United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
&EPA Industrial Waste
Management
Evaluation Model
(IWEM) Technical
Background
Document
-------
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W)
Washington, DC 20460
EPA530-R-02-012
August 2002
www.epa.gov/osw
-------
EPA530-R-02-012
August 2002
Industrial Waste Management
Evaluation Model (IWEM)
Technical Background
Document
-------
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Numerous individuals have contributed to this work. Ms. Ann Johnson and Mr. David
Cozzie of the U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste (EPA/OSW) provided overall project
coordination and review throughout this work. Ms. Shen-Yi Yang and Mr. Timothy
Taylor of EPA provided specific technical guidance. This report was prepared by the
staffs of Resource Management Concepts, Inc (RMC) and HydroGeoLogic, Inc (HGL)
under EPA Contract Number 68-W-01-004. Chapter 5 and Appendix E were prepared by
Research Triangle Institute under Contract 68-W-98-085.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Acknowledgments i
Executive Summary x
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Guide For Industrial Waste Management And IWEM 1-1
1.2 IWEM Design 1-3
1.2.1 What Does the Software Do? 1-3
1.2.2 IWEM Components 1-3
1.3 About This Document 1-5
2.0 Overview of the Tier 1 And Tier 2 Approach 2-1
2.1 Purpose of The Tier 1 And Tier 2 Tools 2-1
2.2 Approach Used to Develop Tier 1 And Tier 2 Tools 2-2
2.2.1 Tier 1 2-3
3.0 What Is The EPACMTP Model? 3-1
3.1 WMU Source Module 3-4
3.1.1 How EPACMTP Determines Releases From a Source 3-4
3.1.2 How EPACMTP Determines Infiltration Rate for Surface
Impoundments 3-6
3.2 EPACMTP Unsaturated Zone Module 3-7
3.3 Saturated Zone Module 3-10
3.4 Conducting Probabilistic Analyses Using EPACMTP 3-13
3.5 EPACMTP Assumptions and Limitations 3-16
4.0 How EPA Developed the Tier 1 and Tier 2 IWEM Evaluations 4-1
4.1 Overview 4-1
4.1.1 EPACMTP Modeling Options and Parameters 4-2
4.2 EPACMTP Input Parameters Used to Develop Tier 1 and
Tier 2 Tools 4-8
4.2.1 WMU Parameters 4-9
4.2.1.1 WMU Types 4-9
4.2.1.2 WMU Data Sources 4-11
4.2.1.3 WMU Parameters Used in Developing the Tier 1
and Tier 2 Tools 4-17
4.2.2 Infiltration and Recharge Rates 4-21
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
4.2.2.1 Using the HELP Model to Develop Recharge and
Infiltration Rates 4-22
4.2.2.2 Infiltration Rates for Unlined Units 4-31
4.2.2.3 Single-Lined Waste Units 4-34
4.2.2.4 Infiltration Rates for Composite-Lined Units ....4-38
4.2.2.5 Determination of Recharge Rates 4-42
4.2.3 Parameters Used to Describe the Unsaturated and
Saturated Zones 4-42
4.2.3.1 Subsurface Parameters 4-42
4.2.3.2 Unsaturated Zone Parameters 4-44
4.2.3.3 Saturated Zone Parameters 4-48
4.2.4 Parameters Used to Characterize the Chemical Fate
of Constituents 4-50
4.2.4.1 Constituent Transformation 4-51
4.2.4.2 Other Constituent Degradation Processes 4-53
4.2.4.3 Constituent Sorption 4-53
4.2.4.3.1 Sorption Modeling for
Organic Constituents 4-54
4.2.4.3.2 Sorption Modeling for Inorganic
Constituents (Metals) 4-54
4.2.4.4 Partition Coefficient and Degradation Rate Threshold
Criteria EPA Used to Define Conservative Constituents
in Developing the Tier 1 Evaluation 4-60
4.2.5 Well Location Parameters 4-60
4.2.6 Screening Procedures EPA Used to Eliminate Unrealistic
Parameter Combinations in the Monte Carlo Process 4-61
5.0 Establishing Reference Ground-water Concentrations 5-1
5.1 Ingestion HBNs 5-3
5.1.1 Ingestion HBNs for Constituents That Cause Cancer 5-4
5.1.2 Ingestion HBNs for Constituents that Cause Noncancer
Health Effects 5-6
5.2 Inhalation HBNs 5-7
5.2.1 Calculation of Exposure Concentrations from Showering .... 5-8
5.2.2 Calculating Inhalation HBNs 5-8
5.2.2.1 Inhalation HBNs for Constituents that
Cause Cancer 5-9
in
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section
Page
5.2.2.2 Inhalation HBNs for Constituents that Causes Non-
Cancer Health Effects 5-11
6.0 How Does IWEM Calculate LCTVs and Make Liner Recommendations? ... 6-1
6.1 Determining Liner Recommendations Corresponding to a 90th
Percentile Exposure Concentration 6-1
6.1.1 Calculating LCTVs for Organic Constituents 6-3
6.1.2 Determining LCTVs for Metals 6-5
6.2 Capping the LCTVs 6-6
6.2.1 Hydrolysis Transformation Products 6-6
6.2.2 1,000 mg/L /Cap 6-11
6.2.3 TC Rule Cap 6-11
6.3 Making Liner Recommendations 6-11
6.3.1 Use and Interpretation of Tier 1 Evaluation 6-12
6.3.2 Use and Interpretation of Tier 2 Evaluation 6-14
7.0 REFERENCES 7-1
Appendix A: Glossary
Appendix B: List of IWEM Waste Constituents and Default Chemical Property Data
Appendix C: Tier 1 Input Parameters
Appendix D: Infiltration Rate Data
Appendix E: Background Information for the Development of Reference Ground-water
Concentration Values
Appendix F: Tier 1 LCTV Tables
IV
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure EX-1 Conceptual Cross-Section View of the Subsurface System
Simulated by EPACMTP xv
Figure 2.1 Three Liner Scenarios Considered in IWEM 2-2
Figure 3.1 Conceptual Cross-Section View of the Subsurface System Simulated
by EPACMTP 3-2
Figure 3.2 Conceptual Relationship Between Leachate Concentration (a)
and Ground-Water Exposure Concentration (b) 3-3
Figure 3.3 Leachate Concentration Versus Time for Pulse Source and Depleting
Source Conditions 3-5
Figure 3.4 Surface Impoundment Infiltration Module 3-6
Figure 3.5 Graphical Representation of the EPACMTP Monte Carlo Process . . 3-16
Figure 4.1 WMU Types Modeled in IWEM 4-10
Figure 4.2 Geographic Locations of Landfill WMUs 4-13
Figure 4.3 Geographic Locations of Surface Impoundment WMUs 4-14
Figure 4.4 Geographic Locations of Waste Pile WMUs 4-15
Figure 4.5 Geographic Locations of Land Application Unit WMUs 4-16
Figure 4.6 WMU with Base Elevation below Ground Surface 4-19
Figure 4.7 Locations of HELP Climate Stations 4-27
Figure 4.8 Ground-water Temperature Distribution for Shallow Aquifers in the
United States (from Todd, 1980) 4-47
Figure 4.9 Example Unsaturated Zone Isotherm for Cr(VI) Corresponding to
Low LOA, Medium FeOx, High POM, pH-6.3 4-59
Figure 4.10 Position of the Modeled Ground-water Well Relative to the WMU . . 4-62
Figure 4.11 Flowchart Describing the Infiltration Screening Procedure 4-66
Figure 4.12 Infiltration Screening Criteria 4-67
Figure 6.1 Determination of Time-Averaged Ground-Water Well Concentration . 6-2
Figure 6.2 Relationship Between Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of
Well Concentrations and Dilution and Attenuation Factors (DAFs) . . . 6-4
v
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table EX-1 IWEM WMU and Liner Combinations xi
Table 1.1 IWEM WMU and Liner Combinations 1-3
Table 1.2 IWEM Constituents 1-6
Table 4.1 Summary of EPACMTP Options and Parameters 4-4
Table 4.2 Methodology Used to Compute Infiltration for LFs 4-23
Table 4.3 Methodology Used to Compute Infiltration for Sis 4-24
Table 4.4 Methodology Used to Compute Infiltration for WPs 4-25
Table 4.5 Methodology Used to Compute Infiltration for LAUs 4-26
Table 4.6 Grouping of Climate Stations by Average Annual Precipitation
and Pan Evaporation (ABB, 1995) 4-29
Table 4.7 Hydraulic Parameters for the Modeled Soils 4-31
Table 4.8 Moisture Retention Parameters for the Modeled WP Materials 4-33
Table 4.9 Sensitivity Analysis of Tier 1 LCTVs for Clay-lined LFs to Regional
Versus Location-specific Infiltration Rates for 17 Climate Stations . . 4-36
Table 4.10 Sensitivity Analysis of Tier 1 LCTVs for Clay-lined WPs to Regional
Versus Location-specific Infiltration Rates for 17 Climate Stations . . 4-38
Table 4.11 Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Infiltration Rate for Composite-
Lined LFs and WPs 4-40
Table 4.12 Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Leak Density for Composite-
Lined Sis 4-41
Table 4.13 Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Infiltration Rate for Composite-
Lined Sis 4-41
Table 4.14 HGDB Subsurface Environments (from Newell et al, 1989) 4-43
Table 4.15 Nationwide Distribution of Soil Types Represented in IWEM 4-44
Table 4.16 Statistical Parameters for Soil Properties for Three Soil Types Used in
IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 Development (Carsel and Parrish, 1988) . . . 4-45
Table 4.17 Probability Distribution of Soil and Aquifer pH 4-47
Table 4.18 Empirical Distribution of Mean Aquifer Particle Diameter
(from Shea, 1974) 4-49
Table 4.19 Ratio Between Effective and Total Porosity as a Function of Particle
Diameter (after McWorther and Sunada, 1977) 4-49
Table 4.20 Cumulative Probability Distribution of Longitudinal Dispersivity at
Reference Distance of 152.4 m (500 ft) 4-50
Table 5.1 Exposure Parameter Values for Ingestion HBNs - Carcinogens 5-5
Table 5.2 Exposure Parameter Values for Ingestion HBNs - Noncarcinogens .. 5-7
Table 5.3 Exposure Parameter Values for Inhalation HBNs 5-10
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs 5-12
VI
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
Table 6.1 IWEM Constituents with Toxic Hydrolysis Transformation Products . 6-9
Table 6.2 IWEM Daughter Constituents Without RGC Values 6-10
Table 6.3 Toxicity Characteristic Regulatory Levels (U.S. EPA, 1990) 6-12
vn
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1-D One-dimensional
3-D Three-dimensional
API American Petroleum Institute
CDF Cumulative (Probability) Density Function
cm/sec centimeters per second
CQA Construction Quality Assurance
CSF Cancer Slope Factor
CSFi Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor
CSFo Oral Cancer Slope Factor
DAF Dilution and Attenuation Factor
DOM Dissolved Organic Matter
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPACMTP EPA-Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation
Products
FeOOH Goethite
FeOx Ferric oxide
GUI Graphical User Interface
HBN Health-Based Number
HOPE High-Density Polyethylene
HELP Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
HGDB Hydrogeologic Database for Ground-Water Modeling
HQ Hazard Quotient
HWIR Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
in/yr inches per year
IWEM Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model
kd Soil-Water Partition Coefficient
kg/m3 kilograms per cubic meter
Koc Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient
L/kg Liters per kilogram
LAI Leaf Area Index
LAU Land Application Unit
LCTV Leachate Concentration Threshold Value
LDS Leak Detection System
Vlll
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
LF Landfill
LOA Leachate organic acids
m2/yr meters squared per year
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
mg/kg/day milligram per kilogram per day
mg/L Milligrams per liter
MINTEQA2 EPA's geochemical equilibrium speciation model for dilute aqueous
systems
mm2 Millimeters squared
Mton Mega-ton
POM Particulate Organic Matter
RfC Reference Concentration
RfD Reference Dose
RGC Reference Ground-Water Concentration
SCL Silly Clay Loam
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SI Surface Impoundment
SLT Silt Loam
SNL Sandy Loam
SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
TC Toxicity Characteristic
TC Rule Toxicity Characteristic Rule
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TOC Total Organic Carbon
URF Unit Risk Factor
WMU Waste Management Unit
WP Waste Pile
IX
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Objectives
This document provides technical background on the assumptions, methodologies
and data used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop Tier 1 and
Tier 2 ground-water impact evaluation tools as part of the Agency's Guide for Industrial
Waste Management (hereafter, the Guide). The evaluation tools are combined in the
Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM).
The EPA and representatives from 12 state environmental agencies have
developed a voluntary Guide to recommend a baseline of protective design and operating
practices to manage nonhazardous industrial waste throughout the country. The guidance
was designed for facility managers, regulatory agency staff, and the public, and it reflects
four underlying objectives:
• Adopt a multimedia approach to protect human health and the
environment;
• Tailor management practices to risk using the innovative, user-friendly
modeling tools provided in the Guide;
• Affirm state and tribal leadership in ensuring protective industrial waste
management, and use the Guide to complement state and tribal programs;
and
• Foster partnerships among facility managers, the public, and regulatory
agencies.
The Guide recommends best management practices and key factors to consider to
protect ground water, surface water, and ambient air quality in siting, operating, and
designing waste management units (WMUs); monitoring WMUs' impact on the
environment; determining necessary corrective action; closing WMUs; and providing
post-closure care. In particular, the Guide recommends risk-based approaches to design
liner systems, determine waste application rates for ground-water protection, and
evaluate the need for air controls. The CD-ROM version of the Guide includes user-
friendly air and ground-water models to conduct these risk evaluations. The IWEM
software described in this Background Document is the ground-water tool that was
developed to support the Guide.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Executive Summary
The IWEM software helps determine the most appropriate WMU design to
minimize or avoid adverse ground-water impacts, by evaluating one or more types of
liners, the hydrogeologic conditions of the site, and the toxicity and expected leachate
concentrations of the anticipated waste constituents.
For the ground-water pathway, the Guide recommends a tiered approach that is
based on modeling the fate and transport of waste constituents through subsurface soils to
a ground-water well1 to produce a liner recommendation (or a recommendation
concerning land application) that protects human health and the environment. The
successive tiers in the analysis incorporate more site-specific data to tailor protective
management practices to the particular circumstances at the modeled site:
• Tier 1: A screening analysis based upon national distributions of
data;
• Tier 2: A location-adjusted analysis using a limited set of the most
sensitive waste- and site-specific data; and
• Tier 3: A comprehensive and detailed site assessment
The IWEM software is designed to support the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses. The
IWEM tool compares the expected leachate concentration for each waste constituent
entered by the user with leachate concentration threshold values (LCTVs) calculated by
a ground-water fate and transport model for three standard liner types. The IWEM
software compiles the results for all constituents expected in the leachate and then reports
the minimum liner scenario that is protective for all constituents. Table EX-1 shows the
WMU types and liner types that are evaluated in IWEM.
Table EX-1 IWEM WMU and Liner Combinations
WMU Type
Landfill
Surface Impoundment
Waste Pile
Land Application Unit
Liner Type
No Liner (in-situ soil)
•
•
•
•
Single Clay Liner
•
•
•
N/A
Composite Liner
•
•
•
N/A
N/A = Not Applicable
For land application units (LAUs) only the No Liner scenario is evaluated because
liners are not typically used for this type of unit.
1 In IWEM, the term "well" is used to represent an actual or hypothetical ground-water
monitoring well or drinking-water well, located downgradient from a WMU.
XI
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Executive Summary
Waste Management Units
Four WMUs are represented in the IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 tool and have the
following key characteristics:
• Landfill (LF). IWEM considers closed LFs with an earthen cover and
either no-liner, a single clay liner, or a composite, clay-geomembrane
liner. The release of waste constituents into the soil and ground water
underneath the LF is caused by dissolution and leaching of the
constituents due to precipitation which percolates through the LF. The
type of liner which is present controls, to a large extent, the amount of
leachate which is released from the unit. Because the LF is closed, the
concentration of the waste constituents will diminish with time due to
depletion of LF wastes. The leachate concentration value which is used
an IWEM input is the expected initial leachate concentration, when the
waste is "fresh".
• Waste Pile (WP). WPs are typically used as temporary storage units for
solid wastes. Due to their temporary nature, they typically will not be
covered. IWEM does allow liners to be present, similar to LFs. In Tier 1
analyses, IWEM assumes that WPs have a fixed operational life of 40
years, after which the WP is removed. IWEM therefore models WPs as a
temporary source.
• Surface Impoundment (SI). In IWEM, Sis are ground level or below-
ground level, flow-through units, which may be unlined, have a single
clay liner, or a composite liner. Release of leachate is driven by the
ponding of water in the impoundment, which creates a hydraulic head
gradient with the ground water underneath the unit.
• Land Application Unit (LAU). LAUs (or land treatment units) are areas
of land which received regular applications of waste that can be either
tilled or sprayed directly onto the soil and subsequently mixed with the
soil. IWEM models the leaching of wastes after tilling with soil. IWEM
does not account for the losses due to volatilization during or after waste
application. Only the no-liner scenario is evaluated for LAUs because
liners typically are not used for this type of unit.
xn
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Executive Summary
Tier 1 and Tier 2 Evaluations
Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations in IWEM can be summarized as follows:
Tier 1: Using only the expected leachate concentrations of constituents in a
waste, generic tables provide WMU design recommendations (liner system or maximum
allowable leachate concentration). If the waste contains several constituents, the Tier 1
evaluation will choose the most protective design indicated for any of the constituents.
This tier of the analysis uses national data and generally will recommend more stringent
controls. The Tier 1 evaluation is designed to be protective for 90% of the potential
waste sites across the United States.
Tier 2 : In Tier 2, site-specific data for up to twenty of the most sensitive WMU
and hydrogeologic characteristics can be entered to assess whether a particular design
will be protective. In addition, some default constituent fate parameters can be modified,
including adding biodegradation. This tier is generally more representative because it
allows the user to incorporate some site-specific information in the analysis.
In Tier 1, the only required IWEM inputs are the type of WMU to be evaluated,
the waste constituents present in the leachate, and the expected leachate concentration
value of each constituent.
In Tier 2, there are a small number of required site-specific user-input parameters
in addition to the Tier 1 inputs, as well as a number of optional site-specific user-input
parameters. The additional required site-specific Tier 2 parameters are:
• WMU Area
• WMU Depth (LF and SI)
• WMU location (to select the appropriate climate parameters)
Optional site-specific Tier 2 inputs are:
Distance to the nearest surface water body (SI)
Depth of the base of the WMU below ground surface (LF, SI, and WP)
Operational Life of the WMU (SI, WP, and LAU)
Sludge Thickness (SI)
Waste Type (WP)
Leakage (infiltration) rate from the WMU
Distance to the nearest down-gradient well
Unsaturated zone soil type
Xlll
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Executive Summary
• Hydrogeologic Environment, and/or individual values of:
• Depth from the base of the WMU to the water table
• Saturated thickness of the upper aquifer
• Hydraulic conductivity in the saturated zone
• Regional hydraulic gradient in the saturated zone
• Ground-water pH
• Constituent fate parameters:
• sorption coefficient (Kd)
• (bio-)degradation rate
• Constituent-specific reference ground water concentrations, and
corresponding exposure durations.
EPACMTP Ground Water Fate and Transport Model
IWEM uses the EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products (EPACMTP) to model the fate and transport of constituents in
the subsurface as they migrate through the subsurface. Figure EX. 1 shows a conceptual,
cross-sectional view of the aquifer system modeled by EPACMTP.
EPACMTP simulates fate and transport in both the unsaturated zone and the
saturated zone (ground water) using the advection-dispersion equation with terms to
account for equilibrium sorption and first-order transformation. The source of
constituents is a WMU located at the ground surface overlying an unconfmed aquifer.
The base of the WMU can be below the actual ground surface. Waste constituents leach
from the base of the WMU into the underlying soil. They migrate vertically downward
until they reach the water table. As the leachate enters the ground water, it will mix with
ambient ground water (which is assumed to be free of pollutants) and a ground-water
plume will develop which extends in the direction of downgradient ground-water flow.
EPACMTP accounts for the spreading of the plume in all three dimensions.
Leachate generation is driven by the infiltration of precipitation that has
percolated through the waste unit, from the base of the WMU into the soil. Different
liner designs control the rate of infiltration that can occur. EPACMTP models flow in the
unsaturated zone, and in the saturated zone as steady-state processes, that is, representing
long-term average conditions.
xiv
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Executive Summary
LEACHATE CONCENTRATION
UNSATURATED
ZONE
WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
SATURATED
ZONE
LAND SURFACE
WATEH TABLE
LEACHATE PLUM
Figure EX.1 Conceptual Cross-Section View of the Subsurface System Simulated by
EPACMTP.
In addition to dilution of the constituent concentration caused by the mixing of
the leachate with ground water, EPACMTP accounts for attenuation due to sorption of
waste constituents in the leachate onto soil and aquifer solids, and for bio-chemical
transformation (degradation) processes in the unsaturated and saturated zone. In Tier 1,
and by default in Tier 2, EPACMTP only accounts for chemical transformations caused
by hydrolysis reactions. In Tier 2 analyses, however, you can use site-specific
biodegradation rates. EPACMTP simulates all transformation processes as first-order
reactions, that is, as processes that can be characterized with a half-life.
For organic constituents, EPACMTP models sorption between the constituents
and the organic matter in the soil or aquifer, based on constituent-specific organic carbon
partition coefficients, and a site-specific organic carbon fraction in the soil and aquifer.
In the case of metals, EPACMTP accounts for more complex geochemical reactions by
using effective sorption isotherms for a range of aquifer geochemical conditions,
generated using EPA's geochemical equilibrium speciation model for dilute aqueous
systems (MINTEQA2).
The output from EPACMTP is the predicted maximum ground-water exposure
concentration, measured at a well situated down-gradient from a WMU. In Tier 1 the
well is always located on the plume centerline at a fixed distance of 150 meters from the
downgradient edge of the WMU. In Tier 2, the well is also restricted to be on the plume
centerline, but the distance (up to one mile) can be entered as a site-specific value.
xv
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Executive Summary
Monte Carlo Implementation
In developing the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluation, EPA uses Monte Carlo simulation
to determine the probability distribution of predicted ground-water concentrations, as a
function of the variability of modeling input parameters. The Monte Carlo technique is
based on the repeated random sampling of input parameters from their respective
frequency distribution, executing the EPACMTP fate and transport model for each
realization of input parameter values. At the conclusion of the Monte Carlo analysis, it is
then possible to construct a probability distribution of ground-water concentration values
and associated ground-water dilution and attenuation factors (DAFs). Tier 1 and Tier 2
results are based on Monte Carlo analyses of 10,000 realizations.
For Tier 1, we used a series of databases that describe the expected nationwide
variations in climate, soil, and hydrogeological conditions. In order to determine Tier 1
WMU design recommendations, we used the 90th percentile of the predicted nationwide
distribution of ground-water concentration values. Tier 1 results are therefore designed
to be protective of 90% of waste sites in the United States. The advantage of a Tier 1
evaluation is that it is very rapid and does not require site-specific information. The
trade-off is that while the Tier 1 evaluation will provide a protective screening
assessment for the majority of waste sites, it is not possible to guarantee that it will be
protective at all sites.
A Tier 2 evaluation uses information on waste site location and other site-specific
data, to perform a more precise (less uncertain) assessment. If appropriate for site
conditions (e.g., an arid climate), it may be possible to avoid unnecessarily costly WMU
designs. It may also provide an additional level of certainty that liner designs are
protective of sites in vulnerable settings, such as high rainfall and shallow ground water.
If site-specific data for ground-water modeling parameters are not available, values are
drawn randomly (except for the required parameters that the user must input). The
underlying assumption at Tier 2 is that if a site-specific parameter value is not available,
the uncertainty in the value of the parameter is captured by the nationwide range in
values of that parameter. The resulting location-specific Tier 2 predicted ground-water
concentrations therefore represent a 90th percentile protection level for the specified site
conditions.
Reference Ground-Water Concentrations
Reference Ground-Water Concentrations (RGCs) are maximum allowable
concentrations of constituents in ground water. The IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations
incorporate two types of RGCs:
xvi
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Executive Summary
1) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). MCLs are available for some IWEM
constituents. MCLs are maximum permissible constituent concentrations allowed
in public drinking water and are established under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). In developing MCLs, EPA considers not only a constituent's health
effects, but also additional factors, such as the cost of treatment.
2) Health-based numbers (HBNs). EPA developed HBNs for residential exposures
via ingestion and inhalation routes of exposure. HBNs are the maximum
constituent concentrations in ground water that we expect will not usually cause
adverse noncancer health effects in the general population (including sensitive
subgroups), or that will not result in an additional incidence of cancer in more
than approximately one in one million individuals exposed to the constituent.
HBNs were developed for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects. In the case
of inhalation, this exposure route was evaluated for volatile organic constituents and
mercury. HBN values were calculated by "rearranging" standard EPA risk equations to
calculate constituent concentration, rather than cancer risk or noncancer hazard. The
IWEM HBNs correspond to a "target risk" and a "target hazard quotient (HQ)." The
target risk for carcinogens is 1 x 10"6 (one in one million). The target HQ for
noncarcinogens is 1 (unitless). A HQ of 1 indicates that the estimated dose is equal to the
Reference Dose (RfD) and, therefore, a HQ of 1 is frequently EPA's threshold of concern
for noncancer effects. These targets were used to calculate separate HBNs for each
constituent of concern, and separate HBNs for each exposure route of concern (ingestion
or inhalation). The Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations do not consider combined exposure
from ground-water ingestion (from drinking water) and ground-water inhalation (from
showering), nor do they consider the potential for additive exposure to multiple
constituents.
Leachate Concentration Threshold Values and Liner Recommendations
The IWEM tool provides recommendations for waste management in terms of
LCTVs and type of liner. LCTVs represent the highest concentration in leachate that is
protective of human health for a particular WMU and liner scenario. In Tier 1, the liner
recommendations are based on comparing expected waste leachate concentrations to
tabulated LCTVs. In Tier 2, IWEM uses ground-water modeling to predict expected
waste- and site-specific ground-water exposure concentrations for all waste constituents.
IWEM then compares the exposure concentrations to RGCs to determine whether or not
a liner design is protective. In the Tier 2 analysis, IWEM calculates LCTVs to help users
determine whether waste minimization may be appropriate to meet a specific liner
design. Because the Tier 2 analysis includes site-specific considerations, LCTVs from
this analysis are not applicable to other sites. The basic calculation of LCTVs can be
summarized as follows:
xvn
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Executive Summary
where:
LCTV =
DAF =
RGC =
LCTV = DAF x RGC
Leachate Concentration Threshold Value
Dilution and Attenuation Factor
Reference Ground-Water Concentration
In this relationship, DAF represents the reduction in constituent concentration
between the WMU leachate, and the eventual ground-water exposure concentration at a
downgradient ground-water receptor well. The DAF is chemical- and site-specific and is
calculated using EPACMTP. DAF values used in IWEM represent 90th percentile levels.
In other words, the LCTVs are designed to be protective with a 90% certainty.
The RGC accounts for a constituent's regulatory (MCL) or risk-based (HBN)
standard. As expressed in the relationship above, the LCTV is directly proportional to
the RGC. Thus, LCTVs for constituents with similar DAFs will differ based on the
difference in the regulatory or risk-based standards.
For some constituents, the LCTVs are based not only on toxicity and DAFs, but
also on other criteria that are applied to cap the model-calculated values. IWEM caps
leachate concentrations from an industrial solid WMU at a level no higher than 1000
mg/1 for any single constituent. Concentrations higher than this level may indicate the
pressure of free-product conditions which are outside the validity of IWEM.
The 39 hazardous waste toxicity characteristic (TC) constituents are capped at
their TC levels because concentrations above those levels are hazardous waste. For the
18 constituents that hydrolyze, LCTVs may be capped by toxic daughter products. The
final LCTVs are then calculated such that they accommodate both the parent constituent
as well as any toxic daughter products. For instance, if a parent waste constituent rapidly
hydrolyzes into a persistent daughter product, the ground-water exposure caused by the
parent itself may be minimal (it has already degraded before it reaches the well), but the
final LCTV and liner recommendation generated by IWEM would be based on the
exposure caused by the daughter product, under the assumption that the parent compound
fully transforms into the daughter product. If a IWEM constituent has more than one
toxic daughter product, the final LCTV and liner recommendation take all daughter
products into account.
xvin
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Executive Summary
The final IWEM liner recommendations are based on the minimum liner design
that is protective for all constituents. In applying the IWEM tool, a Tier 1 screening
evaluation is typically performed first. If the expected leachate concentrations of all
waste constituents are lower than their respective no-liner LCTVs, the proposed WMU
does not need a liner to protect ground water. If any constituent concentration is higher
than the corresponding no-liner LCTV, than a single or composite liner would be
recommended. If any constituent is higher than the corresponding single liner LCTV,
than the recommendation is at least a composite liner. Because a Tier 1 evaluation is
designed to be protective of sites across the United States, if the analysis indicates that no
liner is recommended, it is generally not necessary to proceed to a Tier 2 evaluation. On
the other hand, if the Tier 1 analysis indicates a liner is recommended, a user may wish to
confirm this recommendation by proceeding to a Tier 2 (or Tier 3) analysis for at least
those constituents whose expected leachate concentrations indicate that a liner is
recommended.
xix
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 1.0
1.0 Introduction
This document provides technical background information on the Industrial
Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM). A companion document, the IWEM
User's Guide provides detailed information on how to install and use the IWEM software
that is distributed as part of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Industrial
Waste Management Guide.
1.1 Guide For Industrial Waste Management And IWEM
The EPA and representatives from 12 state environmental agencies have
developed a voluntary Guide for Industrial Waste Management (hereafter, the Guide) to
recommend a baseline of protective design and operating practices to manage
nonhazardous industrial waste throughout the country. The guidance was designed for
facility managers, regulatory agency staff, and the public, and it reflects four underlying
objectives:
• Adopt a multimedia approach to protect human health and the
environment;
• Tailor management practices to risk using the innovative, user-friendly
modeling tools provided in the Guide;
• Affirm state and tribal leadership in ensuring protective industrial waste
management, and use the Guide to complement state and tribal programs;
and
• Foster partnerships among facility managers, the public, and regulatory
agencies.
The Guide recommends best management practices and key factors to consider to
protect ground-water, surface water, and ambient air quality in siting, operating, and
designing waste management units (WMUs); monitoring WMUs' impact on the
environment; determining necessary corrective action; closing WMUs; and providing
postclosure care. In particular, the guidance recommends risk-based approaches to
design liner systems and determine waste application rates for ground-water protection,
and evaluate the need for air controls. The CD-ROM version of the Guide includes user-
friendly air and ground-water models to conduct these risk evaluations. The IWEM
model described in this document, is the ground-water tool that was developed to support
the Guide.
1-1
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 1.0
The IWEM software helps determine the most appropriate WMU design to
minimize or avoid adverse ground-water impacts by evaluating one or more types of
liners, the hydrogeologic conditions of the site, and the toxicity and expected leachate
concentrations of the anticipated waste constituents. The software can help compare the
ground-water protection afforded by various liner systems with the anticipated waste
leachate concentrations, so that you can determine the minimum recommended liner
system that will be protective of human health and ground-water resources.
The anticipated users of the IWEM software are managers of proposed or existing
units, state regulators, interested private citizens, and community groups. For example:
• Managers of a proposed unit may use the software to determine what
type of liner would be appropriate for the particular type of waste that is
expected at the WMU and the particular hydrogeologic characteristics of
the site.
• Managers of an existing unit may use the software to determine whether
or not to accept a particular waste at that WMU by evaluating the
performance of the existing liner design.
• State regulators may use the software in developing permit conditions for
a WMU.
• Interested members of the public or community groups may use the
software to evaluate a particular WMU and participate during the
permitting process.
In an effort to meet the needs of the various stakeholders, the guidance for the
ground-water pathway recommends a tiered approach that is based on modeling the fate
and transport of waste constituents through subsurface soils to a well2 to produce a liner
recommendation. The successive tiers in the analysis incorporate more site-specific data
to tailor protective management practices to the particular circumstances at the site:
• Tier 1: A screening analysis based upon national distributions of
data;
• Tier 2: A location-adjusted analysis using a limited set of the most
sensitive waste- and site-specific data; and
• Tier 3: A comprehensive and detailed site assessment
2 In IWEM, the term "well" is used to represent an actual or hypothetical ground-water
monitoring well or drinking water well, located downgradient from a WMU.
"U2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 1.0
The IWEM software is designed to support the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses. The
unique aspect of the IWEM software is that it allows the user to perform Tier 1 and Tier
2 analyses and obtain liner recommendations with minimal data requirements. Users
interested in a Tier 3 analysis are directed to the Guide for information regarding the
selection of an appropriate ground-water fate and transport model.
1.2 IWEM Design
1.2.1 What Does the Software Do?
IWEM helps you determine a recommended liner design for different types of
Subtitle D WMUs that will minimize the potential for adverse ground-water impacts
caused by the leaching of waste constituents. The IWEM tool compares the expected
leachate concentration for each waste constituent that is entered by the user with the
leachate concentration threshold value (LCTV) or exposure concentration calculated by a
ground-water fate and transport model for three standard liner types. The IWEM
software compiles the results for all constituents expected in the leachate and then reports
the minimum liner scenario that is protective for all constituents. Table 1.1 shows the
WMU types and liner types that are evaluated in IWEM.
Table 1.1 IWEM WMU and Liner Combinations
WMU Type
Landfill
Surface Impoundment
Waste Pile
Land Application Unit
Liner Type
No Liner (in-situ soil)
•
•
•
•
Single Clay Liner
•
•
•
N/A
Composite Liner
•
•
•
N/A
N/A = Not Applicable
For Land Application Units (LAUs) only the No Liner scenario is evaluated
because liners are not typically used at this type of facility.
1.2.2 IWEM Components
The IWEM software consists of three main components (7) A graphical user
interface (GUI) which guides you through a series of user-friendly screens to perform
Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations; (2) the EPACMTP computational engine and integrated
Monte Carlo processor that performs the ground-water fate and transport simulations for
Tier 2 evaluations; and (3) a series of data bases that contain waste constituent
1-2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 1.0
characteristics and WMU and ground-water modeling parameters. Each of these three
components is discussed briefly below.
1. Graphical User Interface (GUI)
The IWEM GUI consists of a series of data input and display screens which allow
you to define all aspects of a Tier 1 or Tier 2 evaluation. The user interface
provides a tailored front-end to the EPACMTP computational engine and built-in
databases for Tier 1 and Tier 2. The user interface module is described in detail
in the IWEM User's Guide (U.S. EPA, 2002c).
2. EPACMTP Ground-Water Fate and Transport Simulation Model
EPACMTP is the computational engine of IWEM. EPACMTP simulates the
migration of chemical waste constituents in leachate from land disposal units,
through soil and ground water. Tier 1 leachate concentration thresholds were
generated using EPACMTP. In a Tier 2 evaluation, the fate and transport
simulation is performed directly inside the IWEM tool. EPACMTP is described
in detail in the EPACMTP Technical Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002a).
This document discusses the application of EPACMTP as part of IWEM.
3. Databases
The third component of IWEM is an integrated set of databases that include Tier
1 lookup tables, as well as waste constituent properties and ground-water
modeling parameters for Tier 2 evaluations. The waste constituent database
includes 206 organics and 20 metals. Table 1.2 provides a list of the constituents
in the database. The constituent databases includes physical and chemical data
needed for ground-water transport modeling, as well as reference ground-water
concentrations (RGCs), in the form of maximum constituent levels (MCLs) and
cancer and non-cancer health-based numbers (HBNs) for ingestion of drinking
water, and inhalation of volatiles during showering. Appendix B provides a
complete list of all constituent property data.
In addition to constituent data, the IWEM tool includes a comprehensive database
of ground-water modeling parameters, including infiltration rates for different
WMU types and liner designs for a range of locations and climatic conditions
throughout the United States, and soil and hydrogeological data for different soil
types and aquifer conditions. Details of the databases are provided in this
background document, and in the EPACMTP Parameters/Data Background
Document (U.S. EPA, 2002b).
1-4
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 1.0
1.3 About This Document
The remainder of this document is organized as follows:
Section 2.0; Overview of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Approach, presents the purpose of,
and the methodology behind the Tier 1 and Tier 2 tools;
Section 3.0; What is the EPACMTP Model, provides an overview of the
EPACMTP ground-water simulation model;
Section 4.0; How EPA Developed the Tier 1 and Tier 2 IWEM Tools, describes
the application of EPACMTP for the development of the IWEM tools, in particular the
input parameters used for Tier 1 and Tier 2;
Section 5.0; Establishing Reference Ground-water Concentrations, describes how
we developed health-based reference concentrations (RfCs) based on ingestion and
inhalation risks;
Section 6; How Does IWEM Calculate LCTVs and Make Liner Recommendations,
describes the calculation of leachate concentration thresholds, including the development
ofRGCs;
Section 7.0; References, lists literature references;
Appendix A presents a glossary of technical terms used in this document;
Appendix B presents the list of waste constituents included in IWEM and the
default values for the constituent-specific inputs (decay coefficient and organic carbon
partition coefficient [Koc]);
Appendix C presents tables of EPACMTP input parameters used in developing
the Tier 1 LCTVs;
Appendix D presents infiltration rate data for each WMU and liner design
combination;
Appendix E presents detailed information on the methodology we used to develop
inhalation and ingestion HBNs; and
Appendix F presents the Tier 1 LCTV tables.
1-5
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 1.0
Table 1.2 IWEM Constituents
CAS Number
Constituent Name
CAS Number
Constituent Name
Organics
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
10061-02-6
60-57-1
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Benz {a} anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
B i s(2-ethy Ihexyl )phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene, 1, 3-
Butanol
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-l,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Dichloropropene trans- 1,3-
Dieldrin
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
218-01-9
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
206-44-0
50-00-0
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
Chloropropene, 3- (Allyl Chloride)
Chrysene
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT, p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a,h}anthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropanel,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1 ,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1 ,4-
Dichlorobenzidine3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1 ,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans- 1 ,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene l,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Fluoranthene
Formaldehyde
1-6
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 1.0
Table 1.2 IWEM Constituents (continued)
CAS Number
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
91-20-3
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
Constituent Name
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine, 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane, 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate, 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
CAS Number
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
109-86-4
110-49-6
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
Constituent Name
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
Indeno {1,2,3-cd} pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
1-7
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 1.0
Table 1.2 IWEM Constituents (continued)
CAS Number
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
Constituent Name
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8-
CAS Number
3689-24-5
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
Constituent Name
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidine o-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)pho sphate
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
1-8
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 1.0
Table 1.2 IWEM Constituents (continued)
CAS Number
Constituent Name
CAS Number
Constituent Name
Metals
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
16984-48-8
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
7439-98-7
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-28-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
1-9
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 2.0
2.0 Overview of the Tier 1 And Tier 2 Approach
This section provides an overview of the methodology we used to develop the
Tier 1 and Tier 2 tools. Section 2.1 discusses the purpose of the tools in terms of waste
management scenarios addressed by IWEM. Section 2.2 presents the approach and
parameters used for a Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluation.
2.1 Purpose of The Tier 1 And Tier 2 Tools
IWEM analyzes the potential ground-water impacts of four types of WMU; LF,
SI, waste pile (WP), and LAUs; and three liner scenarios: no liner, single clay liner, and
composite liner. The purpose of both the Tier 1 and the Tier 2 evaluation is to determine
the minimum recommended liner design that is protective of ground water for the waste
of concern.
The primary method of controlling the release of waste constituents to the
subsurface is to install a low permeability liner at the base of a WMU. A liner generally
consists of a layer of clay or other material with a low hydraulic conductivity that is used
to prevent or mitigate the flow of liquids from a WMU. However, the type of liner that is
appropriate for a specific WMU is highly dependent upon a number of location-specific
parameters, such as climate and hydrogeology. In addition, the amount of liquid that
migrates into the subsurface from a WMU has been shown to be a highly sensitive
parameter in predicting the release of constituents to ground-water. Therefore, one of the
main objectives of the tiered modeling approach is to evaluate the appropriateness of a
proposed liner design in the context of other location-specific parameters such as
precipitation, evaporation, and the hydrogeologic characteristics of the soil and aquifer
beneath a facility.
EPA chose to evaluate three types of liner designs, the no-liner, single-liner, and
composite-liner designs. The no-liner design (Figure 2. la) represents a WMU that is
relying upon location-specific conditions such as low permeability native soils beneath
the unit or low annual precipitation rates to mitigate the release of constituents to ground-
water. The single-liner design represents a 3 foot thick clay liner with a low hydraulic
conductivity (1 x 10"7 centimeters per second [cm/sec]) beneath a WMU (Figure 2. Ib). A
composite liner in IWEM consists of a 60 mil (1.5 millimeter) high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) layer underlain by either a geosynthetic clay liner with a maximum hydraulic
conductivity of 5x 10"9 cm/sec or a three-fool compacted clay liner with a maximum
hydraulic conductivity of IxlO"7 cm/sec. (Figure 2.1c).
2-1
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 2.0
' " " HOPE " " |
Waste Waste Waste LTr Waste |
.^.v.-,-.-... -..,-.$ Compacted Clay Compacted Clay Geosynthetic Liner-
a) No-Liner Scenario b) Single Liner Scenario c) Composite Liner Scenario j
Figure 2.1 Three Liner Scenarios Considered in IWEM.
For a given waste management scenario and waste leachate concentration, IWEM
uses ground-water modeling to predict the exposure concentration at a well located
downgradient from the WMU, and then compares the predicted exposure concentration
to established regulatory or health-based RGCs. The recommended liner design is the
minimum liner for which the predicted ground-water concentration of all constituents is
less than their RGC. For land application, the model evaluates whether wastes can be
protectively land applied, based on leachate constituent concentrations. The Tier 1 and
Tier 2 evaluations can be summarized as follows:
Tier 1: Using only expected leachate concentrations of constituents in a waste,
generic tables provide design recommendations (liner system or maximum allowable
leachate concentrations). If the waste contains several constituents, choose the most
protective design indicated for any of the constituents. This tier of analysis uses national
data and is designed to be protective for 90% of the possible combinations of waste sites
and environmental settings across the United States; Tier 1 results will therefore be
protective for the majority of sites.
Tier 2: You can enter site-specific data for up to twenty of the most sensitive
WMU and hydrogeologic characteristics to assess whether an alternative design will be
protective. In addition, you can modify the default constituent fate parameters, including
adding biodegradation. This tier is generally more representative than Tier 1 because it
allows the user to incorporate site-specific information in the analysis.
2.2 Approach Used to Develop Tier 1 And Tier 2 Tools
There are several important concepts that are critical to the understanding of how
IWEM functions. These concepts include 90th percentile exposure concentration, dilution
and attenuations factors (DAFs), reference ground-water concentrations (RGCs), and
leachate concentration threshold values (LCTVs). This section presents how we used
these concepts in developing IWEM, and the similarities and differences between Tier 1
and Tier 2.
2^2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 2.0
2.2.1 Tier 1
We developed Tier 1 of IWEM around the concept of Leachate Concentration
Threshold Values (LCTVs). An LCTV is the maximum leachate concentration that is
protective of ground-water. That is, the LCTV will result in a ground-water exposure
concentration that does not exceed RGCs. The basic calculation that is performed to
develop LCTVs can be summarized as follows:
where:
LCTV=
DAF =
RGC =
LCTV = DAF xRGC
Leachate Concentration Threshold Value
Dilution and Attenuation Factor
Reference Ground-water Concentration
(e.g.,MCLorHBN)
In this relationship, DAF represents the reduction in constituent concentration
between the point of release at the base of the WMU, and the eventual ground-water
exposure concentration at a downgradient well. IWEM uses the EPACMTP ground-
water fate and transport model to calculate expected ground-water well concentrations
from which the DAFs are determined. EPACMTP and its application under IWEM are
discussed in detail in Sections 3 and 4 of this document. The DAF is chemical- and site-
specific and is defined as the ratio of the constituent concentration in the waste leachate
to the concentration at the monitoring well, or:
C,
DAF = —-
'RW
where:
CL = is the leachate concentration (milligrams per liter [mg/L])
CRW = is the well concentration (mg/L).
The ground-water exposure is evaluated at a well located downgradient from the
WMU. The distance between the WMU and the well can vary, but IWEM assumes the
well is always located on the centerline of the ground-water plume.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 2.0
The magnitude of a DAF reflects the combined effect of all dilution and
attenuation processes that occur in the unsaturated and saturated zone. The lowest
possible value of DAF is one; a DAF value of one means that there is no dilution or
attenuation at all; the concentration at the well is the same as that in the waste leachate.
High values of DAF on the other hand correspond to a high degree of dilution and
attenuation and mean that the expected concentration at the well will be much lower than
the concentration in the leachate.
IWEM uses EPACMTP in a probabilistic (Monte Carlo) mode to generate a
probability distribution of well concentrations that reflects the variability in the various
modeling parameters, for instance the variation of rainfall rate across the United States.
IWEM uses the 90th percentile exposure concentration to represent the estimated
constituent concentration at a well for a given leachate concentration to determine the
DAF that is used in the calculation of LCTVs. The 90th percentile exposure
concentration is determined by running EPACMTP in a Monte Carlo mode for 10,000
realizations. For each realization, EPACMTP calculates a maximum time-averaged
concentration at a well, depending on the exposure duration of the reference
ground-water concentration (RGC) of interest. For example, IWEM assumes a 30-year
exposure duration for carcinogens, and therefore, the maximum time-averaged
concentration is the highest 30-year average across the modeling horizon. After
calculating the maximum time-averaged concentrations across the 10,000 realizations,
the concentrations are arrayed from lowest to highest and the 90th percentile of this
distribution is selected as the constituent exposure concentration for IWEM. In Tier 1,
the EPACMTP modeling used data on WMUs collected throughout the United States.
LCTVs used in Tier 1 are therefore designed to be protective with a 90% certainty
considering the range of variability associated with waste sites across the United States.
We performed EPACMTP Monte Carlo simulations to determine constituent-
specific DAF values for each combination of WMU type and liner listed in Table 1.1.
We then multiplied these DAFs with constituent-specific RGCs to obtain the Tier 1
LCTVs. The RGCs included Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as established
under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and HBNs, calculated from constituent-
specific toxicity data, using standard exposure assumptions for residential receptors (see
Section 5.2 of this document). IWEM incorporates HBNs for exposures due to drinking
water ingestion and inhalation of volatiles while showering. Constituent-specific HBNs
in IWEM correspond to a cancer risk of 10"6, and non-cancer hazard quotient (HQ) of 1,
respectively. The relationship shown at the beginning of this section expresses how the
LCTV is directly proportional to the RGC and that the LCTV will be lower for
constituents with lower MCLs or HBNs even if they have the same fate and transport
characteristics (same DAF).
2-4
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 2.0
After calculating the Tier 1 LCTVs as outlined above, we applied a series of caps
that:
• Restrict LCTVs to not exceed 1,000 mg/L,
• Restrict LCTVs to not exceed Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Rule leachate
levels (for the 39 constituents identified in the TC Rule), and
• Account for transformation of leachate constituents into toxic hydrolysis
daughter products.
Section 6 discusses these caps in more detail. The final result is a set of
nationwide leachate screening values. The final Tier 1 LCTVs are listed in Appendix F
of this document. They are also incorporated as a series of lookup tables in the IWEM
software.
To perform a Tier 1 evaluation only the following information is needed:
• WMU type;
• Constituents present in the leachate; and
• Expected leachate concentration of each constituent.
The IWEM software will compare expected leachate concentrations with LCTVs
for each constituent, and determine a minimum recommended liner design that is
protective for all waste constituents.
2.2.2 Tier 2
A Tier 2 evaluation is also based on a 90th percentile ground-water protection
level, but takes into account site-specific factors. If appropriate for site conditions (for
example, an arid climate), it may be possible to avoid unnecessarily costly WMU
designs. It may also provide an additional level of certainty that liner designs are
protective of sites in vulnerable settings, such as high rainfall and shallow ground-water.
In Tier 2, EPACMTP uses site-specific information to determine the expected 90th
percentile exposure concentration for each waste constituent and liner scenario. IWEM
then directly compares these exposure concentrations to RGCs to determine whether a
particular liner scenario is protective or not. If the ground-water exposure concentration
of each constituent is less than its RGC, then the liner scenario being evaluated is
protective. If the exposure concentration of any waste constituent exceeds its RGC, then
the liner scenario is not protective. In the Tier 2 analysis, IWEM also calculates LCTVs.
These are provided to help users determine whether waste minimization may be
appropriate to meet a specific liner design. For example, a facility may find it more cost
effective to reduce the concentration of constituents in waste and design a clay-lined LF
than to dispose of the current waste in a LF with a composite liner. The LCTVs
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 2.0
calculated for the Tier 2 analysis is based on the expected exposure concentration for a
specific site, and LCTVs from this analysis are not applicable to other sites. The trade-
off in performing a Tier 2 evaluation is that although a more site-specific result is
generated, the fate and transport simulations which are performed inside the IWEM
software are computationally very demanding and can take hours to complete, even on
high-speed desk top computers.
For Tier 2, the same inputs as Tier 1 are required. In addition, there are several
more required site-specific parameters, as well as other optional parameters. The
required additional site-specific parameters that a user must input for Tier 2 are:
• Geographic location of the WMU;
• Footprint area of the WMU, and
• Depth of the WMU (LF or SI)
If sufficient site-specific data is available, the user may also provide the following
optional Tier 2 site-specific characteristics:
Distance to the nearest surface waterbody (SI)
Depth of the base of the WMU below ground surface (LF, SI, and WP)
Operational life of the WMU (SI, WP and LAU)
Sludge thickness (SI)
Waste type (WP)
Leakage (infiltration) rate from the WMU
Distance to the nearest down-gradient well
Unsaturated zone soil type
Subsurface environment type, and/or individual of values of:
• Depth from ground surface to the water table
• Saturated thickness of the upper aquifer
• Hydraulic conductivity in the saturated zone
• Regional hydraulic gradient
• Ground water pH
• Constituent fate parameters:
• Sorption coefficient (kd)
• (Bio-) degradation rate
• Constituent-specific RGC values and corresponding exposure durations
As in Tier 1, liner recommendations and LCTVs are based not only on toxicity
and DAFs, but also incorporate other criteria to cap the model-calculated values. IWEM
caps leachate concentrations from an industrial solid WMU at a level no higher than 1000
mg/L for any single constituent. The 39 constituents covered by the TC Rule are capped
at their TC levels because concentrations above those levels mean that the waste is
classified as hazardous waste. The final liner recommendations and LCTVs
2-6
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 2.0
accommodate both the parent constituent as well as any toxic daughter products. For
instance, if a parent waste constituent rapidly hydrolyzes into a persistent daughter
product, the ground-water exposure caused by the parent itself may be minimal (for
example, it has already degraded before it reaches the ground-water well), but the final
liner recommendation and LCTV generated by IWEM would be based on the exposure
caused by the daughter product.
2-7
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 3.0
3.0 What Is The EPACMTP Model?
EPACMTP is a subsurface fate
and transport model used by EPA to
evaluate migration of waste
constituents through the ground-water
pathway from land disposal units to
wells and establish protective levels in
waste.
Figure 3.1 depicts a cross-
sectional view of the subsurface
system simulated by EPACMTP.
EPACMTP treats the subsurface
aquifer system as a composite domain,
consisting of an unsaturated (vadose)
zone and an underlying saturated
zone. The two zones are separated by
the water table. EPACMTP simulates
one-dimensional (1-D), vertically
downward flow and transport of
constituents in the unsaturated zone
beneath a waste disposal unit as well
as ground-water flow and three-
dimensional (3-D) constituent transport in the underlying saturated zone. The
unsaturated zone and saturated zone modules are computationally linked through
continuity of flow and constituent concentration across the water table directly
underneath the WMU. The model accounts for the following processes affecting
constituent fate and transport: advection, hydrodynamic dispersion and molecular
diffusion; linear or nonlinear equilibrium sorption; first-order decay and zero-order
production reactions (to account for transformation breakdown products); and dilution
from recharge in the saturated zone.
The primary input to the model is the rate of constituent release (leaching) from a
WMU along with WMU design and site hydrogeological characteristics. The output
from EPACMTP is a prediction of the constituent concentration arriving at a
downgradient well. This can be either a steady-state concentration value, corresponding
to a continuous source scenario, or a time-dependent concentration, corresponding to a
finite source scenario. In the latter case, the model can calculate the peak concentration
arriving at the well or a time-averaged concentration corresponding to a specified
exposure duration (for example a 30-year average exposure time).
EPACMTP consists of four major components:
A source module that simulates the rate and
concentration of leachate exiting from
beneath a WMU and entering the unsaturated
zone;
• An unsaturated zone module which simulates
1-D vertical flow of water and dissolved
constituent transport in the unsaturated zone;
• A saturated zone model which simulates
ground-water flow and dissolved constituent
transport in the saturated zone; and
• A Monte Carlo module for randomly
selecting input values to account for the effect
of variations in model parameters on
predicted ground-water well concentrations,
and determining the probability distribution
of predicted ground-water concentrations.
5-1
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 3.0
LEACHATE CONCENTRATION
-WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
UNSATURATED
ZONE
SATURATED
ZONE LEACHATE PLUMI
Figure 3.1 Conceptual Cross-Section View of the Subsurface System Simulated by
EPACMTP.
The relationship between the constituent concentration leaching from a LF WMU
and the resulting ground-water exposure at a well located down-gradient from the WMU
is depicted in Figure 3.2. Figure 3.2a shows how the leachate concentration emanating
from the LF unit gradually diminishes over time as a result of depletion of the waste mass
remaining in the unit. As seen in Figure 3.2b, the constituent does not arrive at the at the
well until some time after the leaching begins, but eventually the ground-water
concentration will reach a peak value, and then begin to diminish because the leaching
from the waste unit occurs only over a finite period of time. This curve is also called the
breakthrough curve. The maximum constituent concentration at the well will generally
be lower than the original leachate concentration as a result of various dilution and
attenuation processes which occur during the transport through the unsaturated and
saturated zones. EPACMTP has the capability to calculate the maximum average
ground-water concentration over a specified time period, as depicted by the horizontal
dashed line in Figure 3.2b.
The following sections describe the four main components, or modules, of
EPACMTP and the role of each in simulating constituent fate and transport.
3-2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 3.0
o>
£
.2
".c
ra
a
O
O
0)
+*
ro
£
o
ro
0)
Initial Leachate Concentration, Ci
Time *•
(a) Leachate Concentration Versus Time
O)
£
c
o
c
o
O
"o
Peak
Concentration
.Time-averaged well concentration, C,
Time
Exposure
Averaging Period
(b) Groundwater Well Concentration Versus Time
Figure 3.2 Conceptual Relationship Between Leachate
Concentration (a) and Ground-Water Exposure
Concentration (b).
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
3.1 WMU Source Module
This section describes how EPACMTP models the release of constituents from a
WMU. Section 3.1.1 provides a general overview of the EPACMTP source module;
Section 3.1.2 presents a discussion of how EPACMTP handles infiltration from SI units.
3.1.1 How EPACMTP Determines Releases From a Source
The purposes of the WMU source module in EPACMTP is to provide a leachate
flux and concentration to the unsaturated zone. The source module is a function of both
the design and operational characteristics of the WMU and the waste stream
characteristics (quantity and concentrations) and is defined in terms of four primary
parameters:
1) Area of the waste unit;
2) Leachate flux rate emanating from the waste unit (infiltration rate);
3) Constituent-specific leachate concentration; and
4) Leaching duration.
Based on these parameters, EPACMTP generates a rate of leaching and the
constituent concentration in the leachate as a function of time from the bottom of the
WMU.
Mathematically, EPACMTP regards the source as a rectangular planar area
located between the bottom of the well and the top of the unsaturated zone column,
through which leachate passes. The WMU source module determines the magnitude of
the rate of water infiltration and constituent concentration crossing this plane. The model
does not attempt to account explicitly for the multitude of physical and biochemical
processes inside the waste unit that may control the release of waste constituents to the
subsurface. Instead, the net result of these processes are used as inputs to the model. For
instance, in developing the IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations for LFs, WPs, and
LAUs, we used the Hydrologic Evaluation of LF Performance (HELP) model (Schroeder
et al, 1994) to determine infiltration rates for unlined and single lined units outside of
EPACMTP, and used these infiltration rates as inputs to EPACMTP. Likewise, the
model does not explicitly account for the complex physical, biological, and geochemical
processes that may influence leachate concentration. These processes are typically
estimated outside the EPACMTP model using geochemical modeling software,
equilibrium partitioning models, or analytical procedures such as the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) or Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
(SPLP) test; the resulting leachate concentration is then used as an EPACMTP input.
3-4
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 3.0
EPACMTP models the leaching process in one of two ways: 1) as a depleting
source; or 2) as a pulse source. In the depleting source scenario, the WMU is considered
permanent and leaching continues until all waste that is originally present has been
depleted. In the pulse source scenario, leaching occurs at a constant leachate
concentration for a fixed period of time, after which leaching stops3. EPACMTP uses the
pulse source scenario to model temporary WMUs; usually the leaching period represents
the operational life of the unit. Under this scenario, we assume clean closure conditions
and the leaching stops when the unit is closed.
Figure 3.3 graphically presents the leachate concentration under the depleting
source scenario and the pulse source scenario. In the depleting source scenario, the
leachate concentration gradually decreases over time. The user must provide a value for
the initial leachate concentration (for example, a measured value from a leaching test)
and EPACMTP will calculate the rate of depletion as a function of the infiltration rate
through the unit. The EPACMTP Technical Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002a)
provides a detailed discussion of the depleting source scenario. In the pulse source
scenario, the user must provide the value of the leachate concentration (for example, a
measured value from a leaching test), and the duration of the leaching period. Based on
these values, EPACMTP will calculate the leachate pulse.
_J
CJJ
c
0
15
2
c
IB
0
c
0
o
0>
15
0
ro
•
Figure 3.3 Leachate Concentration Versus Time
for Pulse Source and Depleting Source
Conditions.
conditions.
If the leaching period is set to a very large value, EPACMTP will simulate continuous source
5-5
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 3.0
3.1.2 How EPACMTP Determines Infiltration Rate for Surface Impoundments
Because the infiltration rate from Sis is controlled primarily by the unit's
engineering and operational characteristics rather than external climate factors, the
EPACMTP source module includes the capability to calculate SI infiltration rates as a
function of impoundment depth and other SI parameters. In particular, the SI module
calculates the infiltration rate through a zone of reduced permeability materials (which
may or may not included engineered liners) at the base of the impoundment. The various
reduced permeability layers represented in the SI infiltration module are depicted
graphically in Figure 3.4.
Top of Liquid Compartment
Liquid Compartment
Unaffected Native Material
Infiltration
Water
Table
Figure 3.4 Surface Impoundment Infiltration Module.
EPACMTP assumes that while the impoundment is in operation, a layer of fine-
grained sediment ('sludge') naturally accumulates at the bottom of the impoundment as
the result of the settling of suspended solids in the waste liquid. The upper half of this
layer consists of unconsolidated material; the lower half is consolidated (compacted) due
to the weight of the sediment above it. EPACMTP calculates the effective hydraulic
conductivity of the consolidated sediment layer as a function of its porosity, using an
empirical relationship based on work of Lambe and Whitman (1969) which results in a
calculated hydraulic conductivity on the order of 1 x 10"7 to 6x 10"7 cm/s. The module also
takes into account the hydraulic properties of a clay liner (if present) as well as the
properties of the native soil underlying the impoundment. If no liner is present,
EPACMTP assumes that over time, the upper soil layer becomes 'clogged' due to
deposition of solids from the impoundment. The thickness of this clogged layer is always
assigned a value of 0.5 meters, and the hydraulic conductivity of this clogged layer is
assigned a value of 10% of the hydraulic conductivity of the native soil material.
3-6
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
If a clay liner is present, the liner replaces the 'clogged native material' layer that
is depicted in Figure 3.4. If EPACMTP is used to model a lined SI, the thickness and
hydraulic conductivity of the clay liner are model inputs. The EPACMTP SI module
calculates the steady state infiltration rate through the multi-layer system of sediment-
clogged native soil/clay liner-native soil by applying the 1-D Richards equation (Jury et
al., 1991) with a constant head boundary condition, given by the SI ponding depth.
EPACMTP uses the Richards equation to accommodate partially saturated conditions
which may exist in the multi-layer system. For a detailed description of the solution of
the Richards equation for the system, see the EPACMTP Technical Background
Document (U.S. EPA, 2002a).
3.2 EPACMTP Unsaturated Zone Module
EPACMTP models water flow and solute transport in the unsaturated zone
between the base of the WMU and the water table as a 1-D, vertically downward process.
As shown in Figure 3.1, constituents migrate downward from the WMU through the
unsaturated zone to the water table. EPACMTP assumes the flow rate is steady-state,
that is, it does not change in time. The soil underneath the WMU is assumed to be
uniform with hydraulic properties described by the Mualem-Van Genuchten model (Jury
et al., 1991). The flow rate is determined by the long-term average infiltration rate
through the WMU. Inputs to the unsaturated zone module are the rate of water and
constituent leaching from the disposal facility, as well as soil hydraulic properties.
EPACMTP solves the governing 1-D steady-state Richards flow equation (Jury et al.,
1991) using a semi-numerical technique described in the EPACMTP Technical
Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002a).
Constituent transport in the unsaturated zone is assumed to occur by advection
and dispersion4. The unsaturated zone is assumed to be initially constituent-free and
constituents migrate vertically downward from the WMU. EPACMTP can simulate both
steady-state and transient transport in the unsaturated zone with single-species or
multiple-species chain decay reactions. The transport module can also simulate the
effects of both linear and nonlinear sorption reactions. When decay reactions involve the
formation of daughter products, EPACMTP has the capability to perform a multi-species
transport simulation of a decay chain consisting of up to seven members. Mathematically
the transport process is represented by the advection-dispersion equation:
4 In the case of metals which are subject to nonlinear sorption, EPACMTP uses a method-of-
characteristics solution method that does not include dispersion. In this case, transport is dominated by the
nonlinear sorption behavior and dispersion effects are minor.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 3. 0
JL D—\ - V—
dz { dz) dz
QR
—
dt
Q
(3.1)
here
z
t
c
D
V
R
A
0
Q
Soil depth coordinate (L),
Time (T),
Constituent concentration (M/L3),
Dispersion coefficient, (L2/T),
Darcy velocity (L/T),
Retardation factor (dimensionless),
First-order decay constant (1/T),
Volumetric water content (dimensionless), and
Zero-order production term to account for transformation of parent
constituents (M/(L3-T)).
EPACMTP uses units of meters for L(ength), years for T(ime), and kilograms for
M(ass). Consistent with common practice, EPACMTP uses units of mg/L for constituent
concentration. Numerically, this is the same as kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3).
The dispersion coefficient in the above transport equation accounts for the effects
of hydrodynamic dispersion and molecular diffusion and is defined as:
where
D
a
D
V
D
= Dispersion coefficient (meter squared per year [m2/yr])
= Dispersivity (m)
= Molecular diffusion coefficient (m2/yr)
= Darcy velocity (m/yr)
(3.2)
The effective molecular diffusion coefficient is calculated using the Millington-
Quirk relationship (Jury et al., 1991) as:
D
= D010/3/02
(3.3)
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
where
Dm = Effective molecular diffusion coefficient (m2/yr)
Dw = Free-water diffusion coefficient (m2/yr)
0 = Volumetric water content (dimensionless)
The retardation factor R in the transport equation accounts for the effects of
equilibrium sorption of dissolved constituents onto the solid phase as:
R = l+(pbkd)/0 (3.4)
where
R = Retardation factor (dimensionless)
pb = Bulk density (kg/L)
kd = Constituent-specific soil-water partition coefficient (L/kg)
6 = Volumetric water content (dimensionless)
EPACMTP's unsaturated zone module includes options for both linear and
nonlinear sorption isotherms. In the first case, the partition coefficient, kd is independent
of the constituent concentration. In the second case, the value of the partition coefficient
is a function of concentration. For linear sorption isotherms the partition coefficient can
be entered as a single EPACMTP parameter, or the model can calculate its value from the
fraction organic carbon in the soil and a constituent-specific organic carbon partition
coefficient as:
kd = foe X Koc (3.5)
where:
kd = Partition coefficient (L3/kg)
foc = Fraction organic carbon in the soil (dimensionless)
Koc = Constituent-specific organic carbon partition coefficient (L/kg)
When modeling constituents with non-linear sorption isotherms, the partition
coefficient data are read in by EPACMTP as a table of paired concentration-kd values. In
principle, the user can employ a variety of methods for generating the concentration-kd
values including using measured data. In practice, EPACMTP applications typically use
data generated using the MINTEQA2 geochemical speciation model (see Section
4.2.4.3.2).
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
The parameter A in the transport equation accounts for first-order transformation
processes. Finally, the term Q in the equation is a source term that represents the
production of a constituent species due to the transformation of parent constituents. This
term is zero for parent constituents that are at the beginning of a decay chain, but non-
zero for any transformation daughter products.
The output from the unsaturated zone transport solution is a time history
(breakthrough curve) of the constituent concentration arriving at the water table, which
provides the input for the saturated zone transport simulation.
3.3 Saturated Zone Module
The saturated zone module of EPACMTP is designed to simulate flow and
transport in an unconfined aquifer with constant saturated thickness (see Figure 3.1). The
model simulates regional flow in a horizontal direction with recharge and infiltration
from the overlying unsaturated zone and WMU entering at the water table. The lower
boundary of the aquifer is assumed to be impermeable.
EPACMTP assumes that flow in the saturated zone is steady-state. In other
words, EPACMTP models long-term average flow conditions. EPACMTP accounts for
different recharge rates beneath and outside the WMU area. Ground-water mounding
beneath the source is represented in the flow system by increased head values at the top
of the aquifer. It is important to realize that while EPACMTP calculates the degree of
ground-water mounding that may occur underneath a WMU due to high infiltration rates,
and will restrict the allowable infiltration rate to prevent physically unrealistic input
parameter combinations (see Section 4.2.6), the actual saturated flow and transport
modules in EPACMTP are based on the assumption of a constant saturated thickness, i.e.
fixed water table position, and the only direct effect of ground-water mounding is to
increase simulated ground-water velocities.
EPACMTP incorporates a number of different mathematical solutions for
saturated zone flow and transport. The EPACMTP Technical Background Document
(U.S. EPA, 2002a) discusses these in detail. Because of the high premium on
computational efficiency in the IWEM Tier 2 Monte Carlo tool, we used a pseudo-3-D
modeling approach in IWEM. The pseudo-3-D module simulates ground-water flow
using a 1-D steady-state solution for predicting hydraulic head and Darcy velocities. The
flow solution is formulated based on the Dupuit-Forchheimer's assumption of hydrostatic
pressure distribution (de Marsily, 1986). The hydraulic head is also horizontally
averaged in the cross-gradient direction.
EPACMTP models transport of dissolved constituents in the saturated zone using
the advection-dispersion equation. The aquifer is assumed to be initially constituent-free,
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
and constituents enter the saturated zone only from the unsaturated zone directly beneath
the WMU. In the pseudo-3-D option of EPACMTP used for IWEM, it is assumed that
advection is predominantly along the longitudinal direction (direction along the ambient
ground-water gradient), while dispersion occurs in three dimensions.
The pseudo-3-D transport option is based on the concept that when ground-water
flow is dominantly in one direction, the movement of a dissolved constituent plume can
be approximated as the product of three terms: The first term describes the movement by
advection and dispersion along the direction of ground-water flow (the x-direction); the
second and third terms account for the effect of dispersion in the horizontal transverse
(y-) direction, and the vertical (z-) direction, respectively. The effects of constituent
sorption and transformation are incorporated into the first term of the mathematical
solution. The second (y-direction) and third (z-direction) terms in the solution can be
regarded as adjustment factors that account for the reduction in concentration along the
x-direction, due to dispersion into the y- and z-directions. The y- and z- solution terms
are given by straight-forward error-functions that can be computed very quickly. From a
computational point, the pseudo-3-D solution option therefore requires about the same
effort as a 1-D solution.
The governing equation for transport in the saturated zone can be written as:
where
i,j = Indices to represent different spatial directions; i,j = 1, 2, or 3
x; = Spatial coordinate (L)
t = Time (T)
c = Constituent concentration (M/L3)
Dy = Dispersion coefficient (L2/T),
Vx = Ground-water flow rate in the x-direction (L/T)
A = First-order transformation coefficient (1/T)
R = Retardation coefficient (dimensionless)
cj) = Porosity (dimensionless)
Q = Zero-order production term to account for transformation of parent
constituents (M/L3-T)
EPACMTP uses units of meters for L(ength), years for T(ime), and kilograms for
M(ass). Consistent with common practice, EPACMTP uses units mg/L for constituent
concentration, which numerically is the same as kg/m3.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
The transport processes modeled in the saturated zone module of EPACMTP are
analogous to those in the unsaturated zone, but they are extended to three dimensions,
instead of just one. The spatial coordinate, x;, in equation 3.6 represents the three
dimensions. The coordinate xt (or just x), represents the horizontal coordinate along the
direction of ground-water flow. The coordinate x2 (or y) represents the horizontal
coordinate perpendicular to the flow direction; and the coordinate x3 (or z) represents the
vertical direction. The dispersion coefficient D;j (where i and j can be 1, 2, or 3) is
subscripted to indicate that this coefficient has components in all three directions.
Conversely, the ground-water flow term, Vx, has only a single subscript to indicate the
assumption in the pseudo-3-D option of EPACMTP, that ground-water flow is a 1-D
process. The other terms in equation 3.6 are defined in the same way as in equation 3.1,
except that the porosity, c|), replaces the volumetric water content, Q. By definition, under
fully saturated conditions, the water content of a porous medium is equal to its porosity,
therefore using c|) instead of Q in equation 3.6 is just another way of stating that the
system is water-saturated.
In many aquifers, only a portion of the total pore space is active in the transport
process, so that the effective porosity (cj)e) is less than the total porosity (<$>). EPACMTP
uses the effective porosity in the calculation of ground-water seepage velocity, i.e.:
- (37)
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
where
R = Retardation coefficient (dimensionless)
pb = Saturated zone bulk density (kg/L)
kd = Constituent-specific partition coefficient (L/kg)
cj) = Porosity (dimensionless)
In order to determine the value of c|)e, EPACMTP uses a statistical distribution of
the ratio fyjfy, which is presented in Section 4.2.3.3.
The dispersion coefficient (Dy) in equation 3.6 accounts for hydrodynamic
dispersion and molecular diffusion, and uses separate longitudinal, horizontal transverse
and vertical dispersivities as described by Burnett and Frind (1987). The effect of
molecular diffusion is incorporated using the Millington-Quirk equation, as described in
the preceding section. Likewise, the retardation and transformation terms are modeled in
the same way in the saturated zone module of EPACMTP as they are in the unsaturated
zone module.
A key distinction between the way the saturated zone module handles constituent
fate and transport, as compared to the unsaturated zone module, is the approach for
constituents with nonlinear sorption isotherms. The saturated zone module only
simulates linearized isotherms. For constituents with nonlinear sorption isotherms, the
unsaturated zone module simulates partitioning by using concentration-dependent
partitioning coefficient; the saturated zone module uses a linearized isotherm, based upon
the maximum constituent concentration at the water table (see EPACMTP Technical
Background Document; U.S. EPA, 2002a). The reason is that upon dilution of the
leachate in the ambient ground-water as the leachate enters the saturated zone,
concentrations will be reduced to a range in which constituent isotherms generally are
linear.
3.4 Conducting Probabilistic Analyses Using EPACMTP
The final component of EPACMTP is a Monte Carlo module which allows the
model to perform probabilistic analyses of constituent fate and transport. Monte Carlo
simulation is a statistical technique by which a quantity is calculated repeatedly, using
randomly selected parameter values for each calculation. The results approximate the full
range of possible outcomes, and the likelihood of each. The Monte Carlo module in
EPACMTP makes it possible to incorporate variability into the subsurface pathway
modeling analysis, and to quantify the impact of parameter variability on well
concentrations. In particular, we use Monte Carlo simulation to determine the likelihood,
or probability, that the concentration of a constituent at a well, and hence exposure and
risk, will be either above or below a certain value.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 3.0
In a Monte Carlo simulation the values of the various source-specific, chemical-
specific, unsaturated zone-specific and saturated zone-specific model parameters are
represented as probability distributions, reflecting both the range of variation that may be
encountered at different waste sites, as well as our uncertainty about the specific
conditions at each site. Strictly speaking Monte Carlo analysis can accommodate only
parameter variability, not uncertainty. Variability describes parameters whose values are
not constant, but which we can
measure and characterize with relative
precision in terms of a frequency
distribution. An example is annual
rainfall in different parts of the
country. Uncertainty pertains to
parameters whose values we know
only approximately, such as the
hydraulic conductivity of an aquifer.
In practice, we use probability
distributions to describe both
variability and uncertainty, and for the
purpose of the
EPACMTP Monte Carlo module, we
treat them as more or less equivalent.
The Monte Carlo module in
EPACMTP is described in detail in the
EPACMTP Technical Background
Document (U.S. EPA, 2002a), and the
EPACMTP Parameters/Data
Background Document (U.S. EPA,
2002b). A general overview of the
methodology is presented in the
following paragraphs. The specific
methodology we used to determine
LCTVs for IWEM is presented in
Section 6 of this document.
Figure 3.5 presents a graphical
illustration of the Monte Carlo
simulation process. The Monte Carlo
method requires that for each input
parameter, except constant parameters,
a probability distribution be provided
(Figure 3.5a). The method involves
EPACMTP Monte Carlo Bootstrap
Analysis
In a Monte Carlo analysis the output
percentile values depend on the number of
realizations. For instance, if we perform a Monte
Carlo analysis consisting of 10 realizations of
randomly selected model input values, the 90th
percentile of the model output can be determined by
ordering the output values from low to high and then
picking the 9th highest value. This 90th percentile
value is likely to be different if we perform another
Monte Carlo simulation of 10 realizations with
randomly selected inputs, and different still if we
simulate 1,000 realizations to calculate the 90th
percentile output value.
Bootstrap analysis is a technique of
replicated resampling of a large data set for
estimating standard errors, biases, confidence
intervals, or other measures of statistical accuracy. It
can produce accuracy estimates in almost any
situation without requiring subjective statistical
assumptions about the original distribution.
As part of the background for EPA's proposed 1995
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) we
conducted a bootstrap analysis for the EPACMTP
model to evaluate how Monte Carlo convergence
improves with increasing numbers of realizations.
The analysis was based on a continuous source, LF
disposal scenario in which the 90th percentile DAF
was 10. The bootstrap analysis results suggested
that, with 10,000 realizations, the expected value of
the 90th percentile DAF was 10 with a 95 percent
confidence interval of 10 ± 0.7. Decreasing the
number of realizations to 5,000 increased the
confidence interval to 10 ± 1.0.
3-14
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
the repeated generation of random values of the input variables (drawn from the known
distribution and within the range of any imposed bounds). The EPACMTP model
(Figure 3.5b) is executed for each set of randomly generated model parameters and the
corresponding ground-water well exposure concentration is calculated and stored. Each
set of input values and corresponding well concentration is termed a realization. In using
a Monte Carlo modeling approach, a higher number of realizations usually leads to a
more stable and more accurate result. However, it is generally not possible to determine
beforehand how many realizations are needed to achieve a specified degree of
convergence (that is, stability) because the value can be highly dependent on parameter
distributions. EPA has used an empirical technique called bootstrap analysis to
determine the appropriate number of realizations for EPACMTP Monte Carlo analyses
(see side bar box).
At the conclusion of the Monte Carlo simulation, the realizations are statistically
analyzed to yield a cumulative (probability) density function (CDF) of the ground-water
exposure concentration (Figure 3.5c). The construction of the CDF simply involves
sorting the ground-water well concentrations calculated in each of the individual Monte
Carlo realizations from low to high. In the example used to construct Figure 3.5, we
assumed an EPACMTP input leachate concentration value of 10 mg/L and performed a
Monte Carlo simulation of 10,000 realizations. The well concentration values simulated
in the EPACMTP Monte Carlo process range from very low values to values that
approach the leachate concentration. By examining how many of the 10,000 Monte
Carlo realizations resulted in a high value of the predicted ground-water concentration, it
is possible to assign a probability to these high-end events, or conversely determine what
is the expected ground-water concentration corresponding to a specific probability of
occurrence.
3-15
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 3.0
Distribution o( values Distribution of values
for Input Parameter "X$" for Input Parameter "X281
Distribution of values
(A)
I"
I
(C)
(B)
EPACMTP
Contaminant Fate and
Transport Equations
Result oi 7.594th
tetitentfW ol
EPACMTP
10 10'" 10" 10' 10 10 1 10
Groundwater W@H Concentration
Distntoulion oi values
for Enpot Parameter MX.j"
Inpul pararneEer value
randomly selected for
7,594th realization of
EPACMTP
Figure 3.5 Graphical Representation of the EPACMTP Monte Carlo
Process.
3.5 EPACMTP Assumptions and Limitations
EPA designed the EPACMTP fate and transport model to be used for regulatory
assessments in a probabilistic framework. The simulation algorithms that are
incorporated into the model are intended to meet the following requirements:
• Account for the primary physical and chemical processes that affect
constituent fate and transport in the unsaturated and saturated zone;
• Be able to be used with relatively little site input data; and
• Be computationally efficient for Monte Carlo analyses.
This section discusses the primary assumptions and limitations of EPACMTP that
EPA made in developing the model to balance these competing requirements. EPACMTP
3-16
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
may not be suitable for all sites, and the user should understand the capabilities and
limitations of the model to ensure it is used appropriately.
Source Module
The EPACMTP source module provides a relatively simple representation of
different types of WMU's. WMU's are represented in terms of a source area, and a
defined rate and duration of leaching. EPACMTP only accounts for the release of
leachate through the base of the WMU, and assumes that the only mechanism of
constituent release is through dissolution of waste constituents in the water that
percolates through the WMU. In the case of Sis, EPACMTP assumes that the leachate
concentration is the same as the constituent concentration in the waste water in the SI.
EPACMTP does not account for the presence of non-aqueous free-phase liquids, such as
an oily phase that might provide an additional release mechanism into the subsurface.
EPACMTP does not account for releases from the WMU via other environmental
pathways, such volatilization or surface run-off. EPACMTP assumes that the rate of
infiltration through the WMU is constant, representing long-term average conditions.
EPACMTP does not account for fluctuations in rainfall rate, or degradation of liner
systems that may cause the rate of infiltration and release of leachate to vary over time.
Unsatumted Zone and Saturated Zone Modules
Uniform Soil and Aquifer Assumption
EPACMTP simulates the unsaturated zone and saturated zone as separate
domains that are connected at the water table. Both the unsaturated zone and saturated
zone are assumed to be uniform porous media. EPACMTP does not explicitly account
for the presence of macro-pores, fractures, solution features, faults or other
heterogeneities in the soil or aquifer that may provide pathways for rapid movement of
constituents. A certain amount of heterogeneity always exists at actual sites and it is not
uncommon in ground-water modeling to use average parameter values. This means that
parameters such as hydraulic conductivity and dispersivity represent effective site-wide
average values. However, EPACMTP may not be appropriate for sites overlying
fractured or very heterogeneous aquifers.
3-17
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
Steady-State Flow Assumption
Flow in the unsaturated zone and saturated zone is assumed to be driven by long-
term average infiltration and recharge; EPACMTP treats flow in the unsaturated zone as
steady state and does not account for fluctuations in the infiltration or recharge rate,
either in time or areally. The use of EPACMTP may not be appropriate at sites with
large seasonal fluctuations in rainfall conditions, or at sites where the recharge rate varies
locally. Examples of the latter include the presence of surface water bodies such as rivers
and lakes or ponds and man-made recharge sources near the WMU.
EPACMTP models ground-water flow based on the assumption that the
contribution of recharge and infiltration from the unsaturated zone are small relative to
the regional ground-water flow, and that the saturated aquifer thickness is large relative
to the head difference that establishes the regional gradient. The implication is that the
saturated zone can be modeled as having a uniform thickness, with mounding underneath
the WMU represented by an increased head distribution along the water table. The
mathematical ground-water flow solutions incorporated in EPACMTP are based on
confined aquifer conditions. While EPACMTP accounts for ground-water mounding
underneath a WMU, the saturated zone module of EPACMTP only accounts for the
effect of mounding on ground-water flow velocities; it does not simulate the actual
physical increase in the thickness of the saturated zone. The assumption of constant and
uniform saturated zone thickness means that EPACMTP may not be suitable at sites with
a non-uniform thickness of the water-bearing zone, or sites with significant seasonal
variations in water table elevation. EPACMTP is designed for relatively simple ground-
water flow systems in which flow is dominated by a regional gradient. EPACMTP does
not account for the presence of ground-water sources or sinks such as pumping or
injection wells. The presence of such man-made or natural features may cause a more
complicated flow field than EPACMTP can handle. EPACMTP does not account for
free-phase flow conditions of an oily or non-aqueous phase liquid.
Constituent Fate and Transport Assumptions
The unsaturated zone and saturated zone modules of EPACMTP account for
constituent fate and transport by advection, hydrodynamic dispersion, molecular
diffusion, sorption and first-order transformation. Advection refers to transport along
with ground-water flow. Hydrodynamic dispersion and molecular diffusion both act as
mixing processes. Hydrodynamic dispersion is caused by local variations in ground-
water flow rate and is usually a significant plume-spreading mechanism. Molecular
diffusion, on the other hand, is usually a very minor mechanism, except when ground-
water flow rates are very low. EPACMTP does not account for matrix-diffusion
processes, which may occur when the aquifer formation is comprised of zones with large
contrast in permeability. In these situations, transport occurs primarily in the more
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
permeable zones, but constituents can move into and out of the low permeability zones
by diffusion.
Leachate constituents can be subject to complex geochemical interactions in soil
and ground water. EPACMTP treats these interactions as equilibrium sorption processes.
The equilibrium assumption means that the sorption process occurs instantaneously, or at
least very quickly relative to the time-scale of constituent transport. Although sorption,
or the attachment of leachate constituents to solid soil or aquifer particles, may result
from multiple chemical processes, EPACMTP lumps these processes together into an
effective soil-water partition coefficient.
For organic constituents, EPACMTP assumes that the partition coefficient is
constant, and equal to the product of the mass fraction of organic carbon in the soil or
aquifer, and a constituent-specific organic carbon partition coefficient. In the case of
metals, EPACMTP allows the partition coefficient to vary as a function of a number of
primary geochemical parameters, including pH, leachate organic matter, soil organic
matter, and the fraction of iron-oxide in the soil or aquifer.
For metals, EPACMTP uses a set of effective sorption isotherms which were
developed by EPA by running the MINTEQA2 geochemical speciation model for each
metal and each combination of geochemical parameters. In modeling metals transport in
the unsaturated zone, EPACMTP uses the complete, nonlinear sorption isotherms. In
modeling metals transport in the saturated zone, EPACMTP uses linearized MINTEQA2
isotherms, based on the assumption that after dilution of the leachate plume in ground-
water, concentration values of metals will typically be in a range where the isotherm is
approximately linear. This assumption may not be valid when metals concentrations in
the leachate are high. Although EPACMTP is able to account for the effect of the
geochemical environment at a site on the mobility of metals, the model assumes that the
geochemical environment at a site is constant and not affected by the presence of the
leachate plume. In reality, the presence of a leachate plume may alter the ambient
geochemical environment.
EPACMTP does not account for colloidal transport or other forms of facilitated
transport. For metals and other constituents that tend to strongly sorb to soil particles,
and which EPACMTP will simulate as relatively immobile, movement as colloidal
particles can be a significant transport mechanism. It is possible to approximate the
effect of these transport processes by using a lower value of the partition coefficient as a
user-input. In the IWEM application of EPACMTP, the model uses the same partition
coefficient for the unsaturated and saturated zone if this parameter is provided as a user-
input in Tier 2 evaluations.
3-19
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
EPACMTP accounts for biological and chemical transformation processes as
first-order degradation reactions. That is, it assumes that the transformation process can
be described in terms of a constituent-specific half-life. EPACMTP allows the
degradation rate to have different values in the unsaturated zone and the saturated zone,
but the model assumes that the value is uniform throughout the unsaturated zone and
uniform throughout the saturated zone for each constituent. EPA's ground-water
modeling database includes constituent-specific hydrolysis rate coefficients for
constituents that are subject to hydrolysis transformation reactions; for these constituents,
EPACMTP simulates transformation reactions subject to site-specific values of pH and
soil and ground-water temperature, but other types of transformation processes are not
explicitly simulated in EPACMTP.
For many organic constituents, biodegradation can be an important fate
mechanism, but EPACMTP has only limited ability to account for this process. The user
must provide an appropriate value for the effective first-order degradation rate. In the
IWEM application of EPACMTP, the model uses the same degradation rate coefficient
for the unsaturated and saturated zone if this parameter is provided as a user-input in Tier
2 evaluations. In an actual leachate plume, biodegradation rates may be different in
different regions in the plume; for instance in portions of the plume that are anaerobic
some constituents may biodegrade more readily, while other constituents will biodegrade
only in the aerobic fringe of the plume. EPACMTP does not account for these or other
processes that may cause a constituent's rate of transformation to vary in space and time.
Monte Carlo Module
The Monte Carlo module of EPACMTP allows you to take into account the effect
of parameter variability on predicted ground-water concentrations. The resulting
probability distribution of outcomes is valid only to the extent that EPACMTP can
accurately simulate actual constituent fate and transport processes; it does not account for
the uncertainty that results from processes that are not included in EPACMTP, or are
modeled in EPACMTP in a simplified manner. For instance, the Monte Carlo modeling
process can account for the site-to-site variability in the average hydraulic conductivity in
the aquifer, but it does not account for the uncertainty that results from treating each site
as uniform and ignoring aquifer heterogeneity.
3-20
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
4.0 How EPA Developed the Tier 1 and Tier 2 IWEM
Evaluations
This chapter describes how EPA developed the Tier 1 and Tier 2 IWEM
evaluations using EPACMTP. Section 4.1 provides an overview of the selected
EPACMTP modeling options and parameters to develop the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses.
Section 4.2 provides a detailed discussion of the input data for Tier 1 and Tier 2.
4.1 Overview
To develop the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, we linked the EPACMTP model
described in the previous chapter to a series of databases that describe WMU
characteristics, hydrogeological characteristics, and constituent fate and transport data.
We used EPACMTP in a Monte Carlo mode to obtain a probability distribution of model
outcomes, that is, predicted concentration levels at a ground-water well located
downgradient from a WMU.
In Tier 1, the Monte Carlo process reflects the nationwide variations in WMU and
site conditions that might affect the impact of leachate on ground water. In Tier 2, the
user is required to input a few site-specific parameters; the user may also set several more
parameters to site-specific values if these data are available. If site-specific data are not
available, and for the additional parameters which cannot be modified by the user, values
are drawn randomly from national or regional distributions. The underlying assumption
in Tier 2 is that if a site-specific parameter value is not available, the uncertainty in the
value of the parameter is captured by the nationwide range in values of that parameter.
The Tier 2 evaluation also has the capability to reduce the uncertainty in some of the
modeling parameters by using supporting site characterization data even if the actual
value of a parameter is not known. For instance, if the actual value of hydraulic
conductivity in the saturated zone is unknown, but information is available about the type
of subsurface environment at the site (for example, alluvial versus sedimentary rock), the
Tier 2 evaluation will use this information to reduce the uncertainty in the hydraulic
conductivity by selecting only hydraulic conductivity values in the Monte Carlo process
that are representative of alluvial aquifers. This methodology is discussed in detail in
Section 4.2.3.1.
In using a Monte Carlo modeling approach, a higher number of realizations
usually leads to a more stable and more accurate result. The desire to use the most
accurate result possible, however is balanced by the computational demands of running
Monte Carlo simulations with a large number of realizations. Based on the results of a
bootstrap analysis (see Section 3.4), we determined that performing 10,000 Monte Carlo
realizations would achieve the goals for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analysis. The Tier 1 LCTV
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
tables which are presented in Appendix F and incorporated into the IWEM software, are
based on 10,000 Monte Carlo realizations. Likewise, in a Tier 2 analysis, the IWEM
software evaluation will execute 10,000 realizations of EPACMTP. We used the 90th
percentile of the CDF of predicted ground-water concentrations to determine LCTVs for
the Tier 1 analyses and to compare directly with RGCs in Tier 2 analyses.
For each realization, EPACMTP computes a maximum average constituent
exposure concentration at a well (see Section 3.0). We used the same averaging period
as the exposure period upon which the corresponding RGC is based. For instance, MCLs
are compared against the peak ground-water well concentration; FtBNs based on
carcinogenic effects are compared against the maximum 30-year well concentration, and
non-cancer FtBNs are compared against the maximum 7-year well concentration. For the
Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses, EPACMTP used a 10,000 year maximum time horizon to
calculate ground-water well concentrations. This means that EPACMTP determined the
maximum ground-water concentration occurring within a period of 10,000 years after
leaching begins. This does not mean that we ran all EPACMTP simulations out to
10,000 years; in most cases the leachate plume reaches the ground-water well much
sooner. However in certain cases (e.g., low infiltration rate, deep unsaturated zone,
strongly sorbing constituents) it is possible that EPACMTP would predict it takes more
than 10,000 years to reach the well. In these cases the concentration value returned by
the model is the concentration at 10,000 years (or more exact, the average concentration
up to the 10,000 year time horizon for the RGC of concern, for example, the average
concentration between years 9,970 - 10,000 in the case of carcinogenic HBNs).
To enable the IWEM Tier 2 evaluation to perform the Monte Carlo analyses on
common desktop computer systems, we implemented EPACMTP using a
computationally efficient pseudo-3-D approximation for modeling saturated zone plume
transport (see Section 3.3 of the document). The resulting computer time requirements
for a Tier 2 evaluation, involving all three liner designs (no-liner, single liner, and
composite liner) is approximately 3 hours per waste constituent.4
4.1.1 EPACMTP Modeling Options and Parameters
In Tier 1, the only required IWEM inputs are the type of WMU to be evaluated,
the waste constituents present in the leachate, and the leachate concentration value for
each constituent. In Tier 2, there are a small number of additional required site-specific
user input parameters, as well as a number of optional site-specific user-input parameters.
The required additional site-specific Tier 2 parameters are:
4 This estimate is for a 500 MHz, Pentium-Ill or equivalent personal computer.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
• WMU Area
• WMU Depth (for LF and Sis)
• WMU location (to select the appropriate climate parameters)
Optional site-specific Tier 2 inputs are:
Distance to the nearest surface waterbody (for Sis)
Depth of the base of the WMU below ground surface (LFs, WPs, and Sis)
Operational Life of the WMU (for Sis, WPs, and LAUs)
Sludge thickness (SI)
Waste type (WP)
Leakage (infiltration) rate from the WMU
Distance to the nearest down-gradient well
Unsaturated zone soil type
Subsurface environment type, and/or individual values of;
• Depth from ground surface to the water table
• Saturated thickness of the upper aquifer
• Hydraulic conductivity in the saturated zone
• Regional hydraulic gradient in the saturated zone
• Ground water pH
• Constituent-specific sorption coefficient (Kd)
• Constituent-specific (bio-)degradation rate
• Constituent-specific RGC and corresponding exposure duration
Table 4.1 summarizes the modeling options and parameters we used to developed
the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses. Parameters that are used differently in Tier 1 versus Tier
2 are flagged as such; usually this is the case for Tier 2 parameters that the user may
input as site-specific values.
IWEM parameters can be grouped into five categories: WMU infiltration and
recharge, well location, soil and hydrogeology, and constituent-specific. The required
site-specific parameters are underlined in Table 4.1. The third column in Table 4.1
indicates where you can find a detailed discussion of each parameter in this section. The
IWEM User's Guide provides additional guidance in selecting site-specific values for
these parameters.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.1 Summary of EPACMTP Options and Parameters
Modeling Element
Description or Value
Section
Reference
WMU Parameters
Waste Management
Scenario
WMU Location (Nearest
Climate Station)
Leachate concentration (mg/L)
Operational Life (Leaching
Duration) (yrs)
WMU Area (m2)
Depth of Waste in WMU (m)
WMU Base Elevation below
Ground Surface (m)
Distance to Nearest Surface
Water Body (m)
SI sediment layer thickness (m)
Waste type permeability
(cm/sec)
LF
SI
WP
LAU
Tier 1: Monte Carlo from nationwide distribution
Tier 2: Required site-specific user input
Tier 1: Required constituent-specific user input
Tier 2: Required constituent-specific user input
LF:
Calculated inside EPACMTP; leaching continues until all
waste depleted.
SI, WP&LAU:
Tier 1: SI = Distribution from SI survey
WP = 20 yrs
LAU = 40 yrs
Tier 2: Optional user input; defaults same as Tier 1
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution from industrial WMU
surveys;
Tier 2: Required site-specific user input
Used for LFs and Sis; not applicable in case of WP or LAU.
Equivalent to ponding depth for Sis.
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution from industrial WMU
surveys;
Tier 2: Required site-specific user input for LF and SI
Tier 1: Distribution for SI. For all other units set to 0.0 (unit
base at ground surface)
Tier 2: Optional user input; default = 0.0
Used to evaluate water table mounding for SI units
Tier 1: 360 m
Tier 2: Optional user input; default = 360 m
Thickness of accumulated sediment (sludge)layer in SI
Tierl: 0.2m
Tier 2: Optional user input; default = 0.2 m
Used for WPs only; not applicable to other WMUs
Tier 1: Nationwide, uniform distribution of three waste
types (low-medium-high permeability)
Tier 2: Optional user input; default same as Tier 1
4.2.1
4.2.1.3
4.2.1.3
4.2.1.3
4.2.1.3
4.2.1.3
4.2.1.3
4.2.1.3
4.2.1.3
4.2.2.2
4-4
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.1 Summary of EPACMTP Options and Parameters (continued)
Modeling Element
Description or Value
Section
Reference
Infiltration and Recharge Parameters
No Liner Infiltration (m/yr)
LF:
Tier 1:
Tier 2:
SI:
Tier 1:
Tier 2:
WP:
Tier 1:
Tier 2:
LAU:
Tier 1:
Tier 2:
Nationwide distribution derived using HELP model
based on survey of industrial landfill locations
Optional user input; default generated using HELP
model based on site location
Calculated by EPACMTP based on distribution of
SI ponding depths
Optional user input; default calculated by
EPACMTP based on site-specific ponding depth
Nationwide distribution derived using HELP model
based on survey of industrial waste pile locations
Optional user input; default generated using HELP
model based on site location
Nationwide distribution derived using HELP model
based on survey of industrial LAU locations
Optional user input; default generated using HELP
model based on site location
4.2.2.2
4.2.2.2
4.2.2.2
4.2.2.2
Single Liner Infiltration (m/yr)
LF:
Tier 1:
Tier 2:
SI:
Tier 1:
Tier 2:
WP:
Tier 1:
Tier 2:
LAU:
Nationwide distribution derived using HELP model
with 3 ft. clay liner and survey of industrial landfill
locations
Optional user input; default generated using HELP
model based on site location and 3 ft. clay liner
Calculated by EPACMTP based on SI ponding
depth distribution and 3 ft clay liner
Optional user input; default calculated by
EPACMTP based on site-specific ponding depth
and 3 ft clay liner
Nationwide distribution derived using HELP model
with 3 ft. clay liner and survey of industrial waste
pile locations
Optional user input; default generated using HELP
model based on site location and 3 ft. clay liner
Not Applicable
4.2.2.3
4.2.2.3
4.2.2.3
4-5
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.1 Summary of EPACMTP Options and Parameters (continued)
Modeling Element
Composite Liner Infiltration
(m/yr)
Recharge Rate (m/yr)
Description or Value
LF:
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution of reported leak detection
system flow rates for composite lined units
Tier 2: Optional user input; default same as Tier 1.
SI:
Tier 1: Calculated using Bonaparte (1989) equation for
geomembrane liner using nationwide distribution
of leak densities and unit-specific ponding depths;
Tier 2: Optional user input; default same as Tier 1
WP:
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution of reported leak detection
system flow rates for composite lined units;
Tier 2: Optional user input; default same as Tier 1
LAU: Not Applicable
All WMU types:
Tier 1: Monte Carlo based on nationwide distribution of
WMU locations and regional soil types
Tier 2: Monte Carlo based on distribution of soil types and
location-specific climate conditions
Section
Reference
4.2.2.4
4.2.2.4
4.2.2.4
4.2.2.5
Soil and Hydrogeologic Parameters
Subsurface environment
Depth to ground water (m)
Soil Hydraulic Parameters:
(Hydraulic conductivity;
saturated water content;
residual water content;
moisture retention curve
parameters)
Soil Temperature (°C)
Bulk density (kg/L)
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution of 13 major aquifer types
associated with the locations of WMUs.
Tier 2: Optional user input; default is unknown subsurface
environment
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution, correlated with subsurface
environment
Tier 2: Optional user input; default derived from
subsurface environment if known, otherwise
national average value (5.18m)
Distribution of values corresponding to three major soil types
(sandy loam, silt loam, and silty clay loam). Probability of
occurrence of each soil type based on nationwide distribution
Assigned based on WMU location
Assigned based on selected soil type (sandy loam, silt loam,
or silty clay loam)
4.2.3.1
4.2.3.1
4.2.3.2
4.2.3.2
4.2.3.2
4-6
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.1 Summary of EPACMTP Options and Parameters (continued)
Modeling Element
Unsaturated Zone Percent
Organic Matter
Unsaturated Zone pH
Saturated Zone Hydraulic
Conductivity (m/yr)
Regional Ground water
Hydraulic Gradient
Saturated Zone Thickness (m)
Saturated Zone Porosity
Saturated Zone Bulk Density
(kg/L)
Saturated Zone pH
Saturated Zone Fraction
Organic Carbon
Saturated Zone Temperature
(°C)
Description or Value
Distribution of values corresponding to three major soil types
(sandy loam, silt loam, and silty clay loam). Probability of
occurrence of each soil type based on nationwide distribution
Assumed to be same as saturated zone pH; nationwide
distribution derived from STORET ground-water quality
database
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution, correlated with subsurface
environment
Tier 2: Optional user input; default derived from
subsurface environment if known, otherwise
national average (1890 m/y)
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution, correlated with subsurface
environment
Tier 2: Optional user input; default derived from
subsurface environment if known, otherwise
national average (0.0057 m/m)
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution, correlated with subsurface
environment
Tier 2: Optional user input; default derived from
subsurface environment if known, otherwise
national average (10.1 m)
Derived from nationwide distribution of mean aquifer
particle diameter
Derived from saturated zone porosity
Nationwide distribution derived from STORET water quality
database
Nationwide distribution derived from STORET water quality
database
Assigned based on WMU location
Section
Reference
4.2.3.2
4.2.3.2
4.2.3.3
4.2.3.1
4.2.3.1
4.2.3.3
4.2.3.3
4.2.3.3
4.2.3.3
4.2.3.3
Constituent Fate and Transport Parameters
Molecular Diffusion
Coefficient (mVyr)
Accounts for constituent transport via diffusion in soil and
ground water. Calculated from constituent-specific free-
water diffusion coefficients
3.2,3.3
4-7
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.1 Summary of EPACMTP Options and Parameters (continued)
Modeling Element
Transformation Parameters
• Hydrolysis Rate (yr"1)
• (Bio-)degradation (yr"1)
Sorption Parameters
• Organic Carbon Partition
Coefficient (kg/L)
• Soil-Water Partition
Coefficient (kg/L)
Description or Value
Tier 1 and Tier 2 account for hydrolysis transformation
reactions using constituent-specific hydrolysis rate constants.
Other types of (bio-)degradation processes can be entered as
optional Tier 2 constituent specific parameters
For organic constituents, equilibrium sorption is taken into
account via constituent-specific organic carbon partition
coefficients; for metals, effective equilibrium partition
coefficients are generated using the MINTEQA2
geochemical speciation model
Section
Reference
4.2.4.1
4.2.4.3
Well Location Parameters
Downgradient Distance from
WMU(m)
Transverse Distance from
Plume Centerline (m)
Depth of Well Intake (m)
Tier 1: Set to 150 meters
Tier 2: Optional user input (limited to 1600 meters);
default same as Tier 1
Well always on centerline of plume, transverse distance is
0.0
Uniform distribution from 0 - 10 m below water table
4.2.5
4.2.5
4.2.5
4.2 EPACMTP Input Parameters Used to Develop Tier 1 and Tier 2
Tools
This section describes the parameters we used to develop the Tier 1 and Tier 2
tools, including their data sources, methodologies, and values. Appendix C provides
detailed tables of Tier 1 parameter values. Section 4.2.1 describes WMU parameters.
Section 4.2.2 describes the infiltration and recharge parameters. Section 4.2.3 describes
the unsaturated zone and saturated zone parameters. Section 4.2.4 describes constituent-
specific chemical fate parameters. Section 4.2.5 describes the well location parameters,
and Section 4.2.6 describes the screening procedures we implemented in the Monte Carlo
analysis to eliminate physically unrealistic parameter combinations.
4-8
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
4.2.1 WMU Parameters
4.2.1.1 WMU Types
IWEM simulates four different types of WMUs. Each of the four IWEM units
reflects waste management practices that are likely to occur at industrial Subtitle D
facilities. The WMU can be a LF, a WP, a SI, or a LAU. The latter is also sometimes
called a land treatment unit. The four WMU types are represented graphically in Figure
4.1. In developing the IWEM tools, we assumed all units contained only one type of
waste so that the entire capacity of the WMU is devoted to a single waste.
• Landfill (LF). IWEM only considers closed LFs. A closed LF is
assumed to have an 2-foot soil cover and one of three liner types: no-liner;
a single clay liner; or a composite liner. The LF is filled with waste
during the unit's operational life. Upon closure of the LF, the waste is left
in place, and a final soil cover is installed. The starting point for the
simulation is at the time when the LF is closed, i.e., the unit is at
maximum capacity. The release of waste constituents into the soil and
ground water underneath the LF is caused by dissolution and leaching of
the constituents due to precipitation which percolates through the unit.
The type of liner that is present controls, to a large extent, the amount of
leachate which is released from the unit. We modeled LFs as a permanent
WMU, with a rectangular footprint and a uniform depth. We did not
simulate any loss process that may occur during the unit's active life (for
example, due to leaching, volatilization, runoff or erosion, or biochemical
degradation. We modeled the leaching of waste constituents from LFs as
a depleting source scenario. In the depleting source scenario, the WMU is
considered permanent and leaching continues until all waste that is
originally present has been depleted. In IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2, the
magnitude of the initial leachate concentration is a model input; the rate of
depletion is calculated internally in EPACMTP (see EPACMTP Technical
Background Document) .5 The leachate concentration value which is used
an IWEM input is the expected initial leachate concentration, when the
waste is 'fresh'.
5 In EPACMTP's finite source module for LFs, the rate of depletion is a function of the ratio
between the waste concentration (Cw) and the leachate concentration (CL). In IWEM, we set this ratio to a
constant, protective value of CW/CL = 10,000.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Cover
unsaturated zone
V
saturated zone
(A) LANDFILL
unsaturated zone
v
saturated zone
(C) WASTE PILE
unsaturated zone
V
saturated zone
(B) IMPOUNDMENT
unsaturated zone
V
saturated zone
(D) LAND APPLICATION UNIT
Figure 4.1 WMU Types Modeled in IWEM.
4-10
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
• Waste Pile (WP). IWEM models WPs as temporary sources used for
storage of solid wastes. Due to their temporary nature, they typically will
not be covered. IWEM allows liners to be present, similar to LFs. In Tier
1 analyses, IWEM assumes that WPs have a finite operational life after
which the WP is removed. In IWEM, we modeled WPs as a pulse-type
source, with pulse duration equal to the unit's operating life.
• Surface Impoundment (SI). In IWEM, Sis are ground level or below-
ground level, flow-through units, which may be unlined, have a single
clay liner, or have a composite clay-geomembrane liner. Release of
leachate is driven by the ponding of water in the impoundment, which
creates a hydraulic head gradient with the ground water underneath the
unit. At the end of the unit's operational life, we assume there is no
further release of waste constituents to the ground water (that is, clean
closure from the SI). We modeled Sis as pulse-type sources; leaching
occurs at a constant leachate concentration over a fixed period of time
which is equal to the unit's operating life. We also assume a constant
ponding depth (depth of waste water in SI) during the operational life.
• Land Application Unit (LAU). LAU (or land treatment units) are areas
of land which receive regular applications of waste that can be either tilled
or sprayed directly onto the soil and subsequently mixed with the soil.
IWEM models the leaching of wastes after tilling with soil. IWEM does
not account for the losses due to volatilization during or after waste
application. LAUs are modeled in IWEM as a constant pulse-type
leachate source, with a leaching duration equal to the unit's operational
life. We evaluated only the no-liner scenario for LAUs because liners are
not typically used at this type of unit.
4.2.1.2 WMU Data Sources
In order to develop WMU parameters for IWEM, we used data from two
nationwide EPA surveys of industrial Subtitle D WMUs. Data for LFs, WPs, and LAUs
were obtained from an EPA survey of industrial D facilities conducted in 1986 (U.S.
EPA, 1986). The survey provides a statistical sample design based set of observations of
site specific areas, volumes and locations for industrial Subtitle D facilities in the United
States. In the following description of WMU data, we will refer to this survey as the
"1986 Subtitle D survey. " Data for Sis were obtained from a recent Agency survey of
industrial Sis (U.S. EPA, 2001). We will refer to this survey as the "Surface
Impoundment Study."
4-11
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
Landfills
The 1986 Subtitle D survey provided LF data consisting of 824 observations of
facility locations, area, number of units in the facility, facility design capacity, total
remaining facility capacity, and the relative weight of each facility. The relative weight
was assigned based on the total number of employees working at the facility and reflects
the quantity of the waste managed in that facility.
We screened the LF data by placing constraints on the WMU depth and volume to
eliminate unrealistic observations. The WMU depth, calculated by dividing the unit
capacity by its area, was constrained to be either greater than or equal to 2 feet (0.67m),
or less than or equal to 33 feet (10m). In addition, the LF volume was constrained to be
greater than the remaining capacity. Ten area observations were reported missing and
none were screened. Ninety-one volume observations were reported missing and 232
additional volume observations were screened.
In cases where the WMU depth or remaining capacity constraints were violated,
we replaced the observed unit volume by generating a random realization from the
volume probability distribution conditioned on area assuming that the unit area value was
more likely to be correctly reported. The joint distribution was derived from the non-
missing unit area/volume pairs that met the unit depth and remaining capacity constraints
and was assumed to be lognormal. Missing values were generated from the joint
area/volume probability if both the area and volume were missing, and from the
corresponding conditional distribution if only one of the two values was missing. Final
depth values were calculated by dividing the unit volume by the area.
Figure 4.2 shows the geographic locations of LF WMUs used in developing the
Tier 1 and Tier 2 tools. A summary of the descriptive statistics of the LF parameters is
provided in Appendix C; additional detailed data is provided in the EPACMTP
Parameters/Data Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002b).
4-12
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Figure 4.2 Geographic Locations of Landfill WMUs.
Surface Impoundments
The IWEM tools incorporate SI parameters from EPA's recent 5-year study of
nonhazardous (Subtitle D) industrial Sis (U.S. EPA, 2001) in the United States. The
Surface Impoundment Study is the product of a national survey of facilities that operate
non-hazardous industrial waste Sis. We used information in the Surface Impoundment
Study to create a database of SI characteristics comprising 503 SI units located at 143
facilities throughout the United States.
The Surface Impoundment Study provided data on impoundment locations, area,
operating depths (depth of ponding in the impoundment), depth of the SI base below the
ground surface, operational life of the impoundment, and proximity of the impoundment
to a surface water body.
4-13
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Figure 4.3 shows the geographic locations of the 143 SI facilities used from the
Surface Impoundment Study. Due to the scale of this map, the individual units at each
facility are not shown. A summary of the descriptive statistics of the SI unit parameters
is provided in Appendix C; additional detailed data are provided in theEPACMTP
Parameters/Data Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002b).
Figure 4.3 Geographic Locations of Surface Impoundment WMUs.
Waste Piles
The 1986 Subtitle D survey included 847 WP facilities with data on facility area,
number of units, and the total amount of waste placed in the facility (waste volume) in
1985. We obtained unit values by dividing the facility values by the number of units in
the facility. No screening constraints were placed on the WP data other than setting the
114 facility areas and the 30 facility waste volumes reporting zero values to 0.005 acres
(20 m2) and 0.005 mega-tons (Mton), respectively.
Thirty waste volume observations were reported missing. No area observations
were reported missing. We replaced missing volume values by random realizations from
4-14
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
the probability distribution of volume conditioned on area. The conditional distribution
was assumed to be lognormal and was derived from the non-missing unit area/volume
pairs.
Figure 4.4 shows the geographic locations of WP WMUs used in developing the
Tier 1 and Tier 2 tools. A summary of the descriptive statistics of the WP parameters is
provided in Appendix C; additional detailed data is provided in the EPACMTP
Parameters/Data Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002b).
Figure 4.4 Geographic Locations of Waste Pile WMUs.
Land Application Units
The 1986 Subtitle D survey included 352 LAU facilities, with data on location,
area, number of units in each facility, and the total amount of waste managed (waste
volume) in 1985. We obtained unit values obtained by dividing the facility values by the
number of units in the facility. We screened the LAU data by constraining waste
application rates to be less than 10,000 tons/acre/year to eliminate unrealistic values. The
application rate was calculated by dividing the waste managed in 1985 by the site
acreage. (The upper bound was derived by assuming a maximum application rate of 200
dry tons/acre/year with a 2% solids content).
4-15
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Eight waste volume observations were reported missing; twelve were screened
out due to the application rate constraint. No area observations were reported missing
and none were screened. As in the case of WPs, areas and volumes reported as zero were
replaced with lower bounds. Three reported zero areas and nine reported zero waste
volumes were set to 0.005 acres (20 m2) and 0.005 Mton, respectively.
We replaced missing and screened values by random realizations from the joint
area/volume probability distribution or the corresponding marginal distributions
depending on whether both or only one of either the waste volume or area values were
missing or screened. The joint distribution was assumed to be lognormal and was
derived from the non-missing unit area/volume pairs that met the unit depth constraint.
Figure 4.5 shows the geographic locations of LAU WMUs used in developing the
Tier 1 and Tier 2 tools. A summary of the descriptive statistics of the LAU parameters is
provided in Appendix C; additional detailed data are provided in theEPACMTP
Parameters/Data Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002b).
Figure 4.5 Geographic Locations of Land Application Unit WMUs.
4-16
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
4.2.1.3 WMU Parameters Used in Developing the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Tools
This section discusses the individual WMU-related parameters used in the IWEM
modeling for Tier 1 and Tier 2. In most cases, the Tier 1 parameters are described by
nationwide probability distributions. Appendix C provides a summary of the parameter
distributions for each WMU type. With the exceptions noted in the following sections,
these same distributions are used as the defaults in Tier 2.
Waste Leachate Concentration (ntg/L)
Values of leachate concentration for all constituents of concern are required Tier
1 and Tier 2 input parameters. This parameter can be an actual measured value, or it can
be an expected or estimated value. The user-provided leachate concentration values are
the basis for IWEM's determination of the minimum protective liner design.
The Tier 1 software compares user-supplied leachate concentration values against
each constituent's aqueous solubility. If the user input value exceeds the aqueous
solubility of that constituent in the IWEM data base, IWEM will display a warning
message. A leachate concentration value above the aqueous solubility value may
indicate a number of conditions: (1) a measurement error, or (2) a case outside the
validity of the EPACMTP fate and transport model. The model is designed to simulate
transport of dissolved aqueous phase constituents, and therefore, the solubility is the
theoretical maximum concentration value that may occur. However, IWEM will not
reject user supplied leachate concentration values.
WMU Location
We obtained WMU locations from the 1986 subtitle D survey and the 2001
Surface Impoundment Study, respectively. The WMU locations are shown in Figures 4.2
- 4.5. In developing the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, we used information on WMU
locations to assign appropriate site-based climate and hydrogeological parameter values
to each location in the WMU database. Location-specific climate data from 102 climate
stations were used to develop infiltration and recharge rates using the HELP model for
unlined and single-lined WMUs (see Section 4.2.2), and to determine soil and aquifer
temperature in order to calculate hydrolysis transformation rates (see Section 4.2.4). We
also used information on WMU locations to assign location-specific soil and aquifer
hydrogeological parameter values (see Section 4.2.3). In Tier 2, the WMU location is a
required site-specific user input value that is needed by IWEM to assign the appropriate
climate-related parameter values.
4-17
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
WMUArea (m2)
This parameter reflects the footprint area of the WMU (that is, length by width).
Tier 1 values were obtained from EPA's 1986 Subtitle D Survey and the Surface
Impoundment Study. The WMU footprint area is a required site-specific user-input value
for a Tier 2 evaluation. This parameter represents the total surface area over which
infiltration and leachate enter the subsurface.
WMU Waste Depth (m)
The WMU waste depth is used for LF and SI simulations. This parameter is not
used for WPs or LAUs. In the case of LFs, this parameter represents the average waste
thickness in the LF at closure. EPACMTP uses the waste depth as one of the parameters
to calculate the LF source depletion rate (see EPACMTP Technical Background
Document; U.S. EPA, 2002a). The Tier 1 evaluation is based on a nationwide
distribution of LF depths obtained from the 1986 Subtitle D survey. In Tier 2, the user is
required to provide a site-specific value.
For Sis, the waste depth is equal to the ponding depth, or average depth of free
liquid in the impoundment. The SI ponding depth represents the hydraulic head that
drives leakage of water from the SI; EPACMTP uses this parameter in order to calculate
SI infiltration rates (see Section 3.1.2). The Tier 1 evaluation is based on a nationwide
distribution of SI ponding depths obtained from the 2001 Surface Impoundment Study. In
Tier 2, this is a required site-specific user input parameter.
Surface Impoundment Sediment (Sludge) Layer Thickness (m)
This parameter is applicable to Sis only and represents the average thickness of
accumulated sediment (sludge) deposits on the bottom of the impoundment. This layer
of accumulated sediment is different from an engineered liner underneath the
impoundment, but its presence will serve to restrict the leakage of water from an
impoundment, especially in unlined units. EPACMTP uses this parameter to calculate
the rate of infiltration from unlined and single lined Sis. The EPACMTP SI infiltration
module is described in Section 3.1, with a detailed description in the EPACMTP
Technical Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002a).
To model Sis, we assumed that the accumulated sediment consists of two equally
thick layers, an upper unconsolidated layer and a lower consolidated layer ('filter cake')
that has been compacted due to the weight of the sediment above it, and therefore has a
reduced porosity and permeability. In Tier 1, we used a total (unconsolidated +
consolidated) sediment layer thickness of 0.2 meters. In Tier 2, this is an optional site-
specific user input parameter, with a default value of 0.2 m.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Depth of the WMU Base Below Ground Surface (m)
This parameter represents the depth of the base of the unit below the ground
surface, as schematically depicted in Figure 4.6. The depth of the unit below the ground
surface reduces the travel distance through the unsaturated zone before leachate
constituents reach ground water. The SI characterization data from the EPA's 2001
Surface Impoundment Study provided unit-specific data for Sis that we used in the Tier 1
modeling. This parameter was not included in the EPA's 1986 Industrial Subtitle D
Survey of LFs, WPs, and LAUs. For the Tier 1 analyses of these types of WMUs, we set
this parameter to zero, which is equivalent to assuming the base of the unit is level with
the ground surface.
In Tier 2, this parameter is an optional site-specific user input parameter, with a
default value of zero. If a non-zero value is entered at Tier 2, IWEM will verify that the
entered value, in combination with the depth to the water table, and magnitude of the
unit's infiltration rate, does not lead to a physically infeasible condition (e.g., water table
mound height above the ground surface or above the level of the waste liquid in an
impoundment) in accordance with the infiltration screening methodology presented in
Section 4.2.6.
y WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
GROUND SURFACE
DEPTH OF THE WMU BASE ''
3ELOW GROUND SURFACE v
WATER TABLE v
\
VL.NER DEPTHT°
1
1
SATURAT
THICK
*
i
WATER TABLE
ED ZONE
NESS
Ill^Iil^li^Iil^ill^ll^ili^ill^li^iii^il/^ill^lil^ll^l/^lll^lii^lil^
Figure 4.6 WMU with Base Elevation below Ground Surface.
4-19
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
Operational Life (Duration of Leaching Period) (yr)
For LFs, IWEM determines the duration of the leaching period internally, as a
function of the amount of waste in the unit at closure and IWEM does not use an
operational life. Because WPs, Sis and LAUs are modeled as finite duration pulse
sources, we assumed the duration of the leaching period is equal to the unit's operational
life.
In Tier 1, we determined unit-specific operational lives for SI, from information
in the Surface Impoundment Study on present age of the unit and the planned closing
date. If this information was missing, we assigned an operational life of 50 years. For
WPs and LAUs, the 1986 Industrial Subtitle D Survey did not provide information on
operational life. We assigned a life of 20 years for WPs and 40 years for LAUs.
In Tier 2, the operational life is an optional site-specific user input parameter for
Sis, WPs, and LAUs. Tier 2 default values for this parameter are as follows:
• LAU = 40 years
• WP 20 years
• SI 50 years
Distance to Nearest Surface Water Body (m)
For Sis, IWEM uses information on the distance to the nearest permanent surface
water, (that is, a river, pond or lake), in the infiltration screening procedure presented in
Section 4.2.6. In Tier 1, we used reported data from the EPA's Surface Impoundment
Study to assign a distance value to each SI unit in the national database. The data from
the Surface Impoundment Study indicated a distribution of values with a range of 30 to
5,000 meters (3.1 miles), and a median value of 360 meters (see Appendix C).
In Tier 2, this parameter is an optional site-specific user input. Because the exact
distance may not be known in many cases, the input is in terms of whether or not there is
surface water body within 2,000 meters of the unit. If a surface water body is present
within 2,000 meters, IWEM uses the median value of 360 meters as a default. If there is
no water body within 2,000 meters, IWEM will use a value of 5,000 meters in its
calculations.
4-20
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
4.2.2 Infiltration and Recharge Rates
IWEM requires the input of the rate of downward percolation of water and
leachate through the unsaturated zone to the water table. The model distinguishes
between two types of percolation, infiltration and recharge:
• Infiltration (WMU leakage rate) is defined as water percolating through
the WMU - including a liner if present - to the underlying soil.
• Recharge is water percolating through the soil to the aquifer outside the
WMU.
Infiltration is one of the key parameters affecting the leaching of waste
constituents into the subsurface. For a given leachate concentration, the mass of
constituents leached is directly proportional to the infiltration rate. In the IWEM Tier 1
and Tier 2 analyses, selecting different liner designs directly correlates to changing the
infiltration rate; more protective liner designs reduce leaching by decreasing the rate of
infiltration.
In contrast, recharge introduces pristine water into the aquifer. Increasing
recharge therefore tends to result in a greater degree of plume dilution and lower
constituent concentrations. High recharge rates may also affect the extent of ground-
water mounding and ground-water velocity. The recharge rate is independent of the type
and design of the WMU; rather it is a function of the climatic and hydrogeological
conditions at the WMU location, such as precipitation, evapotranspiration, surface run-
off, and regional soil type.
We used several methodologies to estimate infiltration and recharge. We used the
HELP model (Schroeder et al, 1994) to compute recharge rates for all units, as well as
infiltration rates for LAUs, and for LFs and WPs with no-liner and single-liner designs.
For LFs and WPs, composite liner infiltration rates were compiled from leak-detection-
system flow rates reported for actual composite-lined waste units (TetraTech, 2001).
For unlined and single-lined Sis, infiltration through the bottom of the
impoundment is calculated internally by EPACMTP, as described in Section 3.1 of this
document. For composite-lined Sis, we used the Bonaparte (1989) equation to calculate
the infiltration rate assuming circular (pin-hole) leaks with a uniform leak size of 6 mm2,
and using the distribution of leak densities (number of leaks per hectare) assembled from
the survey of composite-lined units (TetraTech, 2001).
Tables 4.2 through 4.5 summarize the liner assumptions and infiltration rate
calculations for LFs, WPs, Sis, and LAUs. The remainder of Section 4.2.2 provides
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
background on how we used the HELP model in conjunction with data from climate
stations across the United States to develop nationwide recharge and infiltration rate
distributions and provides detailed discussion of how we developed infiltration rates for
different liner designs for each type of WMU.
4.2.2.1 Using the HELP Model to Develop Recharge and Infiltration Rates
The HELP model is a quasi-two-dimensional hydrologic model for computing
water balances of LFs, cover systems, and other solid waste management facilities
(Schroeder et al., 1994). The primary purpose of the model is to assist in the comparison
of design alternatives. The HELP model uses weather, soil and design data to compute a
water balance for LF systems accounting for the effects of surface storage, snowmelt,
runoff, infiltration, evapotranspiration, vegetative growth, soil moisture storage, lateral
subsurface drainage, leachate recirculation, unsaturated vertical drainage, and leakage
through soil, geomembrane or composite liners. The HELP model can simulate LF
systems consisting of various combinations of vegetation, cover soils, waste cells, lateral
drain layers, low permeability barrier soils, and synthetic geomembrane liners.
For the IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, HELP Versions 3.03 and 3.07 were
used. We started with an existing database of no-liner infiltration for LFs, WPs and
LAUs, and recharge rates for 97 climate stations in the lower 48 contiguous states (ABB,
1995), representing 25 climatic regions, that was developed with HELP version 3.03. To
develop the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, we added five climate stations (located in
Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico) to ensure coverage throughout all of the United States.
Figure 4.7 shows the locations of the 102 climate stations.
The current version of HELP (version 3.07) was used for the additional modeling
for the no-liner scenario. We compared the results of Version 3.07 against Version 3.03
and found that the differences in calculated infiltration rates were insignificant. We also
used this comparison to verify a number of counter-intuitive infiltration rates that were
generated with HELP Version 3.03. We had observed that for some climate stations
located in areas of the country with low precipitation rates, the net infiltration for unlined
LFs did not always correlate with the relative permeability of the LF cover. We found
some cases in which a less permeable cover resulted in a higher modeled infiltration rate
as compared to a more permeable cover. Examples can be seen in the detailed listing of
infiltration data in Appendix D. Table D-l shows that for a number of climate stations,
including Albuquerque, Denver, and Las Vegas, the modeled infiltration rate for LFs
with a silty clay loam (SCL) cover is higher than the values corresponding to silt loam
(SLT) and sandy loam (SNL) soil covers. We determined that in all these cases, the
HELP modeling results for unlined LFs were correct and could be explained in terms of
other water balance components, including surface run-off and evapotranspiration.
4-22
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.2 Methodology Used to Compute Infiltration for LFs
No Liner
Single Liner
Composite Liner
Method
HELP model simulations to
compute an empirical
distribution of infiltration rates
for a 2 ft. thick cover of three
native soil cover types using
nationwide coverage of climate
stations. Soil-type specific
infiltration rates for a specific
site are assigned by using the
infiltration rates for respective
soil types at the nearest climate
station.
HELP model simulations to
compute an empirical
distribution of infiltration rates
through a single clay liner using
nationwide coverage of climate
stations. Infiltration rates for a
specific site were obtained by
using the infiltration rate for the
nearest climate station.
Compiled from literature
sources (TetraTech, 2001) for
composite liners
Final Cover
Monte Carlo selection from
distribution of soil cover types.
2 ft thick native soil (1 of 3 soil
types: silty clay loam, silt loam,
and sandy loam) with a range of
mean hydraulic conductivities
(4.2xlO'5 cm/s to 7.2xlO'4 cm/s).
3 ft thick clay cover with a
hydraulic conductivity of 1*10"7
cm/sec and a 10 ft thick waste
layer. On top of the cover, a 1
ft layer of loam to support
vegetation and drainage and a 1
ft percolation layer.
No cover modeled; the
composite liner is the limiting
factor in determining infiltration
Liner Design
No liner
3 ft thick clay liner with a
hydraulic conductivity of 1*10"7
cm/sec. No leachate collection
system. Assumes constant
infiltration rate (assumes no
increase in hydraulic
conductivity of liner) over
modeling period.
60 mil HOPE layer with either
an underlying geosynthetic clay
liner with maximum hydraulic
conductivity of 5* 10"9 cm/sec,
or a 3-foot compacted clay liner
with maximum hydraulic
conductivity of 1*10"7 cm/sec.
Assumes same infiltration rate
(i.e., no increase in hydraulic
conductivity of liner) over
modeling period.
IWEM
Infiltration
Rate
Monte Carlo selection from
HELP generated location-
specific values.
Monte Carlo selection from
HELP generated location-
specific values.
Monte Carlo selection from
distribution of leak detection
system flow rates.
4-23
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.3 Methodology Used to Compute Infiltration for Sis
Method
Ponding
Depth
Liner Design
IWEM
Infiltration
Rate
No Liner
EPACMTP SI module for
infiltration through
consolidated sludge and
native soil layers with a unit-
specific ponding depth from
EPA's SI Study (EPA, 2001).
Unit-specific based on EPA's
SI study.
None. However, barrier to
infiltration is provided by
layer of consolidated sludge
at the bottom of the
impoundment, and a layer of
clogged native soil below the
consolidated sludge. The
sludge thickness is assumed
to be constant over the
modeling period. The
hydraulic conductivity of the
consolidated sludge is
between 1. 3 xlO'7 and l.SxlO'7
cm/sec. The hydraulic
conductivity of the clogged
native material is assumed to
be 0.1 of the unaffected native
material in the vadose zone.
Calculated by EPACMTP
based on Monte Carlo
selection of unit-specific
ponding depth.
Single Liner
EPACMTP module for
infiltration through a layer of
consolidated sludge and a
single clay liner with unit-
specific ponding depth from
EPA's SI study.
Unit-specific based on EPA's
SI study.
3 ft thick clay liner with a
hydraulic conductivity of
1 x 10"7 cm/sec. No leachate
collection system. Assumes
no increase in hydraulic
conductivity of liner over
modeling period. Additional
barrier is provided by a layer
of consolidated sludge at the
bottom of the impoundment,
see no-liner column.
Calculated based on Monte
Carlo selection of unit-
specific ponding depth
Composite Liner
Bonaparte equation (1989) for
pin-hole leaks using
distribution of leak densities
for units installed with formal
CQA programs
Unit-specific based on EPA's
SI study.
60 mil HOPE layer with
either an underlying
geosynthetic clay liner with
maximum hydraulic
conductivity of 5*10"9 cm/sec,
or a 3 -foot compacted clay
liner with maximum hydraulic
conductivity of 1 x 10"7 cm/sec.
Assumptions: 1) constant
infiltration rate (i.e., no
increase in hydraulic
conductivity of liner) over
modeling period;
2) geomembrane liner is
limiting factor that determines
infiltration rate.
Calculated based on Monte
Carlo selection of unit-
specific ponding depth and
distribution of leak densities
4-24
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.4 Methodology Used to Compute Infiltration for WPs
Method
Cover
Liner Design
IWEM
Infiltration
Rate
No Liner
HELP model simulations to
compute distribution of
infiltration rates for a 10 ft.
thick layer of waste, using
three waste permeabilities
(copper slag, coal bottom ash,
coal fly ash) and nationwide
coverage of climate stations.
Waste-type-specific
infiltration rates for a specific
site are obtained by using the
infiltration rates for respective
waste types at the nearest
climate station.
None
No liner.
Monte Carlo selection from
HELP generated location-
specific values.
Single Liner
HELP model simulations to
compute distribution of
infiltration rates through 10 ft.
waste layer using three waste
permeabilities and nationwide
coverage of climate stations.
Infiltration rates for a specific
site were obtained by using
the infiltration rate for the
nearest climate station.
None
3 ft thick clay liner with a
hydraulic conductivity of
1 x 10"7 cm/sec, no leachate
collection system, and a 10 ft
thick waste layer. Assumes
no increase in hydraulic
conductivity of liner over
unit's operational life.
Monte Carlo selection from
HELP generated location-
specific values.
Composite Liner
Compiled from literature
sources (TetraTech, 2001) for
composite liners
None
60 mil HOPE layer with
either an underlying
geosynthetic clay liner with
maximum hydraulic
conductivity of 5*10"9 cm/sec,
or a 3 -foot compacted clay
liner with maximum hydraulic
conductivity of 1 x 10"7 cm/sec.
1) same infiltration rate (i.e.,
no increase in hydraulic
conductivity of liner) over
unit's operational life;
2) geomembrane is limiting
factor in determining
infiltration rate.
Monte Carlo selection from
distribution of leak detection
system flow rates
4-25
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.5 Methodology Used to Compute Infiltration for LAUs
Method
Liner
Design
IWEM
Infiltration
Rate
No Liner
HELP model simulations to
compute an empirical
distribution of infiltration rates
for a 0.5 ft thick sludge layer,
underlain by a 3 ft layer of
three types of native soil using
nationwide coverage of
climate stations. Soil-type
specific infiltration rates for a
specific site are assigned by
using the infiltration rates for
respective soil types at the
nearest climate station.
No liner
Monte Carlo selection from
HELP generated location
specific values.
Single Liner
N/A
N/A
N/A
Composite Liner
N/A
N/A
N/A
4-26
-------
-1^
K>
• CesWb
Q-and Island . North Omaha
, Lake Charlfe^i Ngw Origans
Ran Antonio *T """ " r Tampa
TO
8
I
I
b
o
TO
SS
TO
^
o'
Alaska
Hawaii
Puerto Rico
Figure 4.7 Locations of HELP Climate Stations
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
The first 97 climate stations were grouped into 25 climate regions based on
ranges of average annual precipitation and pan evaporation, as shown in Table 4.6. For
each modeled climate station, HELP provides a database of five years of climatic data.
We used this climatic data, along with data on the regional soil type and WMU design
characteristics, to calculate a water balance for each applicable liner design as a function
of the amount of precipitation that reaches the top surface of the unit, minus the amount
of runoff and evapotranspiration. The HELP model then computed the net amount of
water that infiltrates through the surface, waste, and liner layers, based on the initial
moisture content and the hydraulic conductivity of each layer.
In addition to climate factors and liner designs, the infiltration rates calculated by
HELP are affected by LF cover design, permeability of the waste material in WP, and
LAU soil type. For every climate station and WMU type, we calculated three HELP
infiltration rates. In Tier 1, for a selected WMU type and liner design, we used the
EPACMTP Monte Carlo modeling process to select randomly from among the HELP-
derived infiltration and recharge data, to capture both the nationwide variation in climate
conditions, as well as variations in LF soil cover type and WP waste permeability. In
Tier 2, the WMU location is a required user input, and the climate factors used in HELP
are therefore also fixed; however, Tier 2 still accounts for local variability in LF soil
cover type and WP waste permeability.
The factors related to soil type that affect the HELP-generated infiltration and
recharge rates are the permeability of the soil used in the LF cover, and - in the case of
recharge or for LAU units - the permeability of the soil type in the vicinity of the WMU.
We used a consistent set of soil properties in the infiltration and recharge rate
calculations as we did in the unsaturated zone fate and transport simulations (see Section
4.2.3). We used HELP to calculate infiltration and recharge for sandy loam, silty loam,
and silty clay loam soils.
In the case of WPs, which do not have a cover, the permeability of the waste
material itself plays a role similar to that of a LF cover in regulating infiltration rate. We
modeled WPs with three different waste types, having different waste permeabilities, and
each having equal likelihood of occurrence. The data for the different waste types are
presented in Section 4.2.2.2.
4-28
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.6 Grouping of Climate Stations by Average Annual Precipitation
and Pan Evaporation (ABB, 1995)
City
Boise
Fresno
Bismarck
Denver
Grand Junction
Pocatello
Glasgow
Pullman
Yakima
Cheyenne
Lander
Rapid City
Los Angeles
Sacramento
San Diego
Santa Maria
Ely
Cedar City
Albuquerque
Las Vegas
Phoenix
Tucson
El Paso
Medford
Great Falls
Salt Lake City
State
ID
CA
ND
CO
CO
ID
MT
WA
WA
WY
WY
SD
CA
CA
CA
CA
NV
UT
NM
NV
AZ
AZ
TX
OR
MT
UT
Climate Region
Precipitation
(in/yr)
<16
<16
<16
<16
<16
16-24
Evaporation
(in/yr)
<30
30-40
40-50
50-60
>60
30-40
City
Columbia
Put-in-Bay
Madison
Columbus
Cleveland
Des Moines
E. St. Louis
Topeka
Tampa
San Antonio
Portland
Hartford
Syracuse
Worchester
Augusta
Providence
Nashua
Ithaca
Boston
Schenectady
NY City
Lynchburg
Philadelphia
Seabrook
Indianapolis
Cincinnati
Bridgeport
State
MO
OH
WI
OH
OH
IA
IL
KS
FL
TX
ME
CT
NY
MA
ME
RI
NH
NY
MA
NY
NY
VA
PA
NJ
IN
OH
CT
Climate Region
Precipitation
(in/yr)
32-40
32-40
32-40
40-48
40-48
Evaporation
(in/yr)
30-40
40-50
50-60
<30
30-40
4-29
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.6 Grouping of Climate Stations by Average Annual Precipitation
and Pan Evaporation (ABB, 1995) (continued)
City
Grand Island
Flagstaff
Dodge City
Midland
St. Cloud
E. Lansing
North Omaha
Dallas
Tulsa
Brownsville
Oklahoma City
Bangor
Concord
Pittsburgh
Portland
Caribou
Chicago
Burlington
Rutland
Seattle
Montpelier
Sault St. Marie
State
NE
AZ
KS
TX
MN
MI
NE
TX
OK
TX
OK
ME
NH
PA
OR
ME
IL
VT
VT
WA
VT
MI
Climate Region
Precipitation
(in/yr)
16-24
16-24
16-24
24-32
24-32
24-32
24-32
24-32
32-40
Evaporation
(in/yr)
40-50
50-60
>60
<30
30-40
40-50
50-60
>60
<30
Citv
Jacksonville
Orlando
Greensboro
Watkinsville
Norfolk
Shreveport
Astoria
New Haven
Plainfield
Nashville
Knoxville
Central Park
Lexington
Edison
Atlanta
Little Rock
Tallahassee
New Orleans
Charleston
W. Palm Beach
Lake Charles
Miami
State
FL
FL
NC
GA
VA
LA
OR
CT
MA
TN
TN
NY
KY
NJ
GA
AK
FL
LA
SC
FL
LA
FL
Climate Region
Precipitation
(in/yr)
40-48
>48
>48
>48
>48
Evaporation
(in/yr)
40-50
<30
30-40
40-50
50-60
4-30
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
4.2.2.2 Infiltration Rates for Unlined Units
Landfill
We used the HELP model to simulate infiltration through closed LFs for each of
the 102 climate station locations shown in Figure 4.7. A 2-foot cover was included as
the minimum Subtitle D requirement. Three different soil cover types were modeled:
sandy loam, silty loam, and silty clay loam soils. Table 4.7 presents the hydraulic
parameters for these three soil types.
Table 4.7 Hydraulic Parameters for the Modeled Soils
Soil Type
Sandy Loam
Silt Loam
Silty Clay Loam
HELP
Soil
Number
6
9
12
Total
Porosity
(vol/vol)
0.453
0.501
0.471
Field
Capacity
(vol/vol)
0.190
0.284
0.342
Wilting
Point
(vol/vol)
0.085
0.135
0.210
Saturated
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
0.000720
0.000190
0.000042
Other LF design criteria included:
• A cover crop of "fair" grass — this is the quality of grass cover suggested
by the FtELP model for LFs where limitations to root zone penetration and
poor irrigation techniques may limit grass quality.
• The evaporation zone thickness selected for each location was generally
the depth suggested by the model for that location for a fair grass crop;
however, the evaporation zone thickness was not allowed to exceed the
soil thickness (24 inches).
• The leaf area index (LAI) selected for each location was that of fair grass
(2.0) unless the model indicated a lower maximum for that location.
• The LF configuration was based on a one-acre facility with a 2% top slope
and a drainage length of 200 feet (one side of a square acre). Runoff was
assumed to be possible from 100% of the cover.
Appendix D, Table D-l, presents the infiltration rate data for the 102 climate
stations. The unlined LF infiltration rate for each soil type at each of the 102 climate
4-31
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
centers was used as the ambient regional recharge rate for that climatic center and soil
type.
Surface Impoundment
We calculated SI infiltration rates using the built-in SI module in EPACMTP (see
Section 3.1). This means that for EPACMTP, the SI infiltration rate is not really an input
parameter, rather the model calculates infiltration rates "on the fly" during the simulation,
as a function of impoundment ponding depth and other SI characteristics. For unlined
Sis, the primary parameters that control the infiltration rate are the ponding depth in the
impoundment, the thickness and permeability of any accumulated sediment layer at the
base of the impoundment, and the presence of a 'clogged' (i.e., reduced permeability)
layer of native soil underneath the impoundment caused by the migration of solids from
the impoundment. In addition, IWEM checks that the calculated infiltration rate does not
result in an unrealistic degree of ground-water mounding (see Section 4.2.6).
For IWEM, we used unit-specific data on SI ponding depths from EPA's Surface
Impoundment Study (U.S. EPA, 2001). We assumed a fixed sediment layer thickness of
20 cm at the base of the impoundment. The resulting sediment layer permeability has a
relatively narrow range of variation between 1.26x 10 "7 and 1.77x 10 "7 cm/s. We
assumed that the depth of clogging underneath the impoundment was 0.5 m in all cases,
and that saturated hydraulic conductivity of the clogged layer is 10% of that of the native
soil underlying the impoundment. The parameters used to calculate SI infiltration rates
are tabulated as part of the Tier 1 parameter tables in Appendix C.
In the event that the SI is reported to have its base below the water table, we
calculated the infiltration using Darcy's law based on the hydraulic gradient across and
the hydraulic conductivity of the consolidated sediment at the bottom of the
impoundment unit.
Waste Pile
For the purpose of estimating leaching rates, we considered WPs to be similar to
non-covered LFs with a total waste thickness of 10 feet. The infiltration rates for unlined
WPs were, therefore, generated with the HELP model using the same general procedures
as for LFs, but with the following modifications:
• No cover
We modeled the leachate flux through active, uncovered piles. We
modeled the WP surface as having no vegetation. The evaporative zone
depth was taken as the suggested HELP model value for the "bare"
4-32
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
condition at each climate center. The LAI was set to zero to eliminate
transpiration.
• Variable waste permeability
For uncovered WPs, we found that the infiltration rates predicted by
HELP model are sensitive to the permeability of the waste material itself.
Based on these results, we simulated WP infiltration rates for three
different WP materials: relatively high permeability, moderate
permeability, and relatively low permeability. Parameters for the three
waste types are presented in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8 Moisture Retention Parameters for the Modeled WP Materials
Waste Type
Low Permeability
Moderate Permeability
High Permeability
HELP
Soil
Number
30
31
33
Total
Porosity
(vol/vol)
0.541
0.578
0.375
Field
Capacity
(vol/vol)
0.187
0.076
0.055
Wilting
Point
(vol/vol)
0.047
0.025
0.020
Saturated
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
0.00005
0.00410
0.04100
We calculated WP infiltration rates for all 102 climate stations and waste material
permeabilities. Appendix D, Table D-2, presents the WP infiltration rate values for all
climate stations and waste types.
Land Application Unit
LAUs were modeled with HELP using two soil layers. The top layer was taken
as six inches in thickness and represented the layer into which the waste was applied.
The bottom layer was of the same material type as the top layer and was set at a thickness
of 36 inches. Both of these layers were modeled as vertical percolation layers. The same
three soil types for LFs were also used for LAUs.
We assumed the waste applied to the LAU to be a sludge-type material with a
high water content. We also assumed a waste application rate of 7.25 inches per year
(in/yr) with the waste having a solids content of 20% and a unit weight of 75 Ib/ft3.
Assuming that 100% of the water in the waste was available as free water, an excess
water amount of 5.8 in/yr, in addition to precipitation, would be available for percolation.
HELP model analyses showed that the additional water available for percolation
generally would have little effect on the simulated water balance and net infiltration,
except for sites located in arid regions of the United States with very little natural
4-33
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
precipitation. For more representative waste application rates, the effect disappeared
because introducing additional moisture in the simulated water balance results in a
commensurate increase in runoff and removal by evapotranspiration. The LAU
infiltration values are presented in Appendix D, Table D-3.
4.2.2.3 Single-Lined Waste Units
IWEM includes infiltration rates for lined LFs, WPs, and Sis. In the case of LAUs,
only unlined units are considered.
Landfill
We calculated infiltration rates for single-lined LFs using the HELP model. We
modeled the LF as a four-layer system, consisting, from top to bottom of:
• 1-foot percolation cover layer;
• 3-foot compacted clay cover with hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10"7 cm/s ;
• 10-foot thick waste layer; and
• 3-foot thick compacted clay liner with a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10"7
cm/sec.
We simulated the cover layer as a loam drainage layer supporting a "fair" cover
crop with an evaporative zone depth equal to that associated with a fair cover crop at the
climate center. The remaining conditions were identical to those described in Section
4.2.2.2 for unlined LFs.
In developing infiltration rates for Tier 1, we used the grouping of climate stations
into 25 regions of similar climatic conditions depicted in Table 4.6 in order to reduce the
number of required HELP simulations. Rather than calculating infiltration rates for each
of the 102 individual climate stations, we calculated infiltration rates for the 25 climate
regions, and then assigned the same value to each climate station in one group. To
ensure a protective result, we chose the climate center with the highest average
precipitation in each climate region as representative of that region. Appendix D, Table
D-4, shows the infiltration rate values for clay-lined LFs that we used in developing the
Tier 1 LCTVs. The actual climate stations that were used in the HELP simulations for
each climate region are shown in bold face in the table. We calculated individual
infiltration rates for the five climate centers in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico that were
not assigned to a climate region.
We used the database of HELP-generated infiltration rates to provide estimates of
LF infiltration rates in Tier 2 when a user does not have site-specific data. During the
process of assembling the HELP infiltration values for the IWEM software tool, we
4-34
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
realized that the grouping of climate centers into regions for clay-lined units, resulted in a
number of apparent anomalies in which the suggested infiltration rate for a lined unit
would be higher than the unlined infiltration rate at the same climate station. This
resulted from the fact that we used the infiltration rate for the climate center with the
highest annual precipitation in each region for clay-lined units, but then compared it with
a location-specific infiltration value for unlined units. The occurrence of these anomalies
was restricted to climate stations in arid parts of the United States, and was noticeable
only when the absolute magnitude of infiltration was low. In order to remove these
counter-intuitive results, we re-calculated location-specific HELP infiltration rates for
clay-lined units at 17 climate stations (Glasgow, MT; Yakima, WA; Lander, WY;
Cheyenne, WY; Pullman, WA; Pocatello, ID; Grand Junction, CO; Denver, CO; Great
Falls, MT; Salt Lake City, UT; Cedar City, UT; El Paso, TX; Ely, NV; Las Vegas, NV;
Rapid City, SD; Phoenix, AZ; and Tucson, AZ). We then incorporated location-specific
infiltration rates for these 17 climate stations into the Tier 2 IWEM software, to replace
the regional values used for these stations in Tier 1.
As a result of the additional HELP model simulations for clay-lined units that we
performed after the Tier 1 LCTVs had been generated, the database of infiltration rates
that is incorporate into the IWEM software is slightly different from the data used in Tier
1. We performed a sensitivity analysis to assess what would have been the impact on
Tier 1 LCTVs had we used location-specific infiltration values, rather than regional
values, for the 17 climate stations involved. We used three constituents in the sensitivity
analysis: a weakly sorbing constituent (benzene, Koc = 63 mL/g); a moderately sorbing
constituent (carbon tetrachloride, Koc= 257 mL/g); and a strongly sorbing constituent
(heptachlor, Koc= 162,000 mL/g). Table 4.9 summarizes the results of this sensitivity
analysis. This table follows the format of the Tier 1 LCTV tables presented in Appendix
F of this report.
For each of the three constituents, Table 4.9 compares the actual Tier 1 LCTVs to
values calculated using location-specific infiltration rates for the 17 climate stations. The
updated values are shaded and shown in bold-face. The table indicates that if we had
used these data in the Tier 1 evaluations, it would have resulted in slightly higher LCTVs
for some constituents, notably weakly to moderately sorbing constituents. Constituents
that are strongly sorbing (as represented by heptachlor), and/or that rapidly degrade,
would be less affected because the LCTVs for these constituents are often controlled by
various imposed caps (see Section 6). Even for the constituents that are affected, the
change in LCTV would have been very slight. The largest LCTV impact in Table 4.9 is
0.004 mg/L for the MCL-based LCTV of carbon tetrachloride. The sensitivity analysis
shows that the use of regional infiltration rates for clay-lined LFs in Tier 1 resulted in
slightly more protective LCTVs than if we had used location-specific values. This
confirms the intent of Tier 1 to provide protective screening values.
4-35
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.9 Sensitivity Analysis of Tier 1 LCTVs for Clay-lined LFs to Regional
Versus Location-specific Infiltration Rates for 17 Climate Stations
Constituent
Benzene TIER 1
Benzene REVISED INFIL.DATA
Carbon tetrachloride TIER 1
Carbon tetrachloride REVISED
INFIL.DATA
Heptachlor TIER 1
Heptachlor REVISED INFIL.DATA
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.030
0.033
0.055
0.059
8.0E-03 a
8.0E-03 a
Non-Care. Effect
LCTV
based on
Ingestion
0.2
0.2
8.0E-03 a
8.0E-03 a
LCTV
based on
Inhalation
0.50 a
0.50 a
0.23
0.25
Care. Effect
LCTV
based on
Ingestion
0.011
0.012
8.2E-03
8.7E-03
8.0E-03 a
8.0E-03 a
LCTV
based on
Inhalation
0.010
0.010
8.4E-03
8.9E-03
8.0E-03 a
8.0E-03 a
' TC Rule exit level cap
Waste Pile
We calculated infiltration rates for single-lined WPs using the HELP model. We
modeled the WP as a two-layer system, consisting, from top to bottom, of:
• 10-foot thick, uncovered, waste layer; and
• 3-foot thick compacted clay liner with a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10"7
cm/sec.
Other parameters were set to the same values as in the unlined WP case. The
same three waste material types were used as in Tier 1. We also modeled a bare surface
for the evaporative zone depth.
In developing WP infiltration rates for Tier 1, we used the same grouping of
climate stations in 25 climate regions as previously discussed for LFs. Appendix D,
Table D-4, shows the infiltration rate values for clay-lined WPs that we used in
developing the Tier 1 LCTVs. The actual climate centers that were used in the HELP
simulations for each climate region are shown in bold face in the table. We calculated
individual infiltration rates for the five climate centers in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto
Rico that were not assigned to a climate region.
Analogous to the situation encountered for LFs, we found a number of apparent
anomalies between WP infiltration rates for unlined as compared to clay-lined WPs,
resulting from the use of regional infiltration values for clay-lined units. The occurrence
4-36
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
of these anomalies for WPs was also restricted to climate centers in arid parts of the
United States, for which the absolute magnitude of infiltration was low. In order to
remove these counter-intuitive results, we re-calculated location-specific HELP
infiltration rates for clay-lined WP units at 17 climate stations (Glasgow, MT; Yakima,
WA; Lander, WY; Cheyenne, WY; Pullman, WA; Pocatello, ID; Grand Junction, CO;
Denver, CO; Great Falls, MT; Salt Lake City, UT; Cedar City, UT; El Paso, TX; Ely,
NV; Las Vegas, NV; Rapid City, SD; Phoenix, AZ; and Tucson, AZ). We then
incorporated location-specific infiltration rates for these 17 climate stations into the Tier
2 IWEM software to replace the regional values used for these stations in Tier 1.
We also assessed the impact on Tier 1 LCTVs had we used location-specific
infiltration values, rather than regional values, for the 17 climate stations. Table 4.10
summarizes the results of this sensitivity analysis for WP units. This table follows the
format of the Tier 1 LCTV tables presented in Appendix F of this report. For each of the
three constituents, the table compares the actual Tier 1 LCTVs to values calculated using
location-specific infiltration rates for the 17 climate stations given above. The updated
values are shaded and shown in bold-face. The results of the sensitivity analysis for WPs
are consistent with, and of similar magnitude, as the results we found for LFs.
Table 4.10 indicates that if we had used the additional location-specific
infiltration data in the Tier 1 evaluations, it would have resulted in slightly higher LCTVs
for some constituents, notably weakly to moderately sorbing constituents. Constituents
that are strongly sorbing (as represented by heptachlor), and/or that rapidly degrade,
would be less affected because the LCTVs for these constituents are often controlled by
various imposed caps (see Section 6). Even for the constituents that are affected, the
change in LCTV would have been very slight. The largest LCTV impact in Table 4.10 is
0.03 mg/L for the MCL-based LCTV of carbon tetrachloride. The sensitivity analysis
shows that the use of regional infiltration rates for clay-lined WPs in Tier 1 resulted in
slightly more protective LCTVs than if we had used location-specific values. This
confirms the intent of Tier 1 to provide protective screening values.
During the process of verifying the HELP-generated infiltration rates for clay-
lined units we also replaced incorrect values for clay-lined WPs assigned to the Lake
Charles, LA and Miami, FL climate stations. These two climate stations have high
precipitation (Table 4.6), but were assigned low infiltration rates in the Tier 1 analyses
(see Appendix D, Table D-4). We re-ran the HELP model for the clay-lined WP scenario
for the three clay-lined WP scenarios, that is low, medium, and high waste permeability.
4-37
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.10 Sensitivity Analysis of Tier 1 LCTVs for Clay-lined WPs to Regional
Versus Location-specific Infiltration Rates for 17 Climate Stations
Constituent
Benzene TIER 1
Benzene REVISED INFIL.DATA
Carbon tetrachloride TIER 1
Carbon tetrachloride REVISED
INFIL.DATA
Heptachlor TIER 1
Herjtachlor REVISED INFIL.DATA
LCTV
based on
MCL
(me/L)
0.13
0.15
0.21
0.24
8.0E-03 a
8.0E-03 a
Non-Care. Effect
LCTV
based on
Ineestion
0.50 a
0.50 a
8.0E-03 a
8.0E-03 a
LCTV
based on
Inhalation
0.50 a
0.50 a
0.50 a
0.50 a
Care. Effect
LCTV
based on
Insestion
0.06
0.07
0.043
0.048
8.0E-03 a
8.0E-03 a
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.056
0.064
0.044
0.049
8.0E-03 a
8.0E-03 a
1TC Rule exit level cap
The re-calculated infiltration rate values averaged 0.066 m/yr, as compared to 0.019 m/yr
in Tier 1. We incorporated the re-calculated values in the IWEM software tool for Tier 2.
Note that the underestimation of infiltration rates for Lake Charles and Miami will have
had the effect of partially compensating for overestimating infiltration rates at other
locations in the national Tier 1 screening analysis.
Surface Impoundment
For single-lined Sis, infiltration rates were calculated inside of EPACMTP in the
same manner as described in the previous section for unlined units, with the exception
that we added a 3-foot compacted clay liner with a hydraulic conductivity of 1 * 10"7 cm/s
at the bottom of the WMU and we did not include the effect of clogged native material
due to the filtering effects of the liner.
4.2.2.4 Infiltration Rates for Composite-Lined Units
We conducted an information collection effort that involved searching the
available literature for data that quantify liner integrity and leachate infiltration through
composite liners (TetraTech, 2001). We assembled these data and applied them to
develop the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses as follows:
Landfill and Waste Pile
We treated composite-lined LFs and WPs as being the same for the purpose of
determining infiltration rates. For these WMU's, we developed an infiltration rate
4-38
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
distribution from actual leak detection system (LDS) flow rates reported for clay
composite-lined LF cells.
We based the distribution of composite-lined LF and WP infiltration rates on
available monthly average LDS flow rates from 27 LF cells reported by TetraTech
(2001). The data and additional detail for the 27 LF cells are provided in Appendix D,
Table D-5. The data included monthly average LDS flow rates for 22 operating LF cells
and 5 closed LF cells. The 27 LF cells are located in eastern United States: 23 in the
northeastern region, 1 in the mid-Atlantic region, and 3 in the southeastern region. Each
of the LF cells is underlain by a geomembrane/ geosynthetic clay liner which consists of
a geomembrane of thickness between 1 and 1.5 mm (with the majority, 22 of 27, being
1.5 mm thick), overlying a geosynthetic clay layer of reported thickness of 6 mm. The
geomembrane is a flexible membrane layer made from FtDPE. The geosynthetic clay
liner is a composite barrier consisting of two geotextile outer layers with a uniform core
of bentonite clay to form a hydraulic barrier. The liner system is underlain by a LDS.
We decided in this case to use a subset of the reported flow rates compiled by
TetraTech (2001) in developing the composite liner infiltration rates for IWEM. We did
not include LDS flow rates for geomembrane/compacted clay composite-lined LF cells in
our distribution. For compacted clay liners (including composite geomembrane/
compacted clay liners), there is the potential for water to be released during the
consolidation of the clay liner and yield an unknown contribution of water to LDS flow,
such that it is very difficult to determine how much of the LDS flow is due to liner
leakage, versus how much is due to clay consolidation. We also decided in this case to
not use LDS flow rates from three geomembrane/geosynthetic clay lined-cells. For one
cell, flow rate data were available for the cell's operating period and the cell's post-
closure period. The average flow rate for the cell was 26 liters/hectare/day when the cell
was operating and 59 liters/hectare/day when the cell was closed. We believe these flow
rates, which were among the highest reported, are difficult to interpret because the flow
rate from the closed cell was over twice the flow rate from the open cell, a pattern
inconsistent with the other open cell/closed cell data pairs we reviewed. For the two
other cells, additional verification of the data may be needed in order to fully understand
the reported flow rates.
The resulting cumulative probability distribution of infiltration rates for
composite-lined LFs and WPs for use in this application is based on the 27 remaining
data points is presented in Table 4.11. Note that over 50% of the values are zero, that is,
they have no measurable infiltration.
4-39
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.11 Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Infiltration Rate for Composite-
Lined LFs and WPs
Ipercentile
Infiltration Rate (m/yr)
0
0.0
10
0.0
25
0.0
50
0.0
75
7.30xlO-5
90
l.VSxlO-4
100 1
4.01xl04 |
Surface Impoundment
We calculated leakage through circular defects (pin holes) in a composite liner
using the following equation developed by Bonaparte et al. (1989):
Q =
1 h
°-9
where:
Q = steady-state rate of leakage through a single hole in the liner (m3/s)
a = area of hole in the geomembrane (m2)
h = head of liquid on top of geomembrane (m)
Ks = hydraulic conductivity of the low-permeability soil underlying the
geomembrane (m/s)
This equation is applicable to cases where there is good contact between the
geomembrane and the underlying compacted clay liner. For each SI unit, we determined
its infiltration rate using the above equation. We used the unit-specific ponding depth
data (corresponding to h in the above equation) from the recent Surface Impoundment
Study (U.S. EPA, 2001) in combination with a distribution of leak densities (expressed as
number of leaks per hectare) compiled from 26 leak density values reported in TetraTech
(2001). The leak densities are based on liners installed with formal Construction Quality
Assurance (CQA) programs.
The 26 sites with leak density data are mostly located outside the United States: 3
in Canada, 7 in France, 14 in United Kingdom, and 2 with unknown locations. The
WMUs at these sites (8 LFs, 4 Sis, and 14 unknown) are underlain by a layer of
geomembrane of thickness varying from 1.14 to 3 mm. The majority of the
geomembranes are made from HDPE (23 of 26) with the remaining 3 made from
prefabricated bituminous geomembrane or polypropylene. One of the sites has a layer of
compacted clay liner beneath the geomembrane, however, for the majority of the sites (25
of 26) material types below the geomembrane layer are not reported. The leak density
data above were used for Sis. The leak density distribution is shown in Table 4.12.
Table D-6, Appendix D, provides additional detail.
4-40
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
To use the Bonaparte equation, we assumed a uniform leak size of 6 millimeters
squared (mm2). The leak size is the middle of a range of hole sizes reported by Rollin et
al. (1999), who found that 25 percent of holes were less than 2 mm2, 50 percent of holes
were 2 to 10 mm2, and 25 percent of holes were greater than 10 mm2. We assumed that
the geomembrane is underlain by a compacted clay liner whose hydraulic conductivity is
lx!0'7cm/s.
In order to ascertain the plausibility of the leak density data, we conducted an
infiltration rate calculation to estimate the range of infiltration resulting from the leaks in
geomembrane. Because of the absence of documented infiltration data for Sis, we used
the infiltration data for LFs, described previously under the LF and WP section, as a
surrogate infiltration data set for comparison purposes. Because the comparison was
made on the basis of LF data, we set the head of liquid above the geomembrane to 0.3 m
(1 foot) which is a typical maximum design head for LFs. Calculation results are shown
in Table D-6, Appendix D. The results indicate that the calculated leakage rates, based
on the assumptions of above-geomembrane head, hole dimension, hydraulic conductivity
of the barrier underneath the geomembrane, and good contact between the geomembrane
and the barrier, agree favorably with the observed LF flow rates reported in Table D-5,
Appendix D. This result provided confidence that the leak density data could be used as
a reasonable basis for calculating infiltration rates using actual SI ponding depths.
The resulting frequency distribution of calculated infiltration rates for composite-
lined Sis used in Tier 1 is presented in Table 4.13. For Tier 2, the user is required to
specify the unit's ponding depth. IWEM will then determine the unit's infiltration
distribution using the Bonaparte equation and the leak density distribution in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12 Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Leak Density for Composite-
Lined Sis
Percentile
Leak density
(No. Leaks/ha)
0
0
10
0
20
0
30
0
40
0.7
50
0.915
60
1.36
70
2.65
80
4.02
90
4.77
100
12.5
Table 4.13 Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Infiltration Rate for Composite-
Lined Sis
1 Percentile
Infiltration Rate (m/yr)
0
0.0
10
0.0
25
0.0
50
1.34X10'5
75
1.34X104
90
3.08xl04
100 1
4.01 xlO'3 1
4-41
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
4.2.2.5 Determination of Recharge Rates
We estimated recharge rates for the three primary soil types across the United
States (SNL, SLT, and SCL) and ambient climate conditions at 102 climate stations
through the use of the HELP water-balance model as summarized in 4.2.2.1. We
assumed the ambient regional recharge rate for a given climate center and soil type (for
all four WMU types) is the same as the corresponding unlined LF infiltration rate.
4.2.3 Parameters Used to Describe the Unsaturated and Saturated Zones
We used a number of data sources to obtain parameter values for the unsaturated
and saturated zone modeling in Tier 1 and Tier 2. A primary data source was the
Hydrogeologic Database for Ground-Water Modeling (HGDB), assembled by Rice
University on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute (API) (Newell et al, 1989).
This database provides probability distributions of a number of key ground-water
modeling parameters for various types of subsurface environments.
For unsaturated zone modeling, we used a database of soil hydraulic properties
for various soil types, assembled by Carsel and Parrish (1988), in combination with
information from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) on the nationwide prevalence of
different soil types across the United States.
4.2.3.1 Subsurface Parameters
The HGDB database provides site-specific data on four key subsurface
parameters6:
• Depth to ground water;
• Saturated zone thickness;
• Saturated zone hydraulic conductivity; and
• Saturated zone hydraulic gradient;
The data in this hydrogeological database were collected by independent
investigators for approximately 400 hazardous waste sites throughout the United States.
In the HGDB, the data are grouped into twelve subsurface environments, which are based
on EPA's DRASTIC classification of hydrogeologic settings (U.S. EPA, 1985). Table
4.14 lists the subsurface environments. The table includes a total of 13 categories; 12 are
distinct subsurface environments, while the 13th category, which is labeled "other" or
6 The database also provides data on ground-water seepage velocity and on "vertical penetration
depth" of a waste plume below the water table. We did not use these data. EPACMTP calculates the
ground-water velocity directly and the vertical penetration depth is not used in EPACMTP.
4^42
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
"unknown", was used for waste sites that could not be classified into one of the first 12
environments. The subsurface parameter values in this 13th category are simply averages
of the parameter values in the 12 actual subsurface environments. Details on the
individual parameter distributions for each subsurface environment are provided in the
EPACMTP Parameters/Data BackgroundDocument (U.S. EPA, 2002b).
Table 4.14 HGDB Subsurface Environments (from Newell et al, 1989)
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Description
Metamorphic and Igneous
Bedded Sedimentary Rock
Till Over Sedimentary Rock
Sand and Gravel
Alluvial Basins Valleys and Fans
River Valleys and Floodplains with Overbank Deposit
River Valleys and Floodplains without Overbank Deposits
Outwash
Till and Till Over Outwash
Unconsolidated and Semi-consolidated Shallow Aquifers
Coastal Beaches
Solution Limestone
Other (Not classifiable)
The key feature of this database is that it provides a set of correlated values of the
four parameters for each of the 400 sites in the database. That is, the value of each
parameter is associated with the three other subsurface parameters reported for the same
site. We preserved these correlations because having information on some parameters
allows us to develop more accurate estimates for missing parameter values.
In Tier 1 we used the HGDB in conjunction with a geographical classification of
aquifers developed by the United States Geological Survey (Heath, 1984) to assign each
waste site in our nationwide database of Subtitle D WMU's (see Section 4.2.1) to one of
the 13 subsurface environments. For each type of WMU, we used information on its
location (see Figures 4.2 - 4.5), in combination with USGS state-by-state aquifer maps to
determine the type of subsurface environment at that site. Sites that could not be
classified into one of the 12 categories were assigned as "other" (that is, they were
assigned to environment number 13). Using the subsurface parameters in the HGDB for
each of the 13 environments, we could then assign a probability distribution of parameter
values to each WMU location. This methodology is consistent with how we assigned
HELP-derived infiltration and recharge rates to each WMU in the IWEM modeling
database.
4-43
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
In Tier 2, the type of subsurface environment, as well as each of the four
individual subsurface parameters (depth to ground water, saturated thickness, saturated
hydraulic conductivity, and hydraulic gradient) are optional, site-specific user inputs.
Depending on the extent of available site data, IWEM will use statistical correlations
developed from the HGDB to estimate missing or unknown parameters. If site-specific
values for all four parameters are known, then Tier 2 will use these values and in this
case, information on the type of subsurface environment is not needed. If one or more of
the four subsurface parameters are unknown, but the type of subsurface environment at
the site is known, Tier 2 will use the known parameters to generate a probability
distribution for the unknown parameters, using the statistical correlations that correspond
to the type of environment at the site. If no site-specific hydrogeologic information is
known, IWEM will treat the site as being in subsurface environment number 13 and
assign values that are national averages.
4.2.3.2 Unsaturated Zone Parameters
To model flow of infiltration water through the unsaturated zone, we used data on
unsaturated hydraulic properties assembled by Carsel and Parrish (1988) in conjunction
with information from the SCS on the nationwide prevalence of different soil types
across the United States. First, we used SCS soil mapping data to estimate the relative
prevalence of light- (sandy loam), medium- (silt loam), and heavy-textured (silty clay
loam) soils across the United States. The estimated percentages are shown in Table 4.15.
The soil types used in the unsaturated zone modeling were also used in the HELP model
to derive infiltration and recharge rates (See Section 4.2.2) in order to have a consistent
set of soil modeling parameters. We then used the soil property data reported by Carsel
and Parrish to determine the probability distributions of individual soil parameters for
each soil type, and used these distributions in the Monte Carlo modeling for Tier 1 and
Tier 2. Table 4.16 presents the unsaturated zone parameter values used in the Tier 1 and
Tier 2 development.
Table 4.15 Nationwide Distribution of Soil Types Represented in IWEM
Texture Category
Light textured
Medium textured
Heavy textured
SCS Soil Type
Sandy Loam
Silt Loam
Silty Clay Loam
Relative Frequency (%)
15.4
56.6
28.0
4-44
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.16 Statistical Parameters for Soil Properties for Three Soil Types Used in
IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 Development (Carsel and Parrish, 1988)
Parameter1
Distribution
Type2
Limits of Variation
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Soil Type - Siltv Clay Loam
Ksat (cm/hr)
Or
a (cm"1}
P
%OM
Pb
SB
NO
SB
NO
SB
Constant
Constant
0
0
0
1.0
0
3.5
0.115
0.15
1.5
8.35
0.017
0.089
.009
1.236
0.11
1.67
0.43
2.921
0.0094
.097
0.061
5.91
Soil Type - Silt Loam
Ksat (cm/hr)
&r
a (cm"1}
P
%OM
Pb
LN
SB
LN
SB
SB
Constant
Constant
0
0
0
1.0
0
15.0
0.11
0.15
2.0
8.51
.343
.068
.019
1.409
0.105
1.65
0.45
.989
0.071
0.012
1.629
5.88
Soil Type - Sandy Loam
Ksat (cm/hr)
Or
a (cm1)
ft
%OM
Pb
SB
SB
SB
LN
SB
Constant
Constant
0
0
0
1.35
0
30.0
0.11
0.25
3.00
11.0
2.296
0.065
0.070
1.891
0.074
1.60
0.41
24.65
0.074
0.171
0.155
7.86
1 Ksat is saturated hydraulic conductivity; 6r is residual water content; a, P are retention curve parameters; % OM
is percent Organic Matter, pb is bulk density; 6S is saturated water content.
2 NO is Normal (Gaussian) distribution; SB is Log ratio distribution where Y = In [(x-A)/(B-x)], A < x < B; LN
is Log normal distribution, Y = In [x , where Y = normal distributed parameter
The parameters a, p, and 6r in Table 4.16 are specific to the Mualem-Van
Genuchten model that is employed in the EPACMTP unsaturated zone flow module
described in Section 3.2 (see the EPACMTP Technical Background Document for
details).
In addition to the soil hydraulic parameters listed in Table 4.16, IWEM also
requires certain soil transport parameters. These are the soil bulk density and percent
organic matter, which are used to calculate the constituent-specific retardation
coefficients, the unsaturated zone dispersivity, and the soil pH and temperature. The
4-45
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
latter two parameters are used to calculate hydrolysis transformation rates; pH is also a
key parameter for modeling transport of metals. Soil bulk density and percent organic
matter were obtained from the Carsel and Parrish (1988) database and are presented in
Table 4.16. These parameters are used to calculate the retardation factor in the
constituent transport equation (Section 3.2). We used the data on the percent organic
matter to calculate the fraction organic carbon according to:
, % OM
foe =
174
where:
foe = Mass fraction organic carbon in the soil (kg/kg)
% OM = Percent organic matter
174 = Conversion constant
We calculated dispersivity in the unsaturated zone, ocuz as a function of the travel
distance (Du m) between the base of the WMU and the water table, according to the
following relationship:
auz = 0.02+ (0.022 x Du)
where:
auz = longitudinal dispersivity in the unsaturated zone (m)
Du = Depth of the unsaturated zone, from the base of the WMU to the
water table (m)
This relationship is based on a regression analysis of field scale transport data
presented by Gelhar et al. (1985). We capped the maximum allowed value of
dispersivity at one meter in IWEM.
Soil temperature and pH were obtained from nationwide distributions. For these
parameters we used the same distributions for the entire aquifer, that is, both for the
unsaturated zone and for the saturated zone. In both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, we
used a nationwide aquifer pH distribution, derived from EPA's STORET database. The
pH distribution is an empirical distribution with a median value of 6.8 and lower and
upper bounds of 3.2 and 9.7, respectively, as shown in Table 4.17.
4-46
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.17 Probability Distribution of Soil and Aquifer pH
Percentile
pH Value
0
3.20
1
3.60
5
4.50
10
5.20
25
6.07
50
6.80
75
7.40
90
7.90
95
8.2
99
8.95
100
9.7
As modeled in IWEM, soil and aquifer temperature affects the transformation rate
of constituents that are subject to hydrolysis, through the effect of temperature on
reaction rates (see Section 4.2.4.1). In the IWEM development, we used information on
average annual temperatures in shallow ground-water systems (Todd, 1980) to assign a
temperature value to each WMU in the modeling database, based on the unit's
geographical location. For each WMU site, the assigned temperature was an average of
the upper and lower values for that temperature region, as shown in Figure 4.8. In other
words, all WMU's located in the band between 10° and 15° were assigned a temperature
value of 12.5 degrees C.
Figure 4.8 Ground-water Temperature Distribution for Shallow
Aquifers in the United States (from Todd, 1980).
4-47
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
IWEM Monte Carlo Methodology for Soil Parameters
In both Tier 1 and Tier 2, we assumed that soil properties are uniform at each site.
That is, while we selected a new set of soil parameters for each realization in the Tier 1
and Tier 2 modeling process, the soil properties were assumed uniform for a given
realization. However, the methodology for assigning soil types differed. In Tier 1, we
randomly selected one of the three soil types shown in Table 4.15 for each realization,
with a probability given by each soil type's frequency of occurrence, i.e., we would select
silt loam soils in 56.6% of the realizations, sandy loam soils in 15.4% of the cases, and
silty clay loam soils in 28% of the cases. The selection of the soil type also determines
the distribution of recharge and - for unlined and single-lined LF, WP, and LAUs - the
infiltration rate through the unit (see Section 4.2.2). Based on the selected soil type,
values for each of the unsaturated zone modeling parameters were generated using the
distributions presented in Table 4.16.
In Tier 2, the soil type is a optional site-specific user input parameter. Because
the site location must always be entered by the user, the selection of the soil type
determines the recharge rate, as well as the HELP-derived infiltration rates which the
IWEM tool will use in the evaluation. Based on the selected soil type, the IWEM tool
will randomly select values for the parameters in Table 4.16 from the probability
distributions corresponding to the soil type. If the soil type in Tier 2 is entered as
"unknown", the Tier 2 Monte Carlo process for the unsaturated zone parameters will
default to that used in Tier 1, that is, IWEM will randomly select one of the three
possible soil types in accordance with their nationwide frequency of occurrence.
4.2.3.3 Saturated Zone Parameters
In addition to the four site-related subsurface parameters discussed in Section
4.2.3.1, IWEM requires a number of additional saturated zone transport parameters.
They are: saturated zone porosity; saturated zone bulk density; longitudinal, transverse
and vertical dispersivities; fraction organic carbon; aquifer temperature; and aquifer pH.
Saturated zone porosity is used in the calculation of the ground-water seepage
velocity; saturated zone porosity and bulk density are used in the calculation of
constituent-specific retardation coefficients. In IWEM, we used default, nationwide
distributions for aquifer porosity and bulk density, that is, they are not user inputs. Both
were derived from a distribution of aquifer particle diameter presented by Shea (1974).
This distribution is presented in Table 4.18. Using the data in Table 4.18 as an input
distribution, IWEM calculates porosity, c|), from particle diameter using an empirical
relationship based on data reported by Davis (1969) as:
c|) = 0.261 - 0.0385 7w(d)
4^48
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
where
cj) = Porosity (dimensionless)
d = Mean particle diameter (cm)
In = Natural logarithm
Additionally, we used relationships presented in McWorther and Sunada (1977),
to establish relationships between total ($) and effective porosity (c|)e) as a function of
mean particle diameter, see Table 4.19.
Table 4.18 Empirical Distribution of Mean Aquifer Particle Diameter
(from Shea, 1974)
Percentile
Particle
Diameter
(cm)
0.0
3.9x10-"
3.8
7.8xlO'4
10.4
0.0016
17.1
0.0031
26.2
0.0063
37.1
0.0125
56.0
0.025
79.2
0.05
90.4
0.1
94.4
0.2
97.6
0.4
100
0.8
Table 4.19 Ratio Between Effective and Total Porosity as a Function of Particle
Diameter (after McWorther and Sunada, 1977)
Mean Particle Diameter (cm)
< 6.25 xlO'3
6.25 xlO'3- 2.5 xlO'2
2.5xlO-2-5.0xlO-2
S.OxlO^-lO'1
>io-'
J Range
0.03-0.77
0.04-0.87
0.31-0.91
0.58-0.94
0.52-0.95
IWEM calculates apparent saturated zone dispersivities as a function of the
distance between the waste unit and the modeled ground-water well, using regression
relationships based on a compilation of field-scale dispersivity data in Gelhar et al.
(1985). These relationships are:
OL(X) = afFx(x/152.4)°-5
OCT = aL/8
av = aL/160
4-49
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
where
x = downgradient ground-water travel distance (m)
OCL = longitudinal dispersivity (m)
OCT = horizontal transverse dispersivity (m)
«v = vertical transverse dispersivity (m)
% = reference dispersivity value (m)
We used the longitudinal dispersivity corresponding to a distance of 152.4 m (500
feet) as a reference to calculate dispersivity at different well distances, according to the
probability distribution presented in Table 4.20.
Table 4.20 Cumulative Probability Distribution of Longitudinal Dispersivity at
Reference Distance of 152.4 m (500 ft)
Percentile
TV • •*. REFf \
Dispersivity, aL (m)
0.0
0.1
1.00
1.0
70.0
10.0
100.0
100.0
We used data as the fraction organic carbon in the aquifer (foc) to model sorption
of organic constituents, as discussed in Section 3.2. In the development of the IWEM
Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, we used a nationwide distribution obtained from values of
dissolved organic carbon in EPA's STORET water quality database. The distribution
was modeled as a Johnson SB frequency distribution (see EPACMTP Parameters/Data
Background Document) with a mean of 4.32><10"4, a standard deviation of 0.0456, and
lower and upper limits of 0.0 and 0.064, respectively.
We determined values of the ground-water temperature and pH in the same
manner as we did for soil pH and temperature (see Section 4.2.3.2).
4.2.4 Parameters Used to Characterize the Chemical Fate of Constituents
For the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations the chemical fate of constituents as they are
transported through the subsurface is presented in terms of an overall first-order decay
coefficient, a retardation coefficient which reflects equilibrium sorption reactions, and for
transformation daughter-products, a production term that represents the formation of
daughter compounds due to the transformation of parent constituents.
This section describes how we developed constituent-specific parameter values
for these chemical fate processes. Section 4.2.4.1 describes constituent transformation
processes, while Section 4.2.4.2 discusses all constituent degradation processes. Section
4.2.4.3 describes how we modeled sorption processes. Section 4.2.4.4 describes the
4^50
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
criteria we applied to determine whether constituents could be treated as being effectively
non-reactive (i.e., zero transformation and sorption) in developing the Tier 1 evaluation.
4.2.4.1 Constituent Transformation
For organic constituents, IWEM accounts for chemical and biological
transformations by considering a first-order overall degradation coefficient in the
transport analysis (see Section 3.2). In Tier 1, we considered only hydrolysis reactions.
In Tier 2, the default hydrolysis rate coefficients in the IWEM constituent database can
be replaced with a user-specified overall degradation rate that can account for any type of
transformation process, including biodegradation.
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis refers to the transformation of chemical constituents through reactions
with water. For organic constituents, hydrolysis can be one of the main degradation
processes that occur in soil and ground water and is represented in the EPACMTP model
by means of an overall first-order chemical decay coefficient. For modeling hydrolysis
in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, we used constituent-specific hydrolysis rate
constants compiled at the EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory in Athens, GA
(Kollig et al., 1993). These are listed in Appendix B.
The hydrolysis process as modeled in IWEM is affected by both aquifer pH,
aquifer temperature and constituent sorption, through the following equations. The
tendency of each constituent to hydrolyze is expressed through constituent-specific acid-
catalyzed (Kar), neutral (K^ *) and base-catalyzed (Kbr)rate constants. The superscript
Tr indicates that the values are measured at a specified reference temperature, Tr. First,
the values of the rate constants are modified to account for the effect of aquifer
temperature through the Arrhenius equation:
K.J = Kjr exp [E/R( - )]
j j F L j g^+273 r+273'J
where:
T
Kj = Hydrolysis rate constant for reaction process J and temperature T
J = a for acid, b for base, and n for neutral
T = Temperature of the subsurface (°C)
Tr = Reference temperature (°C)
Rg = Universal gas constant (1.987E-3 Kcal/deg-mole)
Ea = Arrhenius activation energy (Kcal/mole)
4-51
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document _ Section 4. 0
Next, the effect of pH on hydrolysis rates is incorporated via:
^ = KaT[H+] + KnT + KbT[OH-]
where
= First-order decay rate for dissolved phase (1/yr)
KTa , K^ , Kl = Hydrolysis rate constants
[H+] = Hydrogen ion concentration (mole/L)
[OH'] = Hydroxyl ion concentration (mole/L)
[H+] and [OH] are computed from the pH of the soil or aquifer using
[H+] = 10-pH
[OH'} = 10-(14-pH)
The sorbed phase hydrolysis rate is calculated as:
A2 = lQKar[H+] + KnT
where:
A2 = First-order hydrolysis rate for sorbed phase (1/yr)
KTa = Acid-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant (1/mole/yr)
KTn = Neutral hydrolysis rate constant (1/yr)
10 = Acid-catalyzed hydrolysis enhancement factor
Finally, the overall first-order transformation rate for hydrolysis is calculated as:
4-52
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
where:
A = Overall first-order hydrolysis transformation rate (1/yr)
A! = Dissolved phase hydrolysis transformation rate (1/yr)
A2 = Sorbed phase hydrolysis transformation rate (1/yr)
c|) = Porosity (water content in the unsaturated zone) (dimensionless)
p6 = Bulk density (kg/L)
kd = Partition coefficient (L/kg)
We used the information on hydrolysis transformation pathways presented in
Kollig et al. (1993) to identify toxic hydrolysis daughter products; Section 6 of this
document describe how we incorporated this information into the determination of Tier 1
and Tier 2 LCTVs.
4.2.4.2 Other Constituent Degradation Processes
Many organic constituents may be subject to biodegradation in the subsurface,
and in Tier 2, the IWEM tool allows the user to provide a constituent-specific overall
degradation coefficient, which can include both aerobic or anaerobic biodegradation.
IWEM does not specifically simulate biodegradation reactions, and therefore, the IWEM
user must ensure that the value entered is representative of actual site conditions, and that
the transformation reactions can be adequately characterized as a first-order rate process,
(that, is a process that can be represented in terms of a characteristic half-life). The
overall degradation rate parameter that is used as a Tier 2 input is related to the
constituent's subsurface half-life and is expressed as:
A = 0.693/t1/2
where
A = IWEM degradation rate input value (1/yr)
t,/2 = Constituent half-life (yr)
4.2.4.3 Constituent Sorption
In addition to physical and biological transformation processes, the transport of
constituents can be affected by a wide range of complex geochemical reactions. From a
practical view, the important aspect of these reactions is the removal of solute from
solution, irrespective of the process. For this reason IWEM lumps the cumulative effects
of the geochemical processes into a single term (i.e., solid-water partition coefficient)
4^53
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document _ Section 4. 0
which is one of several parameters needed to describe the degree to which a constituents
mobility is retarded relative to ground water. In the EPACMTP fate and transport model
upon which IWEM is based, this process is defined by the retardation factor defined in
Section 3.2. The remainder of this section describes the procedures we used to model
sorption for organic constituents and inorganic constituents, specifically, metals.
4.2.4.3.1 Sorption Modeling for Organic Constituents
For organic constituents we determined kd values as the product of the
constituent-specific Koc and the fraction organic carbon in the soil or ground water:
kd =Kocxfoc
where
kd = partition coefficient (L/kg),
Koc = normalized organic carbon distribution coefficient (kg/L), and
foc = fractional organic carbon content (dimensionless)
Koc values for IWEM constituents are listed in Appendix B. For IWEM, we
calculated the fraction organic carbon in the unsaturated zone from the percent organic
matter in the soil (see section 4.2.3.2) as:
, %OM
where
foc = fractional organic carbon content (kg/kg),
%OM = percent organic matter in the soil, and
174 = conversion factor.
In the saturated zone modeling we used the nation-wide data on the fraction
organic carbon on ground water to provide direct values for foc (see Section 4.2.3.3)
4. 2. 4. 3. 2 Sorption Modeling for Inorganic Constituents (Metals)
Partition coefficients (kd) for metals in the IWEM tool modeling are selected from
non-linear sorption isotherms estimated using the geochemical speciation model,
MINTEQA2. For a particular metal, kd values in a soil or aquifer are dependent upon the
metal concentration and various geochemical characteristics of the soil or aquifer and the
associated porewater.
4^54
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
Geochemical parameters that have the greatest influence on the magnitude of kd
include the pH of the system and the nature and concentration of sorbents associated with
the soil or aquifer matrix. In the subsurface beneath a disposal facility, the concentration
of leachate constituents may also influence kd. Although the dependence of metal
partitioning on the total metal concentration and on pH and other geochemical
characteristics is apparent from partitioning studies reported in the scientific literature,
the reported kd values for individual metals do not cover the range of metal
concentrations or geochemical conditions relevant in the IWEM scenarios. For this
reason, we chose to use an equilibrium speciation model, MINTEQA2, to estimate metals
partition coefficients for the IWEM development. We used the speciation model to
estimate kd values for a range of total metal concentrations in various model systems
designed to depict natural variability in those geochemical characteristics that most
influence metal partitioning.
From input data consisting of total concentrations of inorganic chemicals,
MINTEQA2 calculates the fraction of a constituent metal that is dissolved, adsorbed, and
precipitated at equilibrium. The ratio of the adsorbed fraction to the dissolved fraction is
the dimensionless partition coefficient. We converted the dimensionless partition
coefficient to kd with units of liters per kilogram (L/kg) by normalizing the mass of soil
(in kg) with one liter of porewater in which it is equilibrated (the phase ratio).
We used MINTEQA2 to develop isotherms for Antimony (Sb-5+), Arsenic (As-
3+ and As-5+) Barium (Ba), Beryllium (Be), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr-3+ and Cr-
6+), Cobalt (Co), Copper (Cu), Fluoride (F), Manganese (Mn-2+), Mercury (Hg), Lead
(Pb), Molybdenum (Mo-5+), Nickel (Ni), Selenium (Se-4+ and Se-6+), Silver (Ag),
Thallium (T1-1+), Vanadium (V-5+), and Zinc (Zn).
MINTEQA2 Input Parameters
We accounted for the expected natural variability in kd for a particular metal in
the MINTEQA2 modeling by including variability in important input parameters upon
which kd depends. The input parameters for which variability was incorporated include
ground-water compositional type, pH, concentration of sorbents, and concentration of
metal. In addition, we varied the concentration of representative anthropogenic organic
acids that may be present in leachate from a waste site.
We modeled two ground-water compositional types - one with composition
representative of a carbonate-terrain system and one representative of a non-carbonate
system. The two ground-water compositional types are correlated with the subsurface
environment (see Section 4.2.3.1, Table 4.14). The carbonate type corresponds to the
"solution limestone" subsurface environment setting. The other eleven subsurface
environments in IWEM are represented by the non-carbonate ground-water type. If the
4^55
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
subsurface environment is "unknown", then IWEM will also assume it is a non-carbonate
type. For both ground-water types, a representative, charge-balanced ground-water
chemistry specified in terms of major ion concentrations and natural pH was selected
from the literature. The carbonate system was represented by a sample reported in a
limestone aquifer. This ground water had a natural pH of 7.5 and was saturated with
respect to calcite. The non-carbonate system was represented by a sample reported from
an unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifer with a natural pH of 7.4. We selected an
unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifer to represent the non-carbonate compositional type
because it is the most frequently occurring of the twelve subsurface environments in
HGDB database.
We included two types of adsorbents in modeling the kd values: ferric oxide
(FeOx) and particulate organic matter (POM). Mineralogically, the ferric oxide was
assumed to be goethite (FeOOH). We used a database of sorption reactions for goethite
reported by Mathur (1995) with the diffuse-layer sorption model in MINTEQA2 to
represent the interactions of protons and metals with the goethite surface. The
concentration of sorption sites used in the model runs was based on a measurement of
ferric iron extractable from soil samples using hydroxylamine hydrochloride as reported
in EPRI (1986). This method of Fe extraction is intended to provide a measure of the
exposed amorphous hydrous oxide of Fe present as mineral coatings and discrete
particles and available for surface reaction with pore water. The variability in FeOx
content represented by the variability in extractable Fe from these samples was included
in the modeling by selecting low, medium and high FeOx concentrations corresponding
to the 17th, 50th and 83rd percentiles of the sample measurements. The specific surface
area and site density used in the diffuse-layer model were as prescribed by Mathur.
Although we used the same distribution of extractable ferric oxide sorbent in the
saturated and unsaturated zones, the actual concentration of sorbing sites corresponding
to the low, medium, and high FeOx settings in MINTEQA2 was different in the two
zones because the phase ratio was different (4.57 kg/L in the unsaturated zone; 3.56 kg/L
in the saturated zone.)
We obtained the concentration of the second adsorbent, POM, from organic
matter distributions already present in the IWEM modeling database. In the unsaturated
zone, low, medium, and high concentrations for components representing POM in the
MINTEQA2 model runs were based on the distribution of solid organic matter for the silt
loam soil type. (The silt loam soil type is intermediate in weight percent organic matter
in comparison with the sandy loam and silty clay loam soil types and is also the most
frequently occurring soil type among the three.) The low, medium, and high POM
concentrations used in the saturated zone MINTEQA2 model runs were obtained from
the organic matter distribution for the saturated zone. For both the FeOx and POM
adsorbents, the amount of sorbent included in the MINTEQA2 modeling was scaled to
correspond with the phase ratio in the unsaturated and saturated zones.
4^56
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
We obtained a dissolved organic matter (DOM) distribution for the saturated zone
from the EPA's STORET database. This distribution was used to provide low, medium,
and high DOM concentrations for the MINTEQA2 model runs. The low, medium, and
high DOM values were used exclusively with the low, medium, and high values,
respectively, of POM. In the unsaturated zone, there was no direct measurement of DOM
available. The ratio of POM to DOM for the three concentration levels (low, medium,
high) in the unsaturated zone was assumed to be the same as for the saturated zone. In
MINTEQA2, the POM and DOM components were modeled using the Gaussian
distribution model. This model includes a database of metal-DOM reactions (Susetyo et
al., 1991). Metal reactions with POM were assumed to be identical in their mean binding
constants with the DOM reactions.
Leachate exiting a WMU may contain elevated concentrations of anthropogenic
leachate organic acids (LOA). We included representative carboxylic acids for leachate
from industrial WMUs in the MINTEQA2 modeling. An analysis of total organic carbon
(TOC) in LF leachate by Gintautas et al. (1993) was used to select and quantify the
organic acids. We assigned the low, medium, and high values for the representative acids
in the modeling based on the lowest, the average, and the highest measured TOC among
the six LF leachates analyzed. Because we expect leachate from industrial WMUs to be
lower in organic matter than in municipal LFs, we included only the low and medium
LOA values in IWEM.
MINTEQA2 Modeling and Results
We conducted the MINTEQA2 modeling separately for each metal in three steps
for the unsaturated zone, and these were repeated for the saturated zone:
• Sorbents were pre-equilibrated with ground waters: Each of nine possible
combinations of the two FeOx and POM sorbent concentrations (low
FeOx, low POM; low FeOx, medium POM; etc.) were equilibrated with
each of the two ground-water types (carbonate and non-carbonate).
Because the sorbents adsorb some ground-water constituents (calcium,
magnesium, sulfate, fluoride), the input total concentrations of these
constituents were adjusted so that their equilibrium dissolved
concentrations in the model were equal to their original (reported) ground-
water dissolved concentrations. This step was conducted at the natural pH
of each ground water, and calcite was imposed as an equilibrium mineral
for the carbonate ground-water type. Small additions of inert ions were
added to maintain charge balance.
• The pre-equilibrated systems were titrated to new target pH's: Each of the
nine pre-equilibrated systems for each ground-water type were titrated
4^57
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
with NaOH to raise the pH or with HNO3 to lower the pH. Nine target
pH's spanning the range 4.5 to 8.2 were used for the non-carbonate
ground water. Three target pH's spanning the range 7.0 to 8.0 were used
for the carbonate ground water. Titration with acid or base to adjust the
pH allowed charge balance to be maintained.
• LO As and the constituent metal were added: Each of the eighty-one pre-
equilibrated, pH-adjusted systems of the non-carbonate ground water and
the twenty-seven pre-equilibrated, pH-adjusted systems of the carbonate
ground water were equilibrated with two concentrations (low and
medium) of LOAs. The equilibrium pH was not imposed in MINTEQA2;
pH was calculated and reflected the acid and metal additions. The
constituent metal was added as a metal salt (e.g., PbNO3) at a series of
forty-four total concentrations spanning the range 0.001 mg/L to 10,000
mg/L of metal. Equilibrium composition and Kd were calculated at each
of the forty-four total metal concentrations to produce an isotherm of
sorbed metal versus metal concentration. The isotherm can also be
expressed as kd versus metal concentration.
This modeling resulted in eighty-one isotherms for the non-carbonate
environment and twenty-seven isotherms for the carbonate environment for the
unsaturated zone. A like number of isotherms for each environment was produced for the
saturated zone. Each isotherm corresponds to a particular setting of FeOx sorbent
concentration, POM sorbent (and associated DOM) concentration, leachate acid
concentration, and pH. An example isotherm for Cr(VI) is shown in Figure 4.9. This
isotherm corresponds to the following conditions: low LOAs, medium FeOX
concentration, high POM concentration, for pH 6.3 in unsaturated zone, non-carbonate
environment.
We computed isotherms for two environmentally relevant oxidation states of
chromium, arsenic, and selenium. The different oxidation states of these metals have
different geochemical behavior, and in the case of chromium also distinctly different
toxicological behavior. Chromium-3+ exhibits behavior typical of a cation, but
chromium-6+ behaves as an anion (chromate). Chromium-3+ and chromate are most
strongly sorbed at opposite ends of the pH spectrum: sorption of chromium-3+ tends to
increase with pH over the pH range 4 to 8, whereas sorption of chromate tends to
decrease with pH over this range. In addition, separate health-based toxicity values have
been established for chromium-3+ and chromate. The dissimilarity in sorption behavior
and the availability of separate toxicity benchmarks warrants treating chromium-3+ and
4-58
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
120
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0
-3-2-101 23
log Total Cr(VI) (mg/L)
Figure 4.9 Example Unsaturated Zone Isotherm for Cr(VI) Corresponding to
Low LOA, Medium FeOx, High POM, pH-6.3.
chromate as if they were separate metals. Thus, IWEM considers chromium-3+ and
chromium-6+ as different constituents and we used both sets of Cr isotherms to produce
Tier 1 LCTVs for both forms.
The two oxidation states of arsenic and selenium also exhibit differences in
sorption behavior, but both metals tend always to behave as anions. Unlike chromium,
separate toxicity values have not been established for the two forms of arsenic and
selenium. We therefore incorporated the more mobile forms only of arsenic and
selenium in IWEM as the more protective approach. We ran EPACMTP with both sets
of isotherms for these metals to discover which oxidation state was more mobile. The
results indicate that As and Se should be assumed to be present as As-5+ and Se-6+.
Accordingly, these are the species used in producing the Tier 1 LCTVs, and partition
coefficients for these are provided for use in Tier 2 modeling.
4-59
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
4.2.4.4 Partition Coefficient and Degradation Rate Threshold Criteria EPA Used
to Define Conservative Constituents in Developing the Tier 1 Evaluation
In developing the Tier 1 LCTVs, we conducted a very large number of
EPACMTP Monte Carlo runs to account for all constituents and combinations of WMU
types and liner designs. We expedited these modeling analyses by treating all
conservative organic constituents as a single group. This was permissible, because as
modeled in EPACMTP, constituents that have the same fate characteristics will show the
same subsurface transport behavior.
A conservative chemical is defined as a chemical that neither adsorbs to the
soil matrix nor degrades as it is transported through the subsurface. Metals are not
regarded as conservative chemicals because they tend to sorb strongly to the soil matrix.
Organic chemicals, however, vary in degrees of sorptivity and susceptibility to
degradation. Some of the organic chemicals may be approximated as equivalent to
conservative chemicals due to their recalcitrance to degradation and low sorptivity. The
sorptivity and degradation of organic chemicals are governed by two key parameters: the
organic carbon distribution coefficient (Koc) and the effective degradation rate constant
(A), respectively. For an organic to be considered conservative, it must have sufficiently
small Koc and A.
We determined cutoff values for Koc and A by conducting a sensitivity analysis
for selected waste management scenarios, each with several combinations of Koc and A.
Based on the results if this analysis, we used threshold values of Koc =100 L/kg, and A =
1 x 10"4 I/year to categorize constituents as conservative for the purpose of developing
the IWEM Tier 1 LCTVs for unlined and single-lined WMUs only. In other words, we
treated constituents with Koc and A values below these thresholds as conservative species.
For all composite liner evaluations, we conducted individual Monte Carlo runs for each
chemical. The reason is that at the low infiltration rates associated with composite liners,
the DAF values predicted by EPACMTP become very sensitive to even small differences
in Knr and A.
"-oc
4.2.5 Well Location Parameters
In the IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 development, we modeled the ground-water
exposure location as the intake point of a ground-water well located down gradient from
the WMU. The location of the well in IWEM is described by three parameters:
• Downgradient distance from the waste unit (x-location)
• Transverse distance from the plume centerline (y-location)
• Vertical distance below the water table (z-location)
4-60
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
The well location parameters are depicted schematically in Figure 4.10, which
shows the location of the well relative to WMU in plan view and in cross-section view.
Downgradient Distance from WMU (m)
This parameter represents the distance between the downgradient edge of the
WMU and the position of the well, measured along the direction of ground-water flow.
This direction represents the x- coordinate as depicted in Figure 4.10. In Tier 1, we
assigned this parameter a fixed value of 150 meters. In Tier 2, this parameter is an
optional site-specific user input value, with a maximum allowed value of 1609 meters (1
mile). The default value in Tier 2 is 150 meters.
Well Transverse Distance from the Plume Centerline (m)
This parameter represents the horizontal distance between the well and the
modeled centerline of the plume, see Figure 4.10. For the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations,
we always set this parameter to zero, that is, we modeled the ground-water well as
always being located at the centerline of the plume. This is a protective assumption
because the ground-water concentrations predicted by the model will be highest along the
centerline of the plume, and decrease with distance away from the centerline.
Well Intake Depth Below the Water Table (m)
This parameter represents the vertical distance of the well intake point below the
water table. In calculating the position of the well intake, the model uses the water table
elevation before any mounding effects are taken into consideration. In both Tier 1 and
Tier 2, we assigned the well depth parameter a uniform probability distribution with a
range of 0 - 10 meters. This means that all depth values are between 0 to 10 meters
below the water table are equally likely. For each Monte Carlo realization in which the
modeled saturated zone thickness is less than 10 meters, the maximum well depth of 10
meters is replaced with the actual saturated zone thickness used in the realization.
4.2.6 Screening Procedures EPA Used to Eliminate Unrealistic Parameter
Combinations in the Monte Carlo Process
Inherent to the Monte Carlo process is that parameter values are drawn from
multiple data sources, and then combined in each realization of the modeling process.
Because the parameter values are drawn randomly from their individual probability
distributions, it is possible that parameters are combined in ways that are physically
infeasible and that violate the validity of the EPACMTP flow and transport model. We
4-61
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
PLAN VIEW
CONTAMINANT
PLUME
CENTERLINE
WMU
SECTIONAL VIEW
WELL
DOWNGRADIENT DISTANCE (X) LOCATION
"* ^ LAND SURFACE
Figure 4.10 Position of the Modeled Ground-water Well
Relative to the WMU.
implemented a number of checks to eliminate or reduce these occurrences as much as
possible. As a relatively simple measure, upper and lower limits are specified on
individual parameter values to ensure that their randomly generated values are within
physically realistic limits. Where possible, we used data sources that contained multiple
parameters, and implemented these in the Monte Carlo process in a way that preserved
the existing correlations among the parameters. For example, we used the HGDB
database of subsurface parameters (see Section 4.2.3) in combination with knowledge of
the subsurface environments at each waste site location in our WMU parameter database
to assign the most appropriate combinations of subsurface parameters to each site.
4-62
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
Likewise, we assigned climate-related parameters based on each site's proximity to an
infiltration modeling database of 102 climate stations, as described in Section 4.2.2.
We also specified upper and lower limits on secondary parameters whose values
are calculated (derived) internally in the Monte Carlo module as functions of the primary
EPACMTP input parameters, see the EPACMTP Parameters/Data Background
Document (U.S. EPA, 2002b), and implemented a set of screening procedures to ensure
that infiltration rates and the resulting predicted ground-water mounding would remain
physically plausible. Specifically, we screened the parameter values generated in each
Monte Carlo realization for the following conditions:
• Infiltration and recharge so high they cause the water table to rise above
the ground surface;
• Water level in a SI unit below the water table, causing flow into the SI;
and
• Infiltration rate from a SI exceeds the saturated hydraulic conductivity of
the soil underneath.
These screening procedures are discussed in more detail below. Mathematical
details of the screening algorithms are presented in the EPACMTP Technical Background
Document (U.S. EPA, 2002a).
The logic diagram for the infiltration screening procedure is presented in Figure
4.11; Figure 4.12 provides a graphical illustration of the screening criteria. The
numbered criteria checks in Figure 4.11 correspond to the numbered diagrams in Figure
4.12. Note that high infiltration rates are most likely with (unlined) Sis. Therefore, the
screening procedure is the most involved for SI WMUs.
Figure 4.1 l(a) depicts the screening procedures for LFS, WPs, and LAUs. For
these units, after the four correlated subsurface parameters (depth to water table, aquifer
saturated thickness, aquifer hydraulic conductivity, and regional gradient), as well as
recharge associated with the selected soil type and the nearest climate center, and source
infiltration have been generated for each Monte Carlo realization, the IWEM tool
calculates the estimated water table mounding that would result from the selected
combination of parameter values. The combination of parameters is accepted if the
calculated maximum water table elevation (the ground-water 'mound') remains below
the ground surface elevation at the site. If the criterion is not satisfied, the selected
parameters for the realization is rejected and a new data set is selected.
4-63
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
For Sis, there are two additional screening steps, as depicted in Figure 4.1 l(b).
At each Monte Carlo realization, a SI unit is selected from the SI WMU database. The
unit-specific parameter, including ponding depth, and base depth below ground surface
are retrieved from the database. The four correlated subsurface parameters are then
selected from the hydrogeologic database, based on the subsurface environment at that
WMU location. Using the information on the base depth and water table elevations, we
can determine whether the SI unit is hydraulically connected to the water table. If the
base of the SI is below the water table, the SI unit is said to be hydraulically connected to
the water table (see Figure 4.12, Criterion 1). The realization is rejected and a new set of
hydrogeologic parameters is generated if the hydraulically connected SI is an inseeping
type, that is, the water surface in the SI is below the water table (see Figure 4.12,
Criterion l(b)). As long as the elevation of the waste water surface in the impoundment
is above the watertable, the first criterion is passed (Figure 4.12, Criterion l(a)).
If the base of the unit is located above the ambient water table, that is, before any
adjustment to the water table elevation to account for mounding is made, the unit is said
to be hydraulically separated from the water table (see Figure 4.12, Criterion 2).
However, in this case, it is necessary to ensure that the calculated infiltration rate does
not exceed the maximum feasible infiltration rate. The maximum feasible infiltration rate
is the maximum infiltration that allows the water table to be hydraulically separated from
the SI. In other words, it is the rate that does not allow the crest of the local ground-
water mound to be higher than the base of the SI. This limitation allows us to determine
a conservative infiltration rate that is based on the free-drainage condition at the base of
the SI. The infiltration rate is no longer conservative if the water table is allowed to be in
hydraulic contact with the base of the SI. If the maximum feasible infiltration rate (Imax)
is exceeded, IWEM will set the infiltration rate to this maximum value.
IWEM handles the screening in this order to accommodate the internal software
logic in EPACMTP. If the SI is a hydraulically connected type based on the user-
supplied information on the WMU and water table positions, EPACMTP will simulate
this system by by-passing the unsaturated zone module. On the other hand, if the
hydraulic connection results from water table mounding, i.e., the original water table
elevation is below the WMU, EPACMTP cannot easily handle this situation, and the
realization is therefore rejected.
Once the infiltration limit has been imposed, the third criterion is checked to
ensure that any ground-water mounding does not result in a rise of the water table mound
above the ground surface, in the same manner as done for other types of WMU.
In the IWEM software, the parameter constraints are checked after all Tier 2
inputs have been specified, but before the actual EPACMTP Monte Carlo simulations are
initiated. The first check applies when the user provides all Tier 2 input parameters as
4^64
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
site-specific values. In this case, the software checks that the combination of input values
does not violate the infiltration and water table elevation constraints. The second check
applies when some Tier 2 inputs are set to site-specific values, while default probability
distributions are used for other Tier 2 inputs. In this case, it is possible that the
combination of fixed, site-specific values with national or regional distributions, results
in a high frequency of rejections in the EPACMTP simulations. An example would be
simulating an unlined SI at a site where the depth to ground-water is set to a very small
value. This combination is likely to lead to a large number of rejections in the
EPACMTP Monte Carlo simulation due to violation of the ground-water mounding
constraint. This, in turn, may result in very long EPACMTP run times. It also indicates
that IWEM may not be appropriate for that site.
IWEM therefore checks the Tier 2 user inputs through a probabilistic screening
routine which generates random combinations of EPACMTP parameter values in
accordance with the specified Tier 2 inputs and measures the number of rejections. This
routine will check that 20,000 acceptable parameter combinations can be generated in
100,000 or less random realizations. If the inputs fail this test, the software will report
the most frequently violated constraint and suggest potential remedies in the user inputs.
4-65
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Landfill
Waste Pile
Land Application Unit
Pick
Correlated
Hydrogeological
Parameters
Accept
Perform
Unsaturated
Zone
Simulation
Perform
Saturated
Zone
Simulation
Next
Realization
(A)
w
_>,
I
D
•O
>>
I
Surface
Impoundment
Pick
Correlated
Hydrogeological
Parameters
Hydraulically
,Co
Perform
Unsaturated
Zone
Simulation
Compute
Maximum
Feasible
Infiltration (lmax;
Accept
Perform
Saturated
Zone
Simulation
Next
Realization
(B)
Figure 4.11 Flowchart Describing the Infiltration Screening Procedure.
4-66
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
7 \ Ground surface
SI
_ _ ^ ; , j. ^ > Accepted
Tabie j \ I The unsaturated zone is bypassed.
1 .b Inseeping SI Unit
Ground surface
Water ^
Table
Rejected
1 Surface impoundment initially hydraulically connected with the saturated zone.
-T\
si
Groundwater mound
' due to infiltration
Imax = maximum feasible infiltration rate
Initial Water Table
2 Surface impoundment initially hydraulically separated from the saturated zone.
Recharge
SI / "------_ ^f New Water Table
Initial Water Table
3 Water table below ground surface criterion for all WMU types.
Figure 4.12 Infiltration Screening Criteria.
4-67
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 5.0
5.0 Establishing Reference Ground-water Concentrations
This section presents the RGCs that we used to establish protective constituent
concentrations in the modeled well. The constituent-specific MCL and HBN values we
used in IWEM are provided in Table 5.4 at the end of this chapter. Appendix E of this
background document provides detailed background information on the methodology and
human health benchmarks used in developing the HBNs.
The IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations incorporate two types of RGCs:
• Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). MCLs are available for some
constituents in IWEM. MCLs are maximum constituent concentrations
allowed in public drinking water and are established under the SDWA. In
developing MCLs, EPA considers not only a constituent's health effects,
but also additional factors, such as the cost of treatment.
• Health-based numbers (HBNs). HBNs (for ingestion and/or inhalation
route(s) of exposure) are available for all constituents. To calculate
HBNs, we only consider parameters that describe a constituent's toxicity
and a receptor's exposure to the constituent. For the purposes of
developing the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, HBNs are the maximum
constituent concentrations in ground water that we expect generally will
not cause adverse noncancer health effects in the general population
(including sensitive subgroups), or that will not result in an additional
incidence of cancer in more than approximately one in one million
individuals exposed to the constituent.
The sections below provide our methodology for calculating the cancer and
noncancer HBNs for ingestion and inhalation of the constituents included in the IWEM
software. We calculated the HBNs by "rearranging" standard risk equations (see EPA's
Risk Assessment Guidance for Super fund: Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation
Manual [U.S. EPA, 199la]) so that we could calculate constituent concentration, rather
than cancer risk or noncancer hazard. The standard equations for cancer risk and
noncancer hazard are comprised of two sets of variables: variables that describe an
individual's exposure to a constituent and a variable that describes the toxicity of the
constituent.
Exposure is the condition that occurs when a constituent comes into contact with
the outer boundary of the body, such as the mouth and nostrils. Once EPA establishes
the concentrations of constituents at the points of exposure, we can estimate the
magnitude of each individual's exposure, or the potential dose of constituent. The dose is
5-1
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 5.0
the amount of the constituent that crosses the outer boundary of the body and is available
for absorption at internal exchange boundaries (lungs, gut, skin) (U.S. EPA, 1992). For
example, if an exposure to a carcinogen through ingestion of contaminated drinking
water occur, the dose is a function of the concentration of the constituent in drinking
water (assumed to be the concentration of the constituent at the receptor well), as well as
certain "exposure factors," such as how much drinking water the individual consumes
each day (the intake rate), the period of time over which the individual is exposed to the
contaminated drinking water (the exposure duration), how often the individual is exposed
to contaminated drinking water during the exposure duration (the exposure frequency),
and the body weight of the individual. For effects such as cancer, where we usually
describe the biological response in terms of lifetime probabilities even though exposure
does not occur over the entire lifetime, we average doses over an individual's lifetime,
which we call the "averaging time."
Constituent toxicity is described through the use of "human health benchmarks."
Human health benchmarks are quantitative expressions of dose-response relationships.
Human health benchmarks include:
• Oral cancer slope factors (CSFo) for oral exposure to carcinogenic
(cancer-causing) constituents;
• Reference doses (RfD) for oral exposure to constituents that cause
noncancer health effects;
• Inhalation cancer slope factors (CSFi), that are derived from Unit Risk
Factors (URFs), for inhalation exposure to carcinogenic constituents; and
• Reference concentrations (RfC) for inhalation exposure to constituents
that cause noncancer health effects.
EPA defines the cancer slope factor (CSF) as "an upper bound, approximating a
95% confidence limit, on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime exposure to an agent
[constituent]." Because the CSF is an upper bound estimate of increased risk, EPA is
reasonably confident that the "true risk" will not exceed the risk estimate derived using
the CSF and that the "true risk" is likely to be less than predicted. CSFs are expressed in
units of proportion (of a population) affected per milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day).
For non-cancer health effects, we use the RfD and the RfC as health benchmarks for
ingestion and inhalation exposures, respectively. RfDs and RfCs are estimates of daily
oral exposure (in the case of an RfD) or a continuous inhalation exposure (in the case of
an RfC) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects in the general
population, including sensitive individuals, over a lifetime. The methodology used to
5-2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 5.0
develop RfDs and RfCs is expected to have an uncertainty spanning an order of
magnitude.
We combined estimates of constituent dose and estimates of constituent toxicity
(the health benchmarks) to calculate estimates of excess lifetime cancer risk for
individuals who may be exposed to carcinogenic constituents and HQs for those
constituents that produce noncancer health effects. Excess lifetime cancer risk is the
incremental probability (chance) of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime as a
result of exposure to a carcinogen. We estimate cancer risk resulting from exposure to a
carcinogenic constituent by multiplying the constituent's CSF by our estimate of
constituent dose. We calculate a receptor's ingestion HQ resulting from exposure to a
noncarcinogenic constituent by dividing our estimate of daily constituent dose by the
RfD (the HQ is the ratio of an individual's chronic daily constituent dose to the RfD for
chronic exposures to the constituent). We calculated a receptor's inhalation HQ by
dividing the concentration of the constituent in air by the RfC.
We developed the IWEM HBNs to correspond to a "target risk" and a "target
HQ." The target risk we use to calculate the HBNs for carcinogens is 1 x 10"6 (one in one
million). The target HQ we use to calculate the HBNs for noncarcinogens is 1 (unitless).
A HQ of 1 indicates that the estimated dose is equal to the RfD and, therefore, an HQ of
1 is frequently EPA's threshold of concern for noncancer effects. These targets are used
to calculate separate HBNs for each constituent of concern, and separate HBNs for each
exposure route of concern (ingestion or inhalation). The Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations do
not consider combined exposure from ground-water ingestion (from drinking water) and
ground-water inhalation (from showering), nor do they consider the potential for additive
exposure to multiple constituents.
Usually, doses less than the RfD (HQ=1) are not likely to be associated with
adverse health effects and, therefore, are less likely to be of regulatory concern. As the
frequency and/or magnitude of the exposures exceeding the RfD increase (HQ>1), the
probability of adverse effects in a human population increases. However, it should not be
categorically concluded that all doses below the RfD are "acceptable" (or will be
risk-free) and that all doses in excess of the RfD are "unacceptable" (or will result in
adverse effects).
5.1 Ingestion HBNs
Section 5.1.1 describes how we calculated ingestion HBNs for constituents that
cause cancer, and Section 5.1.2 describes how we calculated ingestion HBNs for
constituents that cause adverse health effects other than cancer.
5O
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 5.0
5.1.1 Ingestion HBNs for Constituents That Cause Cancer
To calculate ingestion HBNs for carcinogens, we rearranged the standard
equation for estimating risk so that instead of solving for risk, we solve for constituent
concentration in water. The constituent concentration in water that corresponds to the
target cancer risk is the cancer HBN for ingestion exposures, as follows:
CJNGESTJJBN = X*k_targefAT'365
CSFo'EF'ED'CRw
where
C_INGEST_HBN = cancer HBN for ingestion of water (mg/L)
Risk_target = target risk for carcinogens = 1 x 10"6
CSFo = constituent -specific oral cancer slope factor
(mg/kg-d)-1
AT = averaging time = 70 years [yrs]
EF = exposure frequency = 350 d/yr
CRw = intake rate of water = 0.0252 L/kg/d
ED = exposure duration = 30 yr
365 = conversion factor (d/yr).
In this equation, the CSFo quantifies the toxicity of the constituent. The
averaging time, exposure frequency, intake rate of water (which is expressed as the
amount of water an individual consumes each day per kilogram of their body weight),
and exposure duration quantify aspects of an individual's potential exposure. In our
calculation of cancer and noncancer ingestion HBNs, we use data that combine the
factors for intake rate and body weight. That is, we express intake in terms of the amount
of water an individual consumes per kilogram of their body weight. For example, if an
individual consumes 2 liters (L) of water per day (d), and that individual weighs 65 kg,
then their intake would be 2 L/d per 65 kg, or 0.03 L/kg/d. Table 5.1 summarizes the
basis for the exposure parameter values that we used in this equation.
Inspection of the equation above shows that the HBN value is directly
proportional to the target risk. That is, if the target risk were set to 10"5 instead of 10"6, we
would obtain a 10 times higher HBN value.
5-4
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.1 Exposure Parameter Values for Ingestion HBNs - Carcinogens
Exposure
Parameter
Drinking Water Intake
Rate
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Averaging Time
Value
25.2
350
30
70
Units
mL/kg/d
d/yr
yr
yr
Source
The value is a time-weighted average of mean
drinking water intake rates (per kilogram body
weight) for individuals aged 0 to 29 years.
Table 3-7 of the Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S.
EPA, 1997a)
The exposure frequency is the number of days per
year that an individual is exposed. A value of 350
days per year considers that an individual is away
from home for 2 weeks per year.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Super fund:
Volume 1 — Human Health Evaluation Manual (U.S.
EPA, 199 la)
The exposure duration is the number of years that an
individual is exposed. Thirty years is the 95th
percentile value for population mobility (exposure
duration).
Table 15-176 of the Exposure Factors Handbook
(U.S. EPA, 1997b)
Averaging time is the period of time over which a
receptor's dose is averaged. When evaluating
carcinogens, dose is averaged over the lifetime of the
individual, assumed to be 70 years.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Super fund:
Volume 1 — Human Health Evaluation Manual
(U.S. EPA, 1991a)
5-5
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 5.0
5.1.2 Ingestion HBNs for Constituents that Cause Noncancer Health Effects
To calculate ingestion HBNs for constituents that cause health effects other than
cancer, we rearranged the standard equation for estimating HQ so that instead of solving
for the HQ, we solve for constituent concentration in water. The constituent
concentration in water that corresponds to the target HQ is the cancer HBN for ingestion
exposures, as follows:
NCJNGEST HBN = ffQ_target'RfD'365
EF»CRw
where
NC_INGEST_HBN = noncancer HBN for ingestion of water (mg/L)
HQ_target = target HQ for noncarcinogens = 1
RfD = constituent-specific reference dose (mg/kg-d)
EF = exposure frequency = 350 d/yr
CRw = intake rate of water = 0.0426 L/kg/d
365 = conversion factor (d/yr).
In this equation, the exposure frequency and intake rate of water (expressed as the
amount of water an individual consumes each day per kilogram of body weight) quantify
aspects of an individual's exposure. To develop noncancer ingestion HBNs that are
protective of children, the intake rate in this equation assumes that the individual who is
drinking water from the modeled well is a child who is exposed from age 0 to 6 years.
Children in this age range typically ingest greater amounts of water per unit body weight
(that is, have greater exposure) than do adults.
The RfD in the equation quantifies the toxicity of the constituent. Even though
the RfDs that we use in this analysis are defined to pertain to exposures that occur over a
lifetime, these "chronic" RfDs commonly are used to evaluate potential noncancer effects
associated with exposures that occur over a significant portion of a lifetime (generally
assumed to be between seven years and a lifetime). We do not average the dose for
noncarcinogens over the lifetime of an individual (the "averaging time") as we do for
carcinogens, rather, we average dose over only the period of exposure. Consequently,
the values for exposure duration and averaging time are the same, and cancel each other
out (that is why they are not included in the above equation). Table 5.2 summarizes the
basis for the exposure parameter values that we used in this equation.
Inspection of the equation above shows that the HBN value is directly
proportional to the target HQ. That is, if the target risk were set to 0.1 instead of 1, we
would obtain a 10 times lower HBN value.
5-6
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.2 Exposure Parameter Values for Ingestion HBNs - Noncarcinogens
Exposure Parameter
Drinking Water Intake
Rate
Exposure Frequency
Value
42.6
350
Units
mL/kg/d
d/yr
Source
The value is a time-weighted average of mean
drinking water intake rates (per kilogram body
weight) for children aged 0 to 6 years.
Table 3-7 of the Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S.
EPA, 1997a)
The exposure frequency is the number of days per
year that an individual is exposed. A value of 350
days per year considers that an individual is away
from home for 2 weeks per year.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Volume 1 — Human Health Evaluation Manual
(U.S. EPA, 1991a)
5.2 Inhalation HBNs
In the IWEM tool, the inhalation HBN is the maximum concentration of a
constituent in ground water that is not expected to cause adverse health effects in most
adults who inhale the constituent as a result of activities associated with showering. We
did not evaluate children's shower-related exposure in developing inhalation HBNs
because we assume that children take baths. Because we have not yet developed a "bath
model" for evaluating children, we do not have inhalation HBNs that consider children's
exposure. We calculated inhalation HBNs only for constituents that (1) volatilize (that is,
mercury and organic constituents) and (2) have an inhalation health benchmark available
(that is, a RfC, inhalation URF, and/or CSFi).
We developed the inhalation HBNs as follows:
First, we used a shower model to calculate, on a per unit ground-water
concentration basis, the average concentration of each constituent in indoor air that an
adult will be exposed to daily as a result of activities associated with showering. In this
analysis, we assume that the shower water is ground water from the well. However, in
this step of the analysis we only have to model a "unit" ground-water concentration. This
is because the average concentration of a constituent in indoor air is directly proportional
to the concentration of the constituent in the water coming into the shower. As a result,
we can back-calculate the ground-water concentration that would result in any given
constituent concentration in indoor air by simple scaling. Section 5.2.1 describes how we
use the shower model to calculate the average concentration of a constituent in indoor air
to which an adult is exposed during the day.
5-7
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 5.0
Second, we used the unit average constituent concentration in indoor air,
determined above, to calculate the HBN. We first calculated the risk or HQ associated
with the unit air concentration from the shower model, and then scaled this result to
determine the ground-water concentration associated with the target risk level or target
HQ. The ground-water concentration that generates the air concentration associated with
a risk of 1 x 10'6 or a HQ of 1 is the inhalation HBN.
5.2.1 Calculation of Exposure Concentrations from Showering
Individuals may be exposed to constituents through inhalation of air-phase
emissions from ground water. Such exposure may occur during the time spent in the
shower while showering, in the shower stall after showering, and in the bathroom after
showering. To evaluate these exposures, EPA uses a shower model to estimate
constituent concentrations in a shower stall and in bathroom air.
A primary assumption of our evaluation is that constituents are released into
household air only as the result of showering activity, and that exposure to air-phase
constituents only occurs in the shower stall and in the bathroom. Some investigators
evaluate constituent emissions resulting from other household uses of water (for example,
use of water in sinks, toilets, washing machines, and dishwashers) and the associated
inhalation exposure that occurs during the time spent in the non-bathroom portions of the
house (that is, "the remainder of the house"). The model we used only focuses on
exposure in the shower stall and bathroom, and the exposure that results from showering.
The shower model is based on the mathematical formulation presented in McKone
(1987) and Little (1992a). A detailed description of the shower model, its assumptions
and limitations, and the parameter values we used to develop inhalation HBNs is
provided in Appendix E.
5.2.2 Calculating Inhalation HBNs
To calculate HBNs, we used a unit ground-water concentration (usually 1 mg/L)
within the solubility limits of each constituent and implemented the shower model using
that concentration. The result of the shower model was the average concentration of a
constituent in air to which an individual is exposed on a daily basis. We used this "unit"
air concentration to calculate a corresponding "unit" risk (for cancer-causing chemicals)
or "unit" HQ (for constituents that cause noncancer health effects). Because ground-
water concentration and inhalation risk or hazard are directly proportional, we used
simple ratios to adjust the unit ground-water concentration to the ground-water
concentration corresponding to the target risk or target HQ (that is, to calculate the
inhalation HBNs). Section 5.2.2.1 describes our application of this methodology to
carcinogens and Section 5.2.2.2 describes our application of this methodology to
noncarcinogens.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
5.2.2.1 Inhalation HBNs for Constituents that Cause Cancer
Using the shower model, we estimated the average concentration of a constituent
in air to which an individual is exposed on a daily basis. To calculate the inhalation HBN
for carcinogens, we first calculate the inhalation risk that corresponds to this modeled
constituent concentration:
D. . , , , (Cair modeled • IR • ED • EF) „„„.
Risk modeled = = - • CSFi
(BW • AT • 365)
where
Risk_modeled
Cair modeled
IR
ED
EF
BW
AT
CSFi
365
inhalation risk resulting from the modeled constituent
concentration in air
average constituent concentration in air to which an
individual is exposed during a day (mg/m3) (calculated
from the unit ground-water concentration using the shower
model)
inhalation rate = 13.25 m3/d
exposure duration = 30 yr
exposure frequency = 350 d/yr
body weight (kg) = 71.8 kg
averaging time = 70 yr
constituent-specific inhalation cancer slope factor (mg/kg-
d)"
conversion factor (d/yr).
In this equation, the CSFi quantifies the toxicity of the constituent. We use the
average constituent concentration in air, inhalation rate, exposure duration, exposure
frequency, body weight, and averaging time to quantify the individual's exposure, or
dose. Table 5.3 summarizes the basis for the exposure parameter values used in this
equation.
5-9
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.3 Exposure Parameter Values for Inhalation HBNs
Exposure Parameter
Inhalation Rate
Body Weight
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Averaging Time
Value
13.25
71.8
350
30
70
Units
mVd
kg
d/yr
yr
yr
Source
The value corresponds to the mean inhalation rates for
adults (ages 19 to 65+). The value was calculated by
averaging the daily mean inhalation rates for females
(11.3 mVd) and males (15.2 mVd).
Table 5-23 of the Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S.
EPA, 1997a)
The value corresponds to the mean body weight of 18-
to 75-year-old men and women.
Tables 7-2 and 7-11 of the Exposure Factors
Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997a)
The exposure frequency is the number of days per year
that an individual is exposed. A value of 350 days per
year considers that an individual is away from home
for 2 weeks per year.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Super fund:
Volume 1 — Human Health Evaluation Manual
(U.S. EPA, 1991a)
The exposure duration is the number of years that an
individual is exposed. Thirty years is the 95th
percentile value for population mobility (exposure
duration).
Table 15-176 of the Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S.
EPA, 1997b)
Risk Assessment Guidance for Super fund:
Volume 1 — Human Health Evaluation Manual (U.S.
EPA, 199 la)
The modeled constituent concentration in air was based on evaluating a unit
constituent concentration in ground water (a constituent concentration in ground water
that we selected somewhat arbitrarily). To calculate the ground-water concentration that
corresponds to the target inhalation risk (that is, the inhalation HBN) we adjusted the
modeled unit ground-water concentration using a simple ratio of target risk and modeled
risk:
CJNHALEJfBN = Rlsk-tarSet
Risk modeled
CGWmodeled
5-10
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document _ Section 5. 0
where
C_INHALE_HBN = concentration in ground water resulting in target risk
(|ig/L) (cancer HBN for inhalation)
C_GW_modeled = unit concentration in ground water used in shower model
Risk_target = target risk for carcinogens = 1><10"6
Risk_modeled = risk resulting from ground-water concentration modeled.
This equation assumes that ground-water concentration and inhalation risk are
directly proportional, which we confirmed by running the shower model using the target
ground-water concentration (the inhalation HBN) for several constituents and comparing
the results to the target risk level.
Inspection of the equation above shows that the HBN value is directly
proportional to the target risk. That is, if the target risk were set to 10"5 instead of 10"6, we
would obtain a 10 times higher HBN value.
5.2.2.2 Inhalation HBNs for Constituents that Causes Non-Cancer Health Effects
Calculating inhalation HBNs for noncarcinogens is simpler than calculating
HBNs for carcinogens because the toxicity benchmark (RfC) is expressed as a
concentration in air. To calculate the HBN, we first determine the HQ resulting from the
unit air concentration output by the shower model:
„„ j , j Cair modeled
HQ modeled = - = -
u RfC
where
HQ_modeled = HQ resulting from the ground-water concentration modeled
(unitless)
Cair_modeled = average air concentration to which an individual is exposed
during a day (mg/m3) (calculated from the unit ground- water
concentration using the shower model)
RfC = constituent-specific reference concentration (mg/m3).
We then derive the target ground-water concentration (that is, the inhalation
HBN) by adjusting the modeled unit ground-water concentration using the ratio of the
target HQ to the modeled HQ:
NCJNHALEJJBN = HQ-tar8et . C_GW_modeled
HQ_modeled
5-11
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
where
NC_INHALE_HBN =
C_GW_modeled
HQjarget
HQ_modeled =
concentration in ground water resulting in target HQ
(l-ig/L) (non-cancer HBN for inhalation)
unit concentration in ground water used in shower model
target HQ for noncarcinogens = 1
HQ resulting from ground-water concentration modeled.
Inspection of the equation above shows that the HBN value is directly proportional
to the target HQ. That is, if the target risk were set to 0.1 instead of 1, we would obtain a
10 times lower HBN value.
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs
CAS
Number
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
Chemical Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo {b }fluoranthene
MCL
(mg/L)
6.0E-03
5.0E-02
2.0E+00
5.0E-03
2.0E-04
Ingestion HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
2.2E-05
1.8E-04
5.7E-06
1.7E-02
6.4E-05
8.1E-05
1.8E-03
4.2E-07
1.3E-05
8.1E-05
Non-Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.5E+00
2.5E+00
2.5E+00
4.9E-01
4.9E-03
1.2E+01
2.5E-02
7.3E-04
1.2E-01
7.3E+00*
9.8E-03
7.3E-03
1.7E+00
7.3E-02
Inhalation HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
4.1E-02
5.1E+00
l.OE-03
l.OE-05
2.2E+00
1.8E-02*
1.6E-03
2.6E+00
5.4E-03*
6.3E-04
Non-cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
2.2E-01
1.5E+03
3.1E+00
3.3E-04
1.5E+01
3.8E-02
9.3E-01
1.9E-01
5-12
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs (continued)
CAS
Number
100-44-7
100-51-6
7440-41-7
39638-32-9
111-44-4
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
88-85-7
85-68-7
7440-43-9
56-23-5
75-15-0
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
106-44-5
Chemical Name
Benzyl chloride
Benzyl alcohol
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1,3-
Butanol
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-
(Dinoseb)
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon disulfide
Chlordane
Chloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
Chloropropene 3- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol p-
MCL
(mg/L)
4.0E-03
6.0E-03
8.0E-02
7.0E-03
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
2.0E-03
l.OE-01
8.0E-02
8.0E-02
l.OE-01
l.OE-01
1.3E+00**
Ingestion HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
5.7E-04
1.4E-03
8.8E-05
6.9E-03
1.6E-03
7.4E-04
2.8E-04
3.6E-04
1.2E-03
7.4E-03
8.1E-04
Non-Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
7.3E+00
4.9E-02
9.8E-01
4.9E-01*
4.9E-01
3.4E-02
2.5E+00
2.5E-02
4.9E+00*
1.2E-02
1.7E-02
2.5E+00
1.2E-02
4.9E-01
9.8E-02
4.9E-01
4.9E-01
4.9E-01
2.5E-01
1.2E-01
3.7E+01
7.3E-02
4.9E-01
1.2E-01
Inhalation HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
5.2E-04
5.9E-03
1.1E-03
2.8E+01*
8.0E-04
4.0E-05
7.6E-04
1.5E-03
1.2E+00
7.5E-04
5.9E-03
1.9E-03
7.3E-03*
Non-cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.8E+02*
1.5E-02
6.0E-02
2.1E-02
1.9E+00
2.8E-02
2.2E-02
2.0E-01
3.0E+01
3.3E-01
2.6E-01
9.7E-03
3.0E-03
1.3E+03
5-13
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs (continued)
CAS
Number
108-39-4
95-48-7
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
117-84-0
84-74-2
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
106-46-7
95-50-1
91-94-1
75-71-8
107-06-2
75-34-3
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-02-6
10061-01-5
60-57-1
84-66-2
Chemical Name
Cresol M-
Cresol o-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDTp,p'-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diallate
Dibenz{a,h}anthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoro methane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans- 1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3 -(mixture of
isomers)
Dichloropropene trans- 1,3-
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
MCL
(mg/L)
2.0E-04
7.5E-02
6.0E-01
5.0E-03
7.0E-02
l.OE-01
7.0E-03
7.0E-02
5.0E-03
Ingestion HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
4.0E-04
2.8E-04
2.8E-04
1.6E-03
1.3E-05
6.9E-05
4.0E-03
2.2E-04
1.1E-03
1.6E-04
1.4E-03
9.7E-04
9.7E-04
9.7E-04
6.0E-06
Non-Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.2E+00
1.2E+00
1.2E+00
2.5E+00
4.2E-04
1.2E+02
1.2E-02
4.9E-01*
2.5E+00
2.2E+00
4.9E+00
2.5E+00
2.5E-01
4.9E-01
2.2E-01
7.3E-02
2.5E-01
2.2E+00
7.3E-01
7.3E-01
7.3E-01
1.2E-03
2.0E+01
Inhalation HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
8.8E-03
3.8E-01
7.9E-02
1.3E-03
4.9E+00*
6.3E-04
7.4E-03
2.2E-04
2.9E-03
3.5E-03
3.3E-03
l.OE-04
Non-cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.2E+03
8.8E+02
1.1E+03
1.3E+00
3.9E-04
2.9E-03
3.0E+00
7.7E-01
5.8E-01
l.OE+01
1.6E+00
2.1E-01
1.4E-02
6.1E-02
7.5E-02
7.0E-02
5-14
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs (continued)
CAS
Number
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
62-50-0
97-63-2
141-78-6
60-29-7
100-41-4
96-45-7
107-21-1
75-21-8
106-93-4
206-44-0
Chemical Name
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,6-
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1,2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II,
mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1,2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene thiourea
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene dibromide
(1,2-Dibromoethane)
Fluoranthene
MCL
(mg/L)
2.0E-03
7.0E-01
5.0E-05
Ingestion HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
2.1E-08
6.9E-03
1.1E-05
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
8.8E-03
1.2E-04
9.8E-03
3.3E-07
8.8E-04
9.5E-05
1.1E-06
Non-Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
4.9E-03
2.5E+00
4.9E-01
2.5E-03
4.9E-02
4.9E-02
2.5E-02
6.1E-01
9.8E-04
1.5E-01
7.3E-03
4.9E-02
9.8E+00
7.3E+00
2.2E+00
2.2E+01
4.9E+00
2.5E+00
2.0E-03
4.9E+01
9.8E-01*
Inhalation HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
3.0E-03
8.1E-01
1.8E-01
2.0E-02
1.9E-01
1.1E-02
1.6E+03
5.2E-04
8.4E-05
Non-cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
7.1E+02
1.1E+03
6.0E-02
2.4E-01
2.9E+03
3.0E+02
3.3E+00
1.2E+04
4.1E-01
9.8E-04
5-15
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs (continued)
CAS
Number
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-84-6
58-89-9
319-85-7
1024-57-3
76-44-8
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
34465-46-8
55684-94-1
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
7439-92-1
7439.96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
110-49-6
109-86-4
80-62-6
78-93-3
Chemical Name
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH alpha-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH beta-
Heptachlor epoxide
Heptachlor
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
[HxCDDs]
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane N-
Hydrogen Sulfide
Indeno{ l,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl ethyl ketone
MCL
(mg/L)
4.0E+00
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
l.OE-03
5.0E-02
1.5E-02**
2.0E-03
4.0E-02
Ingestion HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.5E-05
7.4E-05
5.4E-05
1.1E-05
2.2E-05
1.2E-03
6.0E-05
6.2E-09
6.2E-09
6.9E-03
8.1E-05*
l.OE-01
Non-Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
2.9E+00
4.9e+00
4.9E+01
7.3E-02
2.0E-01
7.3E-03
3.2E-04
1.2E-02
7.3E-03
2.0E-02*
1.5E-01
2.5E-02
7.3E-03
2.7E+02*
7.3E-02
7.3E+00
4.9E+00
1.2E-02
1.2E+00
2.5E-03
2.5E-03
1.2E+01
1.2E-01*
4.9E-02
2.5E-02
3.4E+01
1.5E+01
Inhalation HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.5E+00
3.6E-04
1.6E-03
1.7E-02
2.8E-04
1.5E-05
6.1E-04
3.6E-05
1.4E-07
1.4E-07
3.3E-03
3.8E-02*
Non-cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
5.1E+01
2.2E+01
6.9E-04
6.6E-01
5.3E+02
7.0E-04
6.5E-03
1.5E+03
5.1E+02
4.4E+02
5.3E+00
3.3E+01
5-16
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs (continued)
CAS
Number
298-00-0
108-10-1
1634-04-4
56-49-5
75-09-2
74-95-3
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
55-18-5
62-75-9
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
36088-22-9
30402-15-4
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
Chemical Name
Methyl parathion
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Methylene bromide
(Dibromomethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
[PeCDDs]
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
MCL
(mg/L)
5.0E-03
l.OE-03
Ingestion HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.3E-02
1.8E-05
1.4E-05
6.4E-07
1.9E-06
2.0E-02
4.4E-06
4.6E-05
6.2E-10
1.2E-09
3.7E-04
8.1E-04
Non-Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
6.1E-03
2.0E+00
1.5E+00
2.5E-01
1.2E-01
4.9E-01
4.9E-01
1.2E-02
2.0E-04
4.9E-01
4.9E-02
1.5E-01
2.0E-02
7.3E-02
7.3E-01
1.5E+01
2.0E-03
1.5E-01
4.9E-03
4.9E+01
Inhalation HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.2E-03
2.8E-02
2.3E-05
2.0E-05
1.5E-03
4.3E-05
4.0E-04
5.2E-01
4.5E-03
8.7E-03
9.2E-01
6.0E-08
6.3E-08
5.4E+01
Non-cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.2E+00
1.7E+01
l.OE+01
1.9E-02
1.5E-01
3.3E-01
9.0E+02
1.3E+04*
5-17
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs (continued)
CAS
Number
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
1746-01-6
51207-31-9
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
106-49-0
95-53-4
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
Chemical Name
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate
(Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidine p-
Toluidine o-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro- 1 ,2,2-trifluoro-ethane 1 , 1 ,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-)
MCL
(mg/L)
5.0E-04
5.0E-02
l.OE-01
3.0E-08
5.0E-03
2.0E-03
l.OE+00
3.0E-03
8.0E-02
7.0E-02
2.0E-01
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
Ingestion HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
2.4E-04
4.0E-04
5.4E-04
6.2e-10
6.2E-09
3.7E-03
4.8E-04
1.9E-03
3.0E-05
5.1E-04
4.0E-04
8.8E-05
1.2E-02
1.7E-03
8.8E-03
Non-Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
4.9E-04
1.8E+00
7.3E-01*
2.5E-02
1.2E-01
1.2E-01
7.3E-03
4.9E+00
7.3E-03
2.5E-08
7.3E-01
1.5E+00
2.5E-01
7.3E-01
1.2E-02
2.0E-03
1.2E-01
4.9E+00
4.9E-01
7.3E+02*
2.5E-01
6.9E+00
9.8E-02
Inhalation HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.4E-04
1.7E-02
2.2E-09
l.OE-07
1.9E-03
5.0E-04
2.1E-02
7.5E+00
3.6E-02
3.6E-03
1.9E-02
1.1E-03
6.8E-03
Non-cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
4.9E-01
1.4E+00
3.6E+00
9.4E-01
1.3E+00
9.5E+01
8.3E-01
6.9E+00
1.9E+00
5-18
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs (continued)
CAS
Number
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
95-47-6
108-38-3
106-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
Chemical Name
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid
2-(2,4,5-(Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (Trinitrobenzene
1,3,5-) sym-
Tris(2,3 -dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene o-
Xylene m-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
MCL
(mg/L)
5.0E-02
2.0E-03
l.OE+01
Ingestion HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
8.8E-03
1.4E-05
9.9E-06
1.3E-04
Non-Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
7.3E+00
2.5E+00
2.0E-01
2.5E-01
1.5E-01
7.3E-01
1.7E-01
2.5E+01
7.3E-02
4.9E+01
4.9E+01
4.9E+01
4.9E+01
7.3E+00
Inhalation HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
2.8E-01
2.5E-03
Non-cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
2.1E+00
3.4E-02
1.1E-01
1.2E+00
2.9E-01
1.4E+00
1.3E+00
1.3E+00
1.4E+00
Key:
* = Value exceeds constituent's water solubility
** = Value exceeds drinking water action level as specified by 40 CFR 141.32(e)(13) and (14)
5-19
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
6.0 How Does IWEM Calculate LCTVs and Make Liner
Recommendations?
The objective of the ground-water fate and transport model is to determine the
amount of dilution and attenuation a constituent may undergo as it migrates from a WMU
to a ground-water well and determine the constituent concentration at the well. For Tier
1, once the amount of dilution and attenuation is determined, that data are used in
conjunction with RGCs (either drinking water MCLs or HBNs which reflect a
constituent's toxicity) to establish the maximum allowable leachate constituent
concentrations for wastes that can be protectively managed in a particular unit design.
We refer to these maximum allowable leachate concentrations as LCTVs. For Tier 2, the
amount of dilution and attenuation help determine an exposure concentration that can be
compared to RGCs. The dilution and attenuation also may be used to estimate an LCTV
in Tier 2. This section describes the methods we used to develop the basis for the liner
recommendations for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analysis in IWEM.
6.1 Determining Liner Recommendations Corresponding to a 90th
Percentile Exposure Concentration
Every single realization of EPACMTP in the Monte Carlo process results in a
predicted concentration at the modeled ground-water well. Because the predicted
ground-water concentrations are compared against health-based RGC's which reflect
specific exposure duration assumptions (see Section 5), the ground-water concentrations
calculated in IWEM represent time-averaged values, as depicted conceptually in Figure
6.1.
Depending on the type of RGC, the IWEM tool uses different averaging times in
calculating ground-water well concentrations, as follows:
• MCL: Peak ground-water well concentration
• Non-cancer HBN: Maximum 7-year average well concentration
• Cancer HBN: Maximum 30-year average well concentration
At the conclusion of a Monte Carlo simulation consisting of 10,000 realizations,
the 10,000 values of predicted ground-water concentration for each specific averaging
time period are sorted from low to high into a CDF function, see Figure 6.2. In Tier 1,
the CDF represents the range in expected ground-water concentrations due to nationwide
variations in site hydrogeologic and other conditions; in Tier 2, the CDF represents the
6-1
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 6.0
Ul
c
o
c
0)
u
c
o
o
Peak
Concentration
Time
Exposure
Averaging Period
Figure 6.1 Determination of Time-Averaged
Ground-Water Well Concentration.
range in the expected location-specific ground-water concentration due to uncertainty and
variability in the local conditions.
For the development of the IWEM tool we selected the 90th percentile of the
predicted ground-water concentration CDF as the basis for determining the Tier 1 LCTVs
and as the point of comparison for the Tier 2 analysis. We based the selection of a 90th
percentile protection level on: (1) the need to have a large degree of confidence that the
results are adequately protective of human health and the environment given the degree
of uncertainty inherent in the data and the analyses; and (2) the need to choose a level of
protection that is consistent with EPA's Guidance for Risk Characterization (U.S. EPA,
1995b). The Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations are based on a high-end risk assessment which
is used to describe the risk or hazard for individuals in small, but definable segments of
the population. EPA's Guidance for Risk Characterization (U.S. EPA, 1995b) advises
that "conceptually, high-end exposure means exposure above about the 90th percentile of
the population distribution, but not higher than the individual in the population who has
the highest exposure." Use of the 90th percentile protection level in IWEM implies that,
of the modeled scenarios, 90% result in well concentrations that are lower than the
specified RGC, and thus, are considered protective for at least 90% of the cases.
By definition, the LCTV is that value of leachate concentration for which the 90th
percentile of the predicted ground-water well concentration is equal to the RGC. In the
6-2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
case of organic constituents, the well concentration is linearly proportional to the leachate
concentration input value. We used this relationship to facilitate the determination of
LCTVs. For metals constituents that are subject to nonlinear sorption processes (see
Section 4.2.4), we followed a slightly different process to determine LCTVs. The
methodologies for organics and metals are discussed in the following sections.
6.1.1 Calculating LCTVs for Organic Constituents
For organic constituents, the fate and transport equations solved by EPACMTP
are linear, which means that the magnitude of the predicted ground-water well
concentration is linearly proportional to the value of the leachate concentration. In other
words, a doubling of the EPACMTP input value of leachate concentration would result in
a doubling of the predicted ground-water well concentration, as long as all other model
parameters stay the same. This relationship can be expressed in terms of a Dilution and
Attenuation Factor (DAF):
DAF =
where:
CRW = Ground-water well concentration (mg/L)
CL = Leachate concentration (mg/L)
DAF = Dilution and attenuation factor (dimensionless)
Because both the leachate concentration and the well concentration can vary with
time, the calculation of DAF uses the maximum value of a constituent's leachate
concentration, that is, the initial concentration at the time when leaching from the WMU
begins, and uses the maximum time-average well exposure concentration (see Figure 6.1
forC,
-'RW-
The DAF accounts for the aggregate effects of all fate and transport processes
simulated by EPACMTP. The value of the DAF is constituent-specific, as well as
WMU- and liner design-specific, that is, more protective liner designs increase the value
of the DAF for a given chemical constituent. Likewise, constituents which are subject to
degradation and sorption in the subsurface will have higher DAFs than constituents
which do not react in the subsurface.
For the purpose of determining IWEM LCTVs, the IWEM tool first converts the
CDF of predicted ground-water well concentrations into an equivalent CDF of DAF
values. This is depicted schematically in Figure 6.2. The 90th percentile DAF is the DAF
value that corresponds to the 90th percentile value of the ground-water well concentration
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 6.0
for a fixed value of leachate concentration. Because the DAF is inversely related to the
ground-water well concentration, a lower DAF value indicates that the concentration at
the well is closer to the leachate concentration and this provides a higher degree of
protection. As depicted in Figure 6.2, the CDF of DAF is ordered from high to low
values, and the 90th percentile DAF is defined such that 90% of DAF values are higher
than this threshold.
0" 10"' 10 " 1O" to' ^ 1 Q!J
Groundwater Welt Concentration
Figure 6.2 Relationship Between Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of Well
Concentrations and Dilution and Attenuation Factors (DAFs).
Because the RGCs represent acceptable threshold values for the concentration of
chemical constituents in ground water, the RGC can be substituted for CRW in the
equation above. In this case, CL then represents the allowable concentration in the
leachate, or the LCTV. Making these substitutions and rearranging to solve for the
LCTV gives us:
LCTV = DAF90 x RGC
6-4
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
where
LCTV = Leachate Concentration Threshold Value (mg/L)
DAF90 = Dilution and attenuation factor at a 90th percentile protection level
RGC = Reference ground-water concentration (mg/L)
For each organic constituent in Tier 1, we conducted one modeling run (consisting
of 10,000 realizations) per WMU and liner scenario to determine the DAF90, and then
used the equation above to calculate the Tier 1 LCTV. As we will discuss in Section 6.2,
these "raw" Tier 1 LCTVs were then subjected to several caps to determine the final Tier
1 LCTVs. The final LCTVs presented in the Tier 1 look-up tables were rounded to two
significant digits. For organic constituents, the Tier 1 LCTV tables in Appendix F
include the DAF values generated by EPACMTP.
In Tier 2, once all of the user-specified inputs have been entered, and the Monte
Carlo simulations are complete, the IWEM software constructs the CDFs of the ground-
water well concentration and the DAF, and then develops a liner recommendation by
directly comparing expected exposure concentrations to RGCs. In addition, IWEM
calculates Tier 2 LCTVs using the same equation and caps as used for Tier 1.
6.1.2 Determining LCTVs for Metals
In the case of metals constituent whose geochemical behavior is characterized by
nonlinear sorption isotherms (see Section 4.2.4), the concept of a DAF is still applicable,
but due to their nonlinear transport behavior, the metals do not have a DAF that is
constant across all leachate concentrations. Therefore, for metals, we used a slightly
different methodology to determine the Tier 1 LCTVs. For each metal constituent and
WMU/liner scenario, we ran multiple EPACMTP Monte Carlo simulations using a
number of different input values of leachate concentration. For each value of leachate
concentration we compared the 90th percentile value of the predicted well concentration
to each of the applicable RGCs until we found the leachate concentration that resulted in
10% of the simulations exceeding the given RGC - a protection level of 90%. In this
way, we determined the Tier 1 LCTVs for metals directly, without the intermediate step
of determining the DAF. For this reason, DAF values are not presented for the metals in
the Tier 1 Look-up Tables (Appendix F) in the results of the IWEM software.
For each metal constituent and WMU/liner scenario, we continued the iterative
process of running EPACMTP with different values of leachate concentration, until we
found the leachate concentration value for which the predicted ground-water
concentration would match the target RGC between 89.9 and 90.1 percentile probability,
i.e., we used a convergence tolerance of ± 0.1 percentile point. We then rounded this
convergent input leachate concentration to two significant digits and reported it as the
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
LCTV of the metal constituent for the specified liner scenario. As a quality control check
on these calculations, we performed an independent Monte Carlo simulation for each
metal LCTV, with the above value as input, and verified that the 90th percentile of the
predicted ground-water well concentrations did indeed match the target RGC, up to the
first two significant digits.
In Tier 2, the LCTV for metal constituents is an estimated value. Rather than
performing time-consuming iterative EPACMTP Monte Carlo simulations to determine
exact LCTVs, IWEM estimates values using an empirical adjustment factor of 0.85 in
order to ensure adequate protection of ground water. Tier 2 LCTVs for metals are
calculated as:
LCTV = DAF x RGC x 0.85
6.2 Capping the LCTVs
Once the raw LCTV was determined for each constituent, this value was then
subjected to the following limits:
• Toxic hydrolysis transformation products cap;
• 1,000 (mg/L) cap; and
• TC Rule cap.
6.2.1 Hydrolysis Transformation Products
For organic constituents with transformation products that are produced by
chemical hydrolysis, the final LCTV values of the parent are modified if necessary to be
protective for the daughter product(s). That is, we also calculated LCTVs for any
transformation product(s) into which the parent might hydrolyze, assuming complete
transformation. Then, if any of the daughter products was found to have a lower LCTV
than the parent, the parent LCTV was set equal to (that is, capped at) the LCTV of the
daughter. Details of the calculation procedure we used to develop the daughter product
caps are presented in the text box which follows this page.
Table 6.1 presents the IWEM constituents that have toxic hydrolysis
transformation products that are included in the IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses. We
assembled this table from information in Kollig et al. (1993) and Jeffers et al. (1989).
The last column of Table 6.1 presents the ratio of the number of moles of the daughter
product to the number of moles of the parent compound; for instance, a "1" in this
column means that one mole of the daughter is produced by the hydrolysis of one mole of
the parent, and a "2" in this column means that two moles of the daughter are produced
by the hydrolysis of one mole of the parent compound.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
In accounting for hydrolysis daughter products, we did not explicitly model the
formation, fate, and transport of transformation products along with the parent
constituent in the EPACMTP simulations, but rather made the adjustments by applying a
cap to the parent LCTV if necessary. This methodology is relatively simple and
protective because it is based on the assumption that the parent compounds are fully
transformed. In reality, the rate of hydrolysis may be quite slow with half-lives on the
order of several hundred years, and the formation of certain daughter products may also
depend on pH and other factors. When we calculated the parent LCTVs for slowly
hydrolyzing compounds we used the actual, constituent-specific hydrolysis parameters
(see Appendix B). Only when we calculated the daughter LCTVs did we assume that
100% transformation would occur.
6-7
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
Calculation Procedure to Determine Daughter Product Caps
Suppose that we have a parent chemical (P) that hydrolyzes to form two daughter products (Dl and D2). The
molecular weights of these chemicals are MW(P), MW(D1), and MW(D2). The EPACMTP-modeled DAFs are
DAF(P), DAF(l), and DAF(2). The reference ground-water concentrations for these chemicals are RGC(P),
RGC(D1), and RGC(D2). The "raw" LCTVs are calculated as the product of the modeled DAF and the given RGC;
these values are denoted as LCTV(P), LCTV(D1) and LCTV(D2) and are referred to as "raw" LCTVs because they
are the calculated values that have not yet been affected by the capping procedure. One mole of P hydrolyzes to
form n(l) moles of D(l) and n(2) moles of D(2); n(l) and n(2) are referred to as the stoichiometric factors.
For a given RGC (reference ground-water concentration, e.g., MCL, HBN), the following steps are followed to
calculate the final LCTV of the parent compound:
1. Determine the raw LCTV of the parent chemical, using the following equation:
LCTV(P) = DAF(P)x RGC(P)
2. Determine the (raw) LCTV of each daughter, using the following equations:
LCTV(Dl) = DAF(Dl) x RGC(Dl)
LCTV(D2) = DAF(D2) x RGC(D2)
3. Using the molecular weight and stoichiometric factor of each daughter, calculate the adjusted LCTV (denoted
as LCTV(P(i)*) in the equations below) of the parent based on each daughter.
ForDl:
LCTV(P(D1)*) = LCTV(Dl) x MW(P)/ (n(Dl) xMW(Dl))
ForD2:
LCTV(P(D2)*) = LCTV(D2) x MW(P)/ (n(D2) xMW(D2))
4. For each daughter, compare the adjusted LCTV of the parent based on that daughter to the uncapped LCTV of
the parent; if the adjusted LCTV of the parent is less than the uncapped LCTV of the parent, replace the uncapped
LCTV of the parent with the adjusted LCTV of the parent based on that daughter:
ForDl:
If (LCTV(P) < LCTV(D1) x MW(P)/ (n(Dl) xMW(Dl))
thenLCTV(P(D1)*) = LCTV(Dl) x MW(P)/ (n(Dl) xMW(Dl))
Otherwise LCTV(P(D1)*) = LCTV(P)
ForD2:
If (LCTV(P) < LCTV(D2) x MW(P)/ (n(D2) xMW(D2))
then LCTV(P(D2)*) = LCTV(D2) x MW(P)/ (n(D2) xMW(D2))
Otherwise LCTV(P(D2)*) = LCTV(P)
5. Compare all the adjusted LCTV of the parent, and pick the smallest value as the final LCTV of the parent:
LCTV(P) = Min (LCTV(P(D1)*), LCTV(P(D2)*))
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 6.0
Table 6.1 IWEM Constituents with Toxic Hydrolysis Transformation Products
Parent
Constituent
CAS#
107-13-1
100-44-7
74-83-9
50-29-3
80-62-6
75-09-2
79-34-5
71-55-6
79-00-5
75-34-3
107-06-2
111-44-4
58-89-9
319-84-6
630-20-6
60-51-5
131-11-3
298-00-0
Common Name
Acrylonitrile
Benzyl chloride
Bromomethane
DDT, p,p'-
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Dimethoate
Dimethyl phthalate
Methyl parathion
Transformation
Product(s)
CAS#
79-06-1
79-10-7
100-51-6
67-56-1
72-55-9
67-56-1
50-00-0
79-01-6
75-35-4
75-35-4
75-07-0
75-01-4
75-01-4
75-21-8
107-21-1
123-91-1
120-82-1
120-82-1
79-01-6
7783-06-4
67-56-1
67-56-1
67-56-1
7783-06-4
Common Name
Acrylamide
Acrylic Acid
Benzyl alcohol
Methanol
DDE
Methanol
Formaldehyde
Trichloroethylene
Dichloroethy lene 1,1-
Dichloroethy lene 1,1-
Acetaldehyde
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene Glycol
Dioxane 1,4-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethylene
hydrogen sulfide
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
hydrogen sulfide
Molar
Ratio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
A number of daughter products that are produced by hydrolysis of these parent
compounds could not be included in the IWEM analyses due to a lack of toxicological
benchmarks for the daughter compounds. Table 6.2 presents a list of these daughter
products along with their IWEM parent constituents. Several parent constituents have
the same hydrolysis end-products, and a number of the daughters in Table 6.2 therefore
are listed with multiple parents. An example is hydrochloric acid which is a breakdown
product of a several chlorinated components.
6-9
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 6.0
Table 6.2 IWEM Daughter Constituents Without RGC Values
Daughter Constituent
CAS No.
64-19-7
7664-41-7
111-46-6
107-20-0
107-07-3
628-89-7
7647-01-0
7783-06-4
79-14-1
79-41-4
4376-18-5
100-02-7
7664-38-2
88-99-3
87-61-6
Name
Acetic acid
Ammonia
Bis(2-hydroxyethyl)ether
Chloroacetaldehyde
Chloroethanol, 2-
(2-chloroethoxy)ethanol,2-
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydroxacetic acid
Methylacrylic acid
Methylhydrogen phthalate
Nitrophenol, 2-
Phosphoric acid
Phthalic acid
Trichlorobenzene
IWEM Parent Constituent
CAS No.
71-55-6
107-13-1
111-44-4
79-00-5
107-06-2
111-44-4
100-44-7
7647-01-0
75-09-2
79-34-5
71-55-6
79-00-5
75-34-3
107-06-2
111-44-4
58-89-9
319-84-6
630-20-6
630-20-6
298-00-0
60-51-5
630-20-6
80-62-6
131-11-3
298-00-0
298-00-0
131-11-3
58-89-9
319-84-6
Name
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Acrylonitrile
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
Dichloroethane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Benzyl chloride
DDT, p,p'-
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
HCH, gamma-
HCH, alpha-
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2-
Methylparathion
Dimethoate
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2-
Methylmethacrylate
Dimethyl phthalate
Methylparathion
Methylparathion
Dimethylphthalate
HCH, gamma-
HCH, alpha-
6-10
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
6.2.2 1,000 mg/L /Cap
The second cap we applied was to limit the calculated LCTV for any constituent
at 1,000 mg/L. If the LCTV calculated from the ground-water modeling analysis is
greater than 1,000 mg/L, the LCTV will be set to 1,000 mg/L. The basis for this cap is
that leachate concentrations from nonhazardous wastes are not expected to exceed this
value. The calculated "raw" LCTVs exceeded the 1,000 mg/L cap in a significant
number of cases for composite liner designs. Review of the LCTV tables in Appendix F
shows that many of the composite liner LCTVs are capped at this value.
6.2.3 TC Rule Cap
Finally, we capped the LCTVs for the 39 constituents that are identified in the
Toxicity Characteristic Rule (TC Rule) (40 CFR 261.24; U.S. EPA, 1990) at their
regulatory TC level (see Table 6.3). The basis for applying this cap is that any waste
with leachate concentrations equal to or greater than the TC Rule regulatory level is a
characteristically hazardous waste under RCRA and state statutes.
6.3 Making Liner Recommendations
The IWEM tool allows the user to enter chemical and facility information and
automatically analyzes the results of the database query (Tier 1) or the modeling analysis
(Tier 2) to determine an appropriate WMU design that is protective of ground water.
The use and interpretation of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations are described in this
section.
When interpreting the Tier 1 and 2 liner recommendations, the following key
risk assessment issues should be kept in mind:
• The IWEM HBNs correspond to a target risk of 1 x 10"6 for carcinogens
and a target HQ of 1 for noncarcinogens. These targets are used to
calculate separate HBNs for each constituent of concern, and separate
HBNs for each exposure route of concern (ingestion or inhalation).
The Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations do not consider combined exposure
from ground-water ingestion (from drinking water) and ground-water
inhalation (from showering), nor do they consider the potential for
additive exposure to multiple constituents. Therefore, use caution
when evaluating multiple constituents that have similar fate and
transport characteristics (e.g., similar kds and hydrolysis rates), as well
as constituents with non-cancer health effects associated with the same
target organ.
6-11
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 6.0
Table 6.3 Toxicity Characteristic Regulatory Levels (U.S. EPA, 1990)
Constituent
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chromium
o-Cresol
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
Cresol
2,4-D
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethy lene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Endrin
Heptachlor
TC Rule Leachate
Concentration
Limit
(mg/L)
5.0
100
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.03
100
6.0
5.0
200
200
200
200
10.0
7.5
0.5
0.7
0.13
0.02
0.008
Constituent
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Hexachloroethane
Lead
Lindane
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Methyl ethyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pyridine
Selenium
Silver
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-TP Acid (Silvex)
Vinyl chloride
TC Rule Leachate
Concentration
Limit
(mg/L)
0.13
0.5
3.0
5.0
0.4
0.2
10.0
200.0
2.0
100.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
0.7
0.5
0.5
400
2.0
1.0
0.2
• Usually, doses less than the RfD (HQ=1) are not likely to be associated with
adverse health effects and, therefore, are less likely to be of regulatory
concern. As the frequency and/or magnitude of the exposures exceeding the
RfD increase (HQ>1), the probability of adverse effects in a human
population increases. However, it should not be categorically concluded
that all doses below the RfD are "acceptable" (or will be risk-free) and that
all doses in excess of the RfD are "unacceptable" (or will result in adverse
effects).
6.3.1 Use and Interpretation of Tier 1 Evaluation
The Tier 1 evaluation is intended to provide a rapid, national-scale screening
assessment to determine if a proposed WMU design will be protective of human health
and the environment.
6-12
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
In a Tier 1 analysis, the potential impact that a WMU may have on ground-water
resources is characterized by comparing the expected constituent leachate concentration
(based on the TCLP or another appropriate leachate test method) to the calculated LCTV
in the appropriate look-up table. That is, the Tier 1 user only needs to know the type of
WMU to be evaluated, the chemical constituents expected in the waste (these
constituents are chosen from a list provided in the IWEM software), and their expected
leachate concentrations. EPA has performed the Tier 1 Monte Carlo simulations for each
of the IWEM constituents and assembled the results into Tier 1 LCTV look-up tables.
An electronic version of these look-up tables is included in the IWEM software as the
Tier 1 Evaluation, and a printed copy of the tables are included in Appendix F of this
document. This appendix presents LCTV values corresponding to each of the available
RCGs for each constituent, that is LCTVs based on MCLs as well as on ingestion and
inhalation cancer and non-cancer HBNs. Where a RGC is not available, for instance, a
constituent does not have an inhalation HBN, the LCTV entry in the table is left blank.
The IWEM Tier 1 evaluation automatically performs the required comparisons of
leachate concentration to all of the LCTVs for each waste constituent and liner scenario.
The result of this comparison determines the recommended liner system for the WMU or
determines whether land application of this waste is appropriate (that is, determines
whether the waste constituent concentrations will not exceed HBNs at a well if a
particular WMU design is implemented). In Tier 1, the results of the evaluation are
presented in terms of a MCL summary and a HBN summary. The HBNs summary
reflects the liner recommendation based on the most protective, that is the lowest, HBN
available for each constituent.
If the user-identified leachate concentrations for all constituents are lower than
the corresponding no-liner LCTVs in the look-up table, then no liner is recommended as
being sufficiently protective of ground water. If any leachate concentration is higher than
the corresponding no-liner LCTV, then a minimum of a single clay liner is
recommended. If any leachate concentration is higher than the corresponding single-liner
LCTV, then a minimum of a composite liner is recommended. If any concentration is
higher than the composite liner, consider pollution prevention, treatment, or additional
controls. For waste streams with multiple constituents, the most protective minimum
recommended liner that is specified for any one constituent is the recommended liner
design.
After conducting a Tier 1 analysis, the user can choose to implement the Tier 1
recommendation by designing the unit based on the liner recommendations given by the
IWEM software. If the user chooses to implement the Tier 1 recommendation,
consultation with state authorities is recommended to ensure compliance with state
regulations, which may require more protective measures than the Tier 1 lookup tables
recommend. Alternatively, if the waste has one or very few "problem" constituents that
call for a more stringent and costly liner system (or which make land application
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
inappropriate), evaluate pollution prevention, recycling, and treatment efforts for those
constituents.
If, after conducting the Tier 1 analysis, the user is not satisfied with the resulting
recommendations or if site-specific conditions seem likely to support the use of a liner
design different from the one recommended (or suggest a different conclusion regarding
the appropriateness of land application of a waste), then the user can proceed to the Tier
2 analysis or conduct a site-specific ground-water fate and transport analysis (Tier 3).
6.3.2 Use and Interpretation of Tier 2 Evaluation
The Tier 2 analysis is designed to provide user-friendly software that allows users
to input location-specific data for a number of EPACMTP input parameters and quickly
determine if a proposed WMU design will be protective of human health and the
environment.
As with Tier 1, the IWEM software provides the Tier 2 user with a list of
constituents commonly encountered when managing industrial waste, along with the
opportunity to input constituent-specific data that are necessary for a Tier 2 analysis (for
examples parameters such as decay rate and sorption coefficients, as well as HBNs
and/or MCLs). The IWEM Tier 2 evaluation also allows the user to define new
chemicals and enter the required chemical property data, including user-specified RGCs.
Once the list of constituents and their chemical data have been specified, the user is
requested to input location-specific data, where available, and to document the source of
these data. In Tier 2, the user also selects the type of RGC to be used in the evaluation.
This can be MCL, HBN, or all available. If the user selects one type of RGC, IWEM
performs the evaluation only for that RGC. If all available RGCs are selected, then all
are considered in the evaluation and the final liner recommendation will be based on the
most protective, that is the lowest, RGC for each constituent.
After entering the available data, the EPACMTP model is automatically launched
by the IWEM software. In Tier 2, EPACMTP will perform Monte Carlo simulations,
comprising 10,000 model realizations for each waste constituent and liner design, in
order to determine the minimum recommended liner design at a 90th percentile protection
level. The Monte Carlo simulations can be computationally demanding, and an
evaluation of multiple liner designs for a single waste constituent can take several hours.
In order to optimize the computational process, IWEM will first perform the liner
evaluations from least protective (no-liner) to most protective (composite liner). If
during this process, IWEM identifies a liner design that is protective for all constituents
(for instance, a single clay liner), it will stop the evaluation process, and not evaluate
more protective designs (in the example case, it would skip the composite liner
evaluation). Once the modeling analyses are complete, the user is provided with
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
recommendations regarding whether or not a specific liner type for a WMU is protective
based on the modeled 90th percentile exposure concentrations using the location-specific
data and the RGCs for the chemicals of concern.
After conducting the Tier 2 Evaluation, you can choose to implement the Tier 2
recommendation by designing the unit based on the liner recommendations given by the
IWEM software or continue to a Tier 3 analysis. If the user chooses to implement the
Tier 2 recommendation, consultation with state authorities is recommended to ensure
compliance with state regulations, which may require more protective measures than the
Tier 2 results recommend. Alternatively, if the waste has one or very few "problem"
constituents that call for a more stringent and costly liner system (or which make land
application inappropriate), evaluate pollution prevention, recycling, and treatment efforts
for those constituents. If you are not satisfied with the resulting recommendations or if
site-specific conditions seem likely to support the use of a liner design different from the
one recommended (or suggest a different conclusion regarding the appropriateness of
land application of a waste), then you may wish to consider a fully site-specific ground-
water fate and transport analysis (Tier 3).
6-15
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 7.0
7.0 REFERENCES
ABB Environmental Services, 1995. Estimation of Leachate Rates from Industrial Waste
Management Facilities. August, 1995.
Bonaparte, R., J. P. Giroud, and B.A. Cross, 1989. Rates of leakage through landfill
liners. Geosynthetics 1989 Conference, San Diego, California.
Burnett, R.D. and E.O. Frind, 1987. Simulation of contaminant transport in three
dimensions. 2. Dimensionality effects. Water Resources Research 23(4): 695-
705.
Carsel, R.F., and R.S. Parrish, 1988. Developing joint probability distributions of soil
water retention characteristics. Water Resources Research 29:755-770.
Coburn, J., 1996. Memo to Dana Greenwood on Emission Flux Equations for
Showering, July 1.
Davis, S. N., 1969. Porosity and permeability of natural materials. In Flow Through
Porous Media, R. J. M. de Wiest, Editor, Academic Press, NY.
de Marsily, G., 1986. Quantitative Hydrogeology - Groundwater hydrology for
Engineers. Academic Press, 44 pp.
EPRI, 1986. Physiochemical Measurements of Soils at Solid Waste Disposal Sites.
Electric Power Research Institute, prepared by Battelle, Pacific Northwest
Laboratories, Richland, WA, EPRI EA-4417.
Gelhar, L.W., A. Mantoglou, C. Welty, and K.R. Rehfeldt, 1985. A review of field scale
physical solute transport processes in saturated and unsaturated porous media.
Report EPRI-EA-4190. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Gintautas, P.A., K.A. Huyck, S.R. Daniel, andD.L. Macalady, 1993. Metal-Organic
Interactions in Subtitle D Landfill Leachates and Associated Groundwaters, in
Metals in Groundwaters, H.E. Allen, E.M. Perdue, and D.S. Brown, eds. Lewis
Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI.
Heath, R.C., 1984. Ground-Water Regions of the United States. United States
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2242, 78 pp.
7-1
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 7.0
Jeffers, P.M., L.M. Ward, L.M. Woytowitch, and N.L. Wolfe, 1989. "Homogeneous
Hydrolysis Rate Constants for Selected Chlorinated Methanes, Ethanes, Ethenes,
and Propanes." Environ. Sci. Technol. 23, 965-969.
Jury, W.A., W.R. Gardner, and W.H. Gardner, 1991. Soil Physics. J. Wiley and Sons,
327 pp.
Kollig et al, 1993. Environmental Fate Constants for Organic Chemicals Under
Consideration for EPA's Hazardous Waste Identification Projects. Report No.
EPA/600/R-93/132. Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA 30605.
Lambe, T.W., and Whitman, R.V., 1969. Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons.
Little, J.C., 1992a. Applying the two resistance theory to constituent volatilization in
showers. Environmental Science and Technology 26(7):1341-1349.
Little, J.C., 1992b. Applying the two resistance theory to constituent volatilization in
showers. Environmental Science and Technology 26(4); 836-837.
Mathur, S. S., 1995. Development of a Database for Ion Sorption on Goethite Using
Surface Complexation Modeling. Master's Thesis, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
McKone, I.E., 1987. Human exposure to volatile organic compounds in household tap
water: The indoor inhalation pathway. Environmental Science and Technology
21:1194-1201.
McWorther, D. B., and D. K. Sunada, 1977. Groundwater Hydrology and Hydraulics,
Water Resources Publications, Fort Collins, CO.
Newell, C., J.M., L. P. Hopkins, and P. B. Bedient, 1989. Hydrogeologic Database for
Ground Water Modeling. API Publication No. 4476. American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, DC 20005.
Rollin, A.L., M. Marcotte, T. Jacquelin, and L. Chaput, 1999. Leak location in exposed
geomembrane liners using an electrical leak detection technique. Geosynthetics
'99: Specifying Geosynthetics and Developing Design Details, Vol. 2, pp 615-
626.
7-2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 7.0
Schroeder, P.R., T.S., Dozier, P.A. Zappi, B.M. McEnroe, J. W. Sjostrom, and R.L.
Peton, 1994. The hydrologic evaluation of landfill performance model (HELP):
Engineering Documentation for Version 3. EPA/600/R-94/1686. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Shea, J.H., 1974. Deficiencies of elastic particles of certain sizes, Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology 44:985-1003.
Susetyo, W., L.A. Carreira, L.V. Azarraga, andD.M. Grimm, 1991. Fluorescence
techniques for metal-humic interactions. Fresenius J Anal Chem, 339:624-635.
TetraTech, Inc., 2001. Characterization of infiltration rate data to support groundwater
modeling efforts (Draft). Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Contract No. 68-W6-0061, May, 2001.
Todd, O.K., 1980. Groundwater Hydrology (2nd edition), John Wiley & Sons, 535 pages.
U.S. EPA, 1985. DRASTIC: A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground Water
Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeologic Settings. EPA/600-2-85/018,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1986. Industrial Subtitle D Facility Study (Telephone Survey), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October, 1986.
U.S. EPA, 1990. Toxicity Characteristic Final Rule. 55 FR 11796. March 29, 1990.
U.S. EPA, 199 la. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 -Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Goals).
EPA/540/R-92/003. Interim Draft. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1991b. MINTEQA2/PRODEFA2, A Geochemical Assessment Model for
Environmental Systems: Version 3.0 User's Manual EPA/600/3-91/021, Office
of Research and Development, Athens, Georgia 30605.
U.S. EPA, 1992. 57 Federal Register 22888. Final Guidelines for Exposure Assessment.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 29.
U.S. EPA, 1995a. Hazardous Waste: Identification and Listing; Proposed Rule. 40
CFR Parts 260, 261, 266, and 268.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 7.0
U.S. EPA, 1995b. Guidance for Risk Characterization. Science Policy Council, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February.
U.S. EPA, 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document.
EPA/540/R95/128. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. May.
U.S. EPA, 1997'a. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume I, General Factors.
EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1997b. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 11, FoodIngestion Factors.
EPA/600/P-95/002Fb. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1997c. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume III, Activity Factors.
EPA/600/P-95/002Fc. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 2000. Volatilization Rates from Water to Indoor Air, Phase II. EPA/600/R-
00/096. National Center for Environmental Assessment-Washington Office,
Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. October.
U.S. EPA, 2001. Industrial Surface Impoundments in the United States. U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC 20460. USEPA 530-R-01-005.
U.S. EPA, 2002a. EPACMTP Technical Background Document. Office of Solid Waste,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 2002b. EPACMTP Parameters/Data BackgroundDocument. Office of Solid
Waste, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 2002c. IWEM User's Guide. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.
7-4
-------
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
GLOSSARY
Adsorption - Adherence of molecules in solution to the surface of solids.
Adsorption isotherm - The relationship between the concentration of constituent in
solution and the amount adsorbed at constant temperature.
Advection - The process whereby solutes are transported by the bulk mass of flowing
fluid.
Alluvium - The general name for all sediments, including clay, silt, sand, gravel or
similar unconsolidated material deposited in a sorted or semi-sorted condition by a
stream or other body of running water, in a stream bed, floodplain, delta or at the base of
a mountain slope as a fan.
Anisotropy - The condition of having different properties in different directions.
Aquifer - A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that contains
sufficient saturated permeable material to yield significant quantities of water to wells
and springs.
Aquifer system - A body of permeable material that functions regionally as a
water-yielding unit; it comprises two or more permeable beds separated at least locally
by confining beds that impede ground-water movement but do not greatly affect the
regional hydraulic continuity of the system; includes both saturated and unsaturated parts
of permeable material.
Area of influence of a well - The area surrounding a pumping or recharging well within
which the potentiometric surface has been changed.
Breakthrough curve - A graph of concentration versus time at a fixed location.
Cancer slope factor (CFS) - An upper bound estimate, approximating a 95% confidence
limit, on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime exposure to an agent. This estimate,
usually expressed in units of proportion (of a population) affected per mg/kg/day, is
generally reserved for use in the low-dose region of the dose-response relationship, that
is, for exposures corresponding to risks less than 1 in 100.
Cation exchange capacity - The sum total of exchangeable cations that a porous
medium can absorb. Expressed in moles of ion charge per kilogram of soil.
A-l
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Chronic daily intake (GDI) - Exposure expressed as mass of a substance contacted per
unit body weight per unit time, averaged over a long period of time.
Confined - A modifier that describes a condition in which the potentiometric surface is
above the top of the aquifer.
Confined aquifer - An aquifer bounded above and below by impermeable beds or by
beds of distinctly lower permeability than that of the aquifer itself; an aquifer containing
confined ground water.
Confining unit - A body of impermeable or distinctly less permeable material which
separates water-bearing layers.
Darcian velocity - The rate of ground-water flow per unit area of porous or fractured
media measured perpendicular to the direction of flow. See specific discharge.
Darcy's law - An empirical law which states that the velocity of flow through porous
medium is directly proportional to the hydraulic gradient.
Desorption - Removal of a substance adsorbed to the surface of an adsorbent. Also, the
reverse process of sorption.
Diffusion - Spreading of solutes from regions of higher concentration to regions of lower
concentration caused by the concentration gradient. In slow-moving ground water, this
can be a significant mixing process.
Diffusion coefficient - The rate at which solutes are transported at the microscopic level
due to variations in the solute concentrations within the fluid phases.
Dispersion coefficient - A measure of the tendency of a plume of dissolved constituents
in ground water to spread. Equal to the sum of the coefficients of mechanical dispersion
and molecular diffusion in a porous medium.
Dispersion, longitudinal - Process whereby some of the water molecules and solute
molecules travel more rapidly than the average linear velocity and some travel more
slowly. Results in the spreading of the solute in the direction of the bulk flow.
Dispersion, transverse - Process whereby some of the water molecules and solute
molecules spread in directions perpendicular to the bulk flow.
A-2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Dispersivity - A geometric property of a porous medium that determines the dispersion
characteristics of the medium by relating the components of pore velocity to the
dispersion coefficient.
Distribution coefficient - The quantity of a constituent sorbed by a solid per unit weight
of solid divided by the quantity dissolved in water per unit volume of water.
Dose-response relationship - The relationship between a quantified exposure (dose),
and the proportion of subjects demonstrating specific, biological changes (response).
Evapotranspiration - The combined loss of water from a given area by evaporation
from the land and transpiration from plants.
Exposure pathway - The course a chemical or physical agent takes from a source to an
exposed organism. An exposure pathway describes a unique mechanism by which an
individual or population is exposed to chemicals or physical agents at, or originating
from, a site. Each exposure pathway includes a source or release from a source, an
exposure point, and an exposure route. If the exposure point differs from the source,
transport/exposure medium (e.g., water) or media (in case of intermedia transfer) also is
included.
Exposure point - A location of potential contact between an organism and a chemical or
physical agent.
Exposure point concentration - an estimate of the of the arithmetic average
concentration of a contaminant at a exposure point.
Flow, steady - A characteristic of a flow system where the magnitude and direction of
specific discharge are constant in time at any point. See also flow, unsteady.
Flow, uniform - A characteristic of a flow system where specific discharge has the same
magnitude and direction at any point.
Flow, unsteady - A characteristic of a flow system where the magnitude and/or direction
of the flow rate changes with time.
Flow velocity - The rate of ground-water flow per unit area of porous or fractured media
measured perpendicular to the direction of flow. See specific discharge.
Flux - The rate of ground-water flow per unit area of porous or fractured media measured
perpendicular to the direction of flow. See specific discharge.
Fracture - A break or crack in the bedrock.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Geohydrologic system - The geohydrologic units within a geologic setting, including
any recharge, discharge, interconnections between units, and any natural or
human-induced processes or events that could affect ground-water flow within or among
those units. See ground-water system.
Geohydrologic unit - An aquifer, a confining unit, or a combination of aquifers and
confining units comprising a framework for a reasonably distinct geohydrologic system.
See hydrogeologic unit.
Ground water - Water present below the land surface in a zone of saturation. Ground
water is the water contained within an aquifer.
Ground water, confined - Ground water under pressure significantly greater than
atmospheric and whose upper limit is the bottom of a confining unit.
Ground-water discharge - Flow of water out of the zone of saturation.
Ground-water flow - The movement of water in the zone of saturation.
Ground-water flux - The rate of ground-water flow per unit area of porous or fractured
media measured perpendicular to the direction of flow. See specific discharge.
Ground-water mound - A raised area in a water table or potentiometric surface created
by ground-water recharge.
Ground-water recharge - The process of water addition to the saturated zone or the
volume of water added by this process.
Ground-water system - A ground-water reservoir and its contained water. Also, the
collective hydrodynamic and geochemical processes at work in the reservoir.
Ground-water table - That surface below which rock, gravel, sand or other material is
saturated. It is the surface of a body of unconfmed ground water at which the pressure is
atmospheric. Also called water table; synonymous with phreatic surface.
Ground-water travel time - The time required for a unit volume of ground water or
solute to travel between two locations. The travel time is the length of the flow path
divided by the pore water velocity. If discrete segments of the flow path have different
hydrologic properties, the total travel time will be the sum of the travel times for each
discrete segment.
A-4
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Ground water, unconfined - Water in an aquifer that has a water table. See also ground
water, confined.
Hazard quotient - The ratio of a single contaminant exposure level over a specified time
period to a reference dose for that contaminant derived from a similar period.
Health-based number (HBN) - The maximum constituent concentration in ground
water that is expected to not usually cause adverse noncancer health effects in the general
population (including sensitive subgroups), or that will not result in an additional
incidence of cancer in more than approximately one in one million individuals exposed to
the contaminant.
Heterogeneity - A characteristic of a medium in which material properties vary
throughout the medium.
Homogeneity - A characteristic of a medium in which material properties are identical
throughout the medium.
Hydraulic conductivity - A coefficient of proportionality describing the rate at which
water can move through an aquifer or other permeable medium. Synonymous with
permeability.
Hydraulic gradient - Slope of the water table or potentiometric surface.
Hydraulic head - The level to which water rises in a well with reference to a datum such
as sea level.
Hydrodynamic dispersion - The spreading of the solute front during ground-water
plume transport resulting from both mechanical dispersion and molecular diffusion.
Synonymous with mechanical dispersion.
Hydrogeologic unit - Any soil or rock unit or zone that by virtue of its porosity or
permeability, or lack thereof, has a distinct influence on the storage or movement of
ground water.
Hydrologic properties - Those properties of a rock that govern the entrance of water and
the capacity to hold, transmit, and deliver water. Hydrologic properties include porosity,
effective porosity, and permeability.
Hydrolysis - The splitting (lysis) of a compound by a reaction with water. Example are
the reaction of salts with water to produce solutions that are not neutral, and the reaction
of an ester with water.
A-5
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Hydrostratigraphic unit - See hydrogeologic unit.
Igneous rocks - Rocks that solidified from molten or partly molten materials, that is from
a magma or lava.
Immiscible - The chemical property of two or more phases that, at mutual equilibrium,
cannot dissolve completely in one another, for example, oil and water.
Impermeable - A characteristic of some geologic material that limits its ability to
transmit significant quantities of water under the head differences ordinarily found in the
subsurface.
Infiltration - The downward entry of water into the soil or rock, specifically from a
waste management unit.
Isotropy - The condition in which the property or properties of interest are the same in
all directions.
Leachate - A liquid that has percolated through waste and has extracted dissolved or
suspended materials.
Leaching - Separation or dissolving out of soluble constituents from a waste by
percolation of water.
Matrix - The solid particles in a porous system and their spatial arrangement. Often used
in contrast to the pore space in a porous system.
Matrix diffusion - The tendency of solutes to diffuse from the larger pores in the system
into small pores inside the solid matrix from where they can be removed only very
slowly.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) - Legally enforceable standards regulating the
maximum allowed amount of certain chemicals in drinking water.
Mechanical dispersion - The process whereby solutes are mechanically mixed during
advective transport caused by the velocity variations at the microscopic level.
Synonymous with hydrodynamic dispersion.
Metamorphic rocks - Any rock derived from pre-existing rocks by mineralogical,
chemical, and/or structural changes, essentially in the solid state, in response to marked
changes in temperature, pressure, shearing stress, and chemical environment, generally at
depth in the Earth's crust.
A-6
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Miscible - The chemical property of two or more fluid phases that, when brought
together, have the ability to mix and form one phase.
Model - A simplified representation of a physical system obeying certain specified
conditions, whose behavior is used to understand the real world system. Often, the model
is a mathematical representation, programmed into a computer.
Moisture content - The ratio of either (a) the weight of water to the weight of solid
particles expressed as moisture weight percentage or (b) the volume of water to the
volume of solid particles expressed as moisture volume percentage in a given volume of
porous medium. See water content.
Molecular diffusion - The process in which solutes are transported at the microscopic
level due to variations in the solute concentrations within the fluid phases. See diffusion.
Monte Carlo simulation - A method that produces a statistical estimate of a quantity by
taking many random samples from an assumed probability distribution, such as a normal
distribution. The method is typically used when experimentation is infeasible or when
the actual input values are difficult or impossible to obtain.
Mounding - Commonly, an outward and upward expansion of the free water table
caused by surface infiltration or recharge.
Outwash deposits - Stratified drift deposited by meltwater streams flowing away from
melting ice.
Overburden - The layer of fragmental and unconsolidated material including loose soil,
silt, sand and gravel overlying bedrock, which has been either transported from elsewhere
or formed in place.
Permeability - The property of a porous medium to transmit fluids under an hydraulic
gradient.
Permeable - The property of a porous medium to allow the easy passage of a fluid
through it.
pH - A numerical measure of the acidity or alkalinity of water ranging from 0 to 14.
Neutral waters have pH near 7. Acidic waters have pH less than 7 and alkaline waters
have pH greater than 7.
Pore-water velocity - Average velocity of water particles. Equals the Darcian velocity
divided by the effective porosity. Synonymous with seepage velocity.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Porosity - The ratio, usually expressed as a percentage, of the total volume of voids (or
pores) of a given porous medium to the total volume of the porous medium.
Porosity, effective - The ratio, usually expressed as a percentage, of the total volume of
voids (or pores) available for fluid transmission to the total volume of the porous
medium.
Receptor - The potentially exposed individual for the exposure pathway considered.
Recharge - The process of addition of water to the saturated zone; also the water added.
In IWEM, recharge is the result of natural precipitation around a waste management unit.
Reference concentration (RfC) - An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an
order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from a NOAEL, LOAEL, or
benchmark concentration, with uncertainty factors generally applied to reflect limitations
of the data used. Generally used in EPA's noncancer health assessments.
Reference Dose (RfD) - An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of
magnitude) of a daily oral or dermal exposure to the human population (including
sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects
during a lifetime.
Retardation factor - The ratio of the average linear velocity of ground water to the
velocity of a dissolved constituent. A value greater than one indicates that the constituent
moves more slowly than water, usually caused by sorption.
Risk - The probability that a constituent will cause an adverse effect in exposed humans
or to the environment.
Risk assessment - The process used to determine the risk posed by contaminants
released into the environment. Elements include identification of the contaminants
present in the environmental media, assessment of exposure and exposure pathways,
assessment of the toxicity of the contaminants present at the site, characterization of
human health risks, and characterization of the impacts or risks to the environment.
Saturated Zone - The part of the water bearing layer of rock or soil in which all spaces,
large or small, are filled with water.
Sedimentary rocks - Rocks formed from consolidation of loose sediments such as clay,
silt, sand, and gravel.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Seepage velocity - See pore-water velocity.
Soil bulk density - The mass of dry soil per unit bulk soil.
Soil moisture - Subsurface liquid water in the unsaturated zone expressed as a fraction of
the total porous medium volume occupied by water. It is less than or equal to the
porosity.
Solubility - The total amount of solute species that will remain indefinitely in a solution
maintained at constant temperature and pressure in contact with the solid crystals from
which the solutes were derived.
Solute transport - The net flux of solute (dissolved constituent) through a hydrogeologic
unit controlled by the flow of subsurface water and transport mechanisms.
Sorption - A general term used to encompass the process of adsorption.
Source term - The kinds and amounts of constituents that make up the source of a
potential release.
Specific discharge - The rate of discharge of ground water per unit area of a porous
medium measured at right angle to the direction of flow. Synonymous with Darcian
velocity, or (specific) flux.
Till - Till consists of a generally unconsolidated, unsorted, unstratified heterogeneous
mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel and boulders of different sizes and shapes. Till is
deposited directly by and underneath glacial ice without subsequent reworking by
meltwater.
Toxicity - The degree to which a chemical substance elicits a deleterious or adverse
effect on a biological system of an organism exposed to the substance over a designated
time period.
Transient flow - See flow, unsteady.
Transmissivity - The rate at which water is transmitted through a unit width of the
aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient. It is equal to an integration of the hydraulic
conductivities across the saturated part of the aquifer perpendicular to the flow paths.
Transport - Conveyance of dissolved constituents and particulates in flow systems. See
also solute transport.
A-9
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Unconfined - A condition in which the upper surface of the zone of saturation forms a
water table under atmospheric pressure.
Unconfined aquifer - An aquifer that has a water table.
Unconsolidated deposits - Deposits overlying bedrock and consisting of soil, silt, sand,
gravel and other material which have either been formed in place or have been
transported in from elsewhere.
Unsaturated flow - The movement of water in a porous medium in which the pore
spaces are not filled to capacity with water.
Unsaturated zone - The subsurface zone between the water table and the land surface
where some of the spaces between the soil particles are filled with air.
Vadose zone - See unsaturated zone.
Volatiles - Substances with relatively large vapor pressures that easily volatilize when in
contact with air.
Water content - The amount of water lost from the soil after drying it to constant weight
at 105 °C, expressed either as the weight of water per unit weight of dry soil or as the
volume of water per unit bulk volume of soil. See also moisture content.
Water table - The upper surface of a zone of saturation except where that surface is
formed by a confining unit. The water pressure at the water table equals atmospheric
pressure.
Water table aquifer - See unconfined aquifer.
Well - A bored, drilled or driven shaft, or a dug hole extending from the ground surface
into the ground water, that is used to inject (injection well) or extract ground water.
Well screen - A cylindrical filter used to prevent sediment from entering a water well.
There are several types of well screens, which can be ordered in various slot widths,
selected on the basis of the grain size of the aquifer material where the well screen is to
be located. In very fine grained aquifers, a zone of fine gravel or coarse sand may be
required to act as a filter between the screen and the aquifer.
A-10
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF IWEM WASTE CONSTITUENTS AND DEFAULT
CHEMICAL PROPERTY DATA
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Table B-l: Constituent Chemical Properties
CAS
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
Constituent Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acidl
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1,3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-l,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloridel
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
Chloropropene 3- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a,h}anthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Molecular
Weight
(g/mol)
(a)
154.2
44.1
58.1
41.1
120.2
56.1
71.1
72.1
53.1
364.9
58.1
93.1
178.2
121.8
74.9
137.3
228.3
78.1
184.2
252.3
252.3
108.1
126.6
9.0
143.0
171.1
390.6
163.8
94.9
54.1
74.1
312.4
240.2
112.4
76.1
153.8
409.8
88.5
127.6
112.6
325.2
208.3
64.5
119.4
50.5
128.6
76.5
52.0
52.0
228.3
58.9
63.5
108.1
108.1
108.1
324.4
120.2
100.2
98.1
320.0
318.0
354.5
270.2
278.4
236.3
147.0
147.0
253.1
Solubility
(mg/L)
(b)
4.24
1.0E+06(e)
1.0E+06(e)
1.0E+06(e)
6.13E+03
2.13E+05
6.4E+05
1.0E+06(e)
7.4E+04
0.18
1.0E+06(e)
3.6E+04
4.3E-02
9.4E-03
1.75E+03
500.0
1.62E-03
1.5E-03
4.0E+04
525.00
1.72E+04
1.31E+03
0.34
6.74E+03
1.52E+04
735.00
7.4E+04
2.69
52.00
1.19E+03
793.00
0.06
1.74E+03
5.3E+03
472.00
11.10
2.6E+03
5.68E+03
7.92E+03
5.33E+03
2.2E+04
3.37E+03
1.6E-03
2.27E+04
2.6E+04
2.15E+04
2.34E+04
61.30
4.3E+04 (e)
5.0E+03
0.09
0.12
0.03
40.00
0.00
1.23E+03
156.00
73.80
3.11
LogK,,
(log[mL/g])
(c)
3.75
-0.21 (h)
-0.59
-0.71
1.26
-0.22
-0.99
-1.84
-0.09
6.18
1 .47 (e)
0.60
4.21
5.34
1.80
1.26
5.80
5.80
0.78
2.84
0.80
2.39
7.13
1.77
0.76
2.06 (e)
0.50
4.23
2.02
1.84
2.41
5.89
1.74
1.61
2.58
4.04
1.91
0.51
1.58
0.91
1.82
1.13
5.34
1.76
1.76
1.76
2.12
3.40
l.H(B)
1.82
5.89
6.64
6.59
4.17
6.52
1.94
3.08
3.05
3.32
Hydrolysis Rate Constants (c)
Acid
Catalyzed
(Ka)
(1/mol/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
31.5
0
500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Neutral
(Kn)
(i/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
6.7E+08
0.018
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
410
0.23
0
9.46
0
0
0
0
0.017
0
0
0
0
0
0
l.OE-04
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.025
0
0.06
0.1
0
4.0E-03
0
0
0
Base
Catalyzed
(Kb)
(1/mol/yr)
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
5.2E+03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 .4E+03
5.0E+04
0
0
1.2E+05
0
31500
0
37.7
0
0
0
2.8E+06
2.5E+04
0
2740
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.2E+04
0
3.1E+05
8.0E+03
0
1.2E+05
0
0
0
Diffusion
Coefficient
in Water
(Dw)
(m2/yr)
(d)
0.0426
0.0363
0.0445
0.0385
0.0397
0.0378
0.0388
0.0184
0.0319
0.0186(1)
0.0325
0.0239
0.0208
0.0174(i)
0.0278
0.0275
0.0233
0.0132
0.0337
0.0426
0.0325
0.041
0.0308
0.0172
0.0315
0.0299
0.0173
0.0334
0.0366
0.0344
0.0429
0.0299
0.0341
0.0213
0.0294
0.0311
0.0291
0.0299
0.0248
0.0295
0.014
0.019
0.0281
0.0281
0.0274
0.0173(1)
B-l-1
-------
Table B-l: Constituent Chemical Properties
CAS
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
156-59-2
156-60-5
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
Constituent Name
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 1 2)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans- 1,2-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene l,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF1
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1,2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II,mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1,2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Hep tachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFsl
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDsl
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
Indeno{l,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Molecular
Weight
(g/mol)
(a)
120.9
99.0
99.0
96.9
96.9
96.9
163.0
221.0
113.0
111.0
111.0
111.0
380.9
222.2
268.4
229.2
0.0
73.1
256.3
212.3
122.2
278.3
168.1
184.1
182.1
182.1
390.6
88.1
169.2
184.2
274.4
406.9
380.9
92.5
72.1
90.1
132.2
88.1
74.1
114.1
124.2
106.2
187.9
62.1
44.1
102.2
202.3
19.0
30.0
46.0
96.1
290.8
290.8
290.8
373.3
389.3
260.8
284.8
272.8
374.9
390.9
236.7
406.9
86.2
34.1
276.3
74.1
138.2
Solubility
(mg/L)
(b)
280.00
5.06E+03
8.52E+03
2.25E+03
3.5E+03
6.3E+03
4.5E+03
677.00
2.8E+03
2.8E+03
2.72E+03
2.72E+03
0.20
1.08E+03
0.10
2.5E+04
60.00
1.0E+06(g)
2.50E-02
1.3E+03
7.87E+03
11.20
861.00
2.79E+03
270.00
182.00
0.02
1.0E+06(e)
35.70
68.00
16.30
0.51
0.25
6.59E+04
9.5E+04 (e)
1.0E+06(e)
2.29E+05 (g)
8.03E+04
5.68E+04
3.67E+03
6.3E+03
169.00
4.18E+03
1.0E+06(e)
1.0E+06(e)
6.2E+04
0.21
5.5E+05
1.0E+06(e)
1.1E+05
0.24
6.80
2.00
0.18
0.20
3.23
0.01
1.80
8.25E-06(fl
4.0E-06 (fl
50.00
140.00
12.40
437.00
2.2E-05
8.5E+04
1.2E+04
LogK,,
(log[mL/g])
(c)
2.16
1.46
1.13
1.79
1.70
1.60
2.49
0.68
1.67
1.43
1.80
1.80
5.08
1.99
4.09
0.13
1.49
-0.99 (h)
6.64
2.55
2.29
4.37
1.31
-0.09
1.68
1.40
7.60
-0.81
3.30
2.82
2.94
3.55
4.60
-0.53
0.90 (e)
-0.54
0.70 (g)
0.35
0.55
1.27
-0.27
3.00
1.42
-1.50
-1.10
0.00
4.63
-1.30
-2.70
0.80 (i)
3.43
3.40
3.43
5.21
4.90
4.46
5.41
4.72
7.00
6.38 (g)
3.61
5.00
2.95 (k)
6.26
0.44
1.90
Hydrolysis Rate Constants (c)
Acid
Catalyzed
(Ka)
(1/mol/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.5E+04
0
0
3.5E+03
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.9E+05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Neutral
(Kn)
(i/yr)
1.13E-02
9.61E-03
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
40
6.30E-02
0
0
1.68
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.3
0.055
30.9
0
0
4.8E-03
0
0
1.25E+03
0
0.63
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.05
0
61
0.063
0
0
24.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Base
Catalyzed
(Kb)
(1/mol/yr)
0.378
54.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.1E+05
0
4.48E+06
0
0
0
0
0
1.8E+06
0
0
0
0
5.2E+05
0
0
0
5.4E+04
0
0
0
0
3.4E+06
0
1.1E+06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.7E+06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Diffusion
Coefficient
in Water
(Dw)
(m2/yr)
(d)
0.0341
0.0334
0.0344
0.0347
0.0307
0.0319
0.0322
0.0319
0.019
0.0353
0.0172(1)
0.0249
0.0331
0.0229
0.035
0.0331
0.0308
0.0252
0.0267
0.0331
0.0429
0.046
0.0319(1)
0.0549
0.0337
0.0233
0.023
0.0232
0.018
0.0176
0.0222
0.0248
0.0228
0.0133(i)
0.013 (i)
0.028
0.0256
0.0164(0
0.0238
B-l-2
-------
Table B-l: Constituent Chemical Properties
CAS
143-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439.97.6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
109-86-4
110-49-6
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439_98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
Constituent Name
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE1
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFsl
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDsl
Pentachloromtrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropanel
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuraml
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidine o-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform
Molecular
Weight
(g/mol)
(a)
490.6
207.2
54.9
200.6
67.1
32.0
345.7
76.1
118.1
72.1
100.2
100.1
263.2
88.1
268.4
173.8
84.9
95.9
128.2
58.7
123.1
89.1
102.1
74.1
158.2
130.2
198.2
88.1
114.1
100.1
286.3
291.3
250.3
340.4
356.4
295.3
266.3
94.1
336.7
108.1
260.4
148.1
256.1
58.1
202.3
79.1
162.2
79.0
107.9
334.4
104.2
215.9
306.0
322.0
167.8
167.8
165.8
231.9
322.3
204.4
240.4
92.1
122.2
107.2
107.2
252.7
Solubility
(mg/L)
(b)
7.60
0.06
25400.00
1.0E+06(e)
0.05
1.0E+06(e)
1.0E+06(m)
2.23E+05
1.9E+04
1.5E+04
55.00
5.13E+04(e)
0.00
1.19E+04
1.3E+04
31.00
2.09E+03
1.7E+04
9.3E+04
1.0E+06(e)
1.27E+03
9.89E+03
35.10
1.97E+04
7.65E+04
1.0E+06(e)
1.0E+06(m)
6.54
1.33
2.40E-04 (f)
1.18E-04(f)
0.55
1.95E+03
8.28E+04
2.0E+03
2.55E+06
50.00
6.2E+03
0.07
32.80
4.05E+05 (e)
0.14
1.0E+06(e)
810.67
160.00
310.00
0.60
6.92E-04 (f)
7.91E-06(f)
1.1E+03
2.97E+03
200.00
100.00
25.00
30.00
526.00
3.37E+04
1.66E+04
782.00
0.74
3.1E+03
LogK,,
(log[mL/g])
(c)
4.15
0.22
-1.08
4.90
0.95 (e)
-0.03
0.87
0.74
2.47
1.05(e)
7.00
1.21
0.93
3.11
1.51
0.23
-0.03
0.45
2.09
1.03
2.84
1.03
-0.02
-0.57
-0.51
3.15
5.39
4.93 (g)
6.3 (g)
4.57
3.06
1.23
0.00
-0.30
2.64
1.56(e)
6.19
2.63
1 .40 (e)
4.92
0.34
2.34
1.90
2.84
4.28
6.62
6.10
2.71
2.07
2.21
2.32
3.51
2.83 (e)
2.43
0.02
1.24
1.24
4.31
2.05
Hydrolysis Rate Constants (c)
Acid
Catalyzed
(Ka)
(1/mol/yr)
0
500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.9E+03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Neutral
(Kn)
(i/yr)
0
0
0
0.69
0
0
0
0
0
2.8
0
1.7E-02
0
l.OE-03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
4.9E+05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0137
5.1E-03
0
0
84
0
0
0
0
0
0.07
Base
Catalyzed
(Kb)
(1/mol/yr)
0
5.2E+03
0
1.2E+04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.7E+06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
610
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.13E+04
1.59E+07
0
0
9.0E+06
0
0
0
0
0
2.8E+04
l.OE+04
Diffusion
Coefficient
in Water
(Dw)
(m2/yr)
(d)
0.0949
0.0334
0.052
0.0347
0.0275
0.0322
0.0264
0.0292
0.0272
0.0194
0.0394
0.0264
0.0298
0.0322
0.0288
0.0363
0.0215
0.0245
0.0227
0.0315
0.029
0.0319
0.0142 (i)
0.0138 (i)
0.0253
0.0325
0.0308
0.0189
0.0382
0.0344
0.0278
0.0153(1)
0.0148 (i)
0.0287
0.0293
0.0298
0.0291
0.0282 (i)
0.029
0.0173
0.0328
B-l-3
-------
Table B-l: Constituent Chemical Properties
CAS
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
Constituent Name
Trichloro- 1 ,2,2-trifluoro-ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1 ,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethylene 1,1,2-)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5-
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (Trinitrobenzene 1,3,5-)
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
Molecular
Weight
(g/mol)
(a)
187.4
181.4
133.4
133.4
131.4
137.4
197.4
197.4
269.5
255.5
147.4
101.2
213.1
697.6
50.9
86.1
62.5
106.2
106.2
106.2
318.5
65.4
Solubility
(mg/L)
(b)
170.00
34.60
1.33E+03
4.42E+03
1.1E+03
1.1E+03
1.2E+03
800.00
140.00
268.30
1.75E+03
5.5E+04 (e)
350.00
8.00
2.0E+04
2.76E+03
161.00
178.00
185.00
175.00
LogK,,
(log[mL/g])
(c)
2.97
3.96
2.16
1.73
2.10
2.11
2.93
2.25
1.74
1.43
1.66
1.31 (1)
1.05
3.19
0.45
1.04
3.09
3.02
3.12
3.08
Hydrolysis Rate Constants (c)
Acid
Catalyzed
(Ka)
(1/mol/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Neutral
(Kn)
(i/yr)
0
0
0.64
2.73E-05
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.7E-02
0
0
8.8E-02
0
0
0
0
0
0
Base
Catalyzed
(Kb)
(1/mol/yr)
0
0
2.4E+06
4.95E+04
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.6E+03
0
0
3.0E+05
0
0
0
0
0
0
Diffusion
Coefficient
in Water
(Dw)
(m2/yr)
(d)
0.0271
0.0265
0.0303
0.0315
0.0322
0.0319
0.0255
0.0291
0.0247
0.0315
0.0378
0.0267
0.027
0.0267
0.0268
Note: Data sources for chemical property values are indicated in the column headings; exceptions are noted in parentheses for individual chemical values.
Data sources:
a. http://chemfinder.cambridgesoft.com (CambridgeSoft
b. U.S.EPA, 1997b. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). SCDMWIN 1.0 (SCDM Windows User's Version), Version 1. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Washington DC: GPO. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/scdm/index.htm. Accessed July 2001
c. Kollig, H. P. (ed.), 1993. Environmental fate consultants for organic chemicals under consideration for EPA's hazardous waste identification projects. Environmental
Research Laboratory, Office of R&D, U.S. EPA, Athens, GA.
d. Calculated based on Water 9. U.S. EPA, 2001. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/software/water/indi
Accessed July 2001
e. Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC), 1999. CHEMFATE Chemical Search, Environmental Science Center, Syracuse, NY. http://esc.syrres.com/efdb/Chemfate.htm.
Accessed July 2001.
f. Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 2000. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3, 7,8-Tetmchlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin(TCDD) and Related Compounds, Part 1, Vol. 3.
Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC: GPO.
g. USNLM (U.S. National Library of Medicine), 2001. Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB). http://toxnet.nlm.mh.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen/HSDB. Accessed July 2001.
h. MI DEQ. Environmental response Division Operational Memorandum #18 (Opmemo 18): Part 201 Generic Cleanup Criteria Tables, Revision 1, State of Michigan,
Department of Environmental Quality, http://www.deq.state.mi.us/erd/opmemol 8/index.html.
i. Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1987. Process Coefficients and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and Heavy Metals in Surface Waters. Office of Research and Develop
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office (GPO).
j. U.S. EPA, 1999. Region III Soil-to-Groundwater SSLs. Region III, Philadelphia, PA. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/ssl.pdf
k. U.S. EPA, 2000. Physical-chemical Data.http://www.epa.gov/Rgeion9/waste/sfund/prg/index.htm
1. Calculated from octanol-water partition coefficient using regression equation log[Koc] = 1.029 x log[Kow] - 0.18; presented in Table 10.2 of G. deMarsily,
1986. Quantitative Hydrogeology. Academic Press
m. Lyman, W.J., W.F. Reehl, and D.H. Rosenblatt, 1990. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds.
Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
B-l-4
-------
APPENDIX C
TIER 1 INPUT PARAMETERS
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table C-l. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Landfill, No Liner Scenario . . . C-l-1
Table C-2. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Surface Impoundment,
No Liner Scenario C-2-1
Table C-3. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Waste Pile, No Liner Scenario . C-3-1
Table C-4. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Land Application Unit Scenario C-4-1
Table C-5. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Landfill, Single Liner Scenario . C-5-1
Table C-6. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Surface Impoundment,
Single Liner Scenario C-6-1
Table C-7. WEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Waste Pile, Single
Liner Scenario C-7-1
Table C-8. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Landfill, Composite
Liner Scenario C-8-1
Table C-9. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Surface Impoundment,
Composite Liner Scenario C-9-1
Table C-10. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Waste Pile, Composite
Liner Scenario C-10-1
C-i
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Table C-l: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Landfill, No Liner Scenario
Input
Type
8
g
Unsaturated Zone
Saturated Zone
Input
No.
SSI
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS11
SS12
SS13
FS1
SS15
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
US6
US7
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
USB
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
AS5
AS6
AS7
ASS
AS9
AS10
ASH
AS12
AS13
AS14
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Duration of Leaching
Fraction of Landfill Occupied by Waste of Concern
Depth of Waste Disposal Facility
Density of Hazardous Waste
Ratio ot Waste Concentration to Leachate
Concentration
Base Depth Below Grade
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficienl
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Eladial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficienl
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Constant
Lognormal '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Johnson SB '
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
in
in
m/yr
m/yr
yr
unitless
in
g/cnr1
L/kg
in
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
in
in
unitless
g/cnr1
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
in
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
in
in
in
degrees C
standard units
unitless
in
degrees
in
cnrVg
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles2
0
40.5
6.36
l.OOE-05
l.OOE-05
9,340
10
486
22.0
0.0135
0.0135
48,200
25
2,430
49.3
0.0686
0.0658
94,500
50
12,100
110
0.122
0.109
199,000
75
52,600
229
0.308
0.274
521,000
90
142,000
376
0.438
0.411
1,810,000
100
3,120,000
1,770
1.15
1.08
1.20E+10
1.00
0.510
0.700
0.880
0.737
1.32
0.794
2.57
0.889
4.09
1.33
6.13
1.45
10.1
2.10
10000
0.00
0.00377
0.129
1.03
0.0106
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00358
1.60
0.594
0.596
1.20
0.0489
0.410
1.68
0.0570
0.0341
1.60
2.04
0.935
1.27
0.0609
0.430
3.96
0.107
0.0567
1.65
7.80
1.52
1.37
0.0746
0.450
6.10
0.154
0.1020
1.65
35.0
2.71
1.53
0.0857
0.450
15.2
0.354
0.177
1.67
169
5.90
1.82
0.0937
0.450
42.7
0.959
0.289
1.67
2,450
21.8
2.50
0.115
0.450
610
1.00
1.69
1.67
chemical-specific va ue
1.00
chemical-specific va ue
0.00
0.0004
0.0501
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.0015
0.107
1.30
4.27
174
0.00557
0.164
1.43
7.62
804
0.0191
0.236
1.56
14.3
1,890
0.0409
0.296
1.63
32.4
11,000
0.0762
0.334
1.70
91.4
31,500
0.211
0.426
1.80
914
4,290,000
1.00
0.000002
0.100
0.0009
3.15
0.002
16.3
0.0057
55.0
0.0151
321
0.0310
1,320
0.491
11,000
chemical-specific va ue
0.109
0.0136
0.00500
7.50
3.21
0.0000164
0.928
0.116
0.00580
7.50
5.17
0.000132
2.72
0.340
0.0170
12.5
6.05
0.000234
6.18
0.773
0.0387
12.5
6.81
0.000433
9.76
1.22
0.0610
17.5
7.41
0.000810
14.5
1.81
0.0903
22.5
7.92
0.00139
40.0
4.99
0.250
22.5
9.70
0.00984
150
0.00
0.00321
0.945
2.52
6.42
16.4
47.0
897
chemical-specific va ue
1.00
chemical-specific va ue
0.00
References
USEPA 1986 and 1997b
Derived
ABB, 1995 and USEPA, 1997b
ABB, 1995 and USEPA, 1997b
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
USEPA 1986 and 1997b
Schanz and Salhotra, 1992
Policy for Tier 1
No data available
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPRI, 1985; USEPA 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPA STORET database
USEPA STORET database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
1 The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among the three soil types; each soil
type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-1-1
-------
Table C-2: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Surface Impoundment, No Liner Scenario
Input
Type
8
g
Unsaturated Zone
Saturated Zo
Saturated Zone (cont'd)
Input
No.
SSI
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS15
SS7
SS16
SS22
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
US6
US7
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
USB
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
AS5
AS6
AS7
ASS
AS9
AS10
ASH
AS12
AS13
AS14
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Operational Life (Duration of Leaching)
Base Depth Below Grade
Waste Water Ponding Depth
Sediment Thickness (Thickness of Sludge)
Distance to Nearest Surface Water Body
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Eladial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
DBGS
HZERO
DSLUDGE
DISSW
Lognormal '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Johnson SB '
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
m
m
m/yr
m/yr
li-
ra
m
m
m
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
m
m
unitless
g/cm3
cnrVg
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
m
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
m
m
m
degrees C
standard units
unitless
m
degrees
m
cnrVg
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles2
0
9.30
3.05
0.0000100
3.78E-15
4.00
0.00
0.0100
10
174
13.2
0.00990
0.270
15.0
0.00
0.460
25
401
20.0
0.0465
0.521
50.0
0.00
0.993
50
1,770
42.1
0.144
1.14
50.0
1.22
1.81
75
6,970
83.5
0.269
2.27
50.0
3.05
2.95
90
28,300
168
0.377
3.51
50.0
4.57
4.24
100
4,860,000
2,200
1.84
22.3
95.0
33.5
18.2
0.20
0.00
0.00224
0.104
1.03
0.00997
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00285
1.60
90.0
0.318
0.516
1.18
0.0525
0.410
2.74
0.0803
0.0316
1.60
240
1.08
0.801
1.23
0.0674
0.430
4.27
0.114
0.0552
1.65
360
4.94
1.36
1.31
0.0812
0.430
9.14
0.22
0.100
1.6700
800
43.8
3.19
1.61
0.0905
0.430
15.2
0.354
0.181
1.67
5,000
301
7.88
1.91
0.0976
0.450
35.4
0.799
0.302
1.67
5,000
2,420
22.3
2.43
0.115
0.450
610
1.00
1.98
1.67
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
0.000400
0.0500
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00145
0.108
1.29
4.57
126
0.00546
0.162
1.43
7.62
315
0.0196
0.233
1.56
15.2
2,210
0.0418
0.294
1.63
30.5
9,780
0.0777
0.333
1.70
79.3
24,800
0.211
0.430
1.80
914
7,660,000
1.00
5.00E-07
0.100
0.000508
2.48
0.00200
11.1
0.00670
43.4
0.0141
227
0.0330
814
0.538
10,800
chemical-specific value
0.104
0.0130
0.00500
7.5
3.20
0.0000128
0.802
0.100
0.00501
7.5
5.21
0.000135
2.44
0.305
0.0152
12.5
6.06
0.000235
5.71
0.714
0.0357
17.5
6.81
0.000430
9.01
1.13
0.0563
17.5
7.42
0.000790
15.6
1.95
0.0976
17.5
7.91
0.00137
40.0
5.00
0.250
27.5
9.69
0.0120
150
0.00
0.000126
0.953
2.49
6.04
15.2
39.4
904
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
References
USEPA, 2001
Derived
ABB 1995 and USEPA, 1997b
Derived
USEPA, 2001
USEPA, 2001
USEPA, 2001
Assumption
USEPA, 2001
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPRI, 1985;
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPA'STORET database
USEPA STORET database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among the three soil types; each
soil type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-2-1
-------
Table C-3: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Waste Pile, No Liner Scenario
Input
Type
K
&
Unsaturated Zone
Saturated Zone
Input
No.
SSI
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS15
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
US6
US7
USS
US9
US10
US11
US12
US13
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
ASS
AS6
AS7
ASS
AS9
AS10
ASH
AS12
AS13
AS14
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Operational Life (Duration of Leaching)
Base Depth Below Land Surface
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Radial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm (soil/water distribution coeff)
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Lognormal '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Johnson SB '
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
m
m
m/yr
m/yr
yr
m
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
m
m
unitless
g/cm3
cnrVg
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
m
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
m
m
m
degrees C
standard units
unitless
m
degrees
m
cnrVg
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles2
0
5.06
2.25
0.00001
0.0003
10
20.2
4.49
0.0508
0.0602
25
20.2
4.49
0.0787
0.128
50
121
11.0
0.145
0.255
75
1,210
34.8
0.282
0.391
90
4,170
64.6
0.417
0.538
100
1,940,000
1,390
1.84
1.82
20.0
0.00
0.00347
0.120
1.02
0.0114
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00421
1.60
0.617
0.624
1.20
0.0487
0.410
1.83
0.0603
0.0339
1.60
2.10
0.946
1.26
0.0608
0.430
3.96
0.107
0.0569
1.65
8.32
1.55
1.38
0.0742
0.450
7.01
0.174
0.100
1.65
36.2
2.71
1.53
0.0854
0.450
15.2
0.354
0.175
1.67
165
5.76
1.82
0.0934
0.450
36.6
0.825
0.294
1.67
2,400
20.2
2.52
0.114
0.450
610
1.00
3.56
1.67
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
0.000401
0.0501
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00153
0.105
1.30
3.60
126
0.00549
0.161
1.43
7.38
317
0.0193
0.235
1.56
15.2
1,890
0.0408
0.297
1.63
33.5
11,000
0.0740
0.335
1.69
91.4
31,500
0.212
0.421
1.80
914
6,750,000
1.00
0.000002
0.101
0.0009
2.69
0.00200
10.8
0.00570
46.8
0.0170
272
0.0330
1,260
0.301
10,900
chemical-specific value
0.101
0.0126
0.00500
7.50
3.21
0.0000128
0.848
0.106
0.00530
7.50
5.20
0.000132
2.50
0.313
0.0156
12.5
6.07
0.000237
5.59
0.699
0.0350
12.5
6.81
0.000437
8.71
1.09
0.0544
17.5
7.41
0.000794
14.7
1.83
0.0916
22.5
7.90
0.00137
40.0
5.00
0.250
22.5
9.69
0.00998
150
0.00
0.000308
0.868
2.44
6.27
16.9
47.7
892
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
References
USEP A, 1986 and 19971)
Derived
ABB, 1995 and USEP A, 19971)
ABB, 1995 and USEP A, 1997b
US EPA, 1996
Assumption of waste pile design
Carsel andParrish, 1988
Carsel andParrish, 1988
Carsel andParrish, 1988
Carsel andParrish, 1988
Carsel andParrish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPPJ, 1985; USEP A, 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEP A STORE! database
USEP A STORE! database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
1 The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among the three soil types; each
soil type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-3-1
-------
Table C-4: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Land Application Unit Scenario
Input
Type
K
£
Unsaturated Zone
Saturated Zone
Input
No.
SSI
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS15
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
US6
US?
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
US13
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
AS5
AS6
AS?
ASS
AS9
AS10
ASH
AS12
AS13
AS14
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Operational Life (Duration of Leaching)
Base Depth Below Grade
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
VIoisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Eladial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Lognormal '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Johnson SB '
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
m
m
m/yr
m/yr
yr
m
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
m
m
unitless
g/cm3
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
m
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
m
m
m
degrees C
standard units
unitless
m
degrees
m
cnrVg
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles 2
0
20.2
4.49
0.00001
0.00001
10
40.5
6.36
0.0104
0.0130
25
4,050
63.6
0.0686
0.0704
50
40,500
201
0.110
0.110
75
182,000
427
0.212
0.201
90
648,000
805
0.326
0.326
100
80,900,000
8,990
0.745
0.745
40.0
0.00
0.00224
0.0926
1.04
0.0126
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00418
1.60
0.586
0.605
1.20
0.0498
0.410
2.13
0.0669
0.0346
1.60
2.01
0.929
1.26
0.0613
0.430
4.57
0.121
0.0578
1.65
chem
7.80
1.51
1.37
0.0749
0.450
8.53
0.208
0.102
1.65
33.8
2.59
1.51
0.0862
0.450
18.3
0.423
0.175
1.67
147
5.41
1.78
0.0942
0.450
45.7
1.00
0.291
1.67
2,510
20.8
2.55
0.115
0.450
610
1.00
1.96
1.67
cal-specific value
1.00
chem cal-specific value
0.00
0.000402
0.0501
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00143
0.105
1.29
3.96
94.6
0.00545
0.162
1.43
7.62
315
0.0195
0.235
1.56
19.5
2,190
0.0408
0.295
1.63
53.3
11,000
0.0778
0.334
1.70
144
31,500
0.212
0.427
1.80
914
6,310,000
1.00
0.000002
0.100
0.000556
2.34
0.00200
9.93
chem
0.108
0.0134
0.00500
7.50
3.21
0.0000149
1.02
0.128
0.00639
7.50
5.20
0.000130
2.99
0.374
0.0187
12.5
6.07
0.000229
0.00800
50.2
0.0223
316
0.0430
1,210
0.430
10,900
cal-specific value
6.70
0.838
0.0419
12.5
6.82
0.000421
10.7
1.34
0.0669
17.5
7.42
0.000781
16.1
2.02
0.101
17.5
7.89
0.00133
40.0
5.00
0.250
22.5
9.69
0.0120
150
0.00
0.0000963
1.03
2.83
7.95
21.7
60.1
882
chem cal-specific value
1.00
chem cal-specific value
0.00
References
USEPA, 1986 and 1997b
Derived
ABB, 1995 andUSEPA, 19971)
ABB, 1995 andUSEPA, 19971)
US EPA, 1996
Assumption of LAU Design
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPPJ, 1985; USEPA, 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada, 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPAs STORE! database
USEPA STORE! database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
1 The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among the three soil types; each soil type
has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 6,557 iterations.
C-4-1
-------
Table C-S: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Landfill, Single Liner Scenario
Input
Type
1
Unsaturated Zone
Saturated Zone
Input
No.
SSI
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS11
SS12
SS13
FS1
SS15
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
US6
US7
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
USB
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
AS5
AS6
AS7
ASS
AS9
AS10
ASH
AS12
AS13
AS14
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Duration of Leaching
Fraction of Landfill Occupied by Waste of Concern
Depth of Waste Disposal Facility
Density of Hazardous Waste
Ratio of Waste Concentration to Leachate
Concentration
Base Depth Below Grade
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Radial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Constant
Lognormal '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Johnson SB '
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
in
in
m/yr
m/yr
yr
unitless
in
g/cm3
L/kg
in
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
in
in
unitless
g/cm3
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
in
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
in
in
in
degrees C
standard units
unitless
in
degrees
in
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles2
0
40.5
6.36
0.00001
0.00001
81,100
10
567
23.8
0.0135
0.00944
228,000
25
2,480
49.8
0.0686
0.0253
376,000
50
12,100
110
0.130
0.0432
728,000
75
54,600
234
0.312
0.0445
1,370,000
90
149,000
386
0.446
0.0486
2,930,000
100
3,120,000
1,770
1.15
0.0526
1.63E+10
1.00
0.510
0.700
0.883
0.737
1.32
0.794
2.58
0.889
4.09
1.33
6.14
1.45
10.1
2.10
10000
0.00
0.00377
0.129
1.04
0.0106
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00358
1.60
0.598
0.595
1.20
0.0489
0.410
1.68
0.0570
0.0340
1.60
2.06
0.935
1.27
0.0611
0.430
3.96
0.107
0.0568
1.65
7.79
1.52
1.37
0.0746
0.450
6.10
0.154
0.101
1.65
35.0
2.72
1.53
0.0857
0.450
15.2
0.354
0.177
1.67
169
5.92
1.82
0.0937
0.450
36.6
0.825
0.288
1.67
2,450
21.8
2.50
0.115
0.450
610
1.00
1.69
1.67
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
0.000400
0.0501
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00151
0.107
1.30
4.03
141
0.00558
0.164
1.43
7.62
631
0.0192
0.236
1.56
12.2
1,890
0.0411
0.295
1.63
32.0
11,000
0.0765
0.334
1.70
91.4
31,500
0.211
0.426
1.80
914
4,290,000
1.00
0.000002
0.100
0.0009
2.97
0.002
14.5
0.00570
52.2
0.0153
297
0.0310
1,280
0.491
11,000
chemical-specific value
0.109
0.0136
0.005
7.50
3.21
0.0000164
0.916
0.114
0.00572
7.50
5.18
0.000131
2.71
0.338
0.0169
12.5
6.05
0.000234
6.15
0.769
0.0385
12.5
6.82
0.000434
9.72
1.22
0.0608
17.5
7.41
0.000810
14.4
1.80
0.0899
22.5
7.93
0.00139
40.0
4.99
0.250
22.5
9.70
0.00984
150
0.00
0.00321
0.944
2.49
6.27
16.1
46.3
897
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
References
USEPA, 1986 and 1997b
Derived
ABB, 1995 and USEPA 1997b
USEPA, 1999
USEPA, 2001
Policy for Tier 1
USEPA, 1986 and 1997b
Schanz and Salhotra, 1992
Policy for Tier 1
No data available
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPRI, 1985; USEPA, 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPA STORET database
USEPA STORET database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
1 The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among the three soil types; each soil
type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-5-1
-------
Table C-6: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Surface Impoundment, Single Liner Scenario
Input
Type
1
Unsaturated Zone
Saturated Zone
Input
No.
SS1
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS15
SS7
SS16
SS22
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
use
US7
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
US13
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
ASS
AS6
AS7
ASS
AS9
AS10
AS11
AS12
AS13
ASH
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Operational Life (Duration of Leaching)
Base Depth Below Grade
Waste Water Ponding Depth
Total Impoundment Operating Depth
Sediment Thickness (Thickness of Sludge)
Distance to Nearest Surface Water Body
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Radial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site- Based
Derived
Regional Site- Based
Regional Site- Based
Constant
DBGS
HZERO
DEPTH
DSLUDGE
DISSW
Lognormal 1
Johnson SB 1
Johnson SB 1
Johnson SB 1
Constant
Regional Site- Based
Derived
Johnson SB 1
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site- Based
Regional Site- Based
Constant
Regional Site- Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site- Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
m
m
m/yr
m/yr
yr
m
m
m
m
m
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
m
m
unitless
g/cm3
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
m
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
m
m
m
degrees C
standard units
unitless
m
degrees
m
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles 2
0
9.30
3.05
1.00E-05
3.78E-15
4.00
0.00
0.0100
10
192
13.8
0.00990
0.042
15.0
0.00
0.460
25
581
24.1
0.0465
0.0629
50.0
0.00
1.06
50
1,860
43.1
0.147
0.108
50.0
1.52
1.83
75
7,810
88.4
0.269
0.163
50.0
3.05
3.09
90
29,800
173
0.377
0.217
50.0
4.57
4.27
100
4,860,000
2,200
1.84
0.798
95.0
33.5
18.2
4.63
0.20
0.00
0.00224
0.0983
1.02
0.00997
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00254
1.60
90.0
0.347
0.524
1.18
0.0522
0.410
2.44
0.0737
0.0314
1.60
240
1.20
0.815
1.23
0.0669
0.430
3.70
0.101
0.0550
1.65
360
5.56
1.39
1.31
0.0809
0.430
7.62
0.188
0.0994
1.67
850
49.6
3.31
1.63
0.0904
0.430
15.2
0.354
0.180
1.67
1,800
308
7.97
1.92
0.0976
0.450
30.5
0.691
0.299
1.67
5,000
2,420
22.3
2.43
0.115
0.450
610
1.00
1.98
1.67
chemical-specific va ue
1.00
chemical-specific va ue
0.00
0.000400
0.0500
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00145
0.107
1.29
3.66
108
0.00540
0.162
1.43
7.32
315
0.0195
0.232
1.56
13.7
2,210
0.0415
0.294
1.63
30.0
6,940
0.0780
0.334
1.70
76.2
22,100
0.211
0.430
1.80
914
7,660,000
1.00
5.00E-07
0.100
0.000700
2.11
0.00200
9.36
0.00700
34.1
0.0150
193
0.0330
723
0.538
10,800
chemical-specific va ue
0.107
0.0134
0.00500
7.5
3.20
0.0000128
0.808
0.101
0.00505
7.5
5.20
0.000136
2.49
0.311
0.0156
12.5
6.07
0.000236
5.78
0.723
0.0361
17.5
6.82
0.000433
9.06
1.13
0.0566
17.5
7.43
0.000794
15.5
1.94
0.0969
17.5
7.91
0.00137
40.0
5.00
0.250
27.5
9.68
0.0103
150
0.00
0.000126
0.884
2.37
5.70
14.0
35.8
794
chemical-specific va ue
1.00
chemical-specific va ue
0.00
References
USEPA, 2001
Derived
ABB 1995 and USEPA, 1997b
Derived
USEPA, 2001
USEPA, 2001
USEPA, 2001
Derived
Assumption
USEPA, 2001
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPRI, 1985; USEPA, 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPA's STORET database
USEPA STORET database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
1 The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among the
three soil types; each soil type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-6-1
-------
Table C-7: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Waste Pile, Single Liner Scenario
Input
Type
I
Unsaturated Zone
Saturated Zone
Input
No.
SS1
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS15
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
use
US7
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
US13
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
ASS
AS6
AS7
ASS
AS9
AS10
AS11
AS12
AS13
ASH
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Duration of Leaching
Base Depth Below Grade
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Radial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site- Based
Derived
Regional Site- Based
Regional Site- Based
Constant
Lognormal 1
Johnson SB 1
Johnson SB 1
Johnson SB 1
Constant
Regional Site- Based
Derived
Johnson SB 1
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site- Based
Regional Site- Based
Constant
Regional Site- Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site- Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
m
m
m/yr
m/yr
yr
m
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
m
m
unitless
g/cm3
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
m
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
m
m
m
degrees C
standard units
unitless
m
degrees
m
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles 2
0
5.06
2.25
0.00001
0.00001
10
20.2
4.49
0.0508
0.0264
25
20.2
4.49
0.0787
0.0950
50
121
11.0
0.145
0.127
75
1,210
34.8
0.282
0.133
90
4,170
64.6
0.417
0.135
100
1,940,000
1,390
1.84
0.136
20.0
0.00
0.00347
0.120
1.02
0.0114
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00421
1.60
0.617
0.620
1.20
0.0487
0.410
1.83
0.0603
0.0339
1.60
2.09
0.942
1.26
0.0608
0.430
3.96
0.107
0.0566
1.65
8.26
1.54
1.38
0.0743
0.450
7.01
0.174
0.100
1.65
35.8
2.70
1.53
0.0855
0.450
15.2
0.354
0.175
1.67
163
5.76
1.82
0.0935
0.450
36.6
0.825
0.294
1.67
2,400
20.2
2.52
0.114
0.450
610
1.00
3.56
1.67
chem cal-specific va ue
1.00
chem cal-specific va ue
0.00
0.000401
0.0501
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00153
0.105
1.30
3.60
126
0.00547
0.161
1.43
7.32
315
0.0192
0.235
1.56
15.2
1,890
0.0408
0.298
1.63
33.2
11,000
0.0738
0.336
1.69
91.4
31,500
0.212
0.421
1.80
914
6,750,000
1.00
0.000002
0.101
0.0009
2.64
0.002
10.5
0.00570
45.7
0.0170
263
0.0330
1,240
0.301
10,900
chem cal-specific va ue
0.101
0.0126
0.00500
7.50
3.21
0.0000128
0.845
0.106
0.00528
7.50
5.19
0.000132
2.50
0.312
0.0156
12.5
6.06
0.000237
5.60
0.700
0.0350
12.5
6.80
0.000437
8.73
1.09
0.0546
17.5
7.41
0.000793
14.8
1.85
0.0925
22.5
7.90
0.00137
40.0
5.00
0.250
22.5
9.69
0.00998
150
0.00
0.000308
0.868
2.43
6.24
16.9
47.4
892
chem cal-specific va ue
1.00
chem cal-specific va ue
0.00
References
USEPA, 1986 and 1997b
Derived
ABB, 1995 and USEPA, 1997b
USEPA, 1999
USEPA, 1996
Assumption of waste pile design
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPRI, 1985; USEPA, 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPA STORET database
USEPA STORET database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
1 The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among
the three soil types; each soil type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-7-1
-------
Table C-8: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Landfill, Composite Liner Scenario
Input
Type
0)
I
Unsaturated Zone
u rated Zone
£
Input
No.
SS1
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS11
SS12
SS13
FS1
SS15
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
use
US7
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
US13
AS1
AS2
ASS
AS4
ASS
AS6
AS7
ASS
AS9
AS10
AS11
AS12
AS13
ASH
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Duration of Leaching
Fraction of Landfill Occupied by Waste of
Concern
Depth of Waste Disposal Facility
Density of Hazardous Waste
Ratio of Waste Concentration to Leachate
Concentration
Base Depth Below Grade
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Radial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Constant
Lognormal 1
Johnson SB ]
Johnson SB ]
Johnson SB 1
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Johnson SB 1
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
m
m
m/yr
m/yr
yr
unitless
m
g/cm3
L/kg
m
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
m
m
unitless
g/cm3
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
m
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
m
m
m
degrees C
standard un
unitless
m
degrees
m
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles 2
0
40.5
6.36
0.00001
0.00
0.00
10
445
21.1
0.0226
0.00
0.00
25
2,480
49.8
0.0780
0.00
0.00
50
12,100
110
0.143
0.00
0.00
75
54,600
234
0.326
0.0000730
301,000,000
90
134,000
365
0.450
0.000169
1.09E+10
100
3,120,000
1,770
1.15
0.000401
8.33E+12
1.00
0.510
0.700
0.879
0.738
1.31
0.794
2.51
0.888
4.09
1.33
6.41
1.46
10.1
2.10
10000
0.00
0.00463
0.130
1.01
0.0118
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00347
1.60
0.608
0.614
1.20
0.0490
0.410
1.68
0.0570
0.0337
1.60
2.06
0.930
1.27
0.0613
0.430
3.96
0.107
0.0566
1.65
8.35
1.54
1.38
0.0747
0.450
6.10
0.154
0.102
1.65
36.7
2.73
1.54
0.0857
0.450
15.2
0.354
0.179
1.67
180
6.15
1.83
0.0937
0.450
36.6
0.825
0.294
1.67
2,390
20.3
2.47
0.115
0.450
610
1.00
1.60
1.67
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
0.000401
0.0502
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00151
0.105
1.30
3.96
94.6
0.00538
0.163
1.43
7.62
315
0.0188
0.236
1.55
12.2
1,890
0.0413
0.296
1.63
30.5
11,000
0.0762
0.335
1.70
91.4
31,500
0.211
0.424
1.80
914
8,480,000
1.00
0.000002
0.100
0.001
2.51
0.002
10.5
0.00570
45.6
0.0180
250
0.0330
1,200
0.483
10,800
chemical-specific value
0.111
0.0139
0.00500
7.50
3.20
0.00000858
0.958
0.120
0.00599
7.50
5.20
0.000135
2.91
0.364
0.0182
12.5
6.06
0.000238
6.38
0.797
0.0399
12.5
6.79
0.000443
9.87
1.23
0.0617
17.5
7.39
0.000814
14.7
1.84
0.0921
22.5
7.89
0.00140
40.0
4.99
0.250
22.5
9.70
0.0159
150
0.00
0.000936
0.974
2.48
6.07
15.6
44.4
867
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
References
USEPA, 1986 and 1997b
Derived
ABB, 1995 and USEPA, 1997b
TetraTech, 2001
USEPA, 2001
Policy for Tier 1
USEPA, 1986 and 1997b
Schanz and Salhotra, 1992
Policy for Tier 1
No data available
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPRI, 1985; USEPA, 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPA STORET database
USEPA STORET database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among
the three soil types; each soil type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-8-1
-------
Table C-9: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Surface Impoundment, Composite Liner Scenario
Input
Type
1
saturated Zone
^
Saturated Zone
Input
No.
SSI
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS15
SS7
SS16
SS22
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
US6
US7
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
USB
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
AS5
AS6
AS7
ASS
AS9
AS10
ASH
AS12
AS13
AS14
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Duration of Leaching
Base Depth Below Grade
Waste Water Ponding Depth
Total Impoundment Operating Depth
Sediment Thickness
Distance to Nearest Surface Water Bod;
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Radial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
DBGS
HZERO
DEPTH
DSLUDGE
DISSW
Lognormal '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Johnson SB '
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
m
m
m/yr
m/yr
yr
m
m
m
m
m
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
m
m
unitless
g/cm3
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
m
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
m
m
m
degrees C
standard units
unitless
m
degrees
m
cnrVg
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles2
0
9.30
3.05
l.OOE-05
0.00
4.00
0.00
0.0100
10
206
14.4
0.00990
0.00
15.0
0.00
0.460
25
609
24.7
0.0465
0.00
50.0
0.00
1.07
50
2,020
45.0
0.168
0.0000488
50.0
1.52
1.83
75
8,760
93.6
0.271
0.000202
50.0
3.38
3.15
90
35,200
188
0.450
0.000498
50.0
4.57
4.27
100
4,860,000
2,200
1.84
0.00369
95.0
33.5
18.2
4.63
0.20
0.00
0.00437
0.109
1.02
0.00851
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00366
1.60
105
0.375
0.534
1.18
0.0521
0.410
1.83
0.0603
0.0319
1.60
240
1.28
0.817
1.23
0.0668
0.410
3.35
0.0937
0.0552
1.60
360
6.19
1.42
1.31
0.0809
0.430
6.10
0.154
0.0993
1.67
1,000
52.3
3.31
1.64
0.0902
0.430
15.2
0.354
0.180
1.67
2,000
305
8.06
1.93
0.0973
0.450
30.5
0.691
0.304
1.67
5,000
2,520
19.8
2.49
0.115
0.450
610
1.00
2.75
1.67
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
0.000401
0.0501
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00143
0.100
1.29
3.53
63.1
0.00538
0.160
1.43
6.10
284
0.0195
0.235
1.56
12.2
1,890
0.0407
0.296
1.63
24.4
5,990
0.0768
0.334
1.70
61.0
21,300
0.212
0.429
1.80
914
7,740,000
1.00
5.00E-07
0.100
0.000700
1.53
0.00200
7.44
0.00700
28.2
0.0151
183
0.0330
680
0.650
11,000
chemical-specific value
0.101
0.0126
0.00500
7.5
3.20
0.0000103
0.873
0.109
0.00546
7.5
5.22
0.000136
2.54
0.317
0.0159
12.5
6.08
0.000237
5.84
0.731
0.0365
17.5
6.80
0.000429
9.11
1.14
0.0569
17.5
7.40
0.000796
13.7
1.72
0.0859
22.5
7.89
0.00135
40.0
5.00
0.250
27.5
9.69
0.00823
150
0.00
0.000118
0.803
2.18
5.38
13.1
31.9
908
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
References
USEPA 2001
Derived
ABB 1995 and USEPA, 1997b
Derived
USEPA 2001
USEPA 2001
USEPA 2001
Derived
Assumption
USEPA 2001
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPRI, 1985; USEPA 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPA STORET database
USEPA STORET database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
1 The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among the three soil types; each soil
type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-9-1
-------
Table C-10: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Waste Pile, Composite Liner Scenario
Input
Type
s
Unsaturated Zone
Saturated Zone
Input
No.
SSI
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS15
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
US6
US?
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
US13
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
AS5
AS6
AS?
ASS
AS9
AS10
ASH
AS12
AS13
AS14
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Duration of Leaching
Base Depth Below Grade
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Radial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Lognormal '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Johnson SB '
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
m
m
m/yr
m/yr
yr
m
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
m
m
unitless
g/cm3
cm3/g
unitless
l/yr
1/yr
on
unitless
g/cm3
m
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
m
m
m
degrees C
standard units
unitless
m
degrees
m
cm3/g
unitless
l/yr
1/yr
Percentiles 2
0
5.06
2.25
0.00001
0.00
10
20.2
4.49
0.0495
0.00
25
20.2
4.49
0.0787
0.00
50
121
11.0
0.147
0.00
75
1,210
34.8
0.286
0.0000730
90
4,170
64.6
0.419
0.000167
100
2,020,000
1,420
1.68
0.000401
20.0
0.00
0.00684
0.100
1.02
0.0156
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00250
1.60
0.611
0.616
1.20
0.0492
0.410
1.68
0.0570
0.0336
1.60
2.04
0.939
1.26
0.0610
0.430
3.96
0.107
0.0570
1.65
8.26
1.53
1.37
0.0745
0.450
6.10
0.154
0.101
1.65
35.5
2.74
1.53
0.0857
0.450
15.2
0.354
0.176
1.67
159
6.00
1.82
0.0937
0.450
34.1
0.770
0.291
1.67
2,520
20.2
2.45
0.115
0.450
610
1.00
2.11
1.67
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
0.000402
0.0501
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00149
0.106
1.29
3.73
94.6
0.00563
0.168
1.43
7.32
315
0.0200
0.238
1.56
15.2
1,890
0.0422
0.298
1.64
32.0
11,000
0.0781
0.335
1.70
91.4
31,500
0.211
0.423
1.80
914
4,440,000
1.00
0.000002
0.100
0.000903
2.08
0.00200
8.68
0.00570
42.2
0.0180
245
0.0330
1,210
0.390
10,900
chemical-specific value
0.101
0.0126
0.00500
7.50
3.21
0.0000116
0.864
0.108
0.00540
7.50
5.23
0.000133
2.58
0.322
0.0161
12.5
6.08
0.000236
5.60
0.701
0.0350
12.5
6.82
0.000435
8.72
1.09
0.0545
17.5
7.42
0.000809
15.2
1.90
0.0948
22.5
7.93
0.00142
40.0
5.00
.250
22.5
9.68
0.0116
150
0.00
0.00270
0.947
2.45
6.08
16.2 |46.0
914
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
References
USEPA, 1986 and 1997b
Derived
ABB, 1995 and USEPA, 19971)
Tetra Tech, 2001
US EPA, 1996
Assumption of waste pile design
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPPJ, 1985; USEPA, 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPA STORET
USEPA STORET
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
1 The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among the three soil types; each soil
type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-10-1
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix C
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C
ABB Environmental Services. 1995. Estimation of Leachate Rates from Industrial Waste
Management Facilities. August, 1995.
API. 1989. Hydrogeologic Database for Groundwater Modeling. API Publication No.
4476, American Petroleum Institute.
Carsel, R.F., and R.S. Parrish. 1988. Developing joint probability distributions of soil
water retention characteristics. Water Resources Research 29:755-770.
Carsel, R.F., R.S. Parrish, R.L. Jones, J.L. Hansen, andR.L. Lamb. 1988. Characterizing
the uncertainty of pesticide leaching in agricultural soils. Journal of Contaminant
Hydrology, 2: 111-124.
Collins, W.D. 1925. Temperature of water available for industrial use in the United
States. US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 520-F, pp.97-104. Presented
in: D.K. Todd, 1976. Groundwater Hydrology. J. Wiley & Sons.
Davis, S.N. 1969. Porosity and permeability of natural materials. In: Flow Through
Porous Media, R.J.M. de Wiest, Editor, Academic Press, NY.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1985. A review of Field Scale Physical Solute
Transport Processes in Saturated and Unsaturated Porous Media. EPRI EA-4190,
Project 2485-5, Palo Alto, California.
Freeze, R.A. and J. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gelhar, L.W. 1986. Personal Communication with Zubair Saleem.
Gelhar, L.W., C. Welty, K.R. Rehfeldt. 1992. A critical review of data on field-scale
dispersion in aquifers. Water Resource Research, 28(7), 1955-1974.
McWorter, D.B. and D.K. Sunada. 1977. Groundwater and Hydraulics, Water Resources
Publications, Fort Collins, CO.
Schanz, R. and A. Salhotra. 1992. Subtitle D Landfill Characteristics. Center for
Modeling and Risk Assessment, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Oakland, CA.
Shea, J.H. 1974. Deficiencies of clastic particles of certain sizes. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology, 44(4):985-1003, December.
C-ll
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix C
USEPA. 1986. Industrial Subtitle D Facility Study (Telephone Survey), USEPA,
October 20, 1986. Washington, DC, 20460.
USEPA. 1996. EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation
Products (EPACMTP) Background Document. USEPA Office of Solid Waste,
Washington, DC, 20460.
USEPA. 1997'a. EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation
Products (EPACMTP) Users Guide. USEPA Office of Solid Waste, Washington,
DC, 20460.
USEPA. 1997b. Analysis of EPA's Industrial Subtitle D Databases used in Groundwater
Pathway Analysis of the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR). Office of
Solid Waste, Washington, DC.
C-12
-------
APPENDIX D
INFILTRATION RATE DATA
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table D-l. Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Landfills (m/yr) D-l-1
Table D-2. Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Waste Piles (m/yr) D-2-1
Table D-3. Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Land Application
Units (m/yr) D-3-1
Table D-4. Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Clay Liner
Scenarios (m/yr) D-4-1
Table D-5. Flow rate data used to develop landfill and waste pile composite liner
infiltration rates (from TetraTech, 2001) D-5-1
Table D-6. Leak Density Data Used to Develop Surface Impound composite liner
infiltration rates (from TetraTech, 2001) D-6-1
Table D-7. Comparison of composite liner infiltration rates Calculated using
Bonaparte Equation and Infiltration Rates for composite-lined
landfill cells D-7-1
D-i
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure D-l. Infiltration Rate Comparison (Head = 0.3m, Hole Area = 6mm2) . . . D-7-1
D-ii
-------
Table D-l: Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Landfills (m/yr)
ID
19
98
82
95
62
44
99
7
2
67
75
35
43
41
18
86
93
10
42
74
52
55
51
38
36
3
53
29
32
54
88
23
16
100
28
1
6
27
4
25
77
59
101
73
66
78
85
96
11
20
87
90
12
69
50
24
City
Albuquerque
Annette
Astoria
Atlanta
Augusta
Bangor
Bethel
Bismarck
Boise
Boston
Bridgeport
Brownsville
Burlington
Caribou
Cedar City
Central Park
Charleston
Cheyenne
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbia
Columbus
Concord
Dallas
Denver
Des Moines
Dodge City
E. Lansing
E. St. Louis
Edison
El Paso
Ely
Fairbanks
Flagstaff
Fresno
Glasgow
Grand Island
Grand Junction
Great Falls
Greensboro
Hartford
Honolulu
Indianapolis
Ithaca
Jacksonville
Knoxville
Lake Charles
Lander
Las Vegas
Lexington
Little Rock
Los Angeles
Lynchburg
Madison
Medford
State
NM
AK
OR
GA
ME
ME
AK
ND
ID
MA
CT
TX
VT
ME
UT
NY
SC
WY
IL
OH
OH
MO
OH
NH
TX
CO
IA
KS
MI
IL
NJ
TX
NV
AK
AZ
CA
MT
NE
CO
MT
NC
CT
HI
IN
NY
FL
TN
LA
WY
NV
KY
AK
CA
VA
WI
OR
No Liner
SLT
O.OOE+00
1.68E+00
1.08E+00
3.42E-01
2.12E-01
1.47E-01
5.64E-02
2.39E-02
8.00E-04
2.33E-01
1.95E-01
5.49E-02
1.36E-01
1.08E-01
O.OOE+00
3.36E-01
2.61E-01
5.00E-04
7.98E-02
1.55E-01
7.80E-02
1.53E-01
7.65E-02
1.59E-01
5.99E-02
8.00E-04
1.14E-01
1.35E-02
1.09E-01
1.44E-01
3.12E-01
7.60E-03
O.OOE+00
1.04E-02
2.39E-02
3.07E-02
9.90E-03
4.42E-02
O.OOE+00
3.60E-03
3.26E-01
1.71E-01
5.23E-02
1.30E-01
1.68E-01
1.51E-01
4.11E-01
3.65E-01
3.30E-03
O.OOE+00
3.29E-01
3.53E-01
7.87E-02
3.08E-01
9.12E-02
2.07E-01
SNL
O.OOE+00
1.84E+00
1.15E+00
3.99E-01
2.70E-01
2.05E-01
7.21E-02
3.00E-02
9.40E-03
2.38E-01
2.46E-01
1.05E-01
1.78E-01
1.49E-01
8.00E-04
4.17E-01
3.29E-01
1.30E-03
1.14E-01
2.21E-01
1.21E-01
1.99E-01
1.16E-01
2.06E-01
1.07E-01
8.00E-04
1.64E-01
3.45E-02
1.45E-01
1.68E-01
3.91E-01
1.30E-02
O.OOE+00
2.34E-02
6.30E-02
3.68E-02
7.40E-03
6.27E-02
O.OOE+00
6.90E-03
3.90E-01
2.23E-01
9.45E-02
1.86E-01
2.14E-01
2.11E-01
4.46E-01
4.64E-01
5.30E-03
O.OOE+00
3.97E-01
4.34E-01
9.50E-02
3.61E-01
1.40E-01
2.31E-01
SCL
3.00E-04
1.46E+00
9.65E-01
2.82E-01
1.67E-01
1.23E-01
5.54E-02
1.96E-02
3.80E-03
1.54E-01
1.62E-01
3.84E-02
1.17E-01
8.86E-02
O.OOE+00
2.74E-01
2.12E-01
8.60E-03
6.20E-02
1.54E-01
8.23E-02
1.22E-01
6.63E-02
1.37E-01
5.31E-02
3.60E-03
1.16E-01
2.26E-02
1.10E-01
7.04E-02
2.49E-01
8.10E-03
3.00E-04
1.17E-02
2.26E-02
3.81E-02
9.90E-03
3.23E-02
3.00E-04
7.40E-03
2.71E-01
1.41E-01
3.66E-02
1.06E-01
1.39E-01
1.10E-01
3.54E-01
2.82E-01
9.40E-03
1.80E-03
2.70E-01
2.82E-01
6.99E-02
2.57E-01
6.86E-02
2.10E-01
Clay Liner
O.OOE+00
3.38E-02
5.26E-02
4.77E-02
4.45E-02
4.32E-02
2.95E-02
1.88E-02
4.61E-03
4.45E-02
4.44E-02
2.41E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
6.69E-05
4.86E-02
4.77E-02
2.38E-05
4.32E-02
4.44E-02
4.09E-02
4.09E-02
4.09E-02
4.32E-02
2.41E-02
1.83E-05
4.09E-02
9.44E-03
3.74E-02
4.09E-02
4.86E-02
1.03E-04
3.54E-05
9.40E-03
2.41E-02
4.61E-03
6.69E-05
1.96E-02
2.70E-05
1.02E-04
3.62E-02
4.45E-02
4.83E-03
4.44E-02
4.45E-02
3.62E-02
4.86E-02
4.92E-02
1.28E-04
6.89E-05
4.86E-02
4.77E-02
1.26E-03
4.44E-02
4.09E-02
4.32E-02
D-l-1
-------
Table D-l: Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Landfills (m/yr)
ID
97
30
47
65
89
83
92
70
80
oo
JJ
37
76
71
21
39
84
5
40
64
63
8
49
17
45
13
26
58
14
102
15
48
68
72
46
81
31
60
91
57
56
22
34
94
79
61
9
City
Miami
Midland
Montpelier
Nashua
Nashville
New Haven
New Orleans
New York City
Norfolk
North Omaha
Oklahoma City
Orlando
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Pittsburg
Plainfield
Pocatello
Portland
Portland
Providence
Pullman
Put-in-Bay
Rapid City
Rutland
Sacramento
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
San Diego
San Juan
Santa Maria
Sault St. Marie
Schenectady
Seabrook
Seattle
Shreveport
St. Cloud
Syracuse
Tallahassee
Tampa
Topeka
Tucson
Tulsa
W. Palm Beach
Watkinsville
Worchester
Yakima
State
FL
TX
VT
NH
TN
CT
LA
NY
VA
NE
OK
FL
PA
AZ
PA
MA
ID
OR
ME
RI
WA
OH
SD
VT
CA
UT
TX
CA
PR
CA
MI
NY
NJ
WA
LA
MN
NY
FL
FL
KS
AZ
OK
FL
GA
MA
WA
No Liner
SLT
1.45E-01
1.80E-02
1.06E-01
2.27E-01
4.67E-01
3.52E-01
5.89E-01
2.44E-01
3.12E-01
6.71E-02
6.12E-02
1.02E-01
2.01E-01
O.OOE+00
8.94E-02
1.90E-01
O.OOE+00
4.17E-01
2.29E-01
2.13E-01
6.90E-03
5.08E-02
5.00E-04
1.21E-01
1.02E-01
1.30E-02
1.10E-01
2.21E-02
1.27E-01
9.47E-02
1.65E-01
1.47E-01
1.81E-01
4.38E-01
2.30E-01
6.02E-02
2.55E-01
5.91E-01
6.58E-02
1.05E-01
O.OOE+00
6.86E-02
2.61E-01
2.89E-01
2.02E-01
O.OOE+00
SNL
2.20E-01
2.54E-02
1.48E-01
2.81E-01
5.40E-01
4.63E-01
7.45E-01
2.94E-01
O.OOE+00
7.95E-02
9.42E-02
1.70E-01
2.61E-01
3.00E-04
1.31E-01
2.54E-01
O.OOE+00
4.39E-01
2.84E-01
2.86E-01
1.32E-02
l.OOE-01
7.10E-03
1.60E-01
8.76E-02
2.69E-02
1.65E-01
3.40E-02
1.92E-01
1.15E-01
2.10E-01
1.93E-01
2.43E-01
4.58E-01
2.94E-01
8.31E-02
3.25E-01
7.31E-01
1.03E-01
1.48E-01
3.00E-04
1.01E-01
3.49E-01
3.56E-01
2.59E-01
2.30E-03
SCL
1.02E-01
1.35E-02
8.79E-02
1.94E-01
3.77E-01
2.86E-01
4.50E-01
1.97E-01
2.69E-01
5.36E-02
3.89E-02
8.05E-02
1.64E-01
3.00E-04
7.92E-02
1.52E-01
O.OOE+00
3.93E-01
1.87E-01
1.75E-01
8.40E-03
4.95E-02
3.30E-03
1.01E-01
9.45E-02
1.85E-02
8.20E-02
2.41E-02
9.45E-02
8.41E-02
1.44E-01
1.22E-01
1.43E-01
4.08E-01
1.84E-01
5.54E-02
2.12E-01
4.56E-01
4.75E-02
7.62E-02
5.00E-04
4.65E-02
1.78E-01
2.33E-01
1.70E-01
3.00E-04
Clay Liner
4.92E-02
9.44E-03
4.32E-02
4.45E-02
4.86E-02
5.26E-02
4.77E-02
4.44E-02
3.62E-02
2.91E-02
2.46E-02
3.62E-02
4.44E-02
1.69E-05
4.32E-02
5.26E-02
5.50E-04
4.32E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
2.27E-04
4.09E-02
6.40E-05
4.32E-02
1.26E-03
5.10E-04
2.53E-02
1.26E-03
1.93E-02
1.26E-03
4.32E-02
4.45E-02
4.44E-02
4.32E-02
3.62E-02
3.42E-02
4.45E-02
4.77E-02
2.53E-02
3.50E-02
2.23E-05
2.41E-02
4.77E-02
3.62E-02
4.45E-02
1.15E-04
Notes:
SLT = Silt Loam cover
SNL = Sandy Loam cover
SCL= Silty Clay Loam cover
D-l-2
-------
Table D-2: Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Waste Piles (m/yr)
ID
19
98
82
95
62
44
99
7
2
67
75
35
43
41
18
86
93
10
42
74
52
55
51
38
36
3
53
29
32
54
88
23
16
100
28
1
6
27
4
25
77
59
101
73
66
78
85
96
11
20
87
90
12
69
50
City
Albuquerque
Annette
Astoria
Atlanta
Augusta
Bangor
Bethel
Bismarck
Boise
Boston
Bridgeport
Brownsville
Burlington
Caribou
Cedar City
Central Park
Charleston
Cheyenne
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbia
Columbus
Concord
Dallas
Denver
Des Moines
Dodge City
E. Lansing
E. St. Louis
Edison
El Paso
Ely
Fairbanks
Flagstaff
Fresno
Glasgow
Grand Island
Grand Junction
Great Falls
Greensboro
Hartford
Honolulu
Indianapolis
Ithaca
Jacksonville
Knoxville
Lake Charles
Lander
Las Vegas
Lexington
Little Rock
Los Angeles
Lynchburg
Madison
State
NM
AK
OR
GA
ME
ME
AK
ND
ID
MA
CT
TX
VT
ME
UT
NY
SC
WY
IL
OH
OH
MO
OH
NH
TX
CO
IA
KS
MI
IL
NJ
TX
NV
AK
AZ
CA
MT
NE
CO
MT
NC
CT
HI
IN
NY
FL
TN
LA
WY
NV
KY
AK
CA
VA
WI
No Liner
Low
Permeability
Waste
2.54E-04
1.54E+00
1.21E+00
5.16E-01
3.14E-01
2.57E-01
5.02E-02
2.59E-02
2.54E-04
3.22E-01
3.69E-01
2.27E-01
2.13E-01
1.88E-01
2.54E-04
5.23E-01
4.83E-01
4.32E-03
1.68E-01
3.10E-01
1.82E-01
3.10E-01
1.72E-01
2.35E-01
2.58E-01
7.62E-04
2.51E-01
1.01E-01
1.36E-01
2.63E-01
4.90E-01
2.31E-02
2.54E-04
7.67E-03
4.04E-02
4.22E-02
3.66E-02
9.63E-02
2.54E-04
2.59E-02
4.84E-01
2.79E-01
5.01E-02
2.69E-01
2.61E-01
4.09E-01
5.42E-01
6.07E-01
2.03E-03
2.54E-04
4.52E-01
5.38E-01
1.33E-01
2.69E-01
2.02E-01
Medium
Permeability
Waste
2.54E-04
1.81E+00
1.21E+00
5.16E-01
3.14E-01
2.57E-01
7.25E-02
2.59E-02
2.54E-04
3.22E-01
3.69E-01
2.27E-01
2.13E-01
1.88E-01
2.54E-04
5.23E-01
4.83E-01
4.32E-03
1.68E-01
3.10E-01
1.82E-01
3.10E-01
1.72E-01
2.35E-01
2.58E-01
7.62E-04
2.51E-01
1.01E-01
1.36E-01
2.63E-01
4.90E-01
2.31E-02
2.54E-04
1.67E-02
4.04E-02
4.22E-02
3.66E-02
9.63E-02
2.54E-04
2.59E-02
4.84E-01
2.79E-01
1.08E-01
2.69E-01
2.61E-01
4.09E-01
5.42E-01
6.07E-01
2.03E-03
2.54E-04
4.52E-01
5.38E-01
1.33E-01
2.69E-01
2.02E-01
High
Permeability
Waste
2.54E-04
1.88E+00
1.21E+00
5.16E-01
3.14E-01
2.57E-01
1.23E-01
2.59E-02
2.54E-04
3.22E-01
3.69E-01
2.27E-01
2.13E-01
1.88E-01
2.54E-04
5.23E-01
4.83E-01
4.32E-03
1.68E-01
3.10E-01
1.82E-01
3.10E-01
1.72E-01
2.35E-01
2.58E-01
7.62E-04
2.51E-01
1.01E-01
1.36E-01
2.63E-01
4.90E-01
2.31E-02
2.54E-04
7.77E-02
4.04E-02
4.22E-02
3.66E-02
9.63E-02
2.54E-04
2.59E-02
4.84E-01
2.79E-01
1.98E-01
2.69E-01
2.61E-01
4.09E-01
5.42E-01
6.07E-01
2.03E-03
2.54E-04
4.52E-01
5.38E-01
1.33E-01
2.69E-01
2.02E-01
Clay Liner
Low
Permeability
Waste
1.60E-03
1.35E-01
1.32E-01
1.18E-01
1.19E-01
1.13E-01
3.52E-02
1.24E-02
1.36E-02
1.19E-01
1.06E-01
4.97E-03
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
4.82E-03
1.26E-01
1.18E-01
1.37E-03
1.13E-01
1.06E-01
6.88E-02
6.88E-02
6.88E-02
1.13E-01
4.97E-03
1.97E-03
6.88E-02
3.26E-03
4.81E-02
6.88E-02
1.26E-01
5.81E-03
5.89E-03
9.80E-03
1.05E-02
1.36E-02
5.35E-04
4.22E-02
4.59E-03
1.94E-03
8.04E-02
1.19E-01
3.23E-02
1.06E-01
1.19E-01
8.04E-02
1.26E-01
4.89E-02
4.19E-03
5.15E-03
1.26E-01
1.18E-01
O.OOE+00
1.06E-01
6.88E-02
Medium
Permeability
Waste
1.51E-02
1.36E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.29E-01
1.27E-01
3.64E-02
6.89E-02
4.34E-02
1.29E-01
1.34E-01
1.33E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
8.26E-04
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
2.92E-04
1.27E-01
1.34E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.27E-01
1.33E-01
1.28E-03
1.32E-01
1.06E-01
1.15E-01
1.32E-01
1.35E-01
2.63E-03
1.12E-03
1.18E-02
1.23E-01
4.34E-02
2.25E-04
1.35E-01
1.66E-03
4.66E-03
1.27E-01
1.29E-01
4.94E-02
1.34E-01
1.29E-01
1.27E-01
1.35E-01
5.58E-02
1.25E-03
1.79E-03
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
5.56E-02
1.34E-01
1.32E-01
High
Permeability
Waste
7.43E-03
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.28E-01
1.27E-01
6.60E-02
9.50E-02
6.06E-02
1.28E-01
1.33E-01
1.32E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
5.32E-03
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
7.07E-03
1.27E-01
1.33E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.27E-01
1.32E-01
3.66E-03
1.32E-01
1.19E-01
1.11E-01
1.32E-01
1.35E-01
6.74E-03
3.61E-03
4.07E-02
1.23E-01
6.06E-02
2.34E-02
1.34E-01
1.98E-03
3.34E-02
1.27E-01
1.28E-01
8.71E-02
1.33E-01
1.28E-01
1.27E-01
1.35E-01
9.27E-02
2.00E-02
7.97E-03
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
7.18E-02
1.33E-01
1.32E-01
D-2-1
-------
Table D-2: Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Waste Piles (m/yr)
ID
24
97
30
47
65
89
83
92
70
80
33
37
76
71
21
39
84
5
40
64
63
8
49
17
45
13
26
58
14
102
15
48
68
72
46
81
31
60
91
57
56
22
34
94
79
61
9
City
Medford
Miami
Midland
Montpelier
Nashua
Nashville
New Haven
New Orleans
New York City
Norfolk
North Omaha
Oklahoma City
Orlando
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Pittsburg
Plainfield
Pocatello
Portland
Portland
Providence
Pullman
Put-in-Bay
Rapid City
Rutland
Sacramento
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
San Diego
San Juan
Santa Maria
Sault St. Marie
Schenectady
Seabrook
Seattle
Shreveport
St. Cloud
Syracuse
Tallahassee
Tampa
Topeka
Tucson
Tulsa
W. Palm Beach
Watkinsville
Worchester
Yakima
State
OR
FL
TX
VT
NH
TN
CT
LA
NY
VA
NE
OK
FL
PA
AZ
PA
MA
ID
OR
ME
RI
WA
OH
SD
VT
CA
UT
TX
CA
PR
CA
MI
NY
NJ
WA
LA
MN
NY
FL
FL
KS
AZ
OK
FL
GA
MA
WA
No Liner
Low
Permeability
Waste
2.50E-01
4.23E-01
7.57E-02
1.76E-01
3.34E-01
6.14E-01
5.42E-01
8.49E-01
3.99E-01
4.54E-01
1.62E-01
2.42E-01
3.84E-01
3.53E-01
2.54E-04
1.72E-01
3.03E-01
2.54E-04
5.06E-01
3.25E-01
3.48E-01
2.54E-04
1.48E-01
1.35E-02
2.13E-01
1.23E-01
1.93E-02
2.95E-01
6.58E-02
1.50E-01
1.51E-01
2.37E-01
2.75E-01
3.41E-01
5.31E-01
4.46E-01
1.52E-01
4.10E-01
8.22E-01
2.72E-01
2.47E-01
2.54E-04
2.49E-01
5.64E-01
4.67E-01
3.31E-01
2.54E-04
Medium
Permeability
Waste
2.50E-01
4.23E-01
7.57E-02
1.76E-01
3.34E-01
6.14E-01
5.42E-01
8.49E-01
3.99E-01
4.54E-01
1.62E-01
2.42E-01
3.84E-01
3.53E-01
2.54E-04
1.72E-01
3.03E-01
2.54E-04
5.06E-01
3.25E-01
3.48E-01
2.54E-04
1.48E-01
1.35E-02
2.13E-01
1.23E-01
1.93E-02
2.95E-01
6.58E-02
2.88E-01
1.51E-01
2.37E-01
2.75E-01
3.41E-01
5.31E-01
4.46E-01
1.52E-01
4.10E-01
8.22E-01
2.72E-01
2.47E-01
2.54E-04
2.49E-01
5.64E-01
4.67E-01
3.31E-01
2.54E-04
High
Permeability
Waste
2.50E-01
4.23E-01
7.57E-02
1.76E-01
3.34E-01
6.14E-01
5.42E-01
8.49E-01
3.99E-01
4.54E-01
1.62E-01
2.42E-01
3.84E-01
3.53E-01
2.54E-04
1.72E-01
3.03E-01
2.54E-04
5.06E-01
3.25E-01
3.48E-01
2.54E-04
1.48E-01
1.35E-02
2.13E-01
1.23E-01
1.93E-02
2.95E-01
6.58E-02
4.44E-01
1.51E-01
2.37E-01
2.75E-01
3.41E-01
5.31E-01
4.46E-01
1.52E-01
4.10E-01
8.22E-01
2.72E-01
2.47E-01
2.54E-04
2.49E-01
5.64E-01
4.67E-01
3.31E-01
2.54E-04
Clay Liner
Low
Permeability
Waste
1.26E-01
4.89E-02
3.26E-03
1.13E-01
1.19E-01
1.26E-01
1.32E-01
1.18E-01
1.06E-01
8.04E-02
2.02E-02
7.47E-03
8.04E-02
1.06E-01
4.73E-03
1.13E-01
1.32E-01
5.86E-03
1.13E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
9.27E-03
6.88E-02
9.92E-04
1.13E-01
O.OOE+00
9.11E-03
2.00E-02
O.OOE+00
6.37E-02
O.OOE+00
1.13E-01
1.19E-01
1.06E-01
1.13E-01
8.04E-02
2.64E-02
1.19E-01
1.18E-01
2.00E-02
1.74E-02
6.41E-03
4.97E-03
1.18E-01
8.04E-02
1.19E-01
4.86E-03
Medium
Permeability
Waste
1.33E-01
5.58E-02
1.06E-01
1.27E-01
1.29E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.34E-01
1.27E-01
1.26E-01
1.31E-01
1.27E-01
1.34E-01
2.01E-03
1.27E-01
1.35E-01
1.50E-03
1.27E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.43E-02
1.32E-01
1.14E-03
1.27E-01
5.56E-02
1.05E-02
1.34E-01
5.56E-02
7.93E-02
5.56E-02
1.27E-01
1.29E-01
1.34E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.26E-01
1.29E-01
1.35E-01
1.34E-01
1.31E-01
7.53E-03
1.33E-01
1.35E-01
1.27E-01
1.29E-01
4.74E-03
High
Permeability
Waste
1.31E-01
9.27E-02
1.19E-01
1.27E-01
1.28E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.33E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.30E-01
1.27E-01
1.33E-01
7.62E-04
1.27E-01
1.35E-01
3.19E-02
1.27E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
3.44E-02
1.32E-01
1.92E-02
1.27E-01
7.18E-02
3.68E-02
1.33E-01
7.18E-02
1.11E-01
7.18E-02
1.27E-01
1.28E-01
1.33E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.26E-01
1.28E-01
1.35E-01
1.33E-01
1.30E-01
1.69E-03
1.32E-01
1.35E-01
1.27E-01
1.28E-01
2.84E-02
Notes:
Low, Medium, and High denote representative waste types with different hydraulic conductivities:
Low = Fine-grained waste (e.g., fly ash), Hydraulic conductivity is 5x10 cm/sec
Medium = Medium-grained waste (e.g., bottom ash), Hydraulic conductivity is 0.0041 cm/sec
High = Coarse-grained waste (e.g., slag), Hydraulic conductivity is 0.041 cm/sec
D-2-2
-------
Table D-3: Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Land Application Units (m/yr)
ID
19
98
82
95
62
44
99
7
2
67
75
35
43
41
18
86
93
10
42
74
52
55
51
38
36
3
53
29
32
54
88
23
16
100
28
1
6
27
4
25
77
59
101
73
66
78
85
96
11
20
87
90
12
69
50
24
City
Albuquerque
Annette
Astoria
Atlanta
Augusta
Bangor
Bethel
Bismarck
Boise
Boston
Bridgeport
Brownsville
Burlington
Caribou
Cedar City
Central Park
Charleston
Cheyenne
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbia
Columbus
Concord
Dallas
Denver
Des Moines
Dodge City
E. Lansing
E. St. Louis
Edison
El Paso
Ely
Fairbanks
Flagstaff
Fresno
Glasgow
Grand Island
Grand Junction
Great Falls
Greensboro
Hartford
Honolulu
Indianapolis
Ithaca
Jacksonville
Knoxville
Lake Charles
Lander
Las Vegas
Lexington
Little Rock
Los Angeles
Lynchburg
Madison
Medford
State
NM
AK
OR
GA
ME
ME
AK
ND
ID
MA
CT
TX
VT
ME
UT
NY
SC
WY
IL
OH
OH
MO
OH
NH
TX
CO
IA
KS
MI
IL
NJ
TX
NV
AK
AZ
CA
MT
NE
CO
MT
NC
CT
HI
IN
NY
FL
TN
LA
WY
NV
KY
AK
CA
VA
WI
OR
No Liner
SLT
O.OOE+00
1.80E+00
1.08E+00
3.42E-01
2.12E-01
1.47E-01
1.85E-01
2.39E-02
8.00E-04
2.33E-01
1.95E-01
5.49E-02
1.36E-01
1.08E-01
O.OOE+00
3.36E-01
2.61E-01
5.00E-04
7.98E-02
1.55E-01
7.80E-02
1.53E-01
7.65E-02
1.59E-01
5.99E-02
8.00E-04
1.14E-01
1.35E-02
1.09E-01
1.44E-01
3.12E-01
7.60E-03
O.OOE+00
1.46E-01
2.39E-02
3.07E-02
9.90E-03
4.42E-02
O.OOE+00
3.60E-03
3.26E-01
1.71E-01
5.41E-02
1.30E-01
1.68E-01
1.51E-01
4.11E-01
3.65E-01
3.30E-03
O.OOE+00
3.29E-01
3.53E-01
7.87E-02
3.08E-01
9.12E-02
2.07E-01
SNL
O.OOE+00
1.98E+00
1.15E+00
3.99E-01
2.70E-01
2.05E-01
1.98E-01
3.00E-02
9.40E-03
2.38E-01
2.46E-01
1.05E-01
1.78E-01
1.49E-01
8.00E-04
4.17E-01
3.29E-01
1.30E-03
1.14E-01
2.21E-01
1.21E-01
1.99E-01
1.16E-01
2.06E-01
1.07E-01
8.00E-04
1.64E-01
3.45E-02
1.45E-01
1.68E-01
3.91E-01
1.30E-02
O.OOE+00
1.48E-01
6.30E-02
3.68E-02
7.40E-03
6.27E-02
O.OOE+00
6.90E-03
3.90E-01
2.23E-01
9.83E-02
1.86E-01
2.14E-01
2.11E-01
4.46E-01
4.64E-01
5.30E-03
O.OOE+00
3.97E-01
4.34E-01
9.50E-02
3.61E-01
1.40E-01
2.31E-01
SCL
3.00E-04
1.52E+00
9.65E-01
2.82E-01
1.67E-01
1.23E-01
1.78E-01
1.96E-02
3.80E-03
1.54E-01
1.62E-01
3.84E-02
1.17E-01
8.86E-02
O.OOE+00
2.74E-01
2.12E-01
8.60E-03
6.20E-02
1.54E-01
8.23E-02
1.22E-01
6.63E-02
1.37E-01
5.31E-02
3.60E-03
1.16E-01
2.26E-02
1.10E-01
7.04E-02
2.49E-01
8.10E-03
3.00E-04
1.45E-01
2.26E-02
3.81E-02
9.90E-03
3.23E-02
3.00E-04
7.40E-03
2.71E-01
1.41E-01
3.63E-02
1.06E-01
1.39E-01
1.10E-01
3.54E-01
2.82E-01
9.40E-03
1.80E-03
2.70E-01
2.82E-01
6.99E-02
2.57E-01
6.86E-02
2.10E-01
D-3-1
-------
Table D-3: Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Land Application Units (m/yr)
ID
97
30
47
65
89
83
92
70
80
33
37
76
71
21
39
84
5
40
64
63
8
49
17
45
13
26
58
14
102
15
48
68
72
46
81
31
60
91
57
56
22
34
94
79
61
9
City
Miami
Midland
Montpelier
Nashua
Nashville
New Haven
New Orleans
New York City
Norfolk
North Omaha
Oklahoma City
Orlando
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Pittsburg
Plainfield
Pocatello
Portland
Portland
Providence
Pullman
Put-in-Bay
Rapid City
Rutland
Sacramento
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
San Diego
San Juan
Santa Maria
Sault St. Marie
Schenectady
Seabrook
Seattle
Shreveport
St. Cloud
Syracuse
Tallahassee
Tampa
Topeka
Tucson
Tulsa
W. Palm Beach
Watkinsville
Worchester
Yakima
State
FL
TX
VT
NH
TN
CT
LA
NY
VA
NE
OK
FL
PA
AZ
PA
MA
ID
OR
ME
RI
WA
OH
SD
VT
CA
UT
TX
CA
PR
CA
MI
NY
NJ
WA
LA
MN
NY
FL
FL
KS
AZ
OK
FL
GA
MA
WA
No Liner
SLT
1.45E-01
1.80E-02
1.06E-01
2.27E-01
4.67E-01
3.52E-01
5.89E-01
2.44E-01
3.12E-01
6.71E-02
6.12E-02
1.02E-01
2.01E-01
O.OOE+00
8.94E-02
1.90E-01
O.OOE+00
4.17E-01
2.29E-01
2.13E-01
6.90E-03
5.08E-02
5.00E-04
1.21E-01
1.02E-01
1.30E-02
1.10E-01
2.21E-02
1.49E-01
9.47E-02
1.65E-01
1.47E-01
1.81E-01
4.38E-01
2.30E-01
6.02E-02
2.55E-01
5.91E-01
6.58E-02
1.05E-01
O.OOE+00
6.86E-02
2.61E-01
2.89E-01
2.02E-01
O.OOE+00
SNL
2.20E-01
2.54E-02
1.48E-01
2.81E-01
5.40E-01
4.63E-01
7.45E-01
2.94E-01
O.OOE+00
7.95E-02
9.42E-02
1.70E-01
2.61E-01
3.00E-04
1.31E-01
2.54E-01
O.OOE+00
4.39E-01
2.84E-01
2.86E-01
1.32E-02
l.OOE-01
7.10E-03
1.60E-01
8.76E-02
2.69E-02
1.65E-01
3.40E-02
2.16E-01
1.15E-01
2.10E-01
1.93E-01
2.43E-01
4.58E-01
2.94E-01
8.31E-02
3.25E-01
7.31E-01
1.03E-01
1.48E-01
3.00E-04
1.01E-01
3.49E-01
3.56E-01
2.59E-01
2.30E-03
SCL
1.02E-01
1.35E-02
8.79E-02
1.94E-01
3.77E-01
2.86E-01
4.50E-01
1.97E-01
2.69E-01
5.36E-02
3.89E-02
8.05E-02
1.64E-01
3.00E-04
7.92E-02
1.52E-01
O.OOE+00
3.93E-01
1.87E-01
1.75E-01
8.40E-03
4.95E-02
3.30E-03
1.01E-01
9.45E-02
1.85E-02
8.20E-02
2.41E-02
1.05E-01
8.41E-02
1.44E-01
1.22E-01
1.43E-01
4.08E-01
1.84E-01
5.54E-02
2.12E-01
4.56E-01
4.75E-02
7.62E-02
5.00E-04
4.65E-02
1.78E-01
2.33E-01
1.70E-01
3.00E-04
Notes:
SLT = Silt Loam soil
SNL = Sandy Loam soil
SCL = Silty Clay Loam soil
D-3-2
-------
Table D-4: Tier 1 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Clay Liner Scenarios (m/yr)
City
Boise 1}
Fresno
Bismarck
Denver
Grand Junction
Pocatello
Glasgow
Pullman
Yakima
Cheyenne
Lander
Rapid City
Los Angeles
Sacramento
San Diego
Santa Maria
Ely
Cedar City
Albuquerque
Las Vegas
Phoenix
Tucson
El Paso
Medford
Great Falls
Salt Lake City
Grand Island
Flagstaff
Dodge City
Midland
St. Cloud
E. Lansing
North Omaha
Dallas
Tulsa
Brownsville
Oklahoma City
Bangor
Concord
Pittsburg
Portland
Caribou
Chicago
Burlington
Rutland
Seattle
Montpelier
Sault St. Marie
Columbia
Put-in-Bay
Madison
Columbus
State
ID
CA
ND
CO
CO
ID
MT
WA
WA
WY
WY
SD
CA
CA
CA
CA
NV
UT
NM
NV
AZ
AZ
TX
OR
MT
UT
NE
AZ
KS
TX
MN
MI
NE
TX
OK
TX
OK
ME
NH
PA
OR
ME
IL
VT
VT
WA
VT
MI
MO
OH
WI
OH
Tier 1 Clay
Lined Landfill
Infiltration Rate
(m/yr)
4.61E-03
4.61E-03
1.88E-02
1.88E-02
1.88E-02
1.88E-02
1.88E-02
1.88E-02
1.88E-02
1.88E-02
1.88E-02
1.26E-03
1.26E-03
1.26E-03
1.26E-03
1.26E-03
1.26E-03
1.26E-03
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
1.96E-02
2.41E-02
9.44E-03
9.44E-03
3.42E-02
3.74E-02
2.91E-02
2.41E-02
2.41E-02
2.41E-02
2.46E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.09E-02
4.09E-02
4.09E-02
4.09E-02
Tier 1 Clay Lined Waste Pile
Infiltration Rate (m/yr)
Low
Permeability
Waste
1.36E-02
1.36E-02
1.24E-02
1.24E-02
1.24E-02
1.24E-02
1.24E-02
1.24E-02
1.24E-02
1.24E-02
1.24E-02
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.60E-03
9.68E-02
9.68E-02
9.68E-02
9.68E-02
1.26E-01
1.26E-01
1.26E-01
4.22E-02
1.05E-02
3.26E-03
3.26E-03
2.64E-02
4.81E-02
2.02E-02
4.97E-03
4.97E-03
4.97E-03
7.47E-03
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
6.88E-02
6.88E-02
6.88E-02
6.88E-02
Medium
Permeability
Waste
4.34E-02
4.34E-02
6.89E-02
6.89E-02
6.89E-02
6.89E-02
6.89E-02
6.89E-02
6.89E-02
6.89E-02
6.89E-02
5.56E-02
5.56E-02
5.56E-02
5.56E-02
5.56E-02
5.56E-02
5.56E-02
1.51E-02
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.35E-01
1.23E-01
1.06E-01
1.06E-01
1.26E-01
1.15E-01
1.26E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.31E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
High
Permeability
Waste
6.06E-02
6.06E-02
9.50E-02
9.50E-02
9.50E-02
9.50E-02
9.50E-02
9.50E-02
9.50E-02
9.50E-02
9.50E-02
7.18E-02
7.18E-02
7.18E-02
7.18E-02
7.18E-02
7.18E-02
7.18E-02
7.43E-03
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.31E-01
1.31E-01
1.31E-01
1.34E-01
1.23E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.26E-01
1.11E-01
1.27E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.30E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
D-4-1
-------
Table D-4: Tier 1 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Clay Liner Scenarios (m/yr)
City
Cleveland
Des Moines
E. St. Louis
Topeka
Tampa
San Antonio
Portland
Hartford
Syracuse
Worchester
Augusta
Providence
Nashua
Ithaca
Boston
Schenectady
New York City
Lynchburg
Philadelphia
Seabrook
Indianapolis
Cincinnati
Bridgeport
Jacksonville
Orlando
Greensboro
Watkinsville
Norfolk
Shreveport
Astoria
New Haven
Plainfield
Nashville
Knoxville
Central Park
Lexington
Edison
Atlanta
Little Rock
Tallahassee
New Orleans
Charleston
W. Palm Beach
Lake Charles
Miami
Annette
Bethel
Fairbanks
Honolulu
San Juan
State
OH
IA
IL
KS
FL
TX
ME
CT
NY
MA
ME
RI
NH
NY
MA
NY
NY
VA
PA
NJ
LN
OH
CT
FL
FL
NC
GA
VA
LA
OR
CT
MA
TN
TN
NY
KY
NJ
GA
AK
FL
LA
SC
FL
LA
FL
AK
AK
AK
HI
PR
Tier 1 Clay
Lined Landfill
Infiltration Rate
(m/yr)
4.09E-02
4.09E-02
4.09E-02
3.50E-02
2.53E-02
2.53E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.44E-02
4.44E-02
4.44E-02
4.44E-02
4.44E-02
4.44E-02
4.44E-02
3.62E-02
3.62E-02
3.62E-02
3.62E-02
3.62E-02
3.62E-02
5.26E-02
5.26E-02
5.26E-02
4.86E-02
4.86E-02
4.86E-02
4.86E-02
4.86E-02
4.77E-02
4.77E-02
4.77E-02
4.77E-02
4.77E-02
4.77E-02
4.92E-02
4.92E-02
3.38E-02
2.95E-02
9.40E-03
4.83E-03
1.93E-02
Tier 1 Clay Lined Waste Pile
Infiltration Rate (m/yr)
Low
Permeability
Waste
6.88E-02
6.88E-02
6.88E-02
1.74E-02
2.00E-02
2.00E-02
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.06E-01
1.06E-01
1.06E-01
1.06E-01
1.06E-01
1.06E-01
1.06E-01
8.04E-02
8.04E-02
8.04E-02
8.04E-02
8.04E-02
8.04E-02
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.26E-01
1.26E-01
1.26E-01
1.26E-01
1.26E-01
1.18E-01
1.18E-01
1.18E-01
1.18E-01
1.18E-01
1.18E-01
3.84E-03
3.84E-03
1.35E-01
3.52E-02
9.80E-03
3.23E-02
6.37E-02
Medium
Permeability
Waste
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.31E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
2.36E-02
2.36E-02
1.36E-01
3.64E-02
1.18E-02
4.94E-02
7.93E-02
High
Permeability
Waste
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.30E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
2.97E-02
2.97E-02
1.35E-01
6.60E-02
4.07E-02
8.71E-02
1.11E-01
City names in bold face are climate stations selected as representative of that region
D-4-2
-------
Table D-5: Flow rate data used to develop landfill and waste pile composite liner infiltration rates (from TetraTech, 2001)
Landfill
Cell ID1
G228
G232
G233
G234
G235
G236
G237
G238
G239
G240
G241
G242
G243
G244
G245
G246
G247
G248
G249
G250
G251
G252
G232
G233
G234
G235
G236
Cell Type
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
closed
closed
closed
closed
closed
Average M
(L/ha/d)
5.85
11
0
2
4
1
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
mthly LDS Flow
Rate
(m/y)
2.14E-04
4.02E-04
O.OOE+00
7.30E-05
1.46E-04
3.65E-05
7.30E-05
O.OOE+00
7.30E-05
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
7.30E-05
2.19E-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
7.30E-05
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
3.65E-05
O.OOE+00
Liner Type2
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
Type of
Waste3
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
Site Parameters
Location
Mid- Atlantic
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Average
Annual
Rainfall
(mm)
NA
990
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
760
1090
1090
1090
990
1040
1040
1040
1040
Subsurface Soil
Type
NA
Silty Clay
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand
NA
NA
NA
Silty Clay
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Landfill Cell Construction/Operation Information
Cell Area
(ha)
51
4.7
2
2
1.7
1.7
2.8
3.9
2.6
3.8
3.3
3.9
3
4
3
2.8
2.8
4.5
3.8
4
2.4
2.8
4.7
2
2
1.7
1.7
GM Liner
Material4
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
GM Liner
Thickness
(mm)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
GCL or CCL
Thickness
(mm)
NA
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
250
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Maximum
Height of
Waste
(in)
NA
NA
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
41
28
30
30
NA
24
24
24
24
End Construction
Date
1988
May-92
Jun-88
Jun-88
Aug-88
Aug-88
Sep-88
Dec-88
Jan-89
Jul-89
Dec-89
Feb-90
Feb-90
Oct-90
Jan-91
Apr-92
May-92
Jan-93
Sep-92
Dec-90
Jan-93
Jan-93
May-92
Jun-88
Jun-88
Aug-88
Aug-88
Waste Placement
Start Date
1989
May-92
Jul-88
Jul-88
Sep-88
Sep-88
Oct-88
Dec-88
Feb-89
Jul-89
Dec-89
Jul-90
Feb-90
Oct-90
Jan-91
Apr-92
May-92
Jan-93
Dec-92
Feb-91
Jan-93
Jan-93
May-92
Jul-88
Jul-88
Sep-88
Sep-88
Final Closure
Date
NA
Jul-94
Feb-91
Feb-91
Apr-93
Apr-93
Jul-94
Feb-91
Feb-91
Apr-93
Apr-93
Source of Data
Eith&Koerner(1997)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
Notes:
1. Cell ID as reported by Tetra Tech (2001)
2. GM = geomembrane; GCL = geosynthetic clay liner
3. MSW = municipal solid waste
4. HDPE = high density polyethylene
NA = not available
- = not applicable
Data Sources:
Eith, A. W., and G.R. Koerner, 1997. Assessment of HDPE geomembrane performance in municipal waste landfill double liner system after eight years of service. Geotextiles and geomembranes, Vol. 15, pp. 277 -
EPA, 1998. Assessment and Recommendations for Optimal Performance of Waste Containment Systems. Office of Research and Development, Cmcinatti, Ohio.
D-5-1
-------
Table D-6: Leak Density Data Used to Develop Surface Impound composite liner infiltration rates (from TetraTech, 2001)
Site ID1
LI
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L86
L103
L110
L114
L136
L144
L152
L159
L160
L176
L177
L178
L179
L180
L181
L182
Date
1995
1996
1994
1995
1997
1998
1995
1995
1997
1998
Apr-96
Oct-96
Jan-97
Jan-97
Oct-97
May-98
Aug-98
NA
NA
May-98
Sep-96
Apr-97
Sep-98
Sep-98
NA
NA
Area (m2)
18500
14926
13480
11652
8200
9284
67100
66150
11460
18135
9416
4980
11720
7000
13526
5608
3742
15000
10000
13500
15000
7500
5000
13200
48600
8000
Location
France
France
France
France
France
France
Canada
Canada
Canada
France
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
NA
NA
Waste Type
domestic
domestic
HW
HW
HW
HW
waste water
treatment
waste water
treatment
black liqueur
domestic
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
waste water
containment
HW
WMU type
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
pond
pond
pond
landfill
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
pond
landfill
Type of GM
Liner2
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
PBGM
PBGM
PP
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HDPE/CCL
Thickness of
GM(mm)
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
1.14
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
2
Quality of
Material
Beneath GM
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Holes
0
4
1
1
0
0
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
Knife
Cuts/Tears
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
2
3
0
0
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
NA
NA
Seam or Weld
Defects
5
2
1
2
0
0
2
7
2
3
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
Total Leaks
5
6
3
5
0
1
5
9
6
6
0
0
3
4
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
21
10
Range of Hole
Size (mm)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30x50
NA
NA
NA
Leak Density
(leaks/ha)
2.7
4.02
2.23
4.29
0
1.08
0.75
1.36
5.24
3.31
0
0
2.6
5.7
0.7
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
1.3
0
0
4.3
12.5
Source
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
Laine(1991)
Laine(1991)
Notes:
1. Cell ID as reported by Tetra Tech (2001)
2. HDPE = high density polyethylene; PBGM = pre-fabricated bituminous geomembrane; PP = polypropylene; CCL = compacted clay liner
NA = not available; - = not applicable
Data Sources:
Rollin, A.L., M. Marcotte, T. Jacqulein, andL. Chaput. 1999. Leak location in exposed geomembrane liners using an electrical leak detection technique. Geosynthetics '99, Vol. 2, pp. 615-626
McQuade, S.J., and A.D. Needham, 1999. Geomembrane liner defects - causes, frequency and avoidance. Geotechnical Engineering, Vol., 137. No. 4, pp. 203-213
Laine, D.L., 1991. Analysis of pinhole seam leaks located in geomembrane liners using the electrical leak location method. Proceedings, Geosynthetics '91, pp.239-253
D-6-1
-------
Table D-7: Comparison of composite liner infiltration rates
Calculated using Bonaparte Equation and Infiltration
Rates for composite-lined landfill cells
Percentile
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Calculated Infiltration
(m/yr)
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.05E-05
1.37E-05
2.03E-05
3.96E-05
6.01E-05
7.13E-05
1.87E-04
Observed Intiltration
(m/yr)
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
2.19E-05
7.30E-05
7.30E-05
1.73E-04
4.02E-04
Figure D-l: Infiltration Rate Comparison (Head =0.3m, Hole Area = 6mm )
£ 0.0002
-Calculated Infiltration
-Actual Infiltration value
40 50 60
Percentile
D-7-1
-------
APPENDIX E
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF REFERENCE GROUND-WATER
CONCENTRATION VALUES
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
E-l Shower Model E-l
E-l.l Shower Model E-l
E-l.2 Shower Model Uncertainties and Limitations E-7
E-l.3 References for Section E-l E-18
E-2 Constituent-specific Chemical and Physical Properties for the
Shower Model E-18
E-2.1 Data Collection Procedure E-18
E-2.2 Solubility (Sol) E-19
E-2.3 Henry's Law Constant (HLC) E-19
E-2.4 Diffusion Coefficient in Water (Dw) E-20
E-2.5 Diffusion Coefficient in Air (DJ E-21
E-2.6 References for Section E-2 E-27
E-3 Human Health Benchmarks used in the IWEM Tool E-28
E-3.1 Methodology and Data Sources E-28
E-3.1.1 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) E-28
E-3.1.2 Superfund Provisional Benchmarks E-29
E-3.1.3 Health Effects Summary Tables (HEAST) E-29
E-3.1.4 ATSDRMinimal RiskLevels E-29
E-3.1.5 CalEPA Cancer Potency Factors and Reference
Exposure Levels E-30
E-3.1.6 Other EPA Health Benchmarks E-30
E-3.2 Human Health Benchmark Values E-31
E-3.2.1 Benzene E-43
E-3.2.2 Vinyl Chloride E-43
E-3.2.3 Poly chlorinated Biphenyls E-43
E-3.2.4 Dioxin-like Compounds E-43
E-3.2.5 Superfund Technical Support Center
Provisional Benchmarks E-45
E-3.2.6 Benchmarks From Other EPA Sources E-46
E-3.2.7 Air Characteristic Study Provisional Benchmarks E-47
E-3.2.8 Surrogate Health Benchmarks E-47
E-3.2.9 Chloroform E-48
E-3.3 References for Section E E-49
E-i
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table E-l. Shower Model Input Parameters E-4
Table E-2. Constituent-specific Chemical and Physical Properties E-22
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values E-32
Table E-4. TEFs Used for Dioxin and Furan Congeners E-44
Table E-5. Provisional Human Health Benchmarks Developed by the
Superfund Technical Support Center E-45
Table E-6. Provisional Inhalation Benchmarks Developed in the Air
Characteristic Study E-47
E-ii
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF REFERENCE GROUND-WATER
CONCENTRATION VALUES
E-l Shower Model
E-l.l Shower Model
The shower model calculates the incremental change in the concentration of a
constituent in air that results from the transfer of constituent mass from the water phase
(the shower water) to the vapor phase (the air in the shower stall) over time. The model
then estimates the concentration of the constituent in a bathroom that results from air
exchange within the bathroom and between the bathroom and the rest of the house over
time. After the model calculates the predicted air-phase constituent concentration in the
shower stall and bathroom, we use those concentrations to estimate the average air-phase
constituent concentration to which an individual is exposed over the course of an entire
day. We use this average daily concentration to calculate inhalation HBNs.
The shower model is based on differential equations presented in McKone (1987)
and Little (1992a). We solved the differential equations using a mathematical technique
called "finite difference numerical integration," to produce the equations that we use in
our analysis, Equations E-l to E-l 1 in this Appendix. In reviewing the equations and
reading the following sections, it will help to keep in mind the following two concepts:
We calculate air-phase constituent concentrations for different "compartments"
The shower model is based on the understanding that there are two compartments
in the bathroom: 1) the shower stall and 2) the rest of the bathroom (outside of
the shower stall). We assume that an adult spends time: in the shower stall when
the shower is running; in the shower stall after the shower is turned off; and in the
rest of the bathroom after the shower is turned off (see Equations E-l and E-2).
We calculate air-phase constituent concentrations for different time steps. We
implement the shower model in time steps. That is, we estimate the air-phase
constituent concentration in each of the two compartments in 0.2-minute
increments or time steps. The air-phase constituent concentration at the
beginning of the 0.2-minute time step differs from the concentration at the end of
the 0.2-minute time step because of volatilization of constituent mass from the
shower water (which adds constituent mass) and the exchange of air between the
compartments in the bathroom and the rest of the house (which disperses the
mass). At the beginning of a time step, the air-phase concentration in each
E-l
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
bathroom compartment is equal to the air-phase concentration that was estimated
for the compartment at the end of the previous time step.
The following is our basic procedure for implementing the shower model:
• Calculate a mass transfer coefficient for each constituent;
• Estimate the air-phase constituent concentration in the shower stall for
sequential 0.2-minute time steps;
• Estimate the air-phase constituent concentration in the bathroom (other
than in the shower stall) for sequential 0.2-minute time steps;
• Use the air-phase constituent concentrations calculated for the shower
stall, and the air-phase constituent concentrations calculated for the
bathroom, to calculate the average constituent concentration to which an
adult is exposed during the course of a day.
This procedure is explained in greater detail below. Table E-2 provides the
values for the constituent-specific properties used in the model. Table E-l provides the
values we used for the parameters in the model.
Calculating a Mass Transfer Coefficient
The first step in estimating the concentration of a constituent in air is to quantify
the constituent's "resistance" to movement between the water phase and the air phase.
We quantify this resistance using the mass transfer coefficient presented in Equation E-4,
which incorporates variables calculated in Equations E-3 and E-5. The mass transfer
coefficient depends on properties specific to each constituent evaluated, as well as
physical properties of the water droplet. Specifically, the mass transfer coefficient
depends on:
• The constituent's diffusivity in water (the molecular diffusion coefficient
for the constituent in water), which determines how readily the constituent
mass in the center of the water droplet will diffuse to the surface of the
water droplet. If a constituent's diffusivity in water is low, then as the
constituent is emitted from the surface of the water droplet, the rate at
which the surface of the droplet is "supplied" with constituent from the
center of the water droplet will be slow, resulting in less constituent being
emitted from the droplet. Diffusivity influences the concentration gradient
across the droplet.
E-2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
• The Henry's law constant for the constituent, which establishes how the
constituent will partition between the water phase and the air phase to
achieve equilibrium. Henry's law states that, at equilibrium, the amount
of a constituent dissolved in water is proportional to the amount of the
constituent in the air phase that is in contact with the water. This
proportion is constituent-specific (each constituent has a different Henry's
law constant). The Henry's law constant influences the magnitude of the
air-phase constituent concentrations more than any other constituent-
specific parameter.
• The constituent's diffusivity in air (the molecular diffusion coefficient for
the constituent in air), which determines how readily the constituent will
migrate away from the droplet once it is released into the air surrounding
the droplet. Constituents with lower diffusivities in air will have
comparatively higher concentrations around the water droplet than in the
surrounding air. Therefore, because of Henry's law, less constituent
would need to come out of solution into the air phase in order to achieve
equilibrium.
• The amount of time that the droplet is in contact with the air, which we
assume is equivalent to the time it takes for the droplet to fall to the floor
of the shower. We determine the time it takes the droplet to fall by
dividing distance that the droplet has to fall (which we assume is equal to
the height of the shower nozzle) by the velocity at which the water droplet
falls (which we assume is the terminal velocity of the droplet). For this
analysis, we set the nozzle height and the terminal velocity of the droplet
at fixed values, as presented in Table E-l.
• The ratio of the water droplet's surface area to its volume. Because we
assume that the droplet is a sphere, its surface area to volume ratio is equal
to a value of 6 divided by the diameter of the droplet. For this analysis,
the diameter of the droplet, therefore its surface area to volume ratio, is a
fixed value (see Table E-l).
Table E-2 presents the constituent-specific diffusivities and Henry's law constants
that we used in our analysis.
-------
Table E-l. Shower Model Input Parameters
W
Input Parameter
Description
Value
Units
Reference
Comment
Bathroom Properties
Vb
Volume of the bathroom
10
m3
McKone, 1987
Exchange Rate
Qbh
Qsb
Volumetric exchange rate between the bathroom
and the house
Volumetric exchange rate between the shower
and the bathroom
300
100
L/min
L/min
derived value
derived value
Estimated from the volume and flow rate
in McKone (1987) such that the exchange
rate equals the volume divided by the
residence time (e.g., 10,OOOL/30 min).
Estimated from the volume and flow rate
in McKone (1987) such that the exchange
rate equals the volume divided by the
residence time (e.g., 2000L/20 min).
Exposure Time
ShowerStallTime
r_bathroom
ShowerTime
Time in shower stall after showering
Time spent in bathroom, not in shower
Shower time, 50th percentile
5
5
15
min
min
min
U.S. EPA, 1997c
U.S. EPA, 1997c
U.S. EPA, 1997c
Table 15-23. 50th percentile overall
Table 15-32. 50th percentile overall
Table 15-21. 50th percentile overall
Shower Properties
Vs
NozHeight
ShowerRate
DropVel
DropDiam
Volume of shower
Height of shower head
Rate of water flow from shower head
Terminal velocity of water drop
Diameter of shower water drop
2
1.8
10
400
0.098
m3
m
L/min
cm/s
cm
McKone, 1987
Little, 1992a
derived value
derived value
derived value
Selected based on the maximum height
reported in Table 1 of Little (1992a), a
summary of five studies.
Value obtained by averaging the flow rates
reported in five studies in Table 1 of
Little (1992a) (QL) = 10.08 L/min.
Selected value by correlating to existing
data.
Estimated as a function of terminal
velocity<=600cm/sec (Coburn, 1996).
Groundwater
Cin
Constituent concentration in incoming water
0.001
mg/L
NA
Unit concentration selected.
I
8
I
s.
b
o
TO
TO
I
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
Calculating the Air-Phase Constituent Concentration in the Shower
Calculating the air-phase constituent concentration in the shower at the end of
each time step involves:
1. Calculating the fraction of constituent that can be emitted into the air from each
water droplet (Equation E-7);
2. Translating the fraction of constituent that can be emitted from each water droplet
(from step 1) into the mass of constituent that is emitted from the entire volume of
water that is coming into the shower during each time step (Equation E-6); and
3. Determining the constituent concentration at the end of the time step by:
calculating the concentration added to the shower air during the time step
(dividing the constituent mass emitted from the water in step 2 by the volume of
the shower); adding this concentration to the concentration of the constituent that
was already in the shower air at the beginning of the time step; and subtracting
the concentration lost from the shower air due to the exchange of air with the rest
of the bathroom (Equation E-9).
An important element of this analysis is the difference between the time in the
shower stall that is spent showering (15 minutes, Table E.I) and the time in the shower
stall that occurs after showering (5 minutes, Table E.I). The difference in these two time
periods involves how we handle the value for mass of constituent emitted from the
shower water (step 2, above). When we switch the model over from the time period
where the shower nozzle is turned on (the time spent showering), to the time period
where the shower nozzle is turned off (the time spent in the shower stall after showering),
we set the mass emitted from the water to zero. This means that during the 5-minute
period when the individual is in the shower after the shower is turned off, the air-phase
concentration of the constituent is only a function of the concentration of the constituent
in the air at the beginning of the time step and the air exchange between the shower stall
and the rest of the bathroom. The following paragraphs describe steps 1 and 2 in more
detail.
The fraction of the constituent mass that potentially can be emitted from a droplet
at any given time during the droplet's fall through the air (Equation E-7) is a function of
the mass transfer coefficient (the constituent's resistance to movement from the water
phase to the air phase, described previously) and the "fraction of gas phase saturation" in
the shower (calculated using Equation E-8). Inherent in this calculation is an assumption
that the concentration of the constituent in the air is constant over the time it takes the
droplet to fall. The fraction of gas phase saturation is an expression of how close the air-
phase constituent concentration is to the maximum possible (equilibrium) air-phase
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
concentration. Stated another way, Henry's law dictates that for a certain constituent
concentration in water, we can predict the maximum concentration of constituent in the
air that is in contact with the water (assuming the air and water are in equilibrium).
Consequently, if there is already constituent in the air, then, to maintain equilibrium,
there is a limit to how much additional constituent can be emitted from the water to the
air (the less constituent already present in the air, the more constituent that theoretically
may be emitted). The fraction of gas phase saturation is an expression of how close the
air concentration is to that limit at the beginning of each time step. However, as
suggested at the beginning of this paragraph, even though Henry's law influences the
maximum fraction of mass that could be emitted from the droplet, the mass transfer
coefficient also influences how much of the constituent will "free itself from the water.
Factors such as the constituent's dispersivity (in water and air) and the surface area of the
droplet also influence the fraction of constituent mass that can be emitted from the
droplet.
In most cases, for each 0.2-minute time step we evaluate, the mass of a
constituent emitted from the shower water to the air is the product of: the concentration
of the constituent in the shower water; the volume of water emitted from the shower
during the time step; and the fraction of the constituent mass in the water that potentially
could be emitted from the water (discussed above). However, in certain cases (typically
rare), the mass transfer coefficient is of a magnitude that the concentration calculated in
this way exceeds the mass that possibly could be emitted when the water and the air
phases are at equilibrium. In this case, we "cap" the constituent mass that can be emitted
from the shower water during the time step. The cap is the maximum constituent mass
that could be emitted from the water at equilibrium (based on Henry's law) minus the
constituent mass already in the shower stall at the beginning of the time step
Calculating the Air-Phase Constituent Concentration in the Bathroom (other than in
the Shower Stall)
The air-phase constituent concentration in the bathroom (Equation E-10) is a
function of the air-phase constituent concentration calculated for the shower, and the
exchange of air 1) between the shower and the bathroom and 2) between the bathroom
and the rest of the house. Specifically, for each time step, the air-phase constituent
concentration in the bathroom is equal to: the air-phase constituent concentration in the
bathroom at the beginning of the time step, plus the constituent concentration added as a
result of the exchange of air with the shower, minus the constituent concentration lost as
a result of the exchange of air with the rest of the house. Table E-l presents the values
we used for the volumetric exchange rate between the shower and the bathroom; the
volumetric exchange rate between the bathroom and the house; and the volume of the
bathroom.
E-6
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
Calculating the Average Daily Constituent Concentration to which an Individual is
Exposed
To calculate the average concentration of a constituent to which an individual is
exposed on a daily basis (24 hours per day) (Equation E-l 1), we:
1. Calculate the average constituent concentration in the shower air across all time
steps and multiply this concentration by the amount of time an individual spends
in the shower stall (Equation E-2);
2. Calculate the average constituent concentration in the bathroom air (not including
the shower air) across all time steps and multiply this concentration by the
amount of time an individual spends in the bathroom (not including the time spent
in the shower stall);
3. Sum the values calculated in steps 1 and 2, and divide the sum by the length of a
day. This calculation carries with it an assumption that an individual only is
exposed to the constituent in the shower, and in the bathroom after showering
(that is, that the concentration of the constituent in the rest of the house is zero).
E-1.2 Shower Model Uncertainties and Limitations
The primary limitations and uncertainties of the shower model are as follows:
• The model is constructed such that air-phase concentration of a constituent
in household air results solely from showering activity. Individuals are
exposed to emissions via inhalation for time spent in the shower while
showering, in the shower stall after showering, and in the bathroom after
showering. Other models calculate indoor air concentrations resulting
from emissions from household use of tap water and/or calculate
inhalation exposures for time spent in the remainder of the house.
However, McKone (1987) found that the risk from inhalation exposures in
the remainder of the house was considerably lower than the risk from
inhalation exposures in the bathroom and during showering. In addition,
there are few data available to estimate the input parameters needed to
calculate exposure concentrations from other household activities,
including variables such as house volume, air exchange rate between the
house and outside air, and exposure time in the house. Given the expected
lower risk due to exposure in the remainder of the house, and the lack of
available data to estimate house constituent concentrations, we focused on
showering as the greatest source of inhalation exposure and risk due to use
of contaminated water.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
• The model currently only considers exposures to adults who shower, and
does not consider exposures to children who bathe in bathtubs. This
limitation of the model may be significant. A recent report by EPA's
National Center for Environmental Assessment states that: "Because of
the longer exposure times, chemical emissions during the use of bathtubs
may be as, or more, significant than during showers, in terms of human
inhalation. This is particularly important given that small children are
typically washed in bathtubs rather than showers and are generally more
sensitive to chemical exposure than are healthy adults" (U.S. EPA, 2000).
• Our analysis does not consider an individual's dermal exposure to water
or an individual's incidental ingestion of water while showering.
• The model only considers emissions that result from falling droplets of
water in the shower. The model does not include algorithms that account
for emissions from water films on shower walls or puddles on the floor of
the shower. Use of the model also assumes that a droplet falls directly
from the shower nozzle to the shower stall floor, and is not intercepted by
the body of the individual who is showering.
• The input parameter values are a source of uncertainty for the shower
model. To select values for the shower properties (shower and bathroom
volume, nozzle height, and flow rate), we generally used central tendency
values that were reported in the literature. Although fixing shower model
input parameters as constant does not capture variability in the results, the
results still compare favorably to experimental data for numerous organic
compounds of varying volatility (Coburn, 1996). The values for droplet
properties (diameter and velocity) are also constants, and are based on
correlation to existing data. The largest uncertainty is likely in the
volumetric exchange rates used between the shower and bathroom and the
bathroom and the rest of house. We derived these values, 300 L/min for
the exchange rate between the bathroom and house, and 100 L/min for the
exchange rate between the shower and bathroom, from McKone (1987).
However, values reported in a five-study summary by Little (1992a)
ranged from 35 to 460 L/min for the exchange between the shower and
bathroom, and 38 to 480 L/min for the exchange between the bathroom
and the rest of the house. Such a large range of volumetric exchange rates
imparts uncertainty to the shower model's estimation of constituent
concentrations.
• A constituent's solubility in water depends on a number of factors
including the temperature of the water and the other chemicals (for
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
example, other solvents) that are in the water. When the concentration of
a constituent in water exceeds the constituent's solubility in that water, we
expect that at least some of the constituent will exist in the water as a non-
aqueous (free) phase. Henry's law, a basic principle of the shower model,
only applies to constituents dissolved in water, it does not apply to non-
aqueous phase constituents (U.S. EPA, 1996). As a result, it would not be
appropriate to use the HBNs we developed for the inhalation pathway if
the shower water (which we assume is from a ground-water well)
contained non-aqueous phase constituent. More importantly, however,
EPACMTP, the ground-water fate and transport model that we use to
estimate constituent concentrations in the modeled ground water, cannot
be used to model non-aqueous phase liquids. Consequently, the IWEM
tool should not be used in cases where non-aqueous phase constituents are
present in leachate. In these situations, another tool must be used that is
capable of evaluating non-aqueous phase liquids.
E-9
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Equation E-l. Total time spent in shower and bathroom
BSResTime = ShowerTime + ShowerStall Time + T bathroom
Name
BSResTime
ShowerTime
ShowerStallTime
T bathroom
Description
Total time spent in shower and bathroom (min)
Duration of shower (min)
Time in shower stall after showering (min)
Time suent in bathroom not in shower (min)
Value
Calculated above
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
This equation calculates the total time that a receptor is exposed to vapors.
Equation E-2. Total time spent in shower stall
Shower Res Time = ShowerStallTime + ShowerTime
Name
ShowerResTime
ShowerStallTime
ShowerTime
Description
Total time spent in shower stall (min)
Time in shower stall after showering (min)
Duration of shower (min)
Value
Calculated above
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
This equation calculates the total time that a receptor is exposed to vapors in the shower stall.
E-10
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Equation E-3. Dimensionless Henry's law constant
Name
Kprime
HLCcoef
HLC
R
Term)
Hprime = HLCcoef x HLC
TTT C*~-\~f
7/LCcOe/ -
R x lemp
Description
Dimensionless Henry's law constant (dimensionless)
Coefficient to Henry's law constant Mol/(atm-m3)
Henry's law constant (atm-m3/Mol)
Ideal Gas constant (atm-m3/K-Mol)
Temnerature (K)
Value
Calculated above
Calculated above
Chemical-specific
0.00008206
298
This equation calculates the dimensionless form of Henry's law constant.
Equation E-4. Dimensionless overall mass transfer coefficient
Name
N
AVRatio
Kol
DropResTime
DropDiam
NozHeight
DropVel
100
N = Kol x AVRatio x DropResTime
6
A. v latino —
DropDiam
^ „ ^. NozHeight x 100
DiopRcsTinic —
DropVel
Description
Dimensionless overall mass transfer coefficient (dimensionless)
Area-to-volume ratio for a sphere (cmVcm3)
Overall mass transfer coefficient (cm/s)
Residence time for falling drops (s)
Drop diameter (cm)
Nozzle height (m)
Drop terminal velocity (cm/s)
Conversion factor (cm/m)
Value
Calculated above
Calculated above
Calculated in Equation E-5
Calculated above
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
Conversion factor
This equation calculates the dimensionless overall mass transfer coefficient. The above equation is based
on Little (1992a; Equation 5), which provides the equation as N = Kol x A/Q1 where A is the total surface
area for mass transfer and Ql is water flow in volume per time.
E-ll
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Equation E-5. Overall mass transfer coefficient
Name
Kol
beta
Dw
Da
Hprime
TSf~. 1 ft ' ' ' 1
KOI - p A t + !
\Dw Da x Hpnmej
Description
Overall mass transfer coefficient (cm/s)
Proportionality constant (cm-sA-l/3)
Diffusion coefficient in water (cnf/s)
Diffusion coefficient in air (cmVs)
Dimensionless Henry's law constant (dimensionless)
Value
Calculated above
216
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
Calculated in Equation E-3
This equation calculates the overall mass transfer coefficient. The above equation corresponds to Equation
17 in McKone (1987) and was modified to use the dimensionless Henry's law constant. McKone (1987)
noted that the proportionality constant, beta, was a dimensionless value. Little (1992b) indicated that beta
is not dimensionless. The correct units are noted above. The value for beta was derived using data for
benzene and verified for chemicals of varying volatility (Coburn, 1996).
E-12
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Equation E-6. Constituent mass emitted in the shower for a given time step
For Et > Emax,
Es = Emax
ForEt < Emax,
Es= Et
Where,
Et = Cin x ShowerRate x ts x fern
Emax = \yeq - ys, tj x Vs x 1 000
Name
Es
Emax
Et
yeq
ys, t
Vs
Cin
ShowerRate
ts
fern
Hprime
1000
Description
Constituent mass emitted in the shower for a given time step
(mg)
Maximum possible mass of constituent emitted from shower
during time step (mg)
Potential mass of constituent emitted from shower during
time step (mg)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in equilibrium between
water and air (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the shower at the
beginning of time step (mg/L)
Volume of shower (m3)
Liquid-phase constituent concentration in the incoming water
(mg/L)
Rate of flow from showerhead (L/min)
Time step (min)
Fraction of constituent emitted from a droplet
(dimensionless)
Dimensionless Henry's law constant (dimensionless)
Conversion factor (L/m3)
Value
Calculated above
Calculated above
Calculated above
Hprime x Cin
Calculated in Equation E-9 (As
ys, t+ts for previous time step)
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
0.2
Calculated in Equation E-7
Calculated in Equation E-3
Conversion factor
The above equations are used to determine the mass of constituent emitted for a given time step. The
equilibrium concentration in air (y_eq) is calculated from Equation 1 in Little (1992a). If the mass emitted
based on the mass transfer coefficient (Et) is greater than the amount emitted to reach equilibrium (Emax),
the mass is set to the amount that results in the air concentration at equilibrium.
E-13
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Equation E-7. Fraction of constituent emitted from a droplet
fern = (l- Fsat] x (;- e~N\
Name
fern
Fsat
N
Description
Fraction of constituent emitted from a droplet
(dimensionless)
Fraction of gas-phase saturation (dimensionless)
Dimensionless overall mass transfer coefficient
(dimensionless)
Value
Calculated above
Calculated in Equation E-8
Calculated in Equation E-4
This equation is used to calculate the fraction of a given chemical emitted from a droplet of water in the
shower. The equation is based on Equation 5 in Little (1992a). The above equation is obtained by
rearranging the equation in Little given that ys_max/m = Cin and Fsat = ys/ys_max = ys/(m * Cin).
Equation E-8. Fraction of gas-phase saturation in shower
Name
Fsat
yeq
ys, t
Hprime
Cin
Vs,t
77V -K/
1'Sdt —
yeq
Description
Fraction of gas-phase saturation in shower (dimensionless)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in equilibrium between
water and air (mg/L)
Current gas-phase constituent concentration in air (mg/L)
Dimensionless Henry's law constant (dimensionless)
Constituent concentration in incoming water (mg/L)
Value
Calculated above
Hprime x Cin
Calculated in Equation E-9 (as
ys, t+ts for previous time step)
Calculated in Equation E-3
Provided in Table E-l
This equation is used to calculate the fraction of gas phase saturation in shower for each time step. The
equilibrium concentration in air (y_eq) is calculated from Equation 1 in Little (1992a).
E-14
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Equation E-9. Gas-phase constituent concentration in the shower at end of time step
Name
ys, t+ts
ys, t
yb, t
Es
Qsb
Vs
ts
1000
\Es - (Osb x i
ys, t - yb, t\ x ts\
x 1000
Description
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the
time step (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the
beginning of time step (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the
beginning of time step (mg/L)
shower at end of
shower at the
bathroom at the
Mass emitted in the shower for a given time step (mg)
Volumetric exchange rate between the shower and the
bathroom (L/min)
Volume of shower (m3)
Time step (min)
Conversion factor (L/m3)
Value
Calculated above
Calculated in Equation E- 10 (as
yb, t+ts for previous time step)
Calculated from last time step
Calculated in Equation E-6
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
0.2
Conversion factor
This equation is used to calculate the gas-phase constituent concentration in the shower at end of time step.
The equation is derived from Equation 9 in Little (1992a). Es is set to 0 when the shower is turned off (i.e.,
at the end of showering) to estimate the reduction in shower stall air concentrations after emissions cease.
E-15
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Equation E-10. Gas-phase constituent concentration in the bathroom at end of time step
yb,n
Name
yb, t+ts
yb, t
ys, t+ts
yh, t
Qsb
Qbh
Vb
ts
1000
\\Qsb X (ys,t + ts- yb,t\ - Qbh X \Vb,t- yh, t\\\
1 — V/, / 1 ^' t?
Vb x 1000
Description
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the bathroom at end
of time step (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the bathroom at the
beginning of time step (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the shower at the end
of time step (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the house at the
beginning of time step (mg/L)
Volumetric exchange rate between the shower and the
bathroom (L/min)
Volumetric exchange rate between the bathroom and the
house (L/min)
Volume of bathroom (m3)
Time step (min)
Conversion factor (L/m3)
Value
Calculated above
Calculated from last time
step
Calculated in Equation E-9
Assumed deminimus, zero
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
0.2
Conversion factor
This equation is used to calculate the gas-phase constituent concentration in the bathroom at end of time
step. The equation is derived from Equation 10 in Little (1992a).
E-16
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Equation E-ll. Average daily concentration in indoor air
C air indot
Name
Cair_indoor
Cair_shower
Cair_bathroom
ShowerResTime
T_bathroom
ys, t
ys, t+ts
yb, t
yb, t+ts
ns
nb
1440
1000
\Cair shower x ShowerResTime} + \Catr bathroom x T bathroom]
1440
J] [(ys, /+ ts + ys, t ) 1 2J x 1000
C^air shower —
ns
^ [(yb, t+ts + >*,/)/ 2J x 1000
Ca/r bathroom —
nb
Description
Average daily concentration in indoor air (mg/m3)
Average concentration in shower (mg/m3)
Average concentration in bathroom (mg/m3)
Total time spent in shower stall (min)
Time spent in bathroom, not in shower (min)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the shower at the
beginning of time step (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the shower at the end
of time step (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the bathroom at the
beginning of time step (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the bathroom at the
end of time step (mg/L)
Number of time steps corresponding to time spent in the
shower (dimensionless)
Number of time steps corresponding to time spent in the
bathroom (dimensionless)
Minutes per day (min)
Conversion factor (L/m3)
Value
Calculated above
Calculated above
Calculated above
Calculated in Equation E-2
Provided in Table E-l
Calculated in Equation E-9 (as
ys, t+ts for previous time step)
Calculated in Equation E-9
Calculated in Equation E- 10 (as
yb, t+ts for previous time step)
Calculated in Equation E-10
Summed in model code
Summed in model code
Adjustment factor
Conversion factor
The above equations are used to calculate the time-weighted average daily indoor air concentration to
which a receptor is exposed. The equation assumes that receptors are only exposed to constituents in the
shower and bathroom.
E-17
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
E-1.3 References for Section E-l
Coburn, J., 1996. Memo to Dana Greenwood on Emission Flux Equations for
Showering, July 1.
Little, J.C., 1992a. Applying the two resistance theory to contaminant volatilization in
showers. Environmental Science and Technology 26(7):1341-1349.
Little, J.C., 1992b. Applying the two resistance theory to contaminant volatilization in
showers. Environmental Science and Technology 26(4); 836-837.
McKone, T.E., 1987. Human exposure to volatile organic compounds in household tap water:
The indoor inhalation pathway. Environmental Science and Technology 21:1194-1201.
U.S. EPA, 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document. EPA/540/R95/128.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. May.
U.S. EPA, 1997a. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1, General Factors.
EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 2000. Volatilization Rates from Water to Indoor Air, Phase II. EPA/600/R-00/096.
National Center for Environmental Assessment-Washington Office, Office of Research
and Development, Washington, DC. October.
E-2 Constituent-specific Chemical and Physical Properties for
the Shower Model
To calculate inhalation HBNs, the shower model requires input of several
chemical-specific properties, including solubility (Sol), Henry's law constant (HLC), and
diffusion coefficients in air (DJ and water (DJ. This attachment describes the data
sources and methodologies used to collect and develop these properties. Table E.2 lists
by constituent the chemical-specific properties used to calculate inhalation HBNs, along
with the data source for each value.
E-2.1 Data Collection Procedure
To select data values available from multiple sources, we created a hierarchy of
references based on the reliability and availability of data in such sources. Our first
choice for data collection and calculations was EPA reports and software. When we
could not find data or equations from EPA publications, we consulted highly recognized
sources, including chemical information databases on the Internet. These on-line sources
E-18
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document _ Appendix E
are compilations of data that provide the primary references for data values. The specific
hierarchy varied among properties as described in subsequent sections.
For dioxins, the preferred data source in all cases was the Exposure and Human
Health Reassessment of 2,3, 7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related
Compounds, Part 1, Vol. 3 (Dioxin Reassessment) (U.S. EPA, 2000). We used the
Mercury Study Report to Congress (U.S. EPA, 1997a) as the preferred source for
mercury properties. If values were unavailable from these sources, we followed the same
reference hierarchy that was used for other constituents.
All data entry for chemical and physical properties was checked by comparing
each entry against the original online or hardcopy reference. All property calculation
programs were checked using hand calculations to ensure that they were functioning
correctly.
E-2.2 Solubility (Sol)
For solubility (Sol) values, we looked for data by searching the following sources
in the following order:
1 . Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) (U.S. EPA, 1997b);
2. CHEMFATE Chemical Search (SRC, 1999);
3. Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) (U.S. NLM, 2001);
4. ChemFinder (CambridgeSoft Corporation, 2001).
For mercury, we obtained a solubility for elemental mercury from The Merck Index: An
Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals (Budavari, 1996).
E-2.3 Henry's Law Constant (HLC)
Collection of Henry's law constant (HLC) data proceeded by searching sources in
the following order:
1. SCDM;
2. CHEMFATE;
3. HSDB.
When we could not find data from these sources, we calculated HLC using
equation 15-8 from Lyman, Reehl, and Rosenblatt (1990):
Sol
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document _ Appendix E
where
HLC = Henry's law constant (atm-mVmolej
Pvp = vapor pressure (atm)
Sol = solubility (mol/m3).
E-2.4 Diffusion Coefficient in Water (Dw)
For all chemicals, we calculated the diffusion coefficient in water (Dw) by hand
because few empirical data are available. The preferred calculation was equation 17-6
from the WATER9 model (U.S. EPA, 2001):
298.16 A p
where
Dw = diffusion coefficient in water (cm2/s)
T = temperature (degrees C)
MW = molecular weight (g/g-mol)
p = density (g/cc).
When we did not know chemical density, we used equation 3.16 from Process
Coefficients and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and Heavy Metals in Surface
Waters (Process Coefficients) (U.S. EPA, 1987), which only requires molecular weight:
Dw = 0.00022 x
where
Dw = diffusion coefficient in water (cm2/s)
MW = molecular weight (g/mol).
E-20
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
E-2.5 Diffusion Coefficient in Air (DJ
All diffusion coefficients in air (Da) were calculated values because few empirical
data are available. Similar to Dw, we first consulted WATER9 and then used U.S. EPA
(1987). Equation 17-5 in WATER9 calculates diffusivity in air as follows:
D =
0.0029(r + 273.16)15 JO.034 + —!— (l - 0.000015MFF2)
V MW\ I
0.333
+ 1.8
U.5/7
where
Da = diffusion coefficient in air (cm2/s)
T = temperature (degrees C)
MW = molecular weight (g/g-mol)
p = density (g/cc).
When density was not available, we used equation 3.17 from Process Coefficients
(U.S. EPA, 1987):
Da = 1.9 x MW'm
where
Da = diffusion coefficient in air (cm2/s)
MW = molecular weight (g/mol).
For dioxins and furans, we used an equation from the Dioxin Reassessment (U.S.
EPA, 2000) to estimate diffusion coefficients from diphenyl's diffusivity:
D
Db \MWa)
where
Da = diffusion coefficient of constituent in air (cm2/s)
Db = diffusion coefficient of diphenyl at 25 degrees C (0.068
cm2/s)
MWa = molecular weight of constituent (g/mole)
MWb = molecular weight of diphenyl (154 g/mole).
E-21
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Table E-2. Constituent-specific Chemical and Physical Properties
Constituent
Acetaldehyde (ethanal)
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid (propenoic acid)
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzyl chloride
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane (methyl bromide)
Butadiene, 1,3-
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon disulfide
Chlordane
Chloro- 1,3 -butadiene, 2-
(Chloroprene)
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)
Chloroform
CASRN
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
62-53-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-44-7
117-81-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
56-23-5
75-15-0
57-74-9
126-99-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
Da
(cm2/s)
(a)
0.128
1.06E-01
1.34E-01
1.12E-01
1.07E-01
1.03E-01
1.14E-01
2.28E-02
8.30E-02
5.09E-02b
8.95E-02
3.55E-02
2.55E-02
4.76E-02b
6.34E-02
1.73E-02
5.67E-02
4.01E-02
5.63E-02
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-01
5.71E-02
1.06E-01
2.15E-02
8.41E-02
7.21E-02
2.18E-02
3.66E-02
1.04E-01
7.70E-02
Dw
(cm2/s)
(a)
0
1.15E-05
1.41E-05
1.22E-05
1.26E-05
1.20E-05
1.23E-05
5.84E-06
1.01E-05
5.89E-06b
1.03E-05
7.59E-06
6.58E-06
5.51E-06b
8.81E-06
4.18E-06
8.71E-06
7.40E-06
1.07E-05
1.35E-05
1.03E-05
9.78E-06
1.30E-05
0
l.OOE-05
9.48E-06
5.48E-06
1.06E-05
1.16E-05
1.09E-05
HLC
(atm-
m3/mol)
(c)
7.89e-05
3.88e-05
3.46e-05
1.22e-04
l.OOe-09
1.17e-07
1.03e-04
1.70e-04
1.90e-06
3.35e-06
5.55e-03
3.88e-ll
1.13e-06
l.lle-04
4.15e-04
1.02e-07
1.80e-05
1.34e-04e
1.60e-03
6.24e-03
7.36e-02
3.04e-02
3.03e-02
4.86e-05
1.19e-02f
3.70e-03
7.24e-08f
7.83e-04
8.82e-03
3.67e-03
Sol
(mg/L)
(c)
l.OOe+06
l.OOe+06
l.OOe+06
2.13e+05
6.40e+05
l.OOe+06
7.40e+04
l.SOe-Ol
3.60e+04
9.40e-03
1.75e+03
5.00e+02
1.62e-03
1.50e-03
5.25e+02
3.40e-01
1.72e+04
1.31e+03
6.74e+03
1.52e+04
7.35e+02
7.93e+02
1.19e+03
5.60e-02
1.74e+03
4.72e+02
l.lle+01
2.60e+03
5.68e+03
7.92e+03
E-22
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Table E-2. Constituent-specific Chemical and Physical Properties (continued)
Constituent
Chloromethane (methyl chloride)
Chlorophenol, 2-
Chloropropene, 3- (allyl chloride)
Chrysene
Cresol, o-
Cresol, —
Cresol, p-
Cresols (total)
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
DDT, p,p'-
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-
Dichloropropane, 1,2-
Dichloropropene, trans- 1,3-
Dichloropropene, 1,3- (isomer
mixture)
Dichloropropene, cis-1,3-
Dieldrin
Dimethyl formamide, N,N- (DMF)
Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, 7,12-
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4-
Dioxane, 1,4-
Diphenylhydrazine, 1,2-
Epichlorohydrin
CASRN
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
218-01-9
95-48-7
108-39-4
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
50-29-3
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
78-87-5
10061-02-6
542-75-6
10061-01-5
60-57-1
68-12-2
57-97-6
121-14-2
123-91-1
122-66-7
106-89-8
Da
(cm2/s)
(a)
0.124
0.0661
9.36E-02
2.61E-02
7.59E-02
0.0729
7.24E-02
7.37E-02
6.02E-02
7.59E-02
1.83E-02
0.0236
0.0321
0.0562
0.055
4.75E-02b
7.60E-02
8.36E-02
8.54E-02
8.63E-02
7.33E-02
7.63E-02
7.63E-02
7.65E-02
2.33E-02
9.72E-02
4.71E-02b
3.75E-02
8.74E-02
0.0343
0.0888
Dw
(cm2/s)
(a)
1.36E-05
0
1.08E-05
6.75E-06
9.86E-06
0
9.24E-06
9.48E-06
7.85E-06
9.35E-06
4.44E-06
6.02E-06
8.90E-06
8.92E-06
8.68E-06
5.50E-06b
1.08E-05
1.06E-05
1.09E-05
1.10E-05
9.73E-06
1.01E-05
1.01E-05
1.02E-05
6.01E-06
1.12E-05
5.45E-06b
7.90E-06
1.05E-05
7.25E-06
1.11E-05
HLC
(atm-
m3/mol)
(c)
8.82e-03
3.91e-04
1.10e-02
9.46e-05
1.20e-06
8.65e-07
7.92e-07
9.52e-07
1.16e+00
1.02e-04f
8.10e-06
1.47e-08
1.47e-04
1.90e-03
2.40e-03
4.00e-09
3.43e-01
5.62e-03
9.79e-04
2.61e-02
2.80e-03
l.SOe-031
1.77e-02
2.406-031
1.51e-05
7.396-081
3.11e-08
9.26e-08
4.80e-06
1.53e-06
3.04e-05
Sol
(mg/L)
(c)
5.33e+03
2.20e+04
3.37e+03
1.60e-03
2.60e+04
2.27e+04
2.15e+04
2.34e+04
6.13e+01
4.30e+04f
2.50e-02
2.49e-03
1.23e+03
1.56e+02
7.38e+01
3.11e+00
2.80e+02
5.06e+03
8.52e+03
2.25e+03
2.80e+03
2.72e+03
2.80e+03
2.72e+03
1.956-01
1.00e+06f
2.50e-02
2.70e+02
l.OOe+06
6.80e+01
6.59e+04
E-23
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Table E-2. Constituent-specific Chemical and Physical Properties (continued)
Constituent
Epoxybutane, 1,2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate, 2-
Ethoxyethanol , 2-
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide
( 1 ,2-dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene thiourea
Ethylene oxide
Formaldehyde
Furfural
HCH, gamma- (Lindane)
HCH, beta-
HCH, alpha-
Heptachlor epoxide
Heptachlor
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
(HxCDDs)
Hexachlorodibenzofurans (HxCDFs)
Hexachloroethane
Hexane
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxyethanol acetate, 2-
Methoxyethanol, 2-
Methyl methacrylate
CASRN
106-88-7
111-15-9
110-80-5
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
96-45-7
75-21-8
50-00-0
98-01-1
58-89-9
319-85-7
319-84-6
1024-57-3
76-44-8
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
34465-46-8
55684-94-1
67-72-1
110-54-3
193-39-5
78-59-1
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
110-49-6
109-86-4
80-62-6
Da
(cm2/s)
(a)
9.32E-02
0.057
8.19E-02
6.86E-02
4.31E-02
1.17E-01
8.69E-02
1.34E-01
1.67E-01
8.53E-02
2.74E-02
0.0277
2.75E-02
2.19E-02
2.23E-02
2.67E-02
2.90E-02
2.72E-02
4.27E-02J
4.36E-02J
3.21E-02
7.28E-02
4.48E-02
5.25E-02
7.15E-02
9.64E-02
1.58E-01
6.59E-02
0.0952
7.53E-02
Dw
(cm2/s)
(a)
1.05E-05
0
9.76E-06
8.48E-06
1.05E-05
1.36E-05
1.01E-05
1.46E-05
1.74E-05
1.07E-05
7.30E-06
7.40E-06
7.35E-06
5.58E-06
5.70E-06
7.03E-06
7.85E-06
7.22E-06
4.12E-06b
4.23E-06b
8.89E-06
8.12E-06
5.19E-06
7.53E-06
3.01E-05
1.06E-05
1.65E-05
8.71E-06
1.10E-05
9.25E-06
HLC
(atm-
m3/mol)
(c)
1.80e-04f
l.SOe-061
1.23e-07
7.88e-03
7.43e-04
6.00e-08
3.08e-10
1.48e-04
3.36e-07
4.00e-06
1.40e-05
7.43e-07
1.06e-05
9.50e-06
l.lOe-03
8.15e-03
1.32e-03
2.70e-02
1.10e-05d
1.10e-05d
3.89e-03
1.43e-02
1.60e-06
6.64e-06
7.10e-03k
2.47e-04
4.55e-06
3.11e-07e
8.10e-08f
3.37e-04
Sol
(mg/L)
(c)
9.50e+04f
2.296+051
l.OOe+06
1.69e+02
4.18e+03
l.OOe+06
6.20e+04
1.00e+06g
5.50e+05
1.10e+05
6.80e+00
2.40e-01
2.00e+00
2.00e-01
l.SOe-Ol
3.23e+00
5.00e-03
1.80e+00
4.40e-06d
1.30e-05d
S.OOe+Ol
1.24e+01
2.20e-05
1.20e+04
5.62e-02h
2.54e+04
l.OOe+06
l.OOe+061
1.00e+06g
1.50e+04
E-24
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Table E-2. Constituent-specific Chemical and Physical Properties (continued)
Constituent
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylcholanthrene, 3-
Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane, 2-
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
(PeCDDs)
Pentachlorodibenzofurans (PeCDFs)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Propylene oxide (1,2-epoxypropane)
Pyridine
Styrene
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-
(2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans (TCDFs)*
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
CASRN
1634-04-4
108-10-1
78-93-3
56-49-5
75-09-2
10595-95-6
62-75-9
100-75-4
86-30-6
55-18-5
924-16-3
930-55-2
621-64-7
91-20-3
98-95-3
79-46-9
36088-22-9
30402-15-4
87-86-5
108-95-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
75-56-9
110-86-1
100-42-5
1746-01-6
55722-27-5
79-34-5
630-20-6
127-18-4
Da
(cm2/s)
(a)
0.0755
0.0698
0.0917
2.41E-02
9.99E-02
8.41E-02
9.88E-02
6.99E-02
2.84E-02
7.38E-02
4.22E-02
8.00E-02
5.64E-02
6.05E-02
6.81E-02
8.47E-02
0.0447J
4.57E-02J
2.95E-02
8.34E-02
5.95E-02
2.33E-02
1.10E-01
9.31E-02
7.13E-02
4.70E-02J
4.82E-02J
4.89E-02
4.82E-02
5.05E-02
Dw
(cm2/s)
(a)
0
0
0
6.14E-06
1.25E-05
9.99E-06
1.15E-05
9.18E-06
7.19E-06
9.13E-06
6.83E-06
1.01E-05
7.76E-06
8.38E-06
9.45E-06
1.02E-05
4.38E-06b
4.51E-06b
8.01E-06
1.03E-05
9.75E-06
5.98E-06
1.21E-05
1.09E-05
8.81E-06
4.68E-06b
4.84E-06b
9.29E-06
9.10E-06
9.45E-06
HLC
(atm-
m3/mol)
(c)
5.87e-04f
1.38e-04
5.59e-05
9.40e-07
2.19e-03
1.406-061
1.20e-06
2.80e-07
5.00e-06
3.63e-06
3.16e-04
1.20e-08
2.25e-06
4.83e-04
2.40e-05
1.23e-04
2.60e-06d
5.00e-06d
2.44e-08
3.97e-07
1.63e-08
2.60e-03
1.23e-04f
8.88e-06
2.75e-03
3.29e-05d
1.40e-05d
3.45e-04
2.42e-03
1.84e-02
Sol
(mg/L)
(c)
5.13e+04f
1.90e+04
2.23e+05
3.23e-03
1.30e+04
1.97e+04
l.OOe+06
7.65e+04
3.51e+01
9.30e+04
1.27e+03
l.OOe+06
9.89e+03
S.lOe+Ol
2.09e+03
1.70e+04
1.18e-04d
2.40e-04d
1.95e+03
8.28e+04
6.20e+03
7.00e-02
4.05e+05f
l.OOe+06
3.10e+02
1.93e-05d
4.20e-04d
2.97e+03
1.10e+03
2.00e+02
E-25
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Table E-2. Constituent-specific Chemical and Physical Properties (continued)
Constituent
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidine, o-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (bromoform)
TricWoro-l,2,2-trifluoro-ethane, 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 1 1)
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-
Trichloropropane, 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene, p-
Xylene, o-
Xylene, m-
Xylenes (total)
CASRN
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
79-00-5
71-55-6
79-01-6
75-69-4
88-06-2
96-18-4
121-44-8
108-05-4
75-01-4
106-42-3
95-47-6
108-38-3
1330-20-7
Da
(cm2/s)
(a)
0.078
7.72E-02b
0.0724
0.0216
3.58E-02
3.76E-02
3.96E-02
6.69E-02
6.48E-02
6.87E-02
6.55E-02
3.14E-02
5.75E-02
6.63E-02
8.51E-02
1.07E-01
6.84E-02
6.91E-02
6.85E-02
0.0687
Dw
(cm2/s)
(a)
0
8.94E-06b
0
0
1.04E-05
8.59E-06
8.40E-06
l.OOE-05
9.60E-06
1.02E-05
1.01E-05
8.09E-06
9.24E-06
7.84E-06
l.OOE-05
1.20E-05
8.45E-06
8.56E-06
8.47E-06
0
HLC
(atm-
m3/mol)
(c)
6.64e-03
7.92e-10
2.72e-06
6.00e-06
5.35e-04
4.81e-01
1.42e-03
9.13e-04
1.72e-02
1.03e-02
9.70e-02
7.79e-06
4.09e-04
1.38e-04f
5.11e-04
2.70e-02
7.66e-03
5.19e-03
7.34e-03
6.73e-03
Sol
(mg/L)
(c)
5.26e+02
3.37e+04
1.66e+04
7.40e-01
3.10e+03
1.70e+02
3.46e+01
4.42e+03
1.33e+03
1.10e+03
l.lOe+03
8.00e+02
1.75e+03
5.50e+04f
2.00e+04
2.76e+03
1.85e+02
1.78e+02
1.61e+02
1.75e+02
Da = air diffusivity; Dw = water diffusivity; HLC = Henry's law constant; Sol = aqueous solubility
CASRN = Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number
* Values used for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (CAS #51207-31-9).
Data Sources:
a Calculated based on WATER9 (U.S. EPA, 2001).
b Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1987.
c SCDM (U.S. EPA, 1997b).
d U.S. EPA, 2000.
e Calculated based on Lyman, Reehl. and Rosenblatt, 1990.
f CHEMFATE (SRC, 1999).
g ChemFinder.com (CambridgeSoft Corporation, 2001).
h The Merck Index (Budavari, 1996).
1 HSDB (U.S. NLM, 2001).
J Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 2000.
k U.S. EPA, 1997a.
E-26
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
E-2.6 References for Section E-2
Budavari, S. (ed), 1996. The Merck Index: An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and
Biologicals. 12th edition. Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck and Co.
CambridgeSoft Corporation, 2001. ChemFinder.com database and internet searching.
http://chemfmder.cambridgesoft.com. Accessed July 2001.
Lyman, W.J., W.F. Reehl, andD.H. Rosenblatt, 1990. Handbook of Chemical Property
Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds.
Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC), 1999. CHEMFATE Chemical Search,
Environmental Science Center, Syracuse, NY.
http://esc.syrres.com/efdb/Chemfate.htm. Accessed July 2001.
U.S. EPA, 1987. Process Coefficients and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and
Heavy Metals in Surface Waters. Office of Research and Development.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO).
U. S. EPA, 1997a. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Volume IV: An Assessment of
Exposure to Mercury in the United States. EPA-452/R-97-006. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development.
Washington, DC: GPO.
U.S. EPA, 1997b. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). SCDMWIN 1.0 (SCDM
Windows User's Version), Version 1. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington DC: GPO.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/scdm/index.htm. Accessed July 2001.
U.S. EPA, 2000. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds, Part 1, Vol. 3.
Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC: GPO.
U.S. EPA, 2001. WATER9. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/software/water/index.html.
Accessed July 2001.
U.S. NLM (U.S. National Library of Medicine), 2001. Hazardous Substances Data Bank
(HSDB). http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen/HSDB. Accessed July
2001.
E-27
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
E-3 Human Health Benchmarks used in the IWEM Tool
Human health benchmarks for chronic oral and inhalation exposures are an
important component of the IWEM 1 tool. The EPA uses reference doses (RfDs) and
reference concentrations (RfCs) to evaluate noncancer risk from oral and inhalation
exposures, respectively. Oral cancer slope factors (CSFs), inhalation unit risk factors
(UKFs), and inhalation CSFs are used to evaluate risk for carcinogens.
This section provides the toxicity benchmarks we used to develop the FffiNs that
we will use in developing Reference Ground-Water Concentrations for IWEM. Section
E-3.1 describes the data sources and general hierarchy used to collect these benchmarks.
Section E-3.2 provides the benchmarks along with discussions of individual human
health benchmarks extracted from a variety of sources.
E-3.1 Methodology and Data Sources
Several sources of health benchmarks are available. Human health benchmarks
were obtained from these sources in the following order of preference:
• Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
• Superfund Technical Support Center Provisional Benchmarks
• Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST)
• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) minimal risk
levels (MRLs)
• California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) chronic inhalation
reference exposure levels (RELs) and cancer potency factors.
• EPA health assessment documents
• Various other EPA health benchmark sources.
For dioxins and dibenzofurans, World Health Organization (WHO) toxicity equivalency
factors (TEFs) from Van den Berg et al. (1998) were applied to the oral and inhalation
CSF for 2,3,7,8-TCDD to obtain CSFs for all other dioxins and furans (see Section E-
3.2.4).
E-3.1.1 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
Benchmarks in IRIS are prepared and maintained by EPA, and values from IRIS
were used to develop HBNs for the IWEM tool whenever IRIS benchmarks were
available. IRIS is EPA's electronic database containing information on human health
effects (U.S. EPA, 2001a). Each chemical file contains descriptive and quantitative
information on potential health effects. Health benchmarks for chronic noncarcinogenic
health effects include RfDs and RfCs. Cancer classification, oral CSFs, and inhalation
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
URFs are included for carcinogenic effects. IRIS is the official repository of Agency-
wide consensus of human health risk information.
Inhalation CSFs are not available from IRIS, so they were calculated from
inhalation URFs (which are available from IRIS) using the following equation:
inh CSF = inh URF x 70 kg - 20 m3/d x 1000 ng/mg
In this equation, 70 kg represents average body weight; 20 m3/d represents average
inhalation rate; and 1000 |ig/mg is a units conversion factor (U.S. EPA, 1997). These
standard estimates of body weight and inhalation rate are used by EPA in the calculation
of the URF, and, therefore, the values were used to calculate inhalation CSFs.
E-3.1.2 Superfund Provisional Benchmarks
The Superfund Technical Support Center (EPA's National Center for
Environmental Assessment [NCEA]) derives provisional RfCs, RfDs, and CSFs for
certain chemicals. These provisional health benchmarks can be found in Risk
Assessment Issue Papers. Some of the provisional values have been externally peer
reviewed, and some (e.g., trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene) come from previously
published EPA Health Assessment Documents. These provisional values have not
undergone EPA's formal review process for finalizing benchmarks and do not represent
Agency-wide consensus information. Specific provisional values used in the IWEM tool
are described in Section E-3.2.5.
E-3.1.3 Health Effects Summary Tables (HEAST)
HEAST is a listing of provisional noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic health
toxicity values (RfDs, RfCs, URFs, and CSFs) derived by EPA (U.S. EPA, 1997).
Although the health toxicity values in HEAST have undergone review and have the
concurrence of individual EPA program offices, either they have not been reviewed as
extensively as those in IRIS or their data set is not complete enough to be listed in IRIS.
HEAST benchmarks have not been updated in several years and do not represent
Agency-wide consensus information.
E-3.1.4 ATSDR Minimal Risk Levels
The ATSDR MRLs are substance-specific health guidance levels for
noncarcinogenic endpoints (ATSDR, 2001). An MRL is an estimate of the daily human
exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse
noncancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs are based on
noncancer health effects only and are not based on a consideration of cancer effects.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
MRLs are derived for acute, intermediate, and chronic exposure durations for oral and
inhalation routes of exposure. Inhalation and oral MRLs are derived in a manner similar
to EPA's RfCs and RfDs, respectively (i.e., ATSDR uses the no-observed-adverse-effect-
level/uncertainty factor (NOAEL/UF) approach); however, MRLs are intended to serve
as screening levels and are exposure duration-specific. Also, ATSDR uses EPA's 1994
inhalation dosimetry methodology in the derivation of inhalation MRLs. A chronic
inhalation MRL for mixed xylenes was used as a surrogate for each of the xylene
isomers.
E-3.1.5 CalEPA Cancer Potency Factors and Reference Exposure Levels
CalEPA has developed cancer potency factors for chemicals regulated under
California's Hot Spots Air Toxics Program (CalEPA, 1999a). The cancer potency factors
are analogous to EPA's oral and inhalation CSFs. CalEPA has also developed chronic
inhalation RELs, analogous to EPA's RfC, for 120 substances (CalEPA, 1999b, 2000).
CalEPA used EPA's 1994 inhalation dosimetry methodology in the derivation of
inhalation RELs. The cancer potency factors and inhalation RELs have undergone
internal peer review by various California agencies and have been the subject of public
comment. A chronic inhalation REL for mixed cresols was used as a surrogate for each
of the cresol isomers.
E-3.1.6 Other EPA Health Benchmarks
EPA has also derived health benchmark values in other risk assessment
documents, such as Health Assessment Documents (HADs), Health Effect Assessments
(HEAs), Health and Environmental Effects Profiles (HEEPs), Health and Environmental
Effects Documents (HEEDs), Drinking Water Criteria Documents, and Ambient Water
Quality Criteria Documents. Evaluations of potential carcinogenicity of chemicals in
support of reportable quantity adjustments were published by EPA's Carcinogen
Assessment Group (CAG) and may include cancer potency factor estimates. Health
toxicity values identified in these EPA documents are usually dated and are not
recognized as Agency-wide consensus information or verified benchmarks, however, and
as a result they are used in the hierarchy only when values are not available from IRIS,
HEAST, Superfund provisional values, ATSDR, or CalEPA. Section E-3.2.6 describes
the specific values from these alternative EPA sources that were used in the IWEM tool.
E-30
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
E-3.2 Human Health Benchmark Values
The chronic human health benchmarks used to calculate the HBNs in the IWEM
tool are summarized in Table E-3, which provides the Chemical Abstract Service
Registry Number (CASRN), constituent name, RfD (mg/kg-d), RfC (mg/m3), oral CSF
(mg/kg-d"1), inhalation URF [(jig/m3)"1], inhalation CSF (mg/kg-d"1), and reference for
each benchmark. A key to the references cited and abbreviations used is provided at the
end of the table.
For a majority of the IWEM constituents, human health benchmarks were
available from IRIS (U.S. EPA, 2001a), Superfund Provisional Benchmarks, or HEAST
(U.S. EPA, 1997). Benchmarks also were obtained from ATSDR (2001) or CalEPA
(1999a, 1999b, 2000). This section describes benchmarks obtained from other sources,
along with the Superfund Provisional values and special uses (e.g., benzene, vinyl
chloride) of IRIS benchmarks.
E-31
-------
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values
W
oo
to
Constituent Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde (ethanal)
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid (propenoic acid)
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b jfluoranthene
Benzyl chloride
Benzyl alcohol
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
CASRN
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-44-7
100-51-6
7440-41-7
111-44-4
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
6.0E-02
l.OE-01
l.OE-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-04
5.0E-01
l.OE-03
3.0E-05
5.0E-03
3.0E-01
4.0E-04
3.0E-04
7.0E-02
3.0E-03
3.0E-01
2.0E-03
RfDRef
I
I
I
H
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
4.5E+0
5.4E-1
1.7E+01
5.7E-3
1.5E+00
1.2E+00
5.5E-02
2.3E+02
7.3E+00
1.2E+00
1.7E-01
1.1E+00
CSFo
Ref
I
I
I
I
I
C99a
I
I
I
C99a
I
I
RfC
(mg/m3)
9.0E-03
3.1E+01
6.0E-02
2.0E-05
l.OE-03
2.0E-03
l.OE-03
6.0E-02
RfC Ref
I
A
I
I
I
I
I
COO
URF
(per
Hg/m3)
2.2E-06
1.3E-03
6.8E-05
4.9E-03
1.6E-06
1.1E-04
7.8E-06
6.7E-02
1.1E-03
1.1E-04
4.9E-05
3.3E-04
URF Ref
I
I
I
I
C99a
C99a
I
I
C99a
C99a
C99a
I
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
7.7E-03
4.6E+00
2.4E-01
1.7E+01
5.6E-03
3.9E-01
2.7E-02
2.3E+02
3.9E+00
3.9E-01
1.7E-01
1.2E+00
CSFi Ref
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
I
calc
calc
calc
calc
r
"M.
8
•
I
I
I
-------
w
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane (methyl
bromide)
Butadiene, 1,3-
Butanol
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-
(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon disulfide
Chlordane
Chloro-l,3-butadiene, 2-
(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline, p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)
Chloroform
Chloromethane (methyl
chloride)
Chlorophenol, 2-
CASRN
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
56-23-5
75-15-0
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
4.0E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.4E-03
l.OE-01
2.0E-01
l.OE-03
5.0E-04
7.0E-04
l.OE-01
5.0E-04
2.0E-02
4.0E-03
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
l.OE-02
5.0E-03
RfDRef
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
7.0E-02
1.4E-02
6.2E-02
1.3E-01
3.5E-01
2.7E-01
8.4E-02
1.3E-02
CSFo
Ref
H
I
I
I
I
H
I
H
RfC
(mg/m3)
l.OE-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-02
7.0E-03
7.0E-01
7.0E-04
7.0E-03
6.0E-02
l.OE+01
l.OE-01
9.0E-02
1.4E-03
RfC Ref
C99b
I
COO
SF
I
I
H
SF
I
A
I
AC
URF
(per
|ig/m3)
l.OE-05
2.4E-06
1.8E-05
2.8E-04
1.5E-05
l.OE-04
7.8E-05
2.4E-05
1.8E-06
URF Ref
H
C99a
AC
I
I
I
H
AC
H
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
3.5E-02
8.4E-03
6.2E-02
9.8E-01
5.3E-02
3.5E-01
2.7E-01
8.4E-02
6.3E-03
CSFi Ref
calc
calc
AC
calc
calc
calc
calc
AC
calc
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
-------
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Chloropropene, 3- (allyl
chloride)
Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol, p-
Cresol, o-
Cresol, m-
Cresols (total)
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT, p,p'-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diallate
Dibenz{a,h}anthracene
Dibromo-3 -chloropropane,
1,2-
CASRN
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
106-44-5
95-48-7
108-39-4
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
84-74-2
117-84-0
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
1.5E+00
3.0E-03
2.0E-02
RfDRef
I
I
SF
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
1.2E-01
CSFo
Ref
C99a
RfC
(mg/m3)
l.OE-03
RfC Ref
I
URF
(per
|ig/m3)
6.0E-06
1.1E-05
URF Ref
C99a
C99a
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
2.1E-02
3.9E-02
CSFi Ref
calc
calc
(only a drinking water action level is available for this metal)
5.0E-03
5.0E-02
5.0E-02
5.0E-02
l.OE-01
1.7E-05
5.0E+00
5.0E-04
l.OE-01
2.0E-02
H
I
I
sun: (I)
I
solv
I
I
I
H
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
6.1E-02
7.3E+00
1.4E+0
I
I
I
H
TEF
H
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-05
2.0E-04
surr
(COO)
surr
(COO)
surr
(COO)
coo
I
solv
I
9.7E-05
1.2E-03
6.9E-07
I
C99a
H
3.4E-01
4.2E+00
2.4E-03
calc
calc
calc
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
W
-------
W
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon 12)
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-
Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-
Dichlorophenol, 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid,
2,4- (2,4-D)
Dichloropropane, 1,2-
Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-
Dichloropropene, cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene, 1,3- (mixture
of isomers)
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine, 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide, N,N-
(DMF)
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene,
7,12-
CASRN
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
107-06-2
75-34-3
75-35-4
156-60-5
156-59-2
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
10061-02-6
10061-01-5
542-75-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
9.0E-02
2.0E-01
l.OE-01
9.0E-03
2.0E-02
l.OE-02
3.0E-03
l.OE-02
9.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
5.0E-05
8.0E-01
2.0E-04
l.OE-01
RfDRef
I
I
H
I
I
H
I
I
A
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
2.4E-2
4.5E-01
9.1E-2
6.0E-1
6.8E-2
l.OE-1
l.OE-1
l.OE-01
1.6E+01
4.7E+03
1.4E-02
CSFo
Ref
H
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
H
H
RfC
(mg/m3)
2.0E-01
8.0E-01
2.0E-01
2.4E+00
5.0E-01
7.0E-02
4.0E-03
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
3.0E-02
RfC Ref
H
I
H
A
H
COO
I
surr (I)
surr (I)
I
I
URF
(per
Hg/m3)
1.1E-05
3.4E-04
2.6E-05
1.6E-06
5.0E-05
4.0E-06
4.0E-06
4.0E-06
4.6E-03
7.1E-02
URF Ref
C99a
C99a
I
C99a
I
surr (I)
surr (I)
I
I
C99a
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
3.9E-02
1.2E+00
9.1E-02
5.6E-03
1.8E-01
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
1.6E+01
2.5E+02
CSFi Ref
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
W
-------
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Dimethylbenzidine, 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol, 2,4-
Dinitrobenzene, 1,3-
Dinitrophenol, 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4-
Dioxane, 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine, 1,2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and
II,mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane, 1,2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate, 2-
Ethoxyethanol, 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-
dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
CASRN
119-93-7
105-67-9
99-65-0
51-28-5
606-20-2
121-14-2
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
111-15-9
110-80-5
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
75-21-8
106-93-4
107-21-1
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
2.0E-02
l.OE-04
2.0E-03
l.OE-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-02
4.0E-05
6.0E-03
3.0E-04
2.0E-03
3.0E-01
4.0E-01
9.0E-01
2.0E-01
9.0E-02
l.OE-01
2.0E+00
RfDRef
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
H
H
H
I
I
H
I
I
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
9.2E+00
6.8E-01
6.8E-01
1.1E-2
8.0E-1
9.9E-3
2.9E+02
l.OE+0
8.5E+1
CSFo
Ref
H
surr(I)
surr(I)
I
I
I
RQ
H
I
RfC
(mg/m3)
3.0E+00
l.OE-03
2.0E-02
3.0E-01
2.0E-01
l.OE+00
3.0E-02
2.0E-04
4.0E-01
RfC Ref
COO
I
I
coo
I
I
coo
H
COO
URF
(per
Hg/m3)
8.9E-05
7.7E-06
2.2E-04
1.2E-06
1.1E-06
l.OE-04
2.2E-04
URF Ref
C99a
C99a
I
I
SF
H
I
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
3.1E-01
2.7E-02
7.7E-01
4.2E-03
3.9E-03
3.5E-01
7.7E-01
CSFi Ref
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
-------
w
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH, beta-
HCH, gamma- (Lindane)
HCH, alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
(HxCDDs)
Hexachlorodibenzofurans
(HxCDFs)
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane, n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
Indeno{ l,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
CASRN
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
34465-46-8
55684-94-1
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
8.0E-05
4.0E-02
0.12
2.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-03
3.0E-04
8.0E-03
5.0E-04
1.3E-05
3.0E-04
8.0E-04
6.0E-03
l.OE-03
3.0E-04
1.1E+01
3.0E-03
3.0E-01
2.0E-01
5.0E-04
RfDRef
I
I
surr (I)
I
H
I
I
A
I
I
SF
I
I
I
I
SF
I
I
I
A
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
1.1E-01
1.8E+00
1.3E+00
6.3E+00
4.5E+00
9.1E+00
7.8E-2
1.6E+0
1.56E+04
1.56E+04
1.4E-02
1.2E+00
9.5E-04
CSFo
Ref
H
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
WHO98
WHO98
I
C99a
I
RfC
(mg/m3)
9.8E-03
5.0E-02
2.0E-04
2.0E-01
2.0E+00
RfC Ref
A
H
I
I
C99b
URF
(per
|ig/m3)
1.3E-05
1.3E-05
5.3E-04
3.1E-04
1.8E-03
1.3E-03
2.6E-03
2.2E-05
4.6E-04
3.3E+00
3.3E+00
4.0E-06
1.1E-04
URF Ref
C99a
I
I
C99a
I
I
I
I
I
WHO98
WHO98
I
C99a
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
4.6E-02
4.6E-02
1.9E+00
1.1E+00
6.3E+00
4.6E+00
9.1E+00
7.7E-02
1.6E+00
1.5E+04
1.5E+04
1.4E-02
3.9E-01
CSFi Ref
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
WHO98
WHO98
calc
calc
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
-------
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol, 2-
Methoxyethanol acetate, 2-
Methyl parathion
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl tert-butyl ether
(MTBE)
Methylcholanthrene, 3-
Methylene bromide
(dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride
(dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
CASRN
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
109-86-4
110-49-6
298-00-0
80-62-6
108-10-1
78-93-3
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
924-16-3
621-64-7
55-18-5
62-75-9
86-30-6
10595-95-6
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
RfDRef
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
CSFo
Ref
RfC
(mg/m3)
RfC Ref
URF
(per
Hg/m3)
URF Ref
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
CSFi Ref
(only a drinking water action level is available for this metal)
4.7E-02
l.OE-04
l.OE-04
5.0E-01
5.0E-03
l.OE-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-04
1.4E+00
8.0E-02
6.0E-01
l.OE-02
6.0E-02
5.0E-03
8.00E-06
2.00E-02
I
surr (I)
I
I
I
H
H
I
I
H
I
H
I
I
SF
SF
7.5E-03
5.4E+00
7.0E+00
1.5E+02
5.1E+01
4.9E-03
2.2E+01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0E-04
7.0E-04
4.0E+00
2.0E-02
9.0E-02
7.0E-01
8.0E-02
l.OE+00
3.0E+00
3.0E+00
I
H
COO
I
COO
I
H
I
I
H
6.3E-03
4.7E-07
1.6E-03
2.0E-03
4.3E-02
1.4E-02
2.6E-06
6.3E-03
C99a
I
I
C99a
I
I
C99a
C99a
2.2E+01
1.6E-03
5.6E+00
7.0E+00
1.5E+02
4.9E+01
9.1E-03
3.7E+00
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
C99a
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
W
OJ
oo
-------
w
OJ
vo
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane, 2-
Octamethyl
pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
(PeCDDs)
Pentachlorodibenzofurans
(PeCDFs)
Pentachloronitrobenzene
(PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine, 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Fob/chlorinated biphenyls
(Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide (1,2-
epoxypropane)
CASRN
100-75-4
930-55-2
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
36088-22-9
30402-15-4
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
5.0E-04
2.0E-03
6.0E-03
8.0E-04
3.0E-03
3.0E-02
6.0E-01
8.0E-05
6.0E-03
2.0E-04
2.0E+00
2.0E-05
7.5E-02
RfDRef
I
I
I
H
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
surr (I)
I
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
2.1E+00
1.56E+05
7.8E+04
2.6E-01
1.2E-01
4.0E-01
2.4E-01
CSFo
Ref
I
WHO98
WHO98
H
I
I
I
RfC
(mg/m3)
3.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
1.2E-01
3.0E-02
RfC Ref
I
H
I
COO
H
I
URF
(per
|ig/m3)
2.7E-03
6.1E-04
2.7E-03
3.3E+01
1.7E+01
5.1E-06
l.OE-04
3.7E-06
URF Ref
C99a
I
H
WHO98
WHO98
C99a
I
I
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
9.5E+00
2.1E+00
9.5E+00
1.5E+05
7.5E+04
1.8E-02
4.0E-01
1.3E-02
CSFi Ref
calc
calc
calc
WHO98
WHO98
calc
I
calc
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
-------
w
-k
o
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin,
2,3,7,8-(2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran,
2,3,7,8- (2,3,7,8-TCDF)
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate
(Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram (Thiuram)
Toluene
Toluenediamine, 2,4-
Toluidine, o-
Toluidine, p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated
camphenes)
CASRN
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
1746-01-6
51207-31-9
79-34-5
630-20-6
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
3.0E-04
2.0E-01
3.0E-04
6.0E-02
3.0E-02
l.OE-02
3.0E-02
5.0E-04
8.0E-05
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
RfDRef
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SF
I
I
I
I
surr (I)
I
I
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
1.8E-01
1.56E+05
1.56E+04
2.0E-01
2.6E-02
5.2E-02
3.2E+00
2.4E-01
1.9E-01
1.1E+00
CSFo
Ref
RQ
DA85
WHO98
I
I
HAD
H
H
H
I
RfC
(mg/m3)
7.0E-03
l.OE+00
3.0E-01
4.0E-01
RfC Ref
EPA86
I
A
I
URF
(per
|ig/m3)
3.3E+01
3.3E+00
5.8E-05
7.4E-06
5.8E-07
1.1E-03
6.9E-05
3.2E-04
URF Ref
H
WHO98
I
I
HAD
C99a
AC
I
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
1.5E+05
1.5E+04
2.0E-01
2.6E-02
2.0E-03
3.9E+00
2.4E-01
1.1E+00
CSFi Ref
H
WHO98
calc
calc
HAD
calc
AC
calc
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
W
-k
o
-------
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Tribromomethane
(bromoform)
Trichloro- 1,2,2-
trifluoroethane, 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-
trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon
11)
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic
acid, 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid,
2,4,5-
Trichloropropane, 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene, sym-
( 1 ,3 ,5-Trinitrobenzene)
Tris(2,3-
dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene, p-
CASRN
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
106-42-3
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
2.0E-02
3.0E+01
l.OE-02
2.8E-01
4.0E-03
3.0E-01
l.OE-01
8.0E-03
l.OE-02
6.0E-03
3.0E-02
7.0E-03
l.OE+00
3.0E-03
2.0E+00
RfDRef
I
I
I
SF
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
H
I
surr (H)
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
7.9E-03
5.7E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
7.0E+00
9.8E+00
7.2E-01
CSFo
Ref
I
I
HAD
I
H
RQ
I
RfC
(mg/m3)
3.0E+01
2.0E-01
2.2E+00
6.0E-01
7.0E-01
5.0E-03
7.0E-03
2.0E-01
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
RfC Ref
H
H
SF
COO
H
SF
I
I
I
surr (A)
URF
(per
Hg/m3)
1.1E-06
1.6E-05
1.7E-06
3.1E-06
4.4E-06
URF Ref
I
I
HAD
I
I
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
3.9E-03
5.6E-02
6.0E-03
1.1E-02
1.5E-02
CSFi Ref
calc
calc
HAD
calc
calc
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
W
-------
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Xylene, m-
Xylene, o-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CASRN
108-38-3
95-47-6
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
2.0E+00
2.0E+00
2.0E+00
3.0E-01
RfDRef
H
H
I
I
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
CSFo
Ref
RfC
(mg/m3)
4.0E-01
4.0E-01
4.0E-01
RfC Ref
surr (A)
surr (A)
A
URF
(per
|ig/m3)
URF Ref
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
CSFi Ref
Key:
CASRN
CSFo
CSFi
a Sources:
A
AC
calc
C99a
C99b
COO
DA85
EPA86
HAD
Chemical Abstract Service registry number.
oral cancer slope factor.
inhalation cancer slope factor.
RfD
RfC
URF
ATSDR MRLs (ATSDR, 2001) H
developed for the Air Characteristic Study (U.S. EPA, 1999g) I
calculated RQ
SF
CaEPA cancer potency factor (CaEPA, 1999a) solv
CaEPA chronic REL (CalEPA, 1999b) surr
CaEPA chronic REL (CaEPA, 2000) TEF
Dioxin Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1985) WHO98
Pyridine Health Effects Profile (U.S. EPA, 1986b)
Health Assessment Document (U.S. EPA, 1986a, 1987)
reference dose.
reference concentration.
unit risk factor.
HEAST(U.S. EPA, 1997)
IRIS (U.S. EPA, 2001a)
reportable quantity adjustments (U.S. EPA, 1998d,e,f)
Superfund Risk Issue Paper (U.S. EPA, 1998a,b; 1999a,b,c,d,e,f; 2000,
2001b,c,d)
63 FR 64371-0402 (U.S. EPA, 1998c)
surrogate (source in parentheses; see section C.2.8)
toxicity equivalency factor (U.S. EPA, 1993)
World Health Organization (WHO) 1998 toxicity equivalency factor
scheme (Van den Berg et al., 1998)
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
E-3.2.1 Benzene
The cancer risk estimates for benzene are provided as ranges in IRIS. The oral
CSF for benzene is 1.5E-02 to 5.5E-02 (mg/kg/d)'1 and the inhalation URF is 2.2E-06 to
7.8E-06 (jig/m3)-1 (U.S. EPA, 2001a). For IWEM, the upper range estimates were used
(i.e., 5.5E-02 (mg/kg/d)'1 and 7.8E-06 (jig/m3)'1 for the oral CSF and inhalation URF,
respectively).
E-3.2.2 Vinyl Chloride
Based on use of the linearized multistage model, IRIS recommends an oral CSF
of 7.2E-1 per mg/kg-d for vinyl chloride to account for continuous lifetime exposure
during adulthood; this value was used in the IWEM tool.1 Based on use of the linearized
multistage model, an inhalation URF of 4.4E-6 per jig/m3 to account for continuous,
lifetime exposure during adulthood was recommended for vinyl chloride and was used
for IWEM; an inhalation CSF of 1.5E-2 per mg/kg-d was calculated from the URF.2
E-3.2.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls
There are two inhalation CSFs available from IRIS for polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs): 0.4 per mg/kg-d for evaporated congeners and 2.0 per mg/kg-d for dust or
aerosol (high risk and persistence). The inhalation CSF for evaporated congeners was
used for IWEM.
E-3.2.4 Dioxin-like Compounds
Certain polychlorinated dibenzodioxin, polychlorinated dibenzofuran, and
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners are said to have "dioxin-like" toxicity,
meaning that they are understood to have toxicity similar to that of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). Although EPA has not developed health
benchmarks for each specific compound with dioxin-like toxicity, these compounds have
been assigned individual "toxicity equivalency factors" (TEFs; Van den Berg et al.,
1998). TEFs are estimates of the toxicity of dioxin-like compounds relative to the
toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which is assigned a TEF of 1.0. TEF estimates are based on a
JA twofold increase of the oral CSF to 1.4 per mg/kg-d to account for continuous
lifetime exposure from birth was also recommended but was not used for IWEM.
2A twofold increase to 8.8E-6 per |ig/m3 for the inhalation URF, to account for
continuous lifetime exposure from birth, was also recommended but was not used for
IWEM.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
knowledge of a constituent's mechanism of action, available experimental data, and other
structure-activity information. We used the TEFs to calculate cancer slope factors for the
dioxin and furan congeners (and congener groups) in the IWEM tool.
The dioxin-like congeners (and groups of congeners) included in IWEM are as
follows:
2,3,7,8-TCDD,
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran(2,3,7,8-TCDF)
Pentachlorodibenzodioxins (PeCDDs)
Pentachlorodibenzofurans (PeCDFs)
Hexachlorodibenzodioxins (HxCDDs)
Hexachlorodibenzofurans (HxCDFs).
2,3,7,8-TCDF has a TEF of 0.1. The dioxin-like PeCDD congener is 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD,
which has a TEF of 1.0. The dioxin-like PeCDF congeners include 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF which have TEFs of 0.05 and 0.5, respectively. The dioxin-like
HxCDD congeners include 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD, and 1,2,3,6,7,8-
HxCDD, which have TEFs of 0.1. The dioxin-like HxCDF congeners include
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF, and 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF,
which also have TEFs of 0.1. Table E-4 shows the TEFs that we used to calculate CSFs
for the dioxin and furan congeners (and congener groups) for the purpose of developing
HBNs for the Tier 1 tool.
Table E-4. TEFs Used for Dioxin and Furan Congeners
Constituent Name
TEF
CSFo
(mkd)1
CSFo
Source
URF
(Hg/m3)1
URF
Source
CSFi
(mkd)1
CSFi Source
Dioxins
Pentachlorodibenzodioxins
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Hexachlorodibenzodioxins
1
1
0.1
1.56+05
1.56+5
1.56+4
WHO 1998
EPA, 1985
WHO 1998
3.3E+01
3.3E+01
3.3E+00
WHO 1998
EPA, 1997
WHO 1998
1.56+05
1.56+5
1.56+4
WHO 1998
EPA, 1985
WHO 1998
Furans
Hexachlorodibenzofurans
Pentachlorodibenzofurans
2,3,7,8-TCDF
0.1
0.5
0.1
1.56+4
7.8+4
1.56+4
WHO 1998
WHO 1998
WHO 1998
3.3E+00
1.7E+01
3.3E+00
WHO 1998
WHO 1998
WHO 1998
1.56+4
7.8+4
1.56+4
WHO 1998
WHO 1998
WHO 1998
WHO 98 = TEFs presented in Van den Berg et al. (1998)
EPA, 1997 = HEAST (U.S. EPA, 1997).
E-44
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
The human health benchmarks calculated using the TEFs for 1,2,3,4,7,8-
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and 1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran were surrogates for
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins (HxCDDs) and hexachlorodibenzofurans (HxCDFs),
respectively. The human health benchmarks for 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
and 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran were used to represent pentachlorodibenzodioxins
(PeCDDs) and pentachlorodibenzofurans (PeCDFs), respectively. The human health
benchmarks for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) and
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran were used to represent tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
(TCDDs) and tetrachlorodibenzofurans (TCDFs), respectively. When TEFs varied
within a class of dioxin-like compounds (i.e., pentachlorodibenzofurans), the TEF most
protective of human health was used.
E-3.2.5 Superfund Technical Support Center Provisional Benchmarks
Table E-5 lists the provisional human health benchmarks from the Superfund
Technical Support Center that were used for some of the IWEM constituents. A
provisional subchronic RfC of 2.0E-2 mg/m3 was developed by the Superfund Technical
Support Center (U.S. EPA, 1999a) for carbon tetrachloride; a provisional chronic RfC of
7.0E-3 mg/m3 was derived from this value by applying an uncertainty factor of 3 to
account for the use of a subchronic study.
Table E-5. Provisional Human Health Benchmarks Developed by the Superfund
Technical Support Center
CASRN
108-90-7
7440-48-4
100-41-4
87-68-3
110-54-3
62-75-9
86-30-6
79-34-5
71-55-6
71-55-6
96-18-4
Chemical Name
Chlorobenzene
Cobalt (and compounds)
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexane
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
(N-methyl-N-nitroso-
methanamine)
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Trichloropropane, 1,2,3-
Benchmark
Type
RfC
RfD
URF
RfD
RfD
RfD
RfD
RfD
RfD
RfC
RfC
Benchmark
Value
6.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-06
3.0E-04
1.1E+01
8.0E-06
2.0E-02
6.0E-02
2.8E-01
2.2E+00
5.0E-03
Units
mg/m3
mg/kg-d
(ng/mS)-1
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/m3
mg/m3
Reference
U.S. EPA, 1998a
U.S. EPA, 2001b
U.S. EPA, 1999b
U.S. EPA, 1998b
U.S. EPA, 1999c
U.S. EPA, 2001c
U.S. EPA, 2001d
U.S. EPA, 2000
U.S. EPA, 1999d
U.S. EPA, 1999e
U.S. EPA, 1999f
E-45
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
E-3.2.6 Benchmarks From Other EPA Sources
For some IWEM constituents, human health benchmarks were not available from
IRIS, the Superfund Technical Support Center, HEAST, ATSDR, or CalEPA, but were
available from other EPA sources:
• The provisional oral CSF of 5.2E-2 per mg/kg-d, provisional inhalation
URF of 5.8E-7 per i-ig/m3, and the provisional inhalation CSF of 2.0E-3
per mg/kg-d developed for tetrachloroethylene by EPA in a Health
Assessment Document (HAD) (U.S. EPA, 1986a) were used.
• For trichloroethylene, provisional cancer benchmarks developed by EPA
in a HAD (U.S. EPA, 1987) were used and include the oral CSF of 1. 1E-2
per mg/kg-d, inhalation URF of 1.7E-6 per i-ig/m3, and inhalation CSF of
6.0E-3 per mg/kg-d.
• A provisional RfD of 1.7E-5 mg/kg-d and a provisional RfC of 2.0E-5
mg/m3 were derived for cyclohexanol in the final listing rule for solvents
(63 FR 64371) and were used (U.S. EPA, 1998c).
• An acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 2.0E-03 mg/kg-d from inhalation
(7.0E-3 mg/m3) was identified for pyridine (U.S. EPA, 1986b).
• EPA calculated an oral cancer potency factor of 293 per mg/kg-d for ethyl
methanesulfonate in a reportable quantity adjustment evaluation (U.S.
EPA, 1998d).
• EPA calculated an oral cancer potency factor of 0.18 per mg/kg-d for
safrole in a reportable quantity adjustment evaluation (U.S. EPA, 1998e).
• EPA calculated an oral cancer potency factor of 9.8 per mg/kg-d for
tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate in a reportable quantity adjustment
evaluation (U.S. EPA, 1998f).
• The cancer slope factor for dibenzo(a,h)anthracene was calculated using a
TEF approach developed for poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (U.S.
EPA, 1993). The TEF approach assigns dibenzo(a,h)anthracene a TEF of
1 relative to the toxicity of benzo(a)pyrene. The oral CSF for
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene is therefore the same as the IRIS (U.S. EPA,
2001a) value for benzo(a)pyrene: 7.3.E+00 (mg/kg-d)"1.
E-46
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
E-3.2.7 Air Characteristic Study Provisional Benchmarks
Provisional inhalation health benchmarks were developed in the Air
Characteristic Study (U.S. EPA, 1999g) for several constituents lacking IRIS, HEAST,
alternative EPA, or ATSDR values. For 2-chlorophenol, a provisional RfC was
developed using route-to-route extrapolation of the oral RfD. Using route-to-route
extrapolations based on oral CSFs from IRIS and HEAST, the Air Characteristic Study
developed provisional inhalation URFs and inhalation CSFs for bromodichloromethane,
chlorodibromomethane, and o-Toluidine.
These provisional inhalation benchmark values are summarized in Table E-6
below. Additional details on the derivation of these inhalation benchmarks can be found
in the Revised Risk Assessment for the Air Characteristic Study (U.S. EPA, 1999g).
Table E-6. Provisional Inhalation Benchmarks Developed in the Air
Characteristic Study
CASRN
75-27-4
124-48-1
95-57-8
95-53-4
Chemical Name
Bromodichloromethane
(dichlorobromomethane)
Chlorodibromomethane
(dibromochloromethane)
2-Chlorophenol (o-)
o-Toluidine (2-methylaniline)
RfC
(mg/m3)
1.4E-03
RfC Target
Effect
Reproductive,
developmental
URF
(lig/m3)1
1.8E-05
2.4E-05
6.9E-05
CSFi
(mg/kg-d)1
6.2E-02
8.4E-02
2.4E-01
E-3.2.8 Surrogate Health Benchmarks
For several IWEM constituents, IRIS benchmarks for similar chemicals were used
as surrogate data. The rationale for these recommendations is as follows:
• cis-l,3-Dichloropropylene and trans-l,3-dichloropropylene were based on
1,3-dichloropropene. The studies cited in the IRIS file for 1,3-
dichloropropene used a technical-grade chemical that contained about a
50/50 mixture of the cis- and trans-isomers. The RfD is 3E-02 mg/kg-d
and the RfC is 2E-02 mg/m3. The oral CSF for 1,3-dichloropropene is 0.1
(mg/kg-d)-1 and the inhalation URF is 4E-06 dig/m3)'1.
E-47
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
• The IRIS oral CSF for the 2,4-/2,6-dinitrotoluene mixture (6.8E-01 per
mg/kg-d) was used as the oral CSFs for 2,4-dinitrotoluene and 2,6-
dinitrotoluene.
• The RfDs for o- and m-cresol (both 5E-02 mg/kg/d) are cited on IRIS. The
provisional RfD for p-cresol (5E-03 mg/kg/d) is from HEAST. Cresol
mixtures contain all three cresol isomers. Based on the hierarchy
described above (i.e., IRIS is preferred over HEAST because IRIS is
EPA's official repository of Agency-wide consensus human health risk
information), the RfD for m-cresol (5E-02 mg/kg-d) was used as a
surrogate for cresol mixtures.
• Fluoride was based on fluorine. The IRIS RfD for fluorine (0.12 mg/kg-d)
is based on soluble fluoride and related to the endpoint of skeletal
fluorisis.
• The RfD for methyl mercury (1E-04 mg/kg-d) was used as a surrogate for
elemental mercury.
• The RfD for Arochlor 1254 (2E-05 mg/kg-d) was used as a surrogate for
PCBs.
• Thallium was based on thallium chloride. There are several thallium salts
that have RfDs in IRIS. The lowest value among the thallium salts (8E-05
mg/kg-d) is routinely used to represent thallium in risk assessments.
• p-Xylene was based on total xylenes. An RfD of 2 mg/kg-d is listed for
total xylenes, m-xylene, and o-xylene in IRIS. Total xylenes contain a
mixture of all three isomers; therefore, the RfD likely is appropriate for p-
xylene.
E-3.2.9 Chloroform
EPA has classified chloroform as a Group B2, Probable Human Carcinogen,
based on an increased incidence of several tumor types in rats and mice (U.S. EPA,
200 la). However, based on an evaluation initiated by EPA's Office of Water (OW), the
Office of Solid Waste (OSW) now believes the weight of evidence for the carcinogenic
mode of action for chloroform does not support a mutagenic mode of action; therefore, a
nonlinear low-dose extrapolation is more appropriate for assessing risk from exposure to
chloroform. EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), the World Health Organization
(WHO), the Society of Toxicology, and EPA all strongly endorse the nonlinear approach
for assessing risks from chloroform.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
Although OW conducted its evaluation of chloroform carcinogenicity for oral
exposure, a nonlinear approach for low-dose extrapolation would apply to inhalation
exposure to chloroform as well, because chloroform's mode of action is understood to be
the same for both ingestion and inhalation exposures. Specifically, tumorigenesis for
both ingestion and inhalation exposures is induced through cytotoxicity (cell death)
produced by the oxidative generation of highly reactive metabolites (phosgene and
hydrochloric acid), followed by regenerative cell proliferation (U.S. EPA, 1998g).
Chloroform-induced liver tumors in mice have only been seen after bolus corn oil dosing
and have not been observed following administration by other routes (i.e., drinking water
and inhalation). As explained in EPA OW's March 31, 1998, and December 16, 1998,
Federal Register notices pertaining to chloroform (U.S. EPA, 1998g and 1998h,
respectively), EPA now believes that "based on the current evidence for the mode of
action by which chloroform may cause tumorigenesis, ...a nonlinear approach is more
appropriate for extrapolating low-dose cancer risk rather than the low-dose linear
approach..."(U.S. EPA, 1998g). OW determined that, given chloroform's mode of
carcinogenic action, liver toxicity (a noncancer health effect) actually "is a more sensitive
effect of chloroform than the induction of tumors" and that protecting against liver
toxicity "should be protective against carcinogenicity given that the putative mode of
action understanding for chloroform involves cytotoxicity as a key event preceding tumor
development" (U.S. EPA, 1998g).
The recent evaluations conducted by OW concluded that protecting against
chloroform's noncancer health effects protects against excess cancer risk. EPA now
believes that the noncancer health effects resulting from inhalation of chloroform would
precede the development of cancer and would occur at lower doses than would tumor
development. Although EPA has not finalized a noncancer health benchmark for
inhalation exposure (i.e., an RfC), ATSDR has developed an inhalation MRL for
chloroform. Therefore, ATSDR's chronic inhalation MRL for chloroform (0.1 mg/m3)
was used in IWEM.
E-3.3 References for Section E-3
ATSDR, 2001. Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) for Hazardous Substances.
http://atsdrl.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/mrls.html
CalEPA, 1999a. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part 11.
Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Berkeley, CA. Available
online at http://www.oehha.org/scientific/hsca2.htm.
CalEPA, 1999b. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part III.
Technical Support Document for the Determination of Noncancer Chronic
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
Reference Exposure Levels. SRP Draft. Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment, Berkeley, CA. Available online at
http ://www. oehha. org/hotspots/RAGSII.html.
CalEPA, 2000. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part 111.
Technical Support Document for the Determination ofNoncancer Chronic
Reference Exposure Levels. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,
Berkeley, CA. Available online (in 3 sections) at
http://www.oehha.org/air/chroni c_rels/22RELS2k.html,
http://www.oehha.org/air/chroni c_rels/42kChREL.html,
http ://www. oehha. org/air/chronic_rels/Jan2001 ChREL.html.
U.S. EPA, 1985. Health Assessment Document for PolychlorinatedDibenzo-p-Dixons.
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, EPA/600/8-84/94F.
U.S. EPA, 1986a. Addendum to the Health Assessment Document for
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene). Updated Carcinogenicity Assessment
for Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene, PERC, PCE). External Review
Draft. EPA/600/8-82-005FA. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.
U.S. EPA, 1986b. Health andEnvironmental Effects Profile for Pyridine. EPA/600/x-
86-168. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA, 1987. Addendum to the Health Assessment Document for Trichloroethylene.
Updated Carcinogenicity Assessment for Trichloroethylene. External Review
Draft. EPA/600/8-82-006FA. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.
U.S. EPA, 1993. Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/R-93-
089.
U.S. EPA, 1994. Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and
Application of Inhalation Dosimetry. EPA/600/8-90-066F. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC.
E-50
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
U.S. EPA, 1997. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). EPA-540-R-97-
036. FY 1997 Update. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1998a. Risk Assessment Issue Paper for: Derivation of a Provisional Chronic
RfCfor Chlorobenzene (CASRN108-90-7). 98-020/09-18-98. National Center
for Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. EPA, 1998b. Risk Assessment Paper for: Evaluation of the Systemic Toxicity of
Hexachlorobutadiene (CASRN 87-68-3) Resulting from Oral Exposure. 98-
009/07-17-98. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Superfund
Technical Support Center, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA, 1998c. Hazardous waste management system; identification and listing of
hazardous waste; solvents; final rule. Federal Register 63 FR 64371-402.
U.S. EPA, 1998d. Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Ethyl Methanesulfonate
(62-50-0) in Support of Reportable Quantity Adjustments Pursuant to CERLCA
Section 102. Prepared by Carcinogen Assessment Group, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1998e. Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Safrole (94-59-7) in
Support of Reportable Quantity Adjustments Pursuant to CERLCA Section 102.
Prepared by Carcinogen Assessment Group, Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1998f. Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Tris(2,3-
dibromopropyl)phosphate (126-72-7) in Support of Reportable Quantity
Adjustments Pursuant to CERLCA Section 102. Prepared by Carcinogen
Assessment Group, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1998g. National primary drinking water regulations: disinfectants and
disinfection byproducts notice of data availability; Proposed Rule. Federal
Register 63 (61): 15673-15692. March 31.
U.S. EPA, 1998h. National primary drinking water regulations: disinfectants and
disinfection byproducts; final rule. Federal Register 63 (241): 69390-69476.
December 16.
E-51
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
U.S. EPA, 1999a. Risk Assessment Paper for: The Derivation of a Provisional
Subchronic RfCfor Carbon Tetrachloride (CASRN 56-23-5). 98-026/6-14-99.
National Center for Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support
Center, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA, 1999b. Risk Assessment Issue Paper for: Evaluating the Carcinogenicity of
Ethylbenzene (CASRN 100-41-4). 99-011/10-12-99. National Center for
Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. EPA, 1999c. Risk Assessment Paper for: An Updated Systemic Toxicity Evaluation
of n-Hexane (CASRN 110-54-3). 98-019/10-1-99. National Center for
Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. EPA, 1999d. Risk Assessment Issue Paper for: Derivation of Provisional Oral
Chronic RfD and Subchronic RfDsfor 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (CASRN 71-55-6).
98-025/8-4-99. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Superfund
Technical Support Center, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA, 1999e. Risk Assessment Issue Paper for: Derivation of Provisional Chronic
and Subchronic RfCsfor 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (CASRN 71-55-6). 98-025/8-4-
99. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical
Support Center, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA, 1999f. Risk Assessment Paper for: Derivation of the Systemic Toxicity of
1,2,3-Trichloropropane (CASRN96-18-4). 98-014/8-13-99. National Center for
Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. EPA, 1999g. Revised Risk Assessment for the Air Characteristic Study. EPA-530-
R-99-019a. Volume 2. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 2000. Risk Assessment Paper for: Derivation of a Provisional RfD for
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CASRN 79-34-5). 00-122/12-20-00. National Center
for Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. EPA, 200la. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington,
DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/
E-52
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
U.S. EPA, 2001b. Risk Assessment Paper for: Derivation of a Provisional RfD for
Cobalt and Compounds (CASRN 7440-48-4). 00-122/3-16-01. National Center
for Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. EPA, 200 Ic. Risk Assessment Paper for: Derivation of a Provisional RfD for N-
Nitrosodimethylamine (CASRN 62-75-9). 00-122/3-16-01. National Center for
Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. EPA, 200 Id. Risk Assessment Paper for: Derivation of a Provisional RfD for N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine (CASRN 86-30-6). 00-122/3-16-01. National Center for
Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
Van den Berg, M., L. Birnbaum, A.T.C. Bosveld, et al, 1998. Toxic equivalency factors
(TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for humans and wildlife. Environmental Health
Perspectives 106:775-792.
E-53
-------
APPENDIX F
TIER 1 LCTV TABLES
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table F-l. Landfill No-Liner LCTVs F-l-1
Table F-2. Landfill Single Clay Liner LCTVs F-2-1
Table F-3. Landfill Composite Liner LCTVs F-3-1
Table F-4. Surface Impoundment No-Liner LCTVs F-4-1
Table F-5. Surface Impoundment Single Clay Liner LCTVs F-5-1
Table F-6. Surface Impoundment Composite Liners LCTVs F-6-1
Table F-7. Waste Pile No-Liner LCTVs F-7-1
Table F-8. Waste Pile Single Clay Liner LCTVs F-8-1
Table F-9. Waste Pile Composite Liner LCTVs F-9-1
Table F-10. Land Application Unit LCTVs (No-Liner) F-10-1
F-i
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Table F-l: Landfill No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-ch loroethyljether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
Chloropropene 3- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
218-01-9
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
0.0171
0.0122
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
8.05E-04
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
0.021
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
3.00E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
1.90E-03
7.30E-03
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
2.6
2.2
2.3
1.3E+05
2.2
2.2
2.3
5.3
2.2
2.2
58
59
2.2
1.0E+30
6.8
2.2
1.0E+30
2.5
2.1E+07
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.4
2.8
160
2.2
2.2
2.2
5.8
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
5.3
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.014
0.11
4.3
0.011
0.012 c
0.026
1.0E+03b'c
0.2
0.015
0.011
0.014
0.030 "
0.22
0.19
0.18
0.31
0.25
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
2.6
2.2
2.3
1.3E+05
2.2
2.2
2.3
5.4
2.2
2.2
59
59
2.2
1.0E+30
6.8
2.2
1.0E+30
2.5
2.1E+07
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.4
2.8
160
2.2
2.2
2.2
5.8
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
5.4
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.3
5.4
5.4
1.0E+03b
0.013
27
9.4E-03 d
97 c
0.27
17C
0.023
0.016
3.8
0.2
16
19"
0.14
2.2
1.0E+03b'c
1.2
80"
5.4
13C
0.054
0.027
5.9
0.048
0.030 "
1.1
0.22
1.1
2.8
1.2
0.55
0.27
81
0.19
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.49
1.0E+03b
6.9
1.0E+03b
33
0.088
2.1
0.42
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.13
4.6
0.059
0.030"
0.049
0.44
66
0.74
0.57
0.022
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
2.6
2.2
2.3
1.4E+05
2.2
2.2
2.3
5.4
2.2
2.2
59
59
2.2
1.0E+30
6.8
2.2
1.0E+30
2.5
2.1E+07
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.4
2.8
160
2.2
2.2
2.2
5.8
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
5.4
LCTV based
on Ingestion
5.5E-05
4.1E-05"
0.77 c
0.037
1.9E-04
4.3E-04
3.9E-03
9.3E-07
7.8E-04
4.8E-03C
1.0E+03b'c
6.00E-04
3.10E-03
1.0E+03b'c
3.9E-03
2.1E-03
0.030"
2.1E-03
2.7E-03
0.016
4.3E-03C
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.091
13
2.3E-03
1.4C
4.9
0.097 c
3.6E-03
5.7
0.32 c
0.037 c
1.0E+03b'c
7.50E-03
0.013
1.0E+03b'c
2.0E-03
8.9E-05
2.2E-03
0.030 "
6.9
1.8E-03
0.013
1.0E+03"
0.039 c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-1-1
-------
Table F-l: Landfill No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a,h}anthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylenetrans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropenetrans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
CAS#
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
6.12E-01
9.79E-04
C
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
1.21E-04
Inhalation
NC
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.6
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
1.09E+03
C
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
2.00E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.8E+13
1.0E+30
8.0E+03
1.2E+10
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
3.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.5E+15
2.9
2.3
550
2.2
2.2
6.5E+12
2.2
2.2
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1E+06
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
3
5.5E-04
1.3
0.17
9.9E-03 '
7.0E-03 d
0.15
0.22
0.016
0.15
0.016
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.8E+13
1.0E+30
8.0E+03
1.2E+10
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
3.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.5E+15
2.9
2.3
550
2.2
2.2
6.6E+12
2.2
2.2
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.20E+06
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.1
2.7
2.7
0.27
2.7
5.5
9.2E-04
270
1.0E+03b'c
4.9
11
0.36"
0.26 '
0.54
1.1
0.49
0.16
0.54
7
1.6
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
58
0.55"
5.4
1.1
6.7
5.4E-03
0.11
0.11
0.054
1.0E+03b'c
1.4
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
200 "
200 "
200 "
1.0E+03"
2.9
8.6E-04
8.0E-03
1.7
6.7
1.3
0.45"
0.32"
0.47
0.044
0.13
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.8E+13
1.0E+30
8.0E+03
1.2E+10
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
3.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.5E+15
2.9
2.3
550
2.2
2.2
6.6E+12
2.2
2.2
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.00E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.20E+06
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
13
1.0E+03b'c
1.9E-04
8.9E-03
4.8E-04
6.7E-04"
4.7E-04"
3.6E-04
4.5E-03
2.1E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
4.7E-08
0.015
2.3E-05
3.1E-04
3.1E-04
0.019
2.70E-04
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.22
2.9E-03
11 c
0.012"
1.5E-03
4.9E-04
6.4E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 "
0.4
0.044
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-1-2
-------
Table F-l: Landfill No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1 and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
CAS#
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
109-86-4
110-49-6
78-93-3
108-10-1
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.9
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
0.196
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
2.45E-02
4.90E-02
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
C
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
4.40E+02
5.10E+02
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
C
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.5
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
2.2
7.7E+04
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
7.4
2.2
3.9
1.0E+30
2.2
25
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
4.2E+06
7.4E+06
1.0E+30
3.9E+08
2.4
6.3
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.6E+07
2.2
3.1
2.2
2.2
1.3E+06
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.02 a
1.6
1.3E-03
8.7
0.26 c'd
0.25 '
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
6.3E-03 c
1.0E+03b'c
0.037
5.8E-03
10"
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
7.7E+04
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
7.4
2.2
3.9
1.0E+30
2.2
25
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
4.3E+06
7.6E+06
1.0E+30
3.9E+08
2.4
6.3
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.6E+07
2.2
3.1
2.2
2.2
1.3E+06
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.33
0.020 a
1.0E+03"
22
16
160
11
8.5
5.4
110
4.3E-03
2.5 c
6.3
11
110
0.16
04 >».'.«
0.56"
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.018
0.12 c
1.0E+03b'c
0.055
0.023
600 c
0.16
16
11
0.028
2.5
7.2E-03
5.7E-03
27
10"
0.054
0.11
32
4.3
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
0.53
1.0E+03b
660
7.3
0.025
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
110
49
0.4"
3.0"
1.0E+03b'c
1.5
1.0E+03b
2.1E-03
0.015
1.0E+03b
970
1.0E+03b
73
2.7
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
7.7E+04
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
7.4
2.2
3.9
1.0E+30
2.2
25
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
4.3E+06
7.6E+06
1.0E+30
3.9E+08
2.4
6.3
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.8E+07
2.2
3.1
2.2
2.2
1.3E+06
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
2.9E-05
1.0E+03b
1.9E-03
1.2E-04
0.4"
120 c
8.0E-03a
1.0E+03b'c
3.0E-03
3.8E-04
1.0E+03b'c
0.30C
0.015
110C
0.23
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
0.024
2.1E-03
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
3.3
0.038
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.5E-03
2.3E-04
1.0E+03b'c
6.9 c
7.4E-03
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-1-3
-------
Table F-l: Landfill No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
CAS#
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
0.147
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1 .96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
0.734
1.47E+00
2.45E-01
0.734
1.22E-02
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41 E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
Inhalation
NC
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
3.60E+00
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
3.71 E-03 1.90E-03
4.83E-04
1.86E-03
9.40E-01
5.00E-04
2.10E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
4.6
8.1E+04
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
1.1E+09
6.1
3
4.4E+06
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.00E+30
1.00E+30
1.70E+05
2.3
2.2
2.9
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.2E+12
1.4E+04
3
17
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.011
2.2E-03
83 c
0.12
0.22
4.1 E-04 c
0.014 '
0.014 '
0.011
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
4.6
8.1E+04
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
1.2E+09
6.1
3
4.5E+06
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+05
2.3
2.2
2.9
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.2E+12
1.4E+04
3
17
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
84"
1.3c'd
0.54
3.3
0.28
1.1
1.1
0.027
4.30E-04
1.1
0.11
1.0E+03b'c
0.12
0.18
1.6
32
4.3E-03
0.32
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
82 c
4.2
2.2 c
0.054
0.3
0.37
0.016
11
0.017
3.4E-04 c
2.2
24
0.54
1.6
1.0E+03°'C
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
24
1.0E+03"
38
22
0.042
0.33
0.73
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.1
3.1
8
0.64"
0.70 "
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
4.6
8.1E+04
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
1.2E+09
6.1
3
4.5E+06
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+05
2.3
2.2
2.9
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.2E+12
1.4E+04
3
17
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.029
1.4E-06
4.2E-06
4.0E-05
3.0E-05
0.044
9.7E-06
1.0E-04
3.7E-09
2.8E-03C
9.2E-04
1.8E-03
40 c
8.9E-04
1.2E-03
1.0E+03b'c
9.0E-06C
0.011
8.0E-03
4.10E-03
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.063
5.1E-05
9.5E-05
8.8E-04
4.4E-05
3.3E-03
1.2
9.9E-03
0.019
2
1.9E-07
0.27 c
100 "
23 c
0.038
1.0E+03b'c
3.1E-05C
5.7E-03
8.3E-03
0.047
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-1-4
-------
Table F-l: Landfill No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidine o-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1 ,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
rrichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
rrichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1 ,2-Trichloroethylene)
rrichlorofiuoromethane (Freon 11)
rrichlorophenol 2,4,5-
rrichlorophenol 2,4,6-
rrichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
rrichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
rrichloropropane 1,2,3-
rriethylamine
rrinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
rris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
0.0979
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
C
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
6.3E+03
2.3
2.2
2.3
98
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.2
21
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
5.8E-03
2.2
0.50 "
0.18
0.16
0.021 d
0.012
0.011
0.11
4.4E-03
22
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
6.3E+03
2.3
2.2
2.3
98
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.2
21
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
LCTV based
on Ingestion
5.8E-03
0.27
11
1.1
1.0E+03b'c
0.56
0.67"
0.24
16
5.4
0.43
0.54
0.39
1.6
0.5
54
0.16
110
110
110
110
16
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
2.9
210C
1.9
0.64"
0.64*
0.50a
4.7
0.09
0.24
2.7
0.20"
2.9
3.1
2.9
3.1
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
6.3E+03
2.3
2.2
2.3
98
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.2
21
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
LCTV based
on Ingestion
6.7E-05
8.9E-04
1 . 1 E-03
0.50a
0.028
4.9E-04"
4.9E-04"
0.019
0.019
3.7E-05
2.0E-04
3.0E-04
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
17
0.08
0.50 "
0.044
6.72E-04 '
6.7E-04 d
0.015
0.62
5.5E-03
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-1-5
-------
Table F-2: Landfill Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
ChloropropeneS- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
MCL
(mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
0.0171
0.0122
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
0.021
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
3.00E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
1.90E-03
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
6.4
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
8.8
6.1
6.6
1.6E+15
6.1
6.1
7.2
280
6.1
6.1
5.1E+06
6.2E+06
6.1
1.0E+30
79
6.1
1.0E+30
7.5
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
11
6.1
7.1
11.0
8.2E+07
6.1
6.1
6.1
36
6.9
6.1
6.3
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.040
0.33
13
0.030
1.0E+03b'c
0.13
1.0E+03b'c
0.60
0.043
0.033
0.055
0.030a
0.61
0.55
0.50
1.3
1.0
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
6.4
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
8.8
6.1
6.6
1.6E+15
6.1
6.1
7.2
280
6.1
6.1
5.1E+06
6.2E+06
6.1
1.0E+30
79
6.1
1.0E+30
7.5
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
11
6.1
7.1
11
8.4E+07
6.1
6.1
6.1
36
6.9
6.1
6.3
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
9.4 c
15
15
1.0E+03b
0.043
74
0.032 d
1.0E+03b'c
0.74
53 c
0.068
0.050
12
0.45
45
52 e
0.45
6.0
1.0E+03b'c
3.7
220"
15
52 c
0.15
0.083
17
0.2
0.030a
3.0
0.6
3.0
17C
3.4
1.5
0.74
260
0.75
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.3
1.0E+03b
19
1.0E+03b
91
0.25
5.7
0.50"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.37
13
0.23
0.030 "
0.13
1.2
180
2.1
1.6
0.059
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
6.4
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
8.8
6.1
6.6
1.6E+15
6.1
6.1
7.2
280
6.1
6.1
5.2E+06
6.4E+06
6.1
1.0E+30
79
6.1
1.0E+30
7.5
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
11
6.1
7.1
11
8.5E+07
6.1
6.1
6.1
36
6.9
6.1
6.3
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.9E-04
1.4E-04"
1.0E+03b'c
0.10
1.3E-03
0.023 c
0.011
2.6E-06
69 c
520 c
1.0E+03b'c
7.0E-03
8.4E-03
1.0E+03b'c
0.012
8.2E-03
0.030 "
0.013
7.9E-03
0.045
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.25
45
6.6E-03
1.0E+03b'c
13
5.1 c
0.010
16
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.087
0.036
1.0E+03b'c
6.0E-03
2.4E-04
8.4E-03
0.030a
43 c
5.2E-03
0.036
1.0E+03b
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-2-1
-------
Table F-2: Landfill Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDTp.p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a, hjanthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
CAS#
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
MCL
(mg/L)
Ingestion
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
C
8.05E-04
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
Inhalation
NC
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.6
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
1.09E+03
C
7.30E-03
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
280
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.9E+08
1.0E+30
9.8
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
7.8
7.6
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
14.0
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
11
6.8
1.1E+06
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
12
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
9.4
2.0E-03
3.7
0.46
0.027 '
0.019"
0.43
0.61
0.043
0.43
0.071
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
280
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.9E+08
1.0E+30
9.8
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
7.8
7.6
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
14.0
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
11
6.8
1.2E+06
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
12
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.1
7.4
7.4
0.74
7.4
15
2.5E-03
740
1.0E+03b'c
13
30
0.45"
0.32 '
1.5
3.0
0.70 a
0.45
1.5
31
4.5
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
220
1.5"
15
3.0
28 c
0.015
0.30
0.13a
0.15
1.0E+03b'c
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
200 "
200 "
200 "
1.0E+03"
8.0
2.4E-03
0.028
4.7
7.5s
3.5
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
0.20
0.37
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
280
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.9E+08
1.0E+30
9.8
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
7.8
7.6
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
14.0
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
11
6.8
1.2E+06
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
12
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.23 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
6.7E-04
0.025
1.3E-03
1.8E-03"
1.3E-03"
9.8E-04
0.02
5.9E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.4E-07
0.042
6.4E-05
8.6E-04
8.6E-04
0.053
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
2.0 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.77
7.9E-03
0.30C
0.034"
4.8E-03
1 .3E-03
0.018
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.13a
1.1
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-2-2
-------
Table F-2: Landfill Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol 2-
CAS#
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
1 06-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
109-86-4
MCL
(mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
6.12E-01
9.79E-04
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.9
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
0.196
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
2.45E-02
C
1.21E-04
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
4.40E+02
C
2.00E-02
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.5
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.3
1.1E+22
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
6.1
55
6.1
17
1.0E+30
6.1
1.3E+03
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
11
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.8
570
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.3
31
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
7.0
6.6
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020"'
4.3
0.063
27
04 '.'
0.74 '
8.0E-03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.13a'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.15
0.019
10"
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.3
1.1E+22
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
6.1
55
6.1
17
1.0E+30
6.1
1.3E+03
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
11
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.8
580
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.3
31
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
7.0
6.6
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.8
1.0E+03b'c
0.92 c
0.020 "
1.0E+03"
60
45
1.0E+03"
30
37
15
300
0.012
11C
20
30
300
0.45
04 '.'
1.6"
8.0E-03'
1.0E+03b'c
0.065
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
0.15
0.22
1.0E+03b'c
0.45
45
30
0.086
8.0
0.20 a'c
0.016
74
10"
0.15
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.5
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
20
1.2
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
310
130
0.4 "
8.8 "
1.0E+03b'c
4.0
1.0E+03"
9.4E-03
0.043
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.3
1.1E+22
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
6.1
55
6.1
17
1.0E+30
6.1
1.3E+03
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
11
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.8
580
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.3
31
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
7.0
6.6
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
LCTV based
on Ingestion
7.4E-04
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.4E-03
1.0E+03b
5.3E-03
3.3E-04
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.011
0.035 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.043
1.0E+03b'c
0.62
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.12
1.0E+03b
0.067
0.11
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
9.1
0.10
04a,b,c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03'
1.0E+03b'c
5.4E-03
0.021 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.021
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-2-3
-------
Table F-2: Landfill Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
CAS#
110-49-6
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1 634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1 336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
MCL
(mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-02
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
0.147
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
0.734
1.47E+00
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
Inhalation
NC
5.10E+02
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
3.60E+00
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
6.1
6.1
6.1
22
1.0E+30
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.6
1.0E+30
660
22
1.0E+30
10
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.1E+15
6.5
6.1
22
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
7.5
1.0E+30
1.2E+13
3.71E-03 1.90E-03 13
4.83E-04
5.00E-04|| 200
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.031
6.E-03
1.0E+03b'c
0.50
0.61
1.0E+03b'c
0.039*
0.039*
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
6.1
6.1
6.1
22
1.0E+30
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.6
1.0E+30
670
22
1.0E+30
10
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.1E+15
6.5
6.1
22
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
7.5
1.0E+30
1.2E+13
13
200
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.30
90
12
230"
3.5"
1.5
9.2
0.90
3.0
3.3
0.074
1.2E-03
3.0
0.32
1.0E+03b'c
13C
0.73 c
4.5
90
0.012
0.90
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
12
16C
0.15
1.0'
5.0"
0.045
30
0.055
1.0E+03b'c
9.4
300
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
200 "
7.3
120
1.0E+03*
100
62
0.12
0.91
2.0
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
3.0
5.0 "
22
0.64*
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
6.1
6.1
6.1
22
1.0E+30
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.6
1.0E+30
670
22
1.0E+30
10
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.4E+15
6.5
6.1
22
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
7.5
1.0E+30
1.2E+13
13
200
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.080
3.9E-06
1.2E-05
1.1E-04
8.4E-05
0.12
2.7E-05
2.8E-04
2.78E-08
1.0E+03b'c
3.7E-03
4.9E-03
1.0E+03b'c
2.4E-03
3.3E-03
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.047
0.068 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.17
1.4E-04
2.6E-04
2.4E-03
1.2E-04
9. 1 E-03
3.2
0.027
0.053
5.6
1.4E-06
1.0E+03b'c
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.10
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.024
0.053"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-2-4
-------
Table F-2: Landfill Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidineo-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
1 37-26-8
1 08-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
1 06-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL
(mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
2.45E-01
0.734
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
0.0979
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
1.86E-03
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
9.40E-01
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
C
2.10E-02
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.8E+08
6.5
6.1
6.6
2.0E+04
7.5
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
9.3
6.1
6.1
610
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.030
0.018
6.1
0.50a
0.52
0.46
0.059"
0.037
0.030
0.30
0.012
61
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.8E+08
6.5
6.1
6.6
2.0E+04
7.5
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
9.3
6.1
6.1
610
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.70 "
4.5
1.0E+03b'c
0.019
0.74
30
3.2
1.0E+03b'c
1.6
0.96"
0.73
45
15
1.0'
1.5
1.4
4.5
1.8
150
0.20"
300 c
300 c
300 c
300 c
51
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.70 "
7.9
580 c
5.5
0.96"
0.96*
0.50"
13
0.32
0.67
7.3
0.20 "
7.9
8.5
7.9
8.6
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.8E+08
6.5
6.1
6.6
2.0E+04
7.5
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
9.3
6.1
6.1
610
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.011
1.8E-04
2.4E-03
3.1E-03
0.50 "
0.080
1.4E-03"
1.4E-03"
0.053
0.053
1.3E-04
6.1E-03
8.2E-04
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.13
46
0.22
0.50a
0.12
1.8E-03"
1.8E-03"
0.041
1.7
0.015
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-2-5
-------
Table F-3: Landfill Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
0.0171
0.0122
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
0.021
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
1.5E+04
1.6E+04
2.1E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
9.3E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+04
1.8E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.1E+04
1.0E+30
1.2E+07
1.0E+30
2.2E+04
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.3E+06
2.4E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.8E+04
3.4E+05
3.3E+04
1.0E+30
1.4E+06
1.5E+04
9.7E+04
1.5E+04
1.9E+04
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0E+03"
5.0 a
100 a
0.50 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0'
0.50 a
0.030 a
100 a
1.0E+03"'
6.0 a
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
2.1E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
9.3E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+04
1.9E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.1E+04
1.0E+30
1.2E+07
1.0E+30
2.2E+04
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.4E+06
2.4E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+04
3.4E+05
3.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.4E+06
1.6E+04
9.7E+04
1.5E+04
1.9E+04
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
740"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
5.0"
100 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03blC
1.0E+03b'c
1.0'
1.0E+03"
0.50 a
0.030 a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
100 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
6.0 a
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
740"
1.0E+03"1
0.50a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.50a
0.030a
410
100a'
1.0E+03"
6.0 a
1.0E+03"'
190
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
2.1E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
9.3E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+04
1.9E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.1E+04
1.0E+30
1.2E+07
1.0E+30
2.2E+04
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.4E+06
2.4E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+04
3.4E+05
3.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.4E+06
1.6E+04
9.7E+04
1.5E+04
2.0E+04
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
170
1.0E+03b'c
270
5.0 a
1.0E+03blC
0.50a
7.8E-03
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03blC
1.0E+03blC
1.0E+03"
43
1.0E+03blC
1.0E+03"
0.50a
0.030a
1.0E+03blC
1.0E+03"
110
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
620
1.0E+03"
750"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
190
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.88
0.50 "
0.030 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
90
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-3-1
-------
Table F-3: Landfill Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
ChloropropeneS- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDTp.p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a, hjanthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
CAS#
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
C
8.05E-04
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
Inhalation
NC
3.00E-03
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.6
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
C
1.90E-03
7.30E-03
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+04
1.9E+04
1.9E+04
2.3E+04
2.9E+05
1.7E+04
6.1E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.4E+04
9.0E+04
3.7E+05
2.3E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.0E+05
3.5E+05
1.8E+04
4.5E+07
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
8.8E+07
8.7E+06
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
1.5E+05
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0E+03"
5.0 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
7.5 "
0.45 '
0.32"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
0.4
1.0E+03"
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+04
1.9E+04
1.9E+04
2.4E+04
3.0E+05
1.7E+04
6.2E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.5E+04
9.1E+04
3.7E+05
2.3E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.1E+05
3.5E+05
1.8E+04
4.6E+07
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
9.1E+07
9.0E+06
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
1.5E+05
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
5.0 "
1.0E+03"
200 "
200 "
200 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
7.0
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32 '
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
0.4
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
540
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
200 "
200 "
200 "
1.0E+03"
1.00E+03b'c
6.6
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
7.5 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 a'
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.00E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+04
1.9E+04
1.9E+04
2.4E+04
3.0E+05
1.7E+04
6.2E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.5E+04
9.1E+04
3.8E+05
2.3E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.1E+05
3.5E+05
1.9E+04
5.0E+07
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
9.5E+07
9.4E+06
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
1.5E+05
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
7.5s
82'
0.45'
0.32"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
17
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
7.5 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32"
070 "
50
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-3-2
-------
Table F-3: Landfill Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Dinitrotoluene2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
CAS#
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
7439-92-1
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
6.12E-01
9.79E-04
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.9
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
0.196
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
C
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
1.21E-04
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
1.09E+03
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
C
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
2.00E-02
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.5
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
2.0E+04
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
6.1E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.0E+04
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
1.4E+04
1.4E+05
1.6E+04
3.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.5E+11
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.0E+05
1.0E+30
7.2E+04
1.4E+05
1.0E+30
1.5E+05
2.1E+04
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"'
1.0E+03"
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'e
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 a'c
1.00E+03b'c
5.0 a
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
2.0E+04
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
6.1E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.1E+04
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
1.4E+04
1.5E+05
1.6E+04
3.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.6E+11
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.0E+05
1.0E+30
7.3E+04
1.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.5E+05
2.2E+04
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.13 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.020 a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
32
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.4"
1.00E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.0E+04
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
6.1E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.1E+04
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
1.4E+04
1.5E+05
1.6E+04
3.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.6E+11
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.0E+05
1.0E+30
7.3E+04
1.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.5E+05
2.2E+04
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.13a
35
140
7.4
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
14
19C
04a,b,c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.13 a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
890 c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-3-3
-------
Table F-3: Landfill Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
CAS#
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
109-86-4
110-49-6
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
2.45E-02
4.90E-02
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
0.147
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41 E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
Inhalation
NC
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
4.40E+02
5.10E+02
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
9.8E+05
1.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
2.0E+05
6.2E+05
1.1E+05
1.7E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
2.6E+04
1.7E+04
6.4E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
4.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.7E+04
1.6E+04
1.5E+05
1.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.5E+09
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.3E+07
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.20 a'c
10..c
1.0E+03"
97
1.0E+03b'c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
9.8E+05
1.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
2.0E+05
6.3E+05
1.1E+05
1.8E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
2.6E+04
1.8E+04
6.5E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
4.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.8E+04
1.7E+04
1.5E+05
1.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.6E+09
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.3E+07
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b
0.20 a'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
10"
390
810
200 a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03M
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
2.0 "
3.1
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
100 a
1.0E+03"
290
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
5.0 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.20 a'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
200 a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.00E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
2.0a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
5.0 a
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
9.8E+05
1.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
2.0E+05
6.3E+05
1.1E+05
1.8E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
2.6E+04
1.8E+04
6.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
4.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.9E+04
1.7E+04
1.5E+05
1.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.7E+09
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.4E+07
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
0.010
0.030
0.47
0.25
1.0E+03b'c
0.072
0.74
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
80
1.0E+03b'c
6.6
1.0E+03°'C
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
0.37
0.70
6.4
0.52
27
1.0E+03b'c
74
140
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
100 a
1.0E+03b'c
280
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-3-4
-------
Table F-3: Landfill Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidineo-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
rrichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
0.734
1.47E+00
2.45E-01
0.734
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
0.0979
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
Inhalation
NC
3.60E+00
C
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
3.71 E-03 1.90E-03
4.83E-04
1.86E-03
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
9.40E-01
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
5.00E-04
2.10E-02
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
7.7E+05
5.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.5E+04
1.1E+07
1.0E+30
3.0E+09
2.9E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
2.0E+05
1.0E+30
3.1E+05
7.4E+04
6.8E+06
1.0E+30
1.4E+07
2.3E+04
2.3E+04
3.8E+10
2.7E+04
4.3E+05
2.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.8E+04
1.7E+05
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.0E+05
8.4E+04
1.1E+05
9.7E+04
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0'
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64 '
0.64 '
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96"
0.50 "
1.0"
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
7.8E+05
5.5E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.5E+04
1.1E+07
1.0E+30
3.2E+09
2.9E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
2.1E+05
1.0E+30
3.1E+05
7.4E+04
6.8E+06
1.0E+30
1.4E+07
2.3E+04
2.3E+04
4.2E+10
2.7E+04
4.4E+05
2.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.8E+04
1.8E+05
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.0E+05
8.4E+04
1.1E+05
9.8E+04
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0'
5.0 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96"
1.0E+03"
400 "
1.0"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.64"
0.70 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96e
0.50a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
7.8E+05
5.5E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.5E+04
1.2E+07
1.0E+30
3.5E+09
2.9E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
2.1E+05
1.0E+30
3.2E+05
7.5E+04
6.9E+06
1.0E+30
1.4E+07
2.3E+04
2.3E+04
4.2E+10
2.7E+04
4.4E+05
2.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.8E+04
1.8E+05
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.1E+05
8.5E+04
1.1E+05
9.9E+04
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64"
0.64"
0.70 "
0.50
6.9
100
0.50a
1.0E+03"
0.96"
0.96"
0.50a
2.0s
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.20 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64"
0.64"
0.70'
1.0E+03"
620
0.50s
1.0E+03"
0.96*
0.96"
0.50 '
2.0s
0.20s
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-3-5
-------
Table F-4: Surface Impoundment No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
ChloropropeneS- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
218-01-9
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
0.0171
0.0122
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
8.05E-04
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
0.021
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
3.00E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
1.90E-03
7.30E-03
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
2.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0E+30
1.3
1.3
1.3
380
1.3
1.3
3.6
36
1.3
1.3
110
110
1.3
1.0E+30
2.1
1.3
7.4E+10
1.3
190
1.3
1.3
4.0
1.3
1.3
1.5
130
1.3
1.3
1.3
4.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
9.7E+05
36
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
8.5E-03
0.080
2.7
6.4E-03
0.021 c
0.28
1.0E+03b'c
0.11
8.9E-03
8.3E-03
7.3E-03
0.030a
0.13
0.10
0.10
2.6
0.69
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0E+30
1.4
1.3
1.4
380
1.3
1.3
3.6
37
1.3
1.3
110
110
1.3
1.0E+30
2.2
1.4
7.5E+10
1.4
230
1.3
1.3
4.1
1.3
1.4
1.5
140
1.3
1.3
1.4
4.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
9.8E+05
37
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.2
3.2
3.2
1.0E+03b
6.9E-03
16
5.2E-03"
0.28 c
0.16
27 c
0.014
0.013
2.4
0.097
9.7
11"
0.53
1.3
1.0E+03b'c
0.68
7.7
3.2
20 c
0.033
0.021
3.4
0.025
0.030a
0.65
0.13
0.67
2.2
0.67
0.33
0.16
100
0.55
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.29
1.0E+03"
4.1
1.0E+03"
20
0.051
1.2
0.25
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
3.4
0.080
2.6
0.031
0.030 "
0.029
0.27
40
0.44
0.34
0.013
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0E+30
1.7
1.5
1.6
380
1.5
1.5
3.8
37
1.6
1.5
110
110
1.5
1.0E+30
2.6
1.6
7.5E+10
1.6
230
1.6
1.5
4.2
1.6
1.6
1.7
140
1.6
1.5
1.6
4.7
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
2.2E+06
37
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.5E-05
2.7E-05 d
2.1E-03
0.026
1.4E-04
2.9E-03
2.7E-03
6.4E-07
1.4E-03
8.6E-03 c
1.0E+03b'c
2.2E-04
2.2E-03
1.0E+03b'c
2.6E-03
1.3E-03
0.030 "
1.7E-03
1.8E-03
1.1E-02
0.029 c
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
6.2E-02
8.4E+00
1.6E-03
3.8E-03
3.3E+00
0.66C
2.5E-03
4.0
0.57 c
0.067 c
1.0E+03b'c
2.8E-03
9.3E-03
1.0E+03b'c
1.3E-03
6.2E-05
1.3E-03
0.030a
5.6
1.2E-03
9.0E-03
1.0E+03b
0.27 c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-4-1
-------
Table F-4: Surface Impoundment No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDTp.p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a, hjanthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
CAS#
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
1 08-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
1 56-59-2
1 56-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
1 22-66-7
298-04-4
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
6.12E-01
9.79E-04
C
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
1.21E-04
Inhalation
NC
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.6
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
1.09E+03
C
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
2.00E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.3
1.3
4.4E+08
3.2E+04
1.0E+30
38
4.8E+03
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
5.3E+06
5.3E+06
3.3E+04
1.5
3.1
10
1.3
1.3
3.1E+04
1.3
1.3
5.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0E+30
1.3
1.6
1.4
150
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
5.5
2.8E-04
0.88
0.11
5.6E-03"
4.0E-03"
0.088
0.13
8.9E-03
0.088
7.5E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.3
1.3
4.4E+08
3.2E+04
1.0E+30
38
4.9E+03
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.6
1.3
5.9E+06
5.9E+06
3.3E+04
1.5
3.1
11
1.3
1.3
3.1E+04
1.4
1.3
5.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0E+30
1.3
1.6
1.4
160
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.2
1.6
1.6
0.16
1.6
4.2
5.5E-04
160
1.0E+03b'c
3.3
6.6
0.22"
0.15"
0.33
0.65
0.29
0.10
0.3
3.4
1.0
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
40 c
30
0.054
3.2
0.66
12C
3.2E-03
0.065
0.065
0.032
1.0E+03b'c
1.0
0.15
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
200 "
200 "
200 "
1.0E+03"
2.2
5.1E-04
4.2E-03
1.1
4.4
0.78
0.45"
0.32"
0.28
0.022
0.081
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
940
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.5
4.4E+08
3.2E+04
1.0E+30
42
4.9E+03
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.9
1.5
1.3E+07
1.3E+07
3.3E+04
1.8
3.2
12
1.5
1.5
3.1E+04
1.6
1.6
5.2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0E+30
1.5
1.8
1.6
200
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
9.0 c
10"
0.066
0.064 c
1.2E-04
6.7E-03
3.9E-04
4.6E-04 '
3.2E-04 d
2.5E-04
2.6E-03
1.5E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.20 c
6.6E-08
0.010
1.6E-05
2.2E-04
2.2E-04
0.013
1.9E-04
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.14
2.2E-03
8.9 c
8.5E-03"
1.0E-03
3.4E-04
4.4E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
3.3 c
94 c
0.13a
0.27
0.032
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-4-2
-------
Table F-4: Surface Impoundment No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1 and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
CAS#
115-29-7
72-20-8
1 06-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
1 6984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
110-49-6
109-86-4
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.9
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
0.196
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
C
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
5.10E+02
4.40E+02
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
C
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.5
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
1.8
150
7.6E+04
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.1
1.3
1.6
1.0E+30
1.4
3.5
1.3
7.3E+03
1.3
7.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7
220
280
1.0E+30
3.3E+03
5.6
43
1.0E+30
4.9E+08
1.8E+03
1.9
17
1.4
1.3
550
1.3
1.3
3.4
1.3
1.3
1.1E+20
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020"'
1.0
1.7E-04
4.9
0.044
0.29*
8.0E-03a
0.66C
0.043C
1.0E+03b'c
0.078
2.5E-03
10a.c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.9
150
8.3E+04
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.2
1.3
1.7
1.0E+30
1.5
3.8
1.3
8.3E+03
1.3
7.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7
230
280
1.0E+30
3.3E+03
5.6
43
1.0E+30
4.9E+08
1.8E+03
1.9
17
1.4
1.3
550
1.3
1.3
3.4
1.4
1.3
1.8E+20
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.8
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.27
0.020"
1.0E+03"
13
9.7
49
6.5
3.8
3.6
65
2.6E-03
7.5 c
3.8
6.5
65
0.097
0.4 "'"
0.64"
8.0E-03'
1.1 c
0.041
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
0.047
0.13
390 c
0.097
9.7
6.5
0.041
1.6
3.3E-03
3.3E-03
16
1.0E+01 af
0.065
0.032
19
2.6
50"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
0.32
1.0E+03b
400
4.82
3.7E-03
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
67
29
0.4 "
3.5*
1.0E+03 b'c
0.95
710
9.4E-04
8.8E-03
1.0E+03b
670
580
44
1.6
9.8
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.1
150
8.8E+04
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.6
1.5
2.0
1.0E+30
1.6
4.3
1.5
8.6E+03
1.5
7.8
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.9
290
350
1.0E+30
3.4E+03
5.7
43
1.0E+30
5.0E+08
1.8E+03
2.2
17
1.6
1.5
550
1.5
1.6
3.5
1.6
1.5
1.8E+20
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.1
LCTV based
on Ingestion
860
1.0E+03 b
4.9E-06
0.81
1.3E-03
1.0E-04
0.021
5.3E-03
8.0E-03 "
0.036
7.1E-03
2.6E-03
3.1 c
1.1E-05C
0.015
0.044 c
0.16
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
0.018
3.6E-04
4.5
1.0E+03b
2.3
0.0
0.4 "
0.13
8.0E-03"
9.6E-01 c
3.5E-03
1.5E-03
71 c
2.6E-04C
7.1E-03
2.1E+01 c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-4-3
-------
Table F-4: Surface Impoundment No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
CAS#
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
1 08-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
1 29-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
0.147
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
0.734
1.47E+00
2.45E-01
0.734
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
3.71E-03
4.83E-04
1.86E-03
Inhalation
NC
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
3.60E+00
9.40E-01
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
1.90E-03
5.00E-04
2.10E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
68
1.3
4.9E+08
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
930
41
15
680
6.8
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
6.7E+19
1.0E+30
390
1.4
1.3
14
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
4.1
2.0E+04
2.7E+02
1.5
3.0
1.3
1.3
1.0E+30
1.4
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
6.3E-03
1.5E-03
0.20 c
0.063
0.14
8.1E-06C
8.2E-03"
8.2E-03"
6.4E-03
2.5E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
75
1.3
4.9E+08
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
960
41
15
680
6.8
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2E+20
1.0E+30
390
1.4
1.3
14
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
4.1
2.0E+04
2.7E+02
1.6
3.2
1.3
1.3
1.0E+30
1.4
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.46
0.32
2.0
0.16
0.74
0.77
0.016
2.6E-04
0.69
0.066
140 c
0.80
0.50
1.1
19
2.6E-03
0.19
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
0.19C
2.6
11 c
0.032
0.16
0.17
0.010
6.9
0.030
6.6E-06
1.1
4.7
0.33
0.98
1.0E+03b'c
2.6E-03
0.17
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
22
13
0.029
0.20
0.44
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.65
1.8
5.1
0.64*
0.70"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
83
1.5
5.0E+08
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.2E+03
41
15
680
7.0
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6E+20
1.0E+30
390
1.6
1.5
14
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
4.3
2.0E+04
2.7E+02
1.8
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.0E+30
1.6
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.020
9.8E-07
2.9E-06
2.8E-05
2.1E-05
0.032
6.7E-06
7.0E-05
1.8E-08
4.3E-07
2.6E-03
1.3E-03
0.095 c
6.1E-04
8.4E-04
1.3E-04
1.7E-07
6.7E-03
1.8E-03
2.9E-03
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.043
3.5E-05
6.5E-05
6. 1 E-04
3. 1 E-05
2.3E-03
0.84
6.8E-03
0.013
1.4
9.2E-07
4. 1 E-05
90
0.055
0.026
2.0E-03C
6.0E-07
3.4E-03
1.9E-03
0.033
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-4-4
-------
Table F-4: Surface Impoundment No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidineo-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
1 08-05-4
75-01-4
1 08-38-3
95-47-6
1 06-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
0.0979
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
C
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
42
1.3
1.4
2.6
5.9
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
3.5
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.3
0.13
0.10
0.18
0.012"
6.7E-03
6.4E-03
0.063
2.5E-03
15
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
42
1.4
1.5
2.6
6.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
3.5
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
LCTV based
on Ingestion
6.6
0.66
1.0E+03b'c
0.64
0.40"
0.14
9.8
3.5
0.26
0.32
0.21
1.0
2.6
32
0.10
74
72
74
73
13
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.8
140
2.2
0.38"
0.38*
0.50"
2.8
0.048
0.15
1.6
0.20 "
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.1
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
44
1.6
1.6
2.8
7.4
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.5
4.2
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
LCTV based
on Ingestion
4.6E-05
6.1E-04
7.7E-04
3.9E-03
0.019
3.4E-04 '
3.4E-04 d
0.014
0.014
2.3E-05
4.1E-05
2.0E-04
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
11
0.055
0.16
0.030
4.7E-04"
4.7E-04"
0.011
0.44
3.8E-03
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-4-5
-------
Table F-5: Surface Impoundment Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
ChloropropeneS- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
0.0171
0.0122
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
0.021
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
3.00E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
1.90E-03
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
17
3.9
3.9
4.0
3.9
1.0E+30
4.8
3.9
4.1
3.7E+08
3.9
3.9
42.4
910
4.1
3.9
2.6E+04
2.6E+04
3.9
1.0E+30
17
4.5
1.0E+30
4.6
1.5E+08
4.2
3.9
55
4.2
4.5
6.0
1.1E+05
4.1
3.9
4.8
87
4.4
3.9
4.1
3.9
4.1
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.026
0.26
7.3
0.020
5.2 c
4.5
1.0E+03b'c
0.37
0.029
0.029
0.030
0.030 *'
0.48
0.35
0.32
57
5.0 "
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
17
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.0E+30
4.8
4.0
4.2
3.7E+08
4.0
4.0
43
910
4.1
4.0
2.7E+04
2.6E+04
4.0
1.0E+30
17
4.5
1.0E+30
4.7
1.5E+08
4.3
4.0
55
4.2
4.5
6.1
1.1E+05
4.1
4.0
4.9
87
4.5
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.1
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
25 c
9.7
9.7
1.0E+03b
0.024
48
0.018"
1.0E+03b'c
0.48
310 c
0.047
0.048
7.0
0.29
29
34 e
8.7
4.4
1.0E+03b'c
2.3
140"
9.7
270 c
0.10
0.069
11
0.10
0.030 "
2.0
0.39
2.4
43 c
2.2
1.0
0.50
450
5.0 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.87
1.0E+03b
12
1.0E+03b
59
0.16
3.7
0.50a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.26
8.5
0.13
0.030a
0.090
1.0
120
1.3
1.0
0.040
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
17
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
1.0E+30
5.6
4.5
4.8
3.7E+08
4.5
4.5
43
910
4.7
4.5
2.7E+04
2.6E+04
4.5
1.0E+30
21
5.0
1.0E+30
5.3
2.6E+08
4.8
4.5
55
4.7
5.1
6.8
1.1E+05
4.6
4.5
5.3
87
5.1
4.5
4.7
4.5
4.7
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.2E-04
9.0E-05"
1.0E+03b'c
7.6E-02
1.1E-03
0.073 c
8.2E-03
1.9E-06
0.35C
2.1 c
1.0E+03b'c
1 .9E-03
6.9E-03
1.0E+03b'c
8.2E-03
5.0E-03
0.030a
3.1E-02
5.8E-03
3.3E-02
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.18
29
4.8E-03
1.0E+03b'c
9.9
16C
7.5E-03
12
140 c
17C
1.0E+03b'c
0.023
0.030
1.0E+03b'c
4.2E-03
1.9E-04
5.2E-03
0.030 "
100 c
3.8E-03
0.027
1.0E+03"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-5-1
-------
Table F-5: Surface Impoundment Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDTp.p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a, hjanthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
CAS#
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
1 08-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
1 08-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
1 56-59-2
1 56-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
6.12E-01
C
8.05E-04
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
Inhalation
NC
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.6
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
1.09E+03
C
7.30E-03
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
910
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.3
9.8
3.9
4.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+05
1.0E+30
5.5
6.7
6.6
8.7
4.3
4.5
4.4
4.0
3.9
4.1
4.6
3.9
6.5
3.9
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.1
33
2.8E+03
3.9
3.9
1.0E+30
4.7
4.4
75
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
1.0E+30
3.9
8.4
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
61
1.1E-03
4.0
0.49
0.018 '
0.012"
0.28
0.39
0.028
0.27
0.033
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
910
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.3
9.8
4.0
4.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+05
1.0E+30
5.5
6.8
6.6
8.7
4.3
4.6
4.5
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.7
4.0
6.6
4.0
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.2
33
2.9E+03
4.0
4.0
1.0E+30
4.8
4.4
75
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.0E+30
4.0
8.5
LCTV based
on Ingestion
8.0
5.0
5.0
0.50
5.2
24
1.6E-03
500
1.0E+03b'c
15
21
0.45"
0.32 '
1.0
1.9
0.70 a
0.34
1.0
14
2.9
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
120
0.98"
9.7
2.2
180 c
9.7E-03
0.19
0.13 a
0.10
1.0E+03b'c
5.2
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
200 "
200 "
200 "
1.0E+03"
13
1.5E-03
0.016
5.2
7.5s
2.5
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
0.092
0.24
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
910
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.8
10
4.5
4.6
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+05
1.0E+30
6.4
7.2
7.0
9.1
4.9
5.3
5.2
4.6
4.5
4.7
5.1
4.5
7.6
4.5
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.0
34
3.7E+03
4.5
4.5
1.0E+30
5.2
4.9
75
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
1.0E+30
4.5
8.8
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.73 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
310C
1.0E+03b'c
4.4E-04
2.8E-02
2.0E-03
1.4E-03"
9.6E-04"
7.5E-04
0.011
4.3E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
6.9E-07
3.1E-02
5.5E-05
6.4E-04
6.4E-04
4.0E-02
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
6.6 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.50
9. 1 E-03
45 c
0.025 d
3.3E-03
1.0E-03
0.013
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 "
0.81
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-5-2
-------
Table F-5: Surface Impoundment Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methoxyethanol 2-
CAS#
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
1 43-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
110-49-6
109-86-4
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
9.79E-04
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.9
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
0.196
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
C
1.21E-04
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
5.10E+02
4.40E+02
C
2.00E-02
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.5
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
5.5
4.0E+07
12
6.5E+06
1.0E+30
3.9
3.9
3.9
18
3.9
7.7
1.0E+30
6.3
79
3.9
1.0E+30
3.9
110
3.9
3.9
3.9
10
5.8E+07
1.2E+08
1.0E+30
4.2E+15
76
1.2E+03
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.2E+14
14
270
6.1
3.9
2.3E+10
3.9
4.1
38
4.1
3.9
1.0E+30
3.9
3.9
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020 a
4.4
4.0E-03
14
0.4 a'd
2.9"
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.13a'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.78
6.9E-03
10..c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
5.5
4.0E+07
12
6.6E+06
1.0E+30
4.0
4.0
4.0
18
4.0
7.9
1.0E+30
6.4
82
4.0
1.0E+30
4.0
110
4.0
4.0
4.0
10
5.8E+07
1.2E+08
1.0E+30
4.2E+15
76
1.2E+03
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.2E+14
14
270
6.1
4.0
2.3E+10
4.0
4.2
38
4.2
4.0
1.0E+30
4.0
4.0
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.8C
0.020 a
1.0E+03"
39
29
400
19
17
16
190
7.8E-03
110C
11
19
190
0.29
0.4 a'd
6.4 c'd
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
0.34
2.0
1.0E+03b'c
0.29
29
20
0.46
4.9
9.4E-03
0.010
48
10"
0.19
0.10
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
1.0
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
21
0.080
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
200
87
0.4"
35"
1.0E+03b'c
4.0
1.0E+03b
2.7E-03
0.027
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
5.9
4.6E+07
12
6.6E+06
1.0E+30
4.5
4.5
4.5
22
4.5
9.1
1.0E+30
6.8
100
4.5
1.0E+30
4.5
110
4.5
4.5
4.5
11
6.4E+07
1.3E+08
1.0E+30
4.2E+15
76
1.2E+03
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.2E+14
14
270
6.5
4.5
2.3E+10
4.5
4.7
38
4.8
4.5
1.0E+30
4.5
4.5
LCTV based
on Ingestion
7.2E-04
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.1E-04
1.0E+03b
4.0E-03
5.6E-04
04a,b,c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03'
1.0E+03b'c
0.095
0.073 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.097
1.0E+03b'c
0.477
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.12
1.0E+03"
0.074
8.4E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
6.8
0.18
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.047
0.043 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.046
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-5-3
-------
Table F-5: Surface Impoundment Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
CAS#
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
1 08-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
1 00-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
0.147
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
0.734
1.47E+00
2.45E-01
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41 E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
3.71 E-03
4.83E-04
1.86 E-03
Inhalation
NC
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
3.60E+00
9.40E-01
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
1.90E-03
5.00E-04
2.10E-02
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
3.9
3.9
9.3
7.7E+06
3.9
1.0E+30
3.9
4.0
7.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.2
3.9
5.6
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.2
1.7E+14
1.1E+03
230
3.9E+11
95
6.6
3.9
3.9
3.9
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.5E+08
5.1
3.9
220
3.9
4.4
4.1
5.6
50
1.0E+30
2.9E+07
7.3
46
4.3
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020
6.6E-03
1.0E+03b'c
0.17
0.56
0.86 c
0.027 '
0.027 '
0.022
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
4.0
4.0
9.4
7.9E+06
4.0
1.0E+30
4.0
4.1
7.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.3
4.0
5.6
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.2
1.7E+14
1.1E+03
230
3.9E+11
96
6.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.5E+08
5.1
4.0
220
4.0
4.4
4.1
5.6
51
1.0E+30
2.9E+07
7.3
46
4.4
LCTV based
on Ingestion
58
7.8
150"
2.3d
1.0
6.0
0.44
3.4
2.5
0.048
7.8E-04
2.7
0.21
1.0E+03b'c
21 c
7.0 c
4.9
58
7.8E-03
0.58
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
9.4
160 c
0.10
0.43
0.61
0.030
27
0.37
0.71 c
5.4
68
0.70 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
130
4.8
50
1.0E+03"
67
41
0.13
0.59
1.3
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.9
5.0s
20
0.64"
0.70 '
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
4.5
4.5
11
9.0E+06
4.5
1.0E+30
4.5
4.6
7.3
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.8
4.5
6.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.8
1.8E+14
1.1E+03
230
3.9E+11
96
7.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.6E+08
5.6
4.5
220
4.5
5.0
4.7
6.0
51
1.0E+30
2.9E+07
8.0
54
4.9
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.059
2.9E-06
8.5E-06
8.5E-05
6.2E-05
0.12
2.0E-05
2.1 E-04
2.9E-07
240 c
0.036
5.7E-03
1.0E+03b'c
1.8E-03
2.7E-03
1.0E+03b'c
0.019 c
0.030
0.026
9.1 E-03
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.13
1.0E-04
1.9E-04
1.8E-03
9.5E-05
6.8E-03
3.1
0.020
0.039
4.1
1.5E-05
1.0E+03b'c
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.077
1.0E+03b'c
0.064 c
0.015
0.027
0.10
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-5-4
-------
Table F-5: Surface Impoundment Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidineo-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
1 08-05-4
75-01-4
1 08-38-3
95-47-6
1 06-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
0.734
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
0.0979
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
C
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
4.4
1.0E+30
5.5
4.6
3.9
3.9
3.9
1.7E+05
4.4
6.2
26
390
4.6
4.2
4.3
5.9
4.4
4.0
3.9
5.0
3.9
3.9
83
3.9
3.9
6.8
6.4
7.1
6.7
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
6.6E-03
4.6
0.50 "
0.35
1.8
0.039 d
0.023
0.021
0.20
7.8E-03
67
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
4.4
1.0E+30
5.5
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.7E+05
4.4
6.2
26
400
4.6
4.3
4.3
5.9
4.4
4.1
4.0
5.1
4.0
4.0
84
4.0
4.0
6.8
6.5
7.1
6.8
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.3
1.0E+03b'c
7.4E-03
0.67
23
2.1
1.0E+03b'c
6.4
0.96"
0.45
32
14
0.80
1.0
0.75
2.9
41
97
0.20"
340 c
320 c
350 c
330 c
68
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
6.0
590 c
22
0.96"
0.96*
0.50a
9.0
0.17
0.44
4.8
0.20 "
8.9
9.0
9.2
9.5
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
4.9
1.0E+30
5.9
5.1
4.5
4.5
4.5
1.7E+05
4.9
6.6
26
490
5.3
4.8
4.8
6.3
4.9
4.6
4.5
5.9
4.5
4.5
89
4.5
4.5
7.2
6.9
7.4
7.2
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.4E-04
1.8E-03
2.3E-03
0.50a
0.060
1.0E-03"
1.0E-03"
0.042
0.043
8. 1 E-05
8.8E-04
6.0E-04
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
34
0.16
0.50 "
0.094
1.4E-03"
1.4E-03"
0.033
1.4
0.011
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-5-5
-------
Table F-6: Surface Impoundment Composite Liners LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-ch loroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ch loroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
0.0171
0.0122
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
0.021
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
2.8E+05
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
2.9E+08
2.7E+05
9.2E+05
1.0E+30
2.6E+05
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.4E+05
2.9E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.3E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.4E+05
1.0E+30
2.5E+06
1.0E+30
3.9E+05
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
3.8E+05
1.7E+06
9.1E+11
1.0E+30
3.4E+05
2.8E+05
6.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.5E+06
2.7E+05
5.5E+05
2.8E+05
3.5E+05
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0E+03"
5.0"
100 "
0.50 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0'
0.50 "
0.030 "
100 "
1.0E+03"
6.0 "
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
2.8E+05
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
2.9E+08
2.7E+05
9.3E+05
1.0E+30
2.6E+05
2.8E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.5E+05
2.9E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.3E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.5E+05
1.0E+30
2.6E+06
1.0E+30
3.94E+05
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
3.8E+05
1.7E+06
9.4E+11
1.0E+30
3.5E+05
2.8E+05
6.7E+05
1.0E+30
1.5E+06
2.8E+05
5.5E+05
2.9E+05
3.5E+05
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
740"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
5.0 a
100 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0'
1.0E+03"
0.50 a
0.030 a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
100 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
6.0 a
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
740"
1.0E+03"
0.50a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.50a
0.030a
1.0E+03"
100 a
1.0E+03"
6.0"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
2.9E+05
2.8E+05
3.0E+05
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
3.2E+08
2.8E+05
9.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.6E+05
2.8E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.6E+05
3.0E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.3E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.6E+05
1.0E+30
2.6E+06
1.0E+30
4.1E+05
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
3.8E+05
1.8E+06
9.4E+11
1.0E+30
3.6E+05
2.8E+05
6.9E+05
1.0E+30
1.5E+06
2.9E+05
5.7E+05
3.0E+05
3.7E+05
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
170
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
5.0 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.501 "
0.13
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
780
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.50a
0.030a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
750"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
16.4
0.50 "
0.030 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-6-1
-------
Table F-6: Surface Impoundment Composite Liners LCTVs
Common Name
Chloropropene 3- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a,h}anthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylenetrans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropenetrans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
CAS#
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
C
8.05E-04
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
Inhalation
NC
3.00E-03
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.6
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
C
1.90E-03
7.30E-03
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.3E+05
3.4E+05
3.3E+05
4.1E+05
4.0E+06
2.8E+05
3.3E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.2E+08
1.7E+06
1.6E+06
3.6E+06
4.3E+05
6.4E+07
3.8E+07
3.0E+05
2.8E+05
3.4E+05
8.7E+05
2.3E+05
1.0E+30
3.0E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.1E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.6E+05
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+06
5.6E+05
1.0E+30
2.4E+05
2.2E+05
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0E+03"
5.0 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
7.5 "
0.45 '
0.32"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
10a
1.0E+03"
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.3E+05
3.4E+05
3.3E+05
4.1E+05
4.0E+06
2.8E+05
3.3E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.2E+08
1.7E+06
1.6E+06
3.7E+06
4.4E+05
6.4E+07
3.9E+07
3.0E+05
2.8E+05
3.4E+05
8.7E+05
2.3E+05
1.0E+30
3.0E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.1E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+06
5.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.5E+05
2.2E+05
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
5.0 "
1.0E+03"
200 "
200 "
200 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
120
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32 '
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
10:00 AM
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
610
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
200 "
200 "
200 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
110.37
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
7.5 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.6E+05
3.6E+05
3.6E+05
4.2E+05
4.1E+06
3.0E+05
3.3E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.3E+08
1.7E+06
1.6E+06
3.8E+06
4.4E+05
6.7E+07
4.0E+07
3.0E+05
2.8E+05
3.6E+05
8.7E+05
2.3E+05
1.0E+30
3.1E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.1E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.8E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+06
5.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.5E+05
2.2E+05
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
7.5s
810C
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
300
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
11
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
7.5 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
900
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-6-2
-------
Table F-6: Surface Impoundment Composite Liners LCTVs
Common Name
Dinitrotoluene 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and 1 1, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
CAS#
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
7439-92-1
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
6.12E-01
9.79E-04
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.9
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
0.196
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
C
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
1.21E-04
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
1.09E+03
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
C
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
2.00E-02
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.5
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
3.2E+05
2.6E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.4E+09
1.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.4E+06
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
2.2E+05
2.7E+05
4.5E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.7E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.4E+06
1.0E+30
1.3E+06
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
3.5E+05
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.02 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'e
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 a'c
1.0E+03b'c
5.0 "
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
3.3E+05
2.6E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.5E+09
1.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.78E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.4E+06
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
2.2E+05
2.8E+05
4.7E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.7E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.4E+06
1.0E+30
1.3E+06
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
3.5E+05
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.13 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.020 a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
540
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.4"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
3.4E+05
2.6E+05
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
2.7E+09
1.1E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.9E+05
2.7E+05
2.8E+05
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.5E+06
1.0E+30
2.9E+05
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
1.0E+30
3.0E+05
2.2E+05
2.9E+05
4.7E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.8E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.5E+06
1.0E+30
1.4E+06
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
3.7E+05
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.13a
36
1.0E+03"
130 c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
240
250 c
04a,b,c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.13 a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-6-3
-------
Table F-6: Surface Impoundment Composite Liners LCTVs
Common Name
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
CAS#
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
110-49-6
109-86-4
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
0.147
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41 E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
Inhalation
NC
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
5.10E+02
4.40E+02
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
9.2E+05
2.8E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.8E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
6.8E+10
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.4E+05
6.8E+05
1.8E+06
3.0E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
4.0E+05
2.7E+05
1.1E+06
2.8E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
7.0E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.6E+06
2.9E+05
2.2E+05
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.4E+06
3.0E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
6.2E+05
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.20 a'c
10..c
1.0E+03"
100 a
1.0E+03b'c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
9.2E+05
2.8E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.9E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
7.0E+10
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
1.0E+30
2.4E+05
6.8E+05
1.8E+06
3.0E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
4.1E+05
2.7E+05
1.1E+06
2.8E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
7.0E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.6E+06
2.9E+05
2.2E+05
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.4E+06
3.1E+05
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
6.3E+05
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b
0.20 a'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
10"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b
200 a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03M
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
2.0a
53
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
100 a
1.0E+03"
430
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
5.0 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.20 a'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
200 a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
2.0s
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
5.0 a
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
9.7E+05
2.9E+05
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
2.9E+05
2.8E+05
2.8E+05
7.5E+10
1.0E+30
2.9E+05
1.0E+30
2.4E+05
7.0E+05
1.9E+06
3.2E+05
2.8E+05
2.8E+05
2.9E+05
4.2E+05
2.9E+05
1.1E+06
2.9E+05
2.8E+05
2.8E+05
7.0E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+06
3.0E+05
2.2E+05
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.4E+06
3.1E+05
1.0E+30
2.9E+05
6.3E+05
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
0.18
0.54
7.5
3.9
1.0E+03b'c
1.3
13
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
100 a
1.0E+03b'c
120
340
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
6.463
12.04
110
8.4
430
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
100 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-6-4
-------
Table F-6: Surface Impoundment Composite Liners LCTVs
Common Name
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
rhiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidine o-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1 ,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1 ,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
0.734
1.47E+00
2.45E-01
0.734
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
0.0979
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
3.71 E-03
4.83E-04
1.86E-03
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
3.60E+00
9.40E-01
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
C
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
1.90E-03
5.00E-04
2.10E-02
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
3.4E+05
1.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.5E+05
5.9E+05
1.0E+30
3.6E+06
5.5E+05
2.6E+05
2.8E+05
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
9.3E+05
1.3E+06
3.2E+07
1.0E+30
3.0E+06
4.0E+05
4.1E+05
7.3E+06
4.6E+05
3.1E+05
2.6E+05
1.3E+09
2.9E+05
2.3E+05
1.0E+30
2.6E+05
2.8E+05
1.7E+06
1.5E+06
1.9E+06
1.6E+06
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0'
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64 '
0.64 '
0.70 "
380
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96"
0.50 a
1.0"
0.20 a
1.0E+03b'c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
3.5E+05
1.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.00E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.5E+05
6.0E+05
1.0E+30
3.6E+06
5.6E+05
2.7E+05
2.9E+05
2.5E+05
1.0E+30
9.5E+05
1.3E+06
3.2E+07
1.0E+30
3.0E+06
4.1E+05
4.1E+05
7.3E+06
4.6E+05
3.1E+05
2.6E+05
1.3E+09
2.9E+05
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.8E+05
1.7E+06
1.5E+06
1.9E+06
1.6E+06
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0'
5.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
570
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96"
1.0E+03b
400 a
1.0a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.20 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.64"
0.70 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96"
0.50a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.20 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
3.5E+05
1.1E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.5E+05
6.0E+05
1.0E+30
3.6E+06
5.7E+05
2.8E+05
3.0E+05
2.5E+05
1.0E+30
9.9E+05
1.4E+06
3.3E+07
1.0E+30
3.1E+06
4.2E+05
4.3E+05
7.3E+06
4.9E+05
3.1E+05
2.6E+05
1.5E+09
3.0E+05
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
3.0E+05
1.8E+06
1.6E+06
1.9E+06
1.7E+06
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64"
0.64"
0.70 a
8.4
120
120
0.50a
1.0E+03"
0.96"
0.96"
0.50a
2.0a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.20 a
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64"
0.64"
0.70"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.50s
1.0E+03"
0.96*
0.96"
0.50"
2.0"
0.20"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-6-5
-------
Table F-7: Waste Pile No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
ChloropropeneS- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.00E-01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
1.71E-02
1.22E-02
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
3.67E+01
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
2.10E-02
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
3.00E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
1.90E-03
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
65
10
10
10
10
1.0E+30
12
10
11
1.1E+07
10
10
170
3.3E+03
11
10
4.6E+04
4.6E+04
10
1.0E+30
33
12
1.0E+30
12
8.6E+06
11
10
210
11
12
15
1.1E+05
11
10
14
330
12
10
11
10
11
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.087
1.0
24
0.055
9.1 c
8.1
1.0E+03b'c
0.95
0.078
0.10
0.077
0.030 "
1.4
0.94
0.86
67
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
66
11
11
11
11
1.0E+30
12
11
12
1.1E+07
11
11
170
3.3E+03
12
11
4.6E+04
4.6E+04
11
1.0E+30
35
13
1.0E+30
12
8.9E+06
12
11
210
12
12
16
1.1E+05
11
11
14
330
12
11
11
11
12
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
97 c
27
27
1.0E+03"
0.061
130
0.045 d
1.0E+03b'c
1.3
1.0E+03b'c
0.16
0.2
24
0.81
81
95 e
16
12
1.0E+03b'c
6.1
400"
27
1.0E+03b'c
0.29
0.26
30
0.27
0.030 "
5.6
1.1
6.9
160 c
6
2.8
1.4
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
2.4
1.0E+03b
34
1.0E+03b
170
0.44
10
0.50a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.71
23
0.33
0.030a
0.25
2.8
330
3.7
2.9
0.11
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
70
15
15
15
15
1.0E+30
17
15
16
1.1E+07
15
15
174
3.3E+03
16
15
4.6E+04
4.6E+04
15
1.0E+30
49
17
1.0E+30
17
2.7E+07
16
15
210
16
17
21
1.1E+05
16
15
19
340
17
15
16
15
16
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.7E-04
2.8E-04"
63 c
0.26
5.5E-04
0.26 c
0.03
6.3E-06
0.61 c
3.7 c
1.0E+03b'c
4.3E-03
0.024
1.0E+03b'c
0.027
0.016
0.030a
0.12
0.020
0.11
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.62
88
0.016
110C
33
59 c
0.025
39
250 c
29 c
1.0E+03b'c
0.054
0.10
1.0E+03b'c
0.014
6.5E-04
0.016
0.030 "
400 c
0.013
0.089
1.0E+03"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-7-1
-------
Table F-7: Waste Pile No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a, hjanthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
CAS#
18540-29-9
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
1 08-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.00E-01
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
7.34E-02
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
C
8.05E-04
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
Inhalation
NC
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.60E+00
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
1.09E+03
C
7.30E-03
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
3.3E+03
11
11
11
12
35
10
11
1.0E+30
6.7E+17
1.0E+30
1.5E+05
1.8E+12
13
22
21
30
12
12
11
11
10
11
13
10
15
10
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.5E+13
15
130
3.1E+03
10
10
6.0E+16
13
12
290
10
10
10
10
1.0E+30
10
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
5.0 "
150
2.7E-03
13
1.6
0.046 '
0.033 d
0.76
1.0
0.076
0.72
0.075
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
3.3E+03
11
11
11
12
35
11
12
1.0E+30
6.7E+17
1.0E+30
1.5E+05
1.8E+12
14
22
21
31
12
12
12
11
11
11
13
11
16
11
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.5E+13
15
130
3.4E+03
11
11
6.1E+16
14
12
290
11
11
11
11
1.0E+30
11
LCTV based
on Ingestion
5.0 "
27
14
14
1.4
15
85 c
4.60E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
48
59
0.45"
0.32 '
2.8
5.4
0.70 a
1
2.7
35
8.1
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
300
2.7"
27
6.1
700 c
0.027
0.54
0.13 a
0.27
1.0E+03b'c
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
200 "
200 "
200 "
1.0E+03"
45
0.0043
0.040
17
7.5s
7.0
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
0.022
0.67
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
3.3E+03
16
16
16
17
39
15
16
1.0E+30
6.7E+17
1.0E+30
1.5E+05
1.8E+12
19
27
26
35
17
17
16
16
15
16
18
15
22
15
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.5E+13
22
137
4.7E+03
15
15
6.1E+16
18
17
290
15
15
15
15
1.0E+30
15
LCTV based
on Ingestion
2.6C
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
240 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.3E-03
0.10
7.5E-03
4.6E-03"
3.2E-03"
2.5E-03
0.031
0.015
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
2.8E-06
0.10
1.9E-04
2.1E-03
2.1E-03
0.13
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
24 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.5
0.034
170 c
0.085 d
0.010
3.5E-03
0.044
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 "
2.72
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-7-2
-------
Table F-7: Waste Pile No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
CAS#
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
1 43-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
1 26-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
110-49-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
6.12E-01
9.79E-04
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.90E+00
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
1.96E-01
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
4.90E-02
C
1.21E-04
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
5.10E+02
C
2.00E-02
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.50E+00
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
29
16
2.8E+06
45
2.4E+06
1.0E+30
10
10
10
43
10
20
1.0E+30
20
150
10
1.2E+12
10
450
10
10
10
37
5.9E+06
9.2E+06
1.0E+30
4.2E+09
310
4.3E+03
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.6E+09
51
1.1E+03
19
10
9.9E+07
10
11
150
11
10
1.0E+30
10
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020 a
14
7.4E-03
38
0.4 a'd
11 e
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 a'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.9
0.020
10..c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
29
17
2.8E+06
45
2.4E+06
1.0E+30
11
11
11
45
11
21
1.0E+30
20
150
11
1.4E+12
11
450
11
11
11
37
6.0E+06
9.4E+06
1.0E+30
4.3E+09
310
4.3E+03
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.7E+09
51
1.1E+03
19
11
1.0E+08
11
12
150
12
11
1.0E+30
11
LCTV based
on Ingestion
18
1.0E+03b'c
6.6 c
0.020 a
1.0E+03"
110
81
990
54
47
49
540
0.022
440 c
32
54
540
0.81
0.4 a'd
25c'd
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.3
8.2
1.0E+03b'c
0.81
81
56
1.8
17
0.027
0.028
130
10"
0.54
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
2.6
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
66
0.15
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
560
240
0.4"
140 '
1.0E+03b'c
13C
1.0E+03"
0.0084
0.075
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
33
21
4.7E+06
49
2.4E+06
1.0E+30
15
15
15
64
15
30
1.0E+30
25
220
15
3.4E+12
15
450
15
15
15
41
8.6E+06
1.3E+07
1.0E+30
4.3E+09
310
4.3E+03
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.7E+09
55
1.1E+03
24
15
1.0E+08
15
16
160
16
15
1.0E+30
15
LCTV based
on Ingestion
2.5E-03
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
2.5E-04
1.0E+03b
0.013
2.2E-03
0.4"
210C
8.0E-03a
1.0E+03b'c
0.38
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
29 c
0.38
1.0E+03b'c
1.6
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.42
1.0E+03b
0.27
0.019
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
23
0.69 c
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.19
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
670 c
0.18
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-7-3
-------
Table F-7: Waste Pile No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
CAS#
109-86-4
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
1 08-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
2.45E-02
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
1.47E-01
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
7.34E-01
1.47E+00
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
3.71 E-03
4.83E-04
Inhalation
NC
4.40E+02
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
3.60E+00
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50 E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
1.90E-03
5.00E-04
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
10
10
10
26
2.0E+05
10
1.0E+30
10
10
22
10
10
10
10
11
10
17
10
10
10
11
2.1E+08
3.9E+03
940
3.2E+08
390
21
10
10
10
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.4E+07
14
10
910
10
12
11
17
200
2.3E+15
2.0E+06
19
120
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.052
0.021
1.0E+03b'c
0.46
1.7
0.059 c
0.073 '
0.073 '
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
11
11
11
26
2.1E+05
11
1.0E+30
11
11
23
11
11
11
11
12
11
17
11
11
11
12
2.1E+08
3.9E+03
940
3.3E+08
390
21
11
11
11
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.4E+07
15
11
910
11
13
12
17
200
2.3E+15
2.0E+06
20
130
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.27
160
22
420"
6.2"
2.7
16
1.2
11
9.9
0.13
2. 2 E-03
8.3
0.57
1.0E+03b'c
76 c
29 c
16
160
0.022
1.6
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
27
670 c
0.27
1.0'
2
0.085
83
1.5C
0.049 c
14
190
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
200"
13
140
1.0E+03"
190
110
0.43
1.7
3.6
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
5.4
5.0 "
61
0.64*
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
15
15
15
36
3.1E+05
15
1.0E+30
15
15
27
15
15
15
15
16
15
21
15
15
15
16
3.4E+08
3.9E+03
940
3.3E+08
390
26
15
15
15
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.4E+07
19
15
910
15
17
16
21
210
2.3E+15
2.0E+06
26
180
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.20
9.7E-06
2.9E-05
2.9E-04
2.1E-04
0.42
6.6E-05
6.9E-04
1.2E-06
0.21 c
0.14
0.021
1.0E+03b'c
6. 1 E-03
9. 1 E-03
1.0E+03b'c
1.3E-03C
0.095
0.085
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.43
3.5E-04
6.5E-04
6.0E-03
3.3E-04
0.023
11
0.068
0.13
14
5.9E-05
20 c
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.26
1.0E+03b'c
4.4E-03 c
0.048
0.088
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-7-4
-------
Table F-7: Waste Pile No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidineo-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
1 08-05-4
75-01-4
1 08-38-3
95-47-6
1 06-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
2.45E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
9.79E-02
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
1.86E-03
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
9.40E-01
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
C
2.10E-02
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
12
12
1.0E+30
16
13
10
10
10
1.6E+05
12
19
100
610
12
11
12
18
12
11
10
12
10
10
200
10
10
22
20
23
21
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.059
0.019
13
0.50 "
0.94
7.1
0.11 d
0.060
0.057
0.54
0.021
210C
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
12
13
1.0E+30
17
13
11
11
11
1.6E+05
12
20
100
640
12
12
12
18
12
11
11
13
11
11
210
11
11
22
21
23
22
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.70"
9.2
1.0E+03b'c
0.021
2
64
5.9
1.0E+03b'c
25.2
0.96"
0.96"
88
45
1.0'
2.7
1.9
8.1
57
270
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
180
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.70 "
17
1.0E+03b'c
86 c
0.96"
0.96*
0.50a
25
0.44
1.2
13
0.20 "
29
29
30
30
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
17
17
1.0E+30
21
18
15
15
15
1.7E+05
17
24
110
920
17
16
16
23
17
16
15
18
15
15
260
15
15
27
25
28
27
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.031
4.6E-04
6. 1 E-03
7.7E-03
0.50a
0.20
3.5E-03"
3.5E-03"
0.14
0.15
2.5E-04
2.5E-03
2.0E-03
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.35
110
0.54
0.50 "
0.32
4.8E-03 '
4.8E-03 d
0.11
2.0 "
0.038
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-7-5
-------
Table F-8: Waste Pile Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
ChloropropeneS- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
1.71E-02
1.22E-02
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
2.10E-02
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
3.00E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
1.90E-03
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
210
24
24
24
24
1.0E+30
29
24
25
2.6E+11
24
24
560
2.2E+04
26
24
1.5E+06
1.5E+06
24
1.0E+30
120
32
1.0E+30
29
7.9E+09
28
24
760
27
29
42
9.2E+06
26
24
37
1.6E+03
29
24
26
24
26
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.16
2.0
48
0.13
290 c
21
1.0E+03b'c
2.3
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.030a
3.7
2.3
2.0
160
5.0 "
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
210
24
24
25
24
1.0E+30
30
24
26
2.6E+11
24
24
560
2.2E+04
27
24
1.5E+06
1.5E+06
24
1.0E+30
130
33
1.0E+30
30
8.0E+09
28
24
760
28
29
43
9.5E+06
26
24
37
1.6E+03
29
24
26
24
27
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
300 c
60
60
1.0E+03b
0.15
300
0.11 d
1.0E+03b'c
3
1.0E+03b'c
0.34
0.38
50
1.8
180
210"
52
32
1.0E+03b'c
15
880"
60
1.0E+03b'c
0.68
0.67
72
0.50a
0.030a
13
2.4
18
760 c
14
6.0"
3.3
1.0E+03"
5.0 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
5.3
1.0E+03"
76
1.0E+03b
360
0.98
23
0.50"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.7
56
0.50 "
0.030 "
0.58
7.4
730
6.0 "
6.3
0.26
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
210
33
33
34
33
1.0E+30
41
33
36
2.6E+11
33
33
560
2.2E+04
35
33
1.5E+06
1.5E+06
33
1.0E+30
180
42
1.0E+30
40
1.7E+10
37
33
760
36
40
57
9.5E+06
35
33
47
1.6E+03
40
33
35
33
35
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
8.9E-04
6.6E-04 d
1.0E+03b'c
0.56
0.012
1.7 c
0.06
1.4E-05
19C
120 c
1.0E+03b'c
0.016
0.058
1.0E+03b'c
0.063
0.043
0.030 "
0.56
0.046
0.25
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.4
210
0.036
1.0E+03b'c
73
390 c
0.056
87
1.0E+03b'c
950 c
1.0E+03b'c
0.20
0.25
1.0E+03b'c
0.032
1.5E-03
0.044
1.0E+03b'c
0.030
0.20
1.0E+03b
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-8-1
-------
Table F-8: Waste Pile Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT, p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a, hjanthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
CAS#
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
1 56-59-2
1 56-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
6.12E-01
C
8.05E-04
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
Inhalation
NC
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.60E+00
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
1.09E+03
C
7.30E-03
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
2.2E+04
26
26
26
29
110
24
26
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.1E+07
1.0E+30
35
64
61
92
29
28
27
25
24
26
34
24
40
24
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
40
430
5.0E+04
24
24
1.0E+30
35
31
1.0E+03
24
24
24
24
1.0E+30
24
87
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
370
7.1E-03
38
4.6
0.11 '
0.075"
1.8
2.4
0.18
1.7
0.20
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
2.2E+04
26
26
26
29
110
24
26
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.1E+07
1.0E+30
36
64
61
93
30
29
28
26
24
27
35
24
41
24
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
41
430
5.3E+04
24
24
1.0E+30
36
31
1.0E+03
24
24
24
24
1.0E+30
24
89
LCTV based
on Ingestion
73
32
32
3.2
36
260 c
0.01
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
140
150
0.45"
0.32 '
6.3
12
0.70 a
2.6
6
91
18
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
800
6.0"
60
15
1.0E+03b'c
0.06
1.2
0.13a
0.6
1.0E+03b'c
54 c
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
200 "
200 "
200 "
1.0E+03"
140 c
9.5E-03
0.11
49
7.5s
17
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
0.58
1.5
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.2E+04
35
35
35
38
120
33
35
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.1E+07
1.0E+30
50
73
70
100
38
40
38
35
33
35
44
33
58
33
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
55
430
7.6E+04
33
33
1.0E+30
46
39
1.0E+03
33
33
33
33
1.0E+30
33
95
LCTV based
on Ingestion
17C
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.4E-03
0.28
0.022
0.010 '
7.1E-03"
5.7E-03
0.083
0.032
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
8.9E-06
0.23
4.8E-04
4.7E-03
4.7E-03
0.29
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
160 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.9
0.091
500 c
0.19"
0.024
7.8E-03
0.10
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.13a
6.0
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-8-2
-------
Table F-8: Waste Pile Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
CAS#
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
1 06-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
1 43-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
110-49-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
9.79E-04
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.90E+00
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
1.96E-01
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
4.90E-02
C
1.21E-04
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
5.10E+02
C
2.00E-02
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.50E+00
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
45
1.6E+09
138
5.5E+08
1.0E+30
24
24
24
150
24
58
1.0E+30
57
900
24
1.0E+30
24
1.5E+03
24
24
24
110
6.0E+09
1.3E+10
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.1E+03
3.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
160
4.6E+03
53
24
1.7E+14
24
27
490
25
24
1.0E+30
24
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020 "
39.6
0.045
72
04 '.'
38 '
8.0E-03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.13a'c
1.0E+03b'c
5.0s
0.039
10..c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
45
1.6E+09
139
5.6E+08
1.0E+30
24
24
24
150
24
60
1.0E+30
57
930
24
1.0E+30
24
1.5E+03
24
24
24
110
6.1E+09
1.4E+10
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.1E+03
3.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
160
4.6E+03
53
24
1.7E+14
24
27
490
26
24
1.0E+30
24
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
20 c
0.020 "
1.0E+03"
240
180
1.0E+03"
120
130
140
1.0E+03b
0.048
1.0E+03b'c
66
120
1.0E+03b
1.8
04 '.'
83c'd
8.0E-03'
1.0E+03b'c
0.50a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
34
1.0E+03b'c
1.8
180
130
6
37
0.058
0.063
300
10"
1.2
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
5.8
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
190 c
0.91
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
530
0.4 "
450 "
1.0E+03b'c
35 c
1.0E+03"
0.019
0.17
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
56
2.4E+09
150
5.6E+08
1.0E+30
33
33
33
214
33
82
1.0E+30
66
1.4E+03
33
1.0E+30
33
1.5E+03
33
33
33
120
8.1E+09
1.9E+10
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.1E+03
3.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
170
4.6E+03
63
33
1.7E+14
33
36
500
36
33
1.0E+30
33
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.007
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.6E-03
1.0E+03b
0.029
6.5E-03
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 "
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.2
1.0E+03b'c
3.6
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.1
1.0E+03b
0.72
0.11
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
50
2.1 c
04a,b,c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03'
1.0E+03b'c
0.50a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.55
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-8-3
-------
Table F-8: Waste Pile Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
CAS#
109-86-4
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
1 0595-95-6
1 00-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
1 08-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
1 29-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
2.45E-02
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
1.47E-01
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
7.34E-01
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
3.71E-03
Inhalation
NC
4.40E+02
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
3.60E+00
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
1.90E-03
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
24
24
24
73
2.7E+07
24
1.0E+30
24
25
66
24
24
24
24
28
24
46
24
24
24
26
6.6E+17
2.9E+04
3.8E+03
3.6E+17
1.3E+03
61
24
24
24
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.3E+11
39
24
3.6E+03
24
31
26
47
670
1.0E+30
8.9E+09
58
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.12
0.061
1.0E+03b'c
0.87
4.7
270 c
0.18"
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
24
24
24
75
2.8E+07
24
1.0E+30
24
25
67
24
24
24
24
29
24
47
24
24
24
27
7.0E+17
2.9E+04
3.8E+03
3.6E+17
1.3E+03
62
24
24
24
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.3E+11
40
24
3.6E+03
24
32
27
47
670
1.0E+30
9.0E+09
59
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.6
200"
48
930 M
9.2"
6
37
2.8
33 c
22
0.3
4.80E-03
23
1.3
1.0E+03b'c
560 c
97 c
46
360
0.048
3.6
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
73 c
1.0E+03b'c
0.6
1.0'
3.8
0.2
230
4.9 c
220 c
43
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
200 "
29
400
1.0E+03"
410
250
1.3
2.0 "
8.0
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
11.9
5.0 "
170
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
33
33
33
110
4.5E+07
33
1.0E+30
33
34
76
33
33
33
33
37
33
57
33
33
33
37
9.4E+17
2.9E+04
3.8E+03
3.6E+17
1.3E+03
71
33
33
33
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.4E+11
51
33
3.6E+03
33
40
36
57
670
1.0E+30
9.0E+09
72
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.44
2.2E-05
6.3E-05
6.7E-04
4.6E-04
1.1
1.5E-04
1.5E-03
4.7E-06
1.0E+03b'c
0.49
0.057
1.0E+03b'c
0.013
0.022
1.0E+03b'c
5.8 c
0.27
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0
7.7E-04
1.4E-03
0.013
7.4E-04
0.050
30
0.15
0.29
31
2.4E-04C
1.0E+03b'c
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.57
1.0E+03b'c
20 c
0.14
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-8-4
-------
Table F-8: Waste Pile Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidineo-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
1 08-05-4
75-01-4
1 08-38-3
95-47-6
1 06-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
9.79E-02
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
4.83E-04
1.86E-03
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
9.40E-01
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
C
5.00E-04
2.10E-02
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
510
30
31
1.0E+30
45
33
24
24
24
9.5E+06
29
54
340
5.8E+03
29
28
29
50
30
26
24
32
24
24
1.2E+03
24
24
65
58
67
64
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.18*
0.15
0.035
33
0.50a
2.3
24
0.25"
0.14
0.14
1.0'
0.048
640 c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
520
30
32
1.0E+30
45
34
24
24
24
9.7E+06
29
55
340
6.0E+03
30
29
29
51
31
26
24
32
24
24
1.2E+03
24
24
65
59
68
64
LCTV based
on Ingestion
770
0.70"
23
1.0E+03b'c
0.046
5.5
170
14
1.0E+03b'c
83 c
0.96"
0.96"
210
120
1.0'
6
4.8
18
170
600
0.2 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
430
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.64*
0.70 "
44
1.0E+03b'c
280 c
0.96"
0.96*
0.50 "
61
1.1
2.7
29
0.20 "
84
83
88
89
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
710
39
40
1.0E+30
56
43
33
33
33
9.7E+06
39
64
340
8.7E+03
40
37
38
61
40
35
33
44
33
33
1.4E+03
33
33
74
68
77
73
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.34
0.072
1.0E-03
0.013
0.017
0.50 "
0.47
7.8E-03 '
7.8E-03 d
0.33
0.35
6.1E-04
0.014
4.5E-03
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.32"
0.70 "
250
1.2
0.50a
0.74
0.11 '
0.011 d
0.25
2.0 "
0.084
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-8-5
-------
Table F-9: Waste Pile Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
1.71E-02
1.22E-02
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.00E+01
2.10E-02
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
1.0E+30
7.3E+07
6.9E+07
7.4E+07
4.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.1E+07
5.9E+08
1.0E+30
4.7E+08
7.3E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.2E+07
8.3E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.2E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+08
1.0E+30
2.3E+09
1.0E+30
1.1E+08
3.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.8E+09
1.2E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.2E+07
6.0E+08
1.9E+08
1.0E+30
9.5E+08
7.5E+07
2.2E+08
7.2E+07
9.6E+07
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0E+03"
5.0 a
100 a
0.50 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0'
0.50 a
0.030 a
100 a
1.0E+03"'
6.0 a
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
7.3E+07
7.1E+07
7.7E+07
4.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.2E+07
6.0E+08
1.0E+30
4.8E+08
7.4E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.4E+07
8.3E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.2E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+08
1.0E+30
2.3E+09
1.0E+30
1.1E+08
3.1E+08
1.0E+30
1.8E+09
1.2E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.3E+07
6.0E+08
2.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+09
7.6E+07
2.2E+08
7.3E+07
9.8E+07
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
740 b
1.0E+03blC
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
5.0"
100 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03blC
1.0E+03b'c
1.0'
1.0E+03"
0.50 a
0.030 a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
100 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
6.0 a
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
740"
1.0E+03"
0.50a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.50a
0.030a
1.0E+03"
100 a
1.0E+03"
6.0 a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
7.9E+07
7.6E+07
8.1E+07
4.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.4E+07
6.2E+08
1.0E+30
4.8E+08
7.8E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.7E+07
8.7E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.2E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.8E+08
1.0E+30
2.3E+09
1.0E+30
1.2E+08
3.1E+08
1.0E+30
1.8E+09
1.2E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.6E+07
6.0E+08
2.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+09
7.8E+07
2.3E+08
7.7E+07
9.9E+07
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
750"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
5.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50a
36
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.50a
0.030a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
750"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 "
0.030 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-9-1
-------
Table F-9: Waste Pile Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
ChloropropeneS- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDTp.p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a, hjanthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
CAS#
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
C
8.05E-04
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
Inhalation
NC
3.00E-03
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.60E+00
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
C
1.90E-03
7.30E-03
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.1E+07
9.1E+07
9.1E+07
1.2E+08
1.2E+09
7.7E+07
8.7E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.5E+08
4.3E+08
1.3E+09
1.2E+08
3.4E+14
3.0E+21
7.3E+08
5.8E+08
8.5E+07
1.3E+11
3.1E+08
1.0E+30
8.3E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.7E+08
7.2E+07
1.0E+30
8.9E+11
9.2E+09
1.0E+30
4.0E+08
2.9E+08
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0E+03"
5.0 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
7.5 "
0.45 '
0.32"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
10a
1.0E+03"
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.1E+07
9.2E+07
9.1E+07
1.2E+08
1.2E+09
7.8E+07
8.8E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.6E+08
4.3E+08
1.4E+09
1.2E+08
3.5E+14
3.0E+21
7.4E+08
5.8E+08
8.7E+07
1.3E+11
3.1E+08
1.0E+30
8.5E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.9E+08
7.2E+07
1.0E+30
9.1E+11
9.4E+09
1.0E+30
4.0E+08
2.9E+08
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
5.0 "
1.0E+03"
200 "
200 "
200 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32 '
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
10a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
200 "
200 "
200 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
7.5 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.6E+07
9.6E+07
9.6E+07
1.2E+08
1.3E+09
8.3E+07
8.8E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.7E+08
4.5E+08
1.4E+09
1.3E+08
4.2E+14
3.0E+21
7.4E+08
5.8E+08
9.3E+07
1.3E+11
3.1E+08
1.0E+30
8.8E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.9E+08
7.7E+07
1.0E+30
9.3E+11
9.4E+09
1.0E+30
4.0E+08
2.9E+08
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
7.5s
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
7.5 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-9-2
-------
Table F-9: Waste Pile Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Dinitrotoluene2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
CAS#
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
7439-92-1
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
6.12E-01
9.79E-04
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.90E+00
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
1.96E-01
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
C
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
1.21E-04
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
1.09E+03
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
1.00E+01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
C
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
2.00E-02
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.50E+00
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
8.9E+07
4.4E+08
1.0E+30
7.2E+07
1.0E+30
3.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.3E+07
7.3E+07
7.8E+07
1.0E+30
3.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.0E+08
1.0E+30
7.3E+07
1.0E+30
7.5E+07
1.0E+30
7.4E+07
2.9E+08
7.5E+07
1.4E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.1E+09
1.0E+30
3.8E+08
2.9E+08
1.0E+30
3.0E+08
1.0E+08
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'e
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 a'c
1.0E+03b'c
5.0 "
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
9.1E+07
4.5E+08
1.0E+30
7.2E+07
1.0E+30
3.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.3E+07
7.4E+07
8.0E+07
1.0E+30
3.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.0E+08
1.0E+30
7.3E+07
1.0E+30
7.5E+07
1.0E+30
7.4E+07
2.9E+08
7.6E+07
1.4E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.1E+09
1.0E+30
3.9E+08
2.9E+08
1.0E+30
3.0E+08
1.1E+08
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.13 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.020 a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.4"
1.0E+03c'e
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
9.5E+07
4.5E+08
1.0E+30
7.6E+07
1.0E+30
3.1E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.8E+07
7.7E+07
8.2E+07
1.0E+30
3.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.2E+08
1.0E+30
7.9E+07
1.0E+30
7.8E+07
1.0E+30
7.8E+07
2.9E+08
8.0E+07
1.5E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.1E+09
1.0E+30
4.0E+08
2.9E+08
1.0E+30
3.0E+08
1.1E+08
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.13a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
04a,b,c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50a
0.13a'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.13 a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-9-3
-------
Table F-9: Waste Pile Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
CAS#
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
110-49-6
109-86-4
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
1.47E-01
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41 E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
Inhalation
NC
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
5.10E+02
4.40E+02
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
6.2E+08
7.3E+07
1.0E+30
7.1E+07
7.4E+07
7.1E+07
7.9E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.6E+07
1.0E+30
3.8E+08
3.7E+08
5.1E+08
8.1E+07
7.4E+07
7.4E+07
7.3E+07
1.2E+08
8.0E+07
3.2E+08
7.4E+07
7.3E+07
7.1E+07
3.1E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.6E+08
7.9E+07
2.9E+08
2.9E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.4E+07
1.0E+30
7.5E+07
1.6E+10
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.20 a'c
10"
1.0E+03"
100 a
1.0E+03b'c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
6.2E+08
7.5E+07
1.0E+30
7.2E+07
7.6E+07
7.2E+07
8.1E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.7E+07
1.0E+30
3.8E+08
3.7E+08
5.1E+08
8.4E+07
7.6E+07
7.5E+07
7.5E+07
1.2E+08
8.0E+07
3.2E+08
7.5E+07
7.3E+07
7.2E+07
3.1E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.6E+08
8.0E+07
3.0E+08
2.9E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.5E+07
1.0E+30
7.5E+07
1.6E+10
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b
0.20 a'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
10"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
200 a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03M
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
2.0 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
100 a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
5.0 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.20 a'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
200 a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
2.0a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
5.0 a
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
6.4E+08
7.8E+07
1.0E+30
7.4E+07
8.0E+07
7.6E+07
8.3E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.0E+07
1.0E+30
3.8E+08
3.9E+08
5.2E+08
8.7E+07
8.0E+07
7.8E+07
7.8E+07
1.3E+08
8.2E+07
3.3E+08
7.7E+07
7.7E+07
7.6E+07
3.1E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.8E+08
8.4E+07
3.0E+08
2.9E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.9E+07
1.0E+30
8.0E+07
1.6E+10
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
50
150
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
340
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
100 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"'C
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
100 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-9-4
-------
Table F-9: Waste Pile Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidineo-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
rrichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
7.34E-01
1.47E+00
2.45E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
9.79E-02
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
3.71 E-03
4.83E-04
1.86E-03
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
3.60E+00
9.40E-01
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
C
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
1.90E-03
5.00E-04
2.10E-02
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
1.1E+09
3.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.3E+08
1.3E+10
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+08
7.1E+07
8.3E+07
3.9E+08
1.0E+30
4.4E+08
3.7E+08
1.6E+10
1.0E+30
3.3E+09
1.1E+08
1.1E+08
1.0E+30
1.4E+08
7.5E+08
4.7E+08
1.0E+30
8.2E+07
3.5E+08
1.0E+30
7.4E+07
7.6E+07
4.6E+08
4.1E+08
5.0E+08
4.8E+08
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0'
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64 '
0.64 '
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96"
0.50 "
1.0"
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.2E+09
3.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.3E+08
1.3E+10
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+08
7.3E+07
8.3E+07
3.9E+08
1.0E+30
4.4E+08
3.8E+08
1.6E+10
1.0E+30
3.3E+09
1.1E+08
1.1E+08
1.0E+30
1.4E+08
7.5E+08
4.7E+08
1.0E+30
8.5E+07
3.5E+08
1.0E+30
7.5E+07
7.8E+07
4.7E+08
4.1E+08
5.2E+08
4.8E+08
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0'
5.0 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96"
1.0E+03"
400 "
1.0"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.64e
0.70 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96e
0.50a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.2E+09
3.1E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.3E+08
1.3E+10
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+08
7.5E+07
8.6E+07
3.9E+08
1.0E+30
4.7E+08
3.8E+08
1.6E+10
1.0E+30
3.5E+09
1.2E+08
1.2E+08
1.0E+30
1.5E+08
7.5E+08
4.7E+08
1.0E+30
8.8E+07
3.5E+08
1.0E+30
7.8E+07
8.1E+07
4.8E+08
4.2E+08
5.2E+08
4.9E+08
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64"
0.64"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.50a
1.0E+03b
0.96e
0.96"
0.50a
2.0s
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.20 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64"
0.64"
0.70'
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.50s
1.0E+03"
0.96*
0.96"
0.50 '
2.0s
0.20s
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-9-5
-------
Table F-10: Land Application Unit LCTVs (No-Liner)
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ch loroisopropyljether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
Chloropropene 3- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
1.71E-02
1.22E-02
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
2.10E-02
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
3.00E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
1.90E-03
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
8.5
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.0E+30
2.2
1.9
2.0
7.6E+07
1.9
1.9
21
370
2.0
1.9
9.2E+03
9.5E+03
1.9
1.0E+30
6.8
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
6.9E+07
2.0
1.9
26
2.0
2.1
2.8
3.5E+04
2.0
1.9
2.4
39
2.1
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.013
0.13
3.5
9.9E-03
1.8C
5.0
1.0E+03b'c
0.17
0.014
0.015
0.014
0.030 "
0.24
0.17
0.16
43
5.0 "
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
8.5
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.0E+30
2.2
1.9
2.0
7.7E+07
1.9
1.9
22
370
2.0
1.9
9.3E+03
9.5E+03
1.9
1.0E+30
7.0
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
6.9E+07
2.1
1.9
26
2.0
2.2
2.8
3.6E+04
2.0
1.9
2.4
39
2.2
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
13C
4.7
4.7
1.0E+03b
0.011
23
8.2E-03 d
1.0E+03b'c
0.23
160 c
0.024
0.026
3.6
0.14
14
16"
9.8
2.2
1.0E+03b'c
1.1
69"
4.7
130 c
0.049
0.038
5.3
0.048
0.030 "
0.98
0.19
1.2
19C
1.1
0.49
0.24
260
5.0 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.42
1.0E+03b
6.0
1.0E+03b
29
0.076
1.8
0.38
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.12
4.1
0.059
0.030"
0.044
0.48
57
0.66
0.50
0.019
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
8.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
2.6
2.2
2.3
7.8E+07
2.2
2.2
22
370
2.3
2.2
9.3E+03
9.5E+03
2.2
1.0E+30
8.2
2.5
1.0E+30
2.5
1.2E+08
2.3
2.2
27
2.3
2.5
3.2
3.6E+04
2.3
2.2
2.7
40
2.5
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.3
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
5.6E-05
4.2E-05"
440 c
0.037
5.6E-04
0.030C
4.0E-03
9.2E-07
0.12C
0.77 c
1.0E+03b'c
7.2E-04
3.4E-03
1.0E+03b'c
3.9E-03
2.4E-03
0.030"
0.014
2.8E-03
0.016
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.090
13
2.3E-03
780 c
4.8
6.7 c
3.7E-03
5.7
50 c
6.0 c
1.0E+03b'c
9.0E-03
0.015
1.0E+03b'c
2.0E-03
9.3E-05
2.4E-03
0.030 "
48 c
1.9E-03
0.013
1.0E+03"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-10-1
-------
Table F-10: Land Application Unit LCTVs (No-Liner)
Common Name
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a,h}anthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylenetrans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropenetrans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
CAS#
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
1 08-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
6.12E-01
C
8.05E-04
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
Inhalation
NC
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.60E+00
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
1.09E+03
C
7.30E-03
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
370
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
5.0
1.9
2.0
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.8E+04
1.0E+30
2.5
3.4
3.3
4.4
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.3
1.9
3.0
1.9
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.7
17
1.3E+03
1.9
1.9
1.0E+30
2.3
2.1
36
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.0E+30
1.9
4.3
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
61
4.9E-04
2.0
0.25
8.5E-03 '
6.0E-03 d
0.14
0.19
0.014
0.13
0.015
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
370
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
5.0
1.9
2.0
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.9E+04
1.0E+30
2.5
3.4
3.3
4.4
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.3
1.9
3.0
1.9
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.7
17
1.3E+03
1.9
1.9
1.0E+30
2.3
2.1
36
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.0E+30
1.9
4.3
LCTV based
on Ingestion
5
2.4
2.4
0.24
2.5
12
8.0E-04
240
1.0E+03b'c
7.4
10
0.32"
0.22 '
0.48
0.94
0.44
0.17
0.47
6.6
1.4
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
53
0.47"
4.7
1.1
88 c
4.7E-03
0.094
0.094
0.047
1.0E+03b'c
2.6
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
200 "
200 "
200 "
1.0E+03"
6.5
7.5E-04
7.2E-03
2.6
7.5s
1.2
0.45"
0.32"
0.42
0.042
0.12
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
370
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
5.2
2.2
2.3
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.1E+04
1.0E+30
2.8
3.7
3.6
4.7
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.6
2.2
3.4
2.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.1
17
1.6E+03
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
2.6
2.4
36
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
4.5
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.30C
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
110C
1.0E+03b'c
2.0E-04
0.014
1.0E-03
6.6E-04"
4.7E-04"
3.7E-04
4.8E-03
2.1E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
3.5E-07
0.015
2.7E-05
3.1E-04
3.1E-04
0.019
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
2.7 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.22
4.6E-03
23 c
0.012"
1.5E-03
5.0E-04
6.4E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 "
0.39
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-10-2
-------
Table F-10: Land Application Unit LCTVs (No-Liner)
Common Name
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and 1 1, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane, 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1 ,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
CAS#
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
110-49-6
109-86-4
78-93-3
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
9.79E-04
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.90E+00
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
1.96E-01
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
1.47E+01
C
1.21E-04
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
5.10E+02
4.40E+02
3.30E+01
C
2.00E-02
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.50E+00
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
2.7
1.3E+07
6.1
2.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.9
1.9
1.9
6.7
1.9
3.4
1.0E+30
3.1
31
1.9
1.0E+30
1.9
55
1.9
1.9
1.9
5.2
2.1E+07
4.1E+07
1.0E+30
2.8E+15
39
500
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.0E+14
6.9
130
3.0
1.9
3.0E+09
1.9
2.0
19
2.0
1.9
1.0E+30
1.9
1.9
1.9
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020 a
2.2
1.5E-03
6.2
0.4 a'd
1.5'
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 a'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.25
3.3E-03
10..c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
2.7
1.3E+07
6.1
2.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.9
1.9
1.9
6.8
1.9
3.4
1.0E+30
3.2
32
1.9
1.0E+30
1.9
55
1.9
1.9
1.9
5.3
2.1E+07
4.1E+07
1.0E+30
2.8E+15
39
500
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.0E+14
6.9
130
3.0
1.9
3.1E+09
1.9
2.0
19
2.0
1.9
1.0E+30
1.9
1.9
1.9
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
0.90 c
0.020 a
1.0E+03"
19
14
150
9.4
7.6
7.7
94
3.7E-03
54 c
5.2
9.4
94
0.14
0.4 a'd
3.3 c'd
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.29
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
0.17
0.95
820 c
0.14
14
9.8
0.23
2.4
4.4E-03
4.9E-03
23
1.0E+01 a'c
0.094
0.047
28
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
0.46
1.0E+03b
570
10
0.031
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
97
42
0.4"
18"
1.0E+03b'c
2.0
1.0E+03b
1.3E-03
0.013
1.0E+03b
970
840
63
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
3.0
1.5E+07
6.4
2.0E+06
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
8.0
2.2
4.0
1.0E+30
3.4
38
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
55
2.2
2.2
2.2
5.5
2.3E+07
4.4E+07
1.0E+30
2.8E+15
39
500
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.0E+14
7.2
130
3.3
2.2
3.1E+09
2.2
2.3
19
2.3
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.6E-04
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
4.4E-05
1.0E+03b
1.9E-03
2.9E-04
04a,b,c
680 c
8.0E-03a
1.0E+03b'c
0.049
0.030C
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.050
1.0E+03b'c
0.23
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.060
1.0E+03b
0.038
3.2E-03
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
3.3
0.093
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.024
0.018 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.024
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-10-3
-------
Table F-10: Land Application Unit LCTVs (No-Liner)
Common Name
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
CAS#
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1 634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
1.47E-01
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
0.734
1.47E+00
2.45E-01
7.34E-01
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71 E-04
8.05E-04
2. 41 E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
3.71 E-03
4.83E-04
1.86 E-03
Inhalation
NC
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
3.60E+00
9.40E-01
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50 E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
1.90E-03
5.00E-04
2.10E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
1.9
4.0
3.6E+05
1.9
1.0E+30
1.9
1.9
3.5
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
3.1E+12
440
110
3.0E+10
48
3.3
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.1E+08
2.5
1.9
110
1.9
2.2
2.0
2.8
25
1.0E+30
6.6E+06
3.3
18
2.1
2.1
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
9.7E-03
3.3E-03
1.0E+03b'c
0.078
0.28
0.20 c
0.013*
0.013*
0.011
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.9
4.1
3.7E+05
1.9
1.0E+30
1.9
2.0
3.5
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.9
2.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
3.1E+12
440
110
3.1E+10
48
3.3
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.1E+08
2.5
1.9
110
1.9
2.2
2.0
2.8
26
1.0E+30
6.6E+06
3.3
18
2.1
2.2
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.7
73d
1.1"
0.47
2.9
0.22
1.7
1.2
0.023
3.7E-04
1.4
0.098
1.0E+03b'c
8.6 c
3.6 c
2.4
28
3.7E-03
0.28
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
4.6
79 c
0.047
0.21
0.26
0.015
14
0.19
0.16 c
2.5
26
0.52
1.6
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
2.3
22
1.0E+03*
33
20
0.066
0.29
0.63
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.94
2.7
10.0
0.64*
0.70"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
4.7
3.8E+05
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
3.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.2
3.0
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
3.4E+12
440
110
3.1E+10
48
3.6
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1 . 1 E+08
2.8
2.2
110
2.2
2.4
2.3
3.0
26
1.0E+30
6.7E+06
3.7
21
2.4
2.4
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.029
1.4E-06
4. 1 E-06
4.2E-05
3.0E-05
0.060
9.6E-06
1.0E-04
1.5E-07
20 c
0.018
2.9E-03
1.0E+03b'c
8.8E-04
1.3E-03
1.0E+03b'c
4.3E-03C
0.014
1 .OE-02
4.5E-03
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.063
5.0E-05
9.4E-05
8.8E-04
4.7E-05
3.3E-03
1.6
9.9E-03
0.019
2.0
7.1 E-06
1.0E+03b'c
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.037
1.0E+03b'c
0.015 c
7.1 E-03
0.010
0.050
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-10-4
-------
Table F-10: Land Application Unit LCTVs (No-Liner)
Common Name
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidine o-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1 ,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1 ,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
9.79E-02
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
C
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
1.0E+30
2.7
2.2
1.9
1.9
1.9
6.7E+04
2.1
3.1
13
150
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.9
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.3
1.9
1.9
29
1.9
1.9
3.4
3.2
3.5
3.4
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
3.2E-03
2.2
0.50 "
0.17
0.93
0.019"
0.011
0.010
0.098
3.8E-03
34
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
2.7
2.3
1.9
1.9
1.9
6.7E+04
2.1
3.1
13
150
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.9
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.4
1.9
1.9
29
1.9
1.9
3.4
3.2
3.5
3.4
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
3.7E-03
0.33
11
1
1.0E+03b'c
3.3
0.61 d
0.21
15
7.2
0.39
0.47
0.35
1.4
34
47
0.14
170 c
160
170
170
45
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
2.9
290 c
11
0.58"
0.58*
0.50a
4.4
0.080
0.21
2.3
0.20"
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
3.0
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
6.8E+04
2.4
3.3
14
170
2.5
2.3
2.4
3.2
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.2
31
2.2
2.2
3.7
3.5
3.8
3.7
LCTV based
on Ingestion
6.6E-05
8.8E-04
1 . 1 E-03
0.50a
0.030
5.1E-04"
5.1E-04"
0.021
0.021
3.7E-05
3. 1 E-04
2.9E-04
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
16
0.079
0.50 "
0.046
6.9E-04 '
6.9E-04 d
0.016
0.68
5.5E-03
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-10-5
------- |