oml
ORNLTM-8652
OAK RIDGE
NATIONAL
LABORATORY
MAFtU
Multiple-Pathways Screening-Level
Assessment of a Hazardous Waste
Incineration Facility
G. A. Holton
C. C. Travis
E. L. Etnier
F. R. O'Donnell
D. M. Hetrick
E. Dixon
OPERATED BY
MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
FOR THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
-------
Printed in the United States of America. Available from
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161
NTIS price codes—Printed Copy: A04; Microfiche A01
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the
United States Government Neither theUnitedStatesGovBrnment nor any agency
thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or
assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein
to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or
any agency thereof The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not
necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency
thereof.
-------
ORNL/TM-8652
Health and Safety Research Division
MULTIPLE-PATHWAYS SCREENING-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF A
HAZARDOOS WASTE INCINERATION FACILITY
G. A. Holton, C. C. Travis, E. L. Etnier,
F. R. O'Donnell, D. Hetrick,
and E. Dixon
Date of Issue — September, 1984
Prepared for the
Incineration Research Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Under Interagency Agreement No. AD-89-F-1-768-0
Prepared by the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
operated by
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
for the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
under Contract No. DE-AC05-840R21400
1. Computer Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
2. Environmental and Occupational Safety Division, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory
-------
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v
1. SUMMARY 1
2. INTRODUCTION 7
2.1 INHALATION EXPOSURE 9
2.2 FOOD CHAIN DOSE 10
2.3 WATER INGESTION DOSE 10
3. INCINERATION FACILITY DESIGN 11
4. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 12
4.1 STACK EMISSION SOURCE TERMS 13
5. SITE SELECTION 15
6. INHALATION DOSE 16
6.1 MODEL SELECTION 18
6.2 INPUT PARAMETERS 19
6.3 RESULTS 20
7. FOOD CHAIN DOSE 23
7.1 MODEL SELECTION 23
7.2 INPUT PARAMETERS 28
7.2.1 Agricultural Parameters 29
7.2.2 Chemical-Specific Parameters 30
7.3 RESULTS 36
8. WATER INGESTION EXPOSURE 40
8.1 MODEL SELECTION 40
8.1.1 Aquatic Dispersion 41
8.1.2 Atmospheric Dispersion 42
8.1.3 Dispersion in Soil 42
8.1.4 Intermedia Transport 43
8.2 INPUT PARAMETERS 44
8.3 RESULTS 48
9. REFERENCES 51
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1.1 Comparison of average individual inhalation and ingestion
intake (ng/y) from incineration of pesticide-related
waste at site S-l 4
1.2 Percent contribution of food chain pathway to total average
individual dose (inhalation and food chain) 5
1.3 Human intake (jig/y) resulting from incineration of
trichloroethylene 6
4.1 Ten most prevelant pesticide-related chemicals found in
incineration waste streams 13
4.2 Stack emission rates at the pesticide-related generic
waste (99.99% DRE) 15
5.1 Cumulative population at three incinerator sites 17
6.1 Stack parameters 19
6.2 Location of meteorological stations 20
6.3 Meteorological parameters input into ATM 21
6.4 Inhalation intake (ng/y) from stack emissions 22
7.1 Observed and calculated log K values for organic
ow
chemicals from incineration waste streams 32
7.2 Estimated values of input parameters used in TEREX 34
7.3 Estimated annual average dietary intake (kg/y) 36
7.4 Ingestion intake (fig/y) from stack emissions 37
7.5 Bexachlorobenzene intake for a fencepost individual
at site S-2 39
8.1 User-specified parameters in river dispersion equations .... 45
8.2 User-specified parameters in atmospheric dispersion
equations 46
8.3 User-specified parameters in soil dispersion equations 47
8.4 Surface water concentrations and transfer to groundwater
following incineration of trichloroethylene 49
iv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support and encouragement given us by
Ben Blaney of EPA's Incineration Research Branch. His many hours of
technical assistance and review have substantially improved this
document. The assistance of Lois Szluha in composition of the many
drafts and final report is also gratefully acknowledged.
v
-------
1
MULTIPLE-PATHWAYS SCREENING-LEVEL ASSESSMENT
OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATION FACILITY
1. SUMMARY
The purpose of this assessment was to make a preliminary
determination of the relative importance of air, food, and water
pathways to human exposure from hazardous materials released from
incineration facilities. These results are to be used to determine
where more research on food and water pathways may be warrented.
Identical 150 x 10^ Btu/h rotary kiln incinerator facilities burning
pesticide-related wastes were assumed to be sited in three different
locations in the United States. This incinerator size represents an
upper limit of heat capacity for U.S. incinerators (Travis et al.,
1984). The locations studied for air and food chain exposures were a
southern California site (S-l) at 33° 20' latitude and 115° 30'
longitude; a northern Midwest site (S-2) at 44° 55' latitude and 89°
50' longitude, and a central Midwest site (S—3) at 38° 20' latitude and
94° 20' longitude. These sites are in areas that lead the nation in
production of leafy vegetables, milk, and beef, respectively, and were
chosen to estimate possible worst-case population exposures from these
foodstuffs. In the water pathways assessments, screening-level
assessments were performed at sites S-l and S-2.
The food chain and air pathway assessments considered average
individual exposures and doses resulting from incineration of the ten
most prevalent pesticide-related chemicals currently being incinerated
-------
2
in the Dnited States. Inhalation exposure estimates were made using
ATM, an atmospheric transport model and CONEX, a model used to estimate
population exposures. These codes make use of automated meteorological
and population data bases. Estimates of maximum, minimum, and average
individual inhalation intake were calculated for the ten pesticide-
related pollutants using annual-average ground-level air concentrations
and site-specific population data obtained from the 1980 census.
Food chain ingestion intakes were estimated using TEREX, a
terrestrial food chain exposure model. The code makes use of an
automated agricultural data base consisting of parameters for the
conterminous Dnited States characterizing human food crops, livestock
feeds, and livestock production. These data, together with deposition
rates for each pollutant, and chemical-specific bioaccumulation
factors, are used to calculate pollutant concentrations in various food
items. Individual intakes (doses) were calculated for each site based
on human dietary intakes of specific food items.
Estimates of human exposure via the drinking water pathway were
only calculated for one pesticide-related chemical: trichloroethylene.
Drinking water ingestion intakes were calculated using a multi-media
model, TOX-SCREEN. This model estimates surface water concentrations
resulting from direct atmospheric deposition and runoff. Ingestion
doses were estimated by employing average pollutant concentrations in
surface water and daily water consumption data. Estimates were also
made of annual pollutant transfer of trichloroethylene to groundwater
aquifers.
-------
3
Major conclusions to be drawn from this report are:
1. For certain organic chemicals the food chain pathway may be an
important contributor to total human exposure from incineration of
hazardous wastes. Average individual inhalation and ingestion
intake (jig/y) from incineration of pesticide-related waste at site
S-l is given in Table 1.1. Table 1.2 presents the percent
contribution of the food chain pathway to total average individual
dose (inhalation and food chain) for the three sites studied. The
contribution of the food chain to total dose is very chemical-
specific, depending on the octanol-water partitioning coefficient
and the atmospheric degradation rate. The percent contribution of
ingestion dose to total dose ranges from 0.7% for
hexachlorobutadiene to 83% for carbon tetrachloride. Differences
between sites result primarily from site-specific differences in
productivity rates for the various food items. Although there is
a large uncertainty associated with ingestion exposure
calculations, the fact that ingestion of compounds suggests that
the injestion pathway is of comparable import to the direct
inhalation pathway. A comparison of the results obtained in an
earlier, related study (Travis et al., 1984) suggest that food
chain exposure to emitted hydrocarbons will not be significant.
This is because food chain and inhalation exposures are
comparable, according to the present study, and inhalation
exposures were shown by Travis et al. to be small in terms of
cancer risk and average daily intake. (This assumes, of course.
-------
4
Table 1.1 Comparison of average individual inhalation and
ingestion intake (fig/y) from incineration of
pesticide-related waste at site S-l
Pollutant
Inhalation
(ng/y)
Ingestion
(ng/y)
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
7.74E-2
2.85E-2
Chloroform
7 .15E-2
3.83E-3
Ethylene dichloride
2.23E-1
4.25E-3
Hexachlorobutadiene
1.08E-1
8.04E-4
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
2.82E-2
4.49E-3
Hexachloroethane
2.69E-2
1.38E-2
Carbon tetrachloride
1.05E-2
4.30E-2
Hexachlorobenzene
1.99E-2
8.07E-3
Tr i ch 1 or opr opa ne
1.38E-1
4.00E-3
Tr ichloroethylene
3.16E-2
1.4IE-3
-------
5
Table 1.2 Percent contribution of food chain pathway to total
average individual dose (inhalation and food chain)
S-l
S~2
S-3
1,1,1,2-Te trachloxoethane
27
60
65
Chloroform
5
57
73
Ethylene dichloride
2
5
8
Hexachlorobutadiene
0.7
2
3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
14
31
45
Hexachloroethane
34
60
71
Carbon tetrachloride
80
76
83
Hexachlorobenzene
29
60
70
Trichloropropane
3
7
10
Trichloroethylene
4
11
13
-------
6
that hydrocarbon compound potency values for food injestion are
not significantly higher than for direct inhalation.) On the
other hand, metal emissions from incinerators were found by Travis
et al. to have potentially significant health risks. Metal
emissions were not considered in the present study, but should be
the focus of a future study.
2. For trichloroethylene, the drinking water pathway appears to be a
small contributor to total human dose (Table 1.3). This pathway
contributes 2 and 4% of total intake at s'ites S-l and S-3,
respectively. On the basis of this narrow preliminary assessment,
it does not appear that the drinking water pathway is an important
route of human exposure for hazardous materials released from
incineration facilities.
Table 1.3 Human intake (ng/y) resulting
from incineration of trichloroethylene
Exposure
Pathway
Site
Inhalation
Ingestion
Drinking Water
S-l
3.2E-2
1.4E-3
9.4E-4
S-3
1.8E-2
2.8E-3
9.8E-4
3. The present assessment did not determine human exposure from
chemicals leached into groundwater after release from a hazardous
waste incinerator. However, we did estimate annual transfer
(jig/y) of trichloroethylene into groundwater aquifers 15 and 50 m
below the surface at sites S-l and S-3, respectively. For site
-------
7
S-l, no groundwater contamination occurred within the 10-year
period investigated, but at site S-3, the groundwater aquifer was
contaminated within 10 years. Transfer to groundwater at this
latter site in the 10th year was estimated to be 3.6 x 10^ ng/y»
which represents 4.5 x 10times the assumed annual stack release
of trichloroethylene. On the basis of this preliminary
assessment, it does not appear that hazardous waste incineration
poses a significant threat to groundwater quality.
2. INTRODUCTION
Previous studies of population exposures resulting from releases
of air pollutants from hazardous waste incinerators (Staley et al.,
1982; Hoi ton et al., 1982; and Travis et al., 1984) have focused on the
inhalation pathway to man. Little attention has been given to other
exposure pathways even though studies of synthetic fuel production
(Walsh, 1983) and coal-fired power plants (McBride et al., 1978) have
shown that the food chain can be an important contributor to total
population exposure. The present assessment is performed to determine
the relative importance of air, food, and water pathways for human
exposure to hazardous materials released from an incineration facility
in the form of air pollutants. The inhalation and terrestrial food
chain pathways are examined for transport of ten pesticide-related
wastes. Due to resource limitations, the drinking water and
groundwater pathways are examined for only one organic chemical:
trichloroethylene.
-------
8
This study did not consider the impact of fugitive emissions on
the relative importance of the air, food, and water pathways.
Preliminary investigation indicates that fugitive emissions would not
change the relative importance of the three pathways. Ibis is because
air concentrations resulting from fugitive emissions drop off rapidly
inside of 5 km as one moves away from the area source and then remain
approximately constant out to 100 km. Thus, in the area between 5-
100 km, the spatial distribution of populations and food crops has
little effect on total inhalation and ingestion intakes. Even though
air concentrations from fugitive emissions may be appreciably larger
within 5 km of the source, the contribution to average individual
ingestion intake is small since this area represents only 0.25% of the
total area available for crop production.
It should be emphasized that the exposure assessment methodologies
presented in this report are very generalized, and caution should be
exercised in interpreting the results. It is not currently possible,
nor is it necessarily desirable, to develop predictive methodologies
which address all processes affecting movement of contaminants through
the environment. Many environmental transport processes are extremely
complex and not well understood. In addition, even when a sufficient
conceptual basis exists for developing complex, process-oriented
models, accurate physical and environmental data are generally not
available to parameterize them. It is, therefore, often most
appropriate to use simplifying assumptions when attempting to predict
the environmental fate of pollutants.
-------
9
The methodologies presented here represent a reasonable compromise
between model complexity and the ability to obtain realistic data
characterizing model parameters. We have attempted to make reasonably
conservative assumptions regarding environmental transport of materials
released by incineration facilities; if anything, the absolute value of
exposures present worse case situations. The principal pathways
considered are atmospheric and aquatic transport and transformation,
and ingestion of toxic materials that have passed through the
terrestrial food chain. However, the inhalation and food chain
pathways are only investigated for ten chemicals at three sites, and
results obtained may not be representative of other waste streams and
locations. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of the drinking water and
groundwater pathways has not been performed. Site-specific application
of our results would require careful evaluation of the extent to which
the models and parameter values used in this report are representative
of conditions prevailing at the specific site.
2.1 INHALATION EXPOSURE
Inhalation exposure estimates were made using an atmospheric
transport model (ATM), a Gaussian plume model developed at ORNL
(Raridon et al., in press) and the Concentration Exposure Model (CONEX)
(O'Donnell et al., 1983). ATM is used to calculate average ground-
level air concentrations and deposition rates in each sector segment
for each pollutant. The ATM model was selected since it specifically
accounts for both wet and dry deposition rates, values necessary as
-------
10
input into the terrestrial food chain model. Latitude and longitude
coordinates for each incinerator site are used to access automated
meteorological data (NOAA, 1974) and 1980 Census population data sets.
These data are then employed by CONEX to estimate population exposure
from inhalation by multiplying atmospheric concentration by local
population estimates. Maximum, minimum, and average individual intakes
(dose) were calculated.
2.2 FOOD CHAIN DOSE
Food chain ingestion doses resulting from releases of hazardous
materials at waste incinerators are estimated using TEREX, a
terrestrial food chain exposure model. This model estimates
concentrations of organic chemicals in various human and livestock food
items. Four categories of vegetables are considered: leafy
vegetables; vegetables and fruit exposed to airborne material;
vegetables, fruits, and nuts protected from airborne materials; and
grains. Livestock feeds considered are hay, pasture, and grains.
Non-vegetable human food items represented are milk and beef. Once
pollutant concentrations have been estimated, individual intakes of
each chemical are calculated at each site based on dietary intake of
specific foods.
2.3 WATER INGESTION DOSE
Drinking water ingestion dose for trichloroethylene is calculated
using a multimedia, screening-level model, TOX-SCREEN (McDowell-Boyer
-------
11
and Hetrick, 1982). This model begins with an atmospheric release of
pollutant at the incineration facility and estimates air, water, and
soil concentrations through computation of media interaction (air to
ground and surface water deposition, surface runoff from ground to
surface water, leaching from ground to groundwater, percolation to
groundwater and groundwater runoff to surface water).
Drinking water ingestion intakes are estimated by employing
average pollutant concentrations in surface water (a river) and average
daily intake of water. Estimates of penetration of trichloroethylene
into the groundwater table are also made.
3. INCINERATION FACILITY DESIGN
Design of the incineration facility used in this study was based
on a review of existing incinerators and engineering judgment. For
example, the hypothetical ISO x 10^ Btu/h incinerator used in this
study was assumed to possess one receiving tank for each of four
categories of waste: clean or dirty high-Btu waste and clean or dirty
low-Btu waste (dirty waste is any waste that requires pretreatment to
enhance viscosity). Two additional tanks were included to provide
extra storage capacity for irregular shipments. The storage area of
the facility was designed with sufficient capacity to store waste for
14 days continuous operation. The feed area was assumed to have
sufficient storage for three days of operation. Other design factors,
such as piping or numbers of pumps, were also taken into consideration.
A more detailed description of facility design appears in Travis et al.
-------
12
(1984). The process flow diagram for the facility studied is shown in
Figure 1.
4. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Operation of a commercial incinerator is characterized by receipt
of wastes of widely varying composition. Tlie EPA has conducted a
survey of the composition of hazardous waste streams currently being
incinerated (MITRE, 1983). A total of 237 different constituents have
been identified as present in one or more of the 413 hazardous waste
streams reviewed. Table 4.1 lists the ten most prevalent pesticide-
related chemicals found in hazardous waste streams currently being
incinerated. The present assessment will focus on these ten chemicals.
Note that it is highly unlikely that all ten of these pesticide-related
chemicals would ever be found in a specific waste stream.
-------
13
Table 4.1 Ten most prevalent pesticide-related chemicals
found in incineration waste streams
Amount
Constituent Incinerateda
(MT/y)
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
9.57E4
Chloroform
9.13E4
Ethylene dichloride
7.85E4
Hexachlorobutadiene
6.79E4
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
2.10E4
Hexachloroethane
1.45E4
Carbon tetrachloride
1.35E4
Hexachlorobenzene
1.23E4
Trichloropropane
1.20E4
Trichloroethylene
1.15E4
aFrom compilation of waste information (ESEPA, 1980).
4.1 STACK EMISSION SOORCE TERMS
The rate of release (mass per unit time) of specific chemicals as
stack emissions is controlled by three facility variables: waste
throughput, chemical concentration in the waste stream, and destruction
and removal efficiency (DRE). Waste throughput in an incineration
facility is determined by the percent contribution of the waste to the
total waste stream after supplementary addition of No. 2 fuel oil to
insure combustibility. When it is necessary to add fuel oil to the
waste stream to insure incinerability (as is the case with the
pesticide-related waste streams), waste throughput (TPW) and fuel oil
throughput (TPf0) can be calculated using equations 1 and 2 below.
-------
14
TPw = 7200 | ~~(AHc) fo - CFj/PLw[(AHc>£o "
(1)
(2)
TPpo = 720O£CFrlO tsup4(AHc)wJpLfo£(AHc)fo - (AHc)J,
where
7200 = operating time (h/y);
CF = incinerator capacity (150 x 10^ Btu/h);
(AHc), = heat of combustion of #2 fuel oil (19,000 Btu/lb);
io
(AHc) = heat of combustion of waste (3,000 Btu/lb);
w
p^ = liquid density of waste (14 lb/gal); and
p^o = liquid density of #2 fuel oil (7.2 lb/gal).
Using these equations, waste and fuel oil throughput are estimated to
be 2.76 x 10*0 g/y an
-------
15
Table 4.2 Stack emission rates of the pesticide-related
generic waste (99.99% DRE)
Fraction of
Constituent
waste stream6
(%)
Emission rate
g/y
1,1,1,2 tetrachloroethane
6.6
1.95E4
Chloroform
6.1
1.80E4
Ethylene dichloride
19.0
5.61E4
Hexachlorobutadiene
9.2
2.72E4
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
2.4
7.08E3
Hezachloroethane
2.3
6.79E3
Carbon tetrachloride
0.9
2.66E3
Hexachlorobenzene
1.7
5.02E3
Trichloropropane
11.7
3.45E4
Trichloroethylene
2.7
7.97E3
aCalculated by averaging pesticide-related waste
chemical concentrations (USEPA, 1980).
5. SITE SELECTION
Identical 150 x 10^ Btu/h rotary kiln incinerator facilities burn-
ing pesticide-related wastes were assumed to be sited in three dif-
ferent locations in the United States. The three locations chosen for
this assessment were a southern California site (S—1) at 33° 20' lati-
tude and 115° 30' longitude; a northern Midwest site (S-2) at 44° 55*
latitude and 89° 50' longitude, and a central Midwest site (S—3) at 38°
20' latitude and 94° 20' longitude. These sites are in areas that lead
the nation in production of leafy vegetables, milk, and beef, respec-
tively, and were chosen to estimate possible worst-case contaminations
of these foodstuffs.
-------
16
Hie number of persons in each sector segment was obtained from
1980 Census data tapes that were reformatted into 0.1°-latitude by
0.1°-longitude rectangular grids. AP0RT2 was used to apportion this
population data to the sector segments that were used by CONEX. The
site-specific cumulative population distributions are given in
Table 5.1. The central Midwest site was the most populous, with
1.46 million people, followed by the northern Midwest site with
0.45 million people, and the southern California site with 0.20 million
people.
Area-specific meteorological, climatological, and geological data
are employed to estimate pollutant concentrations in air, food, and
water. A circular area of 100 km radius around each incinerator facil-
ity was assumed for the assessment. The assessment area was divided
into 160 sector segments consisting of 11 concentric circles about the
origin (site center) and sixteen radial direction vectors. The circles
had radii of 0.1, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 km.
Radial vectors were 22.5° apart, proceeding clockwise, with the first
vector being centered on due north (0°). Centers of sector segments
were located midway between the circles on the radial vectors.
6. INHALATION DOSE
Human dose via the inhalation pathway from incineration of
pesticide-related waste was estimated for stack emissions for the three
sites (S-l, S-2, and S-3). Models, parameters, and results are dis-
cussed below.
-------
17
Table 5.1 Cumulative population at three incinerator sites
Distance (m)
S-l
S-2
S-3
5,050
0
7,432
2,528
15,000
992
76,571
10,474
25,000
4,984
108,979
18,777
35,000
8,585
128,609
42,134
45,000
28,827
196,307
70,483
55,000
55,307
263,092
143,535
65,000
78,809
317,157
309,225
75,000
110,132
349,963
724,409
85,000
141,703
395,472
1,168,924
95,000
191,007
448,182
1,455,344
-------
18
6.1 MODEL SELECTION
Annual-average ground-level air concentrations and ground deposi-
tion rates of a representative chlorinated hydrocarbon pollutant were
estimated using ATM, which employs a Gaussian plume dispersion model.
Gaussian plume models are generally applied £or distances of 20-50 km
around a site. However, this type of dispersion model has been vali-
dated out to ISO km (Buckner, 1981), predicting annual-average air con-
centrations within a factor of three of those measured. ATM calculates
concentrations and deposition at specified receptor points. In this
case, the points (called "grid" points) were located at the intersec-
tions of eleven concentric circles and sixteen equally spaced direction
vectors.
CONEX (0'Donne 11 et al., 1983) was used to calculate human expo-
sures to the representative pollutant in each sector segment and in
various aggregates of the segments (i.e., by concentration level, sec-
tor, radial band, and all segments). Exposures in a sector segment are
calculated by multiplying the average ground-level air concentration in
the sector segment by the number of persons located in that segment,
which, in this case, was obtained from 1980 Census data using AP0RT2,
an adaptation of the APORT computer code (Fields and Little, 1978).
Maximum, minimum, and average intakes (dose) of the pollutant were
estimated by multiplying the individual maximum, minimum, and average
sector-segment exposures by a breathing rate of 8,322 m^/y (ICRP, 1975)
and a 0.65 absorption factor.
-------
19
6.2 INPDT PARAMETERS
ATM input parameters include model-plant descriptors, pollutant
behavior variables, and site-specific meteorological data. The stack
was assumed to be located at the site origin. Stack parameters
employed are summarized below (Table 6.1).
Table 6.1. Stack Parameters
Parameter
Height above ground, m 27.43
Gas temperature, °K 366.5
Release velocity, m/s 6.40
Stack radius, m 1.04
To minimize the number of ATM model runs, air concentrations and
deposition rates for a unit release of only one chlorinated hydrocarbon
gas were estimated using ATM. These results were then adjusted to
reflect individual pollutant source strengths to obtain pollutant-
specific air concentration and deposition values. This procedure
employed a zero degradation rate and gravitational settling velocity.
A dry deposition rate of 0.01 m/s was assumed and ATM automatically
calculated wet deposition velocities based on rainfall rate and dura-
tion. These parameter values are representative of all pollutants in
the generic waste and their uniform application to all these pollutants
should not bias results.
-------
20
Area-specific meteorological data were obtained from Stability
Array (STAR) data tapes (NOAA, 1974) and from a compendium of weather
statistics (Ruffner, 1978). The STAR data were organized into six sta-
bility categories (A through F) and six wind speed classes having aver-
age wind speeds of 0.75, 2.5, 4.3, 6.8, 9.5, and 12.5 m/s. Location of
meteorological stations from which STAR data were obtained are summar-
ized below (Table 6.2).
Table 6.2 Location of meteorological stations
Station
Site
File
header
Years averaged
Number
Name
S-l 23158 Blythe/Riverside, CA
S-2 14991 Eau Claire, WI
S-3 3947 Kansas City, MO
810 Sept. 1969-Aug. 1974
715 Jan. 1969-Dec. 1973
1200 Jan. 1969-Dec. 1974
Dispersion parameters used were those of Briggs-Smith formulated
by Bosker (see Raridon et al., in press). The remaining meteorological
parameters were obtained from Ruffner (1978), and are summarized below
(Table 6.3).
6.3 RESULTS
Minimum, expected, and maximum individual inhalation intakes
(Hg/y) for all three sites are given in Table 6.4. These estimates are
based on an assumed breathing rate of 8,322 v?/y (ICRP, 1975) and 65%
absorption through the lung. Although total population size and dis-
tribution vary between the three sites (see Table 5.1), expected
-------
21
Table 6.3 Meteorological parameters input into ATM
Parameter S-l S-2 S-3
Annual average air temperature (®K) 295.8a 280.2'' 286.3°
Annual average rainfall (in./y) 3.16a 28.72** 35.54c
Number of days with 15^ 120e 107^
> = 0.01 in. of rainfall
Fraction of time that it rains® 0.0103 0.0822 0.0733
Annual average rainfall 3.51 3.99 5.54
intensity*1 (in./h)
Average morning mixing-layer 536 458 413
height (m)
Average afternoon mixing-layer 1210 1213 1349
height (m)
aAverage for three weather stations: Blythe/Riverside and Imperial,
California (1931-1960) and Yuma, Arizona (1941-1970).
verage for two weather stations: Eau Claire (1931-1960) and Green
Bay, Wisconsin (1941-1970).
cAverage of 1931-1960 and 1941-1970 data for Kansas City, Missouri.
<*A verage for station at Yuma, Arizona (1941-1970).
eAverage for station at Green Bay, Wisconsin (1941-1970).
^Average for station at Kansas City, Missouri (1941-1970).
^Calculated as 0.25 x (number of days with > = 0.01 in. of
rainfall/365 d/y).
^Calculated as annual average rainfall (in./y) / (8760 h/y x frac-
tion of time that it rains).
-------
Table 6.4 Inhalation Intake8**' (mB/y)
froei stack
em 1 s a 1 on a
Pol 1utan t
(S-l)
(S-2)
(S-3)
Stack0
Stack0
Stack0
Minimum*^
Expected®
Maximum^
Hln lmoBi^
Expected®
MaxImnm^
Ml n Imoai'
Expected®
MaxImom^
1.1,1,2-Tet rach1oroethane
2.18E-2
7.74E-2
3.37E-1
1.77E-2
1.16E-1
5.27E-1
1 .95E-2
4.46E-2
6.37E-1
Chloroform
2.03E-2
7.15E-2
3.12E-1
1.63E-2
1.10E-1
4.87E-1
1.80E-2
4.13E-2
5.88E-1
Ethylene dichlorlde
6.30E-2
2.23E-1
9.71E-1
5.11E-2
3.34E-1
1.52E+0
5.63E-2
1.29E-1
1.83E+0
Heiachlorobvtadlene
3.04E-2
1.0 8E-1
4.S9E-1
2.47E-2
1.61E-1
7.35E-1
2.73E-2
6.22E-2
8.87E-1
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
7.96E-3
2.82E-2
1.22E-1
6.45E-3
4.23E-2
1.92E-1
7.11E-3
1.62E-2
2.31E-1
Hexachloroetbane
7.36E-3
2.69E-2
1.18E-1
6.17E-3
4.04E-2
1.84E-1
6.79E-3
1.5JE-2
2.21E-1
Carbon tetrachloride
2.98E-3
1.0JE-2
4.J9E-2
2.42E-3
1.J8E-2
7.19E-2
2.66E-3
6.08E-3
8.67E-2
Hexachlorobenzene
5.63E-3
1.99E-2
8.S7E-2
4.S6E-4
2.99E-2
1.35E-1
J.02E-3
1.15E-2
1.63E-1
Trlchloropropane
3.89E-2
1.3 8E-1
6.00E-1
3.15E-2
2.06E-1
9.42E-1
3.47E-2
7.94E-2
1.13E+0
Trlchloroethylene
8.95E-3
3.16E-2
1.38E-1
7.23E-3
4.73E-2
2.16E-1
8.00E-3
1.83E-2
2.60E-1
¦Abtorption for each pollutant assumed to be 0.65.
^Standard man inhalation rata (8322 ra?ly) assumed (ICRP, 1975).
cStack emissions calculated from expected throughput and pollutant concentrations in vaate for the 150 x 10^
Bto/h rotary kiln incinerator (99.99% ORE).
^Minimum sector segnent receptor uptake.
•Average uptake for the aasessaient region.
^Maximum sector tegneot receptor uptake.
-------
23
(average) individual intakes of each chemical at all three sites are
very similar. Inhalation dose (jig/y) to the maximally exposed indivi-
dual varies by a factor o£ 12 between the three sites. Differences in
the predicted inhalation dose for each chemical at a specific site are
due simply to differences in the source terms (see Table 4.2).
7. FOOD CHAIN DOSE
Human exposure via the food ingestion pathway from incineration of
pesticide-related waste is estimated for stack emissions at each of the
three sites (S-l, S-2, and S-3). Food items considered are beef, milk,
grains, leafy vegetables, exposed produce, and protected produce.
7.1 MODEL SELECTION
Exposure and dose resulting from incinerator wastes released to
the atmosphere and incorporated into the terrestrial food chain were
estimated with the computer codes TEREX and FOODCHAIN. The computer
code, TEREX, calculated food crop production for specific United States
sites, and utilized crop pollutant uptake parameters to estimate pollu-
tant concentrations in individual food items. Dose estimates via the
human ingestion pathway were then calculated using FOODCHAIN, which
incorporates a standard diet and Monte Carlo sampling procedure. Each
program is briefly described below.
TEREX calculates concentrations of pollutants in various
foodstuffs. This computer code requires as input the latitude and
-------
24
longitude coordinates of the site, the number and distances of circular
rings that make up the grid, and the deposition rate of each pollutant
in each sector segment as estimated by the computer codes ATM and
CONEX. TEREX accesses an agricultural and environmental database to
obtain 33 site parameters necessary to estimate production of
foodstuffs in each sector segment. These agricultural and environmen-
tal parameters are then combined with chemical-specific parameters and
the deposition rates to estimate the concentration (jig/kg) of a pollu-
tant in foodstuffs grown in each sector segment.
The methodology used in TEREX to predict the uptake of organic
chemicals by food and forage crops is based on approaches previously
used to describe uptake of radionuclides in foodstuffs (USNRC, 1977;
Baes et al., 1983; Baes and Miller, 1984). The general equation
describing uptake in food and forage is given by:
C = d(A, + D )
p d s
where
Cp = concentration in plants (|ig/kg),
d = deposition rate (jig/m -s),
*y
= atmospheric deposition component (m -s/kg), and
r\
Es = uptake from soil component (nr'-s/kg).
-------
25
The atmospheric deposition component is given by
r[l - exp(-X, t)]
. ale
Ad = Y xT
al
where
r = interception fraction for the edible portion of the plant
(unitless),
X , = atmospheric loss constant (s "S,
al
t = time of exposure of edible plant parts to atmospheric depo-
sition (s), and
Y = yield or standing crop biomass of the edible portion of the
plant (kg/m^).
The atmospheric loss constant is the sum of the losses due to weather-
ing (A.w) or degradation, including photodegradation, (A.ad)> Thus,
X , = X + X, .
al w ad
The uptake from soil component is given by
-------
26
where
B = soil-plant uptake factor (unitless),
X = soil loss constant (s *),
s
t, = period of long-term buildup in soil (s), and
b
P = density of soil in the root zone (kg/m ).
The soil loss constant is the sum of all soil losses due to leaching
(X ,), or degradation, (A. ,), and thus :
sl so
Transport to beef and milk from ingested forage and grains is modeled
via:
ci * Wf * w
-------
27
where
C. = estimated concentration of the contaminant in milk or beef
1
(ng/kg),
= fraction of contaminant consumed each day which is tran-
sported and retained in milk or beef (d/kg),
Q = quantity of forage eaten by cattle each day (kg/d),
r
Qp = quantity of grain eaten by cattle each day (kg/d),
C_ = estimated concentration of contaminant in forage (|ig/kg),
r
and
C„ = estimated concentration of contaminant in grain (fig/kg).
U
The computer code FOODCHAIN uses output from TEREX (site-specific
production and pollutant concentrations in six basic foodstuffs) to
estimate human dietary intake of contaminants. It is assumed that each
individual in the population consumes food grown locally, if available.
Since even for locally grown food, all food items consumed by an indi-
vidual would not likely be produced in the same sector segment, FOOD-
CHAIN randomly selects the six dietary components from various sector
segments; the probability of an individual sector segment being
selected is based on production of each crop in the sector segment.
Consumption of each dietary component is weighted by a factor (between
0.0 and 1.0) proportional to the total production of that dietary item
-------
28
in the assessment area. If local agricultural production cannot meet
the dietary requirements of the population (a factor <1.0 for each
specific crop), unpolluted food is assumed to be imported to meet the
demand.
The total intake of a pollutant via a sample diet is computed by
summing the pollutant intake (jig/y) for each of the dietary components.
This sampling is performed in an iterative manner (1000 times) to
develop a frequency distribution of intake for each pollutant. These
distributions are then analyzed to determine minimum, maximum, and
expected individual intake. Minimum and maximum individual intakes
represent the minimum and maximum values obtained from the 1,000 itera-
tive samples and do not necessarily represent actual possible extremes
in the frequency distribution. For example, a true maximum dose to an
individual would result from an individual who obtained his entire diet
from crops grown in the sector segment of highest food concentrations
(a "fencepost" individual). It is highly unlikely that the diet of a
"fencepost" individual would appear in the 1,000-iteration sample.
7.2 INPDT PARAMETERS
Input parameters for the food chain assessment can be divided into
two classes: site-specific and chemical-specific data. Site-specific
parameters utilized in the TEREX code include population (see
Table 5.1), local climatological (see Table 6.3), and agricultural
data. Climatological parameters such as annual precipitation, mixing
height, evapotranspiration, and number of frost-free days are con-
sidered.
-------
29
7.2.1. Agricultural Parameters
Agricultural parameters were derived from the 1974 U.S. Department
of Commerce agricultural census by county (Shor, Baes, and Sharp,
1982), and include inventory estimates for milk cows and beef cows, and
productivity and yield data for seven vegetable and food crop
categories. The selection of these latter categories was based on
phenotypic and agricultural transport characteristics (Shor, Baes, and
Sharp, 1982). These categories are leafy vegetables, exposed and pro-
tected produce, grains, pasture, hay, and silage. The first three are
classed as human foods, and the last three as livestock feeds. Grains
are classed as both.
Characteristics of vegetables and the two types of produce are as
follows. Leafy vegetables present a broad flat leaf surface for direct
interception of atmospherically deposited material. Furthermore, the
edible portion of the plant is primarily concerned with vegetative
growth (leaves and stems). Exposed produce items (snap beans, tomatoes,
apples, etc.) intercept atmospherically deposited material on edible
surfaces, but total surface area available for deposition is relatively
small compared to leafy vegetables. Additionally, edible portions are
typically concerned with reproductive functions (fruits and seeds).
Protected produce items (potatoes, peanuts, citrus fruits, etc.) are
not directly exposed to atmospherically deposited material because
their growth is underground, or if aboveground, the edible portions are
-------
30
protected by pods, shells, or non-edible skins or peels. Typically,
edible portions are reproductive or storage organs.
Grains are similar to protected produce, but their use as both
livestock feeds and food for man necessitates a separate category. The
other three categories of livestock feeds are pasture grasses, hay, and
silage (corn and sorghum). All of these feeds are composed primarily
of vegetative growth. Silage is categorized separately from hay and
pasture grass based on its interception characteristics. Hay and pas-
ture grasses are separated because their residence times in the field
are significantly different.
7.2.2. Chemical-Specific Parameters
Chemical-specific parameters describing food chain transport are
necessary input into TEREX, but for the chemicals of interest in this
assessment, measured values are not available. Thus it was necessary to
calculate default values for these transfer coefficients from known
physicochemical properties.
In recent years, the octanol/water partition coefficient (K ) has
ow
been correlated with water solubility, sediment adsorption coeffi-
cients, and bioconcentration (Kenaga and Goring, 1980; Briggs, 1981;
Chlou et al., 1977; and others). These parameters and their relation-
ship to K are discussed below,
ow
Octanol/ffater Partition Coefficient. K . He octanol/water par-
ow
tition coefficient is defined as the ratio of a chemical's concentra-
tion in the octanol phase to its concentration in the aqueous phase of
-------
31
a two-phase octanol/water system (Lyman, Reehl, and Rosenblatt, 1982).
Values of Eqw represent the tendency of a chemical to partition itself
between an organic phase and an aqueous phase, and may be correlated to
uptake of chemicals into biological systems. This parameter may be
measured in the laboratory, although variability in measured values of
E for a given chemical may be affected by such factors as tempera-
ow
ture, pH, time of mixing, purity of chemicals or solvents, etc.
(Eenaga and Goring, 1980). Values reported in the literature for the
organic chemicals considered in this study are listed and referenced in
Table 7.1. If more than one value is reported, an average value was
used. Leo's Fragment Constant Method (Bansch and Leo, 1979) was util-
ized to derive log E values for the organic chemicals for which there
ow
are no reported observations. These are also listed in Table 7.1. This
method uses empirically derived atomic or group fragment constants and
structural factors (see Lyman, Reehl, and Rosenblatt, 1982) to estimate
log E . Comparison between observed and calculated log E values
° ow ow
results in an average error estimate of + 0.12 log E units (Lyman,
ow
Reehl, and Rosenblatt, 1982).
Distribution Coefficient, E.. The distribution coefficient, E., is
d a
a measure of the retention of a solute by the soil matrix, and is
represented by the ratio of the elemental concentration in the soil to
the concentration in the solute at equilibrium. This parameter is util-
ized to estimate soil concentrations which are then used to determine
plant uptake from the soil. An extensive literature review of E«J
values for organic compounds was performed, and an attempt was made to
-------
Table 7.1. Observed and calculated log K values for organic
ow
chemicals from incineration waste streams
Chemical
Log K
ow
Ref erence
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroe thane
3.05
Calculated, this report
Chloroform
1.96
1.97
Valvani, Yalkowsky and Roseman, 1981
Hansch and Anderson, 1967
Ethylene dichloride
1.48
Valvani, Yalkowsky and Roseman, 1981
Hexachlorobutadiene
1.78
Calculated, this report
1,1,2,2-Te trachloroe thane
2.66
Calculated, this report
Hexachloroe thane
4.62
Calculated, this report
Carbon tetrachloride
2.64
2.83
a v g.=2.7 4
Neely, Branson and Blare, 1974
Valvani, Yalkowsky and Roseman, 1981
Hexachlorobeczene
5.23
5.44
5.50
avg.=5.39
Kenaga and Goring, 1980
Briggs, 1981
Chlou and Schmedding, 1982
Trichloropropane
2.01
Calculated, this report
Trichloroe thylene
2.29
Valvani, Yalkowsky and Roseman, 1981
-------
33
correlate K,, to the reported E for each of the compounds (Baes and
d ow
Watson, personal communication). By plotting log K versus log K , a
Q OW
straight line regression equation was derived:
log K = - 0.99 + 0.53 (log K ).
6 d ow
Using this relationship, values were estimated for the ten organic
chemicals of interest and are listed in Table 7.2.
Soi1-to-Plant Ontake Parameters, B and B . Root uptake of
v r
organic chemicals distributed in soil is described by the parameters Bv
and Br- representing soil-to-plant transfer coefficients for vegetative
and non-vegetative portions of food crops, respectively. The parame-
ters B^ and B^ are unitless as they represent the ratio of the pollu-
tant concentration in plants to the concentration in soil at time of
harvest.
Baes (1982) has related B^ to K^, and derived the following
regression equation using the relationship of log Kow to log Kd
reported by Briggs (1981):
log B = 2.71 - 0.62 (log K )
V ow
Following an extensive review of the literature on inorganic compounds,
Baes et al. (1982) conclude that the reproductive parts of plants take
up only a small fraction of inorganic chemicals incorporated into the
vegetative portion of the same plant. Baes et al (1982) have assumed
that
B = 0.1 B ,
r v
a relationship we also assume to hold for organic compounds. Values of
-------
34
Table 7.2. Estimated values of input
parameters used in TEREX
Chemical
Kd
B
V
Ff
F
m
X A
ad
(ml/g)
(d/kg)
(d/kg)
(S-1)
1,1,1,2-Te trachloroe thane
4.23
6.7
2.4E-4
2.5E-5
2.0E-8
Chloroform
1.12
30.0
6.9E-5
7.1E-6
6.5E-8
Ethylene dichloride
0.62
60.3
3.9E-5
4.1E-6
5.5E-6
Bexachlorobutadiene
0.90
40.4
5.5E-5
5.8E-6
1.1E-5
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
2.63
11.0
1.5E-4
1.6E-5
1.2E-7
Hexachloroethane
28.8
0.67
1.4E-3
1.5E-4
1.0E-9
Carbon tetrachloride
2.90
10.0
1.7E-4
1.7E-5
1.0E-9
Bexachlorobenzene
70.1
0.24
3.3E-3
3.5E-4
1.0E-9
Tr ichloropropane
1.2
28.2
7.2E-5
7.5E-6
2.1E-6
Tr ichloroe thy 1ene
1.7
18.7
9.9E-5
1.0E-5
1.1E-6
-------
35
B and B estimated using the above equations are listed in Table 7.2.
v r
Meat and Milk Uptake Parameters, F„ and F . Kenaga (1980) has
J JQ
shown a positive correlation between the bioconcentration factor (BCF)
in beef fat (the ratio of the quantity of chemical found in beef fat to
the quantity in the diet) and KQW* Based on the average fat content of
various commonly ingested beef cats and milk, and the average consump-
tion of feed per head of cattle, the following regression equations
were derived (Kenaga, 1980):
log Ff = -5.15 + 0.50 (log K )
f ow
log F = -6.13 + 0.50 (log K ).
° m ow
Table 7.2 lists estimated values for F. and F .
f m
Photochemical Transformation X .. Pollutants released bv
ad
incineration facilities may undergo photochemical transformations which
alter their chemical and physical nature. Photochemically-induced
changes in toxicity were not considered in this report. No photochemi-
cal degradation was assumed in estimating inhalation exposures since
the atmospheric residence times over the area of concern (100 km) were
relatively short (a matter of hours). However, pollutants deposited on
food items may be photodegraded over the entire growing season(s).
Chemical-specific values for X. , were used in estimating concentrations
ad
of pollutants in food items, and are listed in Table 7.2.
Dietary Intake. EPA is currently estimating total dietary intake
of major foodstuffs based on D.S.D.A. 1979 Household Survey data (Yang
-------
36
and Nelson, 1982 personal communication). Ilie D.S.D.A. study (1980)
provides estimates of daily intake of foodstuffs based on age and sex,
and the EPA has combined this data with U.S. Bureau of Census data on
population age and sex distributions to make their average daily intake
estimates (Yang and Nelson, 1982, personal communication). Since the
EPA study is not complete, the values they suggest have been adjusted
somewhat to more closely approximate other estimates of dietary intake
presented in the literature (ESNRC, 1977). The values used for this
report are listed in Table 7.3. Annual intake of drinking water and
other liquids is based on a daily intake of 1.22 liters (NCRP, 1979).
Table 7.3. Estimated annual average dietary
intake (kg/y)
Leafy Vegetables 16
Exposed Vegetables 35
Protected Vegetables 64
Grains 75
Total Dairy 112
Total Meat 89
Liquid Intake 445
7.3 RESULTS
Table 7.4 lists minimum, maximum, and expected individual intake
from the food chain pathway for each of the three sites assuming 95%
absorption through the gastrointestinal tract. The minimum, maximum,
and expected values listed in the table result from analyses of 1000
possible diets, each composed of random selections of the six dietary
-------
Table 7.4 Ingestion intake®'** (pg/y) fros stack eniasions
Pollatant
(S-l)
(S-2)
(S-3)
Stack0
Stack®
Stack®
Minimum**
Expec tede
Maximum'
Mlnlmnm^
Expected"
Maximum'
Minimum''
Expected*
Maximum'
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
2.40E-3
2.85E-2
6.74E-1
2.55E-2
1.24E-1
2.52E+0
1.17E-2
8.37E-2
3.08E+0
Chloroform
2.82E-3
3.83E-3
8.35E-1
3.09E-2
1.46E-1
3.11E+0
1.37E-2
1.09E-1
3.94E+0
Ethylene dichloride
3.91E-4
4.25E-3
6.23E-2
3.46E-3
1.77E-2
2.74E-1
1.65E-3
1.18E-2
4.29E-1
Hexachlorobatadiene.
9.32E-5
8.04E-4
1.04E-2
6.50E-4
3.74E-3
4.95E-2
2.81E-4
1.9JE-3
7.03E-2
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
4.17E-4
4.49E-3
6.65E-2
4.42E-3
1.88E-2
3.21E-1
1.73E-3
1.31E-2
4.11E-1
Hexachloroethane
1.33E-3
1.38E-2
2.79E-1
1.29E-2
«.04E-2
9.61E-1
4.86E-3
3.83E-2
1.14E+0
Carbon tetrachloride
2.72E-3
4.30E-2
1.62E+0
1.14E-2
5.08E-2
1.28E+0
4.10E-3
2.91E-2
1.23E+0
Hexachloroboniene
9.70E-4
8.07E-3
1.12E-1
8.19E-3
4.48E-2
8.00E-1
4.71E-3
2.68E-2
5.15E-1
Trlchloropropane
3.62E-4
4.00E-3
6.29E-2
3.49E-3
1.60E-2
2.22E-1
1.31E-3
9.21E-3
3.14E-1
Trlchloroethylene
1.12E-4
1.41E-3
I.94E-2
1.04E-3
J.8SE-3
7.48E-2
4.21E-4
2.82E-3
4.76E-2
aAbsorption through gastrointestinal tract for each pollutant assumed to be 0.95.
^Standard diet aasuaed.
cStack eaissions calculated froai expected throughput and pollutant concentrations in waste for the 150 z 10^
Btu/h rotary kiln incinerator (99.99% DRE).
dMin inns sector segoent receptor uptake.
^Average uptake for the aaaeaaoent region.
^Mazimoai aector segment receptor uptske.
-------
38
components from various sector segments. Average individal ingestion
intakes (jig/y) at all three sites are very similar. However, for a
"fencepost" individual, total dietary intakes can be somewhat higher.
For example, the dietary intake of hexachlorobenzene by a fencepost
individual residing at site S-2 is estimated to be 1.8 |iE/y> as com-
pared to a maximum predicted value of 8.0E-1 ng/y (Table 7.4). Table
7.5 lists the estimated dietary intake of hexachlorobenzene by a fen-
cepost individual from each of the six food categories. Also listed is
the percent contribution of each food item to total dietary intake. The
beef pathway is the most important, contributing 49% to total intake;
grain and leafy vegetables contribute 19% and 13%, respectively. Vari-
ability in individual dietary habits (for example, a vegetarian diet)
could lead to significant changes in total intake.
Not all food produced at the three sites considered is consumed
locally. The most productive site considered was the S-l site, produc-
ing approximately 20 times more food (in kg/y) than can be consumed by
the local population. Site S-2 produces about 16 times more than it
can consume, while site S-3 only produces a fraction (0.84) of its
local needs. The excess food production at sites S-l and S-2 may be
exported to other parts of the Dnited States and thus could result in
ingestion exposures to populations removed from these two sites. How-
ever, since most of the diet of an individual removed from the site
would consist of uncontaminated food, these exposures can be expected
to be much smaller then those of the maximum intakes (jig/y) listed in
Table 7.4.
-------
39
Table 7.5 Hexachlorobenzene intake for a fencepost individual
at site S-2
Concentration Intake Percent
(|ig/kg) (jig/y) contribution
Leafy vegetables
1.4E-2
2.3E-1
13
Protected vegetables
1.OE-3
6.3E-2
4
Exposed vegetables
4.2E-3
1.5E-1
8
Grains
4.6E-3
3.4E-1
19
Beef
1.0E-2
8.8E-1
49
Milk
1.2E-3
1.4E-1
8
Total
1.8
100
-------
40
8. WATER INGESTION EXPOSURE
As a screening approach, human exposure via the drinking water
pathway to trichloroethylene released £rom incineration facilities was
estimated for stack emissions at two different sites, S-l and S-3.
These two sites were chosen to reflect differences in meteorological
and hydrological parameters. For example, average annual rainfall
varies from 2.85 in./y at S-l to 38.87 in./y at site S-3. All drinking
water is assumed to come from surface water (a river) located at the
site. Annual input to the water table is also estimated. Models,
parameters used, and results are discussed in the following sections.
8.1 MODEL SELECTION
A screening-level multimedia model TOX-SCREEN (McDowel1-Boyer and
Hetrick, 1982) provides a means of estimating pollutant concentrations
in air, and soil, and rate of leaching into groundwater resulting from
an atmospheric release. TOX-SCREEN uses simplifying assumptions to
simulate dispersive processes. The multimedia nature of TOX-SCREEN
requires that physical and chemical processes which drive transport of
chemicals across air-water, air-soil, and soil-water interfaces be
simulated. Such multimedia interactions are handled explicitly in the
model by use of deposition velocities, transfer rate coefficients, and
mass loading parameters.
-------
41
8.1.1 Aquatic Dispersion
For dispersion in rivers, TOX-SCREEN requires that the user select
the number and size of reaches to be simulated, with the restriction
that each reach must be considered geometrically equivalent (i.e.,
indentical in length, width, and depth) and have the same flow rate.
Breaking the river up into reaches allows estimation of pollutant con-
centration at various points downstream from an emission source. For
the present application, the generic river was broken into three
reaches.
In TOX-SCREEN, an equation similar to the EPA EXAMS model equation
(Smith et al., 1977; Burns, Cline, and Lassiter, 1982) is used to esti-
mate the monthly pollutant mass in each reach of the river. Since the
equation assumes complete and instantaneous mixing in each reach upon
introduction of a pollutant, monthly pollutant concentrations are cal-
culated by dividing the introduced pollutant mass by the reach volume.
To estimate adsorption onto sediment, TOX-SCREEN computes the concen-
tration of the suspended sediment according to Laursen's formula (Laur-
sen, 1958). Results in the present assessment show that the concentra-
tions of pollutants considered adsorbed on suspended particulates in
the water column are neglible. This is not unexpected since the
adsorption coefficient (K^) is small for trichloroethyline.
In this assessment, the chemical was not introduced directly into
the river but was introduced as a result of wet and dry deposition from
the air compartment, and surface and groundwater runoff and sediment
washload (due to storms) from the soil compartment.
-------
42
8.1.2 Atmospheric Dispersion
A modification of the original Gaussian plume equation of Pasquill
(1961) is used in TOX-SCREEN for estimating downwind concentrations of
a chemical emitted from a point source. Modifications to the basic
equation were made so that the TOX-SCREEN model considers plume deple-
tion due to wet and dry deposition processes, gravitational settling,
and chemical degradation. Sector-averaged and maximum ground-level
atmospheric concentrations are calculated on a monthly average basis,
assuming a constant Pasquill Stability Category D (i.e., neutral condi-
tions). Also, the wind direction is constant throughout the model
application time period.
8.1.3 Dispersion in Soil
The TOX-SCREEN model employs a hydrologic transport model, SESOIL
(Bonazountas and Wagner, 1981), to estimate concentrations of a pollu-
tant in soil media following introduction via direct application (not
considered in this assessment) and/or interaction with other media
(i.e., deposition from air). In this model, simulated hydrologic
processes, volatilization, and erosion by wind all serve to transport
the pollutant from its point of introduction (i.e., to the upper, mid-
dle, or lower region of a soil column) through the column to other
media. The SESOIL model is statistical and seasonal, with respect to
the hydrologic cycle, and provides estimates of pollutant distributions
within the soil column on an annual or monthly basis (Bonazountas and
Wagner, 1981). At present, the SESOIL model does not address pollutant
movement in saturated groundwater.
-------
43
Output of the SESOIL model includes pollutant concentrations in
the soil water (jig/ml), soil air (fig/ml), and adsorbed phases (iig/g) in
both the upper, middle, and lower unsaturated soil zones. The amount
2
of pollutant lost from the unsaturated soil zones per unit area (cm )
is provided in terms of pg lost via surface runoff, percolation to
groundwater, volatilization, biodegradation, chemical degradation, sur-
face washload (erosion by water) and resuspension (erosion by wind).
8.1.4 Intermedia Transport
In order for the simulation of processes described above to result
in a quantitative assessment of_ intermedia transport, the relative
locations of the media as well as the size of the contaminated area
must be designated. Such designations are detailed in McDowell-Boyer
and Hetrick (1982). Briefly, in the application, the river and soil
surfaces were contaminated from deposition of a plume (i.e., due to a
point source), and the total contamination area was delineated in TOX-
SCREEN by the shape of the plume which intercepted the ground and water
surface. Also, in TOX-SCREEN, location of the contaminated water and
land area relative to an atmospheric point source is always assumed to
encompass the point of maximum downwind concentration. Contaminated
soil areas are always assumed to be adjacent to water bodies to maxim-
ize subsequent water contamination, via surface and/or groundwater
runoff.
-------
44
8.2 INPUT PARAMETERS
Table 8.1 contains a list of parameter values required by TOX-
SCREEN to implement the aquatic dispersion equations. Default or
typical values were used for most of these parameters (McDowel1-Boyer
and Hetrick, 1982). The exceptions are the first-order rate constants
I
(biodegradation, hydrolysis, oxidation, photolysis, and volatilization)
and the sediment-water partition coefficient. The rate constants were
set to 0.0 so that no chemical degradation in the water was allowed.
Another conservative assumption made was that dilution in the river
would be low. This was done by setting the width of the river reach
(WWIDR) equal to 5.0 m, which represents the expected width during
annual lew river flow. The values shown in the table were used for
both the S-l site and the S-3 site.
Table 8.2 contains parameter values needed by TOX-SCREEN to
implement the atmospheric dispersion equations. Whereas the table
shows an average value for precipitation and wind speed, separate
monthly values were input to the TOX-SCREEN model. These values were
30-year averages for each month (Ruffner, 1978). The mixing height
values given are mean afternoon mixing heights and are also taken from
Ruffner (1978). All other values are default or chemical specific
values.
A list of the parameters required for the soil dispersion
equations is given in Table 8.3. Again, the table shows average values
for the parameters TA, NN, S, MTR, MN, and MT whereas separate monthly
values were input to the TOX-SCREEN model. Values for L, TA, NN, S,
-------
45
Table 8.1. Oser-specified parameters in river dispersion equations
Parameter Definition Value
DIASRD
Median sediment particle diameter (mm)
0.45
DENtfR
Water Density (g/cm^)
1.0
DENSDR
Sediment density (g/cm^)
2.65
HPLDSR
Concentration of hydrogen ion (M)
1.0E-7
DISK
Acid dissociation constant (M)
0.0
SWKSWR
Soil-water partition coefficient
(mol/kg/mol/1)
15.0
WKXR
First-order rate constants (s~l)
0.0
tfLENR
Length of river reach (m)
500.0
WMINR
Source term to river (kg/s)
0.0
NR
Number of reaches
3
SLOPER
Slope of river
7.5E-5
WVELR
Flow velocity of river (m/s)
1.0
tfWIDR
Width of river reach (m)
15.0
WDEPR
Water depth (m)
5.0
-------
46
Table 8.2. User-specified parameters in atmospheric dispersion equations
Parameter
Dei inition
Value
ENTPY Enthalpy of stack gas (j/kg)
HMIX Mixing height (m)
HS Stack height (m)
AX Chemical degradation constants (s *)
MPM Precipitation (cm/month)
QS Point source term (kg/s)
SRAD Cross-sectional radius of stack (m)
RHO Stack gas density at temperature T (kg/m^)
Dff Average wind speed (m/s)
UDG Dry deposition velocity (m/s)
VG Gravitational settling velocity (m/s)
VS Stack gas exit velocity (m/s)
WRATG Washout ratio
2.5E5
1210.0 Site-1
1349.0 Site-3
27.4
0.0
0.6 Site-1
8.23 Site-3
2.5E-7
1.04
0.66
2.93 Site-1
4.53 Site-3
0.01
0.00
6.4
2.27
-------
47
Table 8.3. Dser-specified parameters in soil dispersion equations
Parameter Definition Value
S-l S-3
L Latitude of area (°N) 33.3 38.3
TA Temperature of area (°C) 22.6 13.5
NN Fraction of sky covered by clouds 0.47 0.58
S Relative humidity of the area 0.69 0.68
as a fraction
A Shortwave albedo of the surface 0.05 0.10
(dimensionless)
MTR Mean time of each rain event (d) 0.1 0.17
MN Mean number of storm events 1.5 8.75
per month
JfT Mean length of rain season (d) 1.5 30.4
RS Soil density (g/cm^) 1.3 1.3
K1 Soil intrinsic permeability (cm^) 1.2E-9 7.0E-9
C Soil disconnectedness index 5.0 6.0
(dimensionless)
N Effective soil porosity 0.3S 0.35
(dimension!, ess)
0C Organic content of the soil (% oc) 2.9 2.9
SL Compound solubility in water (ng/ml) 1100.0 1100.0
KOC Adsorption coefficient of the compound 100.0 100.0
on organic carbon (ji/g oc) / (|ig/ml)
DA Diffusion coefficient in air (cra^/s) 0.083 0.083
H Henry's law constant (m^ atm/mol) 9.4E-3 9.4E-3
Z Depth to the ground water table (m) 15.0 50.0
DD Depth of the upper unsaturated 15.0 15.0
soil zone (cm)
DM Depth of the middle unsaturated 10.0 10.0
soil zone (cm)
FEN Freundlich equation exponent 1.0 1.0
(dimensionless)
PH pH of the upper soil zone 8.0 8.0
(dimensionless)
ISRM Monthly index for pollutant appearance 1.0 1.0
in pollutant runoff (dimensionless)
NOTE: The parameters A2PH, APH, A20C, AOC, A2KDE, AKDE, A2CC, ACC,
A2CEC, and ACEC (Bonazountas and Wagner, 1981; Hetrick and McDowell-
Boyer, 1984 were all set to 1.0. These are ratios of different proper-
ties (e.g., pH) of the compound in the middle and lower soil zones to
the upper soil zone. All other input parameters required by the SESOIL
portion of TOX-SCREEN that were not listed here were set to 0.0.
-------
48
MTR, and MN were compiled from Rnffner (1978). The S-l site values for
RS, Kl, C, and N were those given in Bonazountas and Wagner (1981) for
an arid climate soil system (Santa Paula, California). These values
were judged to be reasonable for site S-l since the only available data
-10 2
found for this area was for Kl, which ranged from 4.32 x 10 cm
(Zimmerman, 1981). The depth to the groundwater table for site S-l was
input as 15 m, which is the median of values reported by Loeltz et al.
(1975). The S-3 site values for ES, Kl, C, N, and Z were those given
in Bonazountas, Wagner, and Goodwin (1982) for an industrial land
treatment site in Topeka, Kansas. All other values given in Table 8.3
are default values from Bonazountas and Wagner (1981).
8.3 RESULTS
Surface water concentrations and annual pollutant transfer to a
groundwater aquifer following incineration of trichloroethylene at the
S-l and S-3 sites are listed in Table 8.4.
Drinking water estimates are based on an assumed intake of 2.0L/d
for an individual living 1.5 km below the site, and obtaining all of
his drinking water from the river (ignoring water treatment). These
assumptions lead to intake estimates of 9.4E-4 |ig/y for the S-l site,
and 9.8E-4 ng/y for the S-3 site.
TOX-SCREEN estimates pollutant transfer to the groundwater
aquifer. For the S-l site, there is no groundwater contamination after
10 years. However, due to different geological and climatological
parameters at the S-3 site, the groundwater aquifer becomes
-------
49
Table 8.4 Surface water concentrations and transfer to
groundwater following incineration of trichloroethylene
S-l S-3
Year 1
Surface water (jig/m^) 1.28E-3 1.33E-3
Groundwater (fig/y) 0 0
Year 5
Surface water (jig/m^) 1.28E-3 1.33E-3
Groundwater (ng/y) 0 0.0
Year 10
Surface water (jig/m^) 1.28E-3 1.33E-3
Groundwater ((ig/y) 0 3.55E-4
-------
50
contaminated within 10 years. Input into groundwater at this site in
the tenth year is estimated to be 3.6E+4 ng/y. This input represents
4.5E-6 times the annual release from the stack.
-------
51
9. REFERENCES
Baes, C. F. , III., "Prediction of Radionuclide K, Values from Soil-
d
Plant Concentration Ratios," Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc. 41: 53-4
(1982).
Baes, C. F. and C. ff. Miller, "CHRIS: A Computerized Radiological Risk
Investigation System for Assessment of Atmospheric Radionuclide
Releases," Nncl. Safety (in press).
Baes C. F., R. D. Sharp, A. L. Sjoreen, and R. W. Shor, A Review and
Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally
Released Radionuclides through Agriculture. ORNL-5786, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (1983).
Briggs, G. G., "Theoretical and Experimental Relationships Between Soil
Adsorption, Octanol-Water Partition Coefficients, Water
Solubilities, Bioconcentration Factors and the Parachor, "
J. Aerie. Food Chem. 29: 1050-9 (1981).
Bonazountas, M., and J. Wagner, SESOIL: A Seasonal Soi1 Compartment
Model, Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts; prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic
Substances (1981 — draft).
-------
52
Bonazountas, M., J. Wagner, and B. Goodwin, Evaluation of Seasonal
Soil/Groundwater Pollutant Pathways via SESOIL. Arthur D. Little,
Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts (July, 1982 - final draft report).
Buckner, M. R. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1st SRL Model Validation
Workshop. Nov. 19-20, 1980, Hilton Head, S.C., DP-1597, Savannah
River Laboratory (1981).
Burns, L. A., D. M. Cline, and R. R. Lassiter, EXAMS — An Exposure
Analysis Modeling System, EPA-600/3-82-023, O.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (1982).
Chlou, C. T., V. H. Freed, D. W. Schmedding, and R. L. Eohnert,
"Partition Coefficient and Bioaccumulation of Selected Organic
Chemicals," Env. Sci. Technol. 11(5): 475-8 (1977).
Chlou, C. T., and D. W. Schmedding, "Partitioning of Organic Compounds
in Octanol-Water Systems," Env. Sci. y Tech. 16: 4-10 (1982).
Fields, D. C., and C. A. Little, APORT — A Program for the Area-Based
Apportionment of County Variables to Cel1s of a Polar Grid.
ORNL/TM-6418, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
(1978).
Hansch, C., and S. Anderson, "The Effect of Intramolecular Hydrophobic
Bonding on Partition Coefficients," J. Org. Chem. 32: 2583-6
(1967).
-------
53
Hansch, C., and A. Leo, Substituent Constants for Correlation Analysis
in Chemistry and Biology. John Wiley and Sons, New York (1979).
Hetrick, D. M. and L. M. McDowell-Boyer, Dser's Manna 1 for TOXSCREEN:
A Mnltimedia Screening-Level Program for Assessing the Potential
Fate of Chemicals Released to the Environment, EPA/560/5-83-024,
Environmental Protection Agency, ORNL-6041, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (1984).
Bolton, G. A., F. R. O'Donnell, C. C. Travis, and L. J. Staley, "Impact
of Fugitive Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from a Municipal
Hazardous Waste Incinerator on the Surrounding Community,"
Proceedings on Fugiti ve Emissions: Measurement and Control.
Charleston, South Carolina (1982 — in press).
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), Report on
the Task Group on Reference Man. Report No. 23, Pergamon Press,
Oxford (1975).
Senega, E. E. , and C.A.I. Goring, "Relationship Between Water
Solubility, Soil Sorption, Octanol-Water Partitioning and
Concentration of Chemicals in Biota, " pp. 78-115 in Aquatic
Toxicology Proceedings (J. G. Eaton, P. R. Parrish, and
A. C. Hendricks, Eds.), ASTM STP 707 (1980).
Laursen, E. M. , "The Total Sediment Load of Streams," Paper #1530 in
Proceedings of ASCE 84, HY1 (1958).
-------
54
Loeltz, 0. J., B. Irelan, J. H. Robison, and F. H. Olmsted,
GeohYdroloeic Reconnaissance of the Imperial Valley. California.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 486-K, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC (1975).
Lyman, W. J., W. F. Reehl, and D. H. Rosenblatt, Eds., Handbook of
Chemical Property Estimation Methods. Environmental Behavior of
Organic Compounds, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1982).
McBride, J. P., R. E. Moore, J. P. ffitherspoon, and R. E. Blanco,
Science 202: 1045 (1978).
McDowel1-Boyer, L. M., and D. M. Hetrick, TOXSCREEN: A Multimedia
Screening-Le vel Mode 1 for Assessing the Potential Fate of
Chemicals Released to the Environment, ORNL/TM-8334, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (1982).
MITRE Corporation, "Composition of Hazardous Waste Streams Currently
Incinerated," working paper (1983).
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Tritium in
the Environment. NCRP Report 62, Washington, D.C. (1979).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seasonal and Annua 1
Distribution by Pasquill Stabilitv Classes STAR Program. National
Climatic Center, C. S. Department of Commerce, Asheville, North
Carolina, 1974.
-------
55
O'Donnell, F. R. , P. M. Mason, J. E. Pierce, G. A. Hoi ton, and
E. Dixon, User's. Guide for the Antomated Inhalation Exposure
Metholodogy (IEM). EPA-600/2-83-029, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, NTIS (1983).
Pasquill, F., "The Estimation of the Dispersion of Windborne Material,"
Meteorol. Mag. 90: 33 (1961).
Raridon, R. I., B. D. Murphy, W. M. Culkowski, and M. R. Patterson, The
Atmospheric Transport Model as Applied to Toxic Substances (ATM-
TOX), 0RNL/CSD-94, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee (1982 — in press).
Ruffner, J. A., Climates of the States, Vols, I and II, Gayle Research
Company, Book Tower, Detroit, Michigan (1978).
Shor, R. W., C. F. Baes, III, and R. D. Sharp, Agricultural Production
in the Dnited States by County: A Compilation of Information from
the 1974 Census of Agriculture for Use in Terrestrial Food-Chain
Transport and Assessment Models, ORNL-5768, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (1982).
Smith, J. H. , W. R. Mabry, N. Bohonoe, B. R. Holt, S. S. Lee,
T. W. Chow, D. C. Bomberger, and T. Mill, Environmental Pathways
of Selected Chemicals in Freshwater Systems. EPA 600/7-77-113,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1977).
-------
56
Staley, L. J., G. A. Hoi ton, F. R. O'Donnell, and C. A. Little, "An
Assessment o£ Emissions from a Hazardous Waste Incinerator
Facility, " Proceedings. Eighth Annual Research Symposium on Land
Disposal, Incineration. and Treatment of Hazardous Waste,
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio
(1982 — in press).
Travis, C. C., E. L. Etnier, G. A. Holton, F. R. O'Donnell,
D. M. Hetrick, E. Dixon, and E. S. Harrington, Inhalation Pathway
Risk Assessment of Hazardous Waste Incineration Facilities.
0RNL/TM-9096, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
(1984 — in EPA review).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Background Document. Resource and
Recovery Act. Subtitle C, Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste. Office of Solid Waste, Washington D.C. (1980).
D.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Incinerator Standards for
Operators of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities; Interim Final
Rule and Proposed Rule. "Federal Register 46(15): 7665-7683
(1981).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1,
Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of
Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I (1977).
-------
57
Valvani, S. C. , S. H. Yalkowsky, and T. J. Roseman, "Solubility and
Partitioning IV: Aqueous Solubility and Octanol-Water Partition
Coefficients of Liquid Nonelectrolytes, " J. Pharmaceutical
Sci. 70(5): 502-7 (1981).
Walsh, P. J. (Principal Investigator), Health and Environmental Effects
Document on Coal Liquefaction — 1982. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (1982 — in DOE review).
Yang, Y. and C. B. Nelson, "Estimation of the Average Total Daily Food
Intake by Age and Sex," personal communication, 1982, D.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs.
Zimmerman, R. P. , Soil Survey o.f Imperial County. California. Imperial
Valley Area. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Serv ice (1981).
-------
59
ORNL/TM-8652
INTERNAL DISTOIBOTION
1.
L.
W. Barnthouse
16.
C.
A. Little
2.
J.
E. Breck
17.
C.
W. Miller
3.
R.
0. Chester
18.
F.
R. 0'Donne11
4.
C.
C. Coutant
19.
D.
E. Reichle
5.
R.
B. Craig
20-22.
T.
H. Row
6.
E.
Dixon
23-28.
C.
C. Travis
7.
E.
L. Etnier
29.
P.
J. Walsh
8.
L.
D. Eyman
30.
J.
P. Witherspoon
9.
R.
W. Glass
31.
G.
T. Yeh
10.
ff.
H Hermes
32-33.
Central Research Library
11.
D.
M. Hetrick
34-35.
Laboratory Records, Dept.
12.
S.
V. Kaye
36.
Laboratory Records, ORNL-RC
13.
G.
G. Killough
37.
ORNL Y-12 Technical Library
14.
D.
C. Kocher
38.
ORNL Patent Office
15.
E.
H. Krieg, Jr.
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
39. Harish Agarwal, Bureau of Air Quality, Kansas Department of Health
and Environment, 321 Forbes Field, Topeka, Kansas 66207.
40-80. Dr. Benjamin Blaney, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
D.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 26 St. Clair Street,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
81. Julia Bussey, RCRA Permit Branch, D.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, 215 Freemont Street, San Francisco, California
94105.
82. A1 Cimorelli, (3AW14) Meteorology Division, D.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 3, 6th and Walnut, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19106.
83. Anne Clark, Rohn ^ Haas Company, 5000 Richmond Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19127.
84. Richard Craig, Air Compliance Branch, Room 1015, 26 Federal Plaza,
New York, New York 10278.
-------
60
85. Fred Dimmick, (MD-13) Standards Development Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
86. Michael Drovencher, Environmental Impact Service, Quebec
Environmental Department, 2360 Chenin-St. Foy, Quebec, Canada
G1V4H2.
87. Richard Fisher, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6,
1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 80295.
88. Watson Gin, California Air Resources Board, P. 0. Box 2815,
Sacramento, California 95812.
89. Lauren Hall (TS-798), Exposure Assessment Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 0TS, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
90. Brian Higgins, PEER Consultants, 1160 Rockville Pike, Suite 202,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
91. Jan Jablanski, JRB, Inc., 8400 W. Park Drive, McLean, Virginia
22101.
92. Ted Johnson, Pedco Environmental, Inc., Suite 503, 505 South Duke
Street, Durham, North Carolina 27701.
93. Kathryn Kelly, 120 N. Washington Street, Tarrytown, New York 10591.
94. Joan Lefler (TS-798), Exposure Assessment Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, OTS, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
95. Jim Lent, Technical Division, GCA, Inc., 500 Eastowne Drive,
Suite 100, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514.
96. Terrence A. LiPuma, P.E., Engineering Science, 10521 Rosehaven
Street, Fairfax, Virginia 22030.
97. Ramesh M. Naik, General Technology Division, E. Fishkill Route 52,
Hopewell Junction, New York 12533.
98. John C. Reed, AQPS, DAPC, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706.
99. Brad Reynolds, Missouri D-NR, Air Pollution Control Program,
P. 0. Box 1368, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
100. Bob Scarberry, JRB Associates, 8400 Westpark Drive, McLean,
Virginia 22102.
101. Brad Stachovik, Bureau of Air Management, Department of Natural
Resources, P. 0. Box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin 53707.
102. David Snssman, Treatment Branch (WH-565A), OSW, D.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
103. Andrew Trenholm, Midwest Research Institute, 425 Volker Boulevard,
Kansas City, Missouri 64110.
104. Mark Turgeon, Treatment Branch (WH-565A), OSW, E.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, Washington, DC 20460.
105. Shelly Williamson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EMSL,
P. 0. Box 15027, Las Vegas, Nevada 89114.
106. Gregory A. Hoi ton, The MAXIMA Corporation, 107 Onion Valley Road,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830.
107. Office of Assistant Manager for Energy Research and Development,
DOE/ORO.
108-34. Technical Information Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831.
------- |