PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE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PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE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DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE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PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE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