x 10-44.0 x 10-42.0 x 10-35.0 x 10-31.0 x 10-31.00.011.0 x 10+8Mercury(inorganic)NANA5.0 x 10+32.7 x 10-29.7 x 10-62.7 x 10-25.0 x 10-29.0 x 10-23.0 x 10-21.00.101.0 x 10+8Nickel and compoundsNANANA2.0 x 10-31.0 x 10-32.0 x 10-32.0 x 10-26.0 x 10-39.0 x 10-31.00.041.0 x 10+84,4’-Methylene dianiline2.241.591.11x10+1NANANANANANA1.00.104.0x10+0PAH asBenzo(a)pyreneNANA5.83x10+23.4 x 10-21.6 x 10-23.4 x 10-2NANANA1.00.135.7 x 10+2PolychlorinatedBiphenylsNANA9.97x10+45.0 x 10-21.0 x 10-25.0 x 10-2NANANA1.00.149.4 x 10+2(1)Values based on South Coast AQMDMulti-Pathway Assessment Input Parameters GuidanceDocument as adapted andmodified byOEHHA.(2)See Tables5.17 and 5.18 forderivationand references for Kow and Koc values.(3)Values for the Egg Transfer Coefficients have not been developed but are assumedto be similar tomeat transfercoefficients cited in the SCAQMD document.(4)GRAF (Gastrointestinal Relative Absorption Factor).The guidelines allow foradjusting forbioavailability where the evidencewarrants.Forexample,thereare good data which indicate that dioxin is notasavailable to an organismwhen boundto soil orflyashmatricesrelative towhen it is in solution orin food.Therefore,a bioavailabilityfactor is incorporated into themodel to accountforthis difference.Wheninformation becomes available for other chemicals of concern, this typeof bioavailability willbe incorporated into themodel.(5)Dermal absorption ofmanycompounds islimited. Theguidelines have incorporateddermalabsorption factorsto account forthe decreased absorption relative to otherroutes of exposure,forestimates ofdermal dose used toassess both cancer and noncancer health hazards.Thedermalabsorption valuescomefromliterature describing absorption ofchemicalsacross theskin.Insomecases,thereare good dataavailable forspecific compounds.Inothercases,anabsorption fraction is inferred fromdataforsimilarchemicals.Ina few casesthe effects of adsorption to a soil or fly ashmatrix on dermalbioavailabilityhave been studied.Inthese rareinstances,the dermal absorptionfactorused in the guidelines accounts forthis decreased bioavailability(e.g., the dermalabsorption value for dioxins/furans accounts fordecreased bioavailability).NA - DataNot Available or NotApplicable.5-14

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

b> Assumptions :



### 1: The trans f er coefficient is th e sam e for all exp o sure rou t es. 2: The trans f er coefficient for all m eat is the sam e

. 3: The trans f er coefficient for eggs is the sam e as for m eat.

3. Fish Products



### The average concentration in fish (C f 

### ) is based on the concentration in water and a
bioconcentration factor.

a. Formula EQ 5.3.4.3 M : C f 

### = C
w 

### * BCF (E Q 5. 3. 4. 3 M )



### 1 > C f 

### = Concentr ation in f i sh ( μ 

### g/kg)

2 > C
w 

### = Concentr ation in water ( μ 

### g/kg)
3> BCF = Bioconcentration factor

b. Recommended default values for EQ 5.3.4.3 M :



### 1 > C
w 

### = Calculated above in E Q 5.3.3 A
2> BCF = See Table 5.3

c. Assumptions for EQ 5.3.4.3 M :



### 1> All contam inants in water are av ailab l e for bioconcentration.
2> Contam inant is p r ese n t in a so il o r f

l y ash m a trix.
Contam inant concentrations are unif o rm in water based on dispersion. 4> Only bio c oncentratio n is currently considered . Bioaccumulation from
the food chain is not considered.

5.4 Estima tion of Dose



### Once the co ncentration s of substances are esti m a ted in air, s o il, wate r, plants, and an im al products, they are used to eval uate estim ated exposure to people. Exposure is evaluated by calculating the lifetim e average daily dose (LADD). The followi ng algorithm s calculate this dose for exposure through inhalati on, derm al absorption, and inge stion pathways. This section
contain s average and h i g h -end poin t -estim ates an d data distributions for adults and children for

m a ny expos ure pathways. The point-estim ates and data distributions that should be used for
children are listed under the nine -year exposure duration. The point-estim ates and data
distributions that should be us ed for adults are listed under the 30 and 70-year exposure duration. Workers are addressed as adults using single po int-es tim ates for three exp o sure pathw a ys. Point-estim ates for workers are listed under “worker (single value).” OEHHA has not generated or endor sed distributions for worker e xposure. Therefore there is no
Tier 3 s t och a stic approach for offsite worker cancer risk ass e ssm ent.

5-15

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

5.4.1 Estima tion of Exposure Through Inhalation



### Exposure through inhalation (Dos e-inh) is a function of th e respiration rate and the
concentratio n of a substance in th e air.

1. Formula EQ 5.4.1 A :

Dose-inh = C air 

### *{DBR} * A * EF * ED *10 -6 (E Q 5. 4. 1 A) 

### A T



### where:
Dose-inh = Dose through inhalation (m g/kg/d)
1 0 -6 

### = Microg ram s to m illigram s conversion, Liters to cubic m e ters conversion

C air 

### = Concentr ation in air ( μ 

### g/m 3 

### ) {DBR} = Daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight - day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor

EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)

ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging tim e period over which exposure is averaged, in days (e.g., 25,550 d for 70 yr for cancer risk)

2. Recommended default values for EQ 5.4.1 A :



### a. EF = 350 d/y
b. ED = 9; 30; or 70 yr

c. AT = 25,550 days
d

. A = 1

e. {DBR} 9, 30 & 70 year exposure = see Table 5.4
f. {DBR} 30 a nd 70 year exposure = see Table 5. 5 for param e tric m ode ls (distribu tion s f o r Tier 3 s t ochas tic ris k assessm ent)

Table 5.4 Point Estimates for Daily Br eathing Rate for 9, 30, and 70-year Exposure Durations (D BR) (L/kg BW * Day)



### 9-Year Exposure Duration 30 & 70-Year Exposure Duration Off

- site 1



### Wor k e r Average High End Average High End (Single Valu e)

4 5 2 5 8 1 2 7 1 3 9 3 1 4 9

1 Thi s val u e c o r r esp o nds t o a 7 0 kg w o r k e r br eat hi ng 1

. 3 m 3 / h our for an eigh t hou r d a y. 1

. 3 m 3 /h r is th e breath i ng

r a te r e co mm en d e d b y U

. S.EPA

, ( 199 7a) as an h our ly av er ag e f o r o u t d oor w o r k er s.



### 5-16

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table 5.5 Breathing Rate Distributions for 9, 30, and 70-Year Exposure Durations for Stochastic Analysis (L /kg BW * Day)



### 9-Year Exposure Duration 30 & 70-Year Exposure Duration Distribution Type Ga mm a Ga mm a Location 3 0 1

. 6 7 1 9 3

. 9 9
Scale 2 9

. 5 9 3 1

. 2 7 Shape 5

. 0 6 2

. 4 6

3. Assumption for EQ 5.4.1 A :



### a. The fraction of che m ical absorbed (A ) is the sam e fraction absorbed in the study on which the cancer potency or Refe rence Exposure Level is based.

5.4.2 Estima tion of Exposure Through Dermal Absor p tion



### Exposure through derm al absorp tion (Dose-derm al) is a functi on of the soil or dust loading of the exposed skin surface, the am ount of skin su rface area ex posed, and the concentration and availability of the substance. Distrib u tions are n o t available for stochastic analysis. Tier III
stochastic risk assessm ents shoul d include the derm al pathway as a high end point estim a te.

1. Formula EQ 5.4.2 A :

Dose-dermal = C s 

### * SA * SL * Ef * ABS * 10 - 9 

### * ED/ BW* AT (E Q 5. 4. 2 A)



### W h ere: Dose-derm a l = Exposure dose th rough derm al absorption (m g/kg/d)

C s 

### = Average s o il concentration ( μ 

### g/kg)
SA = Surface area of exposed skin (cm 2 

### )
SL = Soil loading on skin (mg/cm 2 

### -d)
ABS = Fraction absorbed across skin
BW = Body weight (kg)

1 0 -9 

### = Microgram s to kilogram conversion factor ( μ 

### g/kg)

EF = (EF defined in Table 5.6) (days/year)
AT = 25,550 days (70 years)

ED = Exposure Duration (years) 2. Recommended default values for EQ 5.4.2 A :



### a

. C s 

### = Calculated above in E Q 5.3.2 A
b. SA = See Table 5.6

c. SL = See Table 5.6
d. ABS = See Table 5.3

e. BW = See Table 5.6
f. f = See Table 5.6

5-17

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table 5.6 Recommended Point Estima te Values for Dermal Pathway for 9, 30, and 70 Year E xposure Durations and Worker 1



### 9 Year 1 

### Exposure Duration 30 & 70 Year Exposure Duration Wor k e r 2 

### (Single Valu e)

BW Body Weight (kg) 18 63 70 Average High End Average High End SL Soil Loading (m g/cm 2



### - day) 3 

### 0

. 2 1

. 0 0

. 2 1

. 0 1

. 0

EF Exposure Frequency (d/yr) 2 2 8 3 5 0 1 2 1 3 5 0 2 4 5

SA Surface Area Exposed (cm 2 

### ) 2

, 7 7 8 3

, 0 4 4 4

, 7 0 0 5

, 5 0 0 5

, 8 0 0

1. OEHHA, 2000b, pa ge 6-10 c ont ains s u rface area e x pos e d a n d expos u re fre quency re commended va lues for
childre n (1
- 6) and ad ults (> 6 ) . F o r th e 9 year a v era g e s u rfa ce area e x pos e d , a tim e weighted a v e r age value for age s 0- 9 was de ri ve d wi t h fol l o wi ng f o rm ul a ( 5 / 9 x 20 0 0 ) + (3 / 9 x 5 0 0 0 ) = 2

, 77 8 cm 2 . For t h e 9 year hi gh-end s u rface

ar ea ex po sed

, (5 /9 x 20 00) + (3 /9 x 58 00) = 3

, 0 4 4 cm 2

. It is assu m e d th at d e rm al ex po su re to ou tdo o r so il do es no t

occur t h e fi rst year of life. For exposu re fre que ncy t h e sa m e app r oac h w a s use d : (5/ 9 x 35 0) + ( 3 / 9 x 1 0 0 ) = 2 2 8 ( d / y r) f o r

av erage

. 2. Worke r values for s u rface area e x po se d a n d soil l o adi n g are t h e high e n d ad ult val u es from page 6-10, OE HHA,
2 000 b. Th e exp o s ur e f r e q u e ncy assu m e s th at th e wor k er wo rk s 49 weeks per year, 5 day s pe r week and that he or she is e x posed every d ay at work.
3

. For Ho t Spots risk assessm en ts it is assu med th at on e ev en t o c curs p e r day.



### 5.4.3 Estima tion of Exposure Through Ingestion



### Exposure through ingestion is a function of the concentration of the substance in the substance ingested (soil, water, and f ood), the ga strointestinal absorption of the substance in a soil or fly ash m a trix, and the am ount ingested.

1. Exposure through Ingestion of Soil



### There are no distribution s for soil ing e sti on curre n tly recom m e nded. Tier III s t ochas t ic
risk assessm ents should include a high-end point estim ate of soil inge stion, soil loading , exposure frequency and soil area. T h e dose from inadvertent soil ingestion can be estim ated by the point estim a te approach usi ng the following general equation:

Dose = C soil 

### x GRAF x SIR x EF x ED x 10 -9 (E Q 5. 4. 3. 1 A) 

### AT



### where:
Dose = dose from soil ingestion (m g/kg BW *day)

10 -9 

### = conversion factor (m g/ μ 

### g) (kg/m g )

C soil 

### = concentra tion of conta m inant in soil ( μ 

### g/ g)

5-18

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

GRAF = gastro inte stina l re lativ e abso rption fraction, un itless; chem ical-sp ecific (see Tab l e 5

. 3)
SIR = soil inges tion r a te (m g/kg BW * day) (see Table 5.7)

EF = exposure frequency (days/year)

ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averag ing tim e, period of tim e over which exp o sure is averaged (days ) ; for noncancer endpoints, AT = ED x 365 d/yr; for cancer ris k estim ates, AT = 70 yr x 365 d/yr = 25,550 days

b. Recommended default values for EQ 5.4.3.1 A :

a. GRAF = Table 5.3
b. SIR = Table 5.7

c. EF = 350 d/year resident, 245 d/year worker
d. ED = 9, 30, or 70 yr

e. AT = 25,550 days

Table 5.7 Soil Ingestion Rate s (S IR) for 9, 30 and 70-Year Exposure Durations an d Off-site W o rker.



### 9-Year Exposure Duration 30 & 70-Year Exposure Duration Off

- site 1



### Wor k e r Soil Inges tio n Rate (m g/kg BW *Day) 8

. 7 1

. 7 1

. 4

1. T h e s o i l i n g e st i on rat e o f 1

. 4 (m g/ kg B W * day ) c o r r es p o n d s t o t h e OE HH A, 2 0 0 0 b r ecom m e ndat i o n of
10 0 m g / d ay f o r a 7 0 kg ad ul t

.



### In this appro ach, it is as s u m e d that th e soil ingested contai ns a representative
concentration of the contam inant(s) and the conc entration is constant over the exposure period.

The term GRAF 

### , or gastroin tes tina l rela tive abso rption f a c t or , is def i ned a s the f r ac tio n of contam inant absorb ed by the GI tract relative to the fractio n of contam i n ant absorb ed from the

m a trix (feed, water, other) used in the study(ies) that is the ba sis of either the cancer potency factor (CPF) or the Reference Exposure Level (R EL). If no data are available to distinguish absorption in the toxicity study from absorption from the environm ental matrix in question, i.e., soil, then GRAF = 1. The GRAF allows for adjustm e nt f o r absorp tio n f r om a soil m a trix if
it is known to be different from absor p tion across the GI tract in the study used to calculate the
CPF or REL. In m o st inst ances, the GRAF will be 1.

2. Exposure through Ingestion of Water

a. Formula EQ 5.4.3.2 B :

D o s e

- w = C
w 

### * WIR * AB ing 

### * F dw 

### * EF * ED * 10 -6 

### /AT (E Q 5. 4. 3. 2 B )



### 5-19

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

where:
Dose-w = Exposure dose throug h ingestion of water (mg/kg/d)

C
w 

### = W a ter co ncentration ( μ 

### g/kg)
W I R = W a ter ing e stion rate ( m l/kg BW /day)
A B ing 

### = Gastroin testin al abso rption facto r F dw 

### = Fraction of drinking wa ter from contam inated source

EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)

ED = Exposure duration (years)

1 0 -6 

### = Conversion factor ( μ 

### g/m g )(L/ m l)

b. Recommended default values for EQ 5.4.3.2 B :



### 1 > C
w 

### = Calculated above 5.3.3 A
2> W I R = See Tables 5.8 and 5.9
3 > A B ing 

### = Def a ult s e t to 1
4> EF = 350 d/yr
5> ED = 9, 30, or 70 yrs 6> AT = 25,550 days

Table 5.8 Point Estimate Water Consumption Ingestion R a tes (W IR) f o r 9, 30, and 70-Year Exposure Durations (ml/kg BW * day)



### 9-Year Exp o sure Duration 30 and 70-Year Exposure
Duration Average High End Average High End

4 0 8 1 2 4 5 4

Table 5.9 Water Ingestion Lognormal Distri butions for 9, 30, and 70-Year Exposure Durations (ml/kg BW * day) (Stochastic Analysis)



### Distribu tion Type 9-Year Exposure Duration 30 & 70-Year Exposure Duration Lognorm a l Mean ± 

### S.D. μ ± σ 

### Mean ± 

### S.D. μ ± σ 

### Lognorm a l 40.03 ±


### 21.45 3.57 ± 

### 0.50 24.2 ± 

### 17.0 2.99 ± 

### 0.63

5-20

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

3. Exposure through Ingestion of Food



### The exposure through food ingestion can be th rough ingestion of plan t products, animal products (including fish), and m o ther's m ilk.

a. Plant products



### Exposure through ingesting plants (Dose-p) is a function of the type of plant, gastro intestinal absorp tion factor , bioavailability and the fraction of plants ingested th at are hom e grown. The calcu lation is done for each typ e of plant, th en summ ed t o get to tal d o se for this pa thway

.

1> Formula EQ 5.4.3.3.a C :

Dose-p = (C f 

### * IP * GRAF * L * EF * ED * 10 -6 

### ) /AT (E Q 5. 4. 3. 3. a C)



### a> Dose-p = Exposure dose through ingestion of plant products (m g/kg/d)
b > C f 

### = Concentration in plant type ( μ 

### g/kg)

c> IP = Consum ption of e xposed, leafy, protected, or root produce (g/kg*day)
d> GRAF = Gastroin testin al r e la tive absorptio n f actor

e> L = Fraction of expos ed, leafy, protected, or root produce
h o m e g r o w n f> EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
g> ED = Exposure duration (years)
h > 1 0 -6 

### = Conversion factor ( μ 

### g/kg to m g /g)
i> AT = Averaging tim e, period over which exposure is averaged (d ays)

2> Recommen d ed default values for E Q 5.4.3.3.a C :



### a > C f 

### = Calculated above in E Q 5.3.4.1 A
b > I P = See Tables 5.10 to 5.12

c> GRAF = See Table 5.3
d > L = S i t e s p e c i f i c fraction of produce hom e grown or locally produced. For nonurban sites 0.15 m a y be used as a default. For urban sites 0.052 m a y be
used (USEPA, 1997b).

e> EF = 350 d/yr
f > E D = 7 0 y r s g> AT = 25,550 days

5-21

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table 5.10 Point Estimates for Per Capita Food Consumptio n Rates (g/K g BW * Day)



### 9-Year Exposure Duration 30 & 70-Year Exposure Durations Average High End Average High End

Produce Exposed 4

. 1 6 1 5

. 7 3

. 5 6 1 2

. 1 Leafy 2

. 9 2 1 0

. 9 2

. 9 0 1 0

. 6
Protected 1

. 6 3 6

. 6 6 1

. 3 9 4

. 8 8

Root 4

. 0 8 1 4

. 9 3

. 1 6 1 0

. 5

Meat
Beef 2

. 2 4 7

. 9 7 2

. 2 5 6

. 9 7
Chicken 1

. 8 0 4

. 7 7 1

. 4 6 5

. 0 2
Pork 1

. 3 1 5

. 1 0 1

. 3 9 4

. 5 9

Dairy 1 2

. 0 5 1

. 9 5

. 4 6 1 7

. 4

Eggs 3

. 2 1 1 0

. 3 1

. 8 0 5

. 3 9

Table 5.11 Parametric Models for Ages 0-9 Food Consumption
Distribution s (g/kg BW * Da y) (Sto chastic Ana l ysis )



### Food Category Distribu tion Type Mean Std.
Dev. Location Scale Shape μ ± σ



### Produce Exposed Lognorm a l 3

. 9 3 5

. 4 9 exp(0.83 ± 

### 1.04) Leafy Lognorm a l 2

. 8 3 3

. 8 9 exp(0.43 ± 

### 1.03)
Protected W e i b u l l 0

. 1 3 1

. 2 1 0

. 7 1

Root Lognorm a l 4

. 0 8 5

. 9 1 exp(0.84 ± 

### 1.06)

Meat
Beef W e i b u l l 0

. 2 4 1

. 7 2 0

. 7 7
Chicken Ga mm a 0

. 2 5 2

. 9 4 0

. 5 3
Pork W e i b u l l 0

. 1 8 0

. 9 7 0

. 7 8

Dairy Lognorm a l 1 1

. 3 2 1 8

. 3 exp(1.78 ± 

### 1.13)

Eggs W e i b u l l 0

. 2 6 2

. 6 7 0

. 8 2

5-22

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table 5.12 Parametric Models for Ages 0-70 Food Consumption Distributions (g/kg BW * Day) (Stoch astic Analysis)

Category of F ood Mean Standard
Deviation Distribution Type μ ± σ

Produce Exposed 3.43 6.16 Lognorm a l Exp (0. 5 1 ± 1. 20) Leafy 2

. 9 7 4

. 9 5 Lognorm a l Exp (0. 4 2 ± 1. 15)
Protected 1

. 3 9 2

. 4 3 Lognorm a l Exp (-0. 3 7 ± 1. 18)

Root 3

. 0 7 5

. 2 3 Lognorm a l Exp (0. 4 4 ± 1. 17)

Meat
Beef 2.32 3.50 Lognorm a l Exp (0. 2 5 ± 1. 09)
Chicken 1

. 4 4 2

. 1 9 Lognorm a l Exp (-0. 2 3 ± 1. 09)
Pork 1

. 4 2 2

. 3 0 Lognorm a l Exp (-0. 2 9 ± 1. 13)

Dairy 5

. 5 7 1 0

. 5 Lognorm a l Exp (0. 9 6 ± 1. 23)

Eggs 1

. 8 4 2

. 6 0 Lognorm a l Exp (0. 061 ± 1

. 05)



### Table 5.13 Default Values for Fish er–caught Fish Consumption (g/kg BW * Day)



### 9, 30, & 70-Year Exposure Scenario Average 0.48 High-End 1.35

Table 5.14
Parametr ic Model for F i sher-caugh t Fi sh Consumption Distribution for 9, 30 and 70-Year Exposure Scenarios (g/kg BW *Day) (stochastic analysis).



### Mean Standard.
Deviation Distribu tion Type μ ± σ



### 0

. 4 8 0

. 7 1 L o g n o r m a l exp(-1.31 ± 1.08)



### 5-23

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

b. Animal Products (Inclu ding Fisher -caught Fis h )



### Exposure through anim al product ingestion (Dose- ap) is a function of what type of m e at and/or fish is ingested, as we ll as anim al m ilk products and e ggs. The calculation is done for each type an d then summ ed to get the total dose for this path way.

1> Formula 5.4.3.3.b D :

D o s e

- a p = C fa 

### * If * GI * L * EF * ED * 10 -6 

### /AT (E Q 5. 4. 3. 3.b D)



### a> Dose-ap = Exposure dose thr ough ingestion of anim al or fish products (m g/kg BW * day)
b > C fa 

### = Concentration in anim al product ( μ 

### g/kg)

c> If = Consum ption of animal product (g/kg BW per day), e.g, beef, chicken, pork, diary, eggs, fish
d> GI = Gastroin testin al abso rption facto r
e> L = Fraction of anim al product hom e g rown f> EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
g> ED = Exposure duration (years)
h> AT = Averagin g tim e (days)
i > 1 0 -6 

### = Conversion factor ( μ 

### g/kg to m g /g) for C f 

### term

2> Recommended default values for EQ 5.4.3.3.b D :



### a > C fa 

### = Calculated above in E Q 5.3.4.2 E
b> If = See Tables 5.10, 5.11, and 5.12. For fish ingestion rates see Table
5.13. For distributions (paramet ri c m odel s ) for Ti er 3 ri sk

assessm ents see Tables 5.11, 5.12, and 5.14.

c> GI = Def a ult s e t to 1.
d> L = Site specific fr action of product locally produced.

e> EF = 350 d/yr
f> ED = 70 yrs

G 

### > AT = 25,550 DAY S



### c. Mother's Milk



### Exposure through m o ther's m ilk ingestion (Dose-Im ) is a function of the average
substance concentration in m o ther 's m ilk and the am ount of mother's m ilk ingested. The

m i ni m u m pa thways that the nursing mother is ex posed to include inhala tion, soil ingestion and
derm al, sinc e the chem icals eva l uate d by the m o ther’s m ilk p a thway are m u ltipathwa y chem icals. Other pathw a ys m a y be appropriate depending on site condi tions (e.g. presence of vegetable gardens or hom e grown c h ickens). T h e nursing m o ther in th e m o ther’s m ilk pathway is not herself subject to the m o ther’s m ilk pa thway. The summed average daily dose (m g/kg
BW -day) f r om all path ways is calc u lated f o r th e nursing m o ther using the equations on pages 20-
26.

5-24

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

1> Formula 5.4.3.3.c E :

Dose-Im = C m 

### * BMI bw 

### * F * yr / 25,550 (E Q 5. 4. 3. 3.c E )



### a> Dose-Im = Exposure dose thr ough ingestion of m o ther’s m ilk ( m g/kg

B W / d )

b > C
m 

### = Concentration of contam inan t in m o ther' s m ilk is a f unction
of the m o the r 's exposure through all routes and the

contam inant half-life in the body (m g/g m ilk)

1: Formula 5.4.3.3.c F :

Cm = E mi 

### * t 1/2 

### * f 1 

### * f 3 

### * 10 -3 

### / ( f 2 

### * 0.693) (E Q 5. 4. 3. 3.c F)



### a : E mi 

### = Averag e daily m a te rnal intake o f contam inant
from all routes (m g/kg/d)
b : t 1/2 

### = Half -lif e of contam inant in m o ther (d)

c : f l 

### = Fractio n of contam inant tha t par titions to m o ther' s f a t d : f 3 

### = Fractio n of f a t of m o ther' s m ilk (kg f a t/kg m ilk)

e : f 2 

### = Fractio n of m o ther's weight that is fat(kg fat/kg bw)
f : 1 0 -3 

### = Conversion f actor (g to kg m ilk)

g: 0.693 = Natural log of 2

2: Recommended default values for EQ 5.4.3.3.c F :



### a : E mi 

### = Sum of doses
b : t 1/2 

### = 2,117 (d) for PCDDs/PCDFs = 5. 8 yr 1,460 (d) for both PCBs

c : f l 

### = 0.8
d : f 3 

### = 0.04 (kg fat/kg m ilk)

e : f 2 

### = 0.33 (kg fat/kg BW )

c > B M I bw 

### = Daily breast-m ilk ingestion rate (g/kg BW *day)
d> F = Frequency of exposure (d/yr)

e> yr = Breast-feeding period (yr)

f> 25,550 = Exposure period (d)

2> Recommended default values for EQ 5.4.3.3.c E:



### a > B M I bw 

### = see Table 5.15 For distribution (param etric m odel) for Tier 3 stochastic

5-25

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

risk as sessm ents see T a b l e 5.16
b> F = 365 (d)

c> yr = 1(yr)

3> Assumptions for EQ 5.4.3.3.c E :



### a> For the MEIR, m o ther is exposed fo r 25 years, the child receives m ilk for another year, and then the nursing infant is exposed for 9, 30, or 70 years.
b> For the 9, 30, and 70 year exposure duration scenarios, the total toxicant
dose from the breast-feeding in the firs t y ear of lif e is assum e d to be spread over 70 years in order to cal culate an average daily do se.

Table 5.15 Point Estimate Values f o r Breast M ilk Consumption Rate (g/kg BW *day)



### 9, 30, and 70-Year Exposure Durations Average 102 High End 138

Table 5.16
Parametr ic Model for B r east M ilk C o nsumption Rate for 9, 30, and 70 Year Exposure Durations (Stochastic Analysis) (g/kg BW *day)



### Distribution Type Mean ± 

### S.D.

Nor m al 102 ± 

### 21.8

5.5 References for Kow and Koc Values in Table 5.3

Table 5.17 References for Kow Values

C o m p o u n d N o t e s R e f e r e n c e Diethylhexly p h t h a l a t e L e vel 1 calcula tion Mackay et al . (1 995 )

4

, 4 ’ -Meth y lene d i an ilin e Measu r ed Han s ch et al . (1 985 )



### 5-26

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table 5.18 References for Koc Values

C o m p o u n d N o t e s R e f e r e n c e Diethylhexyl p h t h a l a t e L e vel 1 calcula tion Mackay et al . (1 995 ) 4,4’-Methylene dianiline Esti m a ted accordi n g to m e thodol ogy of Lyman
et al . ( 199 0) Lym a n et al . (1 990 )



### 5-27

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.



## 6. Dose-Response Assessment for Noncarcinogenic Endpoints

6.1 Derivation of Toxicity Criteria

Dose-response assessm ent describes the quantitative relationship between the am ount of exposure to a substance (the dose) and the incidence or occurrence of an adverse health im pact (the response). For noncarcinogens, dose-response inform ation is presented in the form of Reference Exposure Levels (RELs). RELs are concentrations or doses at or below which adverse effects are not likely to occur following specified exposure conditions. The

m e thodology for developing chronic RELs is fundam e ntally the sam e as that used by U.S. EPA in developing the inhalation Reference Concentrati ons (RfCs) and oral Reference Doses (RfDs).

Acute and chronic RELs are frequently calculated by dividing the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) or lowest observed advers e effect levels (LOAEL) in hum an or anim al studies by uncertainty factors. Uncertainty factors are applied to account for interspecies extrapolation, intraspecies variability, the use of subchronic studies to extrapolate to chronic effects, and use of a LOAEL instead of a NOAEL. Total uncertainty factors range from one to three thousand for current RELs. Haber’s equation is used, where needed, to adjust studies with different exposure tim es to the one-hour period needed for m o st acute RELs. Currently, there are eight acute RELs with reproductive health endpoints, which have exposure tim e periods
different from one-hour; these alternative exposur e periods include four, six, and seven hours.
The m o st sensitive toxicological end point is selected as the basis f o r the REL when there are

m

u ltiple adverse health effects. A slightly m o re com p licated m e thodology, the Benchm ark Concentration approach, is described in OEHHA, 1999a. The selection of the m o st sensitive endpoint as the basis for a REL helps ensure that the REL is protective for all health effects. The use of uncertainty factors helps ensure that the REL is protective for nearly all individuals, including sensitive subpopulations, within the lim itations of current scientific knowledge.

It should be em phasized that exceeding the acute or chronic REL does not necessarily
indicate that an adverse health im pact will occur. However, levels of exposure above the REL have an increasing but undefined probability of resulting in an adverse health im pact, particularly in sensitive individuals (e.g., depending on the toxicant, the very young, the elderly, pregnant wom e n, and those with acute or chronic illnesses). The significance of exceeding the REL is dependent on the seriousness of the health endpoint, the strength and interpretation of the health studies, the m a gnitude of com b ined safety factors, and other considerations. In addition, there is a possibility that an REL m a y not be protective of certain sm all, unusually sensitive
hum an subpopulations. Such subpopulations can be difficult to identify and study because of
their sm all num bers, lack of knowledge about toxic m echanism s , and other factors. It m a y be useful to consult OEHHA staff when an REL is exceeded (hazard quotient or hazard index is greater than 1.0). Chapter 8 discusses the m e thods used for determ ining potential noncancer
health im pacts and Appendix I presents exam ple calculations used to determ ine a hazard quotient (HQ) and hazard indices (HI). For detailed inform ation on the m e thodology and derivations for acute RELs, see the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part I; The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants (OEHHA 1999a) (Part I TSD). For inform ation on chronic RELS see the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program

6-1

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part III; Technical Support Document for the Determination of Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (OEHHA 2000a) (Part III TSD ).

Tables 6.1 and 6.2 list the currently adopted acute and chronic inhalation RELs. Som e substances that pose a chronic inhalation hazard m a y also present a chronic hazard via non-inhalation (oral) routes of exposure. The oral RELs for these substances are presented in Table 6.3. Appendix L provides a consolidated listing of all the acute and chronic RELs and target organs that are approved for use by OEHHA and ARB for the Hot Spots Program

. Periodically, new or updated RELs are adopted by OEHHA and these guidelines will be updated to reflect those changes. See OEHHA’s web site at www.oehha.ca.gov (look under “Air”, then select “Hot Spots Guidelines”) to determ ine if any new or updated RELs have been adopted since the last guideline update.

6.2 Description of Acute Reference Exposure Levels

OEHHA developed acute RELs for assessing potential noncancer health im pacts for
short-term , generally one-hour peak exposures to facility em issions. (A few RELs are for 4 to 7-hour peak exposures.) By definition, an acute REL is an exposure that is not likely to cause
adverse health effects in a hum an population, including sensitive subgroups, exposed to that concentration (in units of m i crogram s per cubic m e ter or μ g/m 3 

### ) for the specified exposure
duration on an interm ittent basis. Many acute RELs are based on m ild adverse ef f ects, such as

m ild irritation of the eyes, nose, or throat, or m a y result in other m ild adverse physiological changes. For m o st individuals, it is expected that the m ild irritation and other adverse physiological changes will not persist after exposure ceases. Som e acute RELs are based on reproductive/developm ental endpoints, such as teratogenicity or fetotoxicity, which are considered severe adverse effects. The RELs, target organ system s, and the averaging tim e for substances that can present a potential acute hazard from inhalation are presented in Table 6.1. Unlike the chronic RELs discussed in the following section, there are no acute noninhalation RELs. Chapter 8 discusses the m e thods used for determ ining noncancer acute health im pacts. Appendix I presents an exam ple calculation used to determ ine an HQ and HI.

6-2

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table 6.1 Acute Reference Exposure Levels and Target Organ Systems Impacted

Substance Chemical
Abstract
Service
Number

(CAS) Acute
Inhalation

REL ( μ g/ m 3 ) Averagi ng a

Time (hour) Acute Haz a rd Index Target Organ Systems(s)

Acrol e i n 107-02-8 1.9 x 10 -1 1 Eyes; Respiratory System Acry l i c Aci d 79-10-7 6.0 x 10 +3 1 Eyes; Respiratory System

Am m oni a 7664-41-7 3.2 x 10 +3 1 Eyes; Respiratory System

Arseni c and Inorgani c Arseni c C o m pounds 7440-38-2 1.9 x 10 -1 4 R e product i v e/ Devel opm ent a l

Arsi ne 7784-42-1 1.6 x 10 +2 1 Hem a t o l ogi c Sy st em

B e nzene 71-43-2 1.3 x 10 +3 6 Hem a t o l ogi c Sy st em ; Im m une System ; R e product i v e/ Devel opm ent a l

B e nzy l C h l o ri de 100-44-7 2.4 x 10 +2 1 Eyes; Respiratory System

C a rbon Di sul f i d e 75-15-0 6.2 x 10 +3 6 Nervous Sy st em ; R e product i v e/ Devel opm ent a l

C a rbon M onoxi de b 630-08-0 2.3 x 10 +4 1 C a rdi ovascul a r Sy st em

C a rbon Tet r achl o ri de 56-23-5 1.9 x 10 +3 7 Alim en tary Tract; Nervous Sy st em ; R e product i v e/ Devel opm ent a l

C h l o ri ne 7782-50-5 2.1 x 10 +2 1 Eyes; Respiratory System

C h l o roform 67-66-3 1.5 x 10 +2 7 Nervous Sy st em ; R e product i v e/ Devel opm ent a l

C h l o ropi cri n 76-06-2 2.9 x 10 +1 1 Eyes; Respiratory System

C opper and C o m pounds 7440-50-8 1.0 x 10 +2 1 R e spi r at ory Sy st em 1,4-Di oxane 123-91-1 3.0 x 10 +3 1 Eyes; Respiratory System Epi c hl orohy dri n 106-89-8 1.3 x 10 +3 1 Eyes; Respiratory System

Et hy l e ne Gl y c ol

M onobut y l Et her 111-76-2 1.4 x 10 +4 1 Eyes; Respiratory System

Et hy l e ne Gl y c ol

M onoet h y l Et her 110-80-5 3.7 x 10 +2 6 R e product i v e/ Devel opm ent a l

Et hy l e ne Gl y c ol

M onoet h y l Et her Acet at e 111-15-9 1.4 x 10 +2 6 Nervous Sy st em ; R e product i v e/ Devel opm ent a l

Et hy l e ne Gl y c ol

M onom et hy l Et her 109-86-4 9.3 x 10 +1 6 R e product i v e/ Devel opm ent a l

Form al dehy de 50-00-0 9.4 x 10 +1 1 Eyes; Im m une System ; Resp irato r y Hy drogen C h l o ri de 7647-01-0 2.1 x 10 +3 1 Eyes; Respiratory System Hy drogen C y ani d e 74-90-8 3.4 x 10 +2 1 N e r v o u s Sy st em Hy drogen Fl uori d e 7664-39-3 2.4 x 10 +2 1 Eyes; Respiratory System Hy drogen Sel e ni de 7783-07-5 5.0 x 10 +0 1 Eyes; Respiratory System

Hy drogen Sul f i d e b 7783-06-4 4.2 x 10 +1 1 N e r v o u s Sy st em
Isopropy l Al cohol 67-63-0 3.2 x 10 +3 1 Eyes; Respiratory System

M e rcury (Inorgani c) 7439-97-6 1.8 x 10 +0 1 R e product i v e/ Devel opm ent a l

M e t h anol 67-56-1 2.8 x 10 +4 1 N e r v o u s Sy st em



### 6-3

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table 6.1 Acute Reference Exposure Levels and Target Organ Systems Impacted

Substance Chemical
Abstract
Service
Number

(CAS) Acute
Inhalation

REL ( μ g/ m 3 ) Averagi ng a

Time (hour) Acute Haz a rd Index Target Organ Systems(s)

M e t h y l B r om i d e 74-83-9 3.9 x 10 +3 1 Nervous Sy st em ; R e spi r at ory Irritatio n ; R e product i v e/ Devel opm ent a l

M e t h y l C h l o roform 71-55-6 6.8 x 10 +4 1 N e r v o u s Sy st em
M e t h y l Et hy l Ket one 78-93-3 1.3 x 10 +4 1 Eyes; Respiratory System

M e t h y l ene C h l o ri de 75-09-2 1.4 x 10 +4 1 N e r v o u s Sy st em Nickel and Nickel
C o m pounds 7440-02-0 6.0 x 10 +0 1 Im m une Sy st em ; Respiratory System
Ni t r i c Aci d 7697-37-2 8.6 x 10 +1 1 R e spi r at ory Sy st em

Ni t r ogen Di oxi de b 10102-44-0 4 .7 x 10 +2 1 R e spi r at ory Sy st em

Ozone b 10028-15-6 1 .8 x 10 +2 1 Eyes; Respiratory System

Perchl oroet h y l ene 127-18-4 2.0 x 10 +4 1 Ey es; Nervous Sy st em ; Respiratory System
Phenol 108-95-2 5.8 x 10 +3 1 Eyes; Respiratory System Phosgene 75-44-5 4.0 x 10 +0 1 R e spi r at ory Sy st em

Propy l e ne Oxi d e 75-56-9 3.1 x 10 +3 1 Eyes; Respiratory System ; R e product i v e/ Devel opm ent a l

Sodi um Hy droxi de 1310-73-2 8.0 x 10 +0 1 Eyes; Sk in ; Respiratory System

St y r ene 100-42-5 2.1 x 10 +4 1 Eyes; Respiratory System

Sulfates b N/ A 1.2 x 10 +2 1 R e spi r at ory Sy st em

Sul f ur Di oxi de b 7446-09-5 6.6 x 10 +2 1 R e spi r at ory Sy st em

Su lfu r ic Acid an d Oleu m 7664-93-9
8014-95-7 1.2 x 10 +2 1 R e spi r at ory Sy st em

Tol u ene 108-88-3 3.7 x 10 +4 1 Nervous Sy st em ; Ey es; Respiratory System ; R e product i v e/ Devel opm ent a l

Tri e t h y l am i n e 121-44-8 2.8 x 10 +3 1 Nervous Sy st em ; Ey es Vanadi um Pent oxi de 1314-62-1 3.0 x 10 +1 1 Eyes; Respiratory System

Vi ny l C h l o ri de 75-01-4 1.8 x 10 +5 1 Nervous Sy st em ; Ey es; Respiratory System Xy l e nes (m ,o,p-i som e rs) 1330-20-7 2.2 x 10 +4 1 Eyes; Respiratory System



### a. The averagi ng peri od of noncancer acut e R ELs i s genera l l y a one-hour exposure. However, som e are based on
several hour exposure for reproduct i v e/ devel opm ent a l e ndpoi nt s (see sect i on 1.6 of t h e Part I TSD). The

R ELs for t h e fol l o wi ng subst a nces m u st be com p ared t o m odel e d em i ssi on concent r at i ons of t h e sam e durat i on rat h er t h an m a xi m u m one-hour concent r at i ons (e.g., a 4-hour R EL shoul d be com p ared t o t h e

m a xi m u m 4-hour average concent r at i on from t h e ai r di spersi on m odel )

. 

### b. Califo r n i a Am b i en t Air Qu ality Stan d a rd



### 6-4

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

6.3 Description of Chronic Reference Exposure Levels

OEHHA has developed chronic RELs for assessing noncancer health im pacts from long-term exposure. (See the Part III TSD for detailed inform ation on the developm ent of noncancer chronic inhalation and oral RELs.) A chronic REL is a concentration level (that is expressed in units of m i crogram s per cubic m e ter ( μ g/m 3 

### ) for inhalation exposure and in a dose expressed in units of m illigram per kilogram -day (m g/kg-day) for oral exposures), at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated following long-term exposure. Long-term exposure for these purposes has been defined as 12% of a lifetim e, or about eight years for
hum ans. Table 6.2 lists the chronic noncancer RELs that should be used in the assessm ent of
chronic health effects from inhalation exposure. Appendix L provides a consolidated listing of all the acute and chronic RELs and target or gans that are approved for use by OEHHA and ARB for the Hot Spots Program . Periodically, ne w or updated RELs are adopted by OEHHA and these guidelines will be updated to reflect those changes. See OEHHA’s web site at www.oehha.ca.gov (look under “Air”, then select “Hot Spots Guidelines”) to determ ine if any new or updated RELs have been adopted since the last guideline update.

The m o st sensitive organ system (s) associated with each chronic REL are also presented in Table 6.2. Chapter 8 discusses the m e thods used for determ ining potential noncancer health
im pacts and Appendix I presents exam ple calculations used to determ ine a HQ and HI.

6-5

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table 6.2 Chronic Inhalation Reference Exposure Levels (RELs)
And Chronic Haz a rd Index Target Organ System(s)

Substance Chemical
Abstract
Service
Number

(CAS) Chronic
Inhalation

REL ( μ g/ m 3 ) Chronic Inhalation Haz a rd Index Target Organ System(s)

Acet al dehy de a 75-07-0 9.0 x 10 +0 Respiratory System

Acro lein 107-02-8 6.0 x 10 -2 Eyes; Respiratory System

Acrylo n itrile 107-13-1 5.0 x 10 +0 Respiratory System

Am m oni a 7664-41-7 2.0 x 10 +2 Respiratory System

Arseni c & Inorgani c Arseni c C o m pounds 7440-38-2 3.0 x 10 -2 C a rdi ovascul ar Sy st em ; Devel opm ent a l ; Nervous Sy st em

Benzene 71-43-2 6.0 x 10 +1 Devel opm ent a l ; Hem a t opoi et i c Sy st em ; Nervous Sy st em Beryllium and Beryllium Com pounds 7440-41-7 7.0 x 10 -3 Im m une System ; Respiratory System

Butadiene 106-99-0 2.0 x 10 +1 R e product i v e Sy st em

C a dm i u m and C a dm i u m C o m pounds 7440-43-9 2.0 x 10 -2 Ki dney ; R e spi r at ory Sy st em

C a rbon Di sul f i d e 75-15-0 8.0 x 10 +2 Nervous Sy st em ; R e product i v e Sy st em

C a rbon Tet r achl o ri de 56-23-5 4.0 x 10 +1 Alim en tary System ; Dev e lo p m en tal; Nervous Sy st em

Ch lo rin e 7782-50-5 2.0 x 10 -1 Respiratory System

C h l o ri ne Di oxi de 10049-04-4 6.0 x 10 -1 Respiratory System

C h l o ri nat e d Di benzo- p -di oxi ns b

2,3,7,8-Tet r achl o rodi benzo- p -di oxi n b 1746-01-6 4.0 x 10 -5

1,2,3,7,8-Pent achl o rodi benzo- p -di oxi n b 40321-76-4 4.0 x 10 -5

1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachl o rodi benzo- p -di oxi n b 39227-28-6 4.0 x 10 -4

1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachl o rodi benzo- p -di oxi n b 57653-85-7 4.0 x 10 -4

1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachl o rodi benzo- p -di oxi n b 19408-74-3 4.0 x 10 -4

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hept achl o rodi benzo- p -di oxi n b 35822-46-9 4.0 x 10 -3

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Oct achl o rodi benzo- p -di oxi n b 3268-87-9 4.0 x 10 -1 Alim en tary System ; Dev e lo p m en tal;
Endocri ne Sy st em ; Hem a t opoi et i c Sy st em ; R e product i v e Sy st em ; R e spi r at ory Sy st em

C h l o ri nat e d Di benzofurans b

2,3,7,8-Tet r achl o rodi benzofuran b 5120-73-19 4.0 x 10 -4

1,2,3,7,8-Pent achl o rodi benzofuran b 57117-41-6 8.0 x 10 -4

2,3,4,7,8-Pent achl o rodi benzofuran b 57117-31-4 8.0 x 10 -5

1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachl o rodi benzofuran b 70648-26-9 4.0 x 10 -4

1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachl o rodi benzofuran b 57117-44-9 4.0 x 10 -4 Alim en tary System ; Dev e lo p m en tal;
Endocri ne Sy st em ; Hem a t opoi et i c Sy st em ; R e product i v e Sy st em ; R e spi r at ory Sy st em



### 6-6

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table 6.2 Chronic Inhalation Reference Exposure Levels (RELs)
And Chronic Haz a rd Index Target Organ System(s)

Substance Chemical
Abstract
Service
Number

(CAS) Chronic
Inhalation

REL ( μ g/ m 3 ) Chronic Inhalation Haz a rd Index Target Organ System(s)

1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachl o rodi benzofuran b 72918-21-9 4.0 x 10 -4

2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachl o rodi benzofuran b 60851-34-5 4.0 x 10 -4

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hept achl o rodi benzofuran b 67562-39-4 4.0 x 10 -3

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Hept achl o rodi benzofuran b 55673-89-7 4.0 x 10 -3

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Oct achl o rodi benzofuran b 39001-02-0 4.0 x 10 -1 Alim en tary System ; Dev e lo p m en tal;
Endocri ne Sy st em ; Hem a t opoi et i c Sy st em ; R e product i v e Sy st em ; R e spi r at ory Sy st em

Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 1.0 x 10 +3 Al i m ent a ry Sy st em ; Ki dney ; R e product i v e System

Chloroform 67-66-3 3.0 x 10 +2 Alim en tary System ; Dev e lo p m en tal;
Ki dney

Ch lo ro p i crin 76-06-2 4.0 x 10 -1 Respiratory System

C h rom i um VI & Sol ubl e C h rom i um VI
C o m pounds (except chrom i c t r i oxi de) 18540-29-9 2.0 x 10 -1 Respiratory System

Chrom i c Trioxide (as chrom i c acid m i st) 1333-82-0 2.0 x 10 -3 Respiratory System

C r esol M i xt ures 1319-77-3 6.0 x 10 +2 Nervous Sy st em

1,4-Di chl o robenzene 106-46-7 8.0 x 10 +2 Al i m ent a ry Sy st em ; Ki dney ; Nervous System ; Respiratory System ;

1

, 1

- Dich lo ro eth y len e (Vin ylid en e Ch lo rid e ) 75-35-4 7.0 x 10 +1 Alim en tary System

Di esel Exhaust a N/ A 5.0 x 10 +0 Respiratory System

Diethanolam ine 111-42-2 3.0 x 10 +0 C a rdi ovascul ar Sy st em ; Nervous Sy st em

N,N-Dim e thy l form am ide 68-12-2 8.0 x 10 +1 Alim en tary System ; Resp irato r y System

1,4-Di oxane 123-91-1 3.0 x 10 +3 Alim en tary System ; Card io v a scu l ar Sy st em ; Ki dney
Epi c hl orohy dri n 106-89-8 3.0 x 10 +0 Eyes; Respiratory System

1,2-Epoxy but ane 106-88-7 2.0 x 10 +1 C a rdi ovascul ar Sy st em ; R e spi r at ory System

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 2.0 x 10 +3 Alim en tary System (Liv er);
Devel opm ent a l ; Endocri ne Sy st em ; Ki dney

Eth y l Ch lo rid e 75-00-3 3.0 x 10 +4 Alim en tary System ; Dev e lo p m en tal

Et hy l e ne Di brom i d e 106-93-4 8.0 x 10 - 1 R e product i v e

Et hy l e ne Di chl o ri de 107-06-2 4.0 x 10 +2 Alim en tary System (Liv er)

Et hy l e ne Gl y c ol 107-21-1 4.0 x 10 +2 Devel opm ent a l ; Ki dney ; R e spi r at ory System

Et hy l e ne Gl y c ol M onoet h y l Et her 110-80-5 7.0 x 10 +1 Hem a t opoi et i c Sy st em ; R e product i v e System

Et hy l e ne Gl y c ol M onoet h y l Et her Acet at e 111-15-9 3.0 x 10 +2 Devel opm ent a l



### 6-7

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table 6.2 Chronic Inhalation Reference Exposure Levels (RELs)
And Chronic Haz a rd Index Target Organ System(s)

Substance Chemical
Abstract
Service
Number

(CAS) Chronic
Inhalation

REL ( μ g/ m 3 ) Chronic Inhalation Haz a rd Index Target Organ System(s)

Et hy l e ne Gl y c ol M onom et hy l Et her 109-86-4 6.0 x 10 +1 R e product i v e Sy st em

Et hy l e ne Gl y c ol M onom et hy l Et her Acet at e 110-49-6 9.0 x 10 +1 R e product i v e Sy st em

Et hy l e ne Oxi d e 75-21-8 3.0 x 10 +1 Nervous Sy st em

Form al dehy de 50-00-0 3.0 x 10 +0 Eyes; Respiratory System

Fl uori d es 1.3 x 10 +1 B one and Teet h, R e spi r at ory Sy st em

Gl ut aral dehy de 111-30-8 8.0 x 10 -2 R e s p i r a t o r y System

Hexane (n-) 110-54-3 7.0 x 10 +3 N e r v o u s Sy st em

Hy drazi ne 302-01-2 2.0 x 10 -1 Al i m ent a ry Sy st em ; Endocri ne Sy st em

Hy drogen C h l o ri de 7647-01-0 9.0 x 10 +0 R e s p i r a t o r y System

Hy drogen C y ani d e 74-90-8 9.0 x 10 +0 C a rdi ovascul ar Sy st em ; Endocri ne Sy st em ; Nervous Sy st em

Hy drogen Fl uori d e 7664-39-3 1.4 x 10 +1 B one and Teet h, R e spi r at ory Sy st em

Hy drogen Sul f i d e 7783-06-4 1.0 x 10 +1 R e s p i r a t o r y System

Isophorone 78-59-1 2.0 x 10 +3 Alim en tary System ; Dev e lo p m en tal

Isopropanol 67-63-0 7.0 x 10 +3 D e v e l opm ent a l ; Ki dney

M a l e i c Anhy dri d e 108-31-6 7.0 x 10 -1 R e s p i r a t o r y System

M a nganese & M a nganese C o m pounds 7439-96-5 2.0 x 10 -1 N e r v o u s Sy st em

M e rcury & M e rcury C o m pounds (i norgani c) 7439-97-6 9.0 x 10 -2 N e r v o u s Sy st em

M e t h anol 67-56-1 4.0 x 10 +3 D e v e l opm ent a l

M e t h y l B r om i d e 74-83-9 5.0 x 10 +0 Devel opm ent a l ; Nervous Sy st em ; Respiratory System

M e t h y l t e rt i a ry -B ut y l Et her 1634-04-4 8.0 x 10 +3 Alim en tary System ; Eyes; Kid n e y

M e t h y l C h l o roform 71-55-6 1.0 x 10 +3 N e r v o u s Sy st em

M e t h y l Isocy a nat e 624-83-9 1.0 x 10 +0 R e product i v e; R e spi r at ory Sy st em

M e t h y l ene C h l o ri de 75-09-2 4.0 x 10 +2 C a rdi ovascul ar Sy st em ; Nervous Sy st em

4

, 4 ’-Meth y len e Dian ilin e (an d its d i ch lo rid e ) 101-77-9 2.0 x 10 +1 Alim en tary System ; Eyes

M e t h y l ene Di pheny l Isocy a nat e 101-68-8 7.0 x 10 -1 R e s p i r a t o r y System

Napht hal e ne 91-20-3 9.0 x 10 +0 R e s p i r a t o r y System

Ni ckel & Ni ckel C o m pounds (except ni ckel oxi de) 7440-02-0 5.0 x 10 -2 Hem a t opoi et i c Sy st em ; R e spi r at ory System



### 6-8

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table 6.2 Chronic Inhalation Reference Exposure Levels (RELs)
And Chronic Haz a rd Index Target Organ System(s)

Substance Chemical
Abstract
Service
Number

(CAS) Chronic
Inhalation

REL ( μ g/ m 3 ) Chronic Inhalation Haz a rd Index Target Organ System(s)

Ni ckel Oxi d e 1313-99-1 1.0 x 10 -1 Hem a t opoi et i c Sy st em ; R e spi r at ory System

Phenol 108-95-2 2.0 x 10 +2 Alim en tary System ; Card io v a scu l ar Sy st em ; Ki dney ; Nervous Sy st em

Phosphi ne 7803-51-2 8.0 x 10 -1 Al i m ent a ry Sy st em ; Hem a t opoi et i c Sy st em ; Ki dney ; Nervous Sy st em ; Respiratory System

Phosphori c Aci d 7664-38-2 7.0 x 10 +0 R e s p i r a t o r y System

Pht h al i c Anhy dri d e 85-44-9 2.0 x 10 +1 R e s p i r a t o r y System

Pol ychl o ri nat ed bi phenyl s P4 (PCBs) (speciated) b

3,3’,4,4’-Tet rachl o robi pheny l (77) b 3 5 2 9 8

- 1 3

- 3 4.0 x10 -1

3,4,4’,5-Tet rachl o robi pheny l (81) b 7 0 3 6 2

- 5 0

- 4 4.0 x 10 -1

2,3,3’,4,4’- Pent achl o robi pheny l (105) b 3 2 5 9 8

- 1 4

- 4 4.0 x 10 -1

2,3,4,4’5- Pent achl o robi pheny l (114) b 7 4 4 7 2

- 3 7

- 0 8.0 x 10 -2

2,3’4,4’,5- Pent achl o robi pheny l (118) b 31508-00-6 4.0 x 10 -1

2’,3,4,4’,5- Pent achl o robi pheny l (123) b 6 5 5 1 0

- 4 4

- 3 4.0 x 10 -1

3,3’,4,4’,5- Pent achl o robi pheny l (126) b 5 7 4 6 5

- 2 8

- 8 4.0 x 10 -4

2,3,3’,4,4’,5-Hexachl o robi pheny l (156) b 3 8 3 8 0

- 0 8

- 4 8.0 x 10 -2

2,3,3’,4,4’,5’-Hexachl o robi pheny l (157) b 6 9 7 8 2

- 9 0

- 7 8.0 x10 -2

2,3’,4,4’,5,5’-Hexachl o robi pheny l (167) b 5 2 6 6 3

- 7 2

- 6 4.0 x10 -0

3,3’,4,4’5,5’- Hexachl o robi pheny l (169) b 3 2 7 7 4

- 1 6

- 6 4.0 x 10 -3

2,3,3’4,4’,5,5’- Hept achl o robi pheny l (189) b 39635-31-9 4.0 x 10 -1 Alim en tary System ; Dev e lo p m en tal;
Endocri ne Sy st em ; Hem a t opoi et i c Sy st em ; R e product i v e Sy st em ; R e spi r at ory Sy st em

Propy l e ne 115-07-1 3.0 x 10 +3 R e s p i r a t o r y System

Propy l e ne Gl y c ol M onom et hy l Et her 107-98-2 7.0 x 10 +3 Alim en tary System

Propy l e ne Oxi d e 75-56-9 3.0 x 10 +1 R e s p i r a t o r y System

Sel e ni um and Sel e ni um com pounds (ot h er
t h an Hy drogen Sel e ni de) 7782-49-2 2.0 x 10 +1 Alim en tary System ; Card io v a scu l ar Sy st em ; Nervous Sy st em

St y r ene 100-42-5 9.0 x 10 +2 N e r v o u s Sy st em

Sul f uri c Aci d 7664-93-9 1.0 x 10 +0 R e s p i r a t o r y System

Tetrach lo ro eth y len e a (Perchloroethylene) 127-18-4 3.5 x 10 +1 Alim en tary System ; Kid n e y



### 6-9

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table 6.2 Chronic Inhalation Reference Exposure Levels (RELs)
And Chronic Haz a rd Index Target Organ System(s)

Substance Chemical
Abstract
Service
Number

(CAS) Chronic
Inhalation

REL ( μ g/ m 3 ) Chronic Inhalation Haz a rd Index Target Organ System(s)

Tol u ene 108-88-3 3.0 x 10 +2 Devel opm ent a l ; Nervous Sy st em ; Respiratory System

2,4-Tol u ene Di i s ocy a nat e 584-84-9 7.0 x 10 -2 R e s p i r a t o r y System

2,6-Tol u ene Di i s ocy a nat e 91-08-7 7.0 x 10 -2 R e s p i r a t o r y System

Tri c hl oroet h y l ene a 79-01-6 6.0 x 10 +2 Ey es; Nervous Sy st em

Tri e t h y l am i n e 121-44-8 2.0 x 10 +2 E y e s

Vi ny l Acet at e 108-05-4 2.0 x 10 +2 R e s p i r a t o r y System

Xy l e nes (m , o, p-i s om ers) 1330-20-7 7.0 x 10 +2 Nervous Sy st em ; R e spi r at ory Sy st em



### a These peer-revi ewed val u es were devel oped under t h e Toxi c Ai r Cont am i n ant (TAC) Program m a ndat e d by
AB 1807 (C al i f orni a Heal t h and Safet y C ode Sec. 39650 et seq .).
N/A No t Ap p licab le


### b The OEHHA has adopt ed t h e W o rl d Heal t h Orga ni zat i on 1997 Toxi ci t y Equi val e ncy Fact or (W HO 97 -TEF)
schem e for eval uat i ng t h e cancer ri sk and noncancer ri sk due t o exposure t o sam p l e s cont ai ni ng m i xt ures of pol y c hl ori n at ed di benzo- p -dioxins (PCDD) (also refe rred t o as chl o ri nat e d di oxi ns and di benzofurans), pol y c hl ori n at ed di benzofurans (PC D F) and pol y c hl ori n at ed bi pheny l s (PC B s ). See Appendi x E for m o re i n form at i on about t h e schem e and for t h e m e t hodol ogy for cal cul a t i ng 2,3,7,8-equi val e nt s for PC DD and
PCDFs. For conveni ence, OEHHA has cal cul a t e d ch roni c REL val u es for speci at ed PCDDs, PCDFs and
PC B s based on t h e W H O 97 TEF val u es and t h e chroni c R EL for 2,3,7,8-t e t r achl o rodi benzo- p -di oxi n usi ng the procedure discussed in Appendix E. The chroni c REL values can be used to calculate a hazard index
when t h e m i xt ures are speci at ed from i ndi vi dual congener ground l e vel concent r at i ons.



### 6-10

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

6.4 Description of Chronic Oral (Noninhalation) Reference Exposure Levels

As specified throughout the guidelines, estim ates of long-term exposure resulting from facility air em issions of specific com pounds m u st be analyzed for both inhalation and noninhalation (m ultipathway) pathways of exposure for hum ans. Facilities often em it substances under high tem p erature and pressure in the presence of particulate m a tter. W h ile som e of these substances are expected to rem a in in the vapor phase, other substances such as m e tals and sem i

volatile organics can be either em itted as particles, f o rm particles af ter em ission f r om the f a cility, or adhere to existing particles. Som e substances will partition between vapor and particulate phases. Substances in the particulate phase can be rem oved from the atm o sphere by settling and, thus, potentially present a significant hazard via noninhalation pathways.

Particulate-associated chem icals can be deposited directly onto soil, onto the leaves or fruits of crops, or onto surface waters. Exposure via the oral route is the predom inant noninhalation pathway, resulting in the noninhalation RELs being referred to as ‘oral RELs’ in
this docum ent. The oral RELs are expressed as doses in m illigram s of substance (consum ed and
derm ally absorbed) per kilogram body weight per day (m g/kg-day).

Table 6.3 lists the chronic noncancer RELs to be used in the assessm ent of chronic health
effects from noninhalation pathways of exposure. Appendix L provides a consolidated listing of all chronic RELs and target organs that are approved for use by OEHHA and ARB for the Hot Spots Program . Periodically, new or updated R ELs are adopted by OEHHA and these guidelines will be updated to reflect those changes. See OEHHA’s web site at www.oehha.ca.gov (look under “Air”, then select “Hot Spots Guidelines”) to determ ine if any new or updated RELs have been adopted since the last guideline update. Chapter 8 discusses the m e thods used for
determ ining potential noncancer health im pacts and Appendix I presents exam ple calculations
used to determ ine a HQ and HI.

6-11

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

Table 6.3 Chronic Noninhalation ‘Oral’ Reference Exposure Levels (RELs)
And Chronic Haz a rd Index Target Organ System(s)

Substance Chemical
Abstract
Service
Number

(CAS) Chronic
Oral

REL (mg/ kg-day) Chronic Oral Haz a rd Index Target Organ System(s)

Arseni c & Inorgani c Arseni c C o m pounds 7440-38-2 3.0 x 10 -4 C a rdi ovascul ar Sy st em ; Ski n
Beryllium and Beryllium Com pounds 7440-41-7 2.0 x 10 -3 A l i m en tary System

C a dm i u m and C a dm i u m C o m pounds 7440-43-9 5.0 x 10 -4 Ki dney

C h l o ri nat e d Di benzo- p -di oxi ns a

2,3,7,8-Tet r achl o rodi benzo- p -di oxi n a 1746-01-6 1.0 x 10 -8

1,2,3,7,8-Pent achl o rodi benzo- p -di oxi n a 40321-76-4 1.0 x 10 -8

1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachl o rodi benzo- p -di oxi n a 39227-28-6 1.0 x 10 -7

1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachl o rodi benzo- p -di oxi n a 57653-85-7 1.0 x 10 -7

1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachl o rodi benzo- p -di oxi n a 19408-74-3 1.0 x 10 -7

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hept achl o rodi benzo- p -di oxi n a 35822-46-9 1.0 x 10 -6

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Oct achl o rodi benzo- p -di oxi n a 3268-87-9 1.0 x 10 -4 Alim en tary System ; Devel opm ent a l ; Endocri ne Sy st em ; Hem a t opoi et i c Sy st em ; R e product i v e Sy st em ; R e spi r at ory System

C h l o ri nat e d Di benzofurans a

2,3,7,8-Tet r achl o rodi benzofuran a 5120-73-19 1.0 x 10 -7

1,2,3,7,8-Pent achl o rodi benzofuran a 57117-41-6 5.0 x 10 -7

2,3,4,7,8-Pent achl o rodi benzofuran a 57117-31-4 5.0 x 10 -8

1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachl o rodi benzofuran a 70648-26-9 1.0 x 10 -7

1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachl o rodi benzofuran a 57117-44-9 1.0 x 10 -7

1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachl o rodi benzofuran a 72918-21-9 1.0 x 10 -7

2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachl o rodi benzofuran a 60851-34-5 1.0 x 10 -7

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hept achl o rodi benzofuran a 67562-39-4 1.0 x 10 -6

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Hept achl o rodi benzofuran a 55673-89-7 1.0 x 10 -6

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Oct achl o rodi benzofuran a 39001-02-0 1.0 x 10 -4 Alim en tary System ; Devel opm ent a l ; Endocri ne Sy st em ; Hem a t opoi et i c Sy st em ; R e product i v e Sy st em ; R e spi r at ory System

C h rom i um VI & Sol ubl e C h rom i um VI
C o m pounds (except chrom i c t r i oxi de) 18540-29-9 2.0 x 10 -2 H e m a to lo g i c

Fl uori d es (i ncl udi ng hy drogen fl uori d e) 4.0 x 10 -2 B ones and Teet h

M e rcury & M e rcury C o m pounds (i norgani c) 7439-97-6 3.0 x 10 -4 Im m une Sy st em ; Ki dney

Ni ckel & Ni ckel C o m pounds (except ni ckel
oxi de) 7440-02-0 5.0 x 10 -2 A l i m en tary System

Ni ckel Oxi d e 1313-99-1 5.0 x 10 -2 A l i m en tary System

Pol y chl o ri nat e d bi pheny l s P4 (PCBs) (speciated) b

3,3’,4,4’-Tet rachl o robi pheny l (77) b 35298-13-3 1.0 x 10 -4

3,4,4’,5-Tet rachl o robi pheny l (81) b 70362-50-4 1.0 x 10 -4

2,3,3’,4,4’- Pent achl o robi pheny l (105) b 32598-14-4 1.0 x 10 -4 Alim en tary System ; Devel opm ent a l ; Endocri ne Sy st em ; Hem a t opoi et i c Sy st em ; R e product i v e Sy st em ; R e spi r at ory System



### 6-12

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.
Table 6.3 Chronic Noninhalation ‘Oral’ Reference Exposure Levels (RELs)
And Chronic Haz a rd Index Target Organ System(s)

Substance Chemical
Abstract
Service
Number Chronic
Oral

REL (mg/ kg-day) Chronic Oral Haz a rd Index Target Organ System(s)

(CAS) 2,3,4,4’5- Pent achl o robi pheny l (114) b 74472-37-0 2.0 x 10 -5

2,3’4,4’,5- Pent achl o robi pheny l (118) b 31508-00-6 1.0 x 10 -4

2’,3,4,4’,5- Pent achl o robi pheny l (123) b 65510-44-3 1.0 x 10 -4

3,3’,4,4’,5- Pent achl o robi pheny l (126) b 57465-28-8 1.0 x 10 -7

2,3,3’,4,4’,5-Hexachl o robi pheny l (156) b 38380-08-4 2.0 x 10 -5

2,3,3’,4,4’,5’-Hexachl o robi pheny l (157) b 69782-90-7 2.0 x 10 -5

2,3’,4,4’,5,5’-Hexachl o robi pheny l (167) b 52663-72-6 1.0 x 10 -3

3,3’,4,4’5,5’- Hexachl o robi pheny l (169) b 32774-16-6 1.0 x 10 -6

2,3,3’4,4’,5,5’- Hept achl o robi pheny l (189) b 39635-31-9 1.0 x 10 -4 Alim en tary System ; Devel opm ent a l ; Endocri ne Sy st em ; Hem a t opoi et i c Sy st em ; R e product i v e Sy st em ; R e spi r at ory System



### a The OEHHA has adopt ed t h e W o rl d Heal t h Orga ni zat i on 1997 Toxi ci t y Equi val e ncy Fact or (W HO 97 -TEF)
schem e for eval uat i ng t h e cancer ri sk due t o exposure t o sam p l e s cont ai ni ng m i xt ures of pol y c hl ori n at ed
di benzo- p -di oxi ns (PC DD) (al s o referred t o as chl o ri nat e d di oxi ns and di benzofurans), pol y c hl ori n at ed
di benzofurans (PCDF) and pol y c hl ori n at ed bi pheny l s (PCBs). For conveni ence, OEHHA has cal cul a t e d
chroni c R EL val u es for speci at ed PC DDs, PC DFs and PC B s based on t h e W HO97 TEF val u es and t h e chroni c R EL for 2,3,7,8-t e t r achl o rodi benzo- p -di oxi n usi ng t h e procedure di scussed i n Appendi x E. See Appendi x E for m o re i n form at i on about t h e schem e and for t h e m e t hodol ogy for cal cul a t i ng 2,3,7,8-equi val e nt s for PC DD, PC DFs and PC B s . The oral chroni c R ELs for t h ese com pounds m a y be
used if the m i xtures are speciat ed to calculate a hazard index fro m individual congener doses.



### 6-13

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Pre paration of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

7

- 1 

## 7. Dose

- Response Assessment for Carcinogens

7.1 Introduction

Dose

- response assessment describes the quantitative relationship between the amount of exposure to a substance (the dose) and the incidence or occurrence of injury (the response). The

proces s often involves establishing a toxicity value or criterion to use in assessing potential health risk. The toxicity criterion, or health guidance value, for carcinogens is the cancer potency slope (potency factor), which describes the potential risk of dev eloping cancer per unit of average daily dose over a

70

- year lifetime. Cancer inhalation and oral potency factors have been determined by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) or by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and endorsed by OEHHA. They are available for many of the substances listed in Appendix A (List of Substances) as carcinogens. Table 7.1 and Appendix L list the inhalation and oral cancer potency factors that should be used in multipathway hea lth risk assessments (HRAs) for the Hot Spots Program.

The details on the methodology of dose

- response assessment for carcinogens are provided in
the 1985 California Department of Health Services publication Guidelines for Chemical Carcinogen

Risk Asses sments and their Scientific Rationale (CDHS, 1985). Substance

- by

- substance information is presented in OEHHA’s document entitled, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part II; Technical Support Document for Describing Available Can cer Potency Factors (OEHHA 1999b) (Part II TSD).

7.2 Definition of Carcinogenic Potency

Cancer potency factors are expressed as the upper bound probability of developing cancer assuming continuous lifetime exposure to a substance at a dose of one mil ligram per kilogram of body weight, and are expressed in units of inverse dose as a potency slope [i.e., (mg/kg/day)

- 1 

### ]. Another common potency expression is in units of inverse concentration [( μ g/m 3 

### )

- 1 

### )] when the slope is based on exposure concentration rather than dose; this is termed the unit risk factor. It is assumed in cancer risk assessments that risk is directly proportional to dose and that there is no threshold for carcinogenesis. The derivation of carcinogenic inhalation and oral cancer potenc y factors takes into account the available information on pharmacokinetics and on the mechanism of carcinogenic action. These values are generally the 95% upper confidence limits (UCL) on the dose

- response slope. Table 7.1 and Appendix L list inhalation and oral cancer potency factors that should be used in risk assessments for the Hot Spots Program. Chapter 8 describes procedures for use of potency factors in estimating potential cancer risk.

7.2.1 Description of the Inhalation Cancer Potency Factor

Under the new risk assessment methodology and algorithms presented in Chapters 5 and 8, inhalation cancer slope factors must be expressed in units of inverse dose (i.e., (mg/kg/day)

- 1 

### ). Unit

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Pre paration of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

7

- 2 risk factors, in the units of inverse concentration as microg rams per cubic meter (i.e., ( μ g/m 3 

### )

- 1 

### ), which have been used in previous guidelines for the Hot Spots program, can also be used for assessing cancer inhalation risk directly from air concentrations. However, breathing rates, expressed in units of liters p er kilogram of body weight

- day (L/kg*BW

- day or L/kg

- day), can be coupled with the air concentrations to estimate dose in mg/kg

- day. This allows estimation of average, high

- end, and distributions of cancer risk. Therefore for the Hot Spots Program, inhala tion cancer potency factors are now recommended for determining cancer risk instead of unit risk factors. Unit risk factors are still listed in the Part II TSD and may prove useful in other risk assessment applications.

Multiplication of the average d aily inhalation dose over 70 years (mg/kg

- day) with the cancer potency factor (mg/kg

- day)

- 1 

### will give inhalation cancer risk (unitless). A more complete description of how cancer risk is calculated from the exposure dose and cancer potency factors is prov ided in Chapter 8. Appendix I presents an example calculation for determining potential (inhalation) cancer risk. A list of current inhalation potency factors is provided in Table 7.1. Periodically, new or revised cancer potency factors will be peer re viewed by the State’s Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants and adopted by the Director of OEHHA. At that time, these guidelines will be updated to reflect those changes. However, in the interim between the adoption of new or updated numbers and a guideline update, consult the OEHHA web site at www.oehha.ca.gov (look under “Air”, then select “Hot Spots Guidelines”) to determine if any new or updated cancer potency factors have been adopted since the last guideline update. If so, these too sho uld be used in the HRA.

7.2.2 Description of the Oral Cancer Potency Factor

Under the Hot Spots Program, a few substances are considered multipathway substances. Multipathway substances have the potential to impact a receptor through inhalation and noni nhalation (oral) exposure routes. These substances include heavy metals and semi

- volatile organic substances such as dioxins, furans, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These substances commonly exist in the particle phase or partially in the p article phase when emitted into the air. They can therefore be deposited onto soil, vegetation, and water. Noninhalation exposure pathways considered under the Hot Spots Program include the ingestion of soil, homegrown produce, meat, milk, surface water, breast milk, and fish as well as dermal exposure to contaminants deposited in the soil. See Table 5.1 for a list of substances that must be evaluated for multipathway exposure.

Table 7.1 and Appendix L list oral cancer potency factors in units of (mg/ kg

- day)

- 1 

### that should be used for assessing the potential cancer risk for these substances through noninhalation exposure pathways. The cancer risk from these individual pathways is calculated by multiplying the dose (mg/kg

day) times the oral cancer pote ncy factor (mg/kg

- day)

- 1 

### to yield oral potential cancer risk (unitless). Chapter 5 provides all of the algorithms to calculate exposure dose through all of the individual exposure pathways. Appendix I provides a sample calculation for dose and cancer ris k using the inhalation exposure pathway.

Four carcinogens (cadmium, hexavalent chromium, beryllium, and nickel), although subject to deposition, are only treated as carcinogenic by the inhalation route and not by the oral route. Therefore,

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Pre paration of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

7

- 3 there are no oral cancer potency factors for these substances. However, the oral doses of these substances need to be estimated because of their noncancer toxicity. See Chapters 6 and 8, and Appendices I, J, and L for dose

- response factors, and calculations to addres s these substances.

Table 7

. 1 Inhalation and Oral Cancer Potency Factors

Substance Chemical
Abstract
Service
Number (CAS) Inhalation

Potency
Factor (mg/kg

- day) - 1 

### Oral Slope

Factor (mg/kg

- day) - 1



### Acetaldehyde 75

- 07

- 0 1.0 x 10 - 2



### Acetamide 60

- 35

- 5 7.0 x 10 - 2


### Acrylamide 79

- 06

- 1 4.5 x 10 +0


### Acrylonitrile 107

- 13

- 1 1.0 x 10 +0


### Allyl chloride 107

- 05

- 1 2.1 x 10 - 2



### 2

- Aminoanthraquinone 117

- 79

- 3 3.3 x 10 - 2



### Aniline 62

- 53

- 3 5.7 x 10 - 3


### Arsenic (inorganic) 7440

- 38

- 2 1.2 x 10 +1 

### 1.5 x 10 +0



### Asbestos # 

### 13 32

- 21

- 4 1.9 x 10 - 4 #



### Benz[ a ]anthracene BaP 

### 56

- 55

- 3 3.9 x 10 - 1 

### 1.2 x 10 +0



### Benzene 71

- 43

- 2 1.0 x 10 - 1



### Benzidine 92

- 87

- 5 5.0 x 10 +2



### Benzo[ a ]pyrene 50

- 32

- 8 3.9 x 10 +0 

### 1.2 x 10 +1



### Benzo[ b ]fluoranthrene BaP 

### 205

- 99

- 2 3.9 x 10 - 1 

### 1.2 x 10 +0



### Benzo[ j ]fluorant hrene BaP 

### 205

- 82

- 3 3.9 x 10 - 1 

### 1.2 x 10 +0



### Benzo[ k ]fluoranthrene BaP 

### 207

- 08

- 9 3.9 x 10 - 1 

### 1.2 x 10 +0



### Benzyl chloride 100

- 44

- 7 1.7 x 10 - 1


### Beryllium 7440

- 41

- 7 8.4 x 10 +0


### Bis(2

- chloroethyl) ether 111

- 44

- 4 2.5 x 10 +0


### Bis(chloromethyl)ether 542

- 88

- 1 4.6 x 10 ++1



### 1,3

- Butadiene 106

- 99

- 0 6.0 x 10 - 1


### Cadmium (and compounds) 7440

- 43

- 9 1.5 x 10 +1



### Carbon tetrachloride 56

- 23

- 5 1.5 x 10 - 1



### Chlorinated Dibenzo

-

p

- dioxins A



### 2,3,7,8

- Tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 1746

- 01

- 6 1.3 x 10 +5 

### 1.3 x 10 +5



### 1,2,3,7,8

- Pentachl

orodibenzo

-

p

- dioxin 40321

- 76

- 4 1.3 x 10 +5 

### 1.3 x 10 +5



### 1,2,3,4,7,8

- Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 39227

- 28

- 6 1.3 x 10 +4 

### 1.3 x 10 +4



### 1,2,3,6,7,8

- Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 57653

- 85

- 7 1.3 x 10 +4 

### 1.3 x 10 +4



### 1,2,3,7,8,9

- Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 19408

- 74

- 3 1.3 x 10 +4 

### 1.3 x 10 +4



### 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- Heptachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 35822

- 46

- 9 1.3 x 10 +3 

### 1.3 x 10 +3



### 1,2,3,4,,6,7,8,9

- Octachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 3268

- 87

- 9 1.3 x 10 +1 

### 1.3 x 10 +1



### Chlorinated Dibenzofurans A



### 2,3,7,8

- Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 5120

- 73

- 19 1.3 x 10 +4 

### 1.3 x 10 +4

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Pre paration of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

7

- 4

Table 7

. 1 Inhalation and Oral Cancer Potency Factors

Substance Chemical
Abstract
Service
Number (CAS) Inhalation

Potency
Factor (mg/kg

- day) - 1 

### Oral Slope

Factor (mg/kg

- day) - 1



### 1,2,3,7,8

- Pentachlorodibenzofuran 57117

- 41

- 6 6.5 x 10 +3 

### 6.5 x 10 +3



### 2,3,4,7,8

- Pentachlorodibenzofuran 57117

- 31

- 4 6.5 x 10 +4 

### 6.5 x 10 +4



### 1,2,3,4,7,8

- Hexachlorodibenzofuran 70648

- 26

- 9 1.3 x 10 +4 

### 1.3 x 10 +4



### 1,2,3,6,7,8

- Hexachlorodibenzofuran 5711 7

- 44

- 9 1.3 x 10 +4 

### 1.3 x 10 +4



### 1,2,3,7,8,9

- Hexachlorodibenzofuran 72918

- 21

- 9 1.3 x 10 +4 

### 1.3 x 10 +4



### 2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hexachlorodibenzofuran 60851

- 34

- 5 1.3 x 10 +4 

### 1.3 x 10 +4



### 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- Heptachlorodibenzofuran 67562

- 39

- 4 1.3 x 10 +3 

### 1.3 x 10 +3



### 1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- He ptachlorodibenzofuran 55673

- 89

- 7 1.3 x 10 +3 

### 1.3 x 10 +3



### 1,2,3,4,,6,7,8,9

- Octachlorodibenzofuran 39001

- 02

- 0 1.3 x 10 +1 

### 1.3 x 10 +1



### Chlorinated paraffins 108171

- 26

- 2 8.9 x 10 - 2



### Chloroform 67

- 66

- 3 1.9 x 10 - 2



### 4

- Chloro

- o

- phenylenediamine 95

- 83

- 0 1.6 x 10 - 2



### p

- Chloro

- o

- toluidine 95

- 69

- 2 2.7 x 10 - 1


### Chromium (hexavalent) 18540

- 29

- 9 5.1 x 10 +2


### Chrysene BaP 

### 218

- 01

- 9 3.9 x 10 - 2 

### 1.2 x 10 - 1



### Creosote 8001

- 58

- 9 

### *

p

- Cresidine 120

- 71

- 8 1.5 x 10 - 1


### Cupferron 135

- 20

- 6 2.2 x 10 - 1



### 2,4

- Diaminoanisole 615

- 05

- 4 2.3 x 10 - 2



### 2,4

- Diaminotoluene 95

- 80

- 7 4.0 x 10 +0



### Dibenz[ a,h ]acridine BaP 

### 226

- 36

- 8 3.9 x 10 - 1 

### 1.2 x 10 +0



### Dibenz[ a,j ]acridine BaP 

### 224

- 42

- 0 3.9 x 10 - 1 

### 1.2 x 10 +0



### Dibenz[ a,h ]anthracene BaP 

### 53

- 70

- 3 4.1 x 10 +0 

### 4.1 x 10 +0



### Dibenzo[ a,e ]pyrene BaP 

### 192

- 65

- 4 3.9 x 10 +0 

### 1.2 x 10 +1



### Dibenzo[ a,h ]pyrene BaP 

### 189

- 64

- 0 3.9 x 10 +1 

### 1.2 x 10 +2



### Dibenzo[ a,I

]pyrene BaP 

### 189

- 55

- 9 3.9 x 10 +1 

### 1.2 x 10 +2



### Dibenzo[ a,l ]pyrene BaP 

### 191

- 30

- 0 3.9 x 10 +1 

### 1.2 x 10 +2



### 7H

- Dibenzo[ c,g ]carbazole BaP 

### 194

- 59

- 2 3.9 x 10 +0 

### 1.2 x 10 +1



### 1,2

- Dibromo

- 3

- chloropropane 96

- 12

- 8 7.0 x 10 +0



### 1,4

- Dichlorobenzene 106

- 46

- 7 4.0 x 10 - 2



### 3,3'

- Dichlorobenzidine 91

- 94

- 1 1.2 x 10 +0



### 1,1

- Dichloroethane 75

- 34

- 3 5.7 x 10 - 3



### Diesel exhaust B 

### NA 1.1 x 10 +0



### Diethylhexylphthalate 117

- 81

- 7 8.4 x 10 - 3 

### 8.4 x 10 - 3



### p

- Dimethylaminoazobenzene 60

- 11

- 7 4.6 x 10 +0



### 7,12

- Dimethylbenz[ a ]anthracene BaP 

### 57

- 97

- 6 2.5 x 10 +2 

### 2.5 x 10 +2

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Pre paration of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

7

- 5

Table 7

. 1 Inhalation and Oral Cancer Potency Factors

Substance Chemical
Abstract
Service
Number (CAS) Inhalation

Potency
Factor (mg/kg

- day) - 1 

### Oral Slope

Factor (mg/kg

- day) - 1



### 1,6

- Dinitropyrene BaP 

### 42397

- 64

- 8 3.9 x 10 +1 

### 1.2 x 10 +2



### 1,8

- Dinitropyrene BaP 

### 42397

- 65

- 9 3.9 x 10 +0 

### 1.2 x 10 +1



### 2,4

- Dinitrotoluene 121

- 14

- 2 3.1 x 10 - 1



### 1,4

- Dioxane 123

- 91

- 1 2.7 x 10 - 2


### Epichlorohydrin 106

- 89

- 8 8.0 x 10 - 2


### Ethylene dibromide 106

- 93

- 4 2.5 x 10 - 1


### Ethylene dichloride 107

- 06

- 2 7.2 x 10 - 2


### Ethylene oxide 75

- 21

- 8 3.1 x 10 - 1


### Ethylene thiourea 96

- 45

- 7 4.5 x 10 - 2


### Formaldehyde 50

- 00

- 0 2.1 x 10 - 2



### Hexachlorobenzene 118

- 74

- 1 1.8 x 10 +0


### Hexachlorocyclohexanes (technical grade) 608

- 73

- 1 4.0 x 10 +0 

### 4.0 x 10 +0


### Hydrazine 302

- 01

- 2 1.7 x 10 +1



### Indeno[1,2,3

- cd ]pyrene BaP 

### 193

- 39

- 5 3.9 x 10 - 1 

### 1.2 x 10 +0



### Lead and lead compounds 7439

- 92

- 1 4.2 x 10 - 2 

### 8.5 x 10 - 3



### Lindane 58

- 89

- 9 1.1 x 10 +0


### Methyl tertiary

- butyl ether 1634

- 04

- 4 1.8 x 10 - 3



### 3

- Methylcholanthrene BaP 

### 56

- 49

- 5 2.2 x 10 +1 

### 2.2 x 10 +1



### 5

- Methylchrysene BaP 

### 3697

- 24

- 3 3.9 x 10 +0 

### 1.2 x 10 +1



### 4, 4'

- Methylene bis(2

- chloroaniline) (MOCA) 101

- 14

- 4 1.5 x 10 +0


### Methylene chloride 75

- 09

- 2 3.5 x 10 - 3



### 4,4'

- Methylenedianiline 101

- 77

- 9 1.6 x 10 +0 

### 1.6 x 10 +0



### Michler's ketone 90

- 94

- 8 8.6 x 10 - 1


### Nickel (and compounds) 7440

- 02

- 0 9.1 x 10 - 1



### 5

- Nitroacenaphthene BaP 

### 602

- 87

- 9 1.3 x 10 - 1 

### 1. 3 x 10 - 1



### 6

- Nitrochrysene BaP 

### 7496

- 02

- 8 3.9 x 10 +1 

### 1.2 x 10 +2



### 2

- Nitrofluorene BaP 

### 607

- 57

- 8 3.9 x 10 - 2 

### 1.2 x 10 - 1



### 1

- Nitropyrene BaP 

### 5522

- 43

- 0 3.9 x 10 - 1 

### 1.2 x 10 +0



### 4

- Nitropyrene BaP 

### 57835

- 92

- 4 3.9 x 10 - 1 

### 1.2 x 10 +0



### N

- Nitroso

- n

- butylamine 924

- 16

- 3 1.1 x 10 +1



### N

- Nitroso

- N

- methylethylamine 10595

- 95

- 6 3.7 x 10 0



### N

- Nitrosodi

- n

- propylamine 621

- 64

- 7 7.0 x 10 +0



### N

- Nitrosodiethylamine 55

- 18

- 5 3.6 x 10 +1



### N

- Nitrosodimethylamine 62

- 75

- 9 1.6 x 10 +1



### N

- Nitrosodiphenylamine 86

- 30

- 6 9.0 x 10 - 3



### p

- Nitrosodipheny lamine 156

- 10

- 5 2.2 x 10 - 2



### N

- Nitrosomorpholine 59

- 89

- 2 6.7 x 10 +0

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Pre paration of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

7

- 6

Table 7

. 1 Inhalation and Oral Cancer Potency Factors

Substance Chemical
Abstract
Service
Number (CAS) Inhalation

Potency
Factor (mg/kg

- day) - 1 

### Oral Slope

Factor (mg/kg

- day) - 1



### N

- Nitrosopiperidine 100

- 75

- 4 9.4 x 10 +0



### N

- Nitrosopyrrolidine 930

- 55

- 2 2.1 x 10 +0


### Pentachlorophenol 87

- 86

- 5 1.8 x 10 - 2


### Perchloroethylene 127

- 18

- 4 2.1 x 10 - 2



### Polychlorinated bip henyls (PCBs) (unspeciated mixture) 1336

- 36

- 3

(high risk) P1 

### 2.0 x 10 +0 

### 2.0 x 10 +0



### (mediumlow risk) P2 

### 4.0 x 10 - 1 

### 4.0 x 10 - 1



### (lowest risk) P3 

### 7.0 x 10 - 2 

### 7.0 x 10 - 2



### Polychlorinated biphenyls P4 

### (PCBs) (speciated) 3,3’,4,4’

- Tetrachlorobiphenyl (77) 35298

- 13

- 3 1.3 x 10 +1 

### 1.3 x 10 +1



### 3,4,4’,5

- Tetrachlorobiphenyl (81) 70362

- 50

- 4 1.3 x 10 +1 

### 1.3 x 10 +1



### 2,3,3’,4,4’

- Pentachlorobiphenyl (105) 32598

- 14

- 4 1.3 x 10 +1 

### 1.3 x 10 +1



### 2,3,4,4’5

- Pentachlorobiphenyl (114) 74472

- 37

- 0 6.5 x 10 +1 

### 6.5 x 10 +1



### 2,3’4 ,4’,5

- Pentachlorobiphenyl (118) 31508

- 00

- 6 1.3 x 10 +1 

### 1.3 x 10 +1



### 2’,3,4,4’,5

- Pentachlorobiphenyl (123) 65510

- 44

- 3 1.3 x 10 +1 

### 1.3 x 10 +1



### 3,3’,4,4’,5

- Pentachlorobiphenyl (126) 57465

- 28

- 8 1.3 x 10 +4 

### 1.3 x 10 +4



### 2,3,3’,4,4’,5

- Hexachlorobiphenyl (156) 3838 0

- 08

- 4 6.5 x 10 +1 

### 6.5 x 10 +1



### 2,3,3’,4,4’,5’

- Hexachlorobiphenyl (157) 69782

- 90

- 7 6.5 x 10 +1 

### 6.5 x 10 +1



### 2,3’,4,4’,5,5’

- Hexachlorobiphenyl (167) 52663

- 72

- 6 1.3 x 10 +0 

### 1.3 x 10 +0



### 3,3’,4,4’5,5’

- Hexachlorobiphenyl (169) 32774

- 16

- 6 1.3 x 10 +3 

### 1.3 x 10 +3



### 2,3, 3’4,4’,5,5’

- Heptachlorobiphenyl (189) 39635

- 31

- 9 1.3 x 10 +1 

### 1.3 x 10 +1



### Potassium bromate 7758

- 01

- 2 4.9 x 10 - 1



### 1,3

- Propane sultone 1120

- 71

- 4 2.4 x 10 +0


### Propylene oxide 75

- 56

- 9 1.3 x 10 - 2



### 1,1,2,2

- Tetrachloroethane 79

- 34

- 5 2.0 x 10 - 1



### Thioacetamid e 62

- 55

- 5 6.1 x 10 +0



### 2,4

- Toluene diisocyanate 584

- 84

- 9 3.9 x 10 - 2



### 2,6

- Toluene diisocyanate 91

- 08

- 7 3.9 x 10 - 2



### 1,1,2

- Trichloroethane (vinyl trichloride) 79

- 00

- 5 5.7 x 10 - 2


### Trichloroethylene 79

- 01

- 6 7.0 x 10 - 3



### 2,4,6

- Trichlorophenol 88

- 06

- 2 7.0 x 10 - 2



### Urethane 51

- 79

- 6 1.0 x 10 +0


### Vinyl chloride 75

- 01

- 4 2.7 x 10 - 1

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Pre paration of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

7

- 7 # Asbestos: [100 PCM fibers/m 3 ] - 1 A unit risk factor of 2.7 x 10
- 6 ( μ g/m 3 ) - 1 and an inhalation cancer potency factor of 2.2 x 10 +2 (mg/kg BW*day)
- 1 are available (see Appendix C for explanation ).

BaP PAHs and PAH Derivatives: Many have potency equivalency factors relative to benzo[ a ]pyrene (see Appendix G).

A Polychlorinated Dibenzo

- p

- dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans: The World Health Organization 1997 (WHO

- 97) Toxicity Eq uivalency Factors are used for polychlorinated dibenzo

- p

dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans and polychlorinated biphenyls. (see Appendix E). For convenience, OEHHA has calculated cancer potency factors for speciated poly chlorinated biphenyls conge ners using the procedure in Appendix E.

B Diesel Exhaust is listed as a Toxic Air Contaminant by the Air Resources Board as “Particulate

Matter from Diesel

- Fueled Engines”. (See Appendix D) 

## * Creosote: Can be calculated using Potency Equivalency Facto rs contained in the benzo[ a ]pyrene Toxic Air Contaminant document and in Appendix G of these guidelines.

P1 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): High Risk is for use in cases where congeners with more than four chlorines do not comprise less (are greater) th an one

- half percent of total PCBs. The high risk

number is the default for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).

P2 The low risk number is generally not applicable to the Hot Spots program. The Hot Spots program addresses PCBs emitted by stationary faciliti es. It cannot be assumed that such emissions would occur by simple evaporation. There is a dermal absorption factor applied in evaluation of the dermal pathway for PCBs so the medium risk would not apply to dermal exposure. The water pathway does not in clude an assumption that PCB isomers are water soluble, so the medium number would not apply to the water pathway.

P3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Lowest Risk is for use in cases where congeners with more than four chlorines comprise less than on e

- half percent of total PCBs. In order for the low number to be used, scientific justification needs to be presented.

P4 Number in parentheses is the IUPAC #, the PCB nomenclature is IUPAC.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 1 

## 8. Risk Characterization for Carcinogens and Noncarcinogens and the Requirements for Hot Spots Risk Assessments

8.1 Introduction

Risk characterization is the final step of the health risk assessment (HRA). In this step, information developed through t he exposure assessment (e.g., monitored or modeled concentrations, inhalation or oral doses, and exposure pathway information) is combined with cancer potency factors and Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) to quantify the cancer risk and noncancer health imp acts, respectively. Under the Air Toxics Hot Spots (Hot Spots) Act, comprehensive risk assessments should quantify both individual and population

- wide health risks (Health and Safety Code Section (HSC) 44306). Persons preparing HRAs for the Hot Spots Pro gram should consult the local Air Pollution Control or Air Quality Management District (District) to determine if the District has special guidelines to assist with HRA format or other requirements of the Hot Spots Program. Note that, for the Hot Spots Pr ogram, the 70

- year exposure duration should continue to be used as the basis for estimating

risk.

This chapter provides guidance on how to evaluate the risk characterization components required by the Hot Spots Program. A general summary of the HRA compo nents includes the following items or information. This information should be clearly presented in cross

- referenced text, tables, figures, and/or maps.

• The location and potential acute noncancer, and multipathway (inhalation and noninhalation)

cancer an d noncancer chronic health impacts at the point of maximum impact (PMI), at the maximum exposed individual resident (MEIR), at the maximum exposed individual worker (MEIW), and at specified (contact District or reviewing authority) sensitive receptors (e.g

., schools, hospitals, daycare, or eldercare facilities).

• Estimates of population exposure for potential cancer risk and noncancer acute and chronic health impacts.

To perform the HRA and create the information listed above, OEHHA recommends using a

t iered approach to risk assessment. The tiered approach provides a risk assessor with flexibility and

allows consideration of site

- specific differences. Furthermore, risk assessors can tailor the level of effort and refinement of an HRA by using the point

- estimate exposure assumptions or the stochastic treatment of exposure factor distributions. Tier

- 1 evaluations are required for all HRAs prepared for the Hot Spots Program. Persons preparing an HRA using Tier

- 2 through Tier

- 4 evaluations must also inclu de

the results of a Tier

- 1 evaluation in the HRA. The four

- tiered approach to risk assessment is intended to primarily apply to residential cancer risk assessment, both for inhalation and noninhalation pathways. OEHHA is not recommending a stochastic app roach (Tier

- 3) for worker exposure, or noncancer

inhalation chronic evaluations. A Tier

- 2 evaluation could be used for off

- site worker risk assessments.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 2 There is only a Tier

- 1 option for determining acute noncancer risks since calculating the hazard quot ient only involves the acute REL and short

- term maximum ground level air concentrations. There is only a

Tier

- 1 option for evaluating inhalation noncancer chronic risks since calculating the chronic hazard quotient only involves the chronic Reference Expo sure Level and the annual average concentration (not exposure parameter distributions). Chronic noninhalation noncancer risks involve a calculation of dose from oral pathways. It is possible that site

- specific intake variates (e.g., fish consumption) co uld be appropriate for a particular site and therefore a Tier

- 2 analysis could be useful. See the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part IV; Technical Support Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic Analysis (OEHHA, 2000b) ( Part IV TSD) for a detailed discussion of the tiered approach. Table 8.1 summarizes OEHHA’s recommendations for the four Tiers.

Table 8.1 Tiers for Cancer and Noncancer Hot Spots Risk Assessments

Tier Cancer Chronic Non Cancer Acute

Inhalation Non

inhalation Inhalation Noninhalation Inhalation

Tier

- 1 X X X X X

Tier

- 2 X X X

Tier

- 3 X X

Tier

- 4 X X

Cancer risk assessment as currently practiced involves estimating exposure to carcinogenic chemicals and multiplying the dose times the cancer potency factor. There are often questions regarding the validity of applying the cancer potency factors to less than lifetime exposures. The cancer potency or unit risk factors are estimated from long

- term animal studies approaching lifetime, or from wor ker epidemiological studies involving long term exposure usually over decades.

8.2 Risk Characterization for Cancer Health Effects

8.2.1 Calculating Inhalation Cancer Risk

A 70

- year inhalation cancer risk evaluation is required for all carcinogen ic risk assessments (see Sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3 for exposure duration information). There are two pieces of information needed to assess inhalation cancer risk. These are the inhalation cancer potency for the substance, expressed in units of inverse do se as a potency slope (i.e., (mg/kg/day)

- 1 

### ) from Table 7.1, and an estimate of average daily inhalation dose in units of milligram per kilogram

- day (mg/kg

- day) (see Chapters 4 and 5). Cancer risk is calculated by multiplying the inhalation dose by the inh alation cancer potency factor to yield the potential inhalation excess cancer risk. The following equation illustrates the formula for calculating cancer risk. See Appendix I for an example calculation.

(Inhalation Dose (mg/kg

- day)) x (Cancer Potency (m g/kg

- day)

- 1 

### ) = Cancer Risk

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 3 To convert this to chances per million of developing cancer, multiply the potential cancer risk by 10 6



### . This result is useful as a risk communication tool.

Tier

- 1 is a standard point

- estimate approach that uses the recommended exposure pathway (e.g., breathing rate) point

- estimates presented in this document. A Tier

- 1 evaluation must use the high

- end point

- estimate for the inhalation pathway to present the inhalation cancer risk. For the Hot Spots Program, the 70

- year exposure duration should be used as the basis for public notification and risk reduction audits and plans. Sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3 describe the use of exposure duration adjustment factors for residential and worker receptors. As supplemental information, the as sessor may wish to evaluate the cancer risk by using the average point

- estimate to provide a range of cancer risk to the risk manager. The assessor may also decide to further supplement the HRA by performing a Tier

- 3 evaluation using the daily breathing r ate data distribution in a stochastic analysis. See Chapter 5 for the algorithms and exposure information used for all exposure pathways for Tier

- 1 and Tier

- 3 evaluations. The HARP software will perform all of these analyses. Specifically, the required high

- end, 70

- year inhalation cancer risk evaluation can be performed in HARP by selecting either the high

- end point

estimate/cancer risk analysis or by selecting the derived/70

- year cancer risk analysis.

The risk assessment guidelines require the use o f the 95 th 

### percentile (i.e., high end) breathing rate for all assessments of cancer risk by the inhalation route in Tier

- 1 risk assessments in order to avoid underestimating risk to the public, including children. In general, the risk management of facili ties in the Air Toxics Hot Spots program is based on the 70

- year risk at the highest exposed receptor point using high

- end estimates of breathing rate. Some facilities subject to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Act (e.g., some in the industry

- wide categories) hav

e very small zones of impact. In some of these instances, there will be very few receptors within the zone of impact. It isn’t possible to develop special recommendations for all possible exposure scenarios. Alternative breathing rates (point estimates or distributions) may be used as part of Tier

- 2 or Tier

- 4 risk assessments. Thus, the risk manager should take this into account during any risk management decisions. OEHHA is willing to work with risk managers at ARB and the

Districts on this issue. F

urther examination of the issue is warranted.

8.2.2 Calculating Cancer Risk Using Different Exposure Durations

A. Residential

OEHHA recommends the 70

- year exposure duration (ED) be used for determining residential cancer risks. For the Hot Spots Progr am, the 70

- year exposure duration should be used as the basis for public notification and risk reduction audits and plans. This will ensure that a person residing in the vicinity of a facility for a lifetime will be included in the evaluation of risk pose d by that facility. Exposure
durations of 9

- years and 30

- years may also be evaluated as supplemental information to show the range of cancer risk based on residency periods. Lifetime or 70

- year exposure is the historical benchmark for comparing facility impacts on receptors and for evaluating the effectiveness of air pollution control measures. Although it is not likely that most people will reside at a single residence for 70 years, it is

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 4 common that people will spend their entire lives in a major urban area. While residing in urban areas it is very possible to be exposed to the emissions of another facility at the next residence. In order to help ensure that people do not accumulate an excess unacceptable cancer risk from cumulative exposure to

statio nary facilities at multiple residences, OEHHA recommends the 70

- year exposure duration for risk management decisions. However, if a facility is notifying the public regarding cancer risk, it is useful information for a person who has resided in his curren t residence for less than 70 years to know that the

calculated estimate of his or her cancer risk is less than that calculated for a 70

- year risk.

Cancer risk assessment as currently practiced involves estimating exposure to carcinogenic
chemicals and mul

tiplying the dose times the cancer potency factor. There are often questions regarding the validity of applying the cancer potency factors to less than lifetime exposures. The cancer potency or unit risk factors are estimated from long

- term animal stu dies approaching lifetime, or from worker epidemiological studies involving long term exposure usually over decades.

OEHHA has presented in this document exposure variates for estimating 9, 30 and 70

- year exposures. These exposures are chosen to coin cide with U.S. EPA’s estimates of the average (9 years), high

- end estimates (30

- years) of residence time, and a typical lifetime (70 years). We support the use of cancer potency factors for estimating cancer risk for these exposure durations. However, as the exposure duration decreases the uncertainties introduced by applying cancer potency factors derived from very long term studies increases. Short

- term high exposures are not necessarily equivalent to longer

- term lower exposures even when the total dose is the same. OEHHA therefore does not support the use of current cancer potency factor to evaluate cancer risk for exposures of less than 9 years. If such risk must be evaluated, we recommend assuming that average daily dose for short

- term exposu re is assumed to last for a minimum of 9 years. OEHHA is evaluating cancer risk assessment methodologies over the next several years to address a number of issues including methods to evaluate

short

- term exposures to carcinogens. If children young er than age 9 can be exposed to the emissions of a short term project, then the point estimates for a child should be used for an exposure period of 9 years to calculate a child’s potential cancer risk. OEHHA is evaluating cancer risk assessment methodolo gies over the next several years to address a number of issues including methods to evaluate short

- term exposures to carcinogens.

As presented in Chapter 5 and explained in the Part IV TSD, the 9

- year (child) exposure duration is intended to represent the first 9

- years of life. Children, for physiological as well as behavioral reasons, have higher rates of exposure (mg/kg

- day) than adults. Therefore, the daily point

estimate (e.g., inhalation rate, soil ingestion rates) for the 9

- year exposure duration i s higher than for the

30 and 70

- year (adult) exposure durations. When assessing the impacts specifically for children, the

9

- year point

- estimates and exposure factor distributions should be used. If a 9

- year adult exposure duration is desired, then the 3 0 and 70

- year point

- estimates could be used and the cancer risk is adjusted using a factor of 9/70.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 5 The 30 and 70

- year exposure durations are intended to represent the first 30 and first 70 years of life, respectively. However, in the interest of simplic ity, the 30

- year exposure duration scenario uses the same exposure point

- estimates and data distributions as the 70

- year exposure duration scenario. This assumption to use the 70

- year exposure point

- estimate for both 30 and 70

- year exposures probably resu

lts in a small underestimation of dose for the 30

- year exposure scenario, since the exposure parameters for earlier years are higher than years spent as an adult.

The mother’s milk pathway is unlike other pathways because the (entire) dose to the breast fed infant is received in the first year of life. In evaluating risk from the pathway for 9, 30 and 70 years, it is

assumed that the cancer risk from the one

- year exposure to contaminants in mother’s milk is equally spread over 70 years to obtain a lifeti me risk. If an assessor wants to calculate the multipathway risk
for a 9

- year exposure duration, then the cancer risk for this exposure pathway is adjusted using a 9/70 th



### factor.

B. Worker

The general approach for estimating the potential health impact s to an offsite worker (e.g., MEIW) includes estimating the concentration at the receptor and identifying the duration of that exposure. The best way to determine potential impacts for a worker is to use the algorithms and exposure information in Chapter 5 and the HARP software.

There are three factors that affect worker exposure for cancer risk determination. The first is the offsite worker’s schedule. For example, some workers such as teachers have three months off during the summer and some workers work throughout the year except for weekends, holidays and vacation. The second factor is the operating schedule of the emitting facility under consideration. This is important because the ISCST

- 3 air dispersion computer model, or other models typically calculate an annual average air concentration based on actual operating conditions. For example, the facility may operate 365 days a year, 24 hours a day or may operate eight hours a day, five days a week. The third

factor is the coincidence of the offs ite worker’s schedule with the time that the facility is emitting. For example, if the facility emits during the day, five days a week, and the offsite worker is working only at night, then no inhalation exposure would occur.

If an adjustment needs to b e made for the time that the worker is present (coincident with the emissions), then the standard default assumption is the worker is present for 5 days per week, 49 weeks per year, for 40 years. The 40

- year working lifetime is the same assumption used un der the Proposition 65 Regulation. The worker is assumed to breath 149 L/kg BW* day for an 8

- hour workday. Other adjustments may be appropriate, such as for teachers or other workers. If the offsite worker only works part time, for example 4 hours per d ay, a factor of 0.5 (4/8) may be used to adjust the daily inhalation e

xposure proportionally.

If the annual average concentration of pollutants from the emitting facility (determined by the air model) is different than the air concentration that the wor ker breathes when present at the site, then the

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 6 annual average concentration for the worker inhalation pathway will need to be adjusted. For example, if the offsite worker and emitting facility are on concurrent schedules (i.e., the worker has a standard working schedule of eight hours per day, 5 days a week, and the facility emits 5 days a week, 8 hours per day), then the annual average air concentrations for the worker inhalation pathway would need be approximated by adjusting it upward using a factor of 4.2 (7/5 x 24/8). The annual average determined by the air modeling program is a 24 hour per day , 7 days per week, 365 days per year regardless of the actual operating schedule of the facility. The adjustment simply reflects the air concentration that the worker breathes. If the worker is only present some of the time that the facility is operating, then the average concentration that the worker breathes over his or her working day may be used.

For the chemicals where noninhalation pathways (e.g., soil ingestion and dermal exposure) need to be evaluated for workers, the annual average concentration should not be adjusted to account for the operating schedule of the emitting facility or the worker schedule (even if the facility emits only 5 days

per week 8 hours per day while the offsite worker is present). The pollutant will be deposited and accumulate in the soil in the absence or presence of the worker; therefore, the total deposition and soil concentration will be dependent on the annual average air concentration.

If the calculation for determining a MEIW inhalation risk are not able to be performed using the original algorithms or the HARP software, then the adjustment factors in Table 8.2 may be of use for inhalation assessments only. The algo rithms and assumptions in Chapter 5 must be used to determine multipathway impacts to a worker receptor.

Table 8.2: Adjustment Factors to Convert Inhalation Based Cancer Risk Estimates for a

Residential Receptor to a Worker Receptor

Adjustment Factor Worker Receptor Typ

e (Hrs/Days/Weeks/Years

) Facility Operating Schedule

(Hrs/Days/Weeks/Years) (High End)* (Average)*

Worker (8/5/49/40) Continuous (24/7/52/70) 0.1516 0.2199

Worker (8/5/49/40) Standard (8/5/52/70) 0.6366 0.9234

Teacher (8/5/36 T 

### /40) Continuous (24/7/52/70) 0.1114 0.1616

Teacher (8/5/36 T 

### /40) Standard (8/5/52/70) 0.4679 0.6787

* High End adjustment factors convert the residential receptor risk based on the high

- end breathing rate point

- estimate to a worker receptor risk. Average adj ustment factors convert the residential receptor risk based on the average breathing rate point

- estimate to a worker receptor risk.

T Number of weeks is based on school days per year reported by school district representatives.



### C. Uses of Exposure Durat ion Adjustments for On

- site Receptors

On

- site workers are protected by CAL OSHA and do not have to be evaluated under the Hot Spots program, unless the worker also lives on the facility site, or property. Occasionally, facilities like

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 7 prisons, military b ases, and universities have worker housing within the facility. In these situations the

evaluation of on

- site cancer risks, and/or acute and chronic noncancer hazard indices is appropriate under the Hot Spots program.

If the receptor lives and works on the facility, site, or property, then they should be evaluated under both scenarios and the one that is most health protective should be used.

The cancer risk estimates for the onsite residents may be done using the 70

- year exposure variates and 40

- y

ear exposure duration. The use of the 70 year exposure variates will overestimate exposure to adult workers to a small extent because higher inhalation rates, etc., during the portion of a 70 year lifetime that a person is a child are incorporated. If the on

- site resident under evaluation can be exposed through an impacted exposure pathway (other than inhalation), then that exposure pathway must be included. Other situations that may require on

- site receptor assessment include the presence of

location s where the public may have regular access for the appropriate exposure period (e.g., a lunchtime café, store, or museum for acute exposures). No exposure adjustments apply to acute exposure analyses. The District may be consulted on the appropriate ev aluations for the risk

assessment.

8.2.3 Speciation for Specific Classes of Compounds: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs),Polychlorinated Dibenzo

- p - dioxins (PCDDs) and Dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Health values and potency equivalency factors (PEFs) have been developed for approximately 26 PAHs (see Appendix G). When speciation of PAHs has been performed on facility emissions, these health values and PEFs should be used. In those cases where speciation of PAHs has not been performed, then benzo(a)pyrene or B(a)P serves as the surrogate carcinogen for all PAH emissions. A similar method has been developed for PCDDs and PCDFs, and PCBs known as toxicity equivalency factors (WHO TEFs), based on the number of chlorine s and their position on the molecule (see Appendix E). Where speciation of PCDDs and PCDFs, and PCBs has been performed on facility emissions, the WHO TEFs should be used. In those cases where speciation of PCDDs and PCDFs has not been performed, then 2, 3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin (TCDD) serves as the surrogate for PCDD and PCDF emissions. Similarly, where only total PCBs are available, then the cancer potency factor for PCBs should be applied.

When using the HARP software, the emission contr ibution of speciated PAHs and

PCDDs/PCDFs that have health values can be entered into the software. Unknown contributions of the PAH or PCDD/PCDF mixtures, or PAHs without a health value, should be assigned the appropriate surrogate. If a surrogate subst ance is used in the report, the facility

- emitted substance (PAH mixture or PCDDs/PCDF mixture) must also be clearly indicated in the risk assessment as the actual substance

emitted.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 8 Since the surrogates for total PAH (B(a)P) and total PCDD/PCDF (2,3,7,8

- t etrachlorodibenzo

p

- dioxin) are the most or nearly

- the

- most potent carcinogens in the class, use of the cancer potency

factors for these with total emissions will overestimate the risk.

Given that speciation data on these classes of compounds can result in significant capital investment, it may be reasonable to run a screening estimate of risk on the unknown mixture using the appropriate surrogate compound to represent the class. If the resulting risk estimate is deemed significant enough to trigger heal th concerns, it would then be advisable to speciate the mixture and run a screening estimate using the speciated data.

8.2.4 Determination of Noninhalation (Oral) Cancer Risk

A small subset of Hot Spots substances is subject to deposition onto the so il, plants, and water bodies. These substances need to be evaluated by the appropriate noninhalation pathways, as well as by the inhalation pathway, and the results must be presented in all HRAs. These substances include

semi

- volatile organic chemicals a nd heavy metals.

For all multipathway substances, the minimum exposure pathways that must be evaluated at every residential site (in addition to inhalation) are soil ingestion and dermal exposure. If dioxins, furans, or PCBs are emitted, then the breas t

- milk consumption pathway becomes mandatory. The other exposure pathways (e.g., ingestion of homegrown produce or fish) are only evaluated if the facility impacts that exposure medium and the receptor under evaluation can be exposed to that medium or
pat hway. For example, if the facility does not impact a fishable body of water within the isopleth of the facility, or the impacted water body does not sustain fish, then the fish pathway will not be considered for that facility or receptor. Table 5.1 lists the multipathway substances and the pathways that can be considered for each substance. Table 8.3 identifies the residential receptor exposure pathways that are mandatory and those that are dependent on the available routes of exposure. Table 8.3 also i dentifies the three exposure pathways that are appropriate for a worker receptor.

Table 8.3 Mandatory and Site/Route Dependant Exposure Pathways

Mandatory Exposure Pathways Site/Route Dependent Exposure Pathways

• Inhalation

w



### • Soil Ingestion w



### • Dermal Exp osure w



### • Breast

- Milk or Mother’s Milk Consumption* • Homegrown Produce Ingestion

• Fish Ingestion

• Drinking Water Ingestion

• Dairy (Cow’s) Milk Ingestion

• Meat (Beef, Pork, Chicken, and Egg) Ingestion

(*) If dioxins, furans, or PCBs are emitted, then the breast

- milk consumption pathway becomes mandatory. (w) Identifies the only appropriate exposure pathways that should be evaluated for a worker. These pathways are

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 9

inhalation, dermal exposure, and the soil ingestion pathways.



### The oral cancer risk is calculated using the same steps as inhalation cancer risk described in

Section 8.2.1. The only difference is that the inhalation dose is replaced by a noninhalation pathway dose (e.g., soil ingestion) and consideration is given to determining the dominan t exposure pathways for the proper use of point

- estimates (see Section 8.2.5).

In summary, an oral dose (see Chapters 4 and 5) from the pathway under evaluation (e.g., soil ingestion) is multiplied by the substance

- specific oral slope factor, expressed in units of inverse dose as a potency slope (i.e., (mg/kg/day)

- 1 

### ) from Table 7.1 or Appendix L, to yield the soil ingestion cancer risk. The following equation illustrates the formula for calculating cancer risk. Details (data, algorithms, and guidance) fo r each exposure pathway are presented in Chapter 5 and the Part IV TSD. See the

discussion of Tier

- 1 in Section 8.2.6 or the Part IV TSD for the method used to determine the multipathway cancer risk. See Appendix I for an example calculation for the inha lation exposure pathway.

To convert this to chances per million of developing cancer, multiply the cancer risk by 10 6 

### . This result

is useful as a risk communication tool.

Cancer risk x 10 6 

### = chances per million

8.2.5 Evaluation of Multipathway (Inhalation and Noninhalation) Cancer Risk

A. Deposition Rate

A deposition rate must be used when determining potential noninhalation health impacts. In the absence of facility specific information on the size of the emitted particles, the default values for deposition rate should be used. Currently, the default value of 0.02 meters per second is used for emission sources that have verifiable particulate matter control devices or for emission sources that may be uncontrolled but only emit particula te matter that is less than 2.5 microns (e.g., internal combustion engines powered by compressed natural gas). The 0.05 meters per second default value is used for risk assessment if the emissions are uncontrolled. If other deposition rate factors are u sed, sufficient support documentation must be included with the HRA. =        

−        

− mg day kg
day kg mg Factor

Slope Oral Dose Oral Potential Cancer Risk

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 10 B. Use of Air Dispersion Modeling Results for Pastures and Water Bodies in Risk Assessment and the HARP Software

The substance or pollutant deposition to a drinking or pasture water bod y source and pastureland will be evaluated if an HRA includes the drinking water, fish ingestion, and cow’s milk or meat (beef) exposure pathways. Two approaches are recommended for determining the deposition impacts to water bodies and pastureland. A si mple approach is to select the results from a single receptor point on the grid laid over the area covered by the water body or pasture and assume that the modeled concentration at that grid

- point is uniform across the water or pasture area. To make this first approach health protective, the grid

- point within the area of the water body or pastureland with the highest modeled concentration should be used. A more refined approach is to average the air dispersion modeling results for all of the grid

- points c overing the area of the pasture or water body.

C. Summary of the Tiered Approach to Risk Assessment

The tiered approach for risk assessment that is presented in detail in the Part IV TSD and summarized here should be reviewed prior to estimating mult ipathway cancer risk. The tiered approach

to risk assessment and the evaluation described here are included in the HARP software. The HARP software is the recommended model for calculating HRA results for the Hot Spots Program. Information on obtaining the HARP software can be found under the Air Toxics Program on the ARB’s

web site at www.arb.ca.gov

.

Tier

- 1 is a standard point

- estimate approach that uses the recommended exposure variate (e.g., breathing or water i

ngestion rate) point

- estimates presented in this document. If an HRA cancer risk assessment involves multipathway residential exposures, then the risk assessor needs to first calculate the cancer risk from each pathway using the high

- end exposure variate s for all pathways. Then a second calculation is performed in which the pathways with the two highest cancer risks are added to the cancer risks from the rest of the pathways (if any) calculated with the average exposure variates. Dominant pathways are

defined as the two exposure pathways that contribute the most to the total cancer risk estimate when using high

- end point

- estimates for all the exposure pathways under consideration. The final cancer risk calculation using a combination of high end and average exposure variates is referred to as derived risk in the HARP software and applies only to the residential receptor. There are only single values for exposure variates for the worker for the three pathways considered.

A similar procedure i

s used to determine the hazard index for the noncancer noninhalation pathways. The doses from all pathways (noninhalation) are calculated using the high

- end exposure variate. The dose is used to calculate the hazard quotient for all noninhalation pathw ays. The hazard quotient for the inhalation pathway is calculated from the ground level concentration and the chronic REL. The three pathways with the highest hazard quotient are the dominant pathways. The remaining noninhalation pathways (if any) h azard quotients may be recalculated using the average exposure variates. The total hazard quotient for the chemical may be calculated by adding the

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 11 individual hazard quotients from the dominant pathways and those calculated with the average exposure

vari ates.

Using the derived estimate of dose and risk will lessen the issue of compounding high

- end exposure estimates, while retaining a health

- protective approach for the more important exposure pathway(s). It is unlikely that an individual receptor woul d be on the high

- end of exposure for all the intake variates (exposure pathways). Usually, inhalation is the dominant pathway posing the most cancer risk and noncancer chronic health impacts in the HRAs prepared for the Hot Spots Program. Occasionally, r

isks from other exposure pathways may also be dominant for lipophilic (fat

- loving) compounds or metals. Therefore, for many facilities emitting volatile and multipathway chemicals, the inhalation pathway will be at least one of the two exposure pathways f or which cancer risks are assessed using a high

- end estimate (see Section 8.2.1).

The relatively health

- protective assumptions incorporated into the Tier

- 1 risk assessment (e.g.,

70

- year exposure duration (for cancer) and the high

- end values for key var iates in the driving pathways) make it unlikely that the risks are underestimated for the general population. If the results indicate that a facility’s estimated cancer risk and noncancer hazard are below the level of regulatory concern, further analysis may not be warranted. If the results are above a regulatory level of concern, the risk assessor may want to proceed with further analysis as described in Tier

- 2, or use a more resource

- intensive stochastic modeling effort described in Tier

- 3 and Tier

- 4. While further evaluation may provide more information to the risk manager on which to base decisions, the Tier

- 1 evaluation is useful in comparing risks among a large number of facilities and must be included in all HRAs.

Tier

- 2 analysis allows the use of available site

- specific information to develop point

- estimates that are more appropriate to use in the site

- specific HRA than the recommended point

- estimates. In

Tier

- 3, a stochastic approach to exposure assessment is taken using the exposure factor di stributions presented in the Part IV TSD and in Chapter 5. The Part IV TSD exposure factor distributions apply only to a residential receptor and are used only for the determination of cancer risk. Tier

- 4 is also a stochastic approach but allows for util ization of site

- specific distributions if they are justifiable and more appropriate for the site under evaluation than those recommended in this document.

Tier

- 3 and Tier

- 4 analyses show a distribution of cancer risk indicating the percent of the popula tion exposed to various levels of risk. This type of analysis provides an illustration of population risk. The results from this type of analysis can also be used to show what percentage of the population would be protected with various risk management o ptions.

OEHHA is not recommending a stochastic approach (Tier

- 3) for worker exposure, or

noncancer inhalation chronic evaluations. A Tier

- 2 evaluation could be used for off

- site worker risk assessments. There is only a Tier

- 1 option for determining acu te noncancer risks since calculating the hazard quotient only involves the acute REL and short

- term maximum ground level air concentrations. In addition, no exposure duration adjustment should be made for noncancer assessments.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 12 D. Multipathway Cancer R isk Methodology

In order to characterize total substance risk for a single multipathway substance the inhalation risk is calculated by multiplying the inhalation dose (mg/kg

- day) times the inhalation cancer potency factor to give the inhalation cancer ri sk (Section 8.2.1). Using Tier

- 1, the dermal and oral dose from each relevant exposure pathway is multiplied times the substance

- specific oral potency factor to give the oral (noninhalation) cancer risk (see Sections 8.2.4 and 8.2.5). The inhalation canc er risk and oral cancer risk are then summed to give the multipathway cancer risk for that substance. Many facilities will emit multiple carcinogenic substances. If multiple substances are emitted, the cancer risk from each of the individual substances ( including multipathway and volatile, inhalation

- only substances) is summed to give the (total) multipathway cancer risk for the entire facility at the receptor location.

Cancer risks from different substances are treated additively in the Hot Spots Progra m in part because many carcinogens act through the common mechanism of DNA damage. However, this assumption fails to take into account the limited information on substance interactions. However, the overall uncertainty in the cancer potency factors and t he variability in the human population is probably far greater than the uncertainty from the assumption of additivity. In addition, cancers are life threatening serious diseases so it is not unreasonable to consider total additive risk. Therefore, the ad ditive assumption is reasonable from a public health point of view. Other possible interactions of multiple carcinogens include synergism (effects are greater than additive) or antagonism (effects are less than additive). The type of interaction is subst ance dependent and can be dose dependent. All three types of interactions have been demonstrated scientifically.

8.2.6 Risk Characterization for Stochastic Risk Assessment.

Risk characterization for a stochastic risk assessment is similar to that described for the point

estimate approach. However, the results of the stochastic risk assessment is a distribution of risk which accounts for some of the variability in cancer risk that results from natural variability in exposure, such as breathing rates or water

intake. The cancer risk distribution for inhalation cancer risk, for example, is generated by multiplying random values from the breathing rate distribution times the ground level air concentration, and the cancer potency factor. A variation of the Mont e Carlo method called Latin hypercube sampling is the method by which the values from the breathing rate distribution are selected. If noninhalation pathways need to be evaluated, the same process is followed for each pathway and the risk is summed to gi ve an overall inhalation and noninhalation cancer risk distribution. Distributions are only available for some of the exposure variates and none are currently recommended for the fate and transport algorithms. As more data become available for exposure v ariates and fate and transport variates, OEHHA will expand the number of distributions in our model to better capture the variability in exposure and risk.

The HARP software will perform an HRA using either OEHHA or user

- provided data

distributions usin

g a Monte Carlo analysis and include the statistics on the distributions. The 70

- year

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 13 exposure duration should be used as the basis for public notification and risk reduction audits and plans. If an assessor would prefer to evaluate 9 or 30

- year exposure durations, then a cancer risk distribution
for 9 or 30

- year exposure duration would be presented in addition to the 70

- year exposure duration. An adult’s analysis would use the 30 and 70

- year data distributions. If a stochastic analysis is performed for

a child, then the child’s (9

- year) distribution must be used. A stochastic approach for acute and chronic health impacts and worker (MEIW) exposures are not currently recommended. Information on obtaining the HARP software can be found under the Air Tox ics Program on the ARB’s

web site at www.arb.ca.gov

.

8.3 Risk Characterization for Noncarcinogens

Noncancer impacts are determined for acute (inhalation) exposure and for both inhalation and oral chronic exposure. Es timates of health impacts for noncancer endpoints are expressed as a hazard quotient (for individual substances) or a hazard index (for multiple substances). In addition, all hazard quotients (HQ) and hazard indices (HI) must be determined by target organ system. An HQ of one or less indicates that adverse health effects are not expected to result from exposure to emissions of that substance. As the HQ increases above one, the probability of human health effects increases by an

undefined amount. However , it should be noted that a hazard index above 1 is not necessarily indicative of health impacts due to the application of uncertainty factors in deriving the Reference Exposure Levels. There are limitations to this method of assessing cumulative noncance r chronic health impacts. The impact on organ systems may not be additive if health effects occur by different mechanisms. However, the impact on organ systems could also be synergistic. An analysis by a trained health professional

familiar with the sub stance’s toxicological literature is usually needed to determine the public health significance of an HQ or HI above one. It is recommended that the Air District contact OEHHA if this situation presents itself. For assessing the noncancer health impacts of lead, different procedures are used; please see Appendix F.

There is only one approach to calculating the acute HI because the calculation is based on the highest short

- term ground level air concentrations and the acute Reference Exposure Level. Like wise the chronic inhalation HI calculation is performed using the annual average ground level concentration

and the chronic REL. Therefore no Tier

- 2, Tier

- 3 or Tier

- 4 options are available for acute or chronic

noncancer inhalation hazard evaluation. Howe ver, there may be cases in which site specific fate and transport variates or exposure variates may be more appropriate to determine dose (mg/kg

- day) for the noninhalation chronic HI; therefore, in some cases a Tier

- 2 evaluation may be appropriate for the noninhalation pathways.

Generally, the inhalation pathway is the largest contributor to the total dose. However, there are situations where a noninhalation pathway of exposure contributes substantially to a noncancer chronic HI. In these cases, the hi gh

- end point

- estimate of dose is appropriate to use for the three dominant pathways and the average point

- estimate for the non

- dominant pathways. Dominant pathways are defined as the three pathways that contribute the most to the total hazard quotient for a chemical noncancer HI result when using high

- end point

- estimates for all the exposure pathways under

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 14 consideration. Typically inhalation would be one of these three pathways. In addition, no exposure duration adjustment (e.g., 9/70 or 30/70) should b e made for noncancer assessments. See the Part IV TSD for a detailed discussion of the tiered approach, or Section 8.2.5 for a short overview of each tier.

Information contained in the following locations is needed to evaluate noncancer health impacts

. Chapter 4 describes air dispersion modeling and both Chapter 6 and Appendix L list all the needed

dose

- response information. Appendix I presents sample calculations for determining chronic multipathway noncancer HQs and HIs and acute (inhalation) HQs a nd HIs. Chapter 9 provides an outline of information required for risk characterization. The HARP software is the recommended model for calculating and presenting HRA results for the Hot Spots Program. Information on obtaining

the HARP software can be f ound under the Air Toxics Program on the ARB’s web site at www.arb.ca.gov

.

A. Evaluation of Background Criteria Pollutants

The District should be contacted to determine if the contribution of background criteria pollutan ts to respiratory health effects is required to be included in an HRA for the Hot Spots Program. If inclusion is required, the method for calculating the health impact from both acute and chronic exposure (respiratory endpoint) is the standard HI approach (see Sections 8.3.1 and 8.3.4). The background criteria pollutant contribution should be calculated if the HI from the facility’s emissions exceeds 0.5 in either the acute or chronic assessment for the respiratory endpoint.

The most recent criteria po llutant concentration data should be obtained from the ARB’s ambient air monitoring network and can be found in the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality on their web site at www.arb.ca.gov . For determining t he criteria pollutant contribution in both the chronic and acute HI calculations, annual average concentration data should be taken from a monitoring site near the facility. If background contributions are unavailable, the District may direct the

risk ass essor to make an alternative assumption. The criteria pollutants that should be included in both the acute and chronic assessments for the respiratory endpoint are ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfates, and hydrogen sulfide.

8.3.1 Noncancer Chronic Inhalation Health Impacts

All substances in the Hot Spots Program must be evaluated through the inhalation pathway. Noncancer chronic inhalation health impacts are calculated by dividing the substance

- specific annual average air concentration i

n micrograms per cubic meter ( μ g/m 3 

### ) by the chronic inhalation REL ( μ g/m 3 

### ) (Table 6.2). An REL is used as an indicator of potential noncancer health impacts and is defined as the concentration at which no adverse noncancer health effects are anticipated. If this calculation is performed for a single substance, then it is called the hazard quotient (HQ). The following equation illustrates how to calculate the HQ for chronic inhalation exposure.

) g/m ( Level Exposure Reference Chronic ) g/m ( ion Concentrat Average Annual

3 3



### m m

= Hazard Quotient

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 15 The risk characterization of cumulative noncancer chronic h ealth impacts from the emissions of multiple substances by the inhalation route is accomplished by determining the HI. The HI is calculated by summing the HQs from all of the substances that affect the same organ system. Note, do not add the HQs or HIs f

or different target organs together (e.g., do not add the impacts for the eye to the cardiovascular system). Table 6.2 and Appendix L have a list of the organ systems affected by each substance. No exposure duration adjustment (e.g., 9/70) should be made for noncancer assessments. The following equation illustrates how to calculate the HI for chronic exposure for the eye (target organ) from two substances. See Appendix I for an example calculation.

Hazard Index (HI eye 

### ) = HQ substance 1(eye) 

### + HQ
s ubstance 2(eye)



### 8.3.2 Noncancer Chronic Health Impacts from the Oral Route

Risk characterization for chronic health effects from exposure via the oral route is also conducted using the hazard index approach. The hazard quotient is obtained by dividing the oral dose (derived from the annual average concentration) in milligrams per kilogram

- day (mg/kg

- day) by the oral chronic REL, expressed in units of (mg/kg

- day) (Table 6.3). The point

- estimates and algorithms for calculating the oral dose for all appl icable exposure pathways and receptors (e.g., workers or residents) are explained in Chapter 5.

The high

- end point

- estimates are used for all exposure pathways to determine which exposure pathways are dominant. Once the dominant exposure pathways are d ecided, the assessor uses the high

- end point

- estimates for the two dominant noninhalation pathways and the average point estimates

for the rest of the non

- dominant exposure pathways to determine the dose and chronic health impacts at the residential recept

or. The 70

- year exposure duration point

- estimates are used for residential receptors and the worker (single) point

- estimates are used for the MEIW in this calculation. No exposure duration adjustment (e.g., 9/70) should be made for noncancer assessments. The oral HQ is calculated by dividing the oral dose by the oral chronic REL. The significance of oral HQs greater or less than one are the same as explained for the chronic inhalation chronic HQ in Section 8.3.1. The following equation illustrates how to calculate the HQ for chronic noninhalation exposure. To estimate the hazard index from noninhalation exposures when multiple pollutants impact the same target organ, the oral HQ’s are summed (See Section 8.3.3 below).

8.3.3 Evaluation of Chronic Non cancer Multipathway Hazard Quotients and Hazard
Indices Hazard Quotient oral 

### day)

- (mg/kg Level Exposure Reference (oral) Chronic day)

- (mg/kg Dose Pathway Exposure

=

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 16 To determine multipathway chronic noncancer health impacts, it is necessary to calculate the total hazard index from both inhalation and noninhalation exposures. First, the inhalation HQ is

calcula ted (Section 8.3.1). Second, if the substance has an oral REL, then the oral HQ is calculated (see Sections 8.2.5, 8.3, and 8.3.2). For a residential receptor, the oral HQ is calculated using the

70

- year high

- end point

- estimates for the two dominant non inhalation pathways and the average point

- estimates for the rest of the pertinent exposure pathways. If a worker is under evaluation, then the worker single point

- estimates are used for the soil and dermal pathways. The third step is to add the HQs toget her for each exposure pathway to give the substance’s total multipathway HQ by target organ. If there is only one substance, then the multipathway HQ is the same as the HI.

• If there are multiple substances emitted, then the fourth step is to total the HQs for all the individual substances by each target organ. For example, add the HQs for all substances that impact the respiratory system, then repeat this step for the next target organ system (e.g., cardiovascular system). This step is repeated until all target organs (for the substances emitted) are individually totaled. These impacts by target organ are now referred to as the HI. Note, do not add the HQs or HIs for different target organ together (e.g., do not add the impacts for the respiratory sy stem to the cardiovascular system). No exposure duration adjustment (e.g., 9/70) should be made for noncancer assessments. See Appendix I for an example calculation.

• For respiratory irritants, do not add in an oral contribution to the HI for the respira tory system for chemicals with both inhalation and oral RELs.

8.3.4 Noncancer Acute Health Impacts

Risk characterization for acute health effects uses the same principles (HQ, for an individual substance, and HI, for multiple substances) as the chronic noncancer inhalation methodology (see Section 8.3.1). All acute substances are evaluated through the inhalation pathway only.

• Noncancer acute health impacts are calculated by dividing the substance

- specific short

term maximum concentration in microgra ms per cubic meter ( μ g/m 3 

### ) by the acute REL (also in units of μ g/m 3 

### ) (Table 6.1) for each substance. If this calculation is performed for a single substance, then it is called the HQ. The HQ should be applied to all appropriate target organs for a given substance.

• If multiple substances are emitted, then the next step is to total the individual substance’s HQs by each target organ. For example, add the HQs for all substances that impact the respiratory system, then repeat this step for the next target o rgan system. This step is repeated until all target organs (for the substances emitted) are individually totaled. These impacts by target organ are now referred to as the HI. Note, do not add the

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 17

HQs or HIs for different target organs together (e.g., do not add the impacts for the respiratory system to immune system).

There are no oral acute RELs since it is anticipated that health effects from such a brief exposure via the oral route would be insignificant relative to the inhalation route. No exposu re duration adjustment should be made for noncancer assessments. See Appendix I for an example calculation. HQs calculated using one, four, six, and seven hour exposure duration RELs may be added together for calculation of an acute HI. This would only occur in evaluating reproductive and developmental toxicants, since all other endpoints have only one hour acute RELs.

The HARP software incorporates two procedures for determining an acute HI. Both procedures use the calculations for HQ and HI described above. These two procedures make a difference when a facility has two or more separated emission points or for HRAs involving multiple facilities. The first procedure is a more simplistic approach (consistent with previous CAPCOA HRA methods) where the maximum concentrations from each emission source are superimposed to impact receptors at the same time, irrespective of wind direction and/ or atmospheric stability. This procedure is a simple, health protective approach to assess acute impacts. The seco nd procedure is more refined than the first and improves on previous HRA methods. This second procedure takes into account meteorology and relative source positions by superimposing results from multiple sources with concurrent wind direction and atmosphe ric conditions, thereby computing a more refined maximum impact by hour at each receptor. This refined HI procedure may decrease the concentrations at many receptor locations when compared to the simplistic approach, but should not underestimate potential health impacts (i.e., HQs or HIs). This dual procedure approach is another way the new HRA guidelines are building flexibility into the HRA methods.

8.4 Population

- Level Risk Estimates

8.4.1 Carcinogenic Risk

There are basically two ways to provide population

- level risk estimates, namely cancer burden estimates and estimates of the number of people exposed at specific cancer risk levels.

1. The cancer burden is calculated by multiplying the number of people exposed (census information) by the cancer r isk at either the MEIR or the population centroid of each

census block. The result of this calculation is an estimate of the number of cancer cases expected from a 70

- year exposure to current estimated facility emissions.

2. An estimate of the number of p eople exposed at various cancer risk levels can provide perspective on the magnitude of the potential public health threat posed by a facility. This approach is intended as a replacement for the cancer burden calculation used by some Districts in the past . The new approach provides a much easier way to interpret results when compared to cancer burden estimates. A facility in a sparsely populated

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 18

area can have a public health impact different from the same facility in a highly populated

area. Such inform

ation can be useful in risk management decisions. The level of detail required for the population analysis (e.g., screening or refined) and the procedures to be used in determining geographic resolution and exposed population require case

- by

- case analysis and professional judgment. Some suggested approaches and methods for handling the breakdown of population and performance of a screening or refined population exposure analyses are provided in Section 4.6.

The population estimates should be based on the latest available census results. The population of the census block may be assumed to be equally distributed over the census block, unless for some reason more refined information is available. The population in census blocks cut by two or more risk

iso pleths can thus be apportioned based on the area in each isopleth. The isopleths needed should be drawn using the smallest practical grid size. The Districts may ask facilities to use the new procedure or the cancer burden approach. The District or revi ewing authority should be consulted before beginning the population exposure estimates and, as results are generated, further consultation may be necessary.

A fundamental first step in estimating the number of people at risk from facility emissions is to define the zones of impact (see Section 4.6.1). This zone is commonly defined as the area within the isopleth surrounding the facility where receptors have a multipathway cancer risk greater than 10

- 6



### . Some Districts may prefer to use a cancer risk of 10

- 7 

### to define the carcinogenic zone of impact. The total number of persons exposed to a series of potential risk levels can be presented to aid risk managers in understanding the magnitude of the potential public health impacts. See Table 8.3 for an

examp le of data summarizing population exposure estimates for cancer risk.

Table 8.3 Example of Estimates of Population Risk

Estimated Number of Persons Exposed Cancer Risk N 

### (chances per million)

X 1 to 10

Y 10 to 100

Z >100

(N) Column would be titled to reflect acute or chronic noncancer health impacts.



### The HARP software can provide population

- level risk estimates as cancer burden or as the number of persons exposed to a selected (user

- identified) cancer risk level at block level centroids.

Informati on on obtaining the HARP software can be found under the Air Toxics Program on the ARB’s

web site at www.arb.ca.gov . Chapter 9 provides an outline that specifies the content and

recommended format of HRA results.

8.4.2 Population Estimates of Noncancer Health Impacts

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. July

2003.

8

- 19 A noncancer chronic and acute population estimate of the number of people exposed to acute and chronic HQs or HIs exceeding 0.5 or 1.0, in increments of 1.0, should also be presented. For example, a facility with a maximum chronic HI of 4.0 would present the number of people exposed to a chronic HI of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0. The isopleths used in this determination should be drawn using the smallest feasible grid size. The same methods that a re described in Chapter 4 and Section 8.4.1 (for the population exposure estimate for cancer risk) should be used in the chronic and acute population estimates. Population estimates for acute and chronic health impacts should be presented separately and in a format consistent with Table 8.3.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

9

- 1 

## 9. Summary of the Requirements for a Modeling Protocol and a Health Risk Assessment Report

The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the type of information that is expected to be included in modeling protocols and health risk assessments (HRAs). Thes e outlines are intended to promote transparent, consistent presentation and efficient review of these products. It is possible that protocols and HRAs that do not include all the information presented in these outlines may be considered deficient by the r eviewing authority. We recommend that persons preparing these products consult with the local Air Pollution Control or Air Quality Management District (District) to determine if the District has modeling or HRA guidelines that supercede these outlines. I f the District does not have guidelines for these products, then we recommend Section 9.1 be used for modeling protocols and Section 9.2 be used for the presentation of HRAs. Persons preparing modeling protocols and HRAs should specify the guidelines that

were used to prepare their products.



## 9.1 Submittal of Modeling Protocol

It is strongly recommended that a modeling protocol be submitted to the District for review and approval prior to extensive analysis with an air dispersion model. The modeling protoc ol is a plan of the steps to be taken during the air dispersion modeling and risk assessment process. We encourage people who are preparing protocols to take advantage of the protocol step and fully discuss anticipated methodologies for any portion of you r project that may need special consideration. Below, we have provided an example of the format that may be followed in the preparation of the modeling protocol. Consult with the District to confirm format and content requirements or to determine the

ava ilability of District modeling guidelines before submitting the protocol.

I. Introduction

• Include the facility name, address, and a brief overview describing the facility’s operations.

• Provide a description of the terrain and topography surrounding th e facility and potential
receptors.

• Indicate the format in which data will be provided. Ideally, the report and summary of data will be on paper and all data and model input and output files will be provided electronically (e.g., compact disk or CD).

• Id entify the guidelines used to prepare the protocol.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

9

- 2 II. Emissions

• For each pollutant and process whose emissions are required to be quantified in the HRA, list the annual average emissions (pounds/year and grams/second) and maximum

one

- hour emissions (pounds/hour and grams/second)*.

• Identify the reference and method(s) used to determine emissions (e.g., source tests, emission factors, etc.). Clearly indicate any emission data that are not reflected in the previously submitted emission inventory repo rt. In this event, a revised emission inventory report will need to be submitted to the District.

III. Models / Modeling Assumptions

• Identify the model(s) to be used, including the version number.

• Identify the model options that will be used in the ana lysis.

• Indicate complex terrain options that may be used, if applicable.

• Identify the source type(s) that will be used to represent the facility’s operations (e.g., point, area, or volume sources, flare options or other).

• Indicate the preliminary source characteristics (e.g., stack height, gas temperature, exit velocity, dimensions of volume source, etc.).

• Identify and support the use of urban or rural dispersion coefficients for those models that require dispersion coefficients. For other models, iden tify and support the parameters required to characterize the atmospheric dispersion due to land characteristics (e.g., surface roughness, Monin

- Obukhov length).

IV. Meteorological Data

• Specify the type, source, and year(s) of hourly meteorological data ( e.g., hourly surface data, upper air mixing height information).

• State how the data are representative for the facility site.

• Describe QA/QC procedures.

• Identify any gaps in the data; if gaps exist, describe how the data gaps are filled.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

9

- 3 *Except radio nuclides, for which annual and hourly emissions are reported in Curies/year and millicuries/hour, respectively.



### V. Deposition

• Specify the method to calculate deposition (if applicable).

VI. Receptors

• Identify the method that will be used to determine t he location of sensitive receptors, the point of maximum impact (PMI), and the maximum exposed individual residential (MEIR) and worker (MEIW) receptors (e.g., fine receptor spacing of 20 meters at the fenceline and centered on the maximum impacts; coarse receptor spacing of 100 meters out to 2,000 meters; extra coarse spacing of 1,000 meters out to 20,000 meters).

• Identify the method that will be used to evaluate potential cancer risk in the vicinity of the facility for purposes of calculating cancer burd en or population impact estimates. Clarify the same information for the presentation of noncancer impacts (e.g., centroids of the census tracts in the area within the zone of impact).

• Specify that actual UTM coordinates and the block/street locations (i. e., north side of 3,000 block of Smith Street), where possible, will be provided for specified receptor

locations.

• Identify and support the use of any exposure adjustments.

• Identify if sensitive receptors are present and which receptors will be evaluate d in the

HRA.

VII. Maps

• Indicate which cancer risk isopleths will be plotted for the cancer zone of impact (e.g.,

10

- 7 

### , 10

- 6 

### see Section 4.6.1).

• Indicate the hazard quotients or hazard indices to be plotted for the noncancer acute

and chronic zones of impact (e.g., 0.5, 1.0, etc.).



## 9.2 Outline for a Health Risk Assessment Report

The purpose of this section is to provide an outline to assist with the preparation and review of heath risk assessments (HRAs). This outline specifies the key components t hat should be included in HRAs. All information used for the report must be presented in the HRA. Ideally, the HRA report and

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

9

- 4 a summary of data used in the HRA will be on paper and all data and model input and output files will be provided electronically

(e.g., CD). Persons preparing HRAs for the Hot Spots Program should consult the District to determine if HRA guidelines or special formats are to be followed when preparing and presenting the HRA’s results. If District guidelines or formats do not exist that supersede this outline, then the HRA should follow the format presented here. If the HRA is prepared for other programs, the reviewing authority should be consulted for clarification of format and content. We recommend that those persons preparing HRAs specify the guidelines that were used to prepare their product. The HRA may be considered deficient by the reviewing authority if components that are listed

here are not included.

I. Table of Contents

• Section headings with page numbers indicated.

• Tables and figures with page numbers indicated.

• Appendices with page numbers indicated.

II. Executive Summary

• Name of the facility including the complete address.

• Facility identifier number (consult the District).

• Description of facility operations and a list identifying emitted substances including

table of maximum 1

- hour and annual average emissions.

• Provide a brief definition of acute, chronic, and cancer health impacts and multipathway substances.

• Text presenting overview of dispersion modeling and exposure assessment.

• Text defining dose

- response assessment for cancer and noncancer health impacts and a table showing target organ systems by substance for noncancer impacts.

• Summary of results, including:

• Location block/street location; e.g., north sid e of 3,000 block of Smith Street) and description of the off

- site point of maximum impact (PMI), maximum exposed individual resident (MEIR), and maximum exposed individual worker (MEIW).

• Location block/street location; e.g., north side of 3,000 block of Smith Street) and description of any on

- site receptors that were evaluated at the facility (consult District or agency).

• Location (block/street location; e.g., north side of 3,000 block of Smith Street) and description of any sensitive receptors that a re required by the district or reviewing authorities (consult District or agency).

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

9

- 5

NOTE: When presenting the following information, potential cancer risk should be presented for a 70

- year, Tier

– 1 analysis. Results of other exposure assumptions or tier e valuations can be presented, but must be clearly labeled. For the Hot Spots Program, the 70

- year exposure duration should be used as the basis for public notification and risk reduction audits and plans.

• Text presenting an overview of the (total) potenti al multipathway cancer risk at the PMI, MEIR, MEIW, and sensitive receptors. Provide a table of cancer risk by substance for the MEIR and MEIW (if applicable). Include a statement indicating which of the substances appear to contribute most to (drive) th e potential health impacts. In addition, identify the exposure pathways evaluated in the HRA.

• Provide a map of the facility and surroundings and identify the location of the MEIR, MEIW, and PMI.

• Provide a map of 70

- year lifetime cancer risk zone of imp act, if applicable.

• Text presenting an overview of the acute and chronic noncancer hazard quotients or the (total) hazard indices for the PMI, MEIR, MEIW, and sensitive receptors. Include separate statements (for acute and chronic exposures) indicating which of the substances appear to drive the potential health impacts. In addition, clearly identify the primary target organ(s) that are impacted from acute and chronic exposures.

• Identify any subpopulations (e.g., subsistence fishers) of concern.

• Tabl e and text presenting an overview of estimates of population exposure (e.g., cancer burden or population estimates from HARP) (consult District or agency) (see Section 8.4).

• Version of the Risk Assessment Guidelines and computer program(s) used to

prepare the risk assessment.

III. Risk Assessment Procedures

A. Hazard identification

• Table and text identifying all substances emitted from the facility, plus any other substances required by the District or reviewing authority. Include the CAS number

of t he substance and the physical form of the substance if possible. [The Hot Spots substances are listed in Appendix A, and also in the ARB’s Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Regulations (Title 17, California Code of Regulations,

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

9

- 6

Sections 93300

- 933 00.5), and the Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Report (EICG Report), which is incorporated by reference therein (ARB, 1997)].

• Table and text identifying all substances that are evaluated for cancer risk and/or

noncancer acute and chronic healt h impacts. In addition, identify any substances that present a potential cancer risk or chronic noncancer hazard via noninhalation routes of exposure.

• Describe the types and amounts of continuous or intermittent predictable emissions from the facility that occurred during the reporting year. As required by statute, releases from a facility include spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping (fugitive), leaching, dumping, or disposing

of a substance into amb ient air. Include the substance(s) released and a description of the processes that resulted in long

- term and continuous releases.

B. Exposure assessment

This section describes the information related to the air dispersion modeling process that

should be reported in the risk assessment. In addition, doses calculated by pathway of exposure for each substance should be included in this section. The District may have specific requirements regarding format and content (see Section 4.13). Sample calculat ions may need to be provided (in an appendix) for each step to indicate how the reported emissions data were used, if software other than HARP is used. The educated reader should be able to reproduce the risk assessment without the need for clarification. The location of any information that is presented in appendices, on electronic media, or attached documents that supports information presented in this section, must be clearly identified by title and page number in this section’s text and in the documen t’s
table of contents.

1. Information on the Facility and its Surroundings

• Report the following information regarding the facility and its surroundings:

• Facility name

• Facility identifier number (consult the District).

• Location (use actual UTM coordinate s and street address)

• Land use type (see Section 4.4)

• Local topography.

• Facility plot plan identifying †

• emission source locations

• property line

• horizontal scale

• building heights and dimensions

• complex terrain if applicable

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

9

- 7

• Description of the site/route de pendent exposure pathways. Provide a summary of the site

- specific inputs used for each pathway (e.g., water or grazing intake assumptions). This information may be presented in the appendix with the information clearly presented and cross

- referenced to t he

text.

2. Source and Emission Inventory Information †

Source Description and Release Parameters

• Report the following information for each source in table format:

• Source identification number used by the facility

• Source name

• Source location using act ual UTM coordinates (m)

• Source base elevation (m)

• Source height (m)

• Source dimensions (e.g., stack diameter, building dimensions, area size) (m)

• Exhaust gas exit velocity (m/s)

• Exhaust gas volumetric flow rate (ACFM)

• Exhaust gas exit temperature (K)

(S ee Appendix K for an example.)

Source Operating Schedule

• The operating schedule for each source should be reported in table form including the following information:

• Number of operating hours per day and per year (e.g., 0800

- 1700, 2700 hr/yr)

• Number of operating days per week (e.g., Mon

- Sat)

• Number of operating days or weeks per year (e.g., 52 wk/yr excluding major holidays)

(See Appendix K for an example .)

Emission Control Equipment and Efficiency

• Report emission control equipment and efficiency by s ource and by substance. The description should be brief.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

9

- 8

Emissions Data Grouped By Source

• Report emission rates for each toxic substance, grouped by source (i.e., emitting device or process identified in Inventory Report), in table form including the fo llowing information (see Appendix K):

• Source name

• Source identification number

• Substance name and CAS number (Emittent ID from Inventory Guidelines)

• Annual average emissions for each substance (lb/yr & g/s)*

• Maximum one

- hour emissions for each substance (l b/hr & g/s)*

*Except radionuclides, for which annual and hourly emissions are reported in Curies/year and millicuries/hour, respectively.



### Emissions Data Grouped by Substance

• Report facility total emission rate by substance for all emitted substances

li sted in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program including the following information (see Appendix K):

• Substance name and CAS number (Emittent ID from Inventory Guidelines)

• Annual average emissions for each substance (lb/yr & g/s)

• Maximum one

- hour emissions for ea ch substance (lb/hr & g/s)

Emission Estimation Methods

• Report the methods used in obtaining the emissions data indicating whether emissions were measured or estimated. Clearly indicate any emission data that are not reflected in the previously submitted emission inventory report and submit a revised emission inventory report to the District. A reader should be able to reproduce the risk assessment without the need for

clarification.

3. Meteorological Data

• The HRA should indicate the source and tim e period of the meteorological data used. Include the meteorological data (electronically) with the HRA.

• Include proper justification for using this data including information regarding appropriateness and quality assurance/quality control.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

9

- 9

• Identify any gaps in the data; if gaps exist, describe how the data gaps are

filled.

• Provide a wind rose for a minimum of the entire time period of the meteorological data used, and time period coincident with operating schedule. (Other wind roses may be useful as well, such as a stability rose or a day/night wind rose.)

• The HRA should indicate if the District required the use of a specified representative meteorological data set or the use of default meteorological conditions from SCREEN3. All memos indicating t he District’s approval of meteorological data should be attached in an appendix.

4. Model Selection and Modeling Rationale

• The report should include an explanation of the model chosen to perform the analysis and any other decisions made during the mod eling process. The report should clearly indicate the name of the model used, the level of detail (screening or refined analysis) and the rationale behind the selection.

• Table and text that specifies the following information for each air dispersion

mode l used:

• version number

• selected options and parameters

• receptor grid spacing

5. Air Dispersion Modeling Results

• All information used for the report must be presented in the HRA. Ideally, a summary of data used in the HRA will be on paper and all data a nd model input and output (e.g., the ISCST3 input file containing the regulatory options and emission parameters, receptor locations, meteorology, etc) files will be provided electronically (e.g., CD).

• For the PMI, MEIR, MEIW, and any sensitive receptor s required by the District, include tables that summarize the annual average concentrations

that are calculated for all the substances at each site. We recommend the use of tables to present the relative contribution of each emission point to the receptor

concentration. (These tables should have clear reference to the computer model that generated the data. It should be made clear to any reader how data from the computer output was transferred to these tables).

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

9

- 10

• For the PMI, MEIR, MEIW, and any sensitive receptors required by the District, include tables that summarize the maximum one

- hour; four, six, or

seven

- hour (for those substance with RELs based on those averaging
periods); and 30

- day average (lead only ‡ ) concentrations. (These tables

should have cl

ear reference to the computer model that generated the data. It should be made clear to any reader how data from the computer output was transferred to these tables).

• If proprietary software is used, all algorithms and parameters should be

included with the HRA in a clear, easy to use format.

C. Dose

- Response

• Provide tables of the inhalation and oral RELs and cancer potency factors for each substance that is quantified in the HRA.

• Identify the guidelines (title and date) that were used to obtain these factors.

• Provide a table of target organ systems for each noncancer substance, including chronic inhalation, chronic oral (if applicable), and acute.

D. Risk Characterization

The Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) will generate the risk characterization data needed for the outline below. Any data needed to support the risk characterization findings should be clearly presented and referenced in the text and appendices. A listing of HARP output files that meet these HRA requirements are provided in this outline under the section entitled “Appendices”. All HARP files should be included in the HRA. Ideally, the HRA report and a summary of data used in the HRA will be on paper and all data and model input and output files will be provided electronically (e.g., CD). Information on obtaining copies of HARP is available on the California Air Resources Board’s Internet web site under the Air Toxics Program at www.arb.ca.gov

.

NOTE: The potential cancer ris k for the PMI, MEIR and sensitive receptors of interest must be presented in the HRA’s text, tables, and maps using a (lifetime)

70

- year exposure period. MEIW location should use appropriate exposure periods. For the Hot Spots Program, the 70

- year exposu re duration should be used as the basis for residential public notification and risk reduction audits and plans. All HRAs must
include the results of a Tier

- 1 exposure assessment (see Chapter 2 and 8, or Part IV TSD). If the reviewing authority specifies that additional exposure periods should be presented, or if persons preparing the HRA would like to present additional information (i.e., exposure duration adjustments or the inclusions of risk

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

9

- 11 characterizations using Tier

- 2 through Tier

- 4 exposure data), then this information should be presented in separate, clearly titled, sections, tables, and text.

The following information should be presented in this section of the HRA. If not fully presented here, then by topic, clearly identify the section(s) and pages within the HRA where this information is presented.

• Description of receptors to be quantified.

• Table and text providing the location [UTM coordinates and the block/street address (e.g., north side of 3,000 block of Smith Street)] and description o f the PMI, MEIR, and MEIW for both cancer and noncancer risks.

• Table and text providing description of the PMI and MEIR for 9

- and 30

- year cancer risk.

• Table and text providing the location [UTM coordinates and the block/street address (e.g., north side o f 3,000 block of Smith Street)] and description of any sensitive receptors that are of interest to the District or reviewing authorities (consult District or agency).

• Provide any exposure information that is used for risk characterization (e.g., concentra

tions at receptors, emissions information, census information, figures, zone of impact maps, etc.). Identify the site/route dependent exposure pathways (e.g., water ingestion) for the receptor(s), where appropriate (e.g., MEIR). Provide a summary of the site

- specific inputs used for each exposure pathway (e.g., water or grazing intake assumptions). This information may be presented in the appendix with the information clearly presented and cross

- referenced to the text. In addition, provide reference to the appendix (section and page number) that contains the modeling (i.e., HARP/dispersion modeling) files that show the same information.

• If any exposure parameters were used other than those provided in the Air Toxics Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part IV; Technical Support Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic Analysis (2000b) (Part IV TSD), they must be presented in detail. The derivation and data used must be presented so that it is clear to the reviewer. The justification for using site

- speci fic exposure parameters must be clearly presented.

• Include tables of the estimated dose for each substance by each exposure pathway at the PMI, MEIR, MEIW, and at any sensitive receptor locations (required by the District).

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

9

- 12

• Table and text presenting the potential multipathway cancer risk by substance, by pathway, and total, at the PMI, MEIR, MEIW, and sensitive receptor locations (required by the District).

• Table and text presenting the acute (inhalation) and chronic noncancer (inhalation and oral) ha zard quotients (by substance, exposure pathways, and target organs) and the (total) hazard indices by substance and target organs for the PMI, MEIR, MEIW, and sensitive receptors. Note: chronic noncancer results should be shown

with inhalation and oral co ntributions (shown separately) and for the combined (multipathway) impact.

• Identify any subpopulations (e.g., subsistence fishers) of concern.

• Table and text presenting estimates of population exposure (e.g., population exposure estimates or cancer bur den from HARP) (consult District or agency). Tables should indicate the number of persons exposed to a (total) cancer risk greater than 10

- 7 

### , 10

- 6 

### , 10

- 5 

### , 10

- 4 

### , etc., and total hazard quotient or hazard index greater than 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, etc. Prov ide a table that shows excess cancer burden for each population unit and the total excess cancer burden, if cancer burden calculation is required.

• Provide maps that illustrate the HRA results for the three bullet points below. These maps should be an act

ual street map of the area impacted by the facility with elevation contours and actual UTM coordinates, and the facility boundaries clearly labeled. In some cases the elevation contours will make the map too crowded and should therefore not appear. This should be a true map (one that shows roads, structures, etc.), drawn to scale, and not just a schematic drawing. USGS

7.5

- minute maps are usually the most appropriate choice (see Section 4.6). Note that the HARP program contains a mapping feature.

• The f acility (emission points and boundaries), the locations of the PMI, MEIR, MEIW, and sensitive receptors.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

9

- 13

• Maps of the cancer zone of impacts (e.g., 10

- 6 

### or 10

- 7 

### levels

- consult District or Agency). The map should clearly identify the zone of impact for

th e minimum exposure pathways (inhalation, soil ingestion, dermal exposure,

and breast

- milk consumption) and the zone of impact for all the applicable exposure pathways (minimum exposure pathways plus additional site/route specific pathways). Two maps may b e needed to accomplish this. The legend of these maps should state the level(s) used for the zone of impact and identify the exposure pathways that were included in the assessment.

• Maps of the noncancer hazard index (HI) zone of impacts (e.g., 0.5 or 1.0

- consult District or Agency). The noncancer maps should clearly identify the noncancer zones of impact. These include the acute (inhalation), chronic (inhalation), and chronic (multipathway) zones of impact. For clarity, presentation of the noncancer z ones of impact may require two or more maps. The legend of these maps should state the level(s) used for the zone of impact and identify the exposure pathways.

• The risk assessor may want to include a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses

of the ri sk analyses and associated uncertainty directly related to the facility HRA.

• If appropriate, comment on the possible alternatives for control or remedial measures. How do the risks compare?

• If possible, identify any community concerns that influence publi c perception of risk.

• Sample calculations may be needed for all analyses in the HRA if proprietary

software other than HARP was used. The District should be consulted. These calculations should be clearly presented and referenced to the findings they ar e supporting in the HRA text.

• Version of the Risk Assessment Guidelines and computer program used to prepare

the risk assessment.

• If software other than HARP is used for the heath assessment modeling, all supporting material must be included with the HRA ( e.g., all algorithms and parameters used in a clear, easy to review format).

E. References

F. Appendice s

The appendices should contain all data, sample calculations, assumptions, and all modeling and risk assessment files that are needed to reproduce the HRA results. Ideally, a summary of data used in the HRA will be on paper and all data and model input and output files will be provided electronically (e.g., CD), unless otherwise specified by the district or reviewing

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

9

- 14 authority. All appendices and the information they contain should be referenced, clearly titled, and paginated. The HARP program (input and output) files will include many of the items listed

below.

• Potential Appendix Topics (if not presented elsewhere in the HRA report):

• List of all

receptors locations (UTM coordinates and the block/street address (e.g., north side of 3,000 block of Smith Street)) for the PMI, MEIR, MEIW, and sensitive receptors.

• List of all emitted substances.

• All emissions files.

• List of dose

- response factors.

• All air dispersion modeling input and output files. Detailed discussions of meteorological data, regulatory options, emission parameters, receptor locations, etc.

• Census data.

• Maps.

• Identify the site/route dependent exposure pathways for the receptor(s), w here appropriate (e.g., MEIR). Provide a summary of the site

- specific inputs used for each pathway (e.g., water or grazing intake assumptions) and the data to support them.

• All calculations used to determine emissions, concentrations, and potential

health impacts at the PMI, MEIR, MEIW, and sensitive receptors.

• All HRA model input and output (HARP) files for receptors of concern.

• (Total) cancer and noncancer impacts by receptor, substance, and exposure pathway (by endpoint for noncancer) at all receptors.

• Presentation of alternate risk assessment methods (e.g., alternate exposure durations, or Tier

- 2 to Tier

- 4 evaluations with supporting information).

• List of HARP files that meet the Submittal Requirements

• ISC workbook file with all ISC parameters (filen ame.ISC).

• ISC input file generated by HARP when ISC is run (filename.INP)

• ISC output file generated by HARP when ISC in run (filename.OUT)

• ISC binary output file; holds χ /Q for data for each hour (filename.BIN)

• List of error messages generated by ISC (file name.ERR)

• Sources receptor file; contains list of sources and receptors for the ISC run; generated by HARP when you set up ISC (filename.SRC)

• Point estimate risk values generated by HARP; this file is updated automatically each time you perform one of the point estimate risk analysis functions (filename.RSK)

• A verage and maximum χ /Q values for each source

- receptor combination; generated by ISC (filename.XOQ)

• P lot file generated by ISC (filename.PLT)

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

9

- 15

• R epresentative meteorological data used for the facility air dispersion modeling (filename.MET)

• S ite

- specific parameters used for all receptor risk modeling (filename.SIT)

• M ap file used to overlay facility and receptors (filename.DEB)

———————— (†) Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 44346 authorizes facility operators to designate certain Hot Spots information as trade secret. HSC Section 44361(a) requires Districts to make health risk assessments available for public review upon request. HSC Section 44346 specifies

pr ocedures to be followed upon receipt of a request for the release of trade secret information. See also the Inventory Guidelines Report regarding the designation of trade secret information in the Inventory Reports.

(‡) Please see Appendix F or contact t he Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment for information on calculating and presenting chronic lead results.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.



## 10. References

Auer Jr AH. (1978). Correlation of Land Use a nd Cover with Meteorological Anom alies. J. Appl. Meteorology 17:(5):636-643.

ARB (1994). ARB m e m o randum dated 4/11/94 from A. Ranzieri to J. Brooks on the subject, "One-hour to Thirty-day Average Screening Factor."

ARB (1997). California Air Resources Board. Em i ssion Inventory Criteria and Guidelines for the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program . Incl uding the Final Regulation and the Em ission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Report May 15, 1997. Effective May 15, 1997.

CAPCOA,(1990) CAPCOA Air Toxics Hot Spots Pr ogram Facility Prioritization Guidelines, July, 1990.

CAPCOA (1993) CAPCOA Air Toxics Hot Spot s Program Revised 1992 Risk Assessm ent Guidelines. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. October, 1993.

CDHS (1985). California Departm e nt of Health Services. Guidelines for Chem ical Carcinogen
Risk Assessm ents and their Scientif ic Rationale. Sacram ento.

Hausch C, Leo AJ, Medchem Project Issue No. 26, Clarem ont CA: Pom ona College (1985)

Irwin JS. (1978). Proposed Criteria for Selection of Urban Versus Rural Dispersion Coefficients. (Draft Staff Report). Meteorology and A ssessm ent Division. U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. (Docket No. A-80-46, II-B-8).

Lym a n W J , Reehl W F , Rosenblatt DH et al., 1990. Handbook of Chem ical Property Estim ation
Methods. Am erican Chem ical Society, W a sh. DC

NAS. (1983). National Academ y of Sciences. Risk Assessm ent in the Federal Governm e nt: Managing the Process. National Reasearch Council. National Academ y Press,
W a shington D.C.

NAS. (1994). National Academ y of Sciences. Science and Judgm ent in Risk Assessm ent National Reasearch Council. National Academ y Press, W a shington D.C.

OEHHA. (1999a). Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessm ent Guidelines. Part I. The
Determ ination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants. Available
online at http://www.oehha.ca.gov

OEHHA. (1999b). Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessm ent Guidelines. Part II. Technical Support Docum e nt for Describing Ava ilable Cancer Potency Factors. Available
online at http://www.oehha.ca.gov

10-1

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

OEHHA. (2000a). Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessm ent Guidelines. Part III. Technical Support Docum e nt for the Determ ination of Noncancer Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available online at http://www.oehha.ca.gov

OEHHA. (2000b). Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessm ent Guidelines. Part IV. Technical Support Docum e nt for Exposure Assessm ent and Stochastic Analysis.
Available online at http://www.oehha.ca.gov

OEHHA, 2002 Part II, Technical Support Docum e nt for Describing Available Cancer Potency
Factors. Available online at http://www.oehha.ca.gov

OEHHA; 2003 The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health
Risk Assessm ents. Available online at http://www.oehha.ca.gov

U.S. EPA (1984). Interim Procedures for Evalua ting Air Quality Models (Revised). EPA-450/4-
84-023. U.S. Environm ental Protection Agenc y, Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB 85-106060)

U.S. EPA (1985a). Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Models: Experience with

Im plem entation. U.S. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-85-006. U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency, Research Triangl e Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB 85-242477)

U.S. EPA (1986). Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised). EPA 450/2-78-027R.
U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

U.S. EPA (1992a). Protocol for Determ ining the Best Perform i ng Model. U.S. EPA Publication
No. EPA-454/R-92-025. U.S. Environm ental Prot ection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC.

U.S. EPA (1995a). Screening Procedures for Estim ating the Air Quality Im pact of Stationary Sources, Revised. EPA-450/R-92-019. U.S. Envi ronm ental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

U.S. EPA (1995b). User’s Guide for the Industrial Source Com p lex (ISC) Dispersion Models.
Volum e I: User Instructions. EPA-454/ B-95-003a. U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

U.S. EPA (1995c). User’s Guide for the Industrial Source Com p lex (ISC) Dispersion Models.
Volum e II: User Instructions. EPA-454/ B-95-003a. U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

U.S. EPA (1995d). SCREEN3 Model User’s Gu ide. EPA-454/B-95-004. U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC.

10-2

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessm ents. August 2003.

U.S. EPA (1995e). On-Site Meteorological Program Guidance For Regulatory Modeling Applications. EPA-450/4-87-013. U.S. Envi ronm ental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

U.S. EPA (1997a), Exposure Factors Handbook, Vo l I, General Factors. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa

U.S. EPA (1997b), Exposure Factors Handbook, Vo l II, Food Ingestion Factors. EPA/600/P95/002Fb

van den Berg, M., Birnbaum , L., Bosveld, A. T. C., Brunstrom , B., Cook, P., Feeley, M., Giesy, J. P., Hanberg, A., Hasegawa, R., Kennedy, S. W ., Kubiak, T., Larsen, J. C., Van Leeuwen, F. X. R., Liem , A. K. D., Nolt, C., Peterson, R. E., Poellinger, L., Safe, S., Schrenk, D., Tillitt, D., Tysklind, M., Younes, M., W aern, F., and Zacharewski, T. (1998). Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for hum ans and wildlife. Environ. Health Perspec. V106 , 775-792.

10-3

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Prep aration of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.



## Appendix A

Air Toxics Hot Spots Program

List Of Substances*

*The List of Substances presented in Appendix A is periodically updated by the California Air Resources Board. The last update was July 1, 1997.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Prep aration of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 1 

## Appendix A

- I

Substances For Which

Emissions Must Be Quantified

July 1, 1997

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Prep aration of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 2

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 3 APPENDIX A

- I Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified

Applicable
Degree of Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Accuracy (lb/yr) Source List(s)

Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [5]) (Note [6])

Notes(s)

75070 Acetaldehyde c 20. 1 2 3 4

60355 Acetamide c 2. 1 2 3 4
75058 Acetonitrile 06/91 200. 1 2

988 62 Acetophenone 06/91 100. 1 2

53963 2

- Acetylaminofluorene [PAH

- Derivative, POM] c 100. 1 2 4 5

107028 Acrolein 0.05 1 2 79061 Acrylamide c 0.01 1 2 3 4 79107 Acrylic acid 06/91 5. 1 2 107131 Acrylonitrile c 0.1 1 2 3 4 5 107051 Allyl chloride c 5. 1 2 4
7429905 Aluminum 06/91 100. 1
1344281 Aluminum oxide (fibrous forms) 06/91 100. 7

117793 2

- Aminoanthraquinone [PAH

- Derivative, POM] c 5. 1 2 4 5

92671 4

- Aminobiphenyl [POM] c 100. 1 2 3 4 5

61825 Amitrole c 0.1 3 4 5

7664417 Ammonia 200. 1 2

6484522 Ammonium nitrate 06/91 100. 1
7783202 Ammonium sulfate 06/91 100. 1
62533 Aniline 09/90 c 5. 1 2 4

90040 o

- Anisidine c 100. 1 2 3 4 5

- Anthracene [PAH, POM], (see PAH) 7440360 Antimony 0 6/91 1. 7 * Antimony compounds 06/91 1. 1 2
[7] including but not limited to: 1309644 Antimony trioxide 09/90 c 1. 1 2 3 4
[7]

7440382 Arsenic c 0.01 1 2 3 4 5 1016 Arsenic compounds (inorganic) c 0.01 1 2 3 4 5
[7] including but not limited to:

7784421 Arsine 0.01 1 2 7
[7] 1017 Arsenic compounds (other than inorganic) 06/91 0.1 1
[7]
7440393 Barium 06/91 1. 7

* Barium compounds 06/91 1. 1
[7]

- Benz[a]anthracene [PAH, POM], (see PAH)

71432 Benzene c 2. 1 2 3 4 5

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 4 92875 Benzidine (and its salts) [POM] c 0.0001 1 2 3 4 5

1020 Benzidine

- based dyes [POM] c 0.0001 1 2 3 including but not limited to:
1937377 Direct Black 38 [PAH

- Derivative, POM] c 0.0001 1 2 4 5
2602462 Direct Blue 6 [PAH

- Derivative, POM] c 0.0001 1 2 4 5 16071866 Direct Brown 95 (technical grade) [POM] 09/89 c 0.0001 1 2 4

- Benzo[a]pyrene [PAH, POM], (see PAH)

- Benzo[b]fluoranthene [PAH, POM], (see PAH)

271 896 Benzofuran 06/91 c 100. 4

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 5 APPENDIX A

- I Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified

Applicable
Degree of

Emittent ID Add Date Ca rcinogen Accuracy (lb/yr) Source List(s)

Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [5]) (Note [6])

Notes(s)

98077 Benzoic trichloride {Benzotrichloride} c 10. 1 2 4 5

- Benzo[j]fluoranthene [PAH, POM], (see PAH)

- Benzo[k]fluoranthene [PAH, POM], (see PAH) 98884 Benzoyl chloride 06/91 100. 1 94360 Benzoyl peroxide 06/91 100. 7 100447 Benzyl chloride c 50. 1 2 4

7440417 Beryllium c 0.001 1 2 3 4 5 * Beryllium compounds 09/89 c 0.001 1 2 3 4 5
[7] 92524 Biphenyl [POM] 06/91 0.5 1 2
111444 Bis(2

- chloroethyl) ether {DCEE} 09/89 c 0.05 1 2 4
542881 Bis(chloromethyl) ether c 0.001 1 2 3 4 5
103231 Bis(2

- ethylhexyl) adipate 06/91 100. 1

7726956 Bromine 0.5 2 * Bromine compounds (inorganic) 100. 1 2
[7] including but not limited to:

7758012 Potassium bromate 0.1 1 3 4
[7]

75252 Bromoform 06/91 100. 1 2 4
106990 1,3

- Butadiene c 0.1 1 2 3 4 5
141322 Butyl acrylate 06/91 100. 1

71363 n

- Butyl alcohol 06/91 100. 1

78922 sec

- Butyl alcohol 06/91 100. 1

75650 tert

- Butyl alcohol 06/91 100. 1
85687 Butyl benzyl p hthalate 06/91 100. 1

7440439 Cadmium c 0.01 1 2 3 4 5 * Cadmium compounds c 0.01 1 2 3 4 5
[7] 156627 Calcium cyanamide 06/91 100. 1 2
105602 Caprolactam 06/91 100. 1 2
2425061 Captafol 09/89 c 100. 4
133062 Captan 09/90 c 100. 1 2 4 63252 Carbaryl [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 06/91 100. 1 2

1050 Carbon black extracts c 2. 1 3 4

75150 Carbon disulfide 09/89 200. 1 2 4

56235 Carbon tetrachloride c 1. 1 2 3 4 5 463581 Carbonyl sulfide 06/91 100. 1 2
1055 Carrageenan (degraded) c 100. 3 4

120809 Catechol 06/91 100. 1 2

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 6 133904 Chloramben 06/91 100. 1 2

57749 Chlordane 09/89 c 10. 1 2 4 108171262 Chlorinated paraffins (average chain length, C12; 09/89 c 2. 3 4 5 approximately 60% chlorine by weight)

7782505 Chlorine 0.5 1 2
10049044 Chlorine dioxide 06/91 1. 1
79118 Chloroacetic acid 06/91 100. 1 2

532 274 2

- Chloroacetophenone 06/91 0.1 1 2
106478 p

- Chloroaniline 07/96 100. 4 7

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 7 APPENDIX A

- I Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified

Applicable
Degree of Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Accuracy (lb/yr) Source List(s)

Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [5]) (Note [6])

Notes(s)

1058 Chlorobenzenes 06/91 100. 1 including but not limited to:

108907 Chlorobenzene 200. 1 2
25321226 Dichlorobenzenes (mixed isomers) 06/91 100. 1 7 including:

95501 1,2

- Dichlorobenzene 06/91 200. 1 7
541731 1,3

- Dichlorobenzene 06/91 100. 1 7
106467 p

- Dichlorobenzene {1,4

- Dichlorobenzene} c 5. 1 2 3 5
120821 1,2,4

- Trichlorobenzene 06/91 200. 1 2 510156 Chlorobenzilate [POM] {Ethyl

- 4,4'

- 09/90 c 100. 1 2 4 dichlorobenzilate}

67663 Chloroform c 10. 1 2 3 4 5 107302 Chloromethyl methyl ether (technical grade) c 100 . 1 2 4 5
1060 Chlorophenols c 100. 1 3 including but not limited to:

120832 2,4

- Dichlorophenol 06/91 c 100. 1 7
87865 Pentachlorophenol 09/90 c 10. 1 2 4
58902 2,3,4,6

- Tetrachlorophenol 07/96 c 100. 1 7

95954 2,4,5

- Trichlorophenol 06/91 c 100. 1 2

88062 2,4,6

- Trichlorophenol c 2. 1 2 4

95830 4

- Chloro

- o

- phenylenediamine c 10. 3 4 5 76062 Chloropicrin 2. 7

126998 Chloroprene 5. 1 2
95692 p

- Chloro

- o

- toluidine c 0.5 3 4

7440473 Chromium 06/91 0.001 7 * Chromium compounds (other than hexavalent) 06/91 0.001 1 2
[7] 18540299 Chromium, hexavalent (and compound s) c 0.0001 1 2 3 4 5
[7] including but not limited to:
10294403 Barium chromate 06/91 c 0.001 1 2 5
[7]

13 765190 Calcium chromate 06/91 c 0.001 1 2 5
[7]
1333820 Chromium trioxide 06/91 c 0.0001 1 2 5
[7]

77 58976 Lead chromate 06/91 c 0.001 1 2 5
[7]

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 8 10588019 Sodium dichromate 06/91 c 0.0001 1 2 5
[7]

77 89062 Strontium chromate 06/91 c 0.001 1 2 5
[7]

- Chrysene [PAH, POM], (see PAH)

7440484 Cobalt 06/91 0.5 7
* Cobalt compounds 06/91 0.5 1 2
[7]

1066 Coke oven emissions c 0.05 1 2 3 4 5
7440508 Copper 0.1 2
* Copper compounds 09/89 0.1 1 2
[7]

1070 Creosotes c 0.05 1 3 4
120718 p

- Cresidine c 1. 3 4 5

1319773 Cresol s (mixtures of) {Cresylic acid} 5. 1 2
including:

108394 m

- Cresol 06/91 5. 1 2

95487 o

- Cresol 06/91 5. 1 2
106445 p

- Cresol 06/91 5. 1 2
4170303 Crotonaldehyde 07/96 c 50. 7

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 9 APPENDIX A

- I Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified

Applicable
Degree of Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Accuracy (lb/yr) Source List(s)

Other
(Not e [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [5]) (Note [6])

Notes(s)

98828 Cumene 06/91 200. 1 2

80159 Cu mene hydroperoxide 06/91 100. 1
135206 Cupferron c 0.5 4 5 1073 Cyanide compounds 06/91 0.05 1 2
[8] including but not limited to: 74908 Hydrocyanic acid 10. 2
110827 Cycloh exane 06/91 200. 1
108930 Cyclohexanol 07/96 200. 7 66819 Cycloheximide 2. 6 1163195 Decabromodiphenyl oxide [POM] 06/91 100. 1 2 1075 Dialkylnitrosamines 0.001 1 including but not limited to:

924163 N

- Nitrosodi

- n

- butylamine c 0.0001 1 3 4 5

1116547 N

- Nitrosodiethanolamine c 100. 1 3 4 5

55185 N

- Nitrosodiethylamine c 0.001 1 3 4 5

62759 N

- Nitrosodimethylamine c 0.01 1 2 3 4 5

621647 N

- Nitrosodi

- n

- propylamine c 0.01 1 3 4 5

10595956 N

- Nitrosomethylethylamine c 0.001 1 3 4
615054 2,4

- Diaminoanisole c 5. 3 4
1078 Diaminotoluenes (mixed isomers) 09/90 c 100. 1 4

including but not limited to:

95807 2,4

- Diaminotoluene {2,4

- Toluenediamine} c 0.05 1 2 3 4 5

334883 Diazomethane 06/91 c 5. 1 2
226368 Dibenz[a,h]acridine [POM] c 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 224420 Dibenz[a,j]acridine [POM] c 0.5 1 2 3 4 5

- Dibenz[ a,h]anthracene [PAH, POM], (see PAH)

194592 7H

- Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole c 0.05 1 2 3 4 5

- Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene [PAH, POM], (see PAH)

- Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene [PAH, POM], (see PAH)

- Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene [PAH, POM], (see PAH)

- Dibenzo[a,l]pyrene [PAH, POM], (see PAH)
132649 Dibenzofuran [POM] 06/91 100. 1 2

- Dibenzofurans (chl orinated) (see Polychlorinated
dibenzofurans) [POM]

96128 1,2

- Dibromo

- 3

- chloropropane {DBCP} c 0.01 1 2 3 4 5

96139 2,3

- Dibromo

- 1

- propanol 07/96 c 50. 4 84742 Dibutyl phthalate 06/91 100. 1 2

- p

- Dichlorobenzene {1,4

- Dichlorobenzene} (see

Chlorobenzenes)

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 10 91941 3, 3'

- Dichlorobenzidine [POM] c 0.1 1 2 3 4 5 72559 Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene {DDE} [POM] 09/89 c 100. 1 2 4

75343 1,1

- Dichloroethane {Ethyli dene dichloride} 09/90 c 20. 1 2 4
94757 Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, salts and esters 06/91 100. 1 2 {2,4

- D}

78875 1,2

- Dichloropropane {Propylene dich loride} 09/90 c 20. 1 2 4

542756 1,3

- Dichloropropene c 10. 1 2 3 4 5 62737 Dichlorovos {DDVP} 09/89 c 0.5 1 2 4
115322 Dicofol [POM] 06/91 100. 1 2

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 11 APPENDIX A

- I
Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified

Applicable
Degree of

Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Accuracy (lb/yr) Source List(s)

Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [5]) (Note [6])

Notes(s)

- - Diesel engine ex haust 09/90 c 1 3 4
[9] 9901 Diesel engine exhaust, particulate matter 09/90 c 10. 1 3 4
[9] 9902 Diesel engine exhaust, total organic gas 09/90 c 10. 1 3 4
[9]
# Diesel fuel (marine) 06/91 c
111422 Diethanolamine 06/91 20. 1 2
117817 Di(2

- ethylhexyl) phthalate {DEHP} c 20. 1 2 3 4 5
64675 Diethyl sulfate c 100. 1 2 3 4 5
119904 3,3'

- Dimethoxybenzidine [POM] c 100. 1 2 3 4 5

60117 4

- Dimethylaminoazobenzene [POM] c 0.01 1 2 3 4 5

121697 N,N

- Dimethylaniline 06/91 200. 1 2

57976 7,12

- Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene [PAH

- Derivative, 09/90 c 0.0001 1 2 4
POM]
119937 3,3'

- Di methylbenzidine {o

- Tolidine} [POM] c 10. 1 2 3 4 5
79447 Dimethyl carbamoyl chloride c 100. 1 2 3 4 5 68122 Dimethyl formamide 09/90 c 100. 1 2 3
57147 1,1

- Dimethylhydrazine c 0.1 1 2 3 4 5 131113 Dimethyl phthalate 0 6/91 50. 1 2 77781 Dimethyl sulfate c 0.01 1 2 3 4 5

534521 4,6

- Dinitro

- o

- cresol (and salts) 06/91 100. 1 2
51285 2,4

- Dinitrophenol 06/91 100. 1 2

42397648 1,6

- Dinitropyrene [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 06/91 c 0.001 1 2 3 4

42397659 1, 8

- Dinitropyrene [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 06/91 c 0.05 1 2 3 4
25321146 Dinitrotoluenes (mixed isomers) 06/91 100. 7 including but not limi ted to:
121142 2,4

- Dinitrotoluene 09/89 c 0.5 1 2 4

606202 2,6

- Dinitrotoluene 06/91 100. 7

123911 1,4

- Dioxane c 5. 1 2 3 4 5

- Dioxins (Chlorinated dibenzodioxins) (see Polychlorinated dibenzo

- p

- dioxins) [POM] 630933 Diphenylhydantoin [POM] c 100. 1 2 4
122667 1,2

- Diphenylhydrazine {Hydrazobenzene} [POM] c 100. 1 2 4 5

1090 Environmental Tobacco Smoke c 2. 1 3 4 106898 Epichlorohydrin c 2. 1 2 3 4 5

106887 1,2

- Epoxybutane 06/91 1 00. 1 2 1091 Epoxy resins 09/89 100. 6
140885 Ethyl acrylate c 200. 1 2 3 4 5
100414 Ethyl benzene 06/91 200. 1 2

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 12 75003 Ethyl chloride {Chloroethane} 200. 1 2 4

- Ethyl

- 4,4'

- dichl orobenzilate (see Chlorobenzilate)
74851 Ethylene 06/91 200. 7 106934 Ethylene dibromide {1,2

- Dibromoethane} c 0.5 1 3 4 5 6 107062 Ethylene dichloride {1,2

- Dichloroethane} c 2. 1 2 3 4 5
107211 Ethylene glycol 06/91 200. 1 2

151564 Ethyleneimine {Aziridine} 06/91 100. 1 2
75218 Ethylene oxide c 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 96457 Ethylene thiourea c 2. 1 2 3 4 5

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 13 APPENDIX A

- I Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified

Applicable
Degree of Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Accuracy (lb/yr) Source List(s)

Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [5]) (Note [6])

Notes(s)

1101 Fluorides and compounds 09/89 100. 2 including but not limited to: 7664393 Hydrogen fluoride 50. 1 2 7
1103 Fluorocarbons (brominated) 200. 6
[10]
1104 Fluorocarbons (chlorinated) 200. 1 6
[10] including but not limited to:

76131 Chlorinated fluorocar bon {CFC

- 113} 200. 1 2 6 {1,1,2

- Trichloro

- 1,2,2

- trifluoroethane} 75456 Chlorodifluoromethane {Freon 22} 07/96 200. 1 6 7

75434 Dichlorofluoromethane {Freon 12} 07/96 200. 1 6 7 75694 Trichlorofluoromethane {Freon 11} 07/96 200. 1 6 7

5 0000 Formaldehyde c 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6

110009 Furan 07/96 c 5. 4

- - Gasoline eng ine exhaust 09/90 c 3
[9] including but not limited to:

- - Gasoline engine exhaust (condensates & extracts) 06/91 c 4
[9] 9910 Gasoline engine exhaust, particulate matter 09/90 c 100. 3 4
[9] 9911 Gasoline engine exhaust, total organic gas 09/90 c 100. 3 4
[9] 1110 Gasoline vapors c 200. 1 2 3 4
[11]
111308 Glutaraldehyde 0.1 1 6 1115 Glycol ethers and their acetates 100. 1 2 6 including but not limited to: 111466 Diethylene glycol 09/90 100. 1 6 111966 Diethylene glycol dimethyl ether 09/90 100. 1 2 6 112345 Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether 09/90 100. 1 2 6 111900 Diethylene glycol monoethyl ether 09/90 100. 1 2 6 111773 Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether 09/90 100. 1 2 6 25265718 Dipropylene glycol 09/90 100. 1 6 34590948 Dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether 09/90 100. 1 6
629141 Ethy lene glycol diethyl ether 09/90 100. 1 2 6 110714 Ethylene glycol dimethyl ether 09/90 100. 1 2 6
111762 Ethylene glycol monobu tyl ether 09/90 200. 1 2 6

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 14 110805 Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether 09/89 50. 1 2 6
111159 Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate 09/90 100. 1 2 6
109864 Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether 09/89 10. 1 2 6
110496 Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate 09/90 200. 1 2 6
2807309 Ethylene glycol monopropyl ether 09/90 100. 1 2 6
107982 Propylene glycol monomethyl ether 09/90 20 0. 1 6
108656 Propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate 09/90 100. 1 6 112492 Triethylene glycol dimethyl ether 09/90 100. 1 2 6
76448 Heptachlor 09/89 c 100. 1 2 4

118741 Hexachlorobenzene c 0.1 1 2 3 5

87683 H exachlorobutadiene 06/91 0.1 1 2 1120 Hexachlorocyclohexanes(mixed or technical grade) c 0.05 1 3 4 5 including but not limited to: 319846 alpha

- Hexachlorocyclohexane 07/96 c 0.1 1 3 4 5 7

319857 beta

- Hexachlorocyclohexane 07/96 c 0.1 1 3 4 5 7

58899 Lindane {gamma

- Hexachlorocyclohexane} 09/90 c 0.1 1 2 4

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 15 APPENDIX A

- I Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified

Applicable
Degree of Emittent ID Add Date Carcinog en Accuracy (lb/yr) Source List(s)

Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [5]) (Note [6])

Notes(s)

77474 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 2. 1 2

67721 Hexachloroethane 09/90 c 200. 1 2 4 680319 Hexamethylphosphoramide c 100. 1 2 3 4 5

110543 Hexane 06/91 200. 1 2 302012 Hydrazine c 0.01 1 2 3 4 5
7647010 Hydroc hloric acid 20. 1 2

- Hydrocyanic acid (see Cyanide compounds) 7783064 Hydrogen sulfide 5. 1 2 123319 Hydroquinone 06/91 100. 1 2

- Indeno[1,2,3

- cd]pyrene [PAH, POM], (see PAH)
13463406 Iron pentacarbonyl 07/96 5. 7
1125 Isocyanates 0.05 6 including but not limited to:
822060 Hexamethylene

- 1,6

- diisocyanate 06/91 0.05 1 2 101688 Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate {MDI} [POM] 06/91 0.1 1 2
624839 Methyl isocyanate 1. 1 2

- Toluene

- 2,4

- diisocyanate (see Toluene diisocyanates)

- Toluene

- 2,6

- diisocyanate (see Toluene diisocyanates)
78591 Isophorone 06/91 200. 1 2 78795 Isoprene, except from vegetative emission sources 07/96 c 200. 3
67630 Isopropyl alcohol 06/91 200. 1
80057 4,4'

- Isopropylidenediphenol [POM] 06/91 100. 1 2

7439921 Lead c 0.5 1 4 6

1128 Lead com pounds (inorganic) c 0.5 1 3
[7] including but not limited to:

301042 Lead acetate c 1. 1 2 4 5
[7] [12]

- Lead chromate (see Chromium, hexavalent)
7446277 Lead phosphate c 2. 1 4 5
[7]

1335326 Lead subacetate 09/90 c 2. 1 2 4
[7] [12] 1129 Lead compounds (other than inorganic) 06/91 5. 1 2
[7] 108316 Maleic anhydride 0.5 1 2
7439965 Manganese 0.1 1 2

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 16 * Manganese compounds 09/89 0.1 1 2
[7]
7439976 Mercury 1. 1 2 4 6
* Mercury compounds 09/89 1. 1 2 4
[7] including but not limited to:

7487947 Mercuric chloride 1. 2
[7] 593748 Methyl mercury {Dimethy lmercury} 1. 2

[7]

67561 Methanol 200. 1 2 72435 Methoxychlor [POM] 06/91 100. 1 2

75558 2

- Methylaziridine {1,2

- Propyleneimine} c 100. 1 2 3 4 74839 Methyl bromide {Bromomethane} 20. 1 2 6 74873 Methyl chloride {Chloromethane} 06/91 20. 1 2 71556 Methyl chloroform {1,1,1

- Trichloroethane} 200. 1 2 6

56495 3

- Methylcholanthrene [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 09/90 c 0.001 1 2 4

3697243 5

- Methylchrysene [PAH

- Derivative, POM] c 0.05 1 2 3 4 5

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 17 APPENDIX A

- I Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified

Applicable
Degree of Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Accuracy (lb/yr) Source List(s)

Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [5]) (Note [6])

Notes(s)

101144 4,4'

- Methylene bis(2

- chloroaniline) {MOCA} [POM] c 0.1 1 2 3 4 5 75092 Methylene chloride {Dichloromethane} c 50. 1 2 3 4 5 6
101779 4,4'

- Methylenedianiline (and its dichloride) [POM] c 0.1 1 2 3 4 5 78933 Methyl ethyl ketone {2

- Butanone} 06/91 200. 1 2 60344 Methyl hydrazine 06/91 100. 1 2 74884 Methyl iodide {Iodomethane} c 100. 1 2 4 5
108101 Methyl isobutyl ketone {Hexone} 06/91 20. 1 2

75865 2

- Methyllactonitrile {Acetone cyanohydrin} 07/96 50. 7
80626 Methyl methacrylate 200. 1 2 6

109068 2

- Methylpyridine 07/96 100. 7
1634044 Methyl tert

- butyl ether 06/91 200. 1 2
90948 Michler's ketone [POM] c 0.1 1 2 4 5
1136 Mineral fibers (fine, manmade) 06/91 c 100. 1 2 7
(fine mineral fibers which are manmade and are airborne particles of a respirable size greater than 5 microns in length, less than or equal to

3.5 microns in diam eter, with a length to
diameter ratio of 3:1) including but not limited to:
1056 Ceramic fibers 09/89 c 100. 1 2 3 4

1111 Glasswool fibers 09/89 c 100. 1 2 3 4
1168 Rockwool fibers 09/89 c 100. 1 2 3 1181 Slagwool fibers 09/89 c 100. 1 2 3
1135 Mineral fibers (other than manmade) 100. 2 7 including but not limited to:

1332214 Asbestos c 0.0001 1 2 3 4 5

12510428 Erionite c 100. 2 3 4 1190 Talc containing asbestiform fibers c 100. 2 3 4 1313275 Molybdenum trioxide 06/91 100. 1

- Naphthalene [PAH, POM], (see PAH)

7440020 Nickel c 0.1 1 2 3 4 5 * Nickel compounds c 1. 1 2 3 4 5
[7] including but not limited to:

373024 Nickel acetate 06/91 c 0.1 1 2 5
[7]
3333393 Nickel carbonate 06/91 c 0.1 1 2 5
[7]

13463393 Nickel carbonyl c 0.1 1 2 4 5
[7]

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 18 12054487 Nickel hydroxide 06/91 c 0.1 1 2 5
[7]

1271289 Nickel ocene 06/91 c 0.1 1 2 5
[7]
1313991 Nickel oxide 06/91 c 0.1 1 2 5
[7]

12035722 Nickel subsulfide c 0.1 1 2 4 5
[7] 1146 Nickel refinery dust from the pyrometallurgical 09/89 c 0.1 4

process
7697372 Nitric acid 06/91 50. 1

139139 Nitrilotriacetic acid c 100. 1 4 5

98953 Nitrobenzene 0.5 1 2

92933 4

- Nitrobiphenyl [POM] 09/89 c 100. 1 2 4

7496028 6

- Nitrochrysene [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 06/91 c 0.001 1 2 3 4

607578 2

- Nitrofluorene [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 06/91 c 5. 1 2 3 4

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 19 APPENDIX A

- I
Substances For Which Emissi ons Must Be Quantified

Applicable
Degree of

Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Accuracy (lb/yr) Source List(s)

Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [5]) (Note [6])

Notes(s)

302705 Nitrogen must ard N

- oxide c 0.05 3 4

100027 4

- Nitrophenol 06/91 100. 1 2

79469 2

- Nitropropane c 0.01 1 2 3 4 5

5522430 1

- Nitropyrene [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 06/91 c 0.5 1 2 3 4
156105 p

- Nitrosodiphenylamine [POM] c 5. 1 2 4 5

684935 N

- Nitroso

- N

- methylurea c 100. 1 2 4 5

59892 N

- Nitrosomorpholine c 0.01 1 2 3 4 5

100754 N

- Nitrosopiperidine c 200. 3 4 5

930552 N

- Nitrosopyrrolidine c 0.05 3 4 5

- - PAHs (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) [POM] 1 2
[13] including but not limited to: 1151 PAHs, total, w/o individ. components reported 5 0. 1 2 1150 PAHs, total, with individ. components also 50. 1 2
reported 83329 Acenaphthene [PAH, POM] 07/96 50. 1 208968 Acenaphthylene [PAH, POM] 07/96 50. 1
120127 Anthracene [PAH, POM] 06/91 50. 1 2 7

56553 Benz [a]anthracene [PAH, POM] c 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 50328 Benzo[a]pyrene [PAH, POM] c 0.05 1 2 3 4 5
205992 Benzo[b]fluoranthene [PAH, POM] c 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 192972 Benzo[e]pyrene [PAH, POM] 07/96 0.5 1 191242 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene [PAH, POM] 07/9 6 0.5 1 205823 Benzo[j]fluoranthene [PAH, POM] c 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
207089 Benzo[k]fluoranthene [PAH, POM] c 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 218019 Chrysene [PAH, POM] 09/90 c 5. 1 2 4
53703 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene [PAH, POM] c 0.1 1 2 3 4 5

192654 Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene [PAH, POM] c 0.05 1 2 3 4 5 189640 Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene [PAH, POM] c 0.001 1 2 3 4 5 189559 Dibenzo[a,i]pyr ene [PAH, POM] c 0.001 1 2 3 4 5 191300 Dibenzo[a,l]pyrene [PAH, POM] c 0.001 1 2 3 4 5
206440 Fluoranthene [PAH, POM] 07/96 0.5 1
86737 Fluorene [PAH, POM] 07/96 0.5 1
193395 Indeno[1,2,3

- cd]pyrene [PAH, POM] c 0.5 1 2 3 4 5

91576 2

- Methyl naphthalene [PAH, POM] 07/96 50. 1 91203 Naphthalene [PAH, POM] 50. 1 2

198550 Perylene [PAH, POM] 07/96 0.5 1
85018 Phenanthrene [PAH, POM] 07/96 0.5 1 129000 Pyrene [PAH, POM] 07/96 0.5 1

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 20 # PAH

- Derivatives (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 06/91
[14]
derivatives) [POM] (including but not limited to those substances listed in Appendix A with the bracketed designation [PAH

- Derivative, POM])
56382 Parathion 06/91 100. 1 2

1336363 PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) [POM] c 0.01 1 2 3 4 5 6 82688 Pentachloronitrobenzene {Quintobenzene} 06/91 100. 1 2

79210 Peracetic acid 06/91 100. 1 127184 Perchloroethylene {Tetrachloroethene} c 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 21 APPEND IX A

- I Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified

Applicable
Degree of Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Accuracy (lb/yr) Source List(s)

Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [5]) (Note [6])

Not es(s)

108952 Phenol 200. 1 2
106503 p

- Phenylenediamine 06/91 100. 1 2

90437 2

- Phenylpheno l [POM] 06/91 100. 1 2
75445 Phosgene 2. 1 2
7723140 Phosphorus 0.1 1 2

- - Phosphorus compounds: 09/89 2 7803512 Phosphine 0.0 1 1 2 7 7664382 Phosphoric acid 09/89 50. 1 2 10025873 Phosphorus oxychloride 09/89 0.1 2

10026 138 Phosphorus pentachloride 09/89 0.1 2 1314563 Phosphorus pentoxide 09/89 0.1 2 7719122 Phosphorus trichloride 09/89 0.1 2 126738 Tributyl phosphate 09/89 100. 2 78400 Triethyl phosphine 09/89 100. 2 512561 Trimethyl phosphate 09/89 100. 2 78308 Triorthocresyl phosphate [POM] 09/89 0.5 1 2 115866 Triphenyl phosphate [POM] 09/89 100. 1 2 101020 Triphenyl phosphite [POM] 09/89 100. 1 2 85449 Phthalic anhydride 0.01 1 2

- - Polychlorinated dibenzo

- p

- dioxins {PCDDs or c 1 2 Dioxins} [POM]
including but not limited to: 1086 Dioxins, total, w/o individ. isomers reported c 0.00002 1 2 {PCDDs}
1085 Dioxins, total, with individ. isomers also c 0.00002 1 2

reported {PCDDs}

1746016 2,3,7,8

- Tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin {TCDD} [POM] c 0.000001 1 2 3 4 5

40321764 1,2,3,7,8

- Pentachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin [POM] c 0.000001 1 2

39 227286 1,2,3,4,7,8

- Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin [POM] c 0.000001 1 2 4

57653857 1,2,3,6,7,8

- Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin [POM] c 0.000001 1 2

19408743 1,2,3,7,8,9

- Hexachl orodibenzo

- p

- dioxin [POM] c 0.000001 1 2

35822469 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- Heptachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin [POM] c 0.000001 1 2

3268879 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8

- Octachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin [POM] 0 7/96 c 0.000001 1 2

41903575 Total Tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin [POM] 07/96 c 0.000001 1 2

36088229 Total Pentachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin [POM] 07/96 c 0.000001 1 2

34465468 Total Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin [POM] 07/96 c 0.000001 1 2 37871004 Total Heptachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin [POM] 07/96 c 0.000001 1 2

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 22 APPENDIX A

- I Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified

Applicable
Degree of Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Accuracy (lb/yr) Source List(s)

Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4 ]) (Note [5]) (Note [6])

Notes(s)

- - Polychlorinated dibenzofurans {PCDFs or c 1 2 Dibenzofurans} [POM]
including but not limited to:

1080 Diben zofurans (Polychlorinated dibenzofurans) c 0.00002 1 2 {PCDFs} [POM]

51207319 2,3,7,8

- Tetrachlorodibenzofuran [POM] c 0.000001 1 2

57117416 1,2,3,7,8

- Pentachlorodibenzofuran [POM] c 0.000001 1 2

57117314 2,3,4,7,8

- Pentachlorodibenzofuran [POM] c 0.000001 1 2

70648269 1,2,3,4,7,8

- Hexachlorodibenzofuran [POM] c 0.000001 1 2
57117449 1,2,3,6,7,8

- Hexachlorodibenzofuran [POM] c 0.000001 1 2

72918219 1,2,3,7,8,9

- Hexachlorodibenzofuran [POM] c 0. 000001 1 2
60851345 2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hexachlorodibenzofuran [POM] c 0.000001 1 2

67562394 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- Heptachlorodibenzofuran [POM] c 0.000001 1 2

55673897 1 ,2,3,4,7,8,9

- Heptachlorodibenzofuran [POM] c 0.000001 1 2

39001020 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8

- Octachlorodibenzofuran [POM] 07/96 c 0.000001 1 2
55722275 Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran [POM] 07/96 c 0.000001 1 2
30402154 Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran [POM] 07/96 c 0.000001 1 2
55684941 Total Hexachlorodibenzofuran [POM] 07/96 c 0.000001 1 2 38998753 Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran [POM] 07/96 c 0.000001 1 2 # POM (Polycyclic organic matter) 09/89 1 2
[15] (including but not limited to those substances listed in Appendix A with the bracketed designation of [POM], [PAH, POM], or
[PAH

- Derivative, POM])

1120714 1,3

- Propane sultone c 0.05 1 2 3 4 5

57578 beta

- Propiolactone c 10. 1 2 3 4 5 123386 Propionaldehyde 06/91 200. 1 2 114261 Propoxur {Baygon} 06/91 100. 1 2
115071 Propylene 200. 1 2 75569 Propylene oxide c 10. 1 2 3 4 5

- 1,2

- Propyleneimine (see 2

- Methylaziridine) 110861 Pyridine 06/91 100. 7 91225 Quinoline 06/91 100. 1 2
106514 Quinone 06/91 1 00. 1 2

1165 Radionuclides c 100. 1 2 4
[16] including but not limited to:

24267569 Iodine

- 131 09/89 c 100. 1 2 4 1166 Radon and its decay products 09/89 c 100. 1 4

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 23 50555 Reserpine [POM] c 100. 1 2 4 5 # Residual (heavy) fuel oils 06/91 c

7782492 Selenium 0.5 2 * Selenium compounds 0.5 1 2
[7] including but not limited to:
7446346 Selenium sulfide 09/90 c 0.1 2 4 5
[7] 1175 Silica, crystalline c 0.1 1 3 4
7440224 Silver 06/91 2. 7

* Silver compounds 06/91 2. 1
[7]

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 24 APPENDIX A

- I Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified

Applicable
Degree of

Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Accuracy (lb/yr) Source List(s)

Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [5]) (Note [6])

Notes(s)

1310732 Sodium hydroxide 2. 1 2
100425 Styrene c 100. 1 2 3 6 96093 Styrene oxide c 100 . 1 2 3 4
7664939 Sulfuric acid 06/91 2. 1 100210 Terephthalic acid 06/91 100. 1

79345 1, 1,2,2

- Tetrachloroethane 09/90 c 1. 1 2 4
7440280 Thallium 06/91 100. 7 * Thallium compounds 06/91 100. 7
[7]

62555 Thioacetamide c 0.01 3 4 5

62566 Thiourea c 0.1 1 3 4 5
7550450 Titanium tetrachloride 06/91 100. 1 2

108883 Toluene 200. 1 2 4 6

- 2,4

- Toluenediamine (see 2,4

- Diaminotoluene) 1204 Toluene diisocyanates 06/91 c 0.1 1 3 including but not limited to :

584849 Toluene

- 2,4

- diisocyanate c 0.1 1 2 3 5

91087 Toluene

- 2,6

- diisocyanate c 0.1 1 2 3 5

95534 o

- Tolui dine c 10. 1 2 3 4 5 8001352 Toxaphene {Polychlorinated camphenes} c 100. 1 2 3 4 5

79005 1,1,2

- Trichloroethane {Vinyl trichloride} 06/91 c 50. 1 2 4

- 1,1,1

- Trichloroethane (see Methyl chloroform) 79016 Trichloroethylene c 20. 1 2 4

- 2,4,6

- Trichlorophenol (see Chlorophenols)

96184 1,2,3

- Trichloropropane 07/96 c 200. 3 4 7 121448 Triethylamine 06/91 20. 1 2
1582098 Trifluralin 06/91 100. 1 2

95636 1,2,4

- Trimethylbenzene 06/91 5. 1

540841 2 ,2,4

- Trimethylpentane 06/91 100. 1 2 51796 Urethane {Ethyl carbamate} c 0.1 1 2 3 4 5
7440622 Vanadium (fume or dust) 06/91 10. 7
[17] 108054 Vinyl acetate 06/91 200. 1 2 593602 Vinyl bromide c 20. 1 2 3 4 75014 Vinyl chloride c 0.5 1 2 3 4 5

100403 4

- Vinylcyclohexene 07/96 c 5. 3 75025 Vinyl fluoride 07/96 c 200. 3 75354 Vinylidene chloride 20. 1 2 1206 Wood preservatives (containing arsenic and 09/89 100. 6
chromate)

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix A:1

- 25 1210 Xylenes (mixed xylenes) 200. 1 2 6 including:

108383 m

- Xylene 06/91 200. 1 2

95476 o

- Xylene 06/91 200. 1 2

1064 23 p

- Xylene 06/91 200. 1 2

7440666 Zinc 2. 2 * Zinc compounds 09/89 2. 1 2
[7] including but not limited to:

1314132 Zinc oxide 2. 2
[ 7]

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Prep aration of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:2

- 1 

## Appendix A

- II

Substances For Which Production, Use,

Or Other Presence Must Be Reported

July 1, 1997

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Prep aration of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:2

- 2

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:2

- 2 APPENDIX A

- II Substances For Which Production, Use, Or Ot her Presence Must Be Reported

Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Source List(s) Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [6]) Notes(s)

26148685 A

- alpha

- C {2

- Amino

- 9H

- pyrido[2,3

- b]indole} 09/89 c 3 4 [18]

34256821 Acetochlor 09/89 c 4
62476599 Acifluorfen [POM] 09/90 c 1 2 4

3688537 AF

- 2 c 3 4

1000 Aflatoxins c 3 4 5

1597260 8 Alachlor 09/89 c 4
309002 Aldrin 09/89 c 4
107186 Allyl alcohol 06/9 1 7
60093 p

- Aminoazobenzene {4

- Aminoazobenzene} [POM] c 1 2 3 4

97563 o

- Aminoazotoluene [POM] c 1 2 3 4 5

6109973 3

- Amino

- 9

- ethyl carbazole hydrochloride [POM] 09/89 c 1 2 4 5 125848 Aminoglutethimide 09/90 4

82280 1

- Amino

- 2

- methylanthraquinone [PAH

- Derivative, c 1 2 4 5
POM]

68006837 2

- Amino

- 3

- methyl

- 9H

- pyrido(2,3

- b) indole {MeA

- 09/89 c 3 4
alpha

- C}

712685 2

- Amino

- 5

- (5

- nitro

- 2

- furyl)

- 1,3,4

- thiadiazole c 3 4

- 2

- Amino

- 9H

- pyrido(2,3

- b)indole (see A

- alpha

- C)

134292 o

- Anisidine hydrochloride c 4 5
104949 p

- Anisidine 06/91 7

140 578 Aramite c 3 4
492808 Auramine [POM] c 1 2 3 4 5 446866 Azathioprine c 3 4 5
103333 Azobenzene [POM] 09/90 c 1 2 4
98873 Benzal chloride 06/91 7

55210 Benzamide 06/91 7 1694093 Benzyl violet 4B [POM] c 1 2 3 4 1025 Betel quid with tobacco c 3 4

494031 N

- N

- Bis(2

- chloroethyl)

- 2

- naphthylamine c 1 2 3 4 5 {Chlornaphazine} [PAH

- Derivative, POM]
108601 Bis(2

- chloro

- 1

- methylethyl) ether 06/91 7
1030 Bitumens, extracts of steam

- refined and air

- c 3 4

refined bitumens 1035 Bleomycins c 3

75274 Brom odichloromethane 09/90 c 4 1689845 Bromoxynil 06/91 4 25013165 Butylated hydroxyanisole {BHA} c 3 4
123728 Butyraldehyde 06/91 7

3068880 beta

- Butyrolactone c 3 4

630080 Carbon monoxide 09/89 4 143500 Chlordecone {Kepone} c 3 4

6164983 Chlordimeform 09/89 c 4

1 15286 Chlorendic acid 09/89 c 3 4 5
124481 Chlorodibromomethane 09/90 c 4

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:2

- 3 563473 3

- Chloro

- 2

- methylpropene 09/89 c 4 5 1065 Chlorophenoxy herbicides c 3
1897456 Chlorothalonil 09/89 c 4
1059 p

- Chloro

- o

- tolu idine (strong acid salts) 06/91 c 3

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:2

- 4 APPENDIX A

- II Substances For Which Production, Use, Or Other Presence Must Be Reported

Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Source List(s) Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [6]) Notes(s)

4680788 C. I. Acid Green 3 [POM] 06/9 1 1 2 7
569642 C. I. Basic Green 4 [POM] 06/91 1 2 7
989388 C. I. Basic Red 1 [POM] 06/91 1 2 7

569619 C. I. Basic Red 9 monohydrochloride [POM] 09/89 c 1 2 4 5 2832408 C. I. Disperse Yellow 3 [POM] 06/91 1 2 7
(NOTE: "C. I." means "color index") 87296 Cinnamyl a nthranilate [POM] 09/89 c 1 2 4 5
6358538 Citrus Red No. 2 [POM] c 1 2 3 4

8007452 Coal tars 09/89 c 3 4 5 21725462 Cyanazine 09/90 4 14901087 Cycasin c 3 4 13121705 Cyhexatin 09/89 4 3468631 D and C Orange No. 17 [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 09/90 c 1 2 4
81889 D and C Red No. 19 [POM] 09/90 c 1 2 4

2092560 D and C Red No. 8 [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 06/91 c 1 2 4
5160021 D and C Red No. 9 [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 09/90 c 1 2 4
1596845 Daminozide 09/90 c 4 50293 DDT {1,1,1

- Trichloro

- 2,2

- bis(p

- c 1 2 3 4 5 chlorophenyl)ethane} [POM]

613354 N,N'

- Diacetylbenzidine [POM] c 1 2 3 4
2303164 Diallate 06/91 7

39156417 2,4

- Diaminoanisole sulfate c 4 5

101804 4,4'

- Diaminodiphenyl ether [POM] c 1 2 3 4 5
764410 1,4

- Dichloro

- 2

- butene 09/90 c 4
28434868 3,3'

- Dichloro

- 4,4'

- diaminodiphenyl ether [POM] 09/89 c 1 2 3 4

72548 Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane {DDD} [POM] 09/89 c 1 2 4

540590 1,2

- Dichloroethylene 06/91 7

78886 2,3

- Dichloropropene 06 /91 7
60571 Dieldrin 09/89 c 4 1464535 Diepoxybutane c 3 4 5

1615801 1,2

- Diethylhy drazine c 3 4 84662 Diethyl phthalate 06/91 7 101906 Diglycidyl resorcinol ether {DGRE} c 3 4 5 94586 Dihydrosafrole c 3 4

20325400 3,3'

- Dimethoxybenzidine dihydrochloride [POM] 06/91 c 1 2 4

55738540 trans

- 2

- [(Dimethylamino)methylim ino]

- 5

- [2

- (5

- c 3 4

nitro

- 2

- furyl)vinyl

- 1,3,4

- oxadiazol

540738 1,2

- Dimethylhydrazine c 3 4

105679 2,4

- Dimethylphenol {2,4

- Xylenol} 06/91 7 513371 Dimethylvinylchloride {DMVC} 09/89 c 4 5
25154545 Dinitrobenzenes (mixtures of) 09/90 4 7

including:

99650 m

- Dinitrobenzene 06/91 7

528290 o

- Dinitrobenzene 06/91 7

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:2

- 5 100254 p

- Dinitrobenzene 06/91 7 39300453 Dinocap 09/90 4
88857 Dinoseb 09/89 4

117840 n

- Dioctyl phthalate 06/91 7

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:2

- 6 APPENDIX A

- II Substances For Which Production, Use, Or Other Presence Must Be Reported

Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Source List(s) Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [6]) Notes(s)

2475458 Disperse Blue 1 [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 06/91 c 1 2 3 4
541413 Ethyl chloroformate 06/91 7
62500 Ethyl methanesulfonate c 3 4

2164172 Fluometuron 06/91 7
133073 Folpet 09/89 c 4

3570750 2

- (2

- Formylhydrazino)

- 4

- (5

- nitr o

- 2

- furyl)thiazole c 3 4
60568050 Furmecyclox 09/90 c 4

67730114 Glu

- P

- 1 {2

- Amino

- 6

- methyldipyrido[1,2

- a:3',2'

- c 3 4

d]imidazole}

67730103 Glu

- P

- 2 {2

- Aminodipyrido[1,2

- a:3',2'

- d]imidazole} c 3 4
765344 Glycidaldehyde c 3 4 556525 Glycidol 09/90 c 4 16568028 Gyromitrin {Acetaldehyde methylformylhydrazone} c 4

2784943 HC Blue 1 09/89 c 4 5

102457 3 Heptachlor epoxide 09/89 c 4 1335871 Hexachloronaphthalene [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 06/91 1 2 7 10034932 Hydrazine sulfate c 4 5 76180966 IQ {2

- Amino

- 3

- methylimidazo[4,5

- f]quinoline} c 3 4
78842 Isobutyraldehyde 06/91 7

120581 Isosafro le 09/90 c 4

4759482 Isotretinoin 4
77501634 Lactofen [POM] 09/89 c 1 2 4 1131 Lubricant base oils and derived products, 09/89 c 3 4 5 specifically vacuum distillates, acid treated oils, aromatic oils, mildly solvent

- refined
oils, mi ldly hydrotreated

- oils and used engine oils.

8018017 Mancozeb 09/90 c 4

12427382 Maneb 09/90 c 4

59052 Methotrexate 09/89 4
96333 Methyl acrylate 06/91 7
590965 Methylazoxymethanol 09/90 c 4
592621 Methylazoxymethanol acetate 09/89 c 3 4
101611 4,4'

- Methylene bis (N,N

- dimethyl) benzenamine c 1 2 4 5
[POM]
838880 4,4'

- Methylene bis(2

- methylaniline) [POM] 09/89 c 1 2 3 4 74953 Methylene bromide 06/91 7
66273 Methyl methanesulfonate c 3 4

129157 2

- Methyl

- 1

- nitroanthraquinone (uncertain purity) c 1 2 3 4
[PAH

- Derivative, POM]

70257 N

- Methyl

- N'

- nitro

- N

- nitrosoguanidine c 3 4

- N

- Methyl

- N

- nitrosourethane (see N

- Nitroso

- N

- methylurethane)

924425 N

- Methyloacrylamide 09/90 c 4

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:2

- 7 9006422 Metiram 09/90 4 1140 Mineral oils (untreated and mildly treated oils; c 3 4 5 and those used in occupations such as mulespinning, metal machining, and ju te processing).

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:2

- 8 APPENDIX A

- II Substances For Which Production, Use, Or Other Presence Must Be Reported

Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Sourc e List(s) Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [6]) Notes(s)

2385855 Mirex c 3 4 5

315220 Monocrotali ne c 3 4 505602 Mustard gas {Sulfur mustard} c 3 4 5

134327 1

- Naphthylamine [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 09/90 c 1 2 4

91598 2

- Naphthylamine [PAH

- Derivative, POM] c 1 2 3 4 5
54115 Nicotine 09/90 4
1148 Nitrilotriacetic acid (salts) 06/91 c 3 including but not limited to:
18662538 Nitrilotriacetic acid, trisodium salt 06/91 c 4
monohydrate

602879 5

- Nitroacenaphthene [PAH

- Der ivative, POM] c 1 2 3 4

99592 5

- Nitro

- o

- anisidine c 4 5 1836755 Nitrofen (technical grade) c 3 4 5 51752 Nitrogen mustard {Mechlorethamine} c 3 4 5
55867 Nitrogen mustard hydrochloride 09/89 c 4 5 55630 Nitroglycerin 06/91 7

88755 2

- Nitrophenol 06/91 7

57835924 4

- Nitropyrene [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 06/91 c 1 2 3 4

86306 N

- Nitrosodiphenylamine [POM] 09/89 c 1 2 4

759739 N

- Nitroso

- N

- ethylurea c 4 5

60153493 3

- (N

- Nitrosomethylamino)propionitrile 09/89 c 3 4

64091914 4

- (N

- Nitrosomethylamino)

- 1

- (3

- pyridyl)

- 1

- butanone 09/89 c 3 4 {NNK}

615532 N

- Nitroso

- N

- methylurethane {N

- Methyl

- N

- c 3 4

nitros ourethane}

4549400 N

- Nitrosomethylvinylamine c 3 4 5

16543558 N

- Nitrosonornicotine c 3 4 5

13256229 N

- Nitrososarcosine c 3 4 5
303479 Ochratoxin A [POM] 09/90 c 1 2 4 2234131 Octachloronaphthalene [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 06/91 1 2 7

26 46175 Oil Orange SS [PAH

- Derivative, POM] c 1 2 3 4
20816120 Osmium tetroxide 06/91 7 794934 Panfuran S {Dihydroxymethylfuratrizine} c 3 4 122601 Phenyl glycidyl ether 09/90 c 3 4 57410 Phenytoin [POM] c 1 2 3 4 5

88891 Picric aci d 06/91 7 1155 Polybrominated biphenyls {PBBs} [POM] c 1 2 3 4 5
53973981 Polygeenan 09/89 c 4
3761533 Ponceau MX [PAH

- Derivative, POM] c 1 2 3 4
3564098 Ponceau 3R [PAH

- Derivative, POM] c 1 2 3 4

36791045 Ribavirin 09/90 4

94597 Safrole c 3 4 5

1180 Shale oils c 3 4

132 274 Sodium o

- phenylphenate [POM] c 1 2 3 4

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:2

- 9 128449 Sodium saccharin 09/89 c 4

1185 Soots c 3 4 10048132 Sterigmatocystin [POM] c 1 2 3 4

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:2

- 10 APPENDIX A

- II
Substances For Which Production , Use, Or Other Presence Must Be Reported

Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Source List(s) Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [6]) Notes(s)

95067 Sulfallate c 3 4 5
5216251 p

- alpha,alpha,alpha

- Tetrachlorotoluene 09/90 c 4 961115 Tetrachlorvinphos 06/91 7
509148 Tetranitromethane 09/90 c 4

139651 4,4'

- Thiodianiline [POM] c 1 2 3 4

131 4201 Thorium dioxide c 4 5
1200 Tobacco products, smokeless c 3 4
1205 alpha

- chlorinated Toluenes c 3

636215 o

- Toluidine hydrochloride c 4 5
106490 p

- Toluidine 09/90 c 4

52686 Trichlorfon 06/91 7 68768 Tris(aziridinyl)

- p

- benzoquinone {Triaziquone} 09/90 c 4
52244 Tris(1

- aziridinyl) phosphine sulfide {Thiotepa} c 3 4 5
126727 Tris(2,3

- dibromopropyl)phosphate 09/89 c 4
62450060 Trp

- P

- 1 {3

- Amino

- 1,4

- dimethyl

- 5H

- pyrido[4,3

- c 3 4 b]indole}

62450071 Trp

- P

- 2 {3

- Am ino

- 1

- methyl

- 5H

- pyrido[4,3

- b]indole} c 3 4
72571 Trypan blue [PAH

- Derivative, POM] c 1 2 3 4

106876 4

- Vinyl

- 1

- cyclohexene diepoxide {Vinyl cyclohexene 09/90 c 4 dioxide}

81812 Warfarin [POM] 1 2 4

87627 2,6

- Xylidene 06/91 4

12122677 Zineb 09/90 c 4

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:3

- 1 

### Appendix A

- III

Substances Which Need Not Be Reported

Unless Manufactured By The Facility

July 1, 1997

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:3

- 2

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:3

- 2 APPENDIX A

- III
Substances Which Need Not Be Reported Unless Manufactured By the Facility

Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Source List(s) Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [6]) Notes(s)

546883 Acetohydroxamic acid 09/90 4 50760 Actinomycin D 09/90 c 4 23214928 Adriamycin [PAH

- Derivative, POM] c 1 2 3 4 5 28981977 Alprazolam [POM] 09/90 1 2 4
39831555 Amikacin sulfate 09/90 4

54626 Aminopterin 4 1005 Analgesic mixtures containing phenacetin c 3 4 5 1010 Androgenic (anabolic) steriods c 3 4 including but not limited to:
58184 Methyltestosterone 09/90 4
434071 Oxymetholone c 4 5
58220 Testosterone and its esters 09/89 4 including but not limited to:

315377 Testosterone enanthate 09/90 4

507 82 Aspirin 06/91 4

115026 Azaserine c 3 4 5411223 Benzphetamine hydrochloride [POM] 09/90 1 2 4 154938 Bischloroethyl nitrosourea c 3 4

55981 1,4

- Butanediol dimethanesulfonate {Busulfen/ c 3 4 5 Myleran}

415759 44 Carboplatin 09/90 4
474259 Chenodiol 09/90 4

305033 Chlorambucil c 3 4 5 56757 Chloramphenicol c 3 4 1620219 Chlorcyclizine hydrochloride [POM] 1 2 4

13010474 1

- (2

- Chloroethyl)

- 3

- cyclohexyl

- 1

- nitrosourea c 3 4 5 {CCNU}

13909096 1

- (2

- Chloroethyl)

- 3

- (4

- methylcyclohexyl)

- 1

- c 3 nitrosourea {Methyl CCNU}
15663271 Cisplatin c 3 4 50419 Clomiphene citrate [POM] 09/90 1 2 4 50180 Cyclophosphamide c 3 4 147944 Cytarabine 09/89 4

4342034 Dacarbazine c 3 4 5

17230885 Danazol 09/90 4 20830813 Daunomycin [PAH

- Derivative, POM] c 1 2 3 4 23541506 Daunorubicin hydrochloride [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 09/90 1 2 4
84173 Dienestrol [P OM] 09/90 c 1 2 4 564250 Doxycycline 09/90 4 379793 Ergotamine tartrate [POM] 09/90 1 2 4
1095 Estrogens, non

- steroidal c 3 5 including but not limited to: 56531 Diethylstilbestrol [POM] c 1 2 3 4 5

1100 Estrogens, steroidal c 3 5

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:3

- 3 including but not limited to: 1068 Conjugated estrogens 09/90 c 4

50282 Estradio l 17 beta c 4 5

53167 Estrone c 4 5

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:3

- 4 APPENDIX A

- III

Substan ces Which Need Not Be Reported Unless Manufactured By the Facility

Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Source List(s) Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [6]) Notes(s)

57636 Ethinyl estradiol c 4 5

72333 Mestranol c 3 4 5
33419420 Etopos ide [POM] 09/90 2

54350480 Etretinate 4
51218 Fluorouracil 09/89 4
76437 Fluoxymesterone 09/90 4
13311847 Flutamide 09/90 4

67458 Furazolidone 09/90 c 4

126078 Griseofulvin c 3 4 23092173 Halazepam [POM] 09/90 1 2 4

3778732 If osfamide 09/90 4
9004664 Iron dextran complex c 3 4 5 303344 Lasiocarpine 09/89 c 3 4
554132 Lithium carbonate 06/91 4
919164 Lithium citrate 06/91 4 846491 Lorazepam [POM] 09/90 1 2 4
595335 Megestrol acetate 06/91 4
148823 Melphalan c 3 4 5

9 002680 Menotropins 09/90 4 6112761 Mercaptopurine 09/90 4
531760 Merphalan 09/89 c 4 3963959 Methacycline hydrochloride 06/91 4
60560 Methimazole 09/90 4

15475566 Methotrexate sodi um 09/90 4

484208 5

- Methoxypsoralen c 3 56042 Methylthiouracil c 3 4

443481 Metronidazole c 3 4 5 59467968 Midazolam hydrochloride [POM] 09/90 1 2 4 62015398 Misoprostol 09/90 4 50077 Mitomycin C c 3 4 70476823 Mitoxantrone hydrochloride [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 09/90 1 2 4

139913 5

- (Morpho linomethyl)

- 3

- [(5

- c 3 4 nitrofurfurylidene)amino]

- 2

- oxazolidinone
86220420 Nafarelin acetate [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 09/90 1 2 4 3771195 Nafenopin [POM] c 1 2 3 4 1405103 Neomycin sulfate 09/90 4
56391572 Netilmicin sulfate 09/90 4

61574 Niridazole c 3 4
67209 Nitrofurantoin 06/91 c 4

59870 Nitrofurazone 09/90 c 4

555840 1

- [(5

- Nitrofurfurylidene)amino]

- 2

- imidazolidinone c 3 4

531828 N

- [4

- (5

- Nitro

- 2

- furyl)

- 2

- thiazolyl]acetamide c 3 4
6533002 Norgestr el 09/90 4 79572 Oxytetracycline 06/91 4

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:3

- 5 115673 Paramethadione 09/90 4
52675 Penicillamine 06/91 4

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Appendix A:3

- 6 APPENDIX A

- III Substances Which Need Not Be Reported Unless Manufactured By the Facil ity

Emittent ID Add Date Carcinogen Source List(s) Other
(Note [1]) Substance Name (Note [2]) (Note [3]) (Note [4]) (Note [6]) Notes(s)

57330 Pentobarbit al sodium 09/90 4
63989 Phenacemide 09/90 4

62442 Phenacetin c 3 4 5 94780 Phenazopyridine hydrochloride c 3 4 5
3546109 Phenesterin 09/89 c 4 5

50066 Phenobarbital c 3 4 59961 Phenoxybenzamine [POM] 09/89 c 1 2 4 63923 Phenoxybenzamine hydrochloride [POM] 09/90 c 1 2 3 4 5

54911 Pipobroman 09/90 4 18378897 Plicamycin [PAH

- Derivative, POM] 09/90 1 2 4 366701 Procarbazine hydrochloride c 3 4 5
57830 Progesterone c 3 4 5 1160 Progestins c 3 including but not li mited to:
71589 Medroxyprogesterone acetate c 3 4

68224 Norethisterone c 4 5 51525 Propylthiouracil c 3 4 5

302794 all

- trans

- Retinoic acid 09/89 4 1167 Retinol/retinyl esters 09/89 c 4

81072 Saccharin c 3 4 5 3810740 Streptomycin sulfate 06/91 4 18883664 Streptozotocin c 3 4 5
54965241 Tamoxifen citrate [POM] 09/90 1 2 4 846504 Temazepam [POM] 09/90 1 2 4 64755 Tetracycline hydrochlor ide 06/91 4

50351 Thalidomide 4 154427 Thioguanine 09/90 4 49842071 Tobramycin sulfate 09/90 4

299752 Treosulfan c 3 4
28911015 Triazolam [POM] 09/90 1 2 4
13647353 Trilostane 09/90 4
127480 Trimethadione 06/91 4

66751 Uracil mustard c 3 4 26995915 Urofollitropin 09/90 4
99661 Valproate 4
143679 Vinblastine sulfate [POM] 09/90 1 2 4
2068782 Vincristine sulfate [POM] 09/90 1 2 4

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Hea lth Risk Assessments. September 2002.

NOTES TO APPENDIX A

Note Text of Note

[ 1] Emittent ID (the emittent identification number) is the Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number where available, or an ARB

- assigned 4

- digit emittent ID
code.

A dash ("

- ") is shown for the Emittent ID for substances which are alphabetized under a grou p header or synonym elsewhere on the list. Refer to the cross reference indicated in parenthesis, "( )".

A double dash ("

- - ") is shown for the Emittent ID to indicate that the entry is a non

- reportable group he ader for the substances immediately following
it.

An asterisk ("*") is shown for the Emittent ID to indicate that the emissions of unspecified metal compounds shall be reported as the metal atom equivalent. See Note [7].

A pound sign ("#") is shown for the Emittent ID to indicate that the individual, component listed substances must be reported for this mixture or group.

[ 2] Individual substances listed under a group heading must be reported individually. Other, unspecified substances in the group must be summed and reported using the emittent ID of the group heading.

The square bracket designation, "[ ]", indicates that the substance is a component of the chemical group heading(s) within the brackets.

The braces designation, "{ }", indicates a synonym for the substance listed.

[ 3] The date the Board approved addition of the substance to the original list. The o riginal list was approved by the Board in July 1988.

[ 4] The letter "c" indicates that for purposes of this section the substance shall be treated as a human carcinogen or potential human carcinogen.

[ 5] Applicable de gree of accuracy (in lbs/year except where noted). Radionuclides must be reported in Curie units, and the accuracy must be considered accordingly. Refer to Section VII.E. and Appendix B.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Hea lth Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Note Te xt of Note

[ 6] Substances are required to be included on the Hot Spots list based on the following lists cited in Health & Safety Code Section 44321:

1 = California Air Resources Board (44321(c)); 2 = Environmental Protection Agency (44321(e)) ; 3 = International Agency for Research on Cancer; 4 = Governor's List of Carcinogens and Reproductive Toxicants; (44321(a); Labor Code section 6382(b)(1)) (44321(b); HSC Section 25249.8)

5 = National Toxicology Program (44321(a)); 6 = Hazard Evaluation System and Information Service (44321(d)) 7 = Added pursuant to HSC Section 44321 (f).

[ 7] Emissions of unspecified metal compounds shall be reported as the amount of the metal atom equivalent, using the metal emitten t identification number for the metal itself (or the emittent identification number indicated on the table, such as for reporting inorganic versus other

- than

- inorganic arsenic compounds).

For unspecified metal compounds which contain two or more listed metals (e.g., zinc chromate), each component metal shall be reported as the amount of the appropriate metal atom equivalent (i.e., the zinc portion of the weight as zinc equivalent and the chromate portion as hexavalent chromium equivalent).

For specific, individually listed metal compounds (e.g., Lead chromate), emissions shall be reported for the compound (as pounds of whole compound), using the emittent identification number for that compound.

[ 8] Compounds of the form "X

- CN", where formal

dissociation can occur. Report as the amount of Cyanide equivalent in the compound using an emittent
identification code of 1073.

[ 9] Emissions of these mixtures shall be reported as emissions of total particulate matter and total organic gas, using the following emittent identification
numbers:

9901 Diesel exhaust, particulate matter 9910 Gasoline exhaust, particulate matter 9902 Diesel exhaust, total organic gas 9911 Gasolin e exhaust, total organic gas

Individually listed substances from diesel and gasoline exhaust must also be reported.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Hea lth Risk Assessments. September 2002.

Note Text of Note

[10] The emittent identification number 1105 has been discontinued for all facilities reporting for the first time and for all updates. Use the listed replacement emittent identification codes 1103 and 1104.

[11] Emissions of the individual, component listed substanc es must be reported in addition to the total gasoline vapors emissions.

[12] These lead compounds are listed here so that the inorganic lead fraction will be quantified and reported if these individual compounds cannot be quantified.

[1 3] PAH: (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon)

- An organic compound consisting of a fused ring structure containing at least two (2) benzene rings, and which may also contain additional fused rings not restricted exclusively to hexagonal rings.

The structur

e does not include any heteroatoms or substituent groups. The structure includes only carbon and hydrogen.

PAHs are a subgroup of POM and have a boiling point of greater than or equal to 100 C.

[14] PAH

- DERIVATIVE: (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Derivative)

- An organic compound consisting of a fused ring structure containing at least two (2) benzene rings, and which may also contain additional fused rings not restricted exc lusively to hexagonal rings. The fused ring structure does not contain heteroatoms. The structure does contain one or more substituent groups.

PAH

- Derivatives are a subgroup of POM and have a boiling point of greater than or equal to 100 C. [15] POM: (Polycyclic Organic Matter)

- Includes organic compounds with more than one benzene ring, and which have a boiling point of greater than or equal to 100 C.

[16] Radionuclides and other radioact ive substances shall be reported in units of Curies per year (for annual average emissions) and in units of milliCuries per hour (for maximum hourly emissions).

[17] Emissions of Vanadium (fume or dust) shall be reported as the amount of the vanadium atom equivalent, using the identification number 7440622.

[18] The emittent identification number 1001 has been replaced with the CAS number 26148685.

## Appendix B

Health And Safety Code Related to the

Air Toxics Hot Spots Program

Appendix B - 1

## Appendix B

Health And Safety Code Related To The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program 1



### PART 6. AIR TOXICS "HOT SPOTS" INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENT (Part 6 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to
Section 44384. Note: Sections 44380 and 44384 becam e operative Jan. 1, 1988.)

CHAPTER 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND DEFINITIONS (Chapter 1 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44300. This part shall be known and m a y be cited as the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Inform ation
and Assessm ent Act of 1987. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44301. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) In the wake of recent publicity surrounding planned and unplanned releases of toxic
chem icals into the atm o sphere, the public has becom e increasingly concerned about
toxics in the air. (b) The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress has concluded that 75 percent of the United States population lives in proxim ity to at least one facility
that m a nufactures chem icals. An incom p lete 1985 survey of large chem ical

com p anies conducted by the Congressional Research Service docum ented that nearly every chem ical plant studied routinely releases into the surrounding air significant levels of substances proven to be or potentially hazardous to public health. (c) Generalized em issions inventories com p iled by air pollution control districts and air quality m a nagem e nt districts in California confirm the findings of the Congressional Research Service survey as well as reveal that m a ny other f acilities and businesses which do not actually m a nufacture chem icals do use hazardous substances in sufficient quantities to expose, or in a m a nner that exposes, surrounding populations
to toxic air releases. (d) These releases m a y create localized concentrations or air toxics "hot spots" where

em issions from specific sources m a y expose individuals and population groups to elevated risks of adverse health effects, including, but not lim ited to, cancer and
contribute to the cum u lative health risks of em issions from other sources in the area.
In som e cases where large populations m a y not be significantly affected by adverse health risks, individuals m a y be exposed to significant risks.

________________

1 

### AB564 Passed in the 1996 legislative session. Th e text will be added when the code is revised.



### Appendix B - 2

### (e) Little data is currently available to accurately assess the am ounts, types, and health
im pacts of routine toxic chem ical releases into the air. As a result, there exists significant uncertainty about the am ounts of potentially hazardous air pollutants which are released, the location of those releases, and the concentrations to which the public is exposed. (f) The State of California has begun to im plem ent a long-term program to identify, assess, and control am bient levels of hazardous air pollutants, but additional legislation is needed to provide for the collection and evaluation of inform ation concerning the am ounts, exposures, and short- and long-term health effects of hazardous substances regularly released to the surrounding atm o sphere from specific
sources of hazardous releases. (g) In order to m o re effectively im plem ent control strategies for those m a terials posing an unacceptable risk to the public health, additional inform ation on the sources of potentially hazardous air pollutants is necessary. (h) It is in the public interest to ascertain and m easure the am ounts and types of hazardous releases and potentially hazardous releases from specific sources that m a y be exposing people to those releases, and to assess the health risks to those who are exposed. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44302. The definitions set forth in this chapter govern the construction of this part. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44303. "Air release" or "release" m eans any activity that m a y cause the issuance of air

contam inants, including the actual or potential spilling, leaking, pum ping, pouring, em itting,

em ptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leachi ng, dum ping, or disposing of a substance into
the am bient air and that results f r om the routine operation of a f acility or that is predictable, including, but not lim ited to, continuous and interm ittent releases and predictable process upsets or leaks. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44304. "Facility" m eans every structure, appurtenance, installation, and im provem e nt on land which is associated with a source of air releases or potential air releases of a hazardous m a terial. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44306. "Health risk assessm ent" m eans a detailed com p rehensive analysis prepared pursuant to Section 44361 to evaluate and predict the dispersion of hazardous substances in the environm ent and the potential for exposure of hum an populations and to assess and quantify both the individual and population wide health risks associat ed with those levels of exposure. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44307. "Operator" m eans the person who owns or ope rates a facility or part of a facility. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

Appendix B - 3

### 44308. "Plan" m eans the em issions inventory plan which m eets the conditions specified in Section 44342. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44309. "Report" m eans the em issions inventor y report specified in Section 44341. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

CHAPTER 2. FACILITIES SUBJECT TO THIS PART (Chapter 2 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44320. This part applies to the following: (a) Any f acility which m a nuf actures, f o rm ulates, uses, or releases any of the substances listed pursuant to Section 44321 or any other substance which reacts to form a substance listed in Section 44321 and which releases or has the potential to release total organic gases, particulates, or oxides of nitrogen or sulfur in the am ounts specified in Section 44322. (b) Except as provided in Section 44323, any facility which is listed in any current toxics
use or toxics air em ission survey, inventory, or report released or com p iled by a district.
A district m a y, with the concurrence of the state board, waive the application of this part pursuant to this subdivision for any facility which the district determ ines will not release any substance listed pursuant to Section 44321 due to a shutdown or a process change. (Am e nded by Stats. 1989, Ch. 1254, Sec. 7). References at the tim e of publication (see page iii): Regulations: 17, CCR, sections 90700-90703, 90704, 93303, 93306

44321. For the purposes of Section 44320, the state board shall com p ile and m a intain a list of substances that contains, but is not lim ited to, all of the following: (a) Substances identified by reference in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 6382 of the Labor Code and substances placed on the list prepared by the National Toxicology Program issued by the United States Secretary of Health and Hum a n Services pursuant to paragraph (4) of Section 262 of Public Law 95-622 of 1978. For the purposes of this subdivision, the state board m a y rem ove from the list any
substance which m eets both of the following criteria: (1) No evidence exists that it has been detected in air. (2) The substance is not m a nufactured or used in California, or, if m a nufactured or used in California, because of the physical or chem ical characteristics of the
substance or the m a nner in which it is m a nufactured or used, there is no possibility that it will becom e airborne. (b) Carcinogens and reproductive toxins referenced in or com p iled pursuant to Section 25249.8, except those which m eet both of the criteria identified in subdivision (a). (c) The candidate list of potential toxic air contam inants and the list of designated toxic
air contam inants prepared by the state board pursuant to Article 2 (com m e ncing with Section 39660) of Chapter 3.5 of Part 2, including, but not lim ited to, all substances currently under review and scheduled or nom inated for review and substances
identif ied and listed f o r which health ef f ects inf o rm ation is lim ited.

Appendix B - 4

### (d) Substances for which an inform ation or hazard alert has been issued by the repository of current data established pursuant to Section 147.2 of the Labor Code. (e) Substances reviewed, under review, or scheduled for review as air toxics or potential air toxics by the Of f i ce of Air Quality Planning and Standards of the Environm ental Protection Agency, including substances evaluated in all of the following categories or their equivalent: prelim inary health and source screening, detailed assessm ent, intent to list, decision not to regulate, listed, standard proposed, and standard

prom ulgated. (f) Any additional substances recognized by the state board as presenting a chronic or acute threat to public health when present in the am bient air, including, but not
lim ited to, any neurotoxins or chronic respiratory toxins not included within subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e). (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44322. This part applies to facilities specified in subdivision (a) of Section 44320 in accordance with the following schedule: (a) For those f acilities that release, or have the potential to release, 25 tons per year or greater of total organic gases, particulates, or oxides of nitrogen or sulfur, this part
becom e s effective on July 1, 1988. (b) For those f acilities that release, or have the potential to release, m o re than 10 but less than 25 tons per year of total organic gases, particulates, or oxides of nitrogen or sulfur, this part becom e s effective July 1, 1989. (c) For those f acilities that release, or have the potential to release, less than 10 tons per year of total organic gases, particulates, or oxides of nitrogen or sulfur, the state board shall, on or before July 1, 1990, prepare and subm it a report to the Legislature
identif ying the classes of those f acilities to be included in this part and specif y ing a
tim etable for their inclusion. (Am e nded by Stats. 1989, Ch. 1254, Sec. 8.)

44323. A district m a y prepare an industrywide em issions inventory and health risk assessm ent for facilities specified in subdivision (b) of Section 44320 and subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 44322, and shall prepare an industrywide em issions inventory for the facilities specified in subdivision (c) of Section 44322, in com p liance with this part for any class of facilities that
the district finds and determ ines m eets all of the following conditions: (a) All facilities in the class fall within one four-digit Standard Industrial Classification
Code. (b) Individual com p liance with this part would im pose severe econom ic hardships on the

m a jority of the f acilities within the class. (c) The m a jority of the class is com posed of sm all businesses. (d) Releases f r om individual f acilities in the class can easily and generically be characterized and calculated. (Am e nded by Stats. 1989, Ch. 1254, Sec. 9.)

44324. This part does not apply to any facility where econom ic poisons are em ployed in their pesticidal use, unless that f acility was subject to district perm it requirem e nts on or bef o re August 1,1987. As used in this section, "pesticidal use" does not include the m a nufacture or
form ulation of pesticides. (Added by Stats. 1981, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

Appendix B - 5

### 44325. Any solid waste disposal facility in com p liance with Section 41805.5 is in com p liance
with the em issions inventory requirem e nts of this part. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

CHAPTER 3. AIR TOXICS EMISSION INVENTORIES (Chapter 3 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44340. (a) The operator of each facility subject to this part shall prepare and subm it to the district a proposed com p rehensive em issions inventory plan in accordance with the criteria and guidelines adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 44342. (b) The proposed plan shall be subm itted to the district on or before August 1, 1989, except that, for any facility to which subdivision (b) of Section 44322 applies, the proposed plan shall be subm itted to the district on or before August 1,1990. The district shall approve, m odify, and approve as m odified, or return for revision and
resubm ission, the plan within 120 days of receipt. (c) The district shall not approve a plan unless all of the following conditions are m e t: (1) The plan m eets the requirem e nts established by the state board pursuant to Section
44342. (2) The plan is designed to produce, from the list com p iled and m a intained pursuant to Section 44321, a com p rehensive characterization of the full range of hazardous

m a terials that are released, or that m a y be released, to the surrounding air from the
f acility. Air release data shall be collected at, or calculated f o r, the prim ary locations of actual and potential release for each hazardous m a terial. Data shall be collected or calculated for all continuous, interm ittent, and predictable air releases. (3) The m easurem ent technologies and estim ation m e thods proposed provide state-ofthe-art effectiveness and are sufficient to produce a true representation of the types and quantities of air releases f r om the f acility. (4) Source testing or other m easurem ent techniques are em ployed wherever necessary to verify em ission estim ates, as determ ined by the state board and to the extent technologically feasible. All testing devices shall be appropriately located, as
determ ined by the state board. (5) Data are collected or calculated for the relevant exposure rate or rates of each
hazardous m a terial according to its characteristic toxicity and for the em ission rate necessary to ensure a characterization of risk associated with exposure to releases of
the hazardous m a terial that m eets the requirem e nts of Section 44361. The source of
all em issions shall be displayed or described. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44341. W ithin 180 days after approval of a plan by the district, the operator shall im plem ent the plan and prepare and subm it a report to the district in accordance with the plan. The district shall

transm it all m onitoring data contained in the approved report to the state board. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

Appendix B - 6

### 44342. The state board shall, on or before May 1, 1989, in consultation with the districts, develop criteria and guidelines for site-specific ai r toxics em issions inventory plans which shall be designed to com p ly with the conditions specified in Section 44340 and which shall include at
least all of the f o llowing: (a) For each class of facility, a designation of the hazardous m a terials for which

em issions are to be quantified and an iden tif ication of the likely source types within that class of facility. The hazardous m a terials for quantification shall be chosen from

am ong, and m a y include all or part of, the list specified in Section 44321. (b) Requirem e nts for a facility diagram identifying each actual or potential discrete

em ission point and the general locations where f ugitive em issions m a y occur. The facility diagram shall include any nonperm itted and nonprocess sources of em issions and shall provide the necessary data to identify em ission characteristics. An existing
f acility diagram which m eets the requirem e nts of this section m a y be subm itted. (c) Requirem e nts for source testing and m easurem ent. The guidelines m a y specify appropriate uses of estim ation techniques including, but not lim ited to, em issions factors, m odeling, m a ss balance analysis, and projections, except that source testing shall be required wherever necessary to verify em ission estim ates to the extent technologically feasible. The guidelines shall specify conditions and locations where source testing, fence-line m onitoring, or other m easurem ent techniques are to be required and the frequency of that testing and m easurem ent. (d) Appropriate testing m e thods, equipm ent, and procedures, including quality assurance
criteria. (e) Specifications for acceptable em issions factors, including, but not lim ited to, those which are acceptable for substantially sim ilar facilities or equipm ent, and specification of procedures for other estim ation techniques and for the appropriate
use of available data. (f) Specification of the reporting period required for each hazardous m a terial for which

em issions will be inventoried. (g) Specifications for the collection of useful data to identify toxic air contam inants pursuant to Article 2 (com m e ncing with Section 39660) of Chapter 3.5 of Part 2. (h) Standardized form at for preparation of reports and presentation of data. (i) A program to coordinate and elim inate any possible overlap between the requirem e nts of this chapter and the re quirem e nts of Section 313 of the Superfund
Am endm ent and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ( Public Law 99-499). The state board shall design the guidelines and criteria to ensure that, in collecting data to be used for

em issions inventories, actual m easurem ent is utilized whenever necessary to verif y the accuracy of em ission estim ates, to the extent technologically feasible. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44343. The district shall review the reports subm itted pursuant to Section 44341 and shall, within 90 days, review each report, obtain correcti ons and clarifications of the data, and notify
the Office of Environm ental Health Hazard Assessm ent, the Departm e nt of Industrial Relations, and the city or county health departm e nt of its findings and determ inations as a result of its review of the report. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant
to Section 44384. Am ended by Governor’s Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1991, §142.)

Appendix B - 7

### 44344. Except as provided in Section 44391, em issions inventories developed pursuant to this chapter shall be updated every four years, in accordance with the procedures established by the state board. Those updates shall take into consideration im provem e nts in m easurem ent techniques and advancing knowledge concerning th e types and toxicity of hazardous m a terial released or potentially released. (Am e nded by Stats. 1993, Ch. 1041, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 1994.)

44344.3. (a) A f acility shall be granted an exem ption by a district f r om f

u rther com p liance with this part af ter m eeting all of the f o llowing criteria: (1) The f acility was required to com p ly with this part only as a result of its particulate m a tter em issions. (2) The f acility has participated in, utilized data derived f r om , or is eligible to
utilize data derived from , approved pooled source testing. (3) The f acility has subm itted an em issions inventory plan and report that was subsequently accepted and approved. (4) The facility has been designated by the district as a low priority facility under the guidelines set forth pursuant to this part for facility prioritization, and
f acility em issions do not present a signif i cant health risk as specif i ed in subdivision (b) of Section 44362. (5) The f acility handles, processes, stores, or distributes bulk agricultural

com m odities or handles, feeds, or rears livestock. (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a facility that, because of inform ation provided pursuant to Section 44344.7, is reclassified as an interm ediate or high priority facility by the
district. (c) The operator of a f acility that has been granted an exem ption pursuant to this section shall biennially subm it a statem ent to the district for the district' s review, with a copy
of the m o st recent em issions inventory for the facility, indicating that, except as to

m a tters for which an em issions inventory update has been or will be subm itted pursuant to Section 44344.7, there has been no significant change in facility operations or activities. The district shall not im pose any fee upon the operator with regard to the subm ission of the statem ent. (Added by Stats. 1993, Ch. 1037, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 1994.)

44344.5. The operator of any new facility that previously has not been subject to this part shall prepare and subm it an em issions inventory pl an and report. (Added by Stats. 1993, Ch. 1037, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 1994.)

44344.7. The operator of a facility exem pted pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 44344.3
shall subm it an em issions inventory update for those sources and substances for which a change in activities or operations has occurred, as f o llows: (a) The f acility em its a newly listed substance. (b) A sensitive receptor has been established or constructed on or after January 1, 1994,
within 500 m e ters of the facility. (c) The f acility em its a substance f o r which the potency f actor has increased.

Appendix B - 8

### (d) The facility has begun em ission of a listed substance not included in the previous

em issions inventory. (Added by Stats. 1993, Ch. 1037, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 1994.)

44345. (a) On or before July 1, 1989, the state board shall develop a program to com p ile and

m a ke available to other state and local public agencies and the public all data collected pursuant to this chapter. (b) In addition, the state board, on or before March 1, 1990, shall com p ile, by district,

em issions inventory data for m obile sources and area sources not subject to district

perm it requirem e nts, and data on natural source em issions, and shall incorporate
these data into data com p iled and released pursuant to this chapter. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44346. (a) If an operator believes that any inform ation required in the facility diagram specified pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 44342 involves the release of a trade secret, the operator shall nevertheless m a ke the disclosure to the district, and shall notify the district in writing of that belief in the report. (b) Subject to this section, the district shall protect from disclosure any trade secret designated as such by the operator, if that trade secret is not a public record. (c) Upon receipt of a request for the release of inform ation to the public which includes
inf o rm ation which the operator has notif ied the district is a trade secret and which is not a public record, the following procedure applies: (1) The district shall notify the operator of the request in writing by certified m a il, return receipt requested. (2) The district shall release the inform ation to the public, but not earlier than 30 days after the date of m a iling the notice of the request for inform ation, unless, prior to the expiration of the 30-day period, the operator obtains an action in an appropriate court for a declaratory judgm ent that the inform ation is subject to protection under this section or for a prelim inary injunction prohibiting
disclosure of the inf o rm ation to the public and prom ptly notifies the district of
that action. (d) This section does not perm it an operator to refuse to disclose the inform ation required pursuant to this part to the district. (e) Any inform ation determ ined by a court to be a trade secret, and not a public record pursuant to this section, shall not be disclosed to anyone except an officer or

em ployee of the district, the state, or the United States, in connection with the
official duties of that officer or em ploy ee under any law for the protection of health,
or to contractors with the district or the state and its em ployees if, in the opinion of the district or the state, disclosure is necessary and required for the satisfactory perform a nce of a contract, for perform a nce of work, or to protect the health and safety of the em ployees of the contractor. (f) Any officer or em ployee of the district or form er officer or em ployee who, by virtue
of that em ploym ent or official position, ha s possession of, or has access to, any trade secret subject to this section, and who, knowing that disclosure of the inform ation to the general public is prohibited by this section, knowingly and willfully discloses the
inform ation in any m a nner to any person not entitled to receive it is guilty of a

Appendix B - 9

### m i sdem eanor. Any contractor of the dist rict and any em ployee of the contractor,
who has been furnished inform ation as authorized by this section, shall be
considered an em ployee of the district for purposes of this section. (g) Inform ation certified by appropriate officials of the United States as necessary to be kept secret for national defense purposes shall be accorded the full protections against disclosure as specified by those officials or in accordance with the laws of
the United States (h) As used in this section, "trade secret" and "public record" have the m eanings and protections given to them by Section 6254.7 of the Governm e nt Code and Section
1060 of the Evidence Code. All inform ation collected pursuant to this chapter, except f o r data used to calculate em issions data required in the f acility diagram

, shall be considered "air pollution em ission data," for the purposes of this section. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

CHAPTER 4. RISK ASSESSMENT (Chapter 4 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44360. (a) W ithin 90 days of com p letion of the review of all em issions inventory data for facilities specified in subdivision (a) of Section 44322, but not later than
Decem ber 1,1990, the district shall, based on exam ination of the em issions inventory data and in consultation with the state board and the State Departm e nt of Health Services, prioritize and then categorize those f acilities f o r the purposes of health risk

assessm ent. The district shall designate high, interm ediate, and low priority categories and shall include each facility within the appropriate category based on its individual priority. In establishing priorities pursuant to this section, the district shall consider the potency, toxicity, quantity, and volum e of hazardous m a terials
released from the facility, the proxim ity of the facility to potential receptors, including, but not lim ited to, hospitals, schools, day care centers, worksites, and residences, and any other factors that the district finds and determ ines m a y indicate that the facility m a y pose a significant risk to receptors. The district shall hold a public hearing prior to the f i nal establishm ent of priorities and categories pursuant to
this section. (b) (1) W ithin 150 days of the designation of priorities and categories pursuant to subdivision (a), the operator of every fac ility that has been included within the highest priority category shall prepare and subm it to the district a health risk

assessm ent pursuant to Section 44361. The district m a y, at its discretion, grant a 30-day extension f o r subm ittal of the health risk assessm ent. (2) Health risk assessm ents required by this chapter shall be prepared in accordance with guidelines established by the Office of Environm ental Health Hazard
Assessm ent. The office shall prepare draft guidelines which shall be circulated to the public and the regulated com m unity and shall adopt risk assessm ent guidelines after consulting with the state board and the Risk Assessm ent Com m ittee of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association and after conducting at least two public workshops, one in the northern and one in the southern part of the state. The adoption of the guidelines is not subject to

Appendix B - 10

### Chapter 3.5 (com m e ncing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2
of the Governm e nt Code. The scientific review panel established pursuant to Section 39670 shall evaluate the guidelines adopted under this paragraph and
shall recom m e nd changes and additional criteria to reflect new scientific data or

em pirical studies. (3) The guidelines established pursuant to paragraph (2) shall im pose only those requirem e nts on facilities subject to this subdivision that are necessary to ensure that a required risk assessm ent is accurate and com p lete and shall specify the type of site-specific factors that districts m a y take into account in determ ining when a single health risk assessm ent m a y be allowed under subdivision (d). The guidelines shall, in addition, allow the operator of a facility, at the operator' s option, and to the extent that valid and reliable data are available, to include for consideration by the district in the health risk assessm ent any or all of the following supplem ental inform ation: (a) Inform ation concerning the scientific basis for selecting risk param e ter values that are different than those required by the guidelines and the likelihood distributions
that result when alternative values are used. (b) Data from dispersion m odels, m i croenvironm ent characteristics, and population
distributions that m a y be used to estim ate m a xim u m actual exposure. (c) Risk expressions that show the likelihood that any given risk estim ate is the correct
risk value. (d) A description of the increm ental reductions in risk that occur when exposure is
reduced. (4) To ensure consistency in the use of the supplem ental inform ation authorized by subparagraphs (A), (B), (C),and (D) of paragraph (3),the guidelines established pursuant to paragraph (2) shall include guidance for use by the districts in considering the supplem ental inform ation when it is included in the health risk

assessm ent. (c) Upon subm ission of em issions inventory data for facilities specified in subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 44322, the district shall designate f acilities f o r inclusion within the highest priority category, as appropriate, and any facility so designated shall be subject to subdivision (b). In addition, the district m a y require the operator of any facility to prepare and
subm it health risk assessm ents, in accordance with the priorities developed pursuant to subdivision (a). (e) The district shall, except where site specific factors m a y affect the results, allow the
use of a single health risk assessm ent f o r two or m o re substantially identical f acilities operated by the sam e person. (f) Nothing contained in this section, Section 44380.5, or Chapter 6 (com m e ncing with Section 44390) shall be interpreted as requiring a facility operator to prepare a new
or revised health risk assessm ent using the guidelines established pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of this section if the facility operator is required by the district to begin the preparation of a health risk assessm ent before those guidelines are established. (Am e nded by Stats. 1992, Ch. 1162, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 1993.)

Appendix B - 11

### 44361. (a) Each health risk assessm ent shall be subm itted to the district. The district shall m a ke
he health risk assessm ent available for public review, upon request. After prelim inary review of the em issions im pact and m odeling data, the district shall
subm it the health risk assessm ent to the Office of Environm ental Health Hazard
Assessm ent for review and, within 180 days of receiving the health risk assessm ent, the office shall subm it to the district its com m e nts on the data and findings relating to health effects. The district shall consult with the state board as necessary to adequately evaluate the em issions im pact and m odeling data contained within the
risk assessm ent. (b) For the purposes of com p lying with this section, the Office of Environm ental Health
Hazard Assessm ent m a y select a qualified independent contractor to review the data and findings relating to health effects. The office shall not select an independent contractor to review a specific health risk assessm ent who m a y have a conflict of interest with regard to the review of that health risk assessm ent. Any review by an independent contractor shall com p ly with the following requirem e nts: (1) Be perform e d in a m a nner consistent with guidelines provided by the office. (2) Be reviewed by the office for accuracy and com p leteness. (3) Be subm itted by the office to the district in accordance with this section. (c) The district shall reim burse the Offi ce of Environm ental Health Hazard Assessm ent or the qualified independent contractor designated by the office pursuant to subdivision (b), within 45 days of its request, for its actual costs incurred in reviewing a health risk assessm ent pursuant to this section. (d) If a district requests the Office of Environm ental Health Hazard Assessm ent to consult with the district concerning any requirem e nt of this part, the district shall
reim burse the office, within 45 days of its request, for the costs incurred in the
consultation. (e) Upon designation of the high priority facilities, as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 44360, the Office of Environm ental H ealth Hazard Assessm ent shall evaluate the staffing requirem e nts of this section and m a y subm it recom m e ndations to the Legislature, as appropriate, concerning the m a xim u m num ber of health risk

assessm ents to be reviewed each year pursuant to this section. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. l. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section

44384. Am ended by Governor' s Reorganization Plan No. l of l991, §144.)

44362. (a) Taking the com m e nts of the Office of Environm ental Health Hazard Assessm ent into account, the district shall approve or return for revision and resubm ission and then approve, the health risk assessm ent within 180 days of receipt. If the health risk

assessm ent has not been revised and resubm itted within 60 days of the district' s request of the operator to do so, the district m a y m odify the health risk assessm ent and approve it as m odified. (b) Upon approval of the health risk assessm en t, the operator of the facility shall provide notice to all exposed persons regarding the results of the health risk assessm ent prepared pursuant to Section 44361 if, in the judgm ent of the district, the health risk

assessm ent indicates there is a significant health risk associated with em issions from the facility. If notice is required under this subdivision, the notice shall include only

Appendix B - 12

### inf o rm ation concerning signif i cant health risks attributable to the specif ic f a cility f o r which the notice is required. Any notice shall be m a de in accordance with procedures specified by the district. (Added by Stats. 1981, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384. Am ended by Governor' s Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1991, 145.)

44363. (a) Com m e ncing July 1, 1991, each district shall prepare and publish an annual report which does all of the following: (1) Describes the priorities and categories designated pursuant to Section 44360 and

sum m a rizes the results and progress of the health risk assessm ent program undertaken pursuant to this part. (2) Ranks and identifies facilities according to the degree of cancer risk posed both to individuals and to the exposed population. (3) Identifies facilities which expose individuals or populations to any noncancer
health risks. (4) Describes the status of the developm ent of control m easures to reduce em issions
of toxic air contam inants, if any. (b) The district shall dissem i nate the annual report to county boards of supervisors, city councils, and local health officers and the district board shall hold one or m o re public hearings to present the report and discuss its content and significance. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. l. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44364. The state board shall utilize the reports and assessm ents developed pursuant to this part for the purposes of identifying, establishing priorities for, and controlling toxic air contam inants pursuant to Chapter 3.5 (com m e ncing with Section 39650) of Part 2. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384. )

44365. (a) If the state board finds and determ ines that a district' s actions pursuant to this part do

not m eet the requirem e nts of this part, the state board m a y exercise the authority of the district pursuant to this part to approve em issions inventory plans and require the preparation of health risk assessm ents. (b) This part does not prevent any district from establishing m o re stringent criteria and requirem e nts than are specified in this part for approval of em issions inventories and requiring the preparation and subm ission of health risk assessm ents. Nothing in this part lim its the authority of a district under any other provision of law to assess and regulate releases of hazardous substances. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44366. (a) In order to verify the accuracy of any inform ation subm itted by facilities pursuant to this part, a district or the state board m a y proceed in accordance with Section 41510. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

CHAPTER 5. FEES AND REGULATIONS

(Chapter 5 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

Appendix B - 13

### 44380. (a) The state board shall adopt a regulation which does all of the following: (1) Sets forth the am ount of revenue which the district m u st collect to recover the reasonable anticipated cost which will be incurred by the state board and the
Office of Environm ental Health Hazard A ssessm ent to im plem ent and adm i nister this part. (2) Requires each district to adopt a fee schedule which recovers the costs of the district and which assesses a fee upon the operator of every facility subject to this part. A district m a y request the state board to adopt a fee schedule for the
district if the district' s program cost s are approved by the district board and

transm itted to the state board by April 1 of the year in which the request is m a de. (3) Requires any district that has an approved toxics em issions inventory com p iled pursuant to this part by August 1 of the preceding year to adopt a fee schedule, as described in paragraph (2), which im poses on f acility operators f e es which are, to the m a xim u m extent practicable, proportionate to the extent of the
releases identified in the toxics em issions inventory and the level of priority assigned to that source by the district pursuant to Section 44360. (b) Com m e ncing August 1, 1992, and annually thereafter, the state board shall review
and m a y am end the fee regulation. (c) The district shall notify each person who is subject to the fee of the obligation to pay the fee. If a person fails to pay the fee with in 60 days after receipt of this notice, the district, unless otherwise provided by district rules, shall require the person to pay an
additional adm i nistrative civil penalty. The district shall fix the penalty at not m o re than 100 percent of the assessed fee, but in an am ount sufficient in its determ ination, to pay the district' s additional expenses incurred by the person' s noncom pliance. If a person fails to pay the fee within 120 days after receipt of this notice, the district

m a y initiate perm it revocation proceedings. If any perm it is revoked, it shall be reinstated only upon full paym ent of the overdue fee plus any late penalty, and a
reinstatem ent fee to cover adm i nistrative costs of reinstating the perm it. (d) Each district shall collect the fees assessed pursuant to subdivision (a). After deducting the costs to the district to im plem ent and adm i nister this part, the district
shall transm it the rem a inder to the Controller for deposit in the Air Toxics Inventory
and Assessm ent Account, which is hereby created in the General Fund. The m oney in the account is available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the state board
and the Office of Environm ental Health Hazard Assessm ent for the purposes of
adm i nistering this part. (Am e nded by Stats. 1992, Ch. 375, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 1993.)

44380.1. A facility shall be granted an exem ption by a district from paying a fee in accordance with Section 44380 if all of the following criteria are m e t: (a) The f acility prim arily handles, processes, stores, or distributes bulk agricultural

com m odities or handles, f eeds, or rears livestock. (b) The f acility was required to com p ly with this part only as a result of its particulate

m a tter em issions.

Appendix B - 14

### (c) The fee schedule adopted by the district or the state board for these types of facilities is not solely based on toxic em issions wei ghted for potency or toxicity. (Added by Stats. 1993, Ch. 1037, Sec. 4. Effective January 1, 1994.)

44380.5. In addition to the fee assessed pursuant to Section 44380, a supplem ental fee m a y be assessed by the district, the state board, or the Office of Environm ental Health Hazard
Assessm ent upon the operator of a facility that, at the operator' s option, includes supplem ental
inform ation authorized by paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 44360 in a health risk

assessm ent, if the review of that supplem ental inform ation substantially increases the costs of reviewing the health risk assessm ent by the district, the state board, or the office. The supplem ental fee shall be set by the state board in the regulation required by subdivision (a) of
Section 44380 and shall be set in an am ount sufficient to cover the direct costs to review the
inform ation supplied by an operator pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 44360. (Added by Stats. 1992, Ch. 1162, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 1993.)

44381. (a) Any person who fails to subm it any inform ation, reports, or statem ents required by this part, or who fails to com p ly with this part or with any perm it, rule, regulation, or requirem e nt issued or adopted pursuant to this part, is subject to a civil penalty of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) or m o re than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each day that the inform ation, report, or statem ent is not subm itted, or that the
violation continues. (b) Any person who knowingly subm its any false statem ent or representation in any application, report, statem ent, or other docum ent filed, m a intained, or used for the purposes of com p liance with this part is subject to a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or m o re than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) per day for each day that the inform ation rem a ins uncorrected. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1988, pursuant to Section 44384.)

44382. Every district shall, by regulation, adopt th e requirem e nts of this part as a condition of

every perm it issued pursuant to Chapter 4 (com m e ncing with Section 42300) of Part 4 for all
new and m odified facilities. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative July 1, 1988, pursuant to Section 44384. )

44384. Except for Section 44380 and this section, all provisions of this part shall becom e operative on July 1, 1988. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1252, Sec. 1. Operative January 1, 1988, by its own provisions.)

CHAPTER 6. FACILITY TOXIC AI R CONTAMINANT RISK REDUCTION
AUDIT AND PLAN (Chapter 6 added by Stats. 1992, Ch. 1162, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 1993.)

44390. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply: (a) "Airborne toxic risk reduction m easure" or "ATRRM" m e ans those in-plant changes in production processes or feedstocks that reduce or elim inate toxic air em issions subject to this part. ATRRM' s m a y include: (1) Feedstock m odification.

Appendix B - 15

### (2) Product reform ulations. (3) Production system m odifications. (4) System enclosure, em issions control, capture, or conversion. (5) Operational standards and practices m odification. (b) Airborne toxic risk reduction m easures do not include m easures that will increase
risk from exposure to the chem ical in another m e dia or that increase the risk to
workers or consum ers. (c) "Airborne toxic risk reduction audit and plan' ' or "audit and plan" m eans the audit and plan specified in Section 44392. (Added by Stats. 1992, Ch. 1162, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 1993.)

44391. (a) W h enever a health risk assessm ent approved pursuant to Chapter 4 (com m e ncing with Section 44360) indicates, in the judgm ent of the district, that there is a signif i cant risk associated with the em issions f r om a f acility, the f a cility operator shall conduct an airborne toxic risk reduction audit and develop a plan to im plem ent airborne toxic risk reduction m easures that will result in the reduction of em issions
f r om the f acility to a level below the signif i cant risk level within f i ve years of the date the plan is subm itted to the district. The f acility operator shall im plem ent

m easures set forth in the plan in accordance with this chapter. (b) The period to im plem ent the plan required by subdivision (a) m a y be shortened by the district if it finds that it is technically feasible and econom ically practicable to
im plem ent the plan to reduce em issions below the significant risk level m o re quickly
or if it f i nds that the em issions f r om the f acility pose an unreasonable health risk. (c) A district m a y lengthen the period to im plem ent the plan required by subdivision (a) by up to an additional five years if it finds that a period longer than five years will not result in an unreasonable risk to public health and that requiring im plem entation of the plan within five years places an unreasonable econom ic burden on the facility operator or is not technically feasible. (d) (1) The state board and districts shall provide assistance to sm aller businesses that have inadequate technical and financial resources for obtaining inform ation, assessing risk reduction m e thods, and de veloping and applying risk reduction techniques. (2) Risk reduction audits and plans for any industry subject to this chapter which is

com p rised m a inly of sm all businesses using substantially sim ilar technology

m a y be com p leted by a self-conducted audit and checklist developed by the state board. The state board, in coordina tion with the districts, shall provide a copy of the audit and checklist to sm all businesses within those industries to
assist them to m eet the requirem e nts of this chapter. (e) The audit and plan shall contain all the inform ation required by Section 44392. (f

) The plan shall be subm itted to the district, within six m onths of a district' s determ ination of signif i cant risk, f o r review of com p leteness. Operators of f

acilities that have been notified prior to January 1, 1993, that there is a significant risk
associated with em issions from the facility shall subm it the plan by July 1, 1993. The
district' s review of com p leteness shall include a substantive analysis of the em ission
reduction m easures included in the plan, and the ability of those m e asures to achieve

Appendix B - 16

### em ission reduction goals as quickly as feasible as provided in subdivisions (a) and (b). (g) The district shall find the audit and plan to be satisfactory within three m onths if it

m eets the requirem e nts of this chapter, including, but not lim ited to, subdivision (f).
If the district determ ines that the audit and plan does not m eet those requirem e nts, the district shall rem a nd the audit and plan to the f acility specif y ing the def i ciencies
identif ied by the district. A f acility operator shall subm it a revised audit and plan addressing the deficiencies identified by the district within 90 days of receipt of a deficiency notice. (h) Progress on the em ission reductions achieved by the plan shall be reported to the
district in em issions inventory updates. Em issions inventory updates shall be prepared as required by the audit and plan found to be satisfactory by the district pursuant to subdivision (g). (i) If new inf o rm ation becom e s available af ter the initial risk reduction audit and plan, on air toxics risks posed by a facility, or em ission reduction technologies that m a y be used by a facility that would significantly im pact risks to exposed persons, the
district m a y require the plan to be updated and resubm itted to the district. (j) This section does not authorize the em ission of a toxic air contam inant in violation
of an airborne toxic control m easure adopted pursuant to Chapter 3.5 (com m e ncing with Section 39650) or in violation of Section 41700. (Am e nded by Stats. 1993, Ch. 1041, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 1994.)

44392. A facility operator subject to this chapter shall conduct an airborne toxic risk reduction audit and develop a plan which shall include at a m i nim u m all of the following: (a) The nam e and location of the f acility. (b) The SIC code f o r the f acility. (c) The chem ical nam e and the generic classification of the chem ical. (d) An evaluation of the ATRRM' s available to the operator. (e) The specif i cation of , and rationale f o r, the ATRRMs that will be im plem ented by the operator. The audit and plan shall docum ent the rationale for rejecting ATRRMs
that are identif ied as inf easible or too costly. (f) A schedule for im plem enting the ATRRMs. The schedule shall m e et the tim e requirem e nts of subdivision (a) of Section 44391 or the tim e period for
im plem enting the plan set by the district pursuant to subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 44391, whichever is applicable. (g) The audit and plan shall be reviewed and certified as m eeting this chapter by an engineer who is registered as a professional engineer pursuant to Section 6762 of the Business and Professions Code, by an individual who is responsible for the processes and operations of the site, or by an environm ental assessor registered pursuant to Section 25570.3. (Added by Stats. 1992, Ch. 1162, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 1993.)

44393. The plan prepared pursuant to Section 44391 shall not be considered to be the equivalent of a pollution prevention program or a source reduction program , except insofar as the audit and plan elem ents are consistent with source reduction, as defined in Section 25244.14, or

Appendix B - 17

### subsequent statutory definitions of polluti on prevention. (Added by Stats. 1992, Ch. 1162, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 1993.)

44394. Any facility operator who does not subm it a com p lete airborne toxic risk reduction audit and plan or f a ils to im plem ent the m easures set f o rth in the plan as set f o rth in this chapter is subject to the civil penalty specified in subdivision (a) of Section 44381, and any facility operator who, in connection with the audit or plan, knowingly subm its any false statem ent or representation is subject to the civil penalty specified in subdivision (b) of Section 44381. (Added by Stats. 1992, Ch. 1162, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 1993.)

Appendix B - 18

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.



## Appendix C

Asbestos Quantity Conversion Factors

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

C

- 1 Appendix C

Asbestos Quantity Conversion Factors

A. “PCM” versus “TEM”

Two main analytical methods have been used for the analysis of asbestos samples: phase contrast microscopy (PCM), the primary method used historically to analyze asbestos samples, and transmission electron microscopy (TEM), the current state

- of

- the

- art method.

PCM analysis has been preferred in the past over TEM because it can be done more quickly and it is less expensiv e. One major limitation of PCM analysis, however, especially in outdoor environments, is that the analyst cannot distinguish asbestos from non

- asbestos fibers, such as cellulose, talc, or gypsum. Also, PCM cannot detect fibers that have a diameter of abo ut 0.3 microns or less, which could substantially underestimate the asbestos fiber concentrations. These limitations make PCM impractical for the analysis of ambient asbestos samples.

Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) is the preferred analytical met hod for outdoor asbestos samples because of its ability to detect small fibers (greater than or equal to
0.0002 microns in diameter) and to distinguish between asbestos fibers and non

- asbestos fibers.
The term “TEM structures” is often used to describe as bestos fibers detected by this method. TEM is the method recommended by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). TEM measurements cannot be directly related to the risk potency factors, however, because the studies upon which OEHHA’s risk assessment was based used the less expensive PCM analysis. The TEM measurements must be converted to PCM

- equivalent units, using the following equation (ARB, 1990):

B. Asbestos Inhalation Cancer Potency Factor

The unit risk factor for asbestos fibers is 1.9 x 10 - 4 

### in units of (100 PCM fibers/m 3 

### ) - 1 

### and
the unit risk factor is 6.3 x 10
- 2 

### in units of ( μ g/m 3 

### ) - 1 

### . The unit risk factor is based on epidemiological studies in which PCM fiber measurements were used. These unit risk factors are
listed in Chapter 7 and in the Asbestos Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) identification document (CDHS, 1986) and in OEHHA, 1999b. These asbestos cancer potency factors are for mesothelioma. Since these cancer potency factors are in units of concentration or dose,

c omplications arise when the emitted asbestos quantities are reported in mass units (pounds/year and maximum pounds/hour) for the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program (Hot Spots). 

## structures TEM 320 fiber PCM 1 =

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

C

- 2 The TAC inhalation cancer potency factor has been converted from mass to concentrat ion using a factor of 0.003 μg asbestos = 100 asbestos PCM fibers. This conversion has been derived from information published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (U.S. EPA, 1986). The number of asbestos PCM fibers associated with a given mass of asbestos can vary appreciably. Also, U.S. EPA has stated that this conversion factor is the geometric mean of measured relationships between optical fiber counts and mass airborne chrysotile in several published studies, that the rang e of the conversion factor between the different studies is large (0.0005

- 0.015 μg asbestos/100 asbestos PCM fibers), and that the factor carries with it an appreciable uncertainty.

The current recommendation for Hot Spots risk assessments uses a defa ult breathing rate of 393 L/day

- kg body weight for a 70 year exposure duration. A dose is calculated from the ground level concentration using the following equation:

X ( μ g/m

3 

### ) x 393 L/day

- kg body weight x 10
- 6 

### = dose (mg/kg

- day)

The 10
- 6 

### term convert s the L in the breathing rate to m 3 

### and the μ g in the air concentration term to

mg.

In order to obtain cancer risk the dose is subsequently multiplied times the cancer potency
factor as follows:

Dose (mg/kg

- body weight) x cancer potency factor (mg/kg

- body weight) = Cancer risk (unitless)

For risk communication purposes cancer risk may be converted into chances per million of developing cancer. This terminology is often more clearly understood by the public than cancer
risk.

Cancer risk x (1 x 10 6 

### ) = chances per million of developing cancer

The cancer potency factor (mg/kg body weight)
- 1 

### may be calculated from the fiber cancer potency factor using the relationship of 0.003 μ g = 100 fibers PCM, 70 kg body weight, 20 m 3 

### breathed per day, and a fact

or of 1000 to convert μ g asbestos into mg:



# ( ) ( ) 1 2

3 1 3 4 

### / 10 2

. 2 100 / 003

. 0 1000

20 70 / 100 10 9

. 1 − + −

− 

### × = × × × weight body kg mg fibers g m kg

m fibers PCM

m



### The ISCST3 air dispersion modeling program estimates concentrations in units of μ g/m 3 

### based on emission estimates in lb/yr. If the ground level concentrations are derived from PCM
f iber measurements, then no additional uncertainty is introduced by the conversion to μ g using the factor of 0.003. This is because the factor is effectively cancelled out by its use to derive the cancer potency factor in (mg/kg body weight)
- 1 

### . There is a slight rounding error that may be
introduced.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

C

- 3 References

ARB, 1990. Proposed Control Measure for Asbestos

- Containing Serpentine Rock in Surfacing Applications , Technical Support Document, Air Resources Board, February 1990.

CDHS, (1986) Californ

ia Department of Health Services (CDHS) 1986. Report to the Air Resources Board on Asbestos. Part B. Health Effects of Asbestos. Epidemiological Studies Section, Berkeley, CA.

OEHHA. (1999b). Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part II. Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors. Available online at http://www.oehha.ca.gov

USEPA, 1986. Airborne Asbestos Health Assessment Update. EPA/600/8

- 84/003F, Office o f Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.

## Appendix D

Risk Assessment Procedures to Evaluate

Particulate Emissions from Diesel-Fuel e d Engines

Appendix D - 1

## Appendix D

Risk Assessment Procedures to Evaluate

Particulate Emissions from Diesel-Fuel e d Engines

A. Introductio n

The objective of this appendix is to discu ss procedures for estim a ting potential cancer
and noncancer health risk from exposure to par ticulate m a tter (PM) em issions from diesel-fueled engines (diesel exhaust). It will also clarify the requirem e nts and recommendations for acute

noncancer a nd m u ltipath w ay cancer and chronic risk as sessm ent f o r dies e l PM. In ad dition to the notification and risk reduction requirem en ts under the Hot Spots Program , this appendix
should facilitate the use of the Risk Reduction P l an to Reduce Par ticulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles (ARB, 2000) (Diese l Guidelines ). The Diesel Guidelines were developed by the Air Resources Board (A RB) with assistan ce fro m the Office of
Environm ental Health H azard Assessm e nt (OEH HA) in October 2000. The Diesel G u idelines
are in tended to assist loc a l Air Pollution C ontrol and Air Quality M a nage m e nt Distric t s (Districts) and sources of diesel PM em issions in m a king consiste nt risk m a nage m e nt decisions.

In advance of perfor m i ng a health risk a ssessm ent (HRA), it is recomm ended that the District and the stationary source of diesel em i ssions reach a consensus on the HRA approach for
estim ating h ealth im pacts from diesel exhaus t. See Chapter 9 for an outline of a m o deling protocol.

B. Calculation s /Ris k Asse ssment Pro cedures

In August 1998, the ARB identified diesel e xhaust as a toxic air contam inant (TAC) (ARB, 1998 ). In the identification report, OEHHA provided an inhalation noncancer chronic reference exposure level (REL) of 5 m i crogram s per cubic meter ( μ g/m 3 

### ) and a range of inhalation cancer potency factors of 1.3 x 10 -4 

### to 2.4 x 10 -3 

### (μg/m 3 

### ) -1 

### . The Scientific Review
Panel on Toxic Air Contam inants recomm ended a “reasonable estim a te” inhalation unit risk
factor of 3.0 x 10 -4 

### (μg/m 3 

### ) -1 

### . From the unit risk factor an in halation cancer potency factor of 1.1 (m g/kg-day) -1 

### m a y be calculated. These noncancer and cancer health factors were developed based on whole (gas and particulate m a tter) diesel exhaust. The surrogate for whole diesel
exhaust is diesel PM. P M 10 

### (pa r ticu late m a tte r, ten m i crons or less in siz e ) is the bas i s f o r the potential ris k calcu latio n s.

Cancer

When conducting an HR A, the potential cancer risk from inhalation exposure to diesel PM will outweigh the p o tential non cancer h ealth im pacts. Theref ore, inhalation ca ncer r i sk is required for every HRA. (The m e thods for cal culating inhalation cancer risk can be found in Chapters 5, 7, and 8.) When co m p aring whole diesel exhaust to speciated diesel exhaust (e.g., PAHs, m e tals), potential cancer risk from i nhalation exposure to whole diesel exhaust will

Appendix D - 2

### outweigh th e m u ltipath w ay cancer risk from the speciated co mponents. For this reas on, there
will be f e w situa tions w h ere an an alysis of m u ltipathway ris k is neces s ar y.

The Distr i ct m a y elect to requir e a multip athway analys is if re liab l e data a r e ava ilab l e and
the Distric t decides that it is n eces sary. If the Dis t rict e l ec ts to require a multipathwa y analys is,
the com ponents of the d i ese l exhaus t will n eed to be speciated since ther e is not an o r al c a ncer potency factor for diesel PM. It is recommended that the Dis t rict be consulted on the procedures for conducting a m u ltipathway analy s is for dies el exhaust. T h e District m a y wish to use speciation data from the ARB. If so, a resour ce for speciatio n data is availab l e on the ARB’s
website at www.arb.ca.gov/em isinv/speciate/speciate.htm

.

If

a m u ltipathway analys is is require d, the sp ec ia ted data sho u ld be com p ared with th e substances in Table 5.1. Any substances in the speciation profile that are listed in Table 5.1 and have an oral cancer po tency factor in Table 7.1 s hould be included in the multipathway analys is.
Potential m u ltip athway c a ncer risks a r e estim a te d f o llowing th e procedu r es in Chapter s 5 and 8
of this docu m ent. These procedu r es require summ ing the potential cancer risk from each carcinogen to estim ate the to tal facility cancer risk.

Noncancer Chronic

To determ ine noncancer chronic inhalation health im pacts from exposure to diesel
exhaust use the m e thods described in Chapters 6 and 8.

In m o st situations, noncancer health im pact s from inhalation exposure to whole diesel exhaust will outweigh th e noncancer multipathway health im pacts to the s p eciated co mponents of

diesel exh a ust. However, the r e may be situations when the m u ltipath w ay im pacts need to be investigated.

Theref ore, the Distr i ct m a y elect to requir e a multip athway analys is if re liab l e data is
available an d they feel it is neces sary

. I f the Distric t ele c ts to requir e a multip athway analys is,
the com ponents of the d i ese l exhaus t will n eed to be speciated since ther e is not an o r al r e f e rence exposure level for diesel PM. A resource for sp eciation data at the A RB is identified above. It is

recomm ended that the District be consulted on the procedures for conducting a m u ltipathway analys is. If a m u ltipath w ay analysis is requ ired , the spec iated data shou ld be com p ared with the substances in Table 5.1. Any substances in the speciation profile that are listed in Table 5.1 and
have an oral chronic RE L in Table 6 .3 shoul d be included in the m u ltipath w ay analysis.
Potential m u ltip athway c h ronic r i sks are es tim ated f o llowing the proc edur es in Chapte rs 5 and 8
of this docum ent.

Noncancer Acute

As stated above, potential cancer risk is usua lly the driving health im pact for diesel exhaust. However, there m a y be certain unusua l situations w h ere an evaluation of the acute
health effects m a y be warranted. One possible si tuation is w h en a nearby recep tor is located
above the em ission release poin t (e. g. on a hillside or in a m u ltis tory apartm ent build ing). Since there is no acute REL for diesel exhaust, the com ponents of the exhaust will need to be speciated
to dete rm ine the poten tia l acute health im pacts. It is recommended that the District be consulted on the procedures for conducting an acute analysis. If an acute an alysis is required, the speciated

Appendix D - 3

### data should be com p ared with the substances in Table 6.1. Any substa nces in the speciation profile that are listed in T a ble 6.1 should be included in the acute analysis. A resource for speciation data at the A RB is identif ied above. Potential acute risks are estim ated following the procedures in Chapters 6 and 8 of this docum ent.

References : ARB 1998. Air Resources Board, “P roposed Identif ication of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air
Contam inant, Appendix III, Part A, Exposure Assessm ent,” April 1998.

ARB 2000. Air Resources Board, “Risk Reduction Pl an to Reduce Particulate Matter Em issions
from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles,” October 2000.

Appendix D - 4

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Gu idance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.



## Appendix E

Toxicity Equivalency Factors for

Polychlorinated Dibenzo

- p - Dioxins Dibenzofurans

And Polychlorinated Biphenyls

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Gu idance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

E

- 1 Appendix E

Toxicity Equivalency Factors for Polychlorinated Dibenzo

- p - Dioxins Dibenzofurans and Polychlorinated Biphen yls

Introduction

Dioxins and furans vary considerably in their potency for causing both cancer and noncancer health impacts. A facility may choose to speciate dioxin and furan emissions in order to obtain a more accurate picture of the risks. A schem e, based on both cancer and noncancer toxicity studies, has been developed to relate the potency of various dioxin and furan congeners to the potency of 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin. A detailed explanation of the World Health Organization’s 1997 T oxicity Equivalents Factor (WHO 97 

### - TEF) (van den Berg, 1998) scheme, the latest scheme adopted by OEHHA, is available in OEHHA (2003).

The individually calculated inhalation or oral doses of each dioxin or furan congener may be multiplied times the oral or inhalation cancer potency for each individual congener listed in Table 7.1. In order to determine the inhalation chronic hazard index, the ground level concentration of each congener may be divided by the chronic REL for each congener in Table 6.2 and the hazard quotients may be summed to give the hazard index for dioxins and furans. The oral chronic hazard quotient may be calculated by determining the oral dose of each congener and dividing by the individual chronic oral REL for each congener. The oral hazard quotients may be summed to give the hazard quotient for oral noncancer dioxin risks and may then be added to the inhalation hazard index to give the combined inhalation and oral chronic hazard quotient for dioxins.

A second equivalent proce dure may also be used to calculate the cancer risk of a mixture of dioxin and furan congeners. The concentration of each congener listed in Table E

- 1 is multiplied by the

WHO 97 

### - TEF for that congener. For example, for 1,2,3,4,7,8

- hexachlorodibenzodioxin t he concentration ( μ g/m 3 

### ) may be multiplied by 0.1 to give the concentration equivalent to 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin. 2,4,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzodioxin would be multiplied by zero indicating no cancer or noncancer toxicity. The 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlor odibenzo

- p

- dioxin equivalent concentrations may be summed and treated as if the total concentration were 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin for the purposes of calculating cancer and noncancer risks. Thus, the potency adjusted ground level

concentration can be multiplied by the breathing rate to give dose (see equation 5.4.1), and then multiplied times the cancer potency factor for 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin (Table 7.1) to give

cancer risk for the entire mixture. If a noncancer chronic hazard i ndex needs to be calculated the potency adjusted ground level concentration can be divided by the chronic reference exposure level for 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin to give a hazard index for the entire mixture. The TEF may be multiplied times t

he individual congener dose calculated for the inhalation and oral cancer risk calculation, and the oral chronic hazard index determination.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Gu idance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

E

- 2 The most recent TEF scheme adopted by OEHHA includes TEF for individual PCB congeners (see Table E

- 1) (O EHHA, 2003). These are the congeners that have dioxin

- like biological effects. The same procedures as described above may be used to calculate the concentration or dose of these congeners. Where data are available on individual PCB congeners emitted b y a facility, then these TEFs are to be used. If Table E1 is used to adjust the dose or concentration of the individual PCB congeners, the 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin oral and inhalation cancer potency factors should

be used to determine cancer r isk. The chronic inhalation and oral REL for 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin should be used to determine the noncancer chronic hazard index. If only total PCB data are available, then the PCB slope factors provided in Table 7.1 can be used for canc er risk determination.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Gu idance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

E

- 3 

## Table E 1 . WHO/97 Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs)

Congener TEF WHO

- 97 

### PCDDs
2,3,7,8

- TCDD 1
1,2,3,7,8

- PeCDD 1
1,2,3,4,7,8

- HxCDD 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9

- HxCDD 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8

- HxCDD 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- HpCDD 0. 01
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- OCDD 0.0001

PCDFs
2,3,7,8

- TCDF 0.1
1,2,3,7,8

- PeCDF 0.05
2,3,4,7,8

- PeCDF 0.5
1,2,3,4,7,8

- HxCDF 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9

- HxCDF 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8

- HxCDF 0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8

- HxCDF 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- HpCDF 0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- HpCDF 0.01
1,2,3,4,6,7 ,8,9

- OCDF 0.0001

PCBs (IUPAC #, Structure)

77 3,3',4,4'

- TCB 0.0001

81 3,4,4',5

- TCB 0.0001

105 2,3,3',4,4'

- PeCB 0.0001

114 2,3,4,4',5

- PeCB 0.0005

118 2,3',4,4',5

- PeCB 0.0001

123 2',3,4,4',5

- PeCB 0.0001

126 3,3',4,4',5

- PeCB 0.1

156 2,3,3',4,4',5

- Hx CB 0.0005

157 2,3,3',4,4',5'

- HxCB 0.0005

167 2,3',4,4',5,5'

- HxCB 0.00001

169 3,3',4,4',5,5'

- HxCB 0.01

189 2,3,3',4,4',5,5'

- HpCB 0.0001

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Gu idance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

E

- 4 References

OEHHA, 2003. Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors, Appendix A

(revised August, 2003) : Use of the Revised Toxicity Equivalency Factor (TEF WHO

- 97 

### ) Scheme for Estimating Toxicity of Mixtures of Dioxin

- Like Chemicals, September 2003. Available at www.oehha.ca.gov

. van den Berg, M., Birnbaum, L., Bosveld, A. T. C., Brunstrom, B., Cook, P., Feeley, M., Giesy, J. P., Hanberg, A., Hasegawa, R., Kennedy, S. W., Kubiak, T., Larsen, J. C., Van Leeuwen, F. X. R., Liem, A. K. D., Nolt, C., Peterson, R. E., Poellinger, L., Safe, S., Schre nk, D., Tillitt, D., Tysklind, M., Younes, M., Waern, F., and Zacharewski, T. (1998). Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for humans and wildlife. Environ. Health Perspec. V106 , 775

- 792.

## Appendix F

Overvie w of the Lea d Ris k Assessment Procedures

F - 1

### Appendix F

Overview of the Lead Risk Assessment Procedures

I. Introductio n

The objective of this appendix is to provide a m e thod for estim a ting potential cancer and
noncancer h ealth effects due to ai rborne lead exposure. This a ppendix should facilitate the use
of the Risk Management Guidelines for New, Modified, and Existing Sources of Lead (Lead RM Guidelines) (ARB, 2001) for analysis of lead exposure. The Lead RM Guidelines were developed by the Air Resources Board (ARB) w ith assistance from Office of Environm ental
Health Hazard Assessm ent (OEHHA) and Departm e nt of Health Services (DHS) in March 2001
to assist local air dis t ricts and sources of lead in making consis tent risk m a nagem e nt decisions for new, m o dified, and existing sources of lead.

In April 199 7, the ARB identif ied ino r ganic l ead as a toxic air c ontam inant (TAC) (ARB, 1997). Lead is unique among other TACs identified by ARB in several w a ys. First, infants and
child ren are particularly susceptibl e to the health effects of lead, and the risk assessm e n t is based
on health effects in child r en. Second , the chro n i c noncancer effects are related to b l oo d lead levels (BLLs) as opposed to am bient air concentr ations. These BLLs reflect current and past exposure from a num b er of sources ; air em issions m a y only be a sm a ll part of the total exposure. Third, based on recommendations of the OEHHA a nd the Scientif ic Re vi ew Panel on Toxic Air
Contam inants (SRP), the ARB did not iden tif y a threshold level for chronic noncancer health effects due to lead exposure. Threshold levels are levels below which no adverse health effects are expected to occur. S i nce acute or chroni c Ref e rence Expo sure Le vels (RELs) are based on threshold levels, none w e re developed for lead. Thus, a hazard index approach is not used for
lead. Ins t ead, air con c entrations are com p ared to defined air lead levels a ssocia t ed w ith spe c if ied percentages of children with BLL ≥ 10 μg/dL. Acceptable risk is based on m i nim i zing the

num b er of children at or above a BLL of 10 μg/dL.

II. Methods fo r Estima tio n of Health Risk Effects

Methods for estim ating site-specific noncancer and cancer potential health im pacts from exposure to lead em issions are given in the Lead RM Guidelines. The noncancer health effects pose greater public health significan ce than the cancer health effects. Min i m i zing noncancer
health effects of lead will therefor e also m i ni m i ze cancer h ealth effects.

Chronic non cancer h ealth risks are estim ated based on neurodevelopm ental health risks to children and would also be protective of adu lts. These health effects can be evaluated using a tiered approach based on blood lead le vel distribution in the population.

Potential m u ltip athway c a ncer risks a r e estim a ted f o llowing th e procedu r es in Chapter s 5 and 8 of this docum ent. These procedures re quire summ ing i ndividual cancer risk from each carcinogen to estim ate the to tal facility cancer risk.

F - 2

### In advance of perfor m i ng a health risk asse ssm ent (HRA), it is recomm ended that the Air
Pollution Control o r Air Quality M a n a gem e nt District (Distr ic t) and the stationa ry sou r ce of lead
air em ission s reach a co nsensus on the HRA approach for estim a ting chro nic noncancer and
cancer h ealth risks. See Chapter 9 for an outline of a m odeling protocol.

A. Tiered Approach for Estima ting N o ncancer Risks due to Lead Exposure

The Lead Risk Managem e nt Guidelines prov ide three tie rs o f analysis to determ ine
baseline BLL distributions for estim ating risk. Although there is a sim p le risk m a nagem e nt option provided in the L ead RM Guidelines, in a risk assessm ent for the A i r Toxics Hot Spots

program one of the following tiers must be used to report estim ates of the percent of children
estim ated to be above 10 μ g/dL blood lead. The tiered approach is based on an assessm e nt of neurodevelopm ental risk, with the B LL distribut ion in the population as the m o st significant
factor. The BLL distribution consists of two co mponents: 1) the baseline BLL distribution due to all sources of exposure; and 2) the expos ure due to em issions from a fa cility.

Tier I is a default approach that requi res m i nim a l site-specific inform ation on
concentrations of lead in environm ental m e dia other than air. Tier I uses two default BLL distributions, one for a high exposure scenario an d one for an average exposure scenario. The exposure scenario is determ ined using the m e dian age of the hom es in the census tract and the
ratio of area incom e to the poverty level. The de fault baseline BLL distribution for each of the exposure scenarios is based on a review of neighborhood and community blood lead studies.
The assesso r determ ines the 30-day average lead c oncentration due to the facility averaged over the 1 square kilom e ter area centered on the Ma ximum Offsite Concentration (MOC). The percentage of children with BLLs greater th an or equal to 10 m i cr ogram s per deciliter ( ≥ 10

μ g/dL) is determ ined using Table F-1 (also found on page 17 in the Lea d RM Guidelines ), the air lead concentration, and the determ ined exposure scenario. T h e 10 μ g/dL threshold level has
been iden tified by the Centers for Dis ease C ontro l and Prevention (CDC) as a level where potential health effects m a y occur. The public h ealth goal of m a nagem e nt practices should be to
im plem ent procedures/p ractices to p r event BLLs at or abov e this lev e l. Th e estim a ted percen tage
of children with BLLs ≥ 10 μ g/dL is then used w ith risk m a nagem e nt levels given in Chapter III,
Section D of the Lead R M Guidelin e s to as sist in m a king risk m a nage m e nt decisions.

F - 3

### Table F-1 Percentage of Children w i th Blood Lead Levels ≥ 10 μ g/dl for Variou s Air
Lead Conce n trations at Tw o Expos u re Scenarios

Percent ≥ 10 μ g/dL Air Lead Concentratio n in the Maximum Exposure Area (30-day average) [ μ g/m 3 

### ] High Exposure
Sce n a ri o Average Exposure
Sce n a ri o B a s e l i n e * 5

. 1 1

. 2

0

. 0 2 5

. 4 1

. 4

0

. 0 6 6

. 1 1

. 7

0

. 1 0 6

. 8 2

. 2

0

. 2 0 8

. 9 3

. 4

0

. 2 5 9

. 8 4

. 1

0

. 5 0 1 5

. 9 8

. 9

0

. 7 5 2 2

. 4 1 5

. 4

1

. 0 2 9

. 1 2 3

. 0

1

. 5 4 2

. 5 3 9

. 0

* Th e b a seli n e rep r esen ts BLLs du e t o lead in so il, du st, water

, foo d , an d b ackgr oun d air lead co n c en tr atio n s

.


### Tier II requires the developm ent of site-spe cific baseline BLL distributions within the
im pacted population using site-specific estim ates of lead levels in environm ental m e dia, including soil, dust, water, a nd/or food, using the U.S. EPA Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic ( I E UBK) model. The IEU B K m odel calculates the probability of an individ u al exceeding a specific BL L based on site-specific infor m ation. The aggreg ate of the in dividual
BLLs is used to estim a te the neurodevelopm ental risk in the m a xi m u m e xpos ure area. A detailed discussion of this tier is beyond the scope of this overview; see Appendix D in the Lead RM
Guidelines for a discussion of th e IEUBK model and its use.

Tier III involves actual blood lead sampling of the population im pacted by the facility to define the baseline BLLs. In Tier III, the faci lity is responsible for conducting BLL testing to establish a site-specific B LL distribution. The Lead RM Guidelines recom m e nd the neurodevelopm ental risk be calculated as the probability of ch ildren in an affected exposure area having a BLL ≥ 10 μ g/dL using the results of the blood lead sam p ling. It is highly unlikely that this option would be used due to the cost incurre d and the f act that the sam p led population m u st consent to the sam p ling and an appropriate sam p ling strategy must be de veloped to adequately
characterize the blood lead levels of the im pacted population.

For further infor m ation on the tiered approach usi ng the Tier I, Tier II, or Ti e r II I

, pl e a s e see Chapter II of the AR B Risk Management Guidelines fo r New, Modified, and Existing Sources of Lead (ARB, 2001). This docum ent can be dow nloaded from the ARB web site at
h t t p : / / w w w

. a r b

. c a

. g o v /

t o x i c s /

l e a d /

l e a d

. h t m or can be requested by calling (916) 323-4327.

F - 4

### B. Methods fo r Estima tin g Potentia l Cancer Risks due to L e ad

While lead has a unique noncancer asse ssm ent methodology, the determ ination of potential m u ltip athway c a ncer risk is the sam e as other c a rc in ogens. Chapters 5, 7, a nd 8, and Appendices I and L prov ide all the n eeded inform ation for calculating potential cancer risk. The
health risk assessm ent should report the m u ltip athway cancer risks from lead em issions.

Chapter III in the Lead RM Guidelines provides m e thods for determ ining risk

m a nage m e nt of lead exposure, using the results from the cancer risk calculation, and the local District’s defined significance levels.

III. References

ARB, 1997. Proposed Identifica tion Inorganic L ead as a Toxic Air Contam inant, Parts A, B, C. California Air Resources B o ard. April, 1997.

ARB, 2001. ARB Risk Managem e nt Guidel ines for New, M odified, and Existing
Sources of Lead. California Ai r Resources Board. March 2001

F - 5

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots P rogram Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk

Assessments. August 2003.



## APPENDIX G

PAH Potency Factors and Selection of

Potency Equivalency Factors (PEF) for PAHs

Based on Benzo[

A ]Pyrene Potency

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots P rogram Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk

Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix G

PAH Potency Factors and Selection of Potency Equivalency Factors (PEF)

for PAHs based on Benzo( a) py rene Potency

Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) was chosen as the primary representative of the class of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) because of (1) the large amount of toxicological data available on BaP (versus the relatively incomplete database for other PAHs), (2) the availability of monitoring techniques for BaP, and (3) the significant exposure expected (and found). The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has developed a Potency Equivalency Factor (PEF) procedure to assess the
rela tive potencies of PAHs and PAH derivatives as a group. This procedure can address the impact of carcinogenic PAHs in ambient air since they are usually present together. This procedure was approved by the Scientific Review Panel (SRP) on Toxic Air
Contam inants (TAC) as part of the Health Effects Assessment of Benzo(a)pyrene during the TAC identification process (OEHHA, 1993).

Due to the variety of data available on the carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of PAHs, an order of preference for the use of availa ble data in assessing relative potency was developed. If a health effects evaluation and quantitative risk assessment leading to a cancer potency value had been conducted on a specific PAH, then those values were given the highest preference. Cancer pote ncy values for PAHs developed by this process
are shown in Table G

- 1.

Table G

- 1: Potencies of PAHs and derivatives 1



### Chemicals Cancer potency factors (mg/kg

- day) - 1 

### Unit risks (μg/m 3 

### ) - 1



### benzo[ a ]pyrene 11.5 1.1 × 10 - 3 

### dibenz[ a , h ]anthracene 4.1 1.2 × 10 - 4


### 7,12

- dimethylbenzanthracene 250 7.1 × 10 - 2



### 3

- methylcholanthrene 22 6.3 × 10 - 3



### 5

- nitroacenaphthene 0.13 3.7 × 10 - 5

1. Source: (OEHHA 1993; Collins et al ., 1998). It is assumed that unit risks for inhalation have the same
relative activities as cancer potencies for oral intake.



### If potency values have not been developed for specific compounds, a carcinogenic activity relative to BaP, rather than a true potency, can be developed. These relative activity values are referred to as Potency Equivalency Fact ors or PEFs. For air contaminants, the relative potency to BaP based on data from inhalation studies would be optimal. Otherwise, intrapulmonary or intratracheal administration studies would be most relevant, since such studies are in the target organ of interest. Next in order of

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots P rogram Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk

Assessments. August 2003.

G

- 1 

### preference is information on activity by the oral route and skin painting. Intraperitoneal
and subcutaneous administration rank at the bottom of the in vivo tests considered useful for PEF development because of their lack of relevance to environmental exposures. Next, in decreasing order of preference, are genotoxicity data, which exist for a large number of compounds. In many cases genotoxicity information is restricted to mutagenicity data. Finally, there are data on stru cture

- activity relationships among PAH compounds. Structure

- activity considerations may help identify a PAH as carcinogenic, but at this time have not been established as predictors of carcinogenic potency.

Using this order of preference, PEFs were deriv ed for 21 PAHs and are presented in
Table G

- 2 (OEHHA, 1993: Collins et al ., 1998).

Table G

- 2. OEHHA PEF weighting scheme for PAHs and their resulting cancer potency values.

PAH or derivative PEF Unit Risk

( m g/m 3 

### ) - 1 

### Inhalation

Slope Factor

(mg/kg

- day) - 1 

### Oral Slope

Factor

(mg/kg

- day) - 1



### benzo[ a ]pyrene (index compound) 1.0 1.1E

- 3 3.9E+0 1.2E+1

benz[ a ]anthracene 0.1 1.1E

- 4 3.9E

- 1 1.2E+0 benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.1 1.1E

- 4 3.9E

- 1 1.2E+0 benzo[ j ]fluoranthene 0.1 1.1E

- 4 3.9E

- 1 1.2E+0 benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.1 1. 1E

- 4 3.9E

- 1 1.2E+0 dibenz[ a , j ]acridine 0.1 1.1E

- 4 3.9E

- 1 1.2E+0 dibenz[ a , h ]acridine 0.1 1.1E

- 4 3.9E

- 1 1.2E+0
7H

- dibenzo[c,

g ]carbazole 1.0 1.1E

- 3 3.9E+0 1.2E+1 dibenzo[ a , e ]pyrene 1.0 1.1E

- 3 3.9E+0 1.2E+1 dibenzo[ a , h ]pyrene 10 1.1E

- 2 3.9E+1 1.2E+2
dibe nzo[ a , i ]pyrene 10 1.1E

- 2 3.9E+1 1.2E+2 dibenzo[ a , l ]pyrene 10 1.1E

- 2 3.9E+1 1.2E+2 indeno[1,2,3

- cd ]pyrene 0.1 1.1E

- 4 3.9E

- 1 1.2E+0 5

- methylchrysene 1.0 1.1E

- 3 3.9E+0 1.2E+1
1

- nitropyrene 0.1 1.1E

- 4 3.9E

- 1 1.2E+0
4

- nitropyrene 0.1 1.1E

- 4 3.9E

- 1 1.2E+0 1,6

- dinitropyrene 10 1.1E

- 2 3.9E+1 1.2E+2 1,8

- dinitropyrene 1.0 1.1E

- 3 3.9E+0 1.2E+1
6

- nitrochrysene 10 1.1E

- 2 3.9E+1 1.2E+2
2

- nitrofluorene 0.01 1.1E

- 5 3.9E

- 2 1.2E

- 1 chrysene 0.01 1.1E

- 5 3.9E

- 2 1.2E

- 1
1. Source: OEHHA (1993)



### The cancer potency com

parisons show that some PAHs are more potent than BaP, while other PAHs analyzed were less or much less potent. These comparisons indicated that considering all PAHs to be equivalent in potency to BaP would likely overestimate the cancer potency of a PAH mixture, but such an assumption would be health protective and likely to be helpful in a screening estimate of PAH risks (OEHHA, 1993). If one

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots P rogram Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk

Assessments. August 2003.

G

- 2 

### assumes that PAHs are as carcinogenic as they are genotoxic, then their hazard relative to BaP would be dependen

t on their concentration in the environment. In light of the limited information available on other PAHs, BaP remains an important representative or surrogate for this group of air pollutants.

Detailed descriptions on the criteria used for developing ind ividual PEFs can be found in (OEHHA, 1999b) Currently, OEHHA is undertaking a review of all recent literature pertaining to the carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of PAHs. New cancer potency values for PAHs may be developed if an adequate health effects eva luation and quantitative risk assessment can be performed. Also, some current PEFs may be modified based on new data. Any changes to the potency values and PEFs for PAHs will be reflected in the HARP program when they occur. It is incumbent on the risk assessor to access the most recent version of the HARP program to ensure that the most up

- to

- date PAH potency values are used.

References

Collins, J.F., Brown, J.P., Alexeeff, G.V., and Salmon, A.G. 1998. Potency equivalency factors for some polycyclic a romatic hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon derivatives. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 28:45

- 54.

OEHHA, 1993. Benzo[ a ]pyrene as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Part B. Health Effects of Benzo[ a ]pyrene. Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section, Berkeley, CA.

OEHHA, 1999b. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part II. Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors

, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, April 1999.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.



## Appendix H

Recommendations for Estimating Concentrations
of Longer Averaging Periods from the

Maximum One

- Hour Concentration for Screening Purposes

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix H

- 1 

## Appendix H

Recommendations for Estimating Concentrations of Longer Averaging Periods fro m the Maximum One

- Hour Concentration for Screening Purposes

A. Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) SCREEN3 air dispersion model is frequently used to estimate the maximum one

- hour concentration downwind due to emissions
from a point source to assess impacts from a source. The SCREEN3 model results (or ISCST3 with screening meteorological data), in conjunction with the U.S. EPA screening factors, are frequently used to estimate concentrations for longer averaging periods, such as the maximum annual average concentration. In addition, it is permissible to use the ISCST3 air dispersion model in a screening mode with identical meteorological conditions as used in the SCREEN3 model to superimpose results from multiple sources.

Th is method to assess short

- term and long

- term impacts may be used as a first

- level screening indicator to determine if a more refined analysis is necessary. In the event that representative meteorological data are not available, the screening assessment ma y be the only computer modeling method available to assess source impacts.

In California, this standard procedure will generally bias concentrations towards over prediction in most cases when the source is a continuous release. However, in the case when a source is not continuous, these screening factors may not be biased towards over prediction. In this case, we recommend an alternative procedure for estimating screening value concentrations for longer averaging periods than one

- hour for intermittent re leases.

B. Current Procedures

The current screening factors used to estimate longer term averages (i.e., 3

- hour, 8

- hour,
24

- hour, 30

- day, and annual averages) from maximum one

- hour concentrations in California are shown in Table H.1 and Figure H.1. The factors are U.S. EPA recommended values with the exception of the 30

- day factor. The 30

- day factor is an ARB recommended value (ARB, 1994). The maximum and minimum values are recommended limits to which one may diverge from the general (Rec.) case, (U.S. EPA, 1992). Diverging from the general case should only be done on a case by case basis with prior approval from the reviewing agency.

C. Non

- Standard Averaging Periods with a Continuous Release

The following is the ARB recommendation for estimating sc reening concentrations for

non

- standard averaging periods that are not listed in Table H.1 or Figure H.1. Specifically, the recommendation is for estimating screening concentrations for 4

- hour, 6

- hour, and 7

- hour averaging periods.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix H

- 2 The current U.S. EPA screening factors applicable to standard averaging periods
should be used for non

- standard averaging periods. Specifically for the 4

- hour,

6

- hour, and 7

- hour averaging periods, we
recommend that the 3

- hour screening factor of (0.9 ± 0.1) be used. The
foll owing illustrates the method to
estimate a 6

- hour average concentration from a continuous release from a single point source:

1. determine the maximum 1

- hour concentration according to standard screening procedures (C max1

- hr 

### ),
2. scale the maximum 1

- hour

conce ntration by (0.9 ± 0.1), and
3. the result is the maximum 6

- hour
concentration (C max6

- hr 

### =C max1

- hr 

### *(0.9 ± 0.1)).

In the case for the 6

- hour and 7

- hour average concentration estimates, the user may wish to take the lower bound of ( 0.9 ± 0.1), or 0.8. For the 4

- hour average estimate, we recommend the user to use
the 3

- hour factor as is, 0.9.

Table H.1 Recommended Factors to Convert Maximum 1

- hour Avg. Concentrations to Other

Averaging Periods (U.S. EPA, 1992; ARB, 1994).
Averagi ng Time Range Typical Recommended

3 hours 0.8

- 1.0 0.9

8 hours 0.5

- 0.9 0.7

24 hours 0.2

- 0.6 0.4

30 days 0.2

- 0.3 0.3

Annual 0.06

- 0.1 0.08 

## Figure H.1 Screening Factors to Convert 1-hr Max. to Longer Avg. Periods

1 1

0.9

0.6

0.3

0.1 1

0.8

0.5

0.2 0.3

0.06 1

0.9

0.7

0.4

0.3

0.08

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0



### Averaging PeriodScreening Factor



### Max 1 1 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.1

Min 1 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.06

Rec 1 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.08 1-hr 3-hr 8-hr 24-hr 30-day Annual

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix H

- 3 Table H.2 summarizes these recommendations for the non

- standard averaging periods.

Table H.2 Recomme nded Factors to Convert Maximum 1

- hour Avg. Concentrations to

Non

- Standard Averaging Periods.

Averaging Time Range Typical Recommended

4 hours 0.8

- 1.0 0.9

6 hours 0.8

– 1.0 0.8

7 hours 0.8

– 1.0 0.8



### D. Definitions

It is convenient to define the f ollowing terms relating to sources with respect to the duration of
the release.

ß Continuous Release

–this is a release that is continuous over the duration of a year. An example of this type of release would be fugitive emissions from a 24

- hour per day, 7

- day per week operation or an operation that is nearly continuous.

ß Intermittent Release

–many emissions fall under this category. These are emission types that are not continuous over the year. Any operation that has normal business hours (e.g., 8 am to 6 pm) would fall into this category.

ß Systematic Release

–these are intermittent releases that occur at a specific time of the day. As an example, these type of releases can occur when a process requires clean out at the end of the work day. Thereby releasing emissions only at the end of the workday systematically. Systematic releases are similar to intermittent releases with a shorter duration during the normal operating schedule.

ß Random Release

–these are intermittent releases that can occur any time during the operating schedule. An example of this type of release would be of the type that depends on batch processing. For example, a brake shop may emit pollutants only when the brakes are cleaned which happens randomly throughout the normal busi ness hours.

E. Screening Factors

The U.S. EPA screening factors, as shown in Table H.1, compensate for the effects of varying conditions of wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature, atmospheric stability, and mixing height over longer averaging pe riods, even though it is not explicitly indicated in the U.S. EPA Guidance (U.S. EPA, 1992). Figure H.2 shows the variability in wind direction over a
24

- hour period. The data are averaged for two seven

- day periods from data collected at

Los Angeles Inte rnational Airport (LAX). Figure H.2 was compiled for data collected in 1989 for January 1 to January 7 and June1 through June 7, 1989. The ordinate in Figure H.2 shows the months of the year. Only two months are plotted. The abscissa shows the hour of the day.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix H

- 4 As seen in Figure H.2, the wind direction changes throughout all hours of the day. In addition, the wind direction for LAX, in the overnight and early morning hours, can vary from January to June. During the afternoon hours of 1400

–1600, t he wind direction is similar in both months of January and June.

The standard U.S. EPA screening factor to estimate the maximum 24

- hour concentration
from the maximum 1

- hour concentration is 0.4, as seen in Table H.1. Figure H.2 shows that for
15 of 24 h ours the wind blows from the west

- northwest during June. A 24

- hour screening factor could be 0.6 (0.6 ≈ 15hrs/24hrs) based on wind direction alone. This is consistent with the upper bound of the adjustment factors shown in Table H.1. Including the varia bility for wind speed, ambient temperature, and atmospheric stability could further reduce the estimated scaling factor
of 0.6 closer towards the U.S. EPA recommended value of 0.4.

F. Intermittent Release

Support for the U.S. EPA screening factor is de monstrated for a continuous release (i.e., 24 hours per day) in the description above. It is important to be cautious when applying the U.S. EPA screening factors to an intermittent source for the purposes of estimating an annual average concentration (e. g., a business that may only emit during normal operating hours of 8 am to 6 pm). 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Hour of Day 2 4 6 8 10 12Month 

## Figure H.2 Hourly Wind Direction - Los Angeles January (bottom – 1) and June (top - 6)

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix H

- 5 Intermittent emissions, such as those from burning barrels, testing a standby diesel generator, or any normal business hour operation (e.g., 8am to 6pm Monday through Frid ay), could have the effect of eliminating some of the annual variability of meteorological conditions. For example, emissions only during the daytime could eliminate the variability of a drainage flow pattern in mountainous terrain. Guidance for estimati ng long

- term averages for a screening approach and intermittent emissions is not available.

For a source located in the LAX meteorological domain, an emission pattern confined to the hours of 1400 to 1600 would eliminate any variability associated with t he wind direction. In this case, estimating a 24

- hour average with the U.S. EPA scaling factor of 0.4 would be
incorrect.

In the event the emissions are intermittent but randomly distributed throughout the day, the scaling factor of 0.4 may be appropria te because the natural diurnal variability of meteorological conditions are concurrent with emissions. An additional pro

- rating of the concentration, when estimating a 24

- hour concentration, would be required to discount due to the
intermittent nature of the emissions.

We recommend the following steps to estimate a screening based estimate of annual average concentrations from intermittent emissions.

1. Estimate the maximum one

- hour concentration ( c 1

- hr 

### ) based on the SCREEN3 model approach (or similar, e. g., ISCST3 with screening meteorological data) for possible meteorological conditions consistent with the operating conditions and the actual hourly emission rate. It is acceptable to estimate downwind concentrations using all meteorological
combinations available to SCREEN3. However, it is possible to be selective for the choices of meteorological conditions and still be conservative. For example, daytime only emissions need not be evaluated for nighttime stable atmospheric conditions (Pasquill

- Gifford classes A through D are unstable and neutral atmospheric conditions applicable during the day. Classes D through F are neutral and stable atmospheric conditions applicable during the night.)

2. Estimate the concentration for the longest averaging period app licable based on the length of time of the systematic or randomly distributed emissions and the factors in Table H.1. For example, the longest averaging period concentration that may be estimated with the
U.S. EPA scaling factors is an 8

- hour concentratio n ( c 8

- hr 

### ) for emissions that are systematically released for 12 hours. Scaling factors between 8

- hours and 12

- hours are not
available. In the case of the 8

- hour concentration, the U.S. EPA screening factor of 0.7 ± 0.2
to estimate the maximum 8

- hour conc entration is appropriate.

The U.S. EPA Screening Guidance allows for deviation from the suggested conversion factor

on a case

- by

- case basis. We recommend the lower end of the range for the conversion factor (i.e., 0.5 for the 8

- hour average) when estima ting an annual average concentration. This is because variability associated with seasonal differences in wind speed, wind direction, and atmospheric stability would not be addressed otherwise. As seen in Figure H.2, there are
seasonal differences in the wind direction.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix H

- 6 For example, if X is the length of time of systematic or randomly distributed emissions, the following scalars can apply.

ß X ≤ 2 hrs; Scalar = 1.0 to estimate a 1

- hour average

ß 3 hrs ≤ X ≤ 7 hrs; Scalar = 0.8 to estimate a 3

- hour average

ß 8 hrs ≤ X ≤ 20 hrs; Scalar = 0.5 to estimate an 8

- hour average (the selection of
20 hours is arbitrary)

ß 21 hrs ≤ X ≤ 24 hrs; this may be a continuous release, use standard screening procedures.

3. Estimate the annual average concentration ( c annual 

### ) by assumi ng the longer averaging period estimated above is persistent for the entire year. In the above example the 8

- hour concentration is assumed to be persistent for an entire year to estimate an annual average concentration (i.e., the annual average concentrat ion is assumed to be equal to the 8

- hour concentration).

In addition, the annual average concentration should be pro

- rated over the final averaging period based on the pro

- rated emissions (i.e., the calculation should include the fact that for
some hour s over the year, the emission rate is zero).

For example, if Y is the number of operating hours in the year (e.g., Y = X * 365), the following may apply. ( c annual 

### ) = (

c 1

- hr 

### ) (Scalar) (Y/8760hrs/yr)

4. The hourly emission rate should be calculated based on the assumed operating schedule in the steps above. An example for a facility operating Y hours per year follows. (q hourly 

### ) = (Q yearly 

### )/(Y hrs/yr)

5. The annual average concentration (or ground level concentration GLC) can be estimated as
follows. GLC = ( c a nnual 

### ) (q hourly 

### ) = ( c 1

-

hr 

### )(Scalar) (Yhrs/8760hrs) (Q yearly 

### )/(Y hrs/yr) = ( c 1

-

hr 

### )(Scalar) (Q yearly 

### )/(8760 hrs/yr)

Practically speaking, the above five steps condense down to determining three values. The first
value is the maximum 1

- hour concentrati on. The second value is the Scalar (either 1.0, 0.8, or 0.5). And the third value is the hourly emission rate estimated by uniformly distributed over the entire year (8760 hours). The operating hours per year drops out of the calculations for an
annual average concentration provided the emissions are based on an annual inventory (See step 5).

In the event that the acute averaging period is required and the emissions are based on an annual inventory, then the annual operating hours are required.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix H

- 7 Below are four examples using the steps as outlined above. In each case, the annual average concentration is the desired value for use in risk assessment calculations. A fifth example is also included to demonstrate the need for the operating hours per year f or an acute analysis when the inventory is provided on an annual basis.

Example 1

- Fugitive Gasoline Station Emissions
Emissions are continuous for 24 hours per day and 365 days per year.

1. Estimate the maximum 1

- hour concentration with the Screen3 model (or similar screening modeling approach), c 1

- hr



### .

2. Estimate the annual average concentration, c annual, 

### with the U.S. EPA screening factor
of 0.08. ( c annual 

### ) = (

c 1

- hr 

### )(0.08)

3. The hourly emission rate, q hourly 

### , for the annual average concentration is based on 24 hours per day and 365 days per year (8760 hours per year). (q hourly 

### ) = (Q yearly 

### )/(8760 hrs/yr)

4. The annual average concentration (or ground level concentration GLC) can be
estimated as follows. GLC = ( c annual 

### ) (q hourly 

### ) GLC = ( c 1

-

hr 

### )(0.08) (Q yearly 

### ) /(8760 hrs/yr)

Example 2

- Dry Cleaner Emissions
Emissions are intermittent over the year but systematic for 10 hours per day, 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year.

1. Estimate the maximum 1

- hour concentration with the Screen3 model (or similar screening m

odeling approach), c 1

- hr



### .

2. Estimate the maximum 8

- hour average concentration, c 8

- hr, 

### with the U.S. EPA screening factor of 0.7 ± 0.2 as the longest averaging period of continuous release. The averaging period would need to be less than 10 hours. Use the l ower range of the screening factor, 0.5, because the annual average is the final product and variability
due to seasonal differences are not accounted for otherwise. ( c 8

- hr 

### ) = ( c 1

- hr 

### )(0.5)

3. Assume the worst

- case 8

- hour concentration is persistent throug hout the year and

pro

- rate the concentration based on emissions over the year. For this dry cleaner,
there are 2500 hours of operating condition emissions. Therefore the annual average
is calculated as follows. ( c annual 

### ) = (

c 8

- hr 

### ) (2500hrs/8760hrs)

= ( c 1

- hr 

### )(0.5) (2500hrs/8760hrs)

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix H

- 8 4. The hourly emission rate, q hourly 

### , for the annual average concentration is based on 2500 hours per year. (q hourly 

### ) = (Q yearly 

### )/(2500 hrs/yr)

5. The annual average concentration (or ground level concentration GLC) can be

es timated as follows. GLC = ( c annual 

### ) (q hourly 

### ) = ( c 1

-

hr 

### )(0.5) (2500hrs/8760hrs) (Q yearly 

### )/(2500 hrs/yr) = ( c 1

-

hr 

### )(0.5) (Q yearly 

### )/(8760 hrs/yr)

Example 3

- Burning Barrel Emissions
Emissions are intermittent over the year and random during daylight hours for two hours per burn, two burns per week, and 52 weeks per year.

1. Estimate the maximum 1

- hour concentration with the Screen3 model (or similar screening modeling approach), c 1

- hr 

### . Meteorological combinations may be restricted to daytime condition s for this screening analysis. Pasquill

- Gifford stability classes A, B, C, and D are unstable and neutral conditions for daytime conditions.

2. Estimate the maximum 8

- hour average concentration, c 8

- hr, 

### with the U.S. EPA screening factor of 0.7 ± 0.2 as the l ongest averaging period where the emissions have the potential to be randomly distributed. Depending on the day of the year and latitude of the emissions, the daylight hours can vary. For this example, we assume the daylight hours can be as short as 10 h ours per day to as long as 14 hours per day. Since the emissions are randomly distributed throughout the daylight hours, the longest averaging period we can scale with U.S. EPA scaling factors is a 10 hour average. In this case, the averaging period beco mes the 8

- hour average and the scaling factor becomes 0.7 ± 0.2. Again since this is for an annual average, we use the lower end of the range, 0.5. ( c 8

- hr 

### ) = ( c 1

- hr 

### )(0.5)

3. Assume the worst

- case 8

- hour concentration is persistent throughout the year and

pr o

- rate the concentration based on the emissions over the year. For the burning
barrels there are 208 hours of operating condition emissions (208 hrs = (2hrs/burn)(2burns/wk)(52wk/yr)). Therefore the annual average concentration is
calculated as follows. ( c annual 

### ) = (

c 8

- hr 

### ) (208hrs/8760hrs) = ( c 1

- hr 

### )(0.5) (208hrs/8760hrs)

4. The hourly emission rate, q hourly 

### , for the annual average concentration is based on
208 hours per year. (q hourly 

### ) = (Q yearly 

### )/(208 hrs/yr)

5. The annual average concentration (or grou nd level concentration GLC) can be
estimated as follows.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix H

- 9

GLC = ( c annual 

### ) (q hourly 

### ) = ( c 1

-

hr 

### )(0.5) (208hrs/8760hrs) (Q yearly 

### )/(208 hrs/yr) = ( c 1

-

hr 

### )(0.5) (Q yearly 

### )/(8760 hrs/yr)

Example 4

- Standby Diesel Engine Testing
Emissions are intermittent ove r the year and systematic for two hours per week and
50 weeks per year. The engine testing is conducted at 2 pm on Fridays.

1. Estimate the maximum 1

- hour concentration with the Screen3 model (or similar screening modeling approach), c 1

- hr 

### . Meteorological combinations may be restricted to daytime conditions in this screening analysis because the engine test is conducted at 2 pm. Pasquill

- Gifford stability classes A, B, C, and D are unstable and neutral conditions for daytime conditions.

2. In this case, the emission schedule is systematically fixed over a two hour period. Therefore, the longest averaging period which is applicable for the U.S. EPA screening factors is one

- hour because a two

- hour conversion factor is not available. Therefore, we assume the m aximum 1

- hour concentration is persistent for the entire year. We still prorate the concentration based on the emissions. There are 100 hours of engine testing per year. Therefore the annual average concentration becomes. ( c annual 

### ) = (

c 1

- hr 

### ) (100hrs/876 0hrs)

3. The hourly emission rate, q hourly 

### , for the annual average concentration is based on
100 hours per year. (q hourly 

### ) = (Q yearly 

### )/(100 hrs/yr)

4. The annual average concentration (or ground level concentration GLC) can be
estimated as follows. GLC = ( c annual 

### ) (q hourly 

### ) = ( c 1

-

hr 

### ) (100hrs/8760hrs) (Q yearly 

### )/(100 hrs/yr) = ( c 1

-

hr 

### ) (Q yearly 

### )/(8760 hrs/yr)

Below is an example using the steps above to estimate an acute concentration longer than a
1

- hour averaging period. This case is similar to Exampl e 3 above with the exception of the averaging period.

Example 5

- Burning Barrel Emissions

–Acute REL
Emissions are intermittent over the year and random during daylight hours for two
continuous hours per burn, two burns per week, and 52 weeks per year . The arsenic
acute REL is for a 4

- hour averaging period. The steps below are used to estimate the acute concentration, 4

- hour REL, for arsenic.

1. Estimate the maximum 1

- hour concentration with the Screen3 model (or similar screening modeling approach), c 1

- hr 

### . Meteorological combinations may be restricted

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix H

- 10

to daytime conditions for this screening analysis. Pasquill

- Gifford stability classes A, B, C, and D are unstable and neutral conditions for daytime conditions.

2. The maximum 1

- hour concentration is use d as is without screening adjustment factors
listed in Tables H.1 or H.2. The emissions are continuous through a 2

- hour event
within a 4

- hour window. The adjustments in Table H.2 would only be used if the
emissions were continuous for a 4

- hour event or r andomly distributed through a
4

- hour event.

3. Assume the worst

- case 1

- hour concentration is persistent for the 4

- hour averaging period and pro

- rate the concentration based on the emissions over the 4

- hour window. For the burning barrels there are 2 hours of operating condition emissions (2hrs/burn).
Therefore the 4

- hour average concentration is calculated as follows. ( c 4

- hr 

### ) = ( c 1

- hr 

### ) (2hrs/4hrs)

4. The hourly emission rate, q hourly 

### , for the annual average concentration is based on
208 hours per year (208 hrs = (2hrs/burn)(2burns/wk)(52wk/yr)). (q hourly 

### ) = (Q yearly 

### )/(208 hrs/yr)

5. The 4

- hr average concentration (or ground level concentration GLC 4

- hr 

### ) can be
estimated as follows.

GLC 4

- hr 

### = (

c 4

- hr 

### ) (q hourly 

### ) = ( c 1

- hr 

### ) (2hrs/4hrs) (Q yearly 

### )/(208 hrs/yr)

This step of Example 5 differs from the previous Examples because the number of operating hours per year does not drop out of the calculation as seen above.

The above methods were used in a recent modeling evaluation for emissions from a burning barrel (examp le 3 above) (ARB, 2002). Table H.3, below, shows results from the modeling evaluation. Shown in Table H.3 are the maximum annual average concentration based on the screening approach outlined above as well as a refined approach with site specific

meteoro logical data from four locations, Alturas, Bishop, San Benito, and Escondido. As seen in Table H.3, the screening evaluation as described in the example overestimates the values calculated based on the refined analysis. This is the desired outcome of a s creening approach.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix H

- 11 

## G. Implementation

The approach outlined above has been implemented in the HARP program. Appendix J provides example output files from the Hot Spot Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP). The HARP software has been developed by a c ontractor through consultation with OEHHA, Air Resources Board (ARB), and District representatives. The HARP software is the recommended model for calculating and presenting HRA results for the Hot Spots Program. Information on obtaining the HARP softwar e can be found on the ARB’s web site at www.arb.ca.gov. Note, since the HARP software is a tool that uses the methods specified in this document, the software will be available after these guidelines have undergone public and peer review, been endorsed by the state’s Scientific Review Panel (SRP) on Toxic Air Contaminants, and adopted by OEHHA.

References ARB (1994). ARB memorandum dated 4/11/94 from A. Ranzieri to J. Brooks on the subject,
“One

- hour to Thirty

- day Average Screening Factor.”

ARB (2002). Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Airborne Toxic
Control Measure to Reduce Emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants from Outdoor Residential Waste Burning, January 2002. California Air Resources Board.

U.S. EPA (1992). Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised, October 1992, EPA

- 454/R

- 92

- 019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Table H.3 Maximum Annual Average Concentration ( c /q) Above Ambient Conditions

- Burning Barrel Emissions Met. City Alturas Bishop San Benito Escondido SCREENING



### D (m) ( m

g/m 3 )/(g/s) ( m

g/m 3 )/(g/s) ( m

g/m 3 )/(g/s) ( m

g/m 3 )/(g/s) (

m g/m 3 )/(g/s) 

### 20 44. 61. 85. 110. 590.
50 12. 16. 22. 30. 230.
100 4. 5. 7. 9. 85.

Notes: (a) Annua l χ /q is based on 208 hours of emissions at 1 g/s. (b ) χ /q is the concentration in μ g/m 3 based on an hourly emission rate of 1 g/s.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Ris k

Assessments. August 2003.



## Appendix I

Calculation Examples for

Estimating Potential Health Impacts

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Ris k

Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix I

- 1 

## Appendix I

Calculation Examples for Estimating Potential Health Impacts

This appendix provides three example calculations to illustrate the procedures to estimate pot ential health impacts from a facility. The examples provided are intended to assist the risk assessor in understanding the steps associated with conducting the final step of risk assessment, risk characterization. The three examples provided in this appe ndix evaluate the inhalation cancer risk, the noncancer acute hazard quotient (HQ) and hazard index (HI), and the multipathway (inhalation and oral) noncancer chronic HQ and HI for seven compounds. Specific requirements for health risk assessment (HRA) un der the Hot Spots Program are presented in Chapter 8. The HARP software will perform the calculations that are presented here and required in Chapters 8 and 9. See the ARB’s website at www.arb.ca.gov for more
inform ation on HARP.

A. Sample Calculation for Inhalation Cancer Health Risk Assessment

The following example illustrates the steps for calculating cancer risk at the maximum exposed individual resident (MEIR) using the high

- end point

- estimate for the inhalat ion exposure pathway. This example does not cover the steps for completing a noninhalation or multipathway HRA. Algorithms to estimate point

- estimate and stochastic multipathway exposure can be found in Chapter 5. For simplicity, it is recommended that the risk assessor use HARP to conduct a multipathway risk assessment or stochastic risk assessment.

Step one

- Determine the annual average concentration at the MEIR and inhalation cancer potency factor for each emitted compound.

The risk assessor

would obtain the annual average concentrations from the air dispersion modeling results. This step has been completed for this example. Table I.1 presents the annual average concentrations at our hypothetical facility. In addition, Table I.1 also prese nts inhalation cancer potency factors for each substance, which also can be found in Chapter 7 and Appendix L. Note that where no inhalation cancer potency has been developed for a substance, the tables in this example have been annotated with dashes, sin ce it will not be possible to conduct a quantitative risk assessment for these compounds. As previously stated, this example does not take into account multipathway effects for the compounds listed in Table I.1. It is
recommended that the risk assessor u se HARP for conducting such an analysis.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Ris k

Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix I

- 2

Table I.1 Annual Average Concentrations at the MEIR and

Inhalation Cancer Potency Factors

Substance Annual Average

Concentrations ( m g/m 3 

### ) Inhalation Cancer Potency

Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1



### Ammonia

-- -- Arsenic 0. 0015 12

Benzene 5 0.10
Chlorine

-- -- Chlorobenzene

-- -- 2,3,7,8

- TCDD (dioxin) 0.000004 130,000
Nickel 0.02 0.91

Step two

- Determine the inhalation dose for each compound

.

Once you have determined the annual average concentration for the emitt ed substance, the equation below is used to calculate the inhalation dose for each substance. This equation is listed in Section 5.4.1 of this document, and is also listed in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Risk
Assessment Guidelines ; Part IV; Exposure Assessmen t and Stochastic Analysis Technical Support Document (OEHHA, 2000b) (Part IV TSD).

Where:

dose

- inh = Dose through inhalation (mg/kg/d)

1x10 - 6 

### = Micrograms to milligrams conversion (10
- 3 

### mg/ μ g), liters to cubic

meters conversion (10
- 3 

### m 3 

### /l)

Cair = Concentration in air ( μ g/m 3 

### )
DBR = Daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight

- day or L/kg

- day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)

ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged, in days

(e.g., 25,550 days for 70 year cancer risk)

A summary of the exposure point

- estimates and data distributions for use in risk assessment can be found in Chapter 5 of this document. For more detail on point

- estimates and
data distributions see th

e Part IV TSD. The recommended default values presented in Table I.2
can be used when site

- specific information is not available. 

# ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 

# ( )

AT 10

1 ED EF A DBR Cair inh dose 6

− 

## ×

=

−

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Ris k

Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix I

- 3 Table I.2 Recommended Default Values

Variable Recommended Default Value

EF 350 days/year

ED 9; 30; or 70 years
AT 70 ye ars (25,550 days)

DBR (used in this example) 30 and 70 year

- exposure 271 (mean); 393 (95 th 

### percentile) L/kg

body weight

–day (For other DBRs see Table 5.4, Chapter 5)

A 1 (currently used for all substances

included in the Hot Spots program)

The follo wing equation shows the calculation for the inhalation dose of arsenic by using the annual average concentration for arsenic (Table I.1) and the recommended default values in Table I.2. Note that the high

- end (95 th 

### percentile) 70

- year daily breathing rate of
393 liters/kg

- day was used in this example.

This calculation would be repeated for each substance under evaluation using their respective annual average concentrations. For our hypothetical facility, we have calculated each
inhalation dose fo r each substance. Table I.3 shows the results from our analysis.

Table I.3 Calculated Doses for Substances

Compound Calculated Dose

Ammonia

-- Arsenic 5.7 x 10 - 7



### Benzene 1.9 x 10 - 3



### Chlorine

-- Chlorobenzene

-- 2,3,7,8

- TCDD (dioxin) 1.5 x 10 - 9



### N ickel 7.5 x 10 - 6 

# ( ) ( ) ( )

days liters m

g mg years year days day kg liters

m g

550

, 25 10 x 1

1 10 x 1 70 350 1 393 0015

. 0

inh dose arsenic 3 3 3

3 

###                                

−      

=

− − −



### m m



# ( ) day kg mg

− × =

− − 

### /

10 7

. 5 inh dose arsenic 7

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Ris k

Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix I

- 4 Step three

– Determine potential inhalation cancer risk for the MEIR.

Once you have calculated the inhalation dose, multiply the dose by the inhalation cancer potency factor as shown below. Use a factor of 1x10 6 

### to express cancer ris k in chances per
million.

For our hypothetical facility, the equation below shows the calculation for the inhalation cancer risk of arsenic. For this example, the inhalation cancer potency factor for arsenic is
12 (mg/kg

- d)
- 1 

### taken from Table I.1.

Use the substance

- specific inhalation dose and inhalation cancer potency factor to determine the cancer risk for each compound by repeating this step. Finally, sum the individual substance cancer risks to give you the total facility (inhalation) cancer risk. Table I.4 shows the individual substance and total facility potential (inhalation) cancer risk. In this example, our hypothetical facility poses a (inhalation) cancer risk of 399 chances per million at the MEIR. Note, although not presented here, a facility emitting arsenic or dioxins should also evaluate cancer risk from noninhalation exposure pathways.

Table I.4 Hypothetical Facility Inhalation Cancer Risk

Compound Cancer risk (per million)

Ammonia

-- Arsenic 6.8

Benzene 190
Chlorine

-- Chlorobenzene

-- 2,3,7,8

- TCDD (dioxin) 195
Nickel 6.8 Total Facility Inhalation
Cancer Risk 399

While this example illustrates the steps used to calculate cancer risk using the inhalation dose algorithm, steps one through three can also be used to ca lculate noninhalation cancer risk and ultimately multipathway (inhalation and noninhalation pathway) cancer risk. To determine noninhalation cancer risk, an assessor should use the appropriate exposure pathway algorithm presented in Chapter 5. For exampl e, equation 5.4.3.1.A (Chapter 5) would be used to determine 

# ( ) million

per chances 8

. 6 10 1 12 10 7

. 5 6

7



### = ×        

−        

− × − 

### mg day kg
day kg mg Cancer Risk (chances per million) 

# ( )

=        

−        

− 6 

### 10 x 1 Potency Cancer Dose Inhalation
mg day kg
day kg mg

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Ris k

Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix I

- 5 dose for the soil ingestion pathway. Once the assessor has determined the ingestion dose, the cancer risk for that pathway is calculated using the substance

- specific oral slope factor. Oral
slo pe factors can be found in Appendix L and Chapter 7. To calculate multipathway cancer risk, the cancer risks for all substances and exposure pathways are summed. See Chapter 8 for further
discussion.

B. Sample Calculation of Noncancer Acute Hazard Indi ces

Risk characterization for noncancer health impacts are expressed as a hazard quotient (for individual substances) or a hazard index (for multiple substances). In addition, all hazard quotients (HQ) and hazard indices (HI) must be determined by target organ system. The example below illustrates the approach for calculating a noncancer acute HQ and HI at the MEIR. As discussed in Chapter 8, the following example is provided to assist the risk assessor in understanding how to calculate an acute HQ and HI. Using HARP, both the acute HQ and HI will be automatically calculated at each receptor. No exposure duration adjustment should be made for noncancer assessments. Specific requirements for risk assessment under the Hot Spots Program can be found in C hapters 8 and 9.

Step one

- Determine the 1

- hour maximum concentrations at the MEIR and acute reference exposure levels (RELs) for each emitted substance.

The risk assessor would obtain the 1

- hour maximum (or 4, 6, or 7

- hour, if required)
concentratio ns from the air dispersion modeling results. This step has been completed for this example. Table I.5 presents the maximum 1, 4, 6, or 7

- hour concentrations, target organ systems, and acute RELs for seven substances. Note that where an acute REL has not been developed for a substance, the tables in this example have been annotated with dashes. In this

Table I.5 Concentrations, Acute RELs, and Target Organ System(s)

for Substances at the MEIR

Substance 1, 4, 6 or 7

- hour

Maximum
Concentration ( m g/m 3 

### ) Acute

REL ( m g/m 3 

### ) Target Organ System(s)

Ammonia 1900 3200 Respiratory system; Eye
Arsenic 0.03 0.19 Reproductive/developmental

Benzene 20 1300 Reproductive/developmental; Immune system; Hematologic system
Chlorine 40 210 Respiratory system; Eye
Chlo robenzene

-- -- -- 2,3,7,8

- TCDD (dioxin)

-- -- -- Nickel 1.8 6 Respiratory system; Immune system

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Ris k

Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix I

- 6 example, chlorobenzene and 2,3,7,8

- TCDD (dioxin) do not have acute REL values. The acute RELs and their corresponding target organ system(s) can be found in Table 6.1 (Chapter 6) and also in Appendix L.

Step two

- Determine the hazard quotient for each compound.

The hazard quotients for each compound are calculated by taking the acute maximum 1, 4, 6, or 7

- hour concentration and dividing by the substanc e

- specific acute REL. The following equation shows how to calculate the hazard quotient for ammonia.

Quotient Hazard Acute

= 

###         

      

−

REL Acute ion Concentrat hr

or Maximum 7

, 6

, 4

, 1

⇒

(ammonia) 

### Quotient Hazard Acute

= 

# ( )

( )

3 3



### / 3200 / 1900

m g m g

m m = 0.6

Step three

– Determine the HI for all emitted substances.

The acute HI is calculated by summing each hazard quotient for each substance by target organ system(s). For example, add the HQs for all substances that impact the respiratory syste m, then repeat this step for the next target organ system (e.g., reproductive/developmental system). This step is repeated until all target organs (for the substances emitted) are individually totaled.
See Table 6.1 for target organ system information. Note, never add together the HQs or HIs for different target organ systems (e.g., do not add the impacts for the respiratory system to the reproductive/developmental system). Table I.6 shows individual hazard quotients for each
substance and total hazard index. {Bob, adding benzene (6

- hr) and arsenic (4

- hr) below OK?]

Table I.6 Individual Hazard Quotients and Total Hazard Index

Substance Immune

System Reproductive/

Developmental Hematologic

System Respiratory

System Eye

Ammonia 0.6 0.6
Arsenic 0 .2

Benzene 0.02 0.02 0.02
Chlorine 0.2 0.2
Chlorobenzene 2,3,7,8

- TCDD (dioxin)
Nickel 0.3 0.3

Total Hazard
Index 0.32 0.22 0.02 1.1 0.8

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Ris k

Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix I

- 7 In this example, an HQ of one was not equaled or exceeded for any individual substance.
H owever, an HI (the sum of the hazard quotients for each target organ) of one was exceeded for the respiratory system. Exceeding a hazard index of one may indicate that there is the potential for adverse acute health impacts at this receptor location. The refore, there is increased concern that exposed individuals may experience respiratory system irritation, particularly among
sensitive individuals. The District and OEHHA should be consulted when a hazard index exceeds one (see Section 8.3).

C. Sample C alculation of Noncancer Chronic Hazard Indices

The example below illustrates the approach for calculating a noncancer chronic HQ and HI at the MEIR. An HQ expresses the noncancer health impacts for an individual substance and an HI expresses the potentia l impacts for multiple substances. As discussed in Chapter 8, the following example is provided to assist the risk assessor in understanding the calculation of a chronic HQ and HI. Using the HARP software, both the chronic HQ and HI will be automatically calculated at each receptor. No exposure duration adjustment (e.g., 9/70) should be made for noncancer assessments. Specific requirements for risk assessment under the Hot Spots Program can be found in Chapters 8 and 9.

Step one

- Determine the annual average concentrations at the MEIR and inhalation and oral chronic RELs for each emitted substance.

The risk assessor would obtain the substance

- specific annual average concentrations from the air dispersion modeling results. This step has been complet ed for this example. Table I.7 presents the annual average concentrations, target organ systems, and chronic RELs for seven substances. All of the substances have a chronic REL value associated with them. In addition, arsenic, dioxins, and nickel are mu ltipathway substances; therefore, oral and dermal exposure must be included as potential exposure pathways. The chronic RELs and their corresponding target organ system(s) can be found in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 (Chapter 6) and also in Appendix L.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Ris k

Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix I

- 8

Table I.7 Annual Average Concentrations, Chronic RELs,

and Target Organ Systems for Substances at the MEIR.

Substance Annual

Average
Conc. ( m g/m 3 

### ) Chronic REL (inhalation) ( m g/m 3 

### ) Target Organ

System(s) (inhalation) Chronic

Oral REL (mg/kg

- day) Target Organ

Syste m(s) (oral/dermal)

Ammonia 160 200 Respiratory System

- -

Arsenic 0.0015 0.03 Development; Cardiovascular System; Nervous System 0.0003 Cardiovascular system;

skin

Benzene 5 60 Hematopoietic System; Development; Nervous System - -

Chlorine 0.08 0.2 Res piratory System

- -

Chlorobenzene 20 1000 Alimentary System; Kidney; Reproductive System - -

2,3,7,8

- TCDD (dioxin) 0.000004 0.00004 Alimentary System (Liver); Reproductive System; Development; Endocrine System; Respiratory System; Hematopoietic System 0. 00000001 (10 pg/kg

- day) Alimentary System

(Liver); Reproductive System; Development; Endocrine System; Respiratory System; Hematopoietic System

Nickel 0.02 0.05 Respiratory System; Hematopoietic System 0.05 Alimentary System



### Step two

– Determine the i nhalation chronic hazard quotient for each substance.

For inhalation exposure, the individual hazard quotients for each substance are calculated by taking the annual average concentration and dividing by its corresponding chronic inhalation REL. Using th

e information contained in Table I.7, the equation below is used to calculate the inhalation hazard quotient for arsenic.

Quotient Hazard Chronic

= 

###         

       °

REL Chronic ion Concentrat avg Annual

.

⇒

) ( 

### Quotient Hazard Chronic

arsenic



### = 

# ( ) ( )

3 3



### / 03

. 0 / 0015

. 0

m g m g

m m

= 0.05

Step three

– Determine the noninhalation hazard quotient for each substance.

For the substances that are subject to deposition, noninhalation (i.e., oral and dermal) exposure pathways need to be considered in the chronic hazard quotient evaluation. The point

- estimates and algorithms for calculating the oral dose for all of the applicable exposure

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Ris k

Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix I

- 9 pathways and receptors (e.g., workers or residents) are explained in Chapter 5. Note, the HARP software uses the appro priate information and performs all the steps discussed in these examples.

As discussed in Sections 8.2.5 and 8.3, Tier

- 1 of the tiered approach to risk assessment states that the high

- end point

- estimates are used for the two dominant noninhalation exposu re pathways and the non

- dominant exposure pathways use the average point

- estimates to determine the dose and chronic health impacts at a residential receptor. To determine which exposure pathways are the two dominant ones, high

- end point

- estimates are use d for all applicable exposure pathways to see which two pathways provide the highest impacts for each substance. Once the two dominant noninhalation pathways are determined for each substance, the doses for the remaining noninhalation exposure pathway for that substance are recalculated using the average point

- estimates. The 70

- year exposure duration point

- estimates are used for residential receptors and the worker (single) point

- estimates are used for the maximum exposed worker (see Chapter 5). No expos ure duration adjustment (e.g., 9/70) should be made for noncancer

assessments.

This example shows how to combine the impacts from multiple exposure pathways to obtain an oral (noninhalation) hazard quotient for a single substance. For each substance, t he impacts for a specific exposure pathway are assessed by dividing the oral dose (derived from the annual average concentration) in milligrams per kilogram

- day (mg/kg

- day) by the oral chronic REL, expressed in units of (mg/kg

- day) (Table 6.3). The next e quation shows the HQ calculation for arsenic through the soil ingestion (SI) exposure pathway.

Note, prior to this point in this calculation, we are assuming several steps have taken place. These steps include: 1) the completion of air dispersion model ing to obtain the ground

- level annual

- average air concentration; 2) identification of the existing exposure pathways at the receptor location; 3) calculation of the concentration in the exposure media (e.g., for soil

- Equation 5.3.2.A); 4) determinatio n of the dominant noninhalation exposure pathway(s) for the substance; and 5) the calculation of the substance

- specific dose for that exposure pathway (e.g., Equation 5.4.3.1.A is used to calculate the dose from soil ingestion). See Chapter 5 for the alg orithms for calculating the oral dose for all of the applicable exposure pathways and receptors. For this example, the calculated dose for arsenic from soil ingestion is
assumed to be 0.000015 mg/kg

- day.

Quotient Hazard Oral Chronic

= 

###        

REL Oral Chronic dose SI
⇒

) ( 

### Quotient Hazard Oral Chronic

arsenic

SI 

### = 

# ( ) ( )

day kg mg day kg mg

− − / 0003

. 0 / 000015

. 0 

### = 0.05

For each substance, this step is repeated for each applicable noninhalation exposure pathway. As illustrated below, the (total) oral HQ for a substance is calculated by summin g the HQs for all applicable exposure pathways. In this example, the chronic oral HQ is assumed to equal 0.1.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Ris k

Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix I

- 10 * Noninhalation pathways: SI = soil ingestion FI = fisher

- caught fish DW = drinking water HV= homegrown vegetables
D = dermal absorption BM= breast milk (not applicable for arsenic exposure) MI = meat, milk & egg



### Step four

– Determine the chronic HI

The chronic HI is calculated by summing each hazard quotient (inhalation and noninhalation) for each substance by th e target organ system(s). For example, add the HQs for all substances that impact the respiratory system, then repeat this step for the next target organ

Table I.8 Substance

- Specific Inhalation and Noninhalation Hazard

Quotients and the Hazard Index b y Target Organ SystemSubstanceRespiratorySystemHematopoieticSystemAlimentarySystemEndocrineSystemDevelopmentReproductiveSystemKidneyNervous SystemCardiovascularSystemSkin

Ammonia 

### 0.8

Arsenic 

### 0.05(i) 0.05(i) 0.05(i) 0. 1(ni) 0.1(ni)

Benzene 

### 0.08 0.08 0.08

Chlorine 

### 0.04

Chlorobenzene 

### 0.02 0.02 0.02

2,3,7,8

- TCDD (dioxin) 

### 0.1(i)

0.2(ni) 0.1(i) 0.2(ni) 0.1(i) 0.2(ni) 0.1(i) 0.2(ni) 0.1(i) 0.2(ni) 0.1(i) 0.2(ni)

Nickel 

### 0.4(i) 0.4(i) 0.1(ni)

Hazard Index 

### 1.54 0.78 0.32 0.3 0.43 0.32 0.02 0.13 0.15 0.1

i = inhalation pathway contribution ni = noninhalation pathway contribution 

### Chronic Oral
Hazard Quotient* (arsenic) 

### = [HQ (SI) 

### + HQ (D) 

### + HQ (DW) 

### + HQ (MI) 

### + HQ (FI) 

### + HQ (HV) 

### ]

Chronic Oral

Haz ard Quotient* (arsenic) 

### = 0.1

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Ris k

Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix I

- 11 system (e.g., cardiovascular system). This step is repeated until all target organs (for the
substances emitted ) are individually totaled. See Tables 6.2 and 6.3 for target organ system information. Note, never add together the HQs or HIs for different target organ systems (e.g., do not add the impacts for the respiratory system to the cardiovascular system). No exposure duration adjustment (e.g., 9/70) should be made for noncancer assessments. Table I.8 shows individual hazard quotients (inhalation and noninhalation) for each substance and the hazard index by target organ system. In this table, arsenic is high lighted in bold to identify how the information calculated above is presented and used.

In this example, an HQ of one was not equaled or exceeded for any individual substance. However, an HI (the sum of the hazard quotients for each target organ) of one was exceeded for the respiratory system. Exceeding a hazard index of one may indicate that there is the potential for adverse chronic health impacts at this receptor location. Therefore, there is increased concern that exposed individuals may experience respiratory system irritation or injury, particularly among sensitive individuals. The District and OEHHA should be consulted when a hazard index exceeds one (see Section 8.3).

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

J

- 1 

## Appendix J

Glossary Of Acronyms and Definition of Selected Terms

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

J

- 2



## Glossary of Acronyms and Definitions of Selected Terms

Acute Exposure : One or a series of short

- term exposures generally lasting less than 24 hours.

Acute Health Effects : A heal th effect that occurs over a relatively short period of time (e.g., minutes or hours). The term is used to describe brief exposures and effects which appear promptly after

exposure.

Adverse Health Effect : A health effect from exposure to air contaminants that may range from relatively mild temporary conditions, such as eye or throat irritation, shortness of breath, or headaches, to permanent and serious conditions, such as birth defects, cancer or damage to lungs, nerves, liver, heart, or other organs.

AE RMOD : a proposed (by U.S. EPA) steady

- state, plume

- based air dispersion model for estimating

near

- field impacts from a variety of industrial source types (designed to provide reasonable concentration estimates over a wide range of conditions with minimal discontinuities, to be easily implemented with reasonable input requirements and computer resource needs, to be based on up

- to

date science that captures the essential physical processes while remaining simple, and to be easily

revised as the science evolv es). To the extent practicable, the structure of the input or the control file

for AERMOD is the same as that for ISCST3.

Air Dispersion Modeling : Algorithms, usually performed with a computer, that relate a mass emission rate, source configuration, and meteorological information to calculate ambient air

concentrations.

Air District : The Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Management Districts are the political bodies responsible for managing air quality on a regional or county basis. California is cu rrently divided into 35

air districts.

Air monitoring: The periodic or continuous sampling and analysis of air pollutants in ambient air or from individual pollutant sources.

Air Toxics Hot Spots Act Emission Inventory Reports : Documents that contain inf ormation regarding emission sources, emitted substances, emission rates and release parameters, prepared under the Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines (also referred to as “Inventory Reports”).

Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) : (Health and Safety Code, Section 44300

- 44394)

- A state law which established the “Hot Spots” Program to develop a statewide inventory of site

- specific air toxic emissions, to assess the risk to public health from exposure

to these emissio ns, to notify the public of any significant health risks and to reduce emissions below the significant risk levels.

Algorithm : a set of rules for solving a problem in a finite number of steps

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

J

- 3 California Air Resources Board (ARB) : The State’s lead air qua lity management agency consisting

of an eleven

- member board appointed by the Governor. The ARB is responsible for attainment and maintenance of the state and federal air quality standards, and is fully responsible for motor vehicle pollution control. It oversees county and regional air pollution management programs.

Asthma : A chronic inflammatory disorder of the lungs characterized by wheezing, breathlessness, chest tightness, and cough.

Atmospheric half

- life: The time required for the concentration of a pollutant or reactant to fall to one

half of its initial value.

Benchmark Dose : That dose derived from linear regression of one or more dose

- response curves associated with a specific response rate (such as 1, 5, or 10%) in the test population. This is the starting dose to which uncertainty factors are applied to determine a reference exposure level (REL) using the benchmark dose approach.

Urban Block Groups (BGs) : A geographical unit smaller than a census tract used for reporting

census data. BGs con

tain roughly 1,100 persons.

Bioaccumulation: the concentration of a substance in a body or part of a body or other living tissue in a concentration higher than that of the surrounding environment

Bioconcentrate : The process of increasing contaminant conc entration in biota up the food chain as contaminants are ingested and concentrated in tissues of organisms higher up in the chain.

Cancer burden

: The estimated number of theoretical cancer cases in a defined population resulting from lifetime exposure to pollutants emitted from a facility.

Cancer potency factor (CPF) : The theoretical upper bound probability of extra cancer cases occurring in an exposed population assuming a lifetime exposure to the chemical when the chemical dose is expressed in exposure units of milligrams/kilogram

- day (mg/kg

- d).

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) : A non

- profit association of the air pollution control officers from all 35 air quality districts throughout California. CAPCOA was
formed in 1975 to promote clean air and to provide a forum for sharing knowledge, experience, and information among the air quality regulatory agencies around the state.

Cal/EPA: In July 1991, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) was created to

coord inate the State's environmental quality programs and assure that there is a cabinet level voice for environmental protection.

Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number (CAS) : The Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS) is a numeric designati on assigned by the American Chemical Society's Chemical Abstracts Service and uniquely identifies a specific chemical compound. This entry allows one to conclusively identify a material regardless of the name or naming system used.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

J

- 4 CCR : California Code of Regulations

CERCLA : Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund), a federal regulation providing direction and financial support for the clean

- up of major hazardous waste

sites

Centroid Locations : The location at w hich calculated ambient concentration is assumed to represent the entire subarea, typically the geometric centroid of an area, but possibly the population

- weighted

centroid of the area.

Census Tract : A physical area used by the U.S. Census Bureau to compi le population and other

statistical data.

Chronic Exposure : Long

- term exposure, usually lasting one year to a lifetime.

Chronic Health Effect : An adverse non

- cancer health effect that develops and persists (e.g., months or years) over time after long

- ter m exposure to a substance

Criteria Air Pollutant : a pollutant or precursor to a pollutant for which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the Air Resources Board has established an Ambient Air Quality Standard (AAQS). Examples include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and PM 10 

### and PM 2.5



### .

Default : A value used when specific information that applies to a specific situation is not available.

Developmental toxicity : Adverse effects on the developing organism that may resu lt from exposure prior to conception (either parent), during prenatal development, or postnatally to the time of sexual maturation. Adverse developmental effects may be detected at any point in the life span of the organism. Major manifestations of devel opmental toxicity include: death of the developing organism; induction of structural birth defects; altered growth; and functional deficiency.

Dilution factor ( c /Q) : a site

- specific quantity defined as a ratio of the ground level concentration in

μ g/m 3 

### to the mass emission rate in g/s and represented by c /Q.

Dose : A calculated amount of a substance estimated to be received by the subject, whether human or animal, as a result of exposure. Doses are generally expressed in terms of amount of chemical per u nit body weight; typical units are mg/kg

- day.

Dose

- response assessment : The process of characterizing the relationship between the exposure to an agent and the incidence of an adverse health effect in exposed populations.

DTSC : California Department of Toxic Substances Control

ED : Rural Enumeration District. A geographical unit smaller than a census tract used to report census data. EDs contain roughly 1,100 persons.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

J

- 5 Emission Inventory Criteria and Guideline s: Regulation and Report adopted by the Cal ifornia Air Resources Board specifying criteria and procedures for the preparation of Air Toxics Hot Spots Act Emission Inventory Reports (Title 17, California Code or Regulations, Sections 93300

- 93300.5)

Endpoint : An observable or measurable biological o r biochemical event including cancer used as an index of the effect of a chemical on a cell, tissue, organ, organism, etc.

Epidemiology : The study of the occurrence and distribution of a disease or physiological condition in human populations and of the f actors that influence this distribution.

Exposure : Contact of an organism with a chemical, physical, or biological agent. Exposure is quantified as the amount of the agent available at the exchange boundaries of the organism (e.g., skin, lungs, digestive tract) and available for absorption.

Exposure Pathway : A route of exposure by which xenobiotics enter the human body, (e.g., inhalation, ingestion, dermal absorption).

Fugitive Dust : Dust particles that are introduced into the air through certain activi ties such as soil cultivation, or vehicles operating on open fields or dirt roadways. A subset of fugitive emissions.

Fugitive Emissions : Emissions not caught by a capture system which are often due to equipment leaks, evaporative processes, and windblow n disturbances.

Gaussian Model : An air dispersion model based on the assumption that the time

- averaged concentration of a species emitted from a point source has a Gaussian distribution about the mean

centerline.

Genotoxic : having an adverse effect on th e genetic material (DNA) resulting in a mutation or in chromosome damage

GLC : Estimated ground level concentration, usually for a specified averaging time (e.g., annual average, 1 hour, etc.)

Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP): A single inte grated software package designed to promote statewide consistency, efficiency, and cost

- effective implementation of health risk assessments and the Hot Spots Program. The HARP software package consists of three modules that include: 1) the Emissions Inven tory Database Module, 2) the Air Dispersion Modeling Module, and 3) the Risk Analysis and Mapping Module.

Health Risk Assessment (HRA): the name of a computer program developed by the ARB, the OEHHA, and the University of California which was designed to aid in the computation of risk in the Hot Spots program

HSC : Health and Safety Code of the State of California

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

J

- 6 Haber’s Law

: The product of the concentration (C) and time of exposure (t) required to produce a specific physiologic effect is equal to a cons tant level or severity of response (K), or C * t = K

Hazard identification : The process of determining whether exposure to an agent can cause an increase in the incidence of an adverse health effect including cancer

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 t o 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 t o, and can include breathing, the ingestion of soil, water, crops, fish, meat, milk, and eggs, and dermal exposure.

Health Risk Guidance Value (HRGV) : A numerical value with which to compare an exposure level in order to determine the probability of occur rence of an adverse health effect. In the Hot Spots program the toxicity criteria or toxicity values are known as Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) for noncancer effects and as inhalation unit risk factors and cancer potency values for cancer effects.

Haz ard Index (HI) : The sum of individual acute or chronic hazard quotients (HQs) for each substance affecting a particular toxicological endpoint.

Hazard Quotient (HQ) : The estimated ground level concentration divided by the reference exposure

level for a s ingle substance and a particular endpoint. For an acute HQ the one hour maximum concentration is divided by the acute Reference Exposure Level for the substance. For a chronic HQ, the annual concentration is divided by the chronic Reference Exposure leve l.

Hot Spot : A location where emissions from specific sources may expose individuals and population groups to elevated risks of adverse health effects, including but not limited to cancer, and contribute to

the cumulative health risks of emissions from ot her sources in the area.

Individual Excess Cancer Risk : The theoretical probability of an individual person developing cancer as a result of lifetime exposure to carcinogenic substances. The Individual Excess Cancer Risk is calculated by summing the pote ntial cancer risks due to both inhalation and noninhalation routes of

exposure.

Inhalation (Breathing) Rate : The amount of air inhaled in a specified time period (e.g., per minute, per hour, per day, etc.); also called breathing rate and ventilation rate. This is an example of a variate.

Inhalation unit risk factor : The theoretical upper bound probability of extra cancer cases occurring in the exposed population assuming a lifetime exposure to the chemical when the air concentration is expressed in expos ure units of per microgram/cubic meter (μg/m 3 

### )

- 1



### .

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

J

- 7 Initiator carcinogen

: A substance which causes the first stage of carcinogenesis, the conversion of a normal cell to a neoplastic cell. Initiation is considered to be a rapid, irreversible change often involving a change in the DNA caused by the initiator.

Interspecies : Between different species.

Intraspecies : Within the same species.

Industrial Source Complex Dispersion model (ISC3) : Air modeling software that incorporates three previous programs in to a single program. These are the short

- term model (ISCST), the long term model (ISCLT), and the complex terrain model (COMPLEX).

Isopleth : A line on a map connecting points of equal value (e.g., risk, concentration, etc.).

Lowest

- observed adverse effec

t level (LOAEL) : The lowest dose or exposure level of a chemical in a study at which there is a statistically or biologically significant increase in the frequency or severity of an adverse effect in the exposed population as compared with an appropriate, unexposed control

group.

Margin of safety : The ratio of the no

- observed

- adverse

- effect level (NOAEL) to the estimated human exposure.

Mean : The arithmetic average

.

MEI : Maximum exposed individual (theoretical)

MEIR : Maximum exposed individual resident (actual)

MEIW : Maximum exposed individual worker (actual)

Meteorology : The science that deals with the phenomena of the atmosphere especially weather and weather conditions. In the area of air dispersion modeling, meteorology is used to refer to

climat ological data needed to run an air dispersion model including: wind speed, wind direction, stability class and ambient temperature.

Milligram: One one

- thousandth (10

- 3 

### ) of a gram.

Molecular formula: The formula which identifies the atoms and the number of each kind in the molecules of a compound. Elements in the molecular formula are listed according to the Hill convention (C, H, then other elements in alphabetical order).

Molecular weight: The sum of the atomic weights of the atoms in a molecule. For example, methane (CH 4 

### ) is 16.043, the atomic weights being carbon = 12.011, hydrogen = 1.008.

Monte Carlo simulation : A pplication of random sampling to obtain an approximate value of an expression.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

J

- 8 Multipathway substance : A substance or chemical that once airborne from an emission source can, under environmental conditions, be taken into a human receptor by inhalation and by other exposure routes such as after deposition on skin or after ingestion of soil contaminated by the emission

No Observed Adver

se Effect Level (NOAEL) : The highest experimental dose at which there is no statistically or biologically significant increase in frequency or severity of adverse health effects in the exposed population compared with an appropriate, unexposed population. Effects may be produced at this level, but they are not considered to be adverse. Substances are generally considered to not have a NOAEL for the cancer endpoint.

Noncarcinogenic Effects : Noncancer health effects which may include birth defects, organ damage, morbidity, and death.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) : An office within the California Environmental Protection Agency that is responsible for evaluating chemicals for adverse health impacts and establishing safe exposure levels. OEHHA also assists in performing health risk assessments and developing risk assessment procedures for air quality management purposes.

PM 10 

### , PM 2.5 

### : PM 10 

### is particulate matter less than 10 μ m in diameter; PM 2.5 

### is particulate matter less

than 2.5 μ m in diameter.

PMI : Off

- site point of maximum impact. A location, with or without people currently present, at which the total cancer risk, or the total noncancer risk, has the highest numerical value.

Point Estimate : A single value estimate for a giv en variate

Potency : Essentially the relative effectiveness, or risk, of a standard amount of a substance to cause a toxic response.

Potency Slope : Used to calculate the probability or risk of cancer associated with an estimated exposure, based on the ass umption in cancer risk assessments that risk is directly proportional to dose and that there is no threshold for carcinogenesis. It is the slope of the dose

- response curve estimated at low exposures.

Proposition 65: Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforce ment Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65. This Act is codified in California Health and Safety Code Section 25249.5, et seq. No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly discharge or release a chemical

known to the state to cause canc er or reproductive toxicity into water or into land where such chemical passes or probably will pass into any source of drinking water, without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1 976 : A federal law regulating disposal of

hazardous waste

Receptor : A location with or without people present at which the ground level concentration of an

emitted chemical can be estimated

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

J

- 9 Refined Models : Air dispersion models designed to provide more representative concentration estimates than screening models taking into account actual meteorological conditions.

Reference Concentration (RfC): An estimate, derived by the U.S. EPA (with an uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human 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.

Reference Dose (RfD): An estimate delivered by the U.S. EPA (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of the daily exposure to the human population (including sensitive

su bpopulations) that is likely to be without deleterious effects during a lifetime. The RfD is reported in units of mg of substance/kg body weight/day for oral exposures.

Reference exposure level (REL) : expressed in units of μ g/m 3 

### for inhalation exposures and of mg/kg

- d for noninhalation exposures. The REL is an exposure level at or below which no noncancer adverse health effect is anticipated to occur in a human population exposed for a specific duration. An REL is virtually the same as the terms Refere nce Concentration (RfC) for inhalation or Reference Dose (RFD) used by U.S. EPA, only it may be for varying amounts of time rather than lifetime only. It has been given a different name so that the values estimated by the State Office of Environmental Hea lth Hazard Assessment can easily be distinguished from those developed by the U.S. EPA. RELs are used to evaluate toxicity endpoints other than cancer.

Reproductive toxicity : Harmful effects on fertility, gestation, or offspring, caused by exposure of

ei ther parent to a substance.

Risk : The (characterization of the) probability of potentially adverse effects to human health, in this instance from the exposure to environmental hazards.

Risk Assessment : The characterization (in the present context) of the probability of potentially adverse health effects to people from exposure to environmental chemical hazards.

Risk Management : An evaluation of the need for and feasibility of reducing risk. It includes consideration of magnitude of risk, available contr ol technologies, and economic feasibility.

Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) : A program administered by the Office of Emergency Services (OES) and local agencies to reduce the frequency and severity of accidental

releases of toxic materials

Sc ientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants or SRP : A nine

- member panel appointed to advise the Air Resources Board and the Department of Pesticide Regulation in their evaluation of the adverse health effects toxicity of substances being evaluated as Toxic Air Contaminants.

Screening Models : Dispersion models used to provide a maximum concentration that is likely to overestimate public exposure.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

J

- 10 Sensitive Receptor : A location such as a hospital or daycare center where the human occupants are

consider ed to be more sensitive to pollutants than “average”.

Severity Level : The (acute) discomfort or mild effect level; the concentration of an airborne substance at or below which exposure for one hour may result in some odors, tastes, visual cues, and sensat ions but which will cause no adverse health effects in essentially all of the population. Exposure to concentrations above this level, depending on the chemical, may result in minor health effects, such as mild eye and respiratory irritation, skin irritat ion, minor histologic effects, and headaches.

Severity Level II : The (acute) disability or serious effect level. Exposure for one hour to an airborne substance above this level may lead individuals to seek assistance. Exposures above this level, dependi ng on the chemical, may result in serious health effects such as severe eye irritation, severe respiratory irritation, bronchospasm, shortness of breath, disorientation, blurred vision, vomiting, cardiac arrhythmia and adverse outcomes of an existing or su bsequent pregnancy.

Stationary source : A non

- mobile source of air pollutants which can be either a point or area source.

Stochastic : A process that involves random variation

Synergism

: A pharmacologic or toxicologic interaction in which the combined eff ect of two or more chemicals is greater than the sum of the effects of each chemical alone.

Subcensus Tract : Smaller population unit within a census tract.

Surrogate : As used in this document refers to a single substance category used to represent a fam ily of related chemical compounds, e.g., gasoline vapors or POM (polycyclic organic matter) in place of benzo(a)pyrene.

Threshold, Nonthreshold : A threshold dose is the minimally effective dose of any chemical that is observed to produce a response (e.g., enzyme change, liver toxicity, death). For most toxic effects, except carcinogenesis, there appear to be threshold doses. Nonthreshold substances are those substances, including nearly all carcinogens, that are known or assumed to have some risk of resp onse at any dose above zero.

Toxic air contaminant (TAC): As defined by California Health and Safety Code, Section 39655 (a): an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which
may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Substances, which have been identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous air pollutants (e.g. benzene, asbestos), shall be identified by the Board as toxic air contaminants.

Toxicology : Th

e multidisciplinary study of toxicants, their harmful effects on biological systems, and the conditions under which these harmful effects occur. The mechanisms of action, detection, and treatment of the conditions produced by toxicants are studied.

Uncert ainty : True uncertainty is that which is not known about a factor that influences its value.

### The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

August 2003.

J

- 11 URF : See inhalation unit risk factor

UTM Coordinates : Universal Transfer Mercator Coordinates. Coordinates used to define a specific location by means of two v alues (i.e., easting and northing coordinates).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA): The Federal agency charged with setting policy and guidelines, carrying out legal mandates, for the protection, and national interests in

environmen

tal resources.

Vapor : The gaseous phase of liquids or solids at atmospheric temperature and pressure.

Vapor Pressure : The pressure exerted by a chemical vapor in equilibrium with its liquid or solid phase at any given temperature, used to calculate the r ate of evaporation of a substance.

Variability : Ability to have different numerical values of a parameter, such as height or weight

Variate : A variable quantity associated with a probability distribution (e.g. inhalation rate)

Volatile : Chemicals that rapidly pass off from the liquid state in the form of vapors.

Xenobiotic : A

toxic agent; a relatively small (MW<1000), non

- nutritive chemical that is foreign to the species being studied

Zone of impact : The area in the vicinity of the facility in which a n individual is exposed to a specified cancer risk, usually one in a million or greater.

### Technical Support Docum e nt for Exposure Assessm ent and Stochastic Analysis August 2000



## Appendix K

HRA Forms and Maps Used With Air Dispersion Modeling

- Example of Census Tract Map

- Example of 7.5 minute Series Map

- Examples of Tables for Emissions Reporting

K-1

### Technical Support Docum e nt for Exposure Assessm ent and Stochastic Analysis August 2000

K-2

### Technical Support Docum e nt for Exposure Assessm ent and Stochastic Analysis August 2000 Technical Support Docum e nt for Exposure Assessm ent and Stochastic Analysis August 2000

K-3

### Technical Support Docum e nt for Exposure Assessm ent and Stochastic Analysis August 2000

K-4Technical Support Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic AnalysisAugust 2000HEALTHRISKASSESSMENTEMISSION RATE BY SUBSTANCE AND SOURCE RAG-001FACILITY NAME / FACILITY ADDRESS / SITE ID#:SOURCEID No.SOURCE NAMESUBSTANCE NAMECAS No.1-HOURMAXIMUM(lb/hr)1-HOURMAXIMUM(g/s)ANNUALAVERAGE(lb/yr)ANNUALAVERAGE(g/s)K-5Technical Support Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic AnalysisAugust 2000HEALTHRISKASSESSMENTEMISSION RATE BY SUBSTANCE – TOTALS – RAG-002FACILITY NAME / FACILITYADDRESS / SITE ID#SUBSTANCE NAMECAS No.1-HOURMAXIMUM(lb/hr)1-HOURMAXIMUM(g/s)ANNUALAVERAGE(lb/yr)ANNUALAVERAGE(g/s)K-6Technical Support Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic AnalysisAugust 2000HEALTHRISKASSESSMENTSOURCE PARAMETERS – STACKS – RAG-003FACILITY NAME / FACILITY ADDRESS / SITE ID#SOURCEID No.STACK NAMEUTMEastingUTMNorthingHEIGHT(m)DIAMETER(m)TEMP.(F) (K)FLOW RATE(ACFM)EXIT VEL.(m/s)K-7

### Technical Support Docum e nt for Exposure Assessm ent and Stochastic Analysis August 2000



# H EALTH 

# R ISK 

# A SSESSMENT

SOURCE OPERATING HOURS – RAG-004

FACILITY NAME / FACILITY ADDRESS / SITE ID#

S O U R C E S T A C K AVERAGE OPERATING HOURS MAXIMUM OPERATING HOURS

I D N o

. N A M E (hr/day ) ( d a y s/y e a r ) ( h r / d a y ) ( d a y s/y e a r )



### K-8

## Appendix L

OEHHA/ARB Approved Health Values

for Use in Hot Spot Facility Risk Assessments

### The Air Toxics Hot Spot s Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk

Assessments. August 2003.

Appendix L

- 2 

## Purpose of the Appendix L Tables :

The purpose of the following reference tables is to provide a quick list of all health values that have been app roved by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the Air Resources Board (ARB) for use in facility health risk assessments conducted for the
AB 2588 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. The OEHHA has developed and adopted new risk

assess ment guidelines that update and replace the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Revised 1992 Risk Assessment Guidelines, October 1993

.
The following tables list the OEHHA adopted inhalation and oral cancer slope factors, noncancer acute Reference Exposure Levels (RELs), and inhalation and oral noncancer chronic RELs. In addition, these tables list the substances in Appendix A

- I (Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified ) and Appendix F ( Criteria For Inputs For Risk Assessment Using Screening Air Dispersion Modeling ) of the ARB’s Hot Spots Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines (EICG) . OEHHA is still in the process of adopting new noncancer chronic RELs. Therefore, new health values will periodically be added to, or deleted from, these tables. Users of these tables are advised to monitor the OEHHA website ( www.oehha.ca.gov ) for any updates
to the health values.

Substances written in italics do n ot have explicit OEHHA approved health values, but are included in this table to clarify applicability of OEHHA adopted heath effects values to individual or grouped substances listed in the Hot Spots Emission Inventory Criteria and
Guidelines , Appendix A

- I list of “Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified.”

The “Date Value Reviewed” column lists the date that the health value was last reviewed by OEHHA and the Scientific Review Panel, and/or approved for use in the AB 2588 Air Toxics Hot Spots Pr ogram. This information is useful to tell where the number came from. If the health value is unchanged since it was first approved for use in the Hot Spots Program, then the date that the value was first approved for use by CAPCOA is listed within the br ackets [ ].

• April 1999 is listed for the cancer potency values and noncancer acute RELs, which have been adopted by the OEHHA as part of the AB 2588 “Hot Spots” Risk
Assessment Guidelines.

• February 2000, April 2000, January 2001, and December 2001 are listed for the first set of 22, the second set of 16, the third set of 22, and the fourth set of 12 noncancer chronic RELs, respectively.

• October 2000 is listed for the oral chronic RELs and oral cancer slope factors. 1996 is
listed for the U.S. EPA Re ference Concentrations. Dates of 1990

- 1992 and 1996 are listed for CAPCOA chronic RELs that may eventually be dropped or replaced.

• For the substances identified as Toxic Air Contaminants, the Air Resources Board hearing date is listed. The dates for ace taldehyde, benzo[a]pyrene, and methyl tertiary

butyl ether represent the dates the values were approved by the Scientific Review
Panel.Noncancer Effects Cancer Risk

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Acute

Inhalation

REL (μg/m 3 ) Dat e u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Oral

REL (mg/kg/d) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Inhalation

Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Oral Slope

Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value Reviewed [Added] M ®

W

A
F

ACETALDEHYDE 75

- 07

- 0 9.0 E +00 5/93 1.0E

- 02 4/99

[5/93] 1

ACETAMIDE 60

- 35

- 5 7.0E

- 02 4/99 1

ACROLEIN 107

- 02

- 8 1.9E

- 01 4/99 6.0E

- 02 1/01

--

ACRYLAMIDE 79

- 06

- 1 4.5E+00 4/99 [7/90] 1

ACRYLIC ACID 79

- 10

- 7 6.0E+03 4/99

--

ACRYLONITRILE 107

- 13

- 1 5.0E+00 12/01 1.0E+00 4/99 [1/91] 1

ALLYL CHLORIDE 107

- 05

- 1 2.1E

- 02 4/99 1

2

- AMINOANTHRAQUINONE 117

- 79

- 3 3.3E

- 02 4/99 1

AMMONIA 7664

- 41

- 7 3.2E+03 4/99 2.0E+02 2/00

-- ANILINE 62

- 53

- 3 5.7E

- 03 4/99 1
Antimony Compounds 7440

- 36

- 0

-- ANTIMONY TRIOXIDE 1309

- 64

- 4

--

ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS (INORGANIC) TAC ® 7440

- 38

- 2 1016 [1015] 1.9E

- 01

AveP 4/99 3.0E

- 02 1/01 3.0E

- 04 10/00 1.2E+01

TAC 7/90 1.5E +00 10/00 1

ARSINE 7784

- 42

- 1 1.6E+02 4/99

--

ASBESTOS

TAC 3 1332

- 21

- 4 1.9E

- 04

TAC 3 3/86 333.33
3

BENZENE TAC 71

- 43

- 2 1.3E+03

AveP 4/99 6.0E+01 2/00 1.0E

- 01

TAC 1/85 1

BENZIDINE (AND ITS SALTS) values also apply to: 92

- 87

- 5 5.0 E+02 4/99 [1/91] 1

Benzidine based dyes 1020 5.0E+02 4/99 [1/91] 1

Direct Black 38 1937

- 37

- 7 5.0E+02 4/99 [1/91] 1

Direct Blue 6 2602

- 46

- 2 5.0E+02 4/99 [1/91] 1

Direct Brown 95 (technical grade) 16071

- 86

- 6 5.0E+02 4/ 99 [1/91] 1

BENZYL CHLORIDE 100

- 44

- 7 4E+02 4/99 1.7E

- 01 4/99 1

BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS ® 7440

- 41

- 7 [1021] 7.0 E

- 03 12/01 2.0E

- 03 12/01 8.4E+00 4/99 [7/90] 1

BIS(2

- CHLOROETHYL)ETHER (Dichloroethyl ether) 111

- 44

- 4 2.5E+00 4/99 1

BIS(C HLOROMETHYL)ETHER 542

- 88

- 1 4.6E+01 4/99 [1/91] 1

1,3

- BUTADIENE TAC 106

- 99

- 0 2.0E+01 1/01 6.0E

- 01

TAC 7/92 1APPENDIX L

- TABLE 1
OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSMENTS b

Appendix L

- 4 Noncancer Effects Cancer Risk

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Acute

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Dat e u

Value Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Oral
REL (mg/kg/d) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Inhalation

Cancer Potency
Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Oral Slope

Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value Reviewed [Added] M ®

W

A
F

CADMIUM AND COMPOUNDS TAC ® 7440

-

43

- 9 [1045] 2.0 E

- 02 1/01 5.0E

- 04 10/00 1.5E+01

TAC 1/87 1

CARBON DISULFIDE 75

- 15

- 0 6.2E+03

Av eP 4/99 8.0E+02

RfC -- CARBON MONOXIDE 630

- 08

- 0 2.3E+04 4/99

-- CARBON TETRACHLORIDE TAC
(Tetrachloromethane) 56

- 23

- 5 1.9E+03

AveP 4/99 4.0 E +01 1/01 1.5E

- 01

TAC 9/87 1

CHLORINATED PARAFFINS 108171

- 26

- 2 8.9E

- 02 4/99 1

CHLORINE 7782

- 50

- 5 2.1E+02 4/99 2.0 E

- 01 2/00

-- CHLORINE DIOXIDE 10049

- 04

- 4 6.0E

- 01 1/01

-- 4

- CHLORO

- O

- PHENYLENEDIAMINE 95

- 83

- 0 1.6E

- 02 4/99 1

CHLOROBENZENE 108

- 90

- 7 1.0E+03 1/01

-- CHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE

... (see Fluorocarb

ons)

CHLOROFORM TAC 67

- 66

- 3 1.5E+02

AveP 4/99 3.0E+02 4/00 1.9E

- 02

TAC 12/90 1

Chlorophenols 1060

-- PENTACHLOROPHENOL 87

- 86

- 5 1.8E

- 02 4/99 1

2,4,6

- TRICHLOROPHENOL 88

- 06

- 2 7.0E

- 02 4/99

[1/91] 1

CHLOROPICRIN 76

- 06

- 2 2.9E+01 4/99 4.0E

- 01 12/01

-- CHLOROPRENE 126

- 99

- 8

--

p

- CHLORO

- o

- TOLUIDINE 95

- 69

- 2 2.7E

- 01 4/99 1

CHROMIUM 6+ TAC ® values also apply to: 18540

- 29

- 9 2.0E

- 01 1/01 2.0E

- 02 10/00 5.1E+02

TAC 1/86 1

Barium chromate ® 102 94

- 40

- 3 2.0E

- 01 1/01 2.0E

- 02 10/00 5.1E+02

TAC 1/86 0.2053

Calcium chromate ® 13765

- 19

- 0 2.0E

- 01 1/01 2.0E

- 02 10/00 5.1E+02

TAC 1/86 0.3332

Lead chromate ® 7758

- 97

- 6 2.0E

- 01 1/01 2.0E

- 02 10/00 5.1E+02

TAC 1/86 0.1609

Sodium dichromate ® 1 0588

- 01

- 9 2.0E

- 01 1/01 2.0E

- 02 10/00 5.1E+02

TAC 1/86 0.397

Strontium chromate ® 7789

- 06

- 2 2.0E

- 01 1/01 2.0E

- 02 10/00 5.1E+02

TAC 1/86 0.2554

CHROMIUM TRIOXIDE ® (as chromic acid mist) 1333

- 82

- 0 2.0E

- 03 1/01 2.0E

- 02 10/00 5.1E+02

TAC 1/86 0.52

COPPER AND COMPOUNDS 7440

- 50

- 8 [1067] 1.0E+02 4/99

--

p

- CRESIDINE 120

- 71

- 8 1.5E

- 01 4/99 1 CRESOLS (mixtures of) 1319

- 77

- 3 6.0E+02 1/01

--

m

- CRESOL 108

- 39

- 4 6.0E+02 1/01

--APPENDIX L

- TABLE 1
OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSMENTS b

Appendix L

- 5 Noncancer Effects Cancer Risk

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Acute

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Dat e u

Value Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Oral
REL (mg/kg/d) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Inhalation

Cancer Potency
Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Oral Slope

Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value Reviewed [Added] M ®

W

A
F

o

- CRESOL 95

- 48

- 7 6.0E+02 1/01

- - p

- CRESOL 106

- 44

- 5 6.0E+02 1/01

-- CUPFERRON 135

- 20

- 6 2.2E

- 01 4/99 1

Cyanide Compounds (inorganic) 57

- 12

- 5 1073 3.4E+02 4/99 9.0E+00 4/00

--

HYDROGEN CYANIDE (Hydrocyanic acid) 74

- 90

- 8 3.4E+02 4/99 9.0E+00 4/00

--

2,4

- D IAMINOANISOLE 615

- 05

- 4 2.3E

- 02 4/99 1 2,4

- DIAMINOTOLUENE 95

- 80

- 7 4.0E+00 4/99 1
1,2

- DIBROMO

- 3

- CHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) 96

- 12

- 8 7.0E+00 4/99 [1/92] 1

p

- DICHLOROBENZENE 106

- 46

- 7 8.0E+02 1/01 4.0E

- 02 4/99

[1/91] 1

3,3

- DICHLOROBEN ZIDINE 91

- 94

- 1 1.2E+00 4/99 [1/91] 1

1,1,

- DICHLOROETHANE (Ethylidene dichloride) 75

- 34

- 3 5.7E

- 03 4/99 1

1,1

- DICHLOROETHYLENE

... (see Vinylidene Chloride)

DI(2

- ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE (DEHP) 117

- 81

- 7 8.4E

- 03 4/99

[1/ 92] 8.4E

- 03 10/00 1

DIESEL EXHAUST ... (see Particulate Emissions from Diesel

- Fueled Engines)

DIETHANOLAMINE 111

- 42

- 2 3.0E+00 12/01

-- DIMETHYLAMINE 124

- 40

- 3

--

p

- DIMETHYLAMIN OAZOBENZENE 60

- 11

- 7 4.6E+00 4/99 1
N,N

- DIMETHYL FORMAMIDE 68

- 12

- 2 8.0E+01 1/01

-- 2,4

- DINITROTOLUENE 121

- 14

- 2 3.1E

- 01 4/99 1 1,4

- DIOXANE (1,4

- Diethylene dioxide) 123

- 91

- 1 3.0E+03 4/99 3.0E+03 4/00 2.7E

- 02 4/99

[1/91] 1

EPI CHLOROHYDRIN (1

- Chloro

- 2,3

- epoxypropane) 106

- 89

- 8 1.3E+03 4/99 3.0E+00 1/01 8.0E

- 02 4/99

[1/92] 1

1,2

- EPOXYBUTANE 106

- 88

- 7 2.0E+01 1/01

-- ETHYL ACRYLATE 140

- 88

- 5

-- ETHYL BENZENE 100

- 41

- 4 2.0E+03 2/00

-- ETHYL CHLORIDE (Chloroethane) 75

- 00

- 3 3.0E+04 4/00

-- ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE TAC (1,2

- Dibromoethane) 106

- 93

- 4 8.0E

- 01 12/01 2.5E

- 01

TAC 7/85 1APPENDIX L

- TABLE 1
OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSMENTS b

Appendix L

- 6 Noncancer Effects Cancer Risk

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Acute

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Dat e u

Value Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Oral
REL (mg/kg/d) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Inhalation

Cancer Potency
Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Oral Slope

Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value Reviewed [Added] M ®

W

A
F

ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE TAC (1,2

- Dichloroethane) 107

- 06

- 2 4.0E+02 1/01 7.2E

- 02

TAC 9/85 1

ETHYLENE GLYCOL 10 7

- 21

- 1 4.0E+02 4/00

-- ETHYLENE GLYCOL BUTYL ETHER

... (see Glycol ethers)

ETHYLENE OXIDE TAC (1,2

- Epoxyethane) 75

- 21

- 8 3.0E+01 1/01 3.1E

- 01

TAC 11/87 1

ETHYLENE THIOUREA 96

- 45

- 7 4.5E

- 02 4/99 1

Fluorides 1101 2.4E+02 4/99 1.3E+01 8/03 4.0E

- 2 8/03

-- HYDROGEN FLUORIDE (Hydrofluoric acid) 7664

- 39

- 3 2.4E+02 4/99 1.4E+01 8/031 4.0E

- 2 --

FORMALDEHYDE TAC 50

- 00

- 0 9.4E+01 4/99 3.0E+00 2/00 2.1E

- 02

TAC 3/92 1

GASOLINE VAPORS 1110

-- GLUTARALDEHYDE 111

- 30

- 8 8.0E

- 02 1/01

-- GLYCOL ETHERS 1115
ETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOBUTYL

ETHER

– EGBE 111

- 76

- 2 1.4E+04 4/99

--

ETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOETHYL
ETHER

– EGEE 110

- 80

- 5 3.7E+02

AveP 4/99[1/92] 7.0E+01 2/00

--

ETHYLENE GLYCOL MON OETHYL
ETHER ACETATE

–

EGEEA 111

- 15

- 9 1.4E+02

AveP 4/99 3.0E+02 2/00

--

ETHYLENE GLYCOL
MONOMETHYL ETHER

– EGME 109

- 86

- 4 9.3E+01

AveP 4/99 6.0E+01 2/00

--

ETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOMETHYL ETHER ACETATE

– EGMEA 110

- 49

- 6 9.0E+01 2/00

--

HE XACHLOROBENZENE 118

- 74

- 1 1.8E+00 4/99 [1/91] 1

HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANES (mixed or technical grade) 608

- 73

- 1
1120 4.0E+00 4/99 [1/91] 4.0E+00 10/00 [1/92] 1

Alpha

HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE 319

- 84

- 6 4.0E+00 4/99 [1/91] 4.0E+00 10/00 [1/92] 1

beta

- HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE 319

- 85

- 7 4.0E+00 4/99 [1/91] 4.0E+00 10/00 [1/92] 1

Gamma

HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE (Lindane) 58

- 89

- 9 1.1E+00 4/99 1.1E+00 10/00 1APPENDIX L

- TABLE 1
OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSMENTS b

Appendix L

- 7 Noncancer Effects Cancer Risk

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Acute

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Dat e u

Value Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Oral
REL (mg/kg/d) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Inhalation

Cancer Potency
Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Oral Slope

Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value Reviewed [Added] M ®

W

A
F

n

- HEXANE 110

- 54

- 3 7.0E+03 4/00

--

HYDRAZINE 302

- 01

- 2 2.0E

- 01 1/01 1. 7E+01 4/99 [7/90] 1

HYDROCHLORIC ACID (Hydrogen chloride) 7647

- 01

- 0 2.1E+03 4/99 9.0E+00 2/00

-- HYDROGEN BROMIDE

... (see Bromine & Compounds)
HYDROGEN CYANIDE

... (see Cyanide & Compounds)

HYDROGEN FLUORIDE ... (see Fluorides)
HYDROGEN SELENIDE

... (see Selenium & Compounds)

HYDROGEN SULFIDE 7783

- 06

- 4 4.2E+01 4/99[7/90] 1.0E+01 4/00

-- ISOPHORONE 78

- 59

- 1 2.0E+03 12/01

-- ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL (Isopropanol) 67

- 63

- 0 3.2 E+03 4/99 7.0E+03 2/00

--

LEAD AND COMPOUNDS TAC W ® (inorganic) values also apply to: 7439

- 92

- 1 1128 [1130] 4.2E

- 02

TAC 4/97 8.5E

- 03 10/00 1

Lead acetate

® 301

- 04

- 2 4.2E

- 02

TAC 4/97 8.5E

- 03 10/00 0.637

Lead phosphate

® 7446

- 27

- 7 4.2E

- 02

TAC 4/97 8.5E

- 03 10/00 0.7659

Lead subacetate ® 1335

- 32

- 6 4.2E

- 02

TAC 4/97 8.5E

- 03 10/00 0.7696

LINDANE ... (see gamma

- Hexachlorocyclohexane)

MALEIC ANHYDRIDE 108

- 31

- 6 7.0E

- 01 12/01

--

MANGANESE AN D COMPOUNDS 7439

- 96

- 5 [1132] 2.0E

- 01 4/00

--

MERCURY AND COMPOUNDS (INORGANIC) 7439

- 97

- 6 [1133] 1.8E+00 4/99 9.0 E

- 02 2/00 3.0E

- 04 10/00 [1/92] --

Mercuric chloride 7487

- 94

- 7 1.8E+00 4/99 9.0E

- 02 2/00 3.0E

- 04 10/00 [1/92] --

MERCURY AND COMPOUNDS (ORGANIC) values also apply to: N/A

METHYL MERCURY 593

- 74

- 8

--
METHANOL 67

- 56

- 1 2.8E+04 4/99 4.0E+03 4/00

-- METHYL BROMIDE (Bromomethane) 74

- 83

- 9 3.9E+03 4/99 5.0E+00 2/00

-- METHYL tertiary

- BUTYL ETHER 16 34

- 04

- 4 8.0E+03 2/00 9.1E

- 04 11/99 1

METHYL CHLOROFORM (1,1,1

- Trichloroethane) 71

- 55

- 6 6.8E+04 4/99 1.0E+03 2/00

--APPENDIX L

- TABLE 1
OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSMENTS b

Appendix L

- 8 Noncancer Effects Cancer Risk

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Acute

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Dat e u

Value Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Oral
REL (mg/kg/d) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Inhalation

Cancer Potency
Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Oral Slope

Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value Reviewed [Added] M ®

W

A
F

METHYL ETHYL KETONE (2

- Butanone) 78

- 93

- 3 1.3E+04 4/99

-- METHYL ISOCYANATE 624

- 83

- 9 1.0E+00 12/01

-- METH YL MERCURY

... (see Mercury & Compounds)

METHYL METHACRYLATE 80

- 62

- 6

-- 4,4'

- METHYLENE
BIS (2

- CHLOROANILINE) (MOCA) 101

- 14

- 4 1.5E+00 4/99 1

METHYLENE CHLORIDE TAC (Dichloromethane) 75

- 09

- 2 1.4E+04 4/99 4.0 E +02 2/ 00 3.5E

- 03

TAC 7/89 1

4,4'

- METHYLENE DIANILINE (AND ITS DICHLORIDE) 101

- 77

- 9 2.0 E +01 12/01 1.6E+00 4/99 1.6E+00 10/00 1

METHYLENE DIPHENYL ISOCYANATE 101

- 68

- 8 7.0E

- 01 1/01

-- MICHLER'S KETONE (4,4’

- Bis(dimethylamino)benzophenone) 90

- 94

- 8 8.6E

- 01 4/99 1

N

- NITROSO

- n

- BUTYLAMINE 924

- 16

- 3 1.1E+01 4/99 [1/92] 1

N

- NITROSODI

- n

- PROPYLAMINE 621

- 64

- 7 7.0E+00 4/99 [1/91] 1

N

- NITROSODIETHYLAMINE 55

- 18

- 5 3.6E+01 4/99 [1/91] 1

N

- NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE 62

- 75

- 9 1.6E+01 4/99 [1/91] 1

N

- NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 86

- 30

- 6 9.0E

- 03 4/99 1

N

- NITROSO

- N

- METHYLETHYLAMINE 10595

- 95

- 6 2.2E+01 4/99 [7/90] 1

N

- NITROSOMORPHOLINE 59

- 89

- 2 6.7E+00 4/99 [7/92] 1

N

- NITROSOPIPERIDINE 100

- 75

- 4 9.4E+00 4/9 9 [7/92] 1

N

- NITROSOPYRROLIDINE 930

- 55

- 2 2.1E+00 4/99 [7/90] 1

NAPHTHALENE ... (see Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)

NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS TAC ®
values also apply to: 7440

- 02

- 0 [1145] 6.0E+00 4/99 5.0E

- 02 2/00 5.0E

- 02 10/00 9.1E

- 01

TAC 8/91 1

Nickel acetate

® 373

- 02

- 4 6.0E+00 4/99 5.0E

- 02 2/00 5.0E

- 02 10/00 9.1E

- 01

TAC 8/91 0.3321

Nickel carbonate ® 3333

- 39

- 3 6.0E+00 4/99 5.0E

- 02 2/00 5.0E

- 02 10/00 9.1E

- 01

TAC 8/91 0.4945

Nickel carbonyl

® 13463

- 39

- 3 6.0E+00 4/99 5.0E

- 02 2/00 5.0E

- 02 10/00 9.1E

- 01

TAC 8/91 0.3438

Nickel hydroxide ® 12054

- 48

- 7 6.0E+00 4/99 5.0E

- 02 2/00 5.0E

- 02 10/00 9.1E

- 01

TAC 8/91 0.6332APPENDIX L

- TABLE 1
OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSMENTS b

Appendix L

- 9 Noncancer Effects Cancer Risk

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Acute

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Dat e u

Value Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Oral
REL (mg/kg/d) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Inhalation

Cancer Potency
Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Oral Slope

Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value Reviewed [Added] M ®

W

A
F

Nickelocene

® 1271

- 28

- 9 6.0E+00 4/99 5.0E

- 02 2/00 5.0E

- 02 10/00 9.1E

- 01

TAC 8/91 0.4937

NICKEL OXIDE ® 1 313

- 99

- 1 6.0E+00 4/99 1.0E

- 01 2/00 5.0E

- 02 10/00 9.1E

- 01

TAC 8/91 0.7859

Nickel refinery dust from the pyrometallurgical process 1146 6.0E+00 4/99 5.0E

- 02 2/00 5.0E

- 02 10/00 9.1E

- 01

TAC 8/91 1

Nickel subsulfide ® 12035

- 72

- 2 6.0E+00 4/99 5.0E

- 02 2/

00 5.0E

- 02 10/00 9.1E

- 01

TAC 8/91 0.2443

NITRIC ACID 7697

- 37

- 2 8.6E+01 4/99

--
NITROGEN DIOXIDE 10102

- 44

- 0 4.7E+02 4/99[1/92]

-- 2

- NITROPROPANE 79

- 46

- 9

--

p

- NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 156

- 10

- 5 2.2E

- 02 4/99 1

OZONE 10028

- 15

- 6 1.8E+02 4/99[1/92]

-- PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM
DIESEL

- FUELED ENGINES TAC n 9901 5.0E+00

TAC 8/98 1.1E+00

TAC 8/98 1

PENTACHLOROPHENOL

... (see Chlorophenols)
PERCHLOROETHYLENE TAC (Tetrachloroethylene) 127

- 18

- 4 2.0E+04 4/99 3.5E+01

TAC 10/91 2.1E

- 02

TAC 10/91 1

PHENOL 108

- 95

- 2 5.8E+03 4/99 2.0E+02 4/00

--
PHOSGENE 75

- 44

- 5 4.0E+00 4/99

--

PHOSPHINE 7803

- 51

- 2 8.0E

- 01 9/02

--

PHOSPHORIC ACID 7664

- 38

- 2 7.0E+00 2/00

--
PHTHAL IC ANHYDRIDE 85

- 44

- 9 2.0E+01 1/01

-- PCB (POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS

unspeciated mixture) [lowest risk] H 1336

- 36

- 3 7.0E

- 02 2/02 7.0E

- 02 2/02 1

PCB (POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS

unspeciated mixture) [low risk] H 1336

- 36

- 3 4.0E

- 01 2/02 4.0E

- 01 2/02 1

PCB (POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS

- unspeciated mixture) [high risk] H 1336

- 36

- 3 2.0E+00 2/02 2.0E+00 2/02 1

PCB (POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (speciated) ∇ 3,3’,4,4’

- TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL (77) 35298

- 13

- 3 4.0E

- 01 8/03 1.0E

– 04 8/03 1.3 E +01 8/03 1.3E +01 8/03 3,4,4’,5

- TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL (81) 70362

- 50

- 4 4.0E

- 01 8/03 1.0E

– 04 8/03 1.3E +01 8/03 1.3E +01 8/03

2,3,3’,4,4’

- PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL (105) 32598

- 14

- 4 4.0E

- 01 8/03 1.0E

– 04 8/03 1.3E +01 8/03 1.3E +01 8/03

2,3,4,4’5

- PENTA CHLOROBIPHENYL (114) 74472

- 37

- 0 8.0E

- 02 8/03 2.0E

– 05 8/03 6.5E +01 8/03 6.5E +01 8/03
2,3’4,4’,5

- PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL (118) 31508

- 00

- 6 4.0E

- 01 8/03 1.0E

– 04 8/03 1.3E +01 8/03 1.3E +01 8/03APPENDIX L

- TABLE 1
OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSMENTS b

Appendix L

- 10 Noncancer Effects Cancer Risk

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Acute

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Dat e u

Value Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Oral
REL (mg/kg/d) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Inhalation

Cancer Potency
Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Oral Slope

Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value Reviewed [Added] M ®

W

A
F

2’,3,4,4’,5

- PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL (123) 65510

- 44

- 3 4.0E

- 01 8/03 1.0E

– 04 8/03 1.3E +01 8/03 1.3E +01 8/03

3,3’,4,4’,5

- PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL (126) 57465

- 28

- 8 4.0E

- 04 8/03 1.0E

– 07 8/03 1.3E +04 8/03 1.3E +04 8/03

2,3,3’,4,4’,5

- HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL (156) 38380

- 08

- 4 8.0E

- 02 8/03 2.0E

– 05 8/03 6.5E +01 8/03 6. 5E +01 8/03

2,3,3’,4,4’,5’

- HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL (157) 69782

- 90

- 7 8.0E

- 02 8/03 2.0E

– 05 8/03 6.5E +01 8/03 6.5E +01 8/03

2,3’,4,4’,5,5’

- HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL (167) 52663

- 72

- 6 4.0E

- 00 8/03 1.0E

– 03 8/03 1.3E +00 8/03 1.3E +00 8/03

3,3’,4,4’5,5’

- HEXACHL OROBIPHENYL (169) 32774

- 16

- 6 4.0E

- 03 8/03 1.0E

– 06 8/03 1.3E +03 8/03 1.3E +03 8/03

2,3,3’4,4’,5,5’

- HEPTACHLOROBIPHENYL (189) 39635

- 31

- 9 4.0E

- 01 8/03 1.0 E

- 04 8/03 1.3E +01 8/03 1.3E +01 8/03

POLYCHLORINATED DIBENZO

- P

DIOXINS (PCDD)

(AS 2,3,7,8

- PCDD EQUIVALENT) TAC • 1085
1086

2,3,7,8

- TETRACHLORODIBENZO

- P

DIOXIN TAC 1746

- 01

- 6 4.0E

- 05 2/00 1.0E

- 08 10/00 1.3E+05

TAC 8/86 1.3E+05

TAC 8/86 1

1,2,3,7,8

- PENTACHLORODIBENZO

P

- DIOXIN 40321

- 76

- 4 8.0E

- 05 2/00 2.0E

- 08 10/00 1.3E+05 4/99 1 .3E+05 10/00 1

1,2,3,4,7,8

- HEXACHLORODIBENZO

P

- DIOXIN 39227

- 28

- 6 4.0E

- 04 2/00 1.0E

- 07 10/00 1.3E+04 4/99 1.3E+04 10/00 1

1,2,3,6,7,8

- HEXACHLORODIBENZO

P

- DIOXIN 57653

- 85

- 7 4.0E

- 04 2/00 1.0E

- 07 10/00 1.3E+04 4/99 1.3E+04 10/00 1

1,2,3,7,8,9

- HEXACHL ORODIBENZO

P

- DIOXIN 19408

- 74

- 3 4.0E

- 04 2/00 1.0E

- 07 10/00 1.3E+04 4/99 1.3E+04 10/00 1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- HEPTACHLORODIBENZO

- P

- DIOXIN 35822

- 46

- 9 4.0E

- 03 2/00 1.0E

- 06 10/00 1.3E+03 4/99 1.3E+03 10/00 1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- OCTACHLORODIBENZO

- P

- DIOXIN 3268

- 87

- 9 4.0E

- 02 2/00 1.0E

- 05 10/00 1.3E+01 4/99 1.3E+01 10/00 1

POLYCHLORINATED DIBENZOFURANS (AS 2,3,7,8

- PCDD EQUIVALENT)

(PCDF) TAC • 1080

2,3,7,8

- TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 5120

- 73

- 19 4.0E

- 04 2/00 1.0E

- 07 10/00 1.3E+04 4/99 1.3E+04 10/00 1

1, 2,3,7,8

- PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 57117

- 41

- 6 8.0E

- 04 2/00 2.0E

- 07 10/00 6.5E+03 4/99 6.5E+03 10/00 1

2,3,4,7,8

- PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 57117

- 31

- 4 8.0E

- 05 2/00 2.0E

- 08 10/00 6.5E+04 4/99 6.5E+04 10/00 1

1,2,3,4,7,8

- HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 70648

- 26

- 9 4.0E

- 04 2/00 1.0E

- 07 10/00 1.3E+04 4/99 1.3E+04 10/00 1APPENDIX L

- TABLE 1
OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSMENTS b

Appendix L

- 11 Noncancer Effects Cancer Risk

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Acute

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Dat e u

Value Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Oral
REL (mg/kg/d) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Inhalation

Cancer Potency
Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Oral Slope

Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value Reviewed [Added] M ®

W

A
F

1,2,3,6,7,8

- HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 57117

- 44

- 9 4.0E

- 04 2/00 1.0E

- 07 10/00 1.3E+04 4/99 1.3E+04 10/00 1

1,2,3,7,8,9

- HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 72918

- 21

- 9 4.0E

- 04 2/00 1.0E

- 07 10/00 1.3E+04 4/99 1.3E +04 10/00 1

2,3,4,6,7,8

- HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 60851

- 34

- 5 4.0E

- 04 2/00 1.0E

- 07 10/00 1.3E+04 4/99 1.3E+04 10/00 1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 67562

- 39

- 4 4.0E

- 03 2/00 1.0E

- 06 10/00 1.3E+03 4/99 1.3E+03 10/00 1

1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- HEPTACHLORODI BENZOFURAN 55673

- 89

- 7 4.0E

- 03 2/00 1.0E

- 06 10/00 1.3E+03 4/99 1.3E+03 10/00 1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 39001

- 02

- 0 4.0E

- 02 2/00 1.0E

- 05 10/00 1.3E+01 4/99 1.3E+01 10/00 1

POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON (PAH) 1150 1151

BEN Z(A)ANTHRACENE v 56

- 55

- 3 3.9E

- 01 4/99

[4/94] 1.2E+00 10/00 [4/94] 1

BENZO(A)PYRENE v 50

- 32

- 8 3.9E+00 4/99 [4/94] 1.2E+01 10/00 [4/94] 1

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE v 205

- 99

- 2 3.9E

- 01 4/99

[4/94] 1.2E+00 10/00 [4/94] 1

BENZO(J)FLUORANTHENE v 20 5

- 82

- 3 3.9E

- 01 4/99

[4/94] 1.2E+00 10/00 [4/94] 1

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE v 207

- 08

- 9 3.9E

- 01 4/99

[4/94] 1.2E+00 10/00 [4/94] 1

CHRYSENE v 218

- 01

- 9 3.9E

- 02 4/99

[4/94] 1.2E

- 01 10/00

[4/94] 1

DIBENZ(A,H)ACRIDINE v 226

- 36

- 8 3.9E

- 01 4/

99 [4/94] 1.2E+00 10/00 [4/94] 1

DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE v 53

- 70

- 3 4.1E+00 4/99 [4/94] 4.1E+00 10/00 [4/94] 1

DIBENZ(A,J)ACRIDINE v 224

- 42

- 0 3.9E

- 01 4/99

[4/94] 1.2E+00 10/00 [4/94] 1

DIBENZO(A,E)PYRENE v 192

- 65

- 4 3.9E+00 4/99 [4/94] 1.2 E+01 10/00 [4/94] 1

DIBENZO(A,H)PYRENE v 189

- 64

- 0 3.9E+01 4/99 [4/94] 1.2E+02 10/00 [4/94] 1APPENDIX L

- TABLE 1
OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSMENTS b

Appendix L

- 12 Noncancer Effects Cancer Risk

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Acute

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Dat e u

Value Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Oral
REL (mg/kg/d) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Inhalation

Cancer Potency
Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Oral Slope

Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value Reviewed [Added] M ®

W

A
F

DIBENZO(A,I)PYRENE v 189

- 55

- 9 3.9E+01 4/99 [4/94] 1.2E+02 10/00 [4/94] 1

DIBENZO(A,L)PYRENE v 191

- 30

- 0 3.9E+01 4/99 [4/94] 1.2E+02 10/00 [4/94 ] 1

7H

- DIBENZO(C,G)CARBAZOLE v 194

- 59

- 2 3.9E+00 4/99 [4/94] 1.2E+01 10/00 [4/94] 1

7,12

- DIMETHYLBENZ(A)ANTHRACENE v 57

- 97

- 6 2.5E+02 4/99 [4/94] 2.5E+02 10/00 [4/94] 1

1,6

- DINITROPYRENE v 42397

- 64

- 8 3.9E+01 4/99 [4/94] 1.2E+02 10/00 [4/ 94] 1

1,8

- DINITROPYRENE v 42397

- 65

- 9 3.9E+00 4/99 [4/94] 1.2E+01 10/00 [4/94] 1

INDENO(1,2,3

- C,D)PYRENE v 193

- 39

- 5 3.9E

- 01 4/99

[4/94] 1.2E+00 10/00 [4/94] 1

3

- METHYLCHOLANTHRENE v 56

- 49

- 5 2.2E+01 4/99 [4/94] 2.2E+01 10/00 [4/94] 1

5

- METHYLCHRYSENE v 3697

- 24

- 3 3.9E+00 4/99 [4/94] 1.2E+01 10/00 [4/94] 1

NAPHTHALENE 91

- 20

- 3 9.0E+00 4/00

--

5

- NITROACENAPHTHENE v 602

- 87

- 9 1.3E

- 01 4/99

[4/94] 1.3E

- 01 10/00

[4/94] 1

6

- NITROCHRYSENE v 7496

- 02

- 8 3.9E+01 4/99 [4/94 ] 1.2E+02 10/00

[4/94] 1

2

- NITROFLUORENE v 607

- 57

- 8 3.9E

- 02 4/99

[4/94] 1.2E

- 01 10/00

[4/94] 1

1

- NITROPYRENE v 5522

- 43

- 0 3.9E

- 01 4/99

[4/94] 1.2E+00 10/00 [4/94] 1

4

- NITROPYRENE v 57835

- 92

- 4 3.9E

- 01 4/99

[4/94] 1.2E+00 10/00 [4/94] 1

POTASSIUM BROMATE....

... (see Bromine & Compounds)
1,3

- PROPANE SULTONE 1120

- 71

- 4 2.4E+00 4/99 1
PROPYLENE (PROPENE) 115

- 07

- 1 3.0E+03 4/00

-- PROPYLENE GLYCOL MONOMETHYL

ETHER 107

- 98

- 2 7.0E+03 2/00

--

PROPYLENE OXID E 75

- 56

- 9 3.1E+03 4/99 3.0E+01 2/00 1.3E

- 02 4/99

[7/90] 1

SELENIUM AND COMPOUNDS 7782

- 49

- 2 [1170] 2.0E+01 12/01

--

HYDROGEN SELENIDE 7783

- 07

- 5 5.0E+00 4/99

-- Selenium sulfide 7446

- 34

- 6 2.0E+01 12/01

-- SODIUM HYDROXIDE 13 10

- 73

- 2 8.0E+00 4/99 4.8E+00 7/90

--APPENDIX L

- TABLE 1
OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSMENTS b

Appendix L

- 13 Noncancer Effects Cancer Risk

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Acute

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Dat e u

Value Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Oral
REL (mg/kg/d) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Inhalation

Cancer Potency
Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Oral Slope

Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value Reviewed [Added] M ®

W

A
F

STYRENE 100

- 42

- 5 2.1E+04 4/99 9.0E+02 4/00

-- SULFATES 9960 1.2E+02 4/99 2.5E+01 1/92

-- SULFUR DIOXIDE 7446

- 09

- 5 6.6E+02 4/99[1/92] 6.6E+02 1/92

-- SULFURIC ACID AND OLEUM 7664

- 93

- 9 1.2E+02 4/99 1.0E+00 12/01

-- SULFURIC ACID 7664

- 93

- 9 1.2E+02 4/99 1.0E+00 12/01

-- SULFUR TRIOXIDE 7446

- 71

- 9 1.2E+02 4/99

-- OLEUM 8014

- 95

- 7 1.2E+02 4/99 1.0E+00 12/01

-- 1,1,2,2

- TETRACHLOROETHANE 79

- 34

- 5 2.0E

- 01 4/99 1

T ETRACHLOROPHENOLS

... (see Chlorophenols) 2,4,5

- TRICHLOROPHENOL

... (see Chlorophenols) 2,4,6

- TRICHLOROPHENOL

... (see Chlorophenols)

THIOACETAMIDE 62

- 55

- 5 6.1E+00 4/99 1

TOLUE NE 108

- 88

- 3 3.7E+04 4/99 3.0E+02 4/00

-- Toluene diisocyantates 26471

- 62

- 5
1204 7.0E

- 02 1/01 3.9E

- 02 4/99 1

TOLUENE

- 2,4

- DIISOCYANATE 584

- 84

- 9 7.0E

- 02 1/01 3.9E

- 02 4/99 1

TOLUENE

- 2,6

- DIISOCYANATE 91

- 08

- 7 7.0E

- 02 1/01 3.9E

- 02 4/99 1 1,1,2

- TRICHLOROETHANE (Vinyl trichloride) 79

- 00

- 5 5.7E

- 02 4/99 1

TRICHLOROETHYLENE TAC 79

- 01

- 6 6.0E+02 4/00 7.0E

- 03

TAC 10/90 1

TRIETHYLAMINE 121

- 44

- 8 2.8E+03 4/99 2.0 E +02 9/02

--

URETHANE (Ethyl carbamate) 51

- 79

- 6 1.0E +00 4/99 [7/90] 1

Vanadium Compounds N/A
Vanadium (fume or dust) 7440

- 62

- 2 3.0E+01 4/99

-- VANADIUM PENTOXIDE 1314

- 62

- 1 3.0E+01 4/99

-- VINYL ACETATE 108

- 05

- 4 2.0E+02 12/01

--

VINYL CHLORIDE TAC (Chloroethylene) 75

- 01

- 4 1.8E+05 4/99 2.7E

- 01

TAC 12/90 1

VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE (1,1

- Dichloroethylene) 75

- 35

- 4 7.0E+01 1/01

--APPENDIX L

- TABLE 1
OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSMENTS b

Appendix L

- 14 Noncancer Effects Cancer Risk

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Acute

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Dat e u

Value Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Chronic

Oral
REL (mg/kg/d) Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Inhalation

Cancer Potency
Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value
Reviewed [Added] Oral Slope

Factor (mg/kg

- d) - 1 Date u

Value Reviewed [Added] M ®

W

A
F

XYLENES (mixed isomers) 1330

- 20

- 7 1210 2.2E+04 4/99 7.0E+02 4/00

--

m

- XYLENE 108

- 38

- 3 2.2E+04 4/99 7.0E+02 4/00

--

o

- XYLENE 95

- 47

- 6 2.2E+04 4/99 7.0E+02 4/00

--

p

- XYLENE 106

- 42

- 3 2.2E+04 4/99 7.0E+02 4/00

--APPENDIX L

- TABLE 1
OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSMENTS b

Appendix L

- 15 Purpose: The purpose of this reference table is to provide a quick list of all health values that have been approved by the Office of Environmental Healt h Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the Air Resources Board (ARB)

for use in facility health risk assessments conducted for the AB 2588 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. The OEHHA has developed and adopted new risk assessment guidelines that update and replace th e California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Revised 1992 Risk Assessment Guidelines, October 1993 . The OEHHA has adopted five technical support documents for these guidelines.

This table lists the OE HHA adopted inhalation and oral cancer slope factors, noncancer acute Reference Exposure Levels (RELs), and inhalation and oral noncancer chronic RELs. In addition, it lists the substances in Appendix A

- I

(Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified ) and Appendix F ( Criteria For Inputs For Risk Assessment Using Screening Air Dispersion Modeling ) of the ARB’s Air Toxics “ Hot Spots” Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines (EICG) . OEHHA is still in the process of adopting new noncancer chronic RELs. Therefore, new health values will periodically be added to, or deleted from, this table. Users of this table are advised to monitor the OEHHA website ( www.oehha.ca.gov ) for any updates to the health values. b Substa

nces written in italics do not have explicit OEHHA approved health values, but are included in this table to clarify applicability of OEHHA adopted heath effects values to individual or grouped substances
listed in the Air Toxics “ Hot Spots” Emission Inven tory Criteria and Guidelines , Appendix A

- I list of “Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified”

. t Chemical Abstract Service Number (CAS): For chemical groupings and mixtures where a CAS number is not applicable, the 4

- digit code used in the Air Tox ics “ Hot Spots” Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines (EICG) Report is listed. The 4

- digit codes enclosed in brackets [ ] are codes that have been phased out, but may still appear on previously reported Hot Spots emissions. For information on the or igin and use of the 4

- digit code, see the EICG report.
u Date Value Reviewed [Added]: These columns list the date that the health value was last reviewed by OEHHA and the Scientific Review Panel, and/or approved for use in the AB 2588 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. If the health value is unchanged since it was first approved for use in the Hot Spots Program, then the date that the value was first approved for use by CAPCOA is listed within the brackets [ ].

• April 1999 is listed for the cancer potency val ues and noncancer acute RELs, which have been adopted by the OEHHA as part of the AB 2588 “Hot Spot” Risk Assessment Guidelines.

• February 2000, April 2000, January 2001, and December 2001 are listed for the first set of 22, the second set of 16, the thir d set of 22, and the fourth set of 12 noncancer chronic RELs, respectively.

• October 2000 is listed for the oral chronic RELs and oral cancer slope factors. 1996 is listed for the U.S. EPA Reference Concentrations. Dates of 1990

- 1992 and 1996 are listed

for CAPCOA chronic RELs, which may eventually be dropped or replaced.

• For the substances identified as Toxic Air Contaminants, the Air Resources Board hearing date is listed. The dates for acetaldehyde, benzo[a]pyrene, and methyl tertiary

- butyl ether re present the dates the values were approved by the Scientific Review Panel.

♣ Molecular Weight Adjustment Factor: Molecular weight adjustment factors (MWAF) are only to be used when a toxic metal has a cancer potency factor. For most of the Hot Spots toxic metals, the OEHHA cancer potency factor applies to the weight of the toxic metal atom contained in the overall compound. Some of the Hot Spots compounds contain various elements along with the toxic metal atom (e.g., “Nickel hydroxide”, CAS number 12054

- 48

- 7, has a formula of H 2 NiO 2 ). Therefore, an adjustment to the reported pounds of the overall compound is needed before applying the OEHHA cancer potency factor for “Nickel and compounds” to such a compound. This ensures that the cancer potency factor i s applied only to the fraction of the overall weight of the emissions that are associated with health effects of the metal. In other cases, the Hot Spots metals are already reported as the metal atom equivalent (e.g., CAS 7440

- 02

- 0, “Nickel”), and these c ases do not use any further molecular weight adjustment. (Refer to
Note [7] in Appendix A, List of Substances in the EICG Report for further information on how the emissions of various Hot Spots metal compounds are reported.) The appropriate molecular we ight adjustment factors (MWAF) to be used along with the OEHHA cancer potency factors for Hot Spots metals can be found in the MWAF column of this table. A double dash (

-- ) was entered into the column if the substance does not currently have a cancer pote ncy factor.

So, for example, assume 100 pounds of “Nickel hydroxide” emissions are reported under CAS number 12054

- 48

- 7. To get the Nickel atom equivalent of these emissions, multiply by the listed MWAF (0.6332) for Nickel hydroxide:

• 100 pounds x 0.633 2 = 63.32 pounds of Nickel atom equivalent This step should be completed prior to applying the OEHHA cancer potency factor for “Nickel and compounds” in a calculation for a prioritization score or risk assessment calculation. (For more information see
Cha pter 4 and Appendix H of OEHHA’s The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part V; Technical Support Document; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments .)

Note: The value listed in the MWAF column for Asbestos is not a molecular weight adjustment. This is a conversion factor for adjusting mass to fibers or structures. See Appendix C of OEHHA’s The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part V; Technical Support Document; Guidance Manual for Preparati on of Health Risk Assessments for more information on Asbestos, or see the EICG report for
reporting guidance. Also see the Asbestos footnote (designated by the symbol 3 )
N/A Not Applicable Ñ Values calculated using WHO TEF procedure in OEHHA, 2003
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant: The Air Resources Board has identified this substance as a Toxic Air Contaminant.APPENDIX L

- TABLE 1
OEHHA/ARB APPROVED HEALTH VALUES FOR USE IN HOT SPOT FACILITY RISK ASSESSMENTS b

Appendix L

- 16 AveP The averaging period of noncancer acute RELs is generally a one

- hour exposure. However, some are based on several hour exposure for reproduct ive/developmental endpoints (see section 1.6 of OEHHA’s technical support document for The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, March 1999) . Typically the RELs for the following substances are compared to modeled emissi on concentrations of the same duration rather than maximum one

- hour concentrations (e.g., a 4

- hour REL should be compared to the maximum 4

- hour average concentration from the air dispersion model).

4

- Hour: Arsenic and Inorganic Arsenic Compounds

6

- Hour: Benzene, Carbon di sulfide, Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether, Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate, Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether

7

- Hour: Carbon tetrachloride, Chloroform

3 Asbestos: The units for the Inhalation Cancer Potency factor for asbestos are (100 PCM fibers/m 3 ) - 1 . A c onversion factor of 100 fibers/0.003 μg can be multiplied by a receptor concentration of asbestos expressed in μg/m 3 . Unless other information necessary to estimate the concentration (fibers/m 3 ) of asbestos at receptors of interest is available. A unit risk factor of 2.7E 10
- 6 ( μ g/m

3 ) - 1 and an inhalation cancer potency factor of 2.2E 10 +2 (mg/kg BW * day)
- 1 are available. For more information on asbestos quantity conversion factors, see Appendix C of OEHHA’s The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Ass essment Guidelines; Part II; Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors

, and Appendix C of OEHHA’s The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part V; Technical Support Document; Guidance Manual for Preparat ion of Health Risk Assessments

.

W Inorganic Lead: Inorganic Lead was identified by the Air Resources Board as a Toxic Air Contaminant in April 1997. Since information on noncancer health effects show no identified threshold, no Reference Exposure Level h as been developed. The document, Risk Management Guidelines for New, Modified, and Existing Sources of Lead, March 2001 , has been developed by ARB and OEHHA staff for assessing noncancer health impacts from sources of lead. See Appendix F of OEHHA’s The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part V; Technical Support Document; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments for an overview of how to evaluate noncancer impacts from exposure to lead using these risk management g uidelines. v Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): These substances are PAH or PAH

- derivatives that have OEHHA

- developed Potency Equivalency Factors (PEFs) which were approved by the Scientific Review Panel in April 1994 (see ARB document entitled Benzo [a]pyrene as a Toxic Air Contaminant ). PAH inhalation slope factors listed here have been adjusted by the PEFs. See Appendix G of OEHHA’s The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part V; Technical Support Document; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments for more information.

H Polychlorinated Biphenyls: (unspeciated mixtures) Lowest Risk: For use in cases where congeners with more than four chlorines comprise less than one

- half percent of total polychlorinated biphe nyls. High Risk: For use in cases where congeners with more than four chlorines do not comprise less than one

- half percent of total polychlorinated biphenyls. The Low Risk: This number would not ordinarly be used in the Hot Spots program.

• Polychlorina

ted Dibenzo

-

p

- dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (also referred to as chlorinated dioxins and dibenzofurans): The OEHHA has adopted the World Health Organization 1997 (WHO

- 97 ) Toxicity Equivalency Factor ) scheme for evaluating the cancer and nonc ancer risk due to exposure to samples containing speciated mixtures of polychlorinated dibenzo

- p

- dioxins (PCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF). See Appendix A of OEHHA’s Technical Support Document For Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors for more information about the scheme. See Appendix E of OEHHA’s The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part V; Technical Support Document; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments for the methodology for calculatin g 2,3,7,8

- equivalents for PCDD and PCDFs.
n Particulate Emissions from Diesel

- Fueled Engines: The inhalation cancer potency factor and chronic REL were derived from whole diesel exhaust and should be used only for impacts from the inhalation pathway.
Th e inhalation impacts from speciated emissions from diesel

- fueled engines are already accounted for in the inhalation cancer potency factor and REL. However, at the discretion of the risk assessor, speciated emissions from diesel

- fueled engines may be used to estimate acute noncancer health impacts or the contribution to cancer risk or chronic noncancer health impacts for the non

- inhalation exposure pathway. See Appendix D of OEHHA’s The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part V; Tech nical Support Document; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments for more information.

Table last updated: August, 2003APPENDIX L

- TAB LE 2 OEHHA/ARB ACUTE REFERENCE EXPOSURE LEVELS AND TARGET ORGANS b

Appendix L

- 17 Target Organs

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract
Service
Number (CAS) A cute REL

(μg/m 3 ) Date u

Value
ReviewedAlimentary TractCardiovascularDevelopmentalEyeHematologicImmuneNervousReproductiveRespiratorySkin

ACROLEIN 107

- 02

- 8 1.9E

- 01 4/99 

### X X

ACRYLIC ACID 79

- 10

- 7 6.0E+03 4/99 

### X X

AMMONIA 7664

- 41

- 7 3.2E+03 4/99 

### X X

ARSENIC AND CO

MPOUNDS (INORGANIC) TAC 7440

- 38

- 2
1016 [1015] 1.9E

- 01 AveP 4/99 

### X X

ARSINE 7784

- 42

- 1 1.6E+02 4/99 

### X

BENZENE

TAC 71

- 43

- 2 1.3E+03 AveP 4/99 

### X X X X

BENZYL CHLORIDE 100

- 44

- 7 2.4E+02 4/99 

### X X

CARBON DISULFIDE 75

- 15

- 0 6.2E+03 A veP 4/99 

### X X X

CARBON MONOXIDE 630

- 08

- 0 2.3E+04 4/99 

### X

CARBON TETRACHLORIDE TAC (Tetrachloromethane) 56

- 23

- 5 1.9E+03 AveP 4/99 

### X X X X

CHLORINE 7782

- 50

- 5 2.1E+02 4/99 

### X X

CHLOROFORM TAC 67

- 66

- 3 1.5E+02 AveP 4/99 

### X X X

CHLOROPICRIN 76

- 06

- 2 2.9E+01 4/99 

### X X

COPPER AND COMPOUNDS 7440

- 50

- 8 [1067] 1.0E+02 4/99 

### X

Cyanide Compounds (inorganic) 57

- 12

- 5 1073 3.4E+02 4/99 

###  ̧

HYDROGEN CYANIDE (Hydrocyanic acid) 74

- 90

- 8 3.4E+02 4/99 

### X

1,4

- DIOXANE

; (1,4

- Diethylene dioxide) 123

- 91

- 1 3.0E+03 4/99 

### X X

EPICHLOROHYDRIN (1

- Chloro

- 2,3

- epoxypropane) 106

- 89

- 8 1.3E+03 4/99 

### X X

Fluorides and Compounds 1101 2.4E+02 4/99 

###  ̧  ̧

HYDROGEN FLUORIDE (Hydrofluoric acid) 7664

- 39

- 3 2 .4E+02 4/99 

### X X

FORMALDEHYDE TAC 50

- 00

- 0 9.4E+01 4/99 

### X X X

GLYCOL ETHERS 1115

ETHYLENE GLYCOL BUTYL ETHER

– EGBE 111

- 76

- 2 1.4E+04 4/99 

### X X

ETHYLENE GLYCOL ETHYL ETHER

– EGEE 110

- 80

- 5 3.7E+02 AveP 4/99 [1/92] 

### X X

ETHYLENE GLYCOL ETHYL ETHER ACETATE

- EGEEA 111

- 15

- 9 1.4E+02 AveP 4/99 

### X X X

ETHYLENE GLYCOL METHYL ETHER

– EGME 109

- 86

- 4 9.3E+01 AveP 4/99 

### X XAPPENDIX L

- TAB LE 2 OEHHA/ARB ACUTE REFERENCE EXPOSURE LEVELS AND TARGET ORGANS b

Appendix L

- 18 Target Organs

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service

Number (CAS) A cute REL

(μg/m 3 ) Date u

Value ReviewedAlimentary TractCardiovascularDevelopmentalEyeHematologicImmuneNervousReproductiveRespiratorySkin

HYDROCHLORIC ACID (Hydrogen chloride) 7647

- 01

- 0 2.1E+03 4/99 

### X X

HYDROGEN CYA NIDE (Hydrocyanic acid) ... (see Cyanide Compounds)

HYDROGEN FLUORIDE (Hydrofluoric acid) ... (see Fluorides & Compounds)

HYDROGEN SELENIDE ... (see Selenium & Compounds)

HYDROGEN SULFIDE 7783

- 06

- 4 4.2E+01 4/99

[7/90] 

### X

ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL (Isopropanol) 67

- 63

- 0 3.2E+03 4/99 

### X X

MERCURY AND COMPOUNDS (INORGANIC) 7439

- 97

- 6 [1133] 1.8E+00 4/99 

### X X

Mercuric chloride 7487

- 94

- 7 1.8E+00 4/99 

###  ̧  ̧

METHANOL 67

- 56

- 1 2.8E+04 4/99 

### X

METHYL BROMIDE (Bromomethane) 74

- 83

- 9 3.9E+03 4/99 

### X X X X

METHYL CHLOROFORM (1,1,1

- Trichloroethane) 71

- 55

- 6 6.8E+04 4/99 

### X

METHYL ETHYL KETONE (2

- Butanone) 78

- 93

- 3 1.3E+04 4/99 

### X X

METHYLENE CHLORIDE TAC (Dichloromethane) 75

- 09

- 2 1.4E+04 4/99 

### X

NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS TAC 7440

- 02

- 0 [1145] 6.0E+00 4/99 

### X X

Nickel acetate, 373

- 02

- 4 6.0E+00 4/99 

###  ̧  ̧

Nickel carbonate 3333

- 39

- 3 6.0E+00 4/99 

###  ̧  ̧

Nickel c arbonyl 13463

- 39

- 3 6.0E+00 4/99 

###  ̧  ̧

Nickel hydroxide 12054

- 48

- 7 6.0E+00 4/99 

###  ̧  ̧

Nickelocene 1271

- 28

- 9 6.0E+00 4/99 

###  ̧  ̧

NICKEL OXIDE 1313

- 99

- 1 6.0E+00 4/99 

### X X

Nickel refinery dust from the pyrometallurgical process 1146 6.0E+00 4/99 

###  ̧  ̧

Nickel subsulfide 12035

- 72

- 2 6.0E+00 4/99 

###  ̧  ̧

NITRIC ACID 7697

- 37

- 2 8.6E+01 4/99 

### X

NITROGEN DIOXIDE 10102

- 44

- 0 4.7E+02 4/99 [1/92] 

### X

OZONE 10028

- 15

- 6 1.8E+02 4/99 [1/92] 

### X X

PERCHLOROET HYLENE TAC (Tetrachloroethylene) 127

- 18

- 4 2.0E+04 4/99 

### X X X

PHENOL 108

- 95

- 2 5.8E+03 4/99 

### X XAPPENDIX L

- TAB LE 2 OEHHA/ARB ACUTE REFERENCE EXPOSURE LEVELS AND TARGET ORGANS b

Appendix L

- 19 Target Organs

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service

Number (CAS) A cute REL

(μg/m 3 ) Date u

Value ReviewedAlimentary TractCardiovascularDevelopmentalEyeHematologicImmuneNervousReproductiveRespiratorySkin

PHOSGENE 75

- 44

- 5 4.0E+00 4/99 

### X

PROPYLENE OXIDE 75

- 56

- 9 3.1E+03 4/99 

### X X X X

Selenium and Compounds 7782

- 49

- 2 [1170]

HYDROGEN SELENIDE 7783

- 07

- 5 5.0E+00 4/99 

### X X

SODIUM HYDROXIDE 1310

- 73

- 2 8.0E+00 4/99 

### X X X

STYRENE 100

- 42

- 5 2.1E+04 4/99 

### X X

SULFATES 9960 1.2E+02 4/99 

### X

SULFUR DIOXIDE 7446

- 09

- 5 6.6E+02 4/99 [1/92] 

### X

SULF URIC ACID AND OLEUM 7664

- 93

- 9 1.2E+02 4/99 

### X

SULFURIC ACID 7664

- 93

- 9 1.2E+02 4/99 

###  ̧

SULFUR TRIOXIDE 7446

- 71

- 9 1.2E+02 4/99 

###  ̧

OLEUM 8014

- 95

- 7 1.2E+02 4/99 

###  ̧

TOLUENE 108

- 88

- 3 3.7E+04 4/99 

### X X X X X

TRIETHYLAMI NE 121

- 44

- 8 2.8E+03 4/99 

### X X

Vanadium Compounds N/A

Vanadium (fume or dust) 7440

- 62

- 2 3.0E+01 4/99 

###  ̧  ̧

VANADIUM PENTOXIDE 1314

- 62

- 1 3.0E+01 4/99 

### X X

VINYL CHLORIDE TAC (Chloroethylene) 75

- 01

- 4 1.8E+05 4/99 

### X X X

XYLENES (mixed isomers) 1330

- 20

- 7 1210 2.2E+04 4/99 

### X X

m

- Xylene 108

- 38

- 3 2.2E+04 4/99 

### X X

o

- Xylene 95

- 47

- 6 2.2E+04 4/99 

### X X

p

- Xylene 106

- 42

- 3 2.2E+04 4/99 

### X XAPPENDIX L

- TAB LE 2 OEHHA/ARB ACUTE REFERENCE EXPOSURE LEVELS AND TARGET ORGANS b

Appendix L

- 20 Purpose: The purpose of this reference table is to pro vide a quick list of all health values that have been approved by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and

the Air Resources Board (ARB) for use in facility health risk assessments conducted for the AB 2588 Air Toxics Hot Spots Prog ram. The OEHHA has developed and adopted new risk assessment guidelines that update and replace the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Revised 1992 Risk Assessment Guidelines, October 1993 . The OEHHA has adopted five technical support documents for these guidelines.
This table lists the OEHHA adopted noncancer acute Reference Exposure Levels (RELs). In addition, it lists the substances in Appendix A

- I (Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Q

uantified ) and Appendix F ( Criteria For Inputs For Risk Assessment Using Screening Air Dispersion Modeling ) of the ARB’s Air Toxics “ Hot Spots” Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines (EICG) . Users of this table are advised to monitor the OEHHA website ( www.oehha.ca.gov ) for any updates to the health values. b Substances written in italics and with a  ̧ do not have explicit OEHHA approved health values, but are included in this table to clarify applicability of OEHHA adopted health effects values to individual or grouped substances listed in the Air Toxics “ Hot Spots” Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines , Appendix A

- I list of “Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified”

. t Chemical Abstract Service Number (CAS): For chemical groupings and mixtures where a CAS number is not applicable, the 4

- digit code used in the Air Toxics “ Hot Spots” Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines (EICG) Report is listed. The 4

- digit codes enclosed in brackets [ ] are codes that have been phased out, but may still appear on previously reported Hot Spots emissions. For information on the origin and use of the 4

- digit code, see the EICG report.

u Date Value Reviewed [Added]: This column lists the date that the health value was last reviewed by OEHHA and the Scientific Review Panel, and/or approved for use in the
AB 2588 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program. If the health value is unchanged since it was first approved for use in the “Hot Spots” Program, then the date that the value w as first approved for use by CAPCOA is listed within the brackets [ ].

• April 1999 is listed for the noncancer acute RELs which have been adopted by the OEHHA as part of the AB 2588 “Hot Spot” Risk Assessment Guidelines.

TAC Toxic Air Contaminant: The Ai r Resources Board has identified this substance as a Toxic Air Contaminant.

AveP The averaging period of noncancer acute RELs is generally a one

- hour exposure. However, some are based on several hour exposure for reproductive/developmental endpoints (see sect ion 1.6 of OEHHA’s technical support document for The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, March 1999) . Typically the RELs for the following substances are compared to modeled emission concentrations of the same duratio n rather than maximum one

- hour concentrations (e.g., a 4

- hour REL should be compared to the maximum 4

- hour average concentration from the air dispersion model).

4

- Hour: Arsenic and Inorganic Arsenic Compounds

6

- Hour: Benzene, Carbon disulfide, Ethylene glycol ethyl ether, Ethylene glycol ethyl ether acetate, Ethylene glycol methyl ether

7

- Hour: Carbon tetrachloride, Chloroform

Table last updated: August 2003APPENDIX L

- TABLE 3 OEHHA/ARB CHRONIC INHALATION AND ORAL REFERENCE EXPOSURE LEVELS AND TARGET ORGANS b

Appendix L

- 21 Target Organs

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Chronic

Oral REL Date u

Value Rev iewed [Added]AlimentaryBoneCardiovascularDevelopmentalEndocrineEyeHematologicImmuneKidneyNervousReproductiveRespiratorySkin

ACETALDEHYDE 75

- 07

- 0 9.0E+00 5/93 

### X

ACROLEIN 107

- 02

- 8 6.0E

- 02 1/01 

### X X

ACRYLONITRILE 107

- 13

- 1 5.0E+00 12/01 

### X

AMMONIA 7664

- 41

- 7 2.0E+02 2/00 

### X

3.0E

- 02 1/01 

### X X X ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS (INORGANIC) TAC 7440

- 38

- 2 1016 [1015] 3.0 E

- 04 10/00 

### X X

BENZENE

TAC 71

- 43

- 2 6.0E+01 2/00 

### X X X

7.0E

- 03 12/01 

### X X BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS 7440

- 41

- 7 [1021] 2.0 E

- 03 12/01 

### X

1,3

- BUTADIENE TAC 106

- 99

- 0 2.0E+01 1/01 

### X

2.0E

- 02 1/01 

### X X CADMIUM AND COMPOUNDS T7AC 7440

- 43

- 9 [1045] 5.0 E

- 04 10/00 

### X

CARBON DISULFIDE 75

- 15

- 0 8.0E+02 11/01 

### X X

CARBON TETRACHLORIDE TAC (Tetrachloromethane) 56

- 23

- 5 4.0E+01 1/01 

### X X X

CHLORINE 7782

- 50

- 5 2.0E

- 01 2/00 

### X

CHLORINE DIOXIDE 10049

- 04

- 4 6.0E

- 01 1/01 

### X

CHLOROBENZENE 108

- 90

- 7 1.0E+03 1/01 

### X X X

CHLOROFORM TAC 67

- 66

- 3 3.0E+02 4/00 

### X X X

CHLOROPICRIN 76

- 06

- 2 4.0E

- 01 12/01 

### X

2.0E

- 01 1/01 

### X CHROMIUM 6+ TAC 18540

- 29

- 9

2.0E

- 02 10/00 

### X

2.0E

- 01 1/01 

###  ̧ Barium chromate 10294

- 40

- 3

2.0E

- 02 10/00 

###  ̧

2.0E

- 01 1/01 

###  ̧ Calcium chromate 13765

- 19

- 0

2.0E

- 02 10/00 

###  ̧

2.0E

- 01 1/01 

###  ̧
Lead chromate 7758

- 97

- 6

2.0E

- 02 10/0 0 

###  ̧APPENDIX L

- TABLE 3 OEHHA/ARB CHRONIC INHALATION AND ORAL REFERENCE EXPOSURE LEVELS AND TARGET ORGANS b

Appendix L

- 22 Target Organs

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Chronic

Oral REL Date u

Value Rev iewed [Added]AlimentaryBoneCardiovascularDevelopmentalEndocrineEyeHematologicImmuneKidneyNervousReproductiveRespiratorySkin

2.0E

- 01 1/01 

###  ̧ Sodium dichromate 10588

- 01

- 9

2.0E

- 02 10/00 

###  ̧

2.0E

- 01 1/01 

###  ̧
Strontium chromate 7789

- 06

- 2

2.0E

- 02 10/00 

###  ̧

2.0 E

- 03 1/01 

### X CHROMIUM TRIOXIDE (as chromic acid mist) 1333

- 82

- 0 2.0E

- 02 10/00 

###  ̧

CRESOLS (mixtures of) 1319

- 77

- 3 6.0E+02 1/01 

### X

m

- CRESOL 108

- 39

- 4 6.0E+02 1/01 

### X

o

- CRESOL 95

- 48

- 7 6.0E+02 1/01 

### X

p

- CRESOL 106

- 44

- 5 6.0E+02 1/01 

### X

Cyanide Compounds (inorganic) 57

- 12

- 5 1073 9.0E+00 4/00 

###  ̧  ̧  ̧

HYDROGEN CYANIDE (Hydrocyanic acid) 74

- 90

- 8 9.0E+00 4/00 

### X X X

p

- DICHLOROBENZENE 106

- 46

- 7 8.0E+02 1/01 

### X X X X

1,1,

- DICHLOROETHYLENE ... ( see Vinylidene Chloride)

DIESEL EXHAUST ... (see Particulate Emissions from Diesel

- Fueled Engines)

DIETHANOLAMINE 111

- 42

- 2 3.0E+00 12/01 

### X X

N,N

- DIMETHYL FORMAMIDE 68

- 12

- 2 8.0E+01 1/01 

### X X

1,4

- DIOXANE ; (1,4

- Diethylene dioxide) 123

- 91

- 1 3.0E+03 4/00 

### X X X

EPICHLOROHYDRIN (1

- Chloro

- 2,3

- epoxypropane) 106

- 89

- 8 3.0E+00 1/01 

### X X

1,2

- EPOXYBUTANE 106

- 88

- 7 2.0E+01 1/01 

### X X

ETHYL BENZENE 100

- 41

- 4 2.0E+

03 2/00 

### X X X X

ETHYL CHLORIDE (Chlorethane) 75

- 00

- 3 3.0E+04 4/00 

### X X

ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE TAC (1,2

- Dibromoethane) 106

- 93

- 4 8.0E

- 01 12/01 

### X

ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE TAC (1,2

- Dichloroethane) 107

- 06

- 2 4.0E+02 1/01 

### X

ETHYLENE GLYCOL 107

- 21

- 1 4.0E+02 4/00 

### X X X

ETHYLENE OXIDE TAC (1,2

- Epoxyethane) 75

- 21

- 8 3.0E+01 1/01 

### XAPPENDIX L

- TABLE 3 OEHHA/ARB CHRONIC INHALATION AND ORAL REFERENCE EXPOSURE LEVELS AND TARGET ORGANS b

Appendix L

- 23 Target Organs

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Chronic

Oral REL Date u

Value Rev iewed [Added]AlimentaryBoneCardiovascularDevelopmentalEndocrineEyeHematologicImmuneKidneyNervousReproductiveRespiratorySkin

Fluorides 1101 1.3E+1 4.0E

- 2 8/03 

### X  ̧ * 

###  ̧  ̧ *

HYDROGEN FLUORIDE (Hydrofluoric acid) 7664

- 39

- 3 1.4E+1 4.0E

- 2 8/0 3 

### X X * 

### X X *

FORMALDEHYDE TAC 50

- 00

- 0 3.0E+00 2/00 

### X X

GLUTARALDEHYDE 111

- 30

- 8 8.0E

- 02 1/01 

### X

GLYCOL ETHERS 1115

ETHYLENE GLYCOL ETHYL ETHER

– EGEE 110

- 80

- 5 7.0E+01 2/00 

### X X

ETHYLENE GLYCO L ETHYL ETHER ACETATE

- EGEEA 111

- 15

- 9 3.0E+02 2/00 

### X

ETHYLENE GLYCOL METHYL ETHER

– EGME 109

- 86

- 4 6.0E+01 2/00 

### X

ETHYLENE GLYCOL METHYL ETHER ACETATE

– EGMEA 110

- 49

- 6 9.0E+01 2/00 

### X

n

- HEXANE 110

- 54

- 3 7.0E+03 4/ 00 

### X

HYDRAZINE 302

- 01

- 2 2.0E

- 01 1/01 

### X X

HYDROCHLORIC ACID (Hydrogen chloride) 7647

- 01

- 0 9.0E+00 2/00 

### X

HYDROGEN CYANIDE (Hydrocyanic acid) (see Cyanide Compounds) HYDROGEN FLUORIDE (Hydrofluo ric acid) (see Fluorides & Compounds)

HYDROGEN SULFIDE 7783

- 06

- 4 1.0E+01 4/00 

### X

ISOPHORONE 78

- 59

- 1 2.0E+03 12/01 

### X X

ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL (Isopropanol) 67

- 63

- 0 7.0E+03 2/00 

### X X

MALEIC ANHYDRIDE 10 8

- 31

- 6 7.0E

- 01 12/01 

### X

MANGANESE AND COMPOUNDS 7439

- 96

- 5 [1132] 2.0E

- 01 4/00 

### X

9.0E

- 02 2/00 

### X MERCURY AND COMPOUNDS (INORGANIC) 7439

- 97

- 6 [1133] 3.0 E

- 04 10/00 [1/92] 

### X X

9.0E

- 02 2/00 

###  ̧

Mercuric chloride 7487

- 94

- 7

3.0E

- 04 10/00

[1/92] 

###  ̧  ̧

MERCURY AND COMPOUNDS (ORGANIC) N/A

METHANOL 67

- 56

- 1 4.0E+03 4/00 

### X

METHYL BROMIDE (Bromomethane) 74

- 83

- 9 5.0E+00 2/00 

### X X X

METHYL tertiary

- B UTYL ETHER 1634

- 04

- 4 8.0E+03 2/00 

### X X XAPPENDIX L

- TABLE 3 OEHHA/ARB CHRONIC INHALATION AND ORAL REFERENCE EXPOSURE LEVELS AND TARGET ORGANS b

Appendix L

- 24 Target Organs

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Chronic

Oral REL Date u

Value Rev iewed [Added]AlimentaryBoneCardiovascularDevelopmentalEndocrineEyeHematologicImmuneKidneyNervousReproductiveRespiratorySkin

METHYL CHLOROFORM (1,1,1

- Trichloroethane) 71

- 55

- 6 1.0E+03 2/00 

### X

METHYL ISOCYANATE 624

- 83

- 9 1.0E+00 12/01 

### X X

METHYLENE CHLORIDE TAC (Dichloromethane) 75

- 09

- 2 4.0E+02 2/00 

### X X

4,4'

- METHYLENE DIANILINE (AND ITS DICHLORIDE) 101

- 77

- 9 2.0E+01 12/01 

### X X

METHYLENE DIPHENYL ISOCYANATE 101

- 68

- 8 7.0E

- 01 1/01 

### X

NAPHTHALENE 91

- 20

- 3 9.0E+00 4/00 

### X

5.0E

- 02 2/00 

### X X NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS TAC 7440

- 02

- 0 [114 5] 5.0E

- 02 10/00 

### X

5.0E

- 02 2/00 

###  ̧  ̧ Nickel acetate 373

- 02

- 4 5.0E

- 02 10/00 

###  ̧

5.0E

- 02 2/00 

###  ̧  ̧ Nickel carbonate 3333

- 39

- 3
5.0E

- 02 10/00 

###  ̧

5.0E

- 02 2/00 

###  ̧  ̧ Nickel carb onyl 13463

- 39

- 3 5.0E

- 02 10/00 

###  ̧

5.0E

- 02 2/00 

###  ̧  ̧ Nickel hydroxide 12054

- 48

- 7 5.0E

- 02 10/00 

###  ̧

5.0E

- 02 2/00 

###  ̧  ̧ Nickelocene 1271

- 28

- 9 5.0E

- 02 10/00 

###  ̧

1.0E

- 01 2/00 

### X X NICKEL OXIDE 1313

- 99

- 1 5.0E

- 02 10/00 

### X

5.0E

- 02 2/00 

###  ̧  ̧ Nickel refinery dust from pyrometallurgical process 1146 5.0E

- 02 10/00 

###  ̧

5.0E

- 02 2/00 

###  ̧  ̧ Nickel subsulfide 12035

- 72

- 2
5.0E

- 02 10/00 

###  ̧

PCB (POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (speciated) ∇

35298

- 13

- 3 4.0E

- 01 8/03 

### X X X X X X 3,3’,4,4’

- TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL (77) 1.0E

– 04 8/03 

### X X X X X X

70362

- 50

- 4 4.0E

- 01 8/03 

### X X X X X X 3,4,4’,5

- TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL (81) 1.0E

– 04 8/03 

### X X X X X XAPPENDIX L

- TABLE 3 OEHHA/ARB CHRONIC INHALATION AND ORAL REFERENCE EXPOSURE LEVELS AND TARGET ORGANS b

Appendix L

- 25 Target Organs

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Chronic

Oral REL Date u

Value Rev iewed [Added]AlimentaryBoneCardiovascularDevelopmentalEndocrineEyeHematologicImmuneKidneyNervousReproductiveRespiratorySkin

32598

- 14

- 4 4.0E

- 01 8/03 

### X X X X X X 2,3,3’,4,4’

- PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL (105)
1.0E

– 04 8/03 

### X X X X X X

74472

- 37

- 0 8.0E

- 02 8/03 

### X X X X X X 2,3,4,4’5

- PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL (114) 2.0E

– 05 8/03 

### X X X X X X

31508

- 00

- 6 4.0E

- 01 8/03 

### X X X X X X 2,3’4,4’,5

- PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL (118) 1.0E

– 04 8/03 

### X X X X X X

65510

- 44

- 3 4.0E

- 01 8 /03 

### X X X X X X 2’,3,4,4’,5

- PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL (123) 1.0E

– 04 8/03 

### X X X X X X

57465

- 28

- 8 4.0E

- 04 8/03 

### X X X X X X 3,3’,4,4’,5

- PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL (126) 1.0E

– 07 8/03 

### X X X X X X

38380

- 08

- 4 8.0E

- 02 8/03 

### X X X X X X 2,3,3’,4,4’,5

- HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL (156) 2.0E

– 05 8/03 

### X X X X X X

69782

- 90

- 7 8.0E

- 02 8/03 

### X X X X X X 2,3,3’,4,4’,5’

- HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL (157) 2.0E

– 05 8/03 

### X X X X X X

52663

- 72

- 6 4.0E

- 00 8/03 

### X X X X X X 2,3’,4,4’,5,5’

- HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL (167) 1.0E

– 03 8/03 

### X X X X X X

32774

- 16

- 6 4.0E

- 03 8/03 

### X X X X X X 3,3’,4,4’5,5’

- HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL (169) 1.0E

– 06 8/03 

### X X X X X X

39635

- 31

- 9 4.0E

- 01 8/03 

### X X X X X X 2,3,3’4,4’,5,5’

- HEPTACHLOROBIPHENYL (189) 1 .0 E

- 04 8/03 

### X X X X X X

PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL

- FUELED ENGINES TAC n 9901 5.0E+00 TAC 8/98 

### X

PERCHLOROETHYLENE TAC (Tetrachloroethylene) 127

- 18

- 4 3.5E+01 TAC 10/91 

### X X

PHENOL 108

- 95

- 2 2.0E+02 4/00 

### X X X X

PHOSPHINE 7803

- 51

- 2 8.0E

- 1 9/02 

### X X X

PHOSPHORIC ACID 7664

- 38

- 2 7.0E+00 2/00 

### X

PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE 85

- 44

- 9 2.0E+01 1/01 

### X

POLYCHLORINATED DIBENZO

- P

- DIOXINS (PCDD)

(AS 2,3,7,8

-

EQUIV) TAC • 1085
1086APPENDIX L

- TABLE 3 OEHHA/ARB CHRONIC INHALATION AND ORAL REFERENCE EXPOSURE LEVELS AND TARGET ORGANS b

Appendix L

- 26 Target Organs

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Chronic

Oral REL Date u

Value Rev iewed [Added]AlimentaryBoneCardiovascularDevelopmentalEndocrineEyeHematologicImmuneKidneyNervousReproductiveRespiratorySkin

4.0E

- 05 2/00 

### X X X X X X 2,3,7,8

- TETRACHLORODIBENZO

- P

- DIOXIN

TAC 1746

- 01

- 6 1.0E

- 08 10/00 

### X X X X X X

4.0E

- 05 2/00 

### X X X X X X 1,2,3,7,8

- PENTACHLORODIBENZO

- P

- DIOXIN 40321

- 76

- 4 1.0E

- 08 10/00 

### X X X X X X

4.0E

- 04 2/00 

### X X X X X X 1,2,3,4,7,8

- HEXACHLORODIBENZO

- P

- DIOXIN 39227

- 28

- 6 1.0E

- 07 10/00 

### X X X X X X

4.0E

- 04 2/00 

### X X X X X X 1,2,3,6,7,8

- HEXACHLORODIBENZO

- P

- DIOXIN 57653

- 85

- 7 1.0E

- 07 10/00 

### X X X X X X

4.0E

- 04 2/00 

### X X X X X X 1,2,3,7,8,9

- HEXACHLORODIBENZO

- P

- DIOXIN 19408

- 74

- 3 1.0E

- 07 10/00 

### X X X X X X

4.0E

- 03 2/00 

### X X X X X X 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- HEPTACHLORODIBENZO

- P

- DIOXIN 35822

- 46

- 9 1.0E

- 06 10/00 

### X X X X X X

4.0E

- 01 2/00 

### X X X X X X 1,2,3,4 ,6,7,8,9

- OCTACHLORODIBENZO

- P

- DIOXIN 3268

- 87

- 9 1.0E

- 04 10/00 

### X X X X X X

POLYCHLORINATED DIBENZOFURANS (PCDF)

(AS 2,3,7,8

-

EQUIV) TAC • 1080

4.0E

- 04 2/00 

### X X X X X X 2,3,7,8

- TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 5 120

- 73

- 19 1.0E

- 07 10/00 

### X X X X X X

8.0E

- 04 2/00 

### X X X X X X 1,2,3,7,8

- PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 57117

- 41

- 6 2.0E

- 07 10/00 

### X X X X X X

8.0E

- 05 2/ 00 

### X X X X X X 2,3,4,7,8

- PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURN 57117

- 31

- 4 2.0E

- 08 10/00 

### X X X X X X

4.0E

- 04 2/00 

### X X X X X X 1,2,3,4,7,8

- HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 70648

- 26

- 9 1.0E

- 07 10/00 

### X X X X X X

4.0E

- 04 2/00 

### X X X X X X 1,2,3,6,7,8

- HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 57117

- 44

- 9 1.0E

- 07 10/00 

### X X X X X X

4.0E

- 04 2/00 

### X X X X X X 1,2,3,7,8,9

- HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 72918

- 21

- 9 1.0E

- 07 10/00 

### X X X X X X

4.0E

- 04 2/00 

### X X X X X X 2,3,4,6,7,8

- HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 60851

- 34

- 5
1.0E

- 07 1 0/00 

### X X X X X XAPPENDIX L

- TABLE 3 OEHHA/ARB CHRONIC INHALATION AND ORAL REFERENCE EXPOSURE LEVELS AND TARGET ORGANS b

Appendix L

- 27 Target Organs

Substance b Chemical t

Abstract Service
Number (CAS) Chronic

Inhalation
REL (μg/m 3 ) Chronic

Oral REL Date u

Value Rev iewed [Added]AlimentaryBoneCardiovascularDevelopmentalEndocrineEyeHematologicImmuneKidneyNervousReproductiveRespiratorySkin

4.0E

- 03 2/00 

### X X X X X X 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 67562

- 39

- 4 1.0E

- 06 10/00 

### X X X X X X

4.0E

- 03 2/00 

### X X X X X X 1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 55673

- 89

- 7 1.0E

- 06 10/00 

### X X X X X X

4.0E

- 01 2/00 

### X X X X X X 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 39001

- 02

- 0 1.0E

- 04 10/00 

### X X X X X X

PROPYLENE (PROPENE) 115

- 07

- 1 3.0E+03 4/00 

### X

PROPYLENE GLYCOL MONOMETHYL ETHER 107

- 98

- 2 7.0E+03 2/00 

### X

PROPYLENE OXIDE 75

- 56

- 9 3.0E+01 2/00 

### X

SELENIUM AND COMPOUNDS (other than hydrogen selenide) 7782

- 49

- 2 [1170] 2.0E+01 12/01 

### X X X

STYRENE 100

- 42

- 5 9.0E+02 4/00 

### X

SULFURIC ACID 7664

- 93

- 9 1.0E+00 12/01 

### X

Sulfuric Acid and Oleum 7664

- 93

- 9 1.0E+00 12/01 

###  ̧

Sulfuric Trioxide 7446

- 71

- 9 1.0E+00 12/01 

###  ̧

Oleum 8014

- 95

- 7 1.0E+00 12/01 

###  ̧

TOLUENE 108

- 88

- 3 3.0E+02 4/00 

### X X X

Toluene diisocyanates 264 71

- 62

- 5
1204 7.0E

- 02 1/01 

###  ̧

TOLUENE

- 2,4

- DIISOCYANATE 584

- 84

- 9 7.0E

- 02 1/01 

### X

TOLUENE

- 2,6

- DIISOCYANATE 91

- 08

- 7 7.0E

- 02 1/01 

### X

TRICHLOROETHYLENE TAC 79

- 01

- 6 6.0E+02 4/00 

### X X

TRIETHYLAMINE 121

- 44

- 8 2.0E+

02 9/02 

### X X X

VINYL ACETATE 108

- 05

- 4 2.0E+02 12/01 

### X

VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE (1,1,

- Dichloroethylene) 75

- 35

- 4 7.0E+01 1/01 

### X

XYLENES (mixed isomers) 1330

- 20

- 7 1210 7.0E+02 4/00 

### X X

m

- XYLENE 108

- 38

- 3 7.0E+0 2 4/00 

### X X

o

- XYLENE 95

- 47

- 6 7.0E+02 4/00 

### X X

p

- XYLENE 106

- 42

- 3 7.0E+02 4/00 

### X XAppendix L

- 1 Purpose: The purpose of this reference table is to provide a quick list of all health values that have been approved by the Office of Environm ental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the Air Resources Board

(ARB) for use in facility health risk assessments conducted for the AB 2588 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. The OEHHA has developed and adopted new risk assessment guidelines that update and replace the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Revised 1992 Risk Assessment Guidelines, October 1993 . The OEHHA has adopted five technical support documents for these guidelines.

This table l ists the OEHHA adopted inhalation and oral noncancer chronic RELs. In addition, it lists the substances in Appendix A

- I (Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified ) and Appendix F ( Criteria For Inputs For Risk Assessment Using Screening Air Dispers ion Modeling ) of the ARB’s Air Toxics “ Hot Spots” Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines (EICG) . OEHHA is still in the process of adopting new noncancer chronic RELs. Therefore, new health values will periodically be added to, or deleted from, this t able. Users of this table are advised to monitor the OEHHA website ( www.oehha.ca.gov ) for any updates to the health values. b Substances written in italics and with a  ̧ do not have explicit OEHHA approved health value s, but are included in this table to clarify applicability of OEHHA adopted heath effects values to individual or grouped substances listed in the Air Toxics “ Hot Spots” Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines , Appendix A

- I list of “Substances For Which Emissions Must Be Quantified”

.

t Chemical Abstract Service Number (CAS): For chemical groupings and mixtures where a CAS number is not applicable, the 4

- digit code used in the Air Toxics “ Hot Spots” Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines (EICG) Report is listed. The 4

- digit codes enclosed in brackets [ ] are codes that have been phased out, but may still appear on previously reported Hot Spots emissions. For information on the origin and use of the 4

- digit code, see the EICG report.

u Date Value Rev iewed [Added]: This column lists the date that the health value was last reviewed by OEHHA and the Scientific Review Panel, and/or approved for use in the AB 2588 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program. If the health value is unchanged since it was first approve d for use in the “Hot Spots” Program, then the date that the value was first approved for use by CAPCOA is listed within the brackets [ ].

• February 2000, April 2000, January 2001, and December 2001 are listed for the first set of 22, the second set of 1 6, the third set of 22, and the fourth set of 12 noncancer chronic RELs, respectively.

• October 2000 is listed for the oral chronic RELs. The chronic REL for carbon disulfide was adopted in May 2002. Chronic RELS for phosphine and triethylamine were ad opted in September 2002. Chronic RELs for fluorides including hydrogen fluoride were adopted August 2003.

• For the substances identified as Toxic Air Contaminants, the Air Resources Board hearing date is listed. The date for acetaldehyde represents the da te the value was approved by the Scientific Review Panel.

TAC Toxic Air Contaminant: The Air Resources Board has identified this substance as a Toxic Air Contaminant.

H Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Chronic Oral: The chronic oral value is U.S. EPA’s 1996 oral Reference Dose for Aroclor

- 1254.

• Polychlorinated Dibenzo

- p

- dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (also referred to as chlorinated dioxins and dibenzofurans): The OEHHA has adopted the World Health Organization 1997 (WHO

- 97 )

Toxicity Equivalency Fact or scheme for evaluating the cancer risk due to exposure to samples containing mixtures of polychlorinated dibenzo

- p

- dioxins (PCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF) and determining cancer risks for a number of specific PCB congeners. See Appendix A of OEHHA’s Technical Support Document For Describing Available Cancer Potency
Factors for more information about the scheme. See Appendix E of OEHHA’s The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part V; Technical Support Document; Guid ance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments for the methodology for calculating 2,3,7,8

- equivalents for PCDD, PCDFs and a number of specific PCB congeners. n Particulate Emissions from Diesel

- Fueled Engines: The unit risk factor and chronic RE L were derived from whole diesel exhaust and should be used only for impacts from the inhalation pathway. The inhalation impacts from speciated emissions from diesel

- fueled engines are already accounted for in the unit risk factor and REL. However, at th e discretion of the risk assessor, speciated emissions from diesel

- fueled engines may be used to estimate acute noncancer health impacts or the contribution to cancer risk or chronic noncancer health impacts for the non

- inhalation exposure pathway. See Ap pendix D of OEHHA’s The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Part V; Technical Support Document; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments for more information.

Table last updated: August 2003