PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE AEPA United States Office of Chemical Safety and Environmental Protection Agency Pollution Prevention Draft Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride (Methane, Tetrachloro-) Systematic Review Supplemental File: Data Quality Evaluation of Environmental Releases and Occupational Exposure CASRN: 56-23-5 ci i cKCk""Ci CI January 2020 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE This document is a compilation of tables for the data extraction and evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride (Methane, Tetrachloro-). Each table shows the data point or set or information element that was extracted and evaluated from a data source in accordance with Appendix D of the Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations. If the source contains more than one data set or information element, the review provides an overall confidence score for each data set or information element that is found in the source. Therefore, it is possible that a source may have more than one overall quality/confidence score. Table of Contents Releases to the Environment Occupational Exposure Facility Page 3 83 182 Explanatory Notes These explanatory notes provide context to understand the short comments in the data evaluation tables. Domain Metric Description of Comments Field Reliability Methodology Indicates the sampling/analytical methodology, estimation method, or type of publication Repre sentativene ss Geographic Scope Indicates the country of the study, publication, or underlying data Applicability Indicates whether the data are for a condition of use within scope of the Risk Evaluation Temporal Representativeness Provides the year of study, publication, or underlying data Sample Size Describes the distribution of the sample or underlying data Accessibility / Clarity Metadata Completeness Describes the completeness of the metadata Variability and Uncertainty Metadata Completeness Indicates if study or publication addresses variability and uncertainty of the data or information 2 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT Releases to the Environment DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Geelen, L. M. J.,Huijbregts, M. A. J.,Den Hollander, H.,Ragas, A. M. J.,van Jaarsveld, H. A.,de Zwart, D.. 2009. Confronting environmental pressure, environmental quality and human health impact indicators of priority air emissions. Atmospheric Environment. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 606363 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Release Source: Environmental Media: Release Estimation Method: Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): Use the Netherlands Pollutant Release and Transfer Register Air measured 2.8x103 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 national database Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Medium X 1 2 OECD Country (Netherlands) Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from 10 years ago (2008) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 national scale Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 only includes yearly release data for national release total Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 does not discuss variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.2. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 4 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Hurst, D. F.,Lin, J. C.,Romashkin, P. A.,Daube, B. C.,Gerbig, C.,Matross, D. M.,Wofsy, S. C.,Hall, B. D.,Elkins, J. W.. 2006. Continuing global significance of emissions of Montreal Protocol-restricted halocarbons in the United States and Canada. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 608526 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Release Source: Environmental Media: Release Estimation Method: Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): Use "Contemporary anthropogenic emissions" Air thousands of in situ measurements from a small aircraft -0.0003 kg/person/yr EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 thousands of in situ measurements from a small aircraft Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US & Canada Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 Data greater than 10 years old (2003) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 national scale (thousands) Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 very thorough paper Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 addresses both variability and uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 1.9. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 5 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Jiun-Horng, T.,Kuo-Hsiung, L.,Chih-Yu, C.,Nina, L.,Sen-Yi, M.,Hung-Lung, C.. 2008. Volatile organic compound constituents from an integrated iron and steel facility. Journal of Hazardous Materials. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 609426 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Release Source: Disposal /Treatment Method: Environmental Media: Release Estimation Method: Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): Number of Sites: Waste Treatment Method: Manufacture Processing aid Hot forming process in iron and steel facility Stack Gas Air Measured from stack then analyzed by US EPA Method 18 integrated bag method 2698 ppbv 1 emission to air EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 Accurate method, may exclude some releases sources at site Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Low X 1 3 non-OECD (Taiwan) Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from 10 years ago (2008) Metric 5: Sample Size Medium x 1 2 Range of sampling not discussed Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 lists uncertainty, limited discussion on variability Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.2. Continued on next page ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Jiun-Horng, T.,Kuo-Hsiung, L.,Chili-Yu, C.,Nina, L.,Sen-Yi, M.,Hung-Lung, C.. 2008. Volatile organic compound constituents from an integrated iron and steel facility. Journal of Hazardous Materials. Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; 609426 ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 7 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Kroeze, C.,Reijnders, L.. 1992. Halocarbons and global warming. Science of the Total Environment. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Published Models for Exposures or Releases; Hero ID 773076 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Environmental Media: Release Estimation Method: Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): Use Air measured, global data from technical papers kton/yr EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 sources are quality technical papers Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Medium X 1 2 global data Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable X 2 8 Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1990) Metric 5: Sample Size Low X 1 3 no statistics of sample size Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium X 1 2 Data sources cited but not fully described Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 does not discuss variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 3.0. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Yokouchi, Y.. 2005. Estimates of ratios of anthropogenic halocarbon emissions from Japan based on aircraft monitoring over Sagami Bay, Japan. Journal of Geophysical Research. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 1006187 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Release Source: Environmental Media: Release Estimation Method: Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): Use Sagami Bay, Japan Air measured from aircraft Gg/yr EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 brief samping description, but details published in another pa- per, analyzed at National Institute forEnvironmental Studies Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Medium X 1 2 Japan Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 Data greater than 10 years old (2002) Metric 5: Sample Size Low X 1 3 no statistics of sample size Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 does not discuss variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.4. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 9 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Palmer, P. I.. 2003. Eastern Asian emissions of anthropogenic halocarbons deduced from aircraft concentration data. Journal of Geophysical Research. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 1006234 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Release Source: Eastern Asia Environmental Media: Air Release Estimation Method: measured from aircraft Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): Gg/yr EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 Methodology not well described Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Low X 1 3 China, Japan, Korea Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium x 2 4 Data greater than 10 years old (2001) Metric 5: Sample Size Medium x 1 2 brief sample description, little statistics on sample size Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 discusses uncertainty only Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.4. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 10 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Pratt, G. C.,Palmer, K.,Wu, C. Y.,01iaei, F.,Hollerbach, C.,Fenske, M. J.. 2000. An assessment of air toxics in Minnesota. Environmental Health Perspectives. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 1019159 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Release Source: State of Minnesota Environmental Media: Air EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 EPA Assessment System for Population ExposureNationwide model Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium x 2 4 Data greater than 10 years old (2000) Metric 5: Sample Size Medium X 1 2 some biases in sample size, but paper discusses the satitical distribution Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 discusses both uncertainty and variability Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 11 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Hurst, D. F.. 2004. Emissions of ozone-depleting substances in Russia during 2001. Journal of Geophysical Research. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 1311751 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Release Source: Environmental Media: Release Estimation Method: Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): Number of Sites: Use Russia Air measured from trans-siberian railway Gg/yr 49 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 methodology expected to be accurate Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Low X 1 3 non-OECD, Russia Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 Data greater than 10 years old (2001) Metric 5: Sample Size High X 1 1 national scale (thousands) Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 discusses both uncertainty and variability Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 12 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Dunse, B. L.,Steele, L. P.,Wilson, S. R.,Fraser, P. J.,Krummel, P. B.. 2005. Trace gas emissions from Melbourne, Australia, based on AGAGE observations at Cape Grim, Tasmania, 1995-2000. Atmospheric Environment. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 1947347 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Release Source: Australia Environmental Media: Air Release Estimation Method: Measured, Air samples from lab on the Tasmanian coast Daily Release Quantity (kg/day): ppt Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): t/yr Number of Sites: 1 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 analysis of sample and secondary standard Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Medium X 1 2 Australia Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium x 2 4 Data greater than 10 years old (1995-2000) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 36 samples/day over 5 years Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 discusses both uncertainty and variability Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. Continued on next page 13 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. Dunse, B. L.,Steele, L. P.,Wilson, S. R.,Fraser, P. J.,Krummel, P. B.. 2005. Trace gas emissions from Melbourne, Australia, based on AGAGE observations at Cape Grim, Tasmania, 1995-2000. Atmospheric Environment. Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; 1947347 14 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Zhang, Y. L.,Guo, H.,Wang, X. M.,Simpson, I. J.,Barletta, B.,Blake, D. R.,Meinardi, S.,Rowland, F. S.,Cheng, H. R.,Saunders, S. M.,Lam, S. H. M.. 2010. Emission patterns and spatiotemporal variations of halocarbons in the Pearl River Delta region, southern China. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 2532952 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Release Source: China Environmental Media: Air Release Estimation Method: Measured, Air samples from lab in Hong Kong and southern China Daily Release Quantity (kg/day): ppt Number of Sites: 2 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 thorough explanantion, methodology expected to be accurate Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Low X 1 3 China Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium x 2 4 Data greater than 10 years old (1998-2008) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 198+ samples Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 thorough examination of data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 discusses both uncertainty and variability Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. Continued on next page 15 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Zhang, Y. L.,Guo, H.,Wang, X. M.,Simpson, I. J.,Barletta, B.,Blake, D. R.,Meinardi, S.,Rowland, F. S.,Cheng, H. R.,Saunders, S. M.,Lam, S. H. M.. 2010. Emission patterns and spatiotemporal variations of halocarbons in the Pearl River Delta region, southern China. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 2532952 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 16 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Ipcs,. 1999. Environmental Health Criteria 208: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Published Models for Exposures or Releases; Hero ID 3001090 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Release Source: Environmental Media: Release Estimation Method: Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr) Use Global Air, Water, biological Measured, Air and water samples from multiple labs around the world g/m3 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Environmental health criteria by WHO, UN, and ILO Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 Global sampling methods, global environmental concentrations Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low X 2 6 Data from greater than 20 years (1974-1999) Metric 5: Sample Size High X 1 1 Global data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 thorough examination of data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 discusses both uncertainty and variability Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 17 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Simmonds, P. G.,Cunnold, D. M.,Weiss, R. F.,Prinn, R. G.,Fraser, P. J.,McCulloch, A.,Alyea, F. N.,0'Doherty, S.. 1998. Global trends and emission estimates of CC14 from in situ background observations from July 1978 to June 1996. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3562677 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Release Source: Environmental Media: Release Estimation Method: Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr) Number of Sites: Use Global Air Measured, Air samples from 5 remote locations around the world ppt/yr 5 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 thorough explanantion, methodology expected to be accurate Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Low X 1 3 Global sampling, US + non-OECD ( Samoa, Tasmania, Bar- bados) Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low X 2 6 Data from greater than 20 years (1978-1996) Metric 5: Sample Size High X 1 1 Global data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 thorough examination of data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 discusses both uncertainty and variability Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.3. Continued on next page 18 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Simmonds, P. G.,Cunnold, D. M.,Weiss, R. F.,Prinn, R. G.,Fraser, P. J.,McCulloch, A.,Alyea, F. N.,0'Doherty, S.. 1998. Global trends and emission estimates of CC14 from in situ background observations from July 1978 to June 1996. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3562677 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 19 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Xiao, X.,Prinn, R. G.,Fraser, P. J.,Weiss, R. F.,Simmonds, P. G.,0'Doherty, S.,Miller, B. R.,Salameh, P. K.,Harth, C. M.,Krummel, P. B.,Golombek, A.,Porter, L. W.,Butler, J. H.,Elkins, J. W.,Dutton, G. S.,Hall, B. D.,Steele, L. P.,Wang, R. H. J.,Cunnold, D. M.. 2010. Atmospheric three-dimensional inverse modeling of regional industrial emissions and global oceanic uptake of carbon tetrachloride. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3568624 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Release Source: Global Environmental Media: Air and water Release Estimation Method: uses histoical air emissions to create a 3-D chemical transport model and estimate future releases Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): Gg/yr Number of Sites: 12 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 thorough explanantion, methodology expected to be accurate Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Low X 1 3 Global sampling, US + non-OECD ( Samoa, Ireland, Tasma- nia, Barbados) Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 published 2010, data ranges from '79-'06 then models future CC14 sensitivity to 2012 Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 Global data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 thorough examination of data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 discusses both uncertainty and variability Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 1.9. Continued on next page 20 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Xiao, X.,Prinn, R. G.,Fraser, P. J.,Weiss, R. F.,Simmonds, P. G.,0'Doherty, S.,Miller, B. R.,Salameh, P. K.,Harth, C. M.,Krummel, P. B.,Golombek, A.,Porter, L. W.,Butler, J. H.,Elkins, J. W.,Dutton, G. S.,Hall, B. D.,Steele, L. P.,Wang, R. H. J.,Cunnold, D. M.. 2010. Atmospheric three-dimensional inverse modeling of regional industrial emissions and global oceanic uptake of carbon tetrachloride. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3568624 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 21 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Altshuller, A. P.. 1976. AVERAGE TROPOSPHERIC CONCENTRATION OF CARBON-TETRACHLORIDE BASED ON INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, USAGE, AND EMISSIONS. Environmental Science and Technology. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3569465 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Release Source: US Production Sites Environmental Media: Air Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): Millions of lbs EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Low X 1 3 Methodology not well described Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable x 2 8 Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol Metric 5: Sample Size Low x 1 3 US data without statistical info Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 only specfies release data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 does not discuss variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 3.2. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 22 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 1980. Waste solvent reclamation. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3840001 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Release Source: Disposal /Treatment Method: Environmental Media: Release or Emission Factor: Release Estimation Method: Use Solvent for Paints & coatings Solvent evaporated to air Air Breaks data into process unit emission of kg chemical/Mg total chemical processed for storage tank, condenser vent, incinerator stack, leaks, open sources EPA Emission Factor Compilation EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Air Pollutant Emissions Factors (AP-42) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable x 2 8 Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1990) Metric 5: Sample Size Medium x 1 2 little sample size discussion Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 complete range of data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.7. Continued on next page 23 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID U.S, E. P. A.. 1980. Waste solvent reclamation. Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; 3840001 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 24 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EXTRACTION Parameter Data 1994. National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants: Halogenated solvent cleaning - Background information for final standards. Releases to the Environment; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments; 3860538 Life Cycle Stage: Release Source: Disposal /Treatment Method: Environmental Media: Release Estimation Method: Use solvent cleaning/degreasing Solvent evaporated to air Air National Emission Standard for HAPs EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 National Emission Standard for HAPs Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low X 2 6 Data from greater than 20 years (1994) Metric 5: Sample Size Medium X 1 2 little sample size discussion Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 complete range of data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.4. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 25 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EXTRACTION Parameter Data U.S, E. P. A.. 2002. Occurrence summary and use support document for the six-year review of national primary drinking water regulations. Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; 3970165 Life Cycle Stage: Release Source: Environmental Media: Release Estimation Method: Number of Sites: Use air emissions, spills Air, land, water Occurrence Summary and Use Support Document for the Six-Year Re- view of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations 100 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 EPA Occurrence Summary and Use Support Document for the Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regula- tions Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Geographic Scope Applicability High x 1 Unacceptable x 2 Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low x 2 Metric 5: Sample Size Medium x 1 1 US 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation 6 Data from greater than 20 years (1989 to 1999) 2 uncertain statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 gives brief summary of process units and operation Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 lists variability, limited discussion on uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.4. Continued on next page 26 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 2002. Occurrence summary and use support document for the six-year review of national primary drinking water regulations. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3970165 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 27 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: ToxNet Hazardous Substances Data, Bank. 2017. HSDB: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3970275 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Release Source: Environmental Media: Release Estimation Method: Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr) Use spills water USEPA data 0.12-0.85 ppt in marine surface waterO-9 ppb fresh water0.1-30 ppb city surface water0.2-20 ppb in groundwater EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NLM NSDB for CC14 Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable X 2 8 Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1973-1980) Metric 5: Sample Size Low X 1 3 distribution not characterized by statistics, only 1 exposed Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.8. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 28 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: ToxNet Hazardous Substances Data, Bank. 2017. HSDB: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3970275 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Release Source: Environmental Media: Release Estimation Method: Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): Use air emissions air USEPA data 0-42.4 ppb urban airllO.9-142.3 ppt rural air EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NLM NSDB for CC14 Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable X 2 8 Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1979-1987) Metric 5: Sample Size Low x 1 dsitribution not characterized by statistics, only 1 exposed Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.8. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 29 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Carex, Canada. 2017. Profiles & estimates: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3978372 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Release Source: Environmental Media: Use release during chemical use because of high volatility air emissions air EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 CAREX Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Medium X 1 2 OECD Country (Canada) Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2016) Metric 5: Sample Size Low x 1 3 distribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 provides report of results but does not describes methods or assumptions Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 does not specifically address variability or uncertainty but ref- erences original study article Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.6. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 30 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Us, E. P. A.. 1990. Industrial wastewater volatile organic compound emissions: Background information for BACT/LAER determinations. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3981116 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Release Source: Environmental Media: Use wastewater stream concentration wastewater water EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Metric 3: Applicability High x 1 Unacceptable x 2 Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable x 2 Metric 5: Sample Size Low x 1 1 US 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation 8 Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1990) 3 distribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 provides report of results but does not describes methods or assumptions Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 does not specifically address variability or uncertainty but ref- erences original study article Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 3.0. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 31 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID Pnl,. 2012. Abiotic degradation rates for carbon tetrachloride and chloroform: Final report. Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; 3975006 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Release Source: Disposal /Treatment Method: Environmental Media: Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): Number of Sites: Waste Treatment Method: Use liquid waste wastewater pump-and-treat approach water 920,000 kg total between 1955-1973 1 pump from ground and treat with hydrolysis EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 DOE Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope High Applicability Unacceptable Temporal Representativeness High Sample Size Medium x 1 1 US X 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation X 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2012) X 1 2 Range of sampling not discussed, paper references another sources for release estimation data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 focus of paper is the treatment of released CC14, so the data includes release media, but lacks detail on the release process and activity Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. Continued on next page 32 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID Pnl,. 2012. Abiotic degradation rates for carbon tetrachloride and chloroform: Final report. Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; 3975006 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 33 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Carex, Canada. 2008. Priority environmental carcinogens for surveillance Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3978370 in Canada: Preliminary priority list. EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Environmental Media: Use water and air EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Trusted Source (CAREX Canada) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size Medium Unacceptable High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 2 8 2 N/A OECD Country (Canada) Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Data from 10 years ago (2008) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 not addressed Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 34 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: U.S, E. P. A.,I. C. F. Consulting. 2004. The U.S. solvent cleaning industry and the transition to non ozone depleting substances. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3982140 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Release Source: Environmental Media: Release Estimation Method: Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): Use Emissions to air air emissions from solvent cleaning industry air Use of Chemical Marketing Reporter's Data, EPA's ODS Tracking Sys- tem 0-0.87 million lbs/year nationally EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable X 2 8 Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1986-1995) Metric 5: Sample Size Low X 1 3 annual release values given, no statisitics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 not addressed Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.8. Continued on next page 35 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: U.S, E. P. A.,I. C. F. Consulting. 2004. The U.S. solvent cleaning industry and the transition to non ozone depleting substances. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3982140 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 36 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Nih,. 2016. Report on carcinogens: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3982329 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Environmental Media: Release Estimation Method: Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): manufacture / process / use Emissions to air, liquid waste air/water TRI Database 3.9 million lbs total released nationally in 2009. In 1990,1.7 million pounds was released to air, 36,201 lb to water, and a littleover 1,000"lb to soil. In 1999, on-site releases totaled268,140 lb, and in 2007, 308,633 lb was released by 44 facilities EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NTP from NIEHS Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2009) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 limited data, only includes production volume Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. Continued on next page 37 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID Nih,. 2016. Report on carcinogens: Carbon tetrachloride. Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; 3982329 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 38 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Blaney, B. L.. 1989. Applicability of steam stripping to organics removal from wastewater streams. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3986884 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Emissions to air , liquid waste Release Source: wastewater Disposal /Treatment Method: steam stripping Environmental Media: water Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): 1.7-55 ppmw Number of Sites: 3 Waste Treatment Method: steam stripping EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable x 2 8 Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1989) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 limited data, only includes production volume Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.8. Continued on next page 39 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Blaney, B. L.. 1989. Applicability of steam stripping to organics removal from wastewater streams. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3986884 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 40 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Hogue, C.. 2014. OZONE DEPLETION Emissions of carbon tetrachloride continue despite global prohibition. Chemical & Engineering News. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3569391 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Emissions to air Environmental Media: air Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): 39,000 metric tons/yr from 2000-2012 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 American Chemical Society Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2014) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 limited data, only includes estimated global air emission/year Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 41 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Hogue, C.. 2014. OZONE DEPLETION Emissions of carbon tetrachloride continue despite global prohibition. Chemical & Engineering News. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3569391 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Environmental Media: Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): Use Emissions to air air 4 gigagrams/yr EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 American Chemical Society Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Metric 3: Applicability Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Metric 5: Sample Size High Unacceptable High High XX XX 1 2 2 1 1 8 2 1 US Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Data from less than 10 years ago (2016) complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 limited data, only includes estimated national air emission/ year Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 42 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Atsdr,. 2005. Toxicological profile for carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3982336 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Emissions to air Environmental Media: air Release Estimation Method: TRI Data Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): 4.44 million lbs Number of Sites: 55 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 US HHS Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2002) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 limited data, includes estimated national air emission/year but does break this number down into the individual sites and lists them Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. Continued on next page 43 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID Atsdr,. 2005. Toxicological profile for carbon tetrachloride. Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; 3982336 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 44 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Atsdr,. 2005. Toxicological profile for carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3982336 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): liquid waste Environmental Media: surface water Release Estimation Method: TRI Data Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): 320 lb Number of Sites: 55 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 US HHS Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2002) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 limited data, includes estimated national water release/year but does break this number down into the individual sites and lists them Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. Continued on next page 45 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID Atsdr,. 2005. Toxicological profile for carbon tetrachloride. Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; 3982336 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 46 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Atsdr,. 2005. Toxicological profile for carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3982336 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): solid waste Environmental Media: soil Release Estimation Method: TRI Data Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): 1033 lb Number of Sites: 55 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 US HHS Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2002) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 limited data, includes estimated national soil release/year but does break this number down into the individual sites and lists them Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. Continued on next page 47 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID Atsdr,. 2005. Toxicological profile for carbon tetrachloride. Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; 3982336 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 48 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Environment Agency, Austria. 2012. Final report: Three years of implementation of the E-PRTR. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3982347 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Environmental Media: Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): Use wastewater water 2007: 942.65 2008:543.09 2009: 478.62 (found on page 208) EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Trusted Source (EU commissioned study) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Medium X 1 2 EU Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High X 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2007, 2008, 2009) Metric 5: Sample Size High X 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 limited data, includes estimated national water release/year but does break this number down into the individual sites Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.2. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 49 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Lemieux, P. M.,Ryan, J. V. ,Bass, C.,Barat, R.. 1996. Emissions of trace products of incomplete combustion from a pilot-scale incinerator secondary combustion chamber. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association (1990-1992). Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Published Models for Exposures or Releases; Hero ID 3568159 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Disposal /Treatment Method: Environmental Media: Use Waste handling Incineration Air EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 high quality data not necessarily a trusted source Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2017) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 focus of paper is the modelling of released CC14, so the data analyzes combustion of CC14 samples, is not listing of release quantity Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 50 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Simmonds, P. G.,Cunnold, D. M.,Alyea, F. N.,Cardelino, C. A.,Crawford, A. J.,Prinn, R. G.,Fraser, P. J.,Rasmussen, R. A.,Rosen, R. D.. 1988. CARBON-TETRACHLORIDE LIFETIMES AND EMISSIONS DETERMINED FROM DAILY GLOBAL MEASUREMENTS DURING 1978-1985. Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3569634 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Environmental Media: Release Estimation Method: Annual Release Quantity (kg/yr): Use Emissions to air Air estimated from CC14 production documented by the U.S. International Trade Commission 26.80 x 106 (1985) EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Journal of Atmospheric chemistry Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable x 2 8 Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1978-1985) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 limited data, only includes estimated global air emission/year Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.8. Continued on next page 51 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Simmonds, P. G.,Cunnold, D. M.,Alyea, F. N.,Cardelino, C. A.,Crawford, A. J.,Prinn, R. G.,Fraser, P. J.,Rasmussen, R. A.,Rosen, R. D.. 1988. CARBON-TETRACHLORIDE LIFETIMES AND EMISSIONS DETERMINED FROM DAILY GLOBAL MEASUREMENTS DURING 1978-1985. Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3569634 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 52 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 1977. Control of volatile organic emissions from solvent metal cleaning. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3827321 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Emissions to air Environmental Media: Air EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable x 2 8 Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1977) Metric 5: Sample Size Low x 1 3 statistics not given for most parameters Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 Some discussion Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.7. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 53 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Doe,. 2008. Groundwater contamination and treatment at Department of Energy sites. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3974982 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): ground water Environmental Media: water Release Estimation Method: plume maps EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 DOE Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High X 2 2 Data from 10 years ago (2008) Metric 5: Sample Size High X 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 limited data,no discussion of how plumes were calculated and uses qualitative categories for amounts of contamination Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 54 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Pnl,. 2014. Characterization of biofilm in 200W fluidized bed reactors. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3975004 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Waste handling Release Source: fluidized bed reactor byproducts/impurities Environmental Media: watersampling from fluidized bed reactor and composition analysis EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 DOE Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2014) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 limited data, lumps carbon tet results into volatile solids Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 55 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: 2017. Pollution prevention search results, envirofacts database. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3860453 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): not specified EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 data generally less than 10 years old Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 site-soecific data given Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 addressed by providing previous and current year releases vol- umes Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 1.9. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 56 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: 2013. Optimization review: Velsicol chemical corporation hardeman county landfill superfund site. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3860542 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Release Source: Disposal /Treatment Method: Environmental Media: Release Estimation Method: Daily Release Quantity (kg/day): Waste Treatment Method: Use waste handling pesticides unlined trenches groundwater plume maps 5,000 mg/L (does not specify frequency) and max 30,000mg/L Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from 10 years ago (2008) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 Little details of how release data was obtained Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. Continued on next page 57 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: 2013. Optimization review: Velsicol chemical corporation hardeman county landfill superfund site. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3860542 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 58 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: 2013. Optimization review: Velsicol chemical corporation hardeman county landfill superfund site. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3860542 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Release Source: Environmental Media: Daily Release Quantity (kg/day): Use waste handling pesticides air 5.2 ppbv (outdoor) and 2.6 ppbv (indoor) EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from 10 years ago (2008) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 Little details of how release data was obtained Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 59 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EXTRACTION Parameter Data Franklin Associates, Ltd. 2006. Life cycle inventory of polystyrene foam, bleached paperboard, and corrugated paperboard foodservice products. Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; 3978165 Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Release Source: Environmental Media: Daily Release Quantity (kg/day): Use waste handling food service products air hot cups: polystyrene: 4.7 e-6 lb; poly-coated paperboard: 5.6e -6 lb; corrugated cup sleeves: 1.6 e -6 lb; PE ppbd cup+sleeve: 7.2 e-6 lb; EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 No Comment. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from 10 years ago (2006) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 combined data from industry Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability, includes discussion of uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 60 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Pollution Prevention, Infohouse. 2017. Emissions from open tire fires. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3981114 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Release Source: Disposal /Treatment Method: Environmental Media: Use waste handling tires Incineration EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 Pollution Prevention Infohouse Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low x 2 6 Data from greater than 20 years ago (1983) Metric 5: Sample Size Low x 1 Distribution of Samples is Qualitative Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Unacceptable x 1 4 No quantitative data for cc!4 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 3.0. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 61 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Us, E. P. A.. 1997. Evaluation of emissions from the open burning of land-clearing debris. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3981117 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Release Source: Disposal /Treatment Method: Environmental Media: Use Other land disposal Land-Clearing debris Incineration air EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Metric 3: Applicability High x 1 Unacceptable x 2 Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low x 2 Metric 5: Sample Size Medium x 1 1 US 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation 6 Data from greater than 20 years ago (1983) 2 Very descriptive testing analysis of an unknown sample size Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 Includes various statistics about amount per type of material, but lacks frequency of larger testing sample size Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 The study does not show a multiple tests with statistics of the same type of debris Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.6. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 62 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EXTRACTION Parameter Data Assmuth, T.,Kalevi, K.. 1992. Concentrations and toxicological significance of trace organic compounds in municipal solid waste landfill gas. Chemosphere. Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; 660779 Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Release Source: Disposal /Treatment Method: Environmental Media: Release or Emission Factor: Release Estimation Method: Release Days per Year: Number of Sites: Disposal Municipal Landfill Well gas landfill gas Range of 0.9 to 88 mg/m3 gas chromatograph 365.0 4 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 Water and Environmental Research Institute Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Medium X 1 2 Finland Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low x 2 6 1992 Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 4 well documented sites Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Well documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 Some discussion Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.4. Continued on next page 63 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. Assmuth, T.,Kalevi, K.. 1992. Concentrations and toxicological significance of trace organic compounds in municipal solid waste landfill gas. Chemosphere. Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; 660779 64 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Gallego, E.,Perales, J. F.,Roca, F. J.,Guardino, X.. 2014. Surface emission determination of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from a closed industrial waste landfill using a self-designed static flux chamber. Science of the Total Environment. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 2546075 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Release Source: Disposal industrial landfill Well gas Disposal /Treatment Method: landfill Environmental Media: gas Release or Emission Factor: Range of 1.6 to 7.0 ug/ 'm2/d Release Estimation Method: Global, Kriging and Tributaryarea. Release Days per Year: 365.0 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 INSHT Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Medium X 1 2 Spain Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 2013 Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 15 sampling days Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Well documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Well documented Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 1.9. Continued on next page 65 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. Gallego, E.,Perales, J. F.,Roca, F. J.,Guardino, X.. 2014. Surface emission determination of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from a closed industrial waste landfill using a self-designed static flux chamber. Science of the Total Environment. Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; 2546075 66 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Katami, T.,Nisikawa, H.,Yasuhara, A.. 1992. Emission of chlorinated compounds by combustion of waste dry-cleaning materials. Chemosphere. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 2917538 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Disposal hazardous waste incinerator EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 National Institute for Environmental Studies Japan Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size Medium Unacceptable Low N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 2 8 6 N/A Japan Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation data older than 20 years No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 data sources not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.9. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 67 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Oecd,. 2015. Emission scenario documents on coating industry (paints, lacquers and varnishes). Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3833129 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 OECD Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Metric 3: Applicability Medium x 1 Unacceptable x 2 Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High Metric 5: Sample Size N/A x 2 2 Europe 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation 2 data less than 10 years N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 68 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: 2014. Toxic release inventory: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3860458 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Disposal Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): All Industries Release Source: Other on-site landfills Release or Emission Factor: 43 lbs in 2015 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 US EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High x 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 2015 Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 69 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: 2014. Toxic release inventory: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3860458 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Disposal Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): All Industries Release Source: Surface water discharges Release or Emission Factor: 275 lbs in 2015 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 US EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High x 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 2015 Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 70 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: 2014. Toxic release inventory: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3860458 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Disposal Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): All Industries Release Source: Fugitive air emissions Release or Emission Factor: 36,629 lbs in 2015 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 US EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High x 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 2015 Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 71 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: 2014. Toxic release inventory: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3860458 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Disposal Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): All Industries Release Source: Point source air emission Release or Emission Factor: 70,447 lbs in 2015 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 US EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High x 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 2015 Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 72 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: 1999. 33/50 Program: The final record. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3860543 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Disposal Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Off-site waste transfer Release or Emission Factor: 840,947 lbs in 1991 - 479,652 in 1998 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 US EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High x 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium x 2 4 1999 Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.3. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 73 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: 2004. Optimization support evaluation: Greenwood chemical site, Newton, Virginia. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3860544 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Release Source: Release or Emission Factor: Waste Treatment Method: P2 Control & percent Efficiency: Disposal Industrial wastewater treatment treatment plant discharge 90.8 ug/L UV oxidation system 20 percent EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 US EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High x 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 2003 Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 74 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: TOXNET. ChemlDplus: Substances name: Perylimid. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3970244 EXTRACTION Parameter Data EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 US EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High Unacceptable High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 8 2 N/A US Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation data less than 10 years No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Unacceptable x 1 4 data sources not provided Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.3. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 75 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Nfesc,. 2001. Wet air oxidation for wastewater treatment. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3981115 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Waste Treatment Method: P2 Control & percent Efficiency: Release Industrial wastewater treatment Wet air oxidation destroys toxics in industrial wastewater by breaking down complex molecular structures into simpler components such as water and C02. The process is based on the discovery that organics will oxidize in water, at relatively low temps, as long as oxygen is present and proper pressure is maintained. 99.9 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 US Joint Service Pollution Prevention Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US and US military bases Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium x 2 4 2001 Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.3. Continued on next page 76 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Nfesc,. 2001. Wet air oxidation for wastewater treatment. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3981115 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 77 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Pollution Prevention, Infohouse. 2017. Emissions from open tire fires. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3981114 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Release EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 US EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 us Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High X 2 2 data less than 10 years Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 1.9. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 78 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Us, E. P. A.. 1997. Evaluation of emissions from the open burning of land-clearing debris. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3981117 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Release EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 US EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High Unacceptable Low Medium XX XX 1 2 2 1 1 8 6 2 US Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Data from greater than 20 years ago (1983) Very descriptive testing analysis of an unknown sample size Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 Includes various statistics about amount per type of material, but lacks frequency of larger testing sample size Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium X 1 2 The study does not show a multiple tests with statistics of the same type of debris Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.6. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 79 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Ems,. 2013. Soil vapor extraction: Pilot study report: Kuhlman Electric Corporation: Crystal Springs, Mississippi: EMS project no: KUH0-11-006. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982210 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Release EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 Private testing firm Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High Unacceptable High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 8 2 N/A US Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation data less than 10 years No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 data sources not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 80 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Doe,. 2009. Groundwater contamination and treatment at Department of Energy sites. Type of Data Source Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3974983 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Release EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 OET Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 us Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High X 2 2 2009 Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 results provided but underlying methods and data not trans- parent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 81 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID Nicnas,. 2017. IMAP: Environment tier II assessment for methane, tetrachloro. Releases to the Environment; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; 3978351 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 NICNAS Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Medium X 1 2 Australia (OECD) Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 Releases of carbon tetrachloride are not in-scope of the risk evaluation Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High X 2 2 2017 Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 82 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Occupational Exposure 83 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Stewart, P. A.,Lee, J. S.,Marano, D. E.,Spirtas, R.,Forbes, C. D.,Blair, A.. 1991. Retrospective cohort mortality study of workers at an aircraft maintenance facility: II. Exposures and their assessment. British Journal of Industrial Medicine. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 65131 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Number of Samples: Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Number of Workers: Type of Sampling: Exposure Frequency: Analytic Method: Use Liquid Inhalation, dermal 10256 1.0 Cleaning small parts, parachute cleaning - no exposure data 6737 area continous job title associated with qualitative (low, medium, high) exposure level EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Peer-reviewed article Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High Unacceptable Low N/A X X X 1 2 2 1 8 6 N/A US Use of carbon tet as a cleaning solvent which is out of scope Data from 1939-1983 (older than 20 years) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Unacceptable X 1 4 Metadata associated with exposure indices used to estimate exposure not provided Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 Not addressed Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.9. Continued on next page ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Stewart, P. A.,Lee, J. S.,Marano, D. E.,Spirtas, R.,Forbes, C. D.,Blair, A.. 1991. Retrospective cohort mortality study of workers at an aircraft maintenance facility: II. Exposures and their assessment. British Journal of Industrial Medicine. Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; 65131 ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 85 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Kauppinen, T.,Pukkala, E.,Saalo, A.,Sasco, A. J.. 2003. Exposure to chemical carcinogens and risk of cancer among Finnish laboratory workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 194809 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Number of Samples: Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Type of Sampling: Sampling Location: Analytic Method: Use Liquid Inhalation, dermal g/year 4710 450.0 laboratory workers personal lab ASA Reigster entries EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Peer-reviewed article Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size Medium High Low N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 2 2 6 N/A OECD Country (Finland) laboratory chemical Source is from 2003 but data used is from 1979-1988 No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 uncertainty addressed through confidence levels Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.8 Continued on next page 86 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Kauppinen, T.,Pukkala, E.,Saalo, A.,Sasco, A. J.. 2003. Exposure to chemical carcinogens and risk of cancer among Finnish laboratory workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 194809 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 87 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Lynge, E.,Anttila, A.,Hemminki, K.. 1997. Organic solvents and cancer. Cancer Causes and Control. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 630734 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Worker Activity: Number of Workers: Type of Sampling: Analytic Method: Use Liquid Inhalation, dermal 490-2600 mg/m3 boot & shoe manufacture, rubber industry, aircraft maintenance 104,200 personal National Occupational Exposure Survey EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Peer-reviewed article Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 date from US, and OECD countries (Canada Finland) Metric 3: Applicability High x 2 2 Includes in scope uses Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low x 2 6 Source is from 1997 but data used is much older (1989 and earlier) Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.8 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Ipcs,. 1999. Environmental Health Criteria 208: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3001090 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Worker Activity: Type of Sampling: Analytic Method: Use liquid and vapor Inhalation, dermal g/m3 or kg/L general population drinking water and air , some worker scenarios, old data personal and area National Organics Monitoring Survey of drinking water, utilization of global studies EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Low X 1 3 Not specified Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Unacceptable Medium X 1 x 2 x 2 x 1 1 2 8 2 US and other OECD nations Includes in scope uses Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1981-1983) and therefore not expected to be representative of current exposures samples are characterized by a range with uncertain statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Unacceptable x 1 4 limited explanantion of data as the scope of the document is so large Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty with respect to mon- itoring data Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.6. Continued on next page 89 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID Ipcs,. 1999. Environmental Health Criteria 208: Carbon tetrachloride. Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; 3001090 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 90 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Benaise, L. G.,Harrison, J. M.,Pearce, T. A.. 2006. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-2003-0300-2993, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources - Webster Springs District Office. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3859371 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Number of Samples: Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Number of Workers: Type of Sampling: Sampling Location: Exposure Duration: Analytic Method: Use vapor inhalation ppb 6 1.0 office building 24 area office building 161 - 172 min. air quality monitor EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH method Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 office building not in scope for CC14 Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 Data from greater than 10 years ago but after PEL Metric 5: Sample Size Medium X 1 2 disitribution characterized by range with uncertain statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium X 1 2 limited discussion variability or uncertainty Continued on next page 91 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. Benaise, L. G.,Harrison, J. M.,Pearce, T. A.. 2006. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-2003-0300-2993, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources - Webster Springs District Office. Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; 3859371 92 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Love, J. R. ,Kern, M.. 1981. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-81-065-938, METRO Bus Maintenance Shop, Washington, DC. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3859376 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Number of Samples: Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Number of Workers: Type of Sampling: Sampling Location: Analytic Method: Use vapor inhalation during degreasing 33 1.0 Degreasing 17 personal and area auto shop air quality monitor EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH method Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness High Unacceptable Unacceptable X 1 x 2 x 2 1 8 8 US degreasing out of scope Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1980) and therefore not ex- pected to be representative of current exposures Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 discrete samples given Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.6. Continued on next page ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Love, J. R. ,Kern, M.. 1981. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-81-065-938, METRO Bus Maintenance Shop, Washington, DC. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3859376 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 94 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: ToxNet Hazardous Substances Data, Bank. 2017. HSDB: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970275 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Physical Form: vapor Route of Exposure: inhalation Exposure Concentration (Unit): ug/m3 Worker Activity: municipal solid waste composting Number of Workers: 92,143 Type of Sampling: personal Analytic Method: NIOSH survey p. 35 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NLM NSDB for CC14 Domain 2: Representative Metric 2 Metric 3 Metric 4 Geographic Scope High x 1 Applicability High x 2 Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable x 2 Metric 5: Sample Size Low x 1 1 us 2 solid waste composting (recycle) 8 Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1981-83) and therefore not ex- pected to be representative of current exposures 3 disitribution not characterized by statistics, only 1 exposed Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. Continued on next page 95 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID ToxNet Hazardous Substances Data, Bank. 2017. HSDB: Carbon tetrachloride. Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; 3970275 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 96 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Atsdr,. 2007. Health consultation: Evaluation of follow-up indoor air sampling results (January " March 2007) at the Wash- ington Traffic Safety Commission offices TMC cleaners (aka Howard"s Cleaners and Olympia Cleaners) Olympia, Thurston County, Washington: EPA facility ID: WAH000017277. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970403 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Number of Samples: Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Sampling Location: Analytic Method: Use vapor inhalation 0.44-0.53 "g/m3 18 1.0 office building by dry cleaning service office building by dry cleaner portable photoionization detector EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Low x 1 3 Unspecified Domain 2: Representative Metric 2 Metric 3 Metric 4 Metric 5 Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High x 1 1 Unacceptable x 2 8 Medium x 2 4 High x 1 1 US textile cleaning Data from greater than 10 years ago (2002, 2004, 2007) discrete samples given Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 sample type given but no other metadata Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.6. Continued on next page 97 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Atsdr,. 2007. Health consultation: Evaluation of follow-up indoor air sampling results (January " March 2007) at the Wash- ington Traffic Safety Commission offices TMC cleaners (aka Howard"s Cleaners and Olympia Cleaners) Olympia, Thurston County, Washington: EPA facility ID: WAH000017277. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970403 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 98 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Gilles, D.,Lybarger, J.. 1978. Health hazard evaluation report no. HHE 77-111-501, Allied Chemical Corporation, Danville, Illinois. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970548 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Number of Workers: Type of Sampling: Sampling Location: Analytic Method: Use vapor inhalation 1.0 Reactant 43 blood test, physical exam, medical history producing CFCs at Allied chemical in danville, IL biological tests on employees EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 NIOSH method Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 Metric 5: Sample Size Medium X 1 2 US reactant Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1978) but for an approved use; therefore, exposures may still be applicable disitribution characterized by range with uncertain statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.6 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 99 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Kim, E. A.,Bernard, B. P.,Esswein, E. J.. 2005. Health hazard evaluation report no.HETA 2004-0169-2982, U.S. Mangesium, Rowley, Utah. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970550 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Number of Samples: Number of Sites: Type of Measurement or Method: Worker Activity: Number of Workers: Type of Sampling: Sampling Location: Analytic Method: Manufacture Manufacturing of chlorinated compounds used in solvents for cleaning and degreasing vapor inhalation Not detected - 0.18 mg/m3 13 1.0 TWA CC14 generated in production process 30 personal U.S. magnesiusm Rowley, UT air quality monitor EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH method Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 byproducts not included in scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium x 2 4 Data from greater than 10 years ago (2005) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 discussion of statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Continued on next page 100 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Kim, E. A.,Bernard, B. P.,Esswein, E. J.. 2005. Health hazard evaluation report no.HETA 2004-0169-2982, U.S. Mangesium, Rowley, Utah. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970550 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 101 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EXTRACTION Parameter Data Lenhart, S. W.,Driscoll, R.. 1992. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA 90-223-2211, Thomson consumer electronics, Marion, Indiana. Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; 3970551 Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Number of Workers: Type of Sampling: Sampling Location: Analytic Method: Manufacture Manufacturing of chlorinated compounds used in solvents for cleaning and degreasing vapor inhalation "small amounts" 1.0 CC14 generated in production process, specifically degreasers using trichloroethylene - only lists "small amounts" 721 personal and area Thomson Consumer Electronics Marion, IN NIOSH 1003, 1300,1400, 1450, 1500, and 1501charcoal tubes, personal sampling pumps, short-term detector tubes, miran gas analyzer, phto- tionization air analyzer EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH method Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 degreasing not in scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 Data from after latest PEL Metric 5: Sample Size Low X 1 3 disitribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 complete data Continued on next page 102 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Lenhart, S. W.,Driscoll, R.. 1992. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA 90-223-2211, Thomson consumer electronics, Marion, Indiana. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970551 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7; Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.3. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 103 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Gorman, R.,Rinsky, R.,Stein, G.,Anderson, K.. 1984. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA 82-075-1545, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, West Palm Beach, Florida. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970552 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Number of Samples: Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Type of Sampling: Sampling Location: Analytic Method: Use vapor inhalation 100+ 1.0 degreasing - non detectable amounts of CC14 personal and area Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Palm Beach, FL charcoal tubes, photoionization detector, water sampling EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH method Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 degreasing not in scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 Data from after latest PEL Metric 5: Sample Size High X 1 1 discussion of statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium X 1 2 limited discussion variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. Continued on next page 104 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Gorman, R.,Rinsky, R.,Stein, G.,Anderson, K.. 1984. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA 82-075-1545, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, West Palm Beach, Florida. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970552 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 105 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EXTRACTION Parameter Data Barsan, M. E.. 1991. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA 90-344-2159, A.W. Cash Valve Manufacturing Corporation, Decatur, Illinois. Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; 3970554 Life Cycle Stage: Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Number of Samples: Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Type of Sampling: Sampling Location: Analytic Method: Use vapor inhalation 7 1.0 degreasing - did not test for CC14 personal and area A.W. Cash Valve Manufacturing Corp. Decatur, IL charcoal tubes EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH method Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 degreasing not in scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium x 2 4 Data from after latest PEL Metric 5: Sample Size Low x 1 3 dsitribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium X 1 2 limited discussion variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.2. Continued on next page 106 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. Barsan, M. E.. 1991. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA 90-344-2159, A.W. Cash Valve Manufacturing Corporation, Decatur, Illinois. Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; 3970554 107 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EXTRACTION Parameter Data Kiefer, M.,Driscoll, R. J.. 1998. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA 97-0185-2675, McGregor Loudspeaker Manufac- turing Company, Prarie du Chien, Wisconsin. Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; 3970559 Life Cycle Stage: Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Number of Samples: Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Type of Sampling: Sampling Location: Analytic Method: Use vapor inhalation 5 1.0 production line for loudspeakers area McGregor Loudspeaker Manufacturing Company Prairie du Chien, 1300, 1500, 1005, 1609, 1501, and 2500thermal desorption tubes WI EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH method Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 adhesive uses not in scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium x 2 4 Data from after latest PEL Metric 5: Sample Size Low x 1 3 disitribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 limited discussion variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.2. Continued on next page 108 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. Kiefer, M.,Driscoll, R. J.. 1998. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA 97-0185-2675, McGregor Loudspeaker Manufac- turing Company, Prarie du Chien, Wisconsin. Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; 3970559 109 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EXTRACTION Parameter Data Mouradian, R.,Burt, S.,Tepper, A.,Hanley, K.. 1995. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA 88-0140-2517, Boise Cascade, United Paperworkers, International Union, Rumford, Maine. Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; 3970560 Life Cycle Stage: Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Number of Samples: Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Type of Sampling: Sampling Location: Analytic Method: Use vapor inhalation 5 1.0 bleaching paper area United Paperworkers Internat'l Union Rumford, ME silica gel adsorbent spiked with 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF with- radioactive carbon (13C) or chlorine(37Cl) markers EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH method Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High Unacceptable Medium High X 1 x 2 x 2 x 1 1 8 4 1 US use at Kraft Pulp Mill not in scope Data from after latest PEL representative sample Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 limited discussion variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. Continued on next page 110 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID Mouradian, R.,Burt, S.,Tepper, A.,Hanley, K.. 1995. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA S United Paperworkers, International Union, Rumford, Maine. Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; 3970560 18-0140-2517, Boise Cascade, EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 111 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Crandall, M. S.,Albrecht, W. N.,Blade, L. M.. 1989. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA 86-380-1957, York Internationl Corporation, Madisionville, Kentucky. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970561 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Number of Workers: Type of Sampling: Sampling Location: Use vapor inhalation 1.0 degreasing assmebled copper tubing and aluminium fins into heat ex- changer units - did not test for CC14 120 personal York International Corp Madisionville, KY EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH method Domain 2: Representative Metric 2 Metric 3 Metric 4 Metric 5 Geographic Scope High x 1 1 Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable x 2 8 Sample Size Low x 1 3 US degreasing not in scope Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1986) disitribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.8. Continued on next page 112 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Crandall, M. S.,Albrecht, W. N.,Blade, L. M.. 1989. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA 86-380-1957, York Internationl Corporation, Madisionville, Kentucky. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970561 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 113 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Seitz, T.,Driscoll, R.. 1989. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA 88-082-1971, Jostens Incorporated, Princeton, Illinois. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970562 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Number of Samples: Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Number of Workers: Type of Sampling: Sampling Location: Analytic Method: Use vapor inhalation 15 1.0 jewelry polishing and plating 60 personal and area Jostens Inc. Princeton, IL 1003, 1300, and 1501 charcoal tubes EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 NIOSH method Domain 2: Representative Metric 2 Metric 3 Metric 4 Metric 5 Geographic Scope High x 1 1 Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable x 2 8 Sample Size Low x 1 3 US degreasing not in scope Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1988) disitribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 complete data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.8. Continued on next page 114 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Seitz, T.,Driscoll, R.. 1989. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA 88-082-1971, Jostens Incorporated, Princeton, Illinois. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970562 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 115 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Burroughs, G. E.,Horan, J.. 1982. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA 80-147-1076, Calhio Chemical Copmany, Perry, Ohio. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970563 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Number of Samples: Worker Activity: Type of Sampling: Sampling Location: Analytic Method: manufacture vapor inhalation 24 fungicides byproduct personal and area Calhio Chemical Perry, Ohio Length-of-stain detector tubes EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH method Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 byproducts not included in scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1982) but for an approved use; therefore, exposures may still be applicable Metric 5: Sample Size Low X 1 3 disitribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium X 1 2 data sources generally described, some details missing Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.4. Continued on next page 116 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. Burroughs, G. E.,Horan, J.. 1982. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA 80-147-1076, Calhio Chemical Copmany, Perry, Ohio. Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; 3970563 117 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Rosensteel, R. E.,Rostand, R. A.. 1976. Health hazard evaluation report no.HHE 74-93-296, Calhio Chemicals, Perry, Ohio. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970564 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Number of Samples: Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Type of Sampling: Sampling Location: Analytic Method: manufacture vapor inhalation 19 1.0 fungicides personal and area Calhio Chemical Perry, Ohio charcoal tubes EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH method Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 byproducts not included in scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable X 2 8 Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1982) Metric 5: Sample Size Low X 1 3 disitribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium X 1 2 data sources generally described, some details missing Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.9. Continued on next page 118 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Rosensteel, R. E.,Rostand, R. A.. 1976. Health hazard evaluation report no.HHE 74-93-296, Calhio Chemicals, Perry, Ohio. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970564 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 119 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Broadwater, K.,Brueck, S. E.,Nourian, F.,Roberts, J.,Oza, A. Y.. 2016. Health hazard evaluation report no. HHE 2013-0117- 3247, Evaluation of odors and surface resideus in a medical center research facility. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970565 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Type of Sampling: Sampling Location: Analytic Method: Use Manufacturing of chlorinated compounds used in adhesives and sealants vapor inhalation "trace amounts" 1.0 office building/laboratory area medical research facility thermal desorption tubes containing three beds ofsorbent material: (1) 90 milligrams of Carbopack" Y, (2) 115 milligrams of Carbopack"B, and (3) 150 milligrams Carboxen" EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH method Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 indicates carbon tet present from ambient air (out of scope for occupational exposures) Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2013) Metric 5: Sample Size Low x 1 3 disitribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 data sources generally described, some details missing Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Continued on next page 120 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Broadwater, K.,Brueck, S. E.,Nourian, F.,Roberts, J.,Oza, A. Y.. 2016. Health hazard evaluation report no. HHE 2013-0117- 3247, Evaluation of odors and surface resideus in a medical center research facility. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3970565 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.2. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 121 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Echa,. 2017. Uses at industrial sites: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3970709 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture and Process (intermediate) Physical Form: vapor. Liquid Route of Exposure: inhalation, dermal Worker Activity: transfer of chemical, filling small containers EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 European Chemical Agency Domain 2: Representative Metric 2 Metric 3 Metric 4 Metric 5 Geographic Scope Medium X 1 2 OECD Countries (Europe) Applicability High X 2 2 includes in scope uses Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 2017 Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Unacceptable x 1 4 does not document data sources, methods or assumptions Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 1.6. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 122 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Iarc,. 1999. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3970843 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Type of Measurement or Method: Number of Workers: Use Textile Cleaning vapor. Liquid inhalation, dermal TWA 5365 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 IARC studies Domain 2: Representative Metric 2 Metric 3 Metric 4 Metric 5 Geographic Scope High x 1 1 Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable x 2 8 Sample Size Low x 1 3 US uses not in scope Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1948 to 1978) disitribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 provides report of results but does not describes methods or assumptions Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 does not specifically address variability or uncertainty but ref- erences original study article Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 3.0. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 123 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Iarc,. 1999. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3970843 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Number of Workers: Use aircraft maintenance vapor. Liquid inhalation, dermal 6737 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 IARC studies Domain 2: Representative Metric 2 Metric 3 Metric 4 Metric 5 Geographic Scope High x 1 1 Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable x 2 8 Sample Size Low x 1 3 US uses not in scope Data from greater than 20 years ago (1952-1956) disitribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 provides report of results but does not describes methods or assumptions Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 does not specifically address variability or uncertainty but ref- erences original study article Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 3.0. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 124 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Iarc,. 1999. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3970843 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Use Other basic organic and inorganic chemical manufacturing vapor. Liquid inhalation, dermal EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 IARC studies Domain 2: Representative Metric 2 Metric 3 Metric 4 Metric 5 Geographic Scope High x 1 1 Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable x 2 8 Sample Size Low x 1 3 US uses not in scope Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1964 to 1973) disitribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 provides report of results but does not describes methods or assumptions Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 does not specifically address variability or uncertainty but ref- erences original study article Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 3.0. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 125 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Niosh,. 1975. Criteria for a recommended standard occupational exposure to carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3974896 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Use Textile Cleaning, Machinery cleaning vapor. Liquid inhalation, dermal EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 NIOSH Domain 2: Representative Metric 2 Metric 3 Metric 4 Metric 5 Geographic Scope High x 1 1 US Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 outdated applications Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable x 2 8 Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1975) Sample Size Low X 1 3 distribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 provides report of results but does not describes methods or assumptions Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 does not specifically address variability or uncertainty but ref- erences original study article Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 3.0. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 126 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Osha,. 2012. Appendix A: Chemicals noted for skin absorption (OSHA and ACGIH designated only). Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3978344 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Physical Form: vapor. Liquid Route of Exposure: inhalation, dermal EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 OSHA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High High N/A X X X 1 2 2 1 2 2 N/A US Exposure limit applicable to all COUs Data from less than 10 years ago (2012) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.0 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 127 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Carex, Canada. 2017. Profiles & estimates: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3978372 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Worker Activity: Use Agricultural products manufacturing, cleaning vapor. Liquid inhalation, dermal 5-7100 ppm dry cleaning textile cleaning agent, Machinery EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Low X 1 3 Not specified Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Medium X 1 2 OECD Country (Canada) Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Monitoring data for out of scope uses Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2016) Metric 5: Sample Size Medium x 1 2 disitribution not characterized by range with uncertain statis- tics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Unacceptable x 1 4 No metadata provided Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 does not specifically address variability or uncertainty but ref- erences original study article Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.7. Continued on next page 128 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID Carex, Canada. 2017. Profiles & estimates: Carbon tetrachloride. Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; 3978372 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 129 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Cameo, Chemicals. 2016. Chemical datasheet: carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3981009 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): MSDS Physical Form: vapor. Liquid Route of Exposure: inhalation, dermal EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NOAA Cameo chemicals Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High x 2 2 physical data, hazards, and safety guidelines which apply to all COUs Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium x 2 4 Data from greater than 10 years ago (1999 to 2016) Metric 5: Sample Size Low X 1 3 distribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 provides report of results but does not describes methods or assumptions Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 does not specifically address variability or uncertainty but ref- erences original study article Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.9 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 130 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Queens College, University of New York United Steelworks. 2012. Waste isolation pilot plan medical screening program: Phase I: Needs assessment. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3974980 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Type of Measurement or Method: Worker Activity: Type of Sampling: Use Machinery cleaning vapor. Liquid inhalation, dermal 0.055-0.54 ppm TWA solidified organic sludge from Idaho and Rocky Flats, where it was used as a cleaning agent area EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 US DOE Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Metric 3: Applicability Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Metric 5: Sample Size High Unacceptable Medium Medium X 1 x 2 x 2 x 1 1 8 4 2 US cleaning agent out of scope Data from greater than 10 years ago (1999-2009) number of samples, mean, range and standard deviation pro- vided, discrete sampling results not given Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 data includes sample methodology, but does not clearly explain sample location, worker activities or sample duration Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 data includes standard deviation Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.3. Continued on next page 131 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Queens College, University of New York United Steelworks. 2012. Waste isolation pilot plan medical screening program: Phase I: Needs assessment. Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; 3974980 ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 132 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Oehha,. 2007. Occupational health hazard risk assessment project for California: Identification of chemicals of concern, possible risk assessment methods, and examples of health protective occupational air concentrations. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982225 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Use multiple vapor. Liquid inhalation, dermal EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 OEHHA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Medium N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 2 4 N/A US Exposure limit applicable to all COUs Data from greater than 10 years ago (2007) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 133 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID Nih,. 2016. Report on carcinogens: Carbon tetrachloride. Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; 3982329 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Worker Activity: Number of Workers: Use Processing aid vapor. Liquid inhalation, dermal blast furnaces and steel mills, in the air transportation industry, and in motor vehicle and telephone and telegraph equipment manufacturing 4,500 workers potentially were exposed during production of carbon tetrachloride and 52,000 during its industrial use. The National Oc- cupational Exposure Survey (conducted from 1981to 1983) estimated that 77,315 workers, including 12,605 women, potentiallywere exposed to carbon tetrachloride EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NTP from NIEHS Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 manufacture Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High X 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2009) Metric 5: Sample Size High X 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 limited data, only includes production volume Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.4 Continued on next page 134 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Nih,. 2016. Report on carcinogens: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982329 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Nih,. 2016. Report on carcinogens: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982329 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Number of Workers: Use textile processing vapor, Liquid inhalation ambient air: 20-70ppm, average eposure of 206-338 ppm for operators The National Occupational Exposure Survey (conducted from 1981 to 1983) estimated that 77,315 workers, including 12,605 women, poten- tially were exposed to carbon tetrachloride EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NTP from NIEHS Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Textile processing Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2009) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 limited data, only ir eludes production volume Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of van ability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. Continued on next page 136 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Nih,. 2016. Report on carcinogens: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982329 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 137 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Physical Form: vapor. Liquid Route of Exposure: inhalation, dermal EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Trusted Source (OEHHA) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 list outdoor air concentration and animal exposure testing; not applicable to occupational scenarios Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 Data from greater than 10 years ago (2007) Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. CalEpa,. 2005. Appendix D.3 Chronic RELS and toxicity summaries using the previous version of Hot Spots Risk Assessment guidelines (OEHHA 1999). Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; 3982628 138 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: 2004. Nested Case-Control Study of Leukemia and Ionizing Radiation at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 2972030 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Use cleaning vapor. Liquid inhalation, dermal 1.0 transportation, woodworking, welding, electrical, painting EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 cleaning agent uses; out of scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 Data from greater than 10 years ago (2004) Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.2. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 139 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 2016. TSCA work plan chemical risk assessment: Peer review draft 1-bromopropane: (n-Propyl bromide) spray adhesives, dry cleaning, and degreasing uses CASRN: 106-94-5. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3355305 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High Unacceptable High N/A XX X 1 2 2 1 8 2 N/A US data is for 1-BP, none of the uses of 1-BP in the document are comparable to in-scope uses of carbon tet Data from greater than <10 years ago (2016) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 detailed discussion of uncertainty and variability Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 1.8. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 140 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Stewart, A.,Witts, L. J.. 1993. Chronic carbon tetrachloride intoxication. 1944. British Journal of Industrial Medicine. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3569868 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Number of Sites: Use manufacturing aid vapor. Liquid inhalation, dermal 1.0 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 Nuffield Dept. of Clinical Medicine Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 degreasing use; out of scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable X 2 8 Data is Pre-Montreal Protocol (1944) Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable Metric Mean Score: 2.9. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 141 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Oecd,. 2011. SIDS initial assessment profile: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3827246 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Use lab chemical vapor. Liquid inhalation, dermal EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 SIDS Assessment Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Medium X 1 2 OECD data Metric 3: Applicability High x 2 2 includes in-scope uses Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low x 2 6 Includes data that are older than 20 years Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 data sources not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Low 2.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 142 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Lioy, P. J.,Fan, Z.,Zhang, J.,Georgopoulos, P.,Wang, S. W.,Ohman-Strickland, P.,Wu, X.,Zhu, X.,Harrington, J.,Tang, X.,Meng, Q.,Jung, K. H.,Kwon, J.,Hernandez, M.,Bonnano, L.,Held, J.,Neal, J.,Committee, H. H. R.. 2011. Personal and ambient exposures to air toxics in Camden, New Jersey. Research report (Health Effects Institute). Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 1062454 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Emissions Physical Form: vapor Route of Exposure: inhalation Exposure Concentration (Unit): 0.53(mg/m3) Number of Samples: 62 Type of Measurement or Method: continuous Type of Sampling: area Sampling Location: Waterfront South EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 HEI (peer reviewed journal article) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 ambient air exposure Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High X 2 2 data less than 10 years old Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 data sources not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. Continued on next page 143 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Lioy, P. J.,Fan, Z.,Zhang, J.,Georgopoulos, P.,Wang, S. W.,Ohman-Strickland, P.,Wu, X.,Zhu, X.,Harrington, J.,Tang, X.,Meng, Q.,Jung, K. H.,Kwon, J.,Hernandez, M.,Bonnano, L.,Held, J.,Neal, J.,Committee, H. H. R.. 2011. Personal and ambient exposures to air toxics in Camden, New Jersey. Research report (Health Effects Institute). Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 1062454 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 144 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Lioy, P. J.,Fan, Z.,Zhang, J.,Georgopoulos, P.,Wang, S. W.,Ohman-Strickland, P.,Wu, X.,Zhu, X.,Harrington, J.,Tang, X.,Meng, Q.,Jung, K. H.,Kwon, J.,Hernandez, M.,Bonnano, L.,Held, J.,Neal, J.,Committee, H. H. R.. 2011. Personal and ambient exposures to air toxics in Camden, New Jersey. Research report (Health Effects Institute). Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 1062454 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Emissions Physical Form: vapor Route of Exposure: inhalation Exposure Concentration (Unit): 0.54(mg/m3) Number of Samples: 62 Type of Measurement or Method: continuous Type of Sampling: area Sampling Location: Copewood-Davis EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 HEI (peer reviewed journal article) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 ambient air exposure Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High X 2 2 data less than 10 years old Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 data sources not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. Continued on next page 145 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Lioy, P. J.,Fan, Z.,Zhang, J.,Georgopoulos, P.,Wang, S. W.,Ohman-Strickland, P.,Wu, X.,Zhu, X.,Harrington, J.,Tang, X.,Meng, Q.,Jung, K. H.,Kwon, J.,Hernandez, M.,Bonnano, L.,Held, J.,Neal, J.,Committee, H. H. R.. 2011. Personal and ambient exposures to air toxics in Camden, New Jersey. Research report (Health Effects Institute). Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 1062454 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 146 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Fda,. 1998. Appendix 4. Toxicological data for class 1 solvents". Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3974789 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Published by U.S. FDA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High Unacceptable Medium N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 8 4 N/A US Health data not relevant to occupational exposures data older than 10 years No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 data sources documented but not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.3. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 147 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Niosh,. 2016. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3974866 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): exposure prevention Route of Exposure: inhalation EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High High N/A X X X 1 2 2 1 2 2 N/A US exposure limits and physical properties that apply to all COUs data is less than 10 years old No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.0 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 148 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Niosh,. 2000. NIOSH recommendation for chemical protective clothing database: 1,4-Dioxane. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3974867 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Route of Exposure: Use exposure prevention dermal EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Medium N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 2 4 N/A US General recommended PPE that applies to multiple COUs data older than 10 years No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 data sources not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.6 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Niosh,. 1995. Occupational safety and health guideline for carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3974894 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): exposure prevention Route of Exposure: inhalation, dermal EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 US HHS Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 us Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 PPE recommendations and exposure limits that apply to all COUs Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low X 2 6 data older than 20 years Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium X 1 2 data sources documented but not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.7 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 150 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Niosh,. 1976. NIOSH revised recommended carbon tetrachloride standard. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3974898 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): exposure prevention Route of Exposure: inhalation, dermal EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Low N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 2 6 N/A US PPE and engineering controls recommendations that apply to multiple conditions of use data older than 20 years No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 data sources not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.9 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Wages, R. obert,Markowitz, S. teven,Kieding, S. yl via, Griff on, M. ark,Eiienbecker, M. ichaei. 1998. Former worker medicai surveiiiance program at Idaho Nationai Engineering and Environmentai Laboratory (1NEEL) Phase I: Needs assessment. Type of Data Source Occupationaf Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3974967 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Number of Samples: Worker Activity: Number of Workers: Type of Sampling: Sampling Location: Analytic Method: Use degreasing inhalation "dose factor" 450 CPP-602 (Instrument Shop), CF-654 (Paint Shop), TAN-607 (Decon Shop, Pipe Laundry Area, Hot Shop 101), TRA-603 (MTR), and TRA- 642 (ETR); instrument technicians (CPP), painters (CFA), mechanics, pipe fitters, welders, laborers, electricians and decon technicians (TAN) and laborers, mechanics, process operators, and reactor operators(TRA) 51 questionaire we assigned numerical weights to the qualitative values (Fligh = 10, Medium=5 and Low=l) and multiplied that value by the frequency (in hours/day)to obtain a "Dose Factor". EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 DOE Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 degreasing use; out of scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low X 2 6 Data from greater than 20 years ago (1998) Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 data sources not fully transparent Continued on next page 152 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Wages, R. obert,Markowitz, S. teven,Kieding, S. yl via, Griff on, M. ark,Eiienbecker, M. ichaei. 1998. Former worker medicai surveiiiance program at Idaho Nationai Engineering and Environmentai Laboratory (1NEEL) Phase I: Needs assessment. Type of Data Source Occupationaf Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3974967 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.7. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 153 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Markowitz, S. teven,Scarbrough, C. arl,Kieding, S. yl via, Griff on, M. ark. 2004. Y-12 and Oak Ridge Nationai Laboratory medicai surveiiiance program, Phase f: Needs assessment. Type of Data Source Occupationaf Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3974971 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): uranium chlorination Number of Samples: 247 Number of Workers: 54; 78 Type of Sampling: questionaire EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 DOE Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 us Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 carbon tet was used in uranium chlorination but is no longer used for this use Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 Data from greater than 10 years ago (2004) Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 data sources not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.4. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 154 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EXTRACTION Parameter Data Wages, R. obert,Markowitz, S. teven,Kieding, S. yl via, Griff on, M. ark,Samaras, E. lizabeth Averill. 1997. Former worker medicla surveillance program at Department of Energy gaseous diffusion plants: Phase I: Needs assessment. Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; 3974974 Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): degreasing Route of Exposure: inhalation, dermal Type of Sampling: questionaire EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 DOE Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 degreasing use; out of scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low X 2 6 Data from greater than 20 years ago (1997) Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 data sources not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.7. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 155 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Doe,. 2003. A needs assessment for medical screening of construction workers at the Portsmouth and Paducah gaseous diffusion plants. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3974976 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): degreasing Route of Exposure: inhalation, dermal Type of Sampling: hazard rating EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 DOE Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 degreasing use; out of scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 Data from greater than 10 years ago (2003) Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 data sources not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.4. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 156 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID Niosh,. 1994. Immediately dangerous to life or health concentrations (IDLH): Carbon tetrachloride. Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; 3978143 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Number of Samples: Number of Workers: Exposure Duration: Use exposure prevention inhalation, dermal 75-600ppm (average 210ppm) 1 1 3 hour EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 IDLH and exposure limits that apply to all COUs Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High X 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2014) Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.0 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 157 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Niosh,. 2014. International chemical safety cards (ICDC): Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3978151 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): exposure prevention Route of Exposure: inhalation, dermal EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High High N/A X X X 1 2 2 1 2 2 N/A US exposure limits and physical properties that apply to all COUs Data from less than 10 years ago (2014) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.0 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): exposure prevention Route of Exposure: inhalation EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 OSHA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High High Medium X 1 x 2 x 2 x 1 1 2 2 2 US PPE data that applies to all COUs Data from less than 10 years ago (2017) Gives values for model and experiemental breakthroughs, no statistics provided Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Unacceptable x 1 4 data sources not given Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 Not addressed Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 1.7. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. Osha,. 2017. Respiratory protection eTool: Using a math model table to determine a cartridge s service life: Comparing predicted calculation with experimental data. Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; 3978257 159 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Construction Safety, Council. 2012. Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) for health hazards in construction. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3978262 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Construction Site Route of Exposure: inhalation EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 OSHA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Construction Site Hazard Checklist; contruction use not in scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2012) Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 data sources not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 160 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Osha,. 2001. Shipyard industry standards. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3978263 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): exposure prevention Route of Exposure: inhalation EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High Unacceptable High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 8 2 N/A US Shipyard standards; use of CC14 in shipyards not in-scope Data from less than 10 years ago (2014) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 1.9. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 161 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: European Chlorinated Solvents, Association. 2017. ECSA product & application toolbox: Guidance on safe & sustainable use of chlorinated solvents. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Published Models for Exposures or Releases; Hero ID 3982127 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Route of Exposure: Use inhalation, dermal EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 ECSA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size Medium Unacceptable High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 2 8 2 N/A European Union (OECD) description of ESCA tool, no information for CC14 Data from less than 10 years ago (2017) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Unacceptable x 1 4 data sources not given Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.4. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 162 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: European Chlorinated Solvents, Association. 2017. Chlorinated solvents: Other solvents. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982128 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Route of Exposure: inhalation, dermal EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 ECSA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size Medium High High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 2 2 2 N/A European Union (OECD) includes in-scope uses Data from less than 10 years ago (2017) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 data sources not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.4 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 163 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Niosh,. 2011. 1988 OSHA PEL Project documentation: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3986445 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 OSHA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High Unacceptable High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 8 2 N/A US Information on revised OSHA PEL which was remanded. Data from less than 10 years ago (2011) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 1.9. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 164 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Ec,. 2009. Recommendation from the scientific committee on occupational exposure limits for carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982344 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium x 1 2 European Commission Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size Medium High High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 2 2 2 N/A Belgium (OECD) includes in-scope uses Data from less than 10 years ago (2009) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Osha,. 1991. Proposed rules: Occupational exposure to methylene chloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982430 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 OSHA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High Unacceptable Low N/A XXX 1 2 2 1 8 6 N/A US OSHA PEL rule making for MeCl, not applicable to CC14 Data from greater than 20 years ago (1991) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.4. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 166 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: da Silva Augusto, L. G.,Lieber, S. R.,Ruiz, M. A.,de Souza, C. A.. 1997. Micronucleus monitoring to assess human occupational exposure to organochlorides. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 629708 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Unspecified Number of Workers: 41 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 Peer-reviewed article Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Low X 1 3 Brazil (non-OECD) Metric 3: Applicability High x 2 2 information for production of CC14 Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium x 2 4 Data from greater than 10 years ago (1997) Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.6 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 167 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Ojaj'arvi, A.,Partanen, T.,Ahlbom, A.,Boffetta, P.,Hakulinen, T.,Jourenkova, N.,Kauppinen, T.,Kogevinas, M.,Vainio, H.,Weiderpass, E.,Wesseling, C.. 2001. Risk of pancreatic cancer in workers exposed to chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents and related compounds: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 707289 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Journal of Epidemiology Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High Unacceptable Medium N/A XXX 1 2 2 1 8 4 N/A US uses out of scope or not specified Data from greater than 10 years ago (2001) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium X 1 2 Some variability across industries discussed Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.1. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 168 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Niosh,. 1987. Current Intelligence Bulletin 48 Organic Solvent Neurotoxicity (with reference package). Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 724690 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 NIOSH Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 us Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 provides controls and PPE recommendations that may apply to multiple COUs Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low X 2 6 Data from greater than 20 years ago (1987) Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.6 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 169 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Niosh,. 2005. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-2004-0169-2982, U.S. Magnesium, Rowley, UT. Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; 3974895 Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Number of Samples: Number of Sites: Type of Measurement or Method: Use Processing aid (i.e., metal recovery). vapor inhalation 1 sample with concentration of 0.18 mg/m3 (0.03 ppm), rest ND or trace. 13 3.0 NIOSH Method 1003 Worker Activity: Reactor building, electrolytics area, generan and reactor maintenance. Number of Workers: 13 Type of Sampling: PBZ Exposure Duration: full shift (8- 12hrs) PPE: none EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 byproducts not included in scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 2005 - after most recent PEL Metric 5: Sample Size High X 1 1 discrete samples given Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium X 1 2 most metadata given, missing information on exposure dura- tion and frequency Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 Not addressed Continued on next page 170 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Niosh,. 2005. Health hazard evaluation report no. HETA-2004-0169-2982, U.S. Magnesium, Rowley, UT. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3974895 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.2. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 171 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Osha,. 2003. Personal protective equipment. Publication # OSHA 3151-12R. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 1239624 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: PPE: Use Unspecified liquid? dermal lists nitrile gloves as the best choice for protection against CC14, with neoprene as a second choice. EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 OSHA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Medium N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 2 4 N/A US PPE guidance that may apply to multiple COUs 2003 No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 data sources documented but not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 Not discussed Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.6 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 172 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Echa,. 2017. Guidance on safe use: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3970707 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Disposal Hazardous landfill liquid dermal / inhalation 2.9-110 ppb 27.0 Cleaning out a dam in a creek contaminated by landfill runoff EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 ECHA Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size Medium High High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 2 2 2 N/A Europe PPE recommendations that may apply to multiple COUs Data from less than 10 years ago (2017) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 data sources documented but not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 173 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EXTRACTION Parameter Data Atsdr,. 2009. Health consultation: Indoor air quality: Raytheon area: St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida: EPA facility ID: FLD004100152, Part 2. Occupational Exposure; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments; 3982212 Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Physical Form: Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Number of Samples: Number of Sites: Type of Measurement or Method: Exposure Duration: Analytic Method: Use Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), Hydrofluorocarbon (HFCs) and Hydrofluoroolefin (HFOs) liquid/vapor inhalation 1.8 ug/m3 2 18.0 12-hour samples in stainless steel Summa" canisters 12-hr EPA Method Total Organic 15 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 vapor intrustion Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 2009 Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 discrete samples given Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 most metadata given Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 Not discussed Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.0. Continued on next page 174 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Atsdr,. 2009. Health consultation: Indoor air quality: Raytheon area: St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida: EPA facility ID: FLD004100152, Part 2. Occupational Exposure; Completed Exposure or Risk Assessments; 3982212 ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 175 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Niosh,. 1977. Health hazard evaluation report no. HHE-75-11-403, Port of Duluth-Superior Grain Elevators, Duluth, Min- nesota and Superior, Wisconsin. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 3974897 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH method Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable x 2 8 Assesses grain elevator worker exposures, including to CC14 fumigants, not an in-scope use Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium x 2 4 Data after most recent PEL Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 discrete samples given Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 most metadata given, missing information on exposure dura- tion and frequency Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 Not discussed Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.2. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 176 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System - Industrial Hygiene (DOEHRS-IH). 2018. Email between DOD and EPA: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Update: DoD exposure data for EPA risk evaluation - EPA request for additional information. U.S. Department of Defense. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 5178607 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Number of Samples: Number of Sites: Worker Activity: Type of Sampling: Process and Use destruction by detonation inhalation mg/m3 102 3.0 clean up residual metal and ash; transferr of liquid waste solution into a waste drum; plastics/modeling personal EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 DOD service branches use OSHA and NIOSH methods and DOD methods, which are expected to be equivalent to OSHA or NIOSH methods. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Metric 3: Applicability High x 1 Medium x 2 Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 U.S. based exposure data 4 The DOD data include occupational conditions of use within the scopes of the chemicals, although additional uses poten- tially outside of scope may also be included. However, some occupational scenarios are not clear and cannot be clearly mapped to conditions of use within scope. 2 Approximately 82 percent of the samples provided by DOD are not more than 10 years old. 1 Individual measurements are provided so the sample sets can be fully statistically characterized. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Continued on next page 177 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System - Industrial Hygiene (DOEHRS-IH). 2018. Email between DOD and EPA: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Update: DoD exposure data for EPA risk evaluation - EPA request for additional information. U.S. Department of Defense. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 5178607 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium X 1 2 DOD data include sample type (PBZ), sample time, process duration and frequency, and workshift duration. Process and worker job descriptions are provided, but inconsistent in detail and often lack sufficient clarity. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 DOD data do not discuss variability or uncertainty. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.6 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 178 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: HSIA. 2017. HSIA comments to U.S. EPA. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 5176375 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Number of Samples: Type of Measurement or Method: Worker Activity: Type of Sampling: Manufacture manufacture inhalation ppm 61 8-12 hr exposure catch samples, filter change, large line equipment opening, line opening, loading/unloading, process sampling, transferring hazardous waste personal EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Low X 1 3 Not specified Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 PBZ exposure to workers while manufacturing Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 some data older than 10 years Metric 5: Sample Size Medium X 1 2 data provided as range with uncertain statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium X 1 2 most metadata given, missing information on exposure dura- tion and frequency Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 No discussion of variability and uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.9 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 179 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID HSIA. 2018. HSIA comments to U.S. EPA. Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; 5176376 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Route of Exposure: Exposure Concentration (Unit): Number of Samples: Type of Measurement or Method: Worker Activity: Type of Sampling: Exposure Duration: Manufacture manufacture inhalation ppm 354 8-12 hr exposure technician, maintenance, operator, process supervisor, electrician, mill- wright, tank area loader personal 8 and 12-hr exposures EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Low X 1 3 Not specified Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Medium High X 1 x 2 x 2 x 1 1 2 4 1 US PBZ exposure to workers while manufacturing some data older than 10 years discrete samples given Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 most metadata given, missing information on exposure dura- tion and frequency Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 No discussion of variability and uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.8 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 180 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: HSIA. 2019. HSIA comments to U.S. EPA. Type of Data Source Occupational Exposure; Monitoring Data; Hero ID 5926010 EXTRACTION Parameter Data EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Low X 1 3 Not specified Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Medium High X 1 x 2 x 2 x 1 1 2 4 1 US PBZ exposure to workers while manufacturing some data older than 10 years discrete samples given Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 most metadata given, missing information on exposure dura- tion and frequency Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 No discussion of variability and uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.8 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 181 ------- Facility PEER REVIEW DRAFT DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID Holbrook, M. T.. 2000. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical TechnologyCarbon tetrachloride. Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; 3828875 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): Number of Sites: Manufacture US production volumes from 1960-1988 describes 3 methods for CC14 manufacture: Chlorination of Hydrocar- bons, Oxychlorination of Hydrocarbons, Carbon Disulfide Chlorination 346,080 tons/yr in 1988 6 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Data from Kirk-othmer (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Metric 3: Applicability Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Metric 5: Sample Size High High Low Medium X 1 x 2 x 2 x 1 1 2 6 2 US describes most current use as intermediate Data from greater than 20 years ago (1990). Some ranges and discrete values given, no other statistics pro- vided. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.8 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 183 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 1980. Waste solvent reclamation. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3840001 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Solvent recovery and emissions Process Description: vapor recovery, condensation, carbon adsorption, scrubbing, distillation EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Air Pollutant Emissions Factors (AP-42) (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Low N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 2 6 N/A US Use in scope Data from greater than 20 years ago (1990). No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.8 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 184 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 2002. Occurrence summary and use support document for the six-year review of national primary drinking water regulations. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3970165 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): Number of Sites: Manufacture, process, & Use lists amounts of CC14 on-site includes both manufacture, process, and use: ranges from 1,000 to 49,999,000 100 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 EPA Occurrence Summary and Use Support Document for the Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regula- tions (EPA source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 Uses listed are included in scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low X 2 6 Data from greater than 20 years ago (1989 to 1999) Metric 5: Sample Size Medium X 1 2 uncertain statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 data sources are fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium X 1 2 lists variability, limited discussion on uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.7 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 185 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Pubchem,. 2017. PubChem: Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Hero ID 3970247 Carbon tetrachloride. Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): Manufacture ranges from 2.6xl011g/yr to 3.3xl011g/yr EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 pubchem (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 Includes information on in scope uses Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low X 2 6 published 2017, some data older than 20 years (1980 to 1988) Metric 5: Sample Size Medium X 1 2 ranges with uncertain statistics provided for some data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 Data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.8 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 186 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Pubchem,. 2017. PubChem: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3970247 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: import Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): ranges from 3.0xl09g/yr to 2.6xl010g/yr and also lists 9.2x107 lb/yr EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 pubchem (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 Includes information on in scope uses Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low X 2 6 published 2017, some data older than 20 years (1980 to 1988) Metric 5: Sample Size Medium X 1 2 ranges with uncertain statistics provided for some data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 Data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.8 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 187 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: ToxNet Hazardous Substances Data, Bank. 2017. HSDB: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3970275 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: manufacture Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): ranges from 2.9xl011g/yr to 3.3xl011g/yr and 2.95 x 108 lbs/yr to 5.87x108 lbs/yr EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 HSDB (frequently used) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 import data Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low X 2 6 Data older than 20 years (from 1976-1993) Metric 5: Sample Size Low X 1 3 distribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.9 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 188 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: ToxNet Hazardous Substances Data, Bank. 2017. HSDB: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3970275 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: import Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): 3.0x109 g/yr to 2.6x1010 g/yr EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 HSDB (frequently used) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 import data Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low X 2 6 Data older than 20 years (from 1976-1993) Metric 5: Sample Size Low X 1 3 distribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.9 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 189 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID Holbrook, M. T.. 2000. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical TechnologyCarbon tetrachloride. Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; 3981045 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): Number of Sites: Manufacture US production volumes from 1960-1988 describes 3 methods for CC14 manufacture: Chlorination of Hydrocar- bons, Oxychlorination of Hydrocarbons, Carbon Disulfide Chlorination 346,080 tons/yr in 1988 6 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Data from Kirk-othmer (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope Metric 3: Applicability Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Metric 5: Sample Size High High Low Medium X 1 x 2 x 2 x 1 1 2 6 2 US describes most current use as intermediate Data from greater than 20 years ago (1990). Some ranges and discrete values given, no other statistics pro- vided. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.8 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 190 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Holbrook, M. T.. 2003. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical TechnologyChloroform. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3981046 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): Number of Sites: Manufacture US production volumes of chloroform of 2003 describes 3 methods for chloroform manufacture: oxychlrination of methane, hydrogenation of carbon tetrachloride, reduction of alcohols and ketones 91,000,000 kg/yr capacity 4 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 Data from Kirk-othmer (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Medium N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 2 4 N/A US In-scope use (reactant) Data from greater than 10 years ago (2003) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 191 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Weil, E. D.,Sandler, S. R.,Gernon, M.. 2006. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical TechnologySulfur compounds. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3981048 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): production method for CC14 and byproduct of sulfur compound produc- tion Process Description: The commercial manufacture of carbon tetrachloride by chlorination of carbon disulfide yields sulfur monochloride EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Data from Kirk-othmer (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 us Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 Reactant Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 Data from greater than 10 years ago (2006) Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 192 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Kirk, Othmer. 2004. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical TechnologyChlorocarbons and chlorohydrocarbons. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3994180 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): byproduct of thermal chlorination to produce trichloroethylene Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): 20,000 tons EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Data from Kirk-othmer (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 us Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 in-scope use (manufacture) Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 Data from greater than 10 years ago (2004) Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 193 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Spin,. 2017. SPIN substances in preparations in nordic countries tetrachloromethane. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3981129 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Trusted Source (Danish EPA) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Geographic Scope Applicability Medium x 1 Unacceptable x 2 Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High Metric 5: Sample Size High x 2 x 1 2 OECD countries ("Nordic Countries") 8 Database search listing country CC14 use for out of scope uses (construction, retail trade, etc.) 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2000-2014) 1 discrete data for each country and year within the database Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Unacceptable x 1 4 data sources not documneted Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 variability across years addressed, no discussion of uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.2. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 194 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Nih,. 2016. Report on carcinogens: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982329 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Import Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): import Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): 90 lb imported since 1996 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NTP from NIH (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 import data Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High X 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2009) Metric 5: Sample Size Low X 1 3 distribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.4 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 195 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Nih,. 2016. Report on carcinogens: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982329 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): Number of Sites: manufacture domestic manufacture 3.8 million lbs (US exported) 3 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NTP from NIH (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 import data Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High X 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2009) Metric 5: Sample Size Low X 1 3 distribution not characterized by statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.4 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 196 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Atsdr,. 2005. Toxicological profile for carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982336 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): Number of Sites: manufacture domestic manufacture 130 million lbs ( 2 plants combined) 2 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 ATSDR (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High x 2 2 manufacture Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2004) Metric 5: Sample Size Medium x 1 2 Data given for specific years but statistics for each year are Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 197 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Atsdr,. 2005. Toxicological profile for carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982336 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: manufacture Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): import Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): <50 kg (total US for both 2002 and 2003) EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 ATSDR (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High x 2 2 manufacture Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 Data from less than 10 years ago (2004) Metric 5: Sample Size Medium x 1 2 Data given for specific years but statistics for each year are uncertain Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 198 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 2015. List of lists: Consolidated list of chemicals subject to the Emergency Planning and Community Right- To-Know Act (EPCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3378218 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 EPA source Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 2 2 N/A US in-scope uses (waste disposal) Data from less than 10 years ago (2015) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.0 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 199 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Murphy, B. L.. 2016. Vapor degreasing with chlorinated solvents. Environmental Forensics. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3544388 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Vapor Degreasing EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Peer-reviewed journal article Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High Unacceptable High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 8 2 N/A US Information on vapor degreasing which is not in scope Data from less than 10 years ago (2016) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 1.9. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 200 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Simmonds, P. G.,Cunnold, D. M.,Alyea, F. N.,Cardelino, C. A.,Crawford, A. J.,Prinn, R. G.,Fraser, P. J.,Rasmussen, R. A.,Rosen, R. D.. 1988. CARBON-TETRACHLORIDE LIFETIMES AND EMISSIONS DETERMINED FROM DAILY GLOBAL MEASUREMENTS DURING 1978-1985. Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry. Type of Data Source Facility; Environmental Release Data; Hero ID 3569634 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): US production volumes from 1972-1985 Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): 1083.3 x 106 kg/yr (1985) EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Journal of Atmospheric chemistry (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High x 2 2 manufacture Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Unacceptable x 2 8 emission and production volume data from pre Montreal pro- tocol (1985) Metric 5: Sample Size High x 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 1.9. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 201 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Weil, E. D.,Sandler, S. R.,Gernon, M.. 2006. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical TechnologySulfur compounds. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 2346119 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): Use Reactant Thiophosgene forms from carbon tet and hydrogen sulfide 0 US production EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 Data from Kirk-othmer (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Medium N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 2 4 N/A US Reactant Data from greater than 10 years ago (2006) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 202 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Weil, E. D.,Sandler, S. R.,Gernon, M.. 2006. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical TechnologySulfur compounds. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 2346119 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): Use Reactant trichloromethanesulfenyl chloride decomposes slowly at BP especially when in contact with iron minimal EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 Data from Kirk-othmer (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Medium N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 2 4 N/A US Reactant Data from greater than 10 years ago (2006) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 203 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Echa,. 2017. Substance information: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3839957 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): manufacture and import Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): 1000-10000 tonnes/year EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 ECHA (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size Medium High High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 2 2 2 N/A European Union (OECD) manufacture Data from less than 10 years ago (2016) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 sources not transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.4 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 204 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: 3970708". Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3970708 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Use chemical and physical properties EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 ECHA (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High High N/A X X X 1 2 2 1 2 2 N/A European Union (OECD) Includes uses that are in scope Data from 2016 No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 data souces not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 205 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Orau Team. 2004. NIOSH dose reconstruction project: Technical basis document for the Rocky Flats Plant- Site description. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3974899 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Number of Sites: Use degreasing Metal turnings from Module C machining process and Module B scrap cutters were put in metal baskets and dipped in five carbon tetrachloride baths; Parts were cleaned with carbon tetrachloride. 1 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 NIOSH (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Unacceptable X 2 8 Information on degreasing which is not in scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low X 2 6 Data from greater than 20 years ago Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 sources not transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.7. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 206 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: European Chlorinated Solvents, Association. 2017. Chlorinated solvents: Glossay. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982129 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): manufacture and import Process Description: high temperature chlorination of propylene or methane EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 ECSA (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size Medium High High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 2 2 2 N/A European Union (OECD) manufacture Data from less than 10 years ago (2016) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 Data sources described but not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 207 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: European Chlorinated Solvents, Association. 2017. Chlorinated solvents: Glossay. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982129 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): reactant Process Description: a feedstock in the production of CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 ECSA (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size Medium High High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 2 2 2 N/A European Union (OECD) manufacture Data from less than 10 years ago (2016) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 Data sources described but not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 208 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: European Chlorinated Solvents, Association. 2017. Chlorinated solvents: Glossay. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982129 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process aid Process Description: process agent in the production of chlorine, to extract nitrogen trichlo- ride, and as a solvent to recover chlorine from tail gas EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 ECSA (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size Medium High High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 2 2 2 N/A European Union (OECD) manufacture Data from less than 10 years ago (2016) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 Data sources described but not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 209 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Deng, J. F.,Wang, J. D.,Shih, T. S.,Lan, F. L.. 1987. Outbreak of carbon tetrachloride poisoning in a color printing factory related to the use of isopropyl alcohol and an air conditioning system in Taiwan. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 62382 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 American Journal of Industrial Med. (journal article) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size Low Unacceptable Low Medium X X X X 1 2 2 1 3 8 6 2 Data from Taiwan (non-OECD) Condition of use is out of scope (cleaning agent) Data from greater than 20 years ago Data characterized by a range with uncertain statistics Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 2.7. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 210 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Bommaraju, T. V.,Luke, B.,O'Brien, T. F.,Blackburn, M. C.. 2004. Chlorine. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3859414 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Select pages from a Kirk Othmer article (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Medium N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 2 4 N/A US Includes uses that are in scope Data from 2004 (older than 10 years but less than 20) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Unacceptable x 1 4 sources not documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 1.7. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 211 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID Marshall, K. A.,Pottenger, L. H.. 2004. Chlorocarbons and chlorohydrocarbons. Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; 3859415 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Manufacture Domestic Manufacture Methyl chloride is produced by the thermal chlorination of methane in the gas phase at a temperature in the range of 490-530 degreesC. Methy- lene chloride, chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride and HCL are formed in this process.When methyl chloride is produced using the methanol process, methyl chloride is used as a feedstock to a thermal chlorination process to produce methylene chloride, chloroform, and carbon tetra- chloride in a process similar to methane chlorination process. EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium x 1 2 Textbook Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High x 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability Medium x 2 4 Manufacture information for methyl chloride, which creates Carbon tetrachloride as a byproduct. Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 2004 Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A Not applicable Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A Not applicable Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A Not applicable Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.5 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 212 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Holbrook, M. T.. 2004. Methylene chloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3859416 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Domestic Manufacture Process Description: Methylene chloride produced industrially in the US by 2 methods. The older, less used method involves direct reaction of excess methane and chlorine at high temps (400-500 C) or at lower temperatures catalyti- cally or photolytically. Also produces methyl chloride, chloroform and carbon tetrachloride.Most common method emplys the reaction of hy- drogen chloride and methanol to give methyl chloride, chloroform and carbon tetrachloride. EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Data from Kirk-othmer (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 In scope uses Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High X 2 2 2006 Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 Data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.0 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 213 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Larranaga, M. D.,Lewis, R. J.,Lewis, R. A.. 2016. Hawley's Condensed Chemical DictionaryCarbonyl fluoride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982122 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Use Other Uses Typical Use: Refrigerants. Metal degreasing, agriculturalfumigant, chlo- rinating organic compounds, productionof semiconductors, solvent (fats, oils, rubber,etc.).Note: Not permitted in products intended for home- use.Derivation: (1) Interaction of carbon disulfide andchlorine in the presence of iron; (2) chlorination ofmethane or higher hydrocarbons at 250400C. EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Low X 1 3 Unknown Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 Includes uses that are in scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High X 2 2 2016 Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Unacceptable X 1 4 Not documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 1.7. Continued on next page 214 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE — continued from previous page Source Citation: Larranaga, M. D.,Lewis, R. J.,Lewis, R. A.. 2016. Hawley's Condensed Chemical DictionaryCarbonyl fluoride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982122 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 215 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Osha,. 2017. OSHA occupational chemical database: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3978249 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture, process, & Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 USDOL (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High High N/A X X X 1 2 2 1 2 2 N/A US Exposure limit, applies to all conditions of use Exposure limit affects current conditions of use No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.0 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 216 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Osha,. 2005. OSHA permissible exposure limit and general information: carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3980999 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture, process, & Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 USDOL (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High High N/A X X X 1 2 2 1 2 2 N/A US Exposure limit, applies to all conditions of use Exposure limit affects current conditions of use No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.0 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 217 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Oehha,. 2016. Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982267 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Other uses Process Description: Dry cleaning agent, fire extinguisher, solvent, degreaser, refrigerant, chlorofluorocarbon feedstock. EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High High N/A X X X 1 2 2 1 2 2 N/A US Includes uses that are in scope 2016 data No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 sources not transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 218 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Cdc/Niosh,. Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3986503 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture, process, & Use EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 CDC (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High x 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High x 2 2 Physical characteristics and exposure limits that apply to all conditions of use Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High x 2 2 no date on source but includes physical characteristics and ex- posure limits that apply regardless of date Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Unacceptable x 1 4 Not documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Unacceptable 4 Metric Mean Score: 1.4. ** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor I If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 219 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID Niosh,. 1977. Occupational diseases: A guide to their recognition. Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; 3986432 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Use Other uses Solvent for oils, fats, lacquers, varnishes, rubber, waxes, resins. Used in manufacture of fluorocarbons, and as azeotropic drying agent, dry clean- ing agent, fire extinguishing agent, fumigant and anthelmintic agent. EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (fre- quently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 Includes uses that are in scope Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low X 2 6 Data from greater than 20 years ago (1977) Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.6 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 220 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Osha,. 1991. Proposed rules: Occupational exposure to methylene chloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3982430 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Manufacture Domestic manufacture methyl chloride, methylene chloride, chloroform and carbon tetrachlo- ride) are produced by a chain reaction, with hydrogen chlorideas a byproduct. The products of the reaction (including unreacted methane, HC1 and C12) are separated by fractionation, scrubbing and drying op- erations. EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 OSHA (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High Medium Low N/A x 1 x 2 x 2 1 4 6 N/A US Describes method of manufacture, but not number of locations or amount produced 1991 N/a Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 2.0 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 221 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Weil, E. D.,Sandler, S. R.,Gernon, M.. 2006. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical TechnologySulfur compounds. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3981048 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Data from Kirk-othmer (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Medium N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 2 4 N/A US Reactant Data from greater than 10 years ago (2006) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 222 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Holbrook, M. T.. 2000. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical TechnologyCarbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3981045 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): Number of Sites: Manufacture Domestic manufacture 346.08 x 103 Tons in 1988 6 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Data from Kirk-othmer (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High x 2 2 describes most current use as intermediate Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low x 2 6 Data from greater than 20 years ago (1990). Metric 5: Sample Size Medium x 1 2 Some ranges and discrete values given, no other statistics pro- vided. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.8 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 223 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Oecd Exisiting Chemical Database. 2011. SIDS initial assessment profile: Tetrachloromethane (carbon tetrachloride). Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3970847 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Domestic manufacture Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): <500 metric tonnes/yr since 2010 - nearly all exported EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Low X 1 3 Unknown Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size Medium High High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 2 2 2 N/A Unknown Production data 2010 N/a Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.5 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 224 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Echa,. 2017. Substance information: Carbon tetrachloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3839957 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Domestic manufacture Total Annual U.S. Volume (and percent of PV): 1000-10000 tonnes/yr imported or produced in Europe EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 ECHA (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size Medium High High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 2 2 2 N/A European Union (OECD) manufacture Data from less than 10 years ago (2016) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 sources not transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.4 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 225 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: K. A. Marshall, L. H. Pottenger. 2016. Chlorocarbons and chlorohydrocarbons. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3828879 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): manufacture Process Description: Oxychlorination of hydrocarbons EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Data from Kirk-othmer (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 Describes chemical reaction in detail used for manufacture Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High X 2 2 2016 Metric 5: Sample Size High X 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 Clearly documented its data sources, assessment methods, re- sults and assumptions Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.2 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 226 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: 3828875". Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3828875 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): manufacture Process Description: describes 3 methods for CC14 manufacture: Chlorination of Hydrocar- bons, Oxychlorination of Hydrocarbons, Carbon Disulfide Chlorination EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Data from Kirk-othmer (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 describes most current use as intermediate Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low X 2 6 Data from greater than 20 years ago (1990). Metric 5: Sample Size Medium X 1 2 Some ranges and discrete values given, no other statistics vided. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.8 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 227 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: P. MacRoy. 2017. Comment submitted by Patrick MacRoy, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF), Environmental Health Strategy Center and Healthy Building Network, Part 2. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3986750 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Use reactant CTC is used as a feedstock to produce HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc, whichreportedly accounted for 71 percent and 23 percent of global con- sumption in 2016 EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High High High X 1 x 2 x 2 x 1 1 2 2 1 US Describes prevelant use of CC14 2018 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Clearly documented its data sources, assessment methods, re- sults and assumptions Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness Low x 1 3 no discussion of variability or uncertainty Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 228 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: 3986751". Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3986751 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): aerospace use Process Description: aerospace adhesives and cleaning EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 Description of aerospace uses of carbon tetrachloride from Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) (industry trade organi- zation), use information from trade organizations are assumed to be of high quality but are not a frequently used source Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High High N/A XXX 1 2 2 1 2 2 N/A US Describes revelant use of CC14 2017 No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 sources not transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.4 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 229 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Type of Data Source Hero ID EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: manufacture Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): manufacture Process Description: chlorination of methane EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 Description of use of carbon tetrachloride from the Vinyl Insti- tute (VI) (industry trade organization), use information from trade organizations are assumed to be of high quality but are not a frequently used source Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High High N/A XXX 1 2 2 1 2 2 N/A US Describes revelant use of CC14 2017 No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 sources not transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.4 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 230 R. Krock. 2017. Comment submitted by Richard Krock, Vice President, Regulatory and Technical Affairs, The Vinyl Institute (VI), Part 2. Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; 3986749 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: R. Krock. 2017. Comment submitted by Richard Krock, Vice President, Regulatory and Technical Affairs, The Vinyl Institute (VI), Part 2. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3986749 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): reactant Process Description: light liquids containing CC14 are used in the catalytic oxidation (Catoxid") process to manufactureanhydrous HC1, EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 Description of use of carbon tetrachloride from the Vinyl Insti- tute (VI) (industry trade organization), use information from trade organizations are assumed to be of high quality but are not a frequently used source Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High High N/A XXX 1 2 2 1 2 2 N/A US Describes revelant use of CC14 2017 No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 sources not transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.4 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 231 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: F. Graul. 2013. Comment submitted by Faye Graul, Executive Director, Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc.. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3986602 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Manufacture/process/use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): manufacture, import/repackaging Process Description: worker activities and chemical transport EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 Description of use of carbon tetrachloride from the Halo- genated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) (industry trade or- ganization), use information from trade organizations are as- sumed to be of high quality but are not a frequently used source Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Medium N/A XXX 1 2 2 1 2 4 N/A US Describes prevelant use of CC14 2005-2016 No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 data sources not discussed Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ Medium 1.7 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 232 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Holbrook, M. T.. 2003. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical TechnologyChloroform. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3981046 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Manufacture manufacture byproduct from methylene chloride and chlorine EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 Data from Kirk-othmer (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Medium N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 2 4 N/A US In-scope use (reactant) Data from greater than 10 years ago (2003) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 233 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Weil, E. D.,Sandler, S. R.,Gernon, M.. 2006. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical TechnologySulfur compounds. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 2346119 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Use reactant / inermediate Thiophosgene forms from the reaction of carbon tetrachloride with hy- drogen sulfide, sulfur, or various sulfides at elevated temperatures. EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 Data from Kirk-othmer (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Medium N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 2 4 N/A US Reactant Data from greater than 10 years ago (2006) No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Data sources fully documented Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 234 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: H. Hoag. 2016. The Greening of Chemistry. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 5097937 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Use Processing aid elimination of use in pharmaceutical process EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 Science History Institute Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 us Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 Processing Aid Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness High X 2 2 2008 Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Low X 1 3 results and theories provided, but underlying methods, data sources, and assumptions are not fully transparent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.4 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 235 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: U.S. EPA. 1983. Preliminary Study of Sources of Carbon Tetrachloride: Final Report. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 5097936 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Use Processing aid Use as processing aid in pharmaceutical process EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 EPA source Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 us Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 Processing Aid Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Low X 2 6 1983 Metric 5: Sample Size N/A N/A No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 Clearly documented its data sources, assessment methods, re- suits and assumptions Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.6 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 236 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Holmes, L. 2017. Comment submitted by Laurie Holmes, Senior Director, Environmental Policy, Motor & Equipment Manu- facturers Association (MEMA). Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 3986676 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Use Additive carbon tetrachloride may be used during someautomotive component manufacturing processes as an adhesive and a plastic additive.There is no indication that this chemical is present in automotive aftermarket productsor new automotive components. EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 Description of use of carbon tetrachloride from the Motor & Equipment Manufacurers Association (MEMA) (industry trade organization), use information from trade organizations are assumed to be of high quality but are not a frequently used source Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High High N/A X 1 x 2 x 2 1 2 2 N/A US In scope use 2017 No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium x 1 2 data sources briefly described Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 237 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: Aerospace Industries Association (AIA). 2019. AIA email with statement on CC14 use. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 5175470 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): aerospace use Process Description: After additional investigation, usage identified by AIA companies were based upon products that have been discontinued. There appear to be products that contain trace amounts of CC14 (<1 percent ) that might be a reaction by-product, contaminant or imperfect distillation of perchloroethylene. Therefore, CC14 is no longer an AIA concern. EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium X 1 2 Description of aerospace uses of carbon tetrachloride from Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) (industry trade organi- zation), use information from trade organizations are assumed to be of high quality but are not a frequently used source Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High High N/A XXX 1 2 2 1 2 2 N/A US In scope use 2018 No Comment. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness Medium X 1 2 data sources briefly described Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 238 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: M. T. Holbrook. 2003. Methylene chloride. Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 730490 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Use Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): reactant/inermediate Process Description: carbon tetrachloride can be reduced, ie, hydrodechlorinated, to chloro- form. EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High X 1 1 Data from Kirk-othmer (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Geographic Scope High X 1 1 US Metric 3: Applicability High X 2 2 Describes reaction to create Chloroform using carbon tet Metric 4: Temporal Representativeness Medium X 2 4 2003 Metric 5: Sample Size High X 1 1 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High X 1 1 Clearly documented its data sources, assessment methods, re- suits and assumptions Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 239 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Source Citation: ATSDR. 2005. Toxicological profile for carbon tetrachloride (CAS# 56"23"5). Type of Data Source Facility; Reports for Data or Information Other than Exposure or Release Data; Hero ID 195104 EXTRACTION Parameter Data Life Cycle Stage: Life Cycle Description (Subcategory of Use): Process Description: Disposal Disposal Disposal details EVALUATION Domain Metric Rating MWF* Score Comments Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High x 1 1 CDC (frequently used source) Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Scope Applicability Temporal Representativeness Sample Size High High Medium High X 1 x 2 x 2 x 1 1 2 4 1 US Describes specific disposal requirements 2005 complete data Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Metadata Completeness High x 1 1 Clearly documented its data sources, assessment methods, re- sults and assumptions Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 7: Metadata Completeness N/A N/A No Comment. Overall Quality Determination^ High 1.3 * MWF = Metric Weighting Factor t If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: > 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: > 2.3 to < 3. 240 ------- |