-
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE A - Z
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 18•REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION Ib.
RESTRICTIVE MARKINGSi • ~UNCLASSIFIED ,
.SECRITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY
OF REPORTUnlimited Distribution Approved for
2b. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWVNGRADING SCHEDULE Public Release
4. PEIORMINf OPGANIZAJION O MER(S) S. MONITORING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER($)
No. 43-21-1229-87 SAPEO-CDE-IS-87004
g.AMOF PERFO,'ING ORGANi A[ION 6b. OFFICE sYMBoL 7a. NAME OF
MONITORING ORGANIZATIONu.b.Army =nvironmena (If appicab:.) U.S.
Army Office of the Program ExecutiviHygiene Agency HSHB-NE-AA
Officer - Program Manager for Chemical D4
6c. AUDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City,
State, and ZiP Code)U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency Ofc of
the Program Executive Officer -
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5422 Program Manager for
Chemical DemilitarizvAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
ga. NAME OF FUNDING•"SFONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT
INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBERORGANIZATION (If applicable)Ofc of
PEO-PM Chem Demil AMCPEC-CDE
Ic. ADDRESS (City State, and ZIPCo0e) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING
NUMBERSOfc of the Program Executive Officer-Prograu PROGRAM PROJECT
TASK ,WORK UNITManager for Chemical Demilitarization ELEMENT NO.
NO. NO. ACCESSION
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
11. TITLE (Include Security Clasfication) .
Evaluation of Multiple Incinerator Air Quality mtiacts
12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S) ,. _
TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIMV COVT8D -' 14. DATE OF REPORT (Year,
Month, Coy) IS. PAGE COUNT\. Finl FROM ovuu TO":ay 87 May 1987
12
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION /
17. COSATI CODES 118sI BJECT TERMS (Conftnue on reverse if
.meceary and identify by block number)
ELD GROUP SUB-GROUP eToxic Air Pollutants, Mustard, Blister
Agent, Chemical
~ I I Agent, Chemical Agent Incineration. ~19. ABYRACT (Continue
on reverse if necenary and identify by block number)
The purpose of this study was to examine the long-term additive
ambient impact of certa
toxic air pollutants that will potentially be emitted from the
Chemical Agent Incinerat(AI) prorosed for the Edgewood Area (EA) of
Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland and
from three additional planned or existing incinerators also
located on the EA. This in
was determined in consideration of the existance and operation
of three additional planor existing incinerators also located on
EA. Based on air dispersion modeling ccnduActe
as part of an original analysis, emissions of chlorinated
organics from the U.S. Army
Medical ReSearch Institute for Chemical Defense Pathological
Waste Incinerator and the
Chemical Research, Development and Engineering C'+ntar
Decontamination/DetoxificationIncinerator were found to have little
or no ambient air quality impact, relative to the
Municipal Waste Incinerator (MWI), for downwind distances as
great as the distance to tnearest boundary of the F.A.
Consequently, for this evajuation, only the MWI is considfto emit
chlorinated oroanics. ._-__. _ .> . {. -Sep re,,erse side for
continuation. , - ........
20. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 121. ABSTRACT SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION%,,R NCLASSIFIEDIUNLIMITED E SAMS AS RPT. 0 -TIC
USFRS UNCLASSIFIED
, NAME OF RESPONSI3LE INDIVIDUAL Ub. TELEPHONE (Include Area
Coe) 22€'OFFICE SYMBOL
AALLAN~ MCKINNEY (301) 671-2451.2 AMCPEO-CD"DD Form 1473. JUN 86
Prevous ecittlor are obsolete. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS
PAGE
.. ... ../
-
4�;
., �
�
�4,
* .4 !�.� � A �99+&.
h
'9, �
( " � ' �z�'%- �7'x: 9'
"7 � �494�;t,
9, A9,
'�
9,;'' 49,
9, � �\9,.'
A;4
�9
'4
�' . 9,,
- 'A
''WI-,
'
-
19. ABSTRACT Continuation:
Synergistic effects, due to the overlapping of air emissions
plumes, werenot considered because the composition of the effluent
could not be defined insufficient detail for this analysis and
because synergisLis between toxic substanceare not well understood
or quantifiable. Furthermore, the effluent plumes arerarely
expected to overlap. Consequently, only the additive effects of
chronicexposure to ambient concentrations of the selected
pollutants were examined inth5s study.
'4-'Accesion Fr• • ~NTIS CRA&M
P4 DTIC TAB 0
8 4-4 U-annot iced 00u tf• ~ , ... .... .......... .
t y
0
4J
A-i Av'1Ib;;ity CtudesS- • ( Ava~i a,.d I jr
".H
J,~
-
UNITED STATES ARMYw ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE
AGENCYIRS ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD 21010-5422
AIR POLLUTION CONSULTATIONNO. 43-21-1229-87A ~ ~ EVALUATION OF
fliLT1PLE INCINERATuR AiR QUALITY IMPACTS
EDGEWOOD AREAABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND
MAY 1987
ref to Ma fo Chic n SDemi ta ti 1 a TN: CP C E, be e
DESTRUCTION NOTICE - Dentroy by any method that will
preventdisclosure of contents or recoretruction of the
document.
aW
-
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU. &. ARMY KNViRONMENTAL HYGIENE
AGENCY
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND. MARYLAND 210104422
19 JUN 1987HSHB- ME-AAMEMORANDUM FOR: Commiander, U.S. Army
Materiel Commnand, ATTN: AMCSG, 5001Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria,
VA 22333-0001
* ~SUBJECT: Air Pollu~tion Consultation No. 43-21-1229-P7,
Evaluation of MultipleIncinerator Air Quality Impacts, Edgewood
Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground,Maryland, May 1987
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The purpose of this report was to examine the long-term
additive impact ofcertain toxic air pollutants that have the
potential to be emitted from thechemical agent incinerator proposed
for the Edgewocd Area of Aberdeen ProvingGround, Maryland and from
three additional Incinerators either existing orunder construction
on the Edgewood Area.
2. There are no recommnendations at this time.
- FOR THE COMMANDER:
Endl KARL J. DAUBELColonel, MS
'~ Director, Environmental Quality
CF:HQDA(DAEN-ZCF-U/DAEN-ZCE) (w/enc!)HQDA(DASG-PSP)
(wa/endl)Cdr, TECOM, ATTN: AMSTE-FE-M (w/encl)Cdr, MEDDAC, Ft
Meade, ATTN: PVNTMED Svc (w/encl)Cdr, WRAMC, ATISN: PVNTMED Svc (2
cy) (w/encl)Prog Mgr, Chem Demil, ATTN: AMCPM (w/encl)Cdr, USAEHA
Fld Spt Actv, Ft Meade (w/encl)Cdr, USAMRICD (w/ericl)Cdr, CRDEC
(w/encl)
-
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU. S. APMY ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE
AGENCY
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND 21010"A22
£TTgIllm1I•O
HSH1B-ME-AA
AIR POLLUTION CONSULTATION NO. 43-21-1229-87EVALUATION OF
MULTIPLE INCINERATOR AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
EDGEWOOD AREAABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND
MAY 1987
1. AUTHORITY. Initial End, HQ AMC, AMCSG, 23 May 1967, to
letter, ProgramManager for Chemical Munitions (Demilitarization and
Binary) (Provisional), AMCPM20 May 1987, subjcct: Request for
Reevaluation of Multiple-Incinerator StackEffects at APG, Based
Upon Additional Data.
2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was t3 examine the
long-term additiveimpact of certain toxic air pollutants that have
the potential to be emittedfrom.the chemical agent incinerator (AI)
proposed for the Edgewood Area (EA)of Aberdeen Proving Ground
(APG), Maryland and from three additional plannedor existing
incinerators also located on the EA.
3. BACKGROUND.
a. The ambient impacts of multiple incinerators operating on the
EA werefirst examined by USA Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA)
in December 1986(Appendix A, reference 3). A reevaluation was
requested because revised
Semissions information for %he Al has become available since the
originalevaluation was performled.
b. The originfl evaluation examined the impacts of emissions
from threeincinerators in addition to the Al, the Harford County
Municipal Waste Incinerator(14WI) (currently under construction),
the USA Medical Research Institute forChemical Defense (USAMRICD)
pathological waste incinerator (PWI), and the USAChemical Research,
Development, and Engineering Center (USACRDEC)
decontamination/detoxification (DECON/DETOX) incinerator. The
location of these incineratorsare shown on the following Figure.
The evaluation emphasized the impacts of certa.toxic air pollutants
commonly present in waste incinerator emissions for whichambient
stancards do not generally exist. These pollutants were defined to
bea group of chlorinated organic compounds consisting of dioxins,
furans, poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorobenzents, and
chlorophenols. In addition,mustard (HO) emissions from the AI were
considered.
c. The revised source emissions information consisted of new
emission ratesfor HD and additional data on the products of
incomplete HD combustion.
(1) For the original evaluation, Al emission rates for HD were
takenfrom Appendix A, reference 9. The revised HO emission rates
that were providedin the authority letter reflect revised hours of
incinerator operation and changesin the building ventilation
rate.
a
\- R %~'~ '% 'w ~ ' ~iA~'~e'~/' PQ~ ~ ~ -. p \
-
Ai, Pollution Consultation~ No. 43-21-1229-87. May 87
"-o ill j~to Fur 1c 3.I *.1 24 , / cSER OIR Wa~rlce' '.i
Abingdo ~.er Pryma
7 r
I. - -'
ce ve no ICt AS 7 -nor. /A
Frriendshi~C to.ma$ AC .. cEsatsA .- 1 , Ptrma/Ab do.4r% hu-rer
Pt -,P
f~ fe uhC 5
Mao 'lanb P. beyP/0TPR VING L3 firs~ CA 9
qIvy' I- V o
-
Nir Pellution Consultation No. 43-21-1229-87, May 87
(2) Due to a lack of available data, the oriaioial evaluation
conserva-tively assumed that chlorinated organics would be formed
during HD incinerationand would be emitted from the stack at a rate
of one perrent of the emissionrata given for nonmethane
hydrocarbons (Appendix A, reference 9). The incin-erator designer
has recently completed an analysis which indicates that,for HD
incineration at design operating conditions, negligible amounts
ofchlorinated organics are formed as products of incomplete
combustion. Thisinformation was provided informally by the Office
of the Program Manager forChemical Munitions.
d. Based on air dispersion modeling conducted as part of the
original analysis,emissions of chlorinated organics from the PWI
and the DECON/DETOX viere foundto have little r.r no ambient air
quality impact, relative to the MWI, fordownwind distances as great
as the distance to the nearest boundary of the EA.Consequently, for
this evaluation, only the MWI is considered to emit
chlorinatedorganics.
e. A preliminary evaluation was conducted in which the frequency
of occurrenceof simultaneously overlapping plumes from the MWI and
the AI was examined (AppendixA, reference 4). Significant plume
overlap was estimated to occur 5 percent ofthe time or less,
depending on the extent of plume overlap. in addition, localwinds
were believed to be sufficiently var 4able in direction that any
overlap wouldpersist no more than a few hours. Furthermore,
dispersion modeling conducted
Sfor the original evaluation showed that areas having the
greatest long-term ambientimpact of emissions from the two
facilities did not overlap.
f. Synergistic effects, due to overlapp;ng plumes, were not
considered becausethe composition of the effluent cmuld not be
defined in sufficient detail for suchan analysis and because
synergisms between toxic substances are not well understoodor
quantifiable. Furthermore, the effluent plumes are rarely expected
to overlap.Consequently, only the additive effects of chronic
exposure to ambient concen-trations of the selected pollutants were
expmined in this study.
4. DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY.
a. Ambient Concentrations of HD. Dispersion modeling was used to
calculatetheoretical estimates of annual average ambient ground
level concentrations of HO.
(1) The Industrial Source Complex (ISC) dispersion model was
selectedas appropriate for this application (Appendix A, reference
5). The U.S.Environmental Protection Aaency (EPA) lists this model
as a refined model pre-ferred for regulatory applications (Appendix
A, r3ference 6). The short-termversion of tAe model (!SCST) was
used. This version calculates concentrationssequentially usinm
hourly meteorological data. The hourly concentrations arethen
averaged over the annual period. The modeling was conducted
assuming thatthe surrounding terrain was flat ard that local land
use could be classified asrural. Effluent plume rise was calculated
as a function of downwind distanceusing the generalized Briggs
plume rise equations.
3
/£
-
Air Pollution Consultation No. 43-21-1229-87, May 87
(2) For the original analysis, arabient concentrations were
calculatedat locations defined by a rectangular grid array. Based
on the results of thismodeling, eight receptors were selected as
representative of the locations ofthe most significant offpost
impacts from the incinerators of interest. Thelocation of these
receptors are shown in the Figure. Receptors 2 3nd 7 are
theapproximate locations of the maximum offpost impact from the MWI
and the AI,respectively. The other six receptors are considered to
be indicative of impactsto surrounding higher density population
areas (e.g., Edgewood and Joppatowne).
(3) Source information used in modeling Al HD emissions are
given inTable 1 (from the authority letter and Appendix A,
refereace 9). The HD feedwas assumed to contain no contaminants.
For modeling, continuous incineratoroperation was assumed. The
authority letter provided an emission rate from theliquid
incinerator/metal parts furnace stack of 0.00020 gm/sec for an
operatingtime of 2000 hours per year. Total annual emissions based
on these data wereused to determine an emission rate for the
continuous operation (8760 hours peryear) assumption. The
ventilation system is expected to run continuously.
TABLE 1. EMISSIONS INFORMATION USED TO MODEL MUSTARD FROM THE
AI
Emission Stack Stack GasRate Characteristics Characteristics
Source (qm/sec) Height(m) Dia(m) Vel (m/sec) Temp (KL
Liquid iric/ 0.00005* 38 0.7 17 352Metal PartsFurnace
Demil Bldg 0.30057 38 1.4 7 300Ventilation
*Adjusted for continuous cperitlon based on total annual
emissions
(4) Hourly surface meteorological data used for the modeling
were fromPhillips Army Airfield, located dt the Aberdeen Area of
APG, for the period1 January through 31 December 1955. Concurrent
twice daily mixing height datawere for Spring Hill, Maryland.
Surface data suitable for dispersion modelingwere not available for
Aberdeen afte. 1957. However, meteorological data fromthis period
are believed to be representative of the current dispersion
climatologyof the Aberde2n Area. An annual wind rose showing the
frequency of occurrence ofhours of selected wind speed and wind
direction classes is shown in Appendix B.The 1955 data set was
selected as reasonably representative of the '-.cal
dispersionclimatology based on a qualitative comparison of annual
wind roses .r each ofthe years 1953-1956 with a wind rose for the
period 1947-1956.
4
-
Air Pollution Consultation No. 43-21-1229-87, May 87
b. Ambient Concentrations of Chlorinated Organics. Model
estimated dnnualaverage ambient concentrations of chlorinated
organics due to emissions fromthe MWI were taken from the original
analysis. These concentrations were calcu-lated using a methodology
identical to that described in paragraph 5a(1),
above.Meteorological data from APG for 1955 were also used.
Emission rates for chlor-inated organics were determined from the
results of a study of a similar typeincinerator (Appendix A,
reference 8). source information used in the modelingis given in
Table 2. The emission rate is based on continuous operation at
themaximum design feed rate (310 tons per day).
TABLE 2. EMISSIONS INFORMATION USED TO MODEL CHLORINATED
ORGANICS FROM THE MWI
Emission Physical Stack Stack GasRate Characteristics
Characteristics
(qm/sec) Height~m) Diameter(m) Velocity(m/sec) Temp(K)
0.0011 18 1.4 20 472
c. Risk Calculations.
(1) The carcinogenicity of a substance may be indicated by in
vitro tests,more strongly suggested by animal studies, or further
documented by human epidemio-logical evidence. For some
carcinogens, models have been developed that allowcalculation of
carcinogenic potency factors. Such factors allow quantitation
ofcarcinogenic risk. Assuming low-dose linearity, the risk of
cancer associatedwith a given pollutant concentration is estimated
using the relationship:
Risk - Q* x D
where Risk is the additional lifetime risk of developing cancer
based on a lifetimeof constant exposure to a substance with a
carcinogenic potency factor Q* at aparticular dose, D (Appendix A,
reference 7). The term Q* is expressed in milli-gram per kilogram
per day (mg/kg/day)-i and D is in (mg/kg/d3y). Risk estimatesare
determined assuming a 70-year lifetime for a 70 kg individual with
a 20 cubicmeter per day inhalation rate. •Ithough no standard fcr
an acceptable llfetim2cancer risk exists, risks of 1 0og are
considered adcquately protective by the EPA(Appendix A, reference
10).
(2) For this analysis, the additive carcinogenic effects
associated withexposure to all of the chlorinated organics that are
emitted from the MWI wereassumed to be equivalent to that of PCBs.
The human carcinogenic potential ofPCEs is not krnown, particularly
foi the inhalation route of exposure. A Q* valuedeveloped from
ingestion studies using laboratory animals was used to calculatethe
risk estimates. This Q* vAlte is 4.34 (mg/kg/day)-1 (Appendix A,
reference 7).
5
I Tm
-
Air Pollution Consultation No. 43-21-1229-87, May 87
Not all of the chlorinated organic emissions are considered
carcinogenic and thosethat are considered carcinoqenic have a wide
range of potencies. For example, aform of dioxin, 2,3,7,8
teWrachlorndiphenyl dioxin (TCDD), is known to be consid-erably
more toxic tc some animals than PCBs. However, emissions of 2,3,7,8
TCDDwill com~prise a minute portion of the total emission of
chlorinated organics. No
formal Q* has been developed for HD by EPA or any other
regulatory agency.
5. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION.
a. Ambient Polluta-,t Concent'-aticns.
(1) Model estimated annual average ground leve' concentrations
of HDat the receptor locations are given in Table 3. No depletion
ot th3 HD throughatmospheric chemistry processes was assumed to
occur. Emission rates given inTable 1 are based on an in-stack
concentration standard of 0.03 milligram (mg)/m3 . Actual stack
concentrations likely will be much lower. Consequently, themodeled
concentrations given in Table 3 are believed to be conservative
(over-estimated). As indicated in the authority letter, the means
for a lower minimumdetection sensitivity for in-stack monitors is
being investigated. If bettersensitivities are achieved, a stack
standard as low as 0.003 mg/m 3 may be estab-lished. For- such a
standard, ambient HD concentrations shown in Table 3 would beless
by a factor of ten.
TABLE 3. ESTIM-ATED ANNUAL CONCENTRATIONS OF HD AT SELECTED
RECEPTOR SITES
ConcentrationReceptor (Nanograms/m 3 )
1 0.0132 0.0213 0.0234 0.0265 0.0336 0.0187 0.0378 0.0Z6
(2) Model estimated annual average ground level concentrations
of chlori-nated organics at the eight receptor locations are given
in Table 4. As summarizedpreviously, the MWI was assumed to be the
only emitter of chlorinated organics.Since the MWI likely will not
operate continuously at full capacity, these concen-trations should
be considered co;,servatlve.
6
12=
-
Air Pollution Ccnýjltatioai No. 43-21-1229-87, May 87
TABLE 4. ESTIM•,..•, -._,JAL AVERAG•E GROUND LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS OF CHLORINATEDORGANICS AT SELECTED RECEPTOR
LOCATIONS
ConcentrationReceptor (Nanograms/m
3 )
1 0.1002 0.328*3 0.1494 0.1025 0.0576 0.0447 0.0248 0.026
* Approximate location of maximum Impact
b. Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks.
(1) Estimated excess cancer risk due to liletime exposure to
modeled con-centrations of chlorinated organics emitted from the
F•WI were calculated for eachreceptor. These estimated risks are
listed in Table 5. Because of the conservativeassumptions used in
the modeling (e.g., continuous operation), these risks arebelieved
to be overestimates of actual risks.
TABLE 5. ESTIMATED EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RISKS DUE TO EXPOSURE
TO MODELEDCONCENTRATIONS OF CHLORINATED ORGANICS
Receptor RIsk
1 1 x 10-7
2 4 x 10-7
3 lx 10-74 2 x 10"75 7 x 10-86 5 X 10-8
7 3 x 1O"88 3 x 10-8
7
-
Air Pollution Consultation No. 43-21-1229-87, May 87
(2) Because no formal carcinogenic potency factor has been
developedfor HD, quantitative cancer risks could not be calculated.
However, based onthe best available scientific data, the estimated
ambient levels of exposure toHD given in Table 3 are believed to
pose negligible excess lifetime cancer risk.
6. SUWMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.
a. The results of dispersion modeling indicate that offpost
areas receivingthe greatest long-term impact of emissions from the
AI and the MWI, respectivelydo not overlap. This result is
consistent with the conclusions of a preliminaryanalysis regarding
simultaneous plume overlap.
b. For emissions of chlorinated organic compounds from the MWI,
conservativeestimated excess Hetime cancer risks at eight locations
outside gf the EA bouncrange from 4 x 10-7 to 3 x 10-8. For
comparison, risks of I x 10" are considereto be appropriately
protective by EPA and most individuals.
c. Lifetime exposure to model estimated ambient levels of HD are
believed tobe sufficiently low to pose negligible lifetime cancer
risks with respect torisks considered adequately protective. In
addition, the Al is expected to opera2 years rather than a 70 year
lifetime.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS. There are no recommendations at this
time.
-/ -, / 9
CAARLES, H. HUNTERMeteorologistAir Pollution Engineering
Division
;/7MAJ, MCOccupational Medicine OfficerOccupational and
Environmrental Medicine
Divisin
APPROVED:
LESTER Y. PILCHERMAJ, 14S
Chief, Air Pollution Engineering Division
-
Air Pollution Consultation No. 43-21-1229-87, May 87
APFENDIX A
REFERENCES
1. AR 40-5, 30 August 1986, Preventive Medicin?.
2. AR 200-1, 15 June 1982, Environmental Prot-ction and
Enhancement.
3. Letter, USAEHA, HSHB-ME-AA, 4 February 1987, subject: Air
PollutionConsultation No. 43-21-1229-87, Evaluaticn of Multiple
Incinerator Air QualityImpacts, Edgewood Area, Aberdeen Proving
Ground, Maryland, December 1986.
4. Letter, USAEHA, HSHB-ME-AA, 10 October 1986, subject: Air
PollutionConsultation No. 43-21-1229-87, Evaluation of Multiple
Incinerator StackEffects at Edgewood Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground
- Preliminary Analysis ofOverlapping Plumes.
5. Environmental Protection Agency Report No. EPA-450/4-79-030,
December 1979,Industrial Source Complex (ISC) User's Guide, Volumes
I and II.
6. EPA Report No. EPA-450/2-78-027R, July 1986, Guideline on Air
Quality Models(Revised).
e 7. EPA Report No. DHEA-E-187, May 1986, Development of
Advisory Levels forA. M Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Cleanup.
8. V. Ovacic; G. Wong; H. Tosine; R.E. Clement; and J. Osborne,
"Emissions ofChlorinated Organics from Two Municipal Incinerators
in Ontario," Journal of&he Air Pollution Control Association,
Volume 35, No. 8, August 1985.
9. Permit to Construct for the Department of Army Aberdeen
Proving Ground ChemicalStockpile Disposal System, Revision 0,
Program Manager for Chemical Munitions(Demilitarization and Binary)
(Provisional), AMCPM, 30 September 1986.
10. Proposed Rule, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
Synthetic OrganicChemicals, Inorganic Chemicals, and
Microorganisms, 50 FR 46949, 13 November 191
A-1
, I I
-
Air Pollution Consultation No. 43-21-1229-87. mlay 87
APPENDIX B
W:ND?:sE
NWN
NEN
WW ES
SwS
N=2a LCt 011VIS!ON ISO-3 4-7 F-12 2,12 2 1% of 70cm MTh
US ARMIY ENV/IRONMIENTAL ___ ___________
HYGIENE G EN C YPI-O MPoIC01 07 n-R6CR
or ý_______________ ________________________I C"
WCi
-
A0 .
2