PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE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PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE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DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE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PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE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


-------