Evaluation of TRIM.FaTE

Volume III: Model Comparison Focusing on
Dioxin Test Case
         Environmental Fate,
        Transport, & Ecological
         Exposure Module
          (TRIM.FaTE)
Risk Characterization
  Module
  (TRIM.Risk)
                         Exposure-Event Module
                           (TRIM.Expo)
                                                           Social,x
                                                          Economic,
                                                         i &Political i
                                                         \ Factors//
                                                          V	y

-------

-------
                                                            EPA-453/R-04-002
                                                               December 2004
                       Evaluation of TRIM.FaTE

       Volume HI: Model Comparison Focusing on Dioxin Test Case
                                 By:
Rebecca Kauffman, Mark Lee, Rebecca Murphy, David Burch, Marsha Fisher,
                   Allison Benjamin, and Baxter Jones
          ICF Consulting, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
           GSA Contract # GS-10F-0124J, Task Order No. 1328
                             Prepared for:
   Terri Hollingsworth, EPA Project Officer & Work Assignment Manager
                    Deirdre Murphy, Technical Lead
                      Emissions Standards Division
                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
    Emissions Standards & Air Quality Strategies and Standards Divisions
                 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

-------

-------
                                                                            DISCLAIMER
                                 DISCLAIMER

       This report is being furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by ICF
Consulting in partial fulfillment of Task Order No. 1328 under GSA Contract No. GS-10F-
0124J. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the authors and are not
necessarily those of the U.S. EPA.

Inquiries should be addressed to:

       Dr. Deirdre Murphy
       U.S. EPA
       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
       C404-01
       Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
       murphy.deirdre@epa.gov
DECEMBER 2004                              i         TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]

-------
                                                                     ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
                          ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Earlier drafts of this report have been reviewed by:

      Matthew N. Lorber
      U.S. EPA
      Office of Research and Development
      National Center for Environmental Assessment

      Deirdre L. Murphy
      U.S. EPA
      Office of Air and Radiation
      Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
DECEMBER 2004                             iii       TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]

-------
                                                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS


DISCLAIMER	i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS	iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS  	v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	  vii

1.0   INTRODUCTION	1-1
      1.1    Objective  	1-1
      1.2    Description of Facility	1-1
      1.3    Previous Analysis of the Facility	1-1
      1.4    Comparison of Models	1-2

2.0   METHODOLOGY  	2-1
      2.1    Overview of TRIM.FaTE Simulations	2-1
      2.2    Comparisons to Lorber et al. (2000)  	2-2
             2.2.1  Comparisons to Air Concentrations	2-2
             2.2.2  Comparisons to Soil Concentrations	2-3

3.0   SPECIFICATIONS OF TRIM.FaTE SIMULATIONS	3-1
      3.1    Modeled Chemicals and Emission Rates	3-1
      3.2    Spatial Layout  	3-1
      3.3    Meteorological Data  	3-5
      3.4    Abiotic and Biotic Compartment Data  	3-5

4.0   ANALYSIS OF TRIM.FaTE RESULTS	4-1
      4.1    Temporal Patterns 	4-1
             4.1.1  Overall Mass Distribution	4-1
             4.1.2  Mass Distribution in Abiotic Compartments	4-2
      4.2    Variations Across Modeled Chemicals  	4-2
      4.3    Spatial Patterns	4-4
             4.3.1  Air Concentrations	4-4
             4.3.2  Soil Concentrations 	4-4

5.0   COMPARISON TO LORBER et al. (2000) RESULTS	5-1
      5.1    Air Concentration Comparisons  	5-1
      5.2    Soil Concentration Comparisons	5-4
      5.3    Modeling Uncertainties/Limitations  	5-9
      5.4    Summary of Comparisons	5-10

6.0   REFERENCES	6-1
DECEMBER 2004                             v        TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendices

Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Appendix C.
Appendix D.
Appendix E.
Appendix F.
Specifications of TRIM.FaTE Simulations
Documentation of TRIM.FaTE Input Parameters
Emission Rate Calculations
Wind Roses
Detailed TRIM.FaTE Results by Congener
TRIM.FaTE Concentration Results - Spatial Distributions

                    LIST OF TABLES
Table 1    Air and Soil Model Comparison
Table 2    TRIM.FaTE Simulations used for Comparison to Lorber et al. (2000)
Table 3    Dioxin and Furan Congeners Used for Comparison
Table 4    48-Hour Average Air Dioxin TEQ Concentration Comparison
Table 5    48-Hour Average Air OCDD Concentration Comparison
Table 6    Lorber et al. (2000) Monitoring Regions and Sampling Locations and Corresponding
          TRIM.FaTE Parcels Used for Comparison
Table 7    Comparison of Soil Dioxin TEQ Concentrations
Table 8    Comparison of Soil OCDD Concentrations

                                LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1   Layout of TRIM.FaTE Air Parcels
Figure 2   Layout of TRIM.FaTE Surface Parcels
Figure 3   Dioxin TEQ Mass - Log Scale: Overall Distribution in All Compartments and Sinks
Figure 4   Dioxin TEQ Mass - Log Scale: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
Figure 5   Spatial Variation in Dioxin TEQ Concentration (Annual Average)
          (1994 Emissions): Air Compartments
Figure 6   Spatial Variation in Annual Average Dioxin TEQ Concentrations for Year 12
          (1992 Emissions): Surface Soil Compartments
Figure 7   Spatial Variation in 48-hr Average Dioxin TEQ Concentrations
          (1994 Emissions): Air Compartments and Monitors
Figure 8   Spatial Variation in Calculated 7.5 cm Soil Dioxin TEQ Concentrations at 11.5 Years
          (1994 Emissions): Soil Compartments and Corresponding Sampling Locations
DECEMBER 2004
                                     TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                                                      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                          EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       This report is the first of two detailed reports describing the application of the
TRIM.FaTE model to the emissions of dioxin-like compounds from a municipal solid waste
combustion facility in Columbus, Ohio. This first report (Volume HI of the Evaluation of
TRIM.FaTE) describes in detail the comparison of TRIM.FaTE results to the dioxin monitoring
data and modeling results presented in an earlier assessment conducted by EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD).  The second report (Volume IV) evaluates the sensitivity of
TRIM.FaTE in this application to changes in emission rates and spatial resolution and to the
inclusion of biotic compartments. These analyses are part of the continuing efforts to evaluate
the TRIM.FaTE model and will help in guiding its further development and refinement.

       The three TRIM.FaTE simulations selected for this report used different combinations of
temporal resolution, emissions data, and meteorological data to facilitate comparison with the
modeled and measured data presented in Lorber et al. (2000), which describes a model-to-
monitor comparison of dioxin and furan concentrations in air and soil near the Columbus
Municipal Solid Waste-to-Energy (CMSWTE) facility. For the comparison of air concentrations,
the modeled and measured concentrations from Lorber et al. (2000) are compared to TRIM.FaTE
results for a 48-hour period in March 1994.  For the comparison of soil concentrations, the
modeled and measured concentrations from Lorber et al. (2000) for the 1992  and 1994 emission
scenarios at the 11.5 year mark are compared to TRIM.FaTE results for the same two emission
scenarios and point in time.  Table ES-1 presents a summary of the measured and modeled data
used for the comparisons in this report.

                 Table ES-1.  Overview of Measured and Modeled Data
Media
Air
Soil
Measured
Sampling
Dates
Mar 15-17,
1994
Dec 1995
Samples
Collected
4
32
Modeled
(TRIM.FaTE and Lorber et al. 2000)
Emissions
1994 stack test
1992 stack test
1994 stack test
Meteorological
Data Used
1994
1989
1989
Modeling Period Used
for Comparison
48-period corresponding to
the sampling period
Results at 11.5 years
Results at 11.5 years
       Each of the TRIM.FaTE simulations included in this analysis modeled the fate and
transport of the same 17 individual dioxin and furan congeners addressed in Lorber et al. (2000).
Emissions from the stack tests conducted at the CMSWTE facility in 1992 (Ohio EPA 1994) and
1994 (SWACO 1994) were used as the basis for chemical-specific emission rates for this
analysis. The overall size and extent of the area for which pollutant fate and transport were
modeled (i.e., the modeling region) were determined based on the location of the emission
source, expected mobility of the chemicals of primary interest, locations of receptors of interest
(e.g., monitoring stations), and watershed boundaries for the water bodies of interest. Results
DECEMBER 2004
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
were presented for the group of congeners, in terms of dioxin toxic equivalents (TEQs), as well
as for some congeners individually.

       Overall, the TRIM.FaTE-estimated air and soil concentrations compared well with the
measured and predicted concentrations presented in Lorber et al. (2000).  For the air comparison,
TRIM.FaTE-predicted air concentrations were compared to predicted and measured
concentrations reported in Lorber et al. (2000) for four locations around the facility. A summary
of these comparisons is  provided in Table ES-2. The 48-hour air concentrations for dioxin TEQs
from Lorber et  al. (2000) and those estimated using TRIM.FaTE generally have similar
magnitudes, but slightly different spatial patterns.  For dioxin TEQ concentrations in air, the
spatial differences in the modeling results are likely due in part to the comparison between point
concentrations (from Lorber et al. 2000) and compartment concentrations (from TRIM.FaTE).
The TEQ air concentrations predicted with TRIM.FaTE are generally more similar to the
measured concentrations than the Lorber et al. (2000) modeling results both in magnitude and
spatial pattern.

     Table ES-2.  Comparison of Average Air Concentrations: Measured and Modeled
Comparison
Location
i
2
3
4
Range of Air Concentrations (pg/m3)
Pollutant
TEQ
OCDD
TEQ
OCDD
TEQ
OCDD
TEQ
OCDD
Lorber et al. (2000)
Measured
Concentrations"
0.12
0.4
0.01
0.5
0
0
0
0
Modeled
Concentrations'"
0.15 -0.30
1.2-2.4
0.15 -0.30
2.4- 3.6
0.00 -0.15
0.0- 1.2
0
0
TRIM.FaTE
Modeled
Concentrations
0.12 -0.33
1.1 -3.0
0.0018 -0.0081
0.016 -0.073
0.0023 -0.0081
0.021 -0.073
0.00038 -0.0026
0.0034 -0.024
aThe measured concentrations reported here are as presented in Figure 2 of Lorber et al. (2000) and, as described
there, are intended to represent the TEQ concentration pertinent to the source that was modeled, taking into account
a "background concentration." For example, the "0.00" entries indicate instances where the adjustment (i.e.,
measured concentrations minus an estimated background concentration) produced a concentration less than or equal
to zero.
bValues were estimated from isolines (based on Figure 2, Lorber et al. 2000); ranges are presented if exact values
could not be determined from the isolines.

       Estimated 48-hour average air concentrations for 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-octachloro-dibenzo(p)-
dioxin (OCDD) were also evaluated in this analysis because results for this congener were
reported by Lorber et al.  (2000) for these four locations. Overall, most TRIM.FaTE
concentrations were similar in magnitude to the results reported by Lorber et al. (2000), with
DECEMBER 2004
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                                                       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
non-zero measured and modeled concentrations reported by Lorber et al. (2000) generally within
an order of magnitude of the TRIM.FaTE results for corresponding locations (see Table ES-2).
Zero values reported by Lorber et al. 2000 (indicating background levels) also generally
corresponded to lower TRIM.FaTE results.  As with the dioxin TEQ results, differences between
TRIM.FaTE values and those reported by Lorber et al. (2000) may be due in part to differences in
what the values represent (i.e., TRIM.FaTE average concentrations for a compartment versus
measured and predicted concentrations for a discrete point from Lorber et al. 2000). However,
the spatial pattern of the TRIM.FaTE results was somewhat different from those in Lorber et al.
(2000). TRIM.FaTE air concentrations for OCDD were highest to the southeast of the source,
which is consistent with the predominant wind direction for this time period. Both the measured
and modeled concentrations reported by Lorber et al. (2000), however, were highest for the
monitoring station located northeast of the source.  TRIM.FaTE results corresponding to this
northeast location were at least one to two orders of magnitude lower than the concentrations
reported by Lorber et al. (2000), with the greatest differences apparent for the model to model
comparison.  It is noted that the spatial pattern of measured concentrations for OCDD -
especially for the station northeast of the source - was not consistent with the pattern of
measured concentrations for dioxin TEQs. It is unclear why this difference in spatial pattern
occurred.

       TRIM.FaTE-estimated soil concentrations were compared to predicted and measured soil
concentrations reported by Lorber et al. (2000) for three spatially averaged regions. A summary
of these comparisons is provided in Table ES-3. Results were generally similar, with
concentrations decreasing with distance  from the source and most results for comparable
locations within about an order of magnitude, although some differences greater than an order of
magnitude were noted. For the region closest to the source, TRIM.FaTE dioxin TEQ results
were within the ranges of model-predicted and measured concentrations from Lorber et al.
(2000). OCDD results were less similar within this region, with TRIM.FaTE concentration
ranges roughly a factor of two higher than the modeled-predicted concentrations from Lorber et
al. (2000) and a factor of three less than  the measured concentrations.  In areas farther from  the
source, TRIM.FaTE soil concentrations for both dioxin TEQs and OCDD were slightly lower
than the Lorber et al. (2000) model-predicted concentrations; this trend may result from the
longer soil dioxin dissipation half-life used in the modeling by Lorber et al. (2000). The
TRIM.FaTE-predicted dioxin TEQ soil concentrations in these regions were slightly higher  than
the measured dioxin TEQ concentrations. Conversely, the TRIM.FaTE-predicted OCDD
concentrations in soil in these regions were  approximately an order of magnitude lower than the
measured OCDD concentrations.  The model-predicted TEQ concentrations in soil from
TRIM.FaTE and Lorber et al. (2000) are somewhat different in their spatial patterns, with
TRIM.FaTE concentrations highest to the west and north and concentrations estimated by Lorber
et al. (2000)  highest directly to the north. Interpretations of the results of these comparisons of
regional estimates are notably limited by the fact that the locations of the soil sampling/modeling
results (Lorber et al. 2000) used in this analysis to estimate the regional values were not
distributed evenly throughout the regions and by the inexact spatial match-up of the regions with
the TRIM.FaTE parcels.
DECEMBER 2004                               ix        TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
     Table ES-3.  Comparison of Average Soil Concentrations Measured and Modeled
Compari-
son
Location
< 0.5km
from source
0.5km - 3km
from source
3km - 8km
from source
Range of Soil Concentrations (pg/g dry weight)
Pollutant
TEQ
OCDD
TEQ
OCDD
TEQ
OCDD
Lorber et al. (2000)
Measured"
45 -466
1,431 -2,901
9
613
< 1
150
Modeled"
(1992
Emissions)
83 -236
156 -445
34
64
8
16
Modeled"
(1994
Emissions)
24 - 69
243 - 696
10
100
2
25
TRIM.FaTE
Modeled
(1992
Emissions)
210 -220
600 - 610
21 -23
51
6
13
Modeled
(1994
Emissions)
37 - 38
890 - 900
4
58
1
19
a All measured and modeled concentrations corresponding to the on-site and off-site values as reported in Lorber et
al. (2000).
DECEMBER 2004
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                                                              CHAPTER 1
	INTRODUCTION

1.0    INTRODUCTION

       This report is the first of two detailed reports describing the application of the
TRIM.FaTE model to the emissions of dioxin-like compounds from a municipal solid waste
combustion facility in Columbus, Ohio. This first report describes in detail the comparison of
TRIM.FaTE results to the monitoring data and modeling results presented in an assessment
conducted by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). The second report evaluates
the sensitivity of TRIM.FaTE in this application to changes in emission rates and spatial
resolution and to the inclusion of biotic compartments.  These analyses are part of the continuing
efforts to evaluate the TRIM.FaTE model and will help in guiding its further development and
refinement.

1.1    Objective

       The goal of this analysis is to evaluate how TRIM.FaTE performs in modeling the
multimedia fate and transport of dioxins through comparisons with monitoring data and results
from previous modeling analyses. Specifically, this analysis compares TRIM.FaTE results in key
compartments (i.e., air and soil) with monitoring data and results from multimedia modeling of
this facility performed as part of EPA's Dioxin Reassessment (EPA 2000).

1.2    Description of Facility

       The Columbus Municipal Solid Waste-to-Energy (CMSWTE) facility in Columbus,
Ohio, started operations in June 1983 and processed an average of 1,600 metric tons of solid
waste per day.  During its operation, this facility was one of the highest single  emitters of dioxin-
like compounds in the United States (Lorber et al. 2000).  In 1994, combustion improvements
were made to reduce dioxin emissions at the facility, resulting in an approximately 75 percent
reduction in emissions of dioxin-like compounds. The facility subsequently ceased operation in
December 1994.

1.3    Previous Analysis of the Facility

       In this report, TRIM.FaTE results are compared to monitoring data and modeling results
from a previous analysis performed for the CMSWTE facility presented in Lorber et al. (2000).
The Lorber et al. (2000) study used for comparison to TRIM.FaTE describes a model-to-monitor
comparison of dioxin and furan concentrations in air and soil near the CMSWTE facility.

       In their analysis, Lorber et al. (2000) used site-specific information to predict average
ground-level air concentrations and deposition rates and soil concentrations of individual
congeners and dioxin toxic equivalents (TEQs) for dioxin-like compounds. The stack parameter
and emission rate data used in this analysis were based on information from stack tests conducted
at the facility in 1992 and 1994 (Ohio EPA 1994). The meteorological data used were based on
wind speed and direction data collected for 1989 and  1994. The 1989 data were gathered from
nearby airport locations and were used for the soil modeling and the 1994 data were from both
DECEMBER 2004                              1-1        TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION	

nearby airport locations and on-site sources and were used for the air dispersion modeling (M.
Lorber, personal communication, January 2, 2004).

       Air concentrations were modeled using the Industrial Source Complex Short Term model
(ISCST3)and 1994 meteorological data sets and emission rates based on the 1994 stack tests.
The modeled air concentrations were compared to air samples taken during 48-hour periods in
March 1994 and April 1994 at monitoring stations between 1.8 and 3.0 kilometers from the site,
mostly in the historical downwind direction (i.e., northeast).

       Deposition rates were modeled using ISCST3 and 1989 meteorological data for two
different emission scenarios, one based on the 1992 stack tests and the other based on the 1994
stack tests. Predicted annual average dry and wet deposition rates of particle-bound dioxins were
estimated for these emission scenarios and input into a simple soil reservoir model to predict soil
concentrations at a depth of 7.5 cm after 11.5 years of emissions (corresponding to the time the
facility was operational). The resulting soil concentrations were compared to measured
concentrations at this same depth collected in several regions at varying distances from the
facility.

1.4    Comparison of Models

       Because this report includes a model-to-model comparison of results at the CMSWTE
facility, a brief summary of the similarities and differences in the models used in Lorber et al.
(2000) and TRIM.FaTE is presented in Table 1. All of the air dispersion and deposition
modeling in Lorber et al. (2000) was conducted using ISCST3. Deposition rates of dioxins
predicted by ISCST3 were input to a simple soil reservoir mixing model to estimate soil
concentrations.  These outputs are compared in this report to air and soil concentrations
estimated using TRIM.FaTE.
DECEMBER 2004                              1-2       TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                                                                      CHAPTER 1
                                                                                   INTRODUCTION
                          Table 1.  Air and Soil Model Comparison
   Media
  Modeled
                            Lorber et al. (2000)
                     ISCST3
                          Simple Reservoir
                            Mixing Model
                                                         TRIM.FaTE
 Air
Air dispersion only
(i.e., no plume
depletion)
All emissions and
their subsequent fate
and transport were
modeled in the form of
a single conservative
pollutant, with no
differentiation in the
fate of the 17
individual congeners
        N/A
Air advection and diffusion,
particle and vapor-phase
deposition, atmospheric
degradation, and resuspension
and diffusion from surface soil
to air
The emissions and subsequent
fate and transport of all 17
congeners were modeled
individually
 Soil
Deposition was
estimated for a single
conservative pollutant,
with no differentiation
between the  17
individual congeners
Air dispersion and
particle-phase
deposition
Wet and dry
deposition from air
input into soil model
as an annual average
Dissipation half-life in
soil of 25 years for all
modeled chemicals,
accounting for dioxin
removal from the soil
by both chemical
degradation and
physical removal
processes
The fate and transport of all 17
congeners were modeled
individually
Air advection and diffusion,
particle and vapor-phase
deposition, atmospheric
degradation, and resuspension
and diffusion from surface soil
to air
Wet and dry deposition from air
(varies with time during
modeling period; e.g., wet
deposition is dependent on
rainfall)
Degradation half-life in surface
and root zone soil of 10 years
for all modeled chemicals
Physical removal processes
(e.g., erosion, runoff) modeled
separately
DECEMBER 2004
                               1-3
                 TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]

-------
                                                                               CHAPTER 2
	METHODOLOGY

2.0    METHODOLOGY

       This chapter describes the methodology used to compare TRIM.FaTE results with results
from Lorber et al. (2000). Section 2.1 describes the three TRIM.FaTE model simulations
performed. The methods used to compare the results from these TRIM.FaTE simulations to
those presented in Lorber et al. (2000) are summarized in Section 2.2.  A detailed description of
the specifications for the TRIM.FaTE simulations used in the comparison is presented in Chapter
3.

2.1    Overview of TRIM.FaTE Simulations

       The three TRIM.FaTE simulations selected for this analysis used different combinations
of temporal resolution, emissions data, and meteorological data to facilitate comparison with the
modeled and measured data presented in Lorber et al. (2000). Table 2 provides the stack test
emissions scenario and meteorological data used for these three simulations and gives a brief
description of the results from each TRIM.FaTE simulation that were used in the comparison.

      Table 2. TRIM.FaTE Simulations used for Comparison to Lorber et al. (2000)
Emissions
1994 stack test
1992 stack test
1994 stack test
Meteorological Data
1994a
1989b
1989b
TRIM.FaTE Concentrations Used for Comparison
Air results corresponding to locations modeled and
monitored, averaged over the 48-hour period in March
1994 corresponding to the sampling dates
Surface and root zone soil results at 1 1.5 years, averaged
over three regions around the source corresponding to
locations modeled and monitored
Surface and root zone soil results at 1 1.5 years, averaged
over three regions around the source corresponding to
locations modeled and monitored
aOn-site meteorological data from 1994, which were also used in the Lorber et al. (2000) analysis, could not be
obtained for this report; only meteorological data from local airports were modeled and corresponding results
presented in this report.
bMeteorological data from 1989, used for soil deposition modeling in Lorber et al. (2000), were repeated for each
year of the simulation.

       For the comparison of air concentrations, the modeled and measured concentrations from
Lorber et al. (2000) are compared to TRIM.FaTE results for a 48-hour period in March 1994.
The TRIM.FaTE simulation used 1994 meteorological data and the 1994 stack test emissions
(i.e., the same meteorological and emissions data used in the Lorber et al. (2000) modeling) to
generate air concentrations for the same  48-hour modeling period.

       For the comparison of soil concentrations, the modeled and measured concentrations
from Lorber et al. (2000) for the 1992 and 1994 emission scenarios at the 11.5 year mark are
compared to TRIM.FaTE results for the  same two emission scenarios and point in time.  Two
DECEMBER 2004
2-1
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY	

TRIM.FaTE simulations were performed (one with each emission scenario), both using 1989
meteorological data to correspond to the meteorological data used in the Lorber et al. (2000)
analysis.

2.2    Comparisons to Lorber et al. (2000)

       This section describes the approach taken to process the air and soil concentrations from
the TRIM.FaTE simulations for comparison with the results in Lorber et al. (2000).  In addition
to the comparisons described below, results for all TRIM.FaTE simulations were analyzed to
confirm that the results seemed reasonable and internally consistent.

       The TRIM.FaTE and Lorber et al. (2000) approaches differ in how they estimate air and
soil concentrations for each modeled chemical. In the TRIM.FaTE  analysis, emission rates were
input for each chemical and  air and soil concentrations were generated for each modeled
chemical individually. The Lorber et al. (2000) analysis estimated the fate and transport of the
modeled chemicals in the form of a single conservative pollutant, with no differentiation in fate
of the individual compounds. Air and soil concentrations were then calculated using the results
for this single pollutant and the emission rate for each chemical of interest.

       The approaches also  differ in the spatial and temporal resolution of their results.
TRIM.FaTE is a "dynamic" model designed to enable the user to model temporal and spatial
heterogeneity for all media included in the user-constructed modeling scenario. TRIM.FaTE
results are generated for each modeled compartment and location at frequencies specified by the
user. These outputs represent the results for that time point (i.e., a "snapshot" or instantaneous
value) and are not an  average over any time period. In contrast, the results presented in Lorber et
al. (2000) are temporally-averaged air concentrations and spatially-averaged soil concentrations.

       Temporal averaging  of the TRIM.FaTE air results was performed to obtain values that
were comparable to the temporal resolution of the Lorber et al. (2000) concentration results (i.e.,
48-hour average air concentrations). Spatial averaging of the TRIM.FaTE soil results was
performed when more than one TRIM.FaTE soil compartment was  located within a region
corresponding to a single, spatially-averaged result from Lorber et al. (2000). The following
sections describe specifically how the TRIM.FaTE results were averaged temporally and spatially
for comparison to the results in Lorber et al. (2000).

2.2.1   Comparisons to Air Concentrations

       For comparison with air concentrations from Lorber et al. (2000), the estimated hourly air
concentrations from the TRIM.FaTE simulation using the 1994 meteorological data and stack
test emissions were averaged for each air compartment and chemical over the 48-hour period
from noon on March  15 until noon on March 17, corresponding to the period of air sampling at
the site. These 48-hour concentrations were then converted into TEQ concentrations for each air
compartment.

       The resulting TRIM.FaTE TEQ concentrations, as well as the 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-octachloro-
dibenzo(p)-dioxin (OCDD) concentrations, were compared to the TEQ and OCDD measured and

DECEMBER 2004                              2-2        TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                                                                   CHAPTER 2
	METHODOLOGY

modeled estimates in the Lorber et al. (2000) analysis.1 In Lorber et al. (2000), the TEQ and
OCDD results are presented on maps with the measured concentrations listed as values at the
corresponding monitoring locations and the modeled results shown as isolines. The measured
values were compared to the estimated TRIM.FaTE air concentrations from the air compartments
where the monitors were located. As the original predicted concentrations from Lorber et al.
(2000) were no longer available, the concentrations were estimated from the isolines for all of the
locations. In light of this, most of the modeled concentrations are presented as ranges because
exact values could not be determined from the isolines.  In addition, the overall TRIM.FaTE
spatial distributions of pollutant concentrations over the 48-hour period in the simulation were
compared to the corresponding TEQ spatial distributions (presented as isoline figures) in Lorber
et al. (2000).

2.2.2   Comparisons to Soil Concentrations

       The estimated soil concentrations from TRIM.FaTE using both the 1992 and 1994 stack
test emissions with 1989 meteorological data were compared to the corresponding measured and
modeled concentrations from Lorber et al. (2000). The surface soil and root zone soil
concentrations from the TRIM.FaTE simulations were modeled to depths of 1  cm and 82 cm,
respectively, whereas Lorber et al. (2000) presented measured and modeled results for a depth of
7.5 cm for surface soil.2  Therefore, in order to compare the results at a depth of 7.5 cm,  the
lower and upper bounds of the TRIM.FaTE soil concentrations within the top 7.5 cm of soil were
estimated. The lower bound concentration in each compartment was calculated for each
chemical by dividing the total chemical mass in each surface soil compartment by the volume of
soil equal to the parcel area down to 7.5 cm from the surface.  The upper bound concentration in
each compartment was calculated for each chemical by dividing the total chemical mass in each
pair of surface soil and root zone soil compartments by the volume of soil equal to the parcel area
down to 7.5 cm from the surface.

       The instantaneous surface soil and root zone soil concentrations at the midpoint of the
12th year were used for comparison to Lorber et al. (2000), which modeled the soil concentrations
associated with 11.5 years of deposition.  The TRIM.FaTE chemical-specific soil concentrations
were converted to TEQ concentrations, and then the resulting TEQ concentrations, as well as the
OCDD concentrations, were averaged spatially across the soil compartments corresponding to
    1 Only dioxin TEQ and OCDD concentrations were compared in this report because Lorber et al. (2000)
focused on TEQ concentrations and homolog group concentrations, only presenting results for a single compound in
the case of OCDD.  Lorber et al. (2000) also included 25 compounds in the calculation of homolog group
concentrations. The TRIM.FaTE simulation was limited to the compounds which comprise the dioxin TEQ and thus
only included 17 of the 25 compounds in the homolog group.  Therefore, no comparison was made to the homolog
group concentrations calculated in Lorber et al. (2000).

     It is important to note that TRIM .FaTE is very flexible with respect to assigning the depths of different
compartments, including surface soil. The algorithms associated with the surface soil compartments have been
evaluated and shown to be valid to depths of up to one meter (McKone and Bennett 2003).  The soil depths in
TRIM.FaTE for this application were selected based on configurations used in previous TRIM.FaTE applications
and the fact that dioxins have a tendency to accumulate  in the very top layer of the  soil and they leach sparingly; thus
a shallow surface soil depth was modeled to capture this expected sharp gradient from surface to root zone soil.


DECEMBER 2004                               2-3       TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY	

the monitoring regions described in Lorber et al. (2000). In the Lorber et al. (2000), the sampling
locations were broken down into four regions:

       •       On-site (within the facility's fenceline)
       •       Off-site (just outside property, downwind within 500 meters)
       •       Urban (all directions within approximately three kilometers)
       •       Urban background (all directions from three to eight kilometers)

       For this comparison, samples collected within the "on-site" region are compared to
TRIM.FaTE results only for informational purposes because Lorber et al. (2000) states that the
concentrations for the on-site samples were quite high and likely due to sources other than
deposition from the facility emissions. Also, modeled results within the on-site and off-site
regions were presented together (i.e., as a range) because the distance to the facility's fenceline
was not specified in Lorber et al. (2000). Thus, the comparison is based on three spatially
averaged regions as follows:

       •       Region 1 -  Close to the source (within 500  meters)
       •       Region 2 - Urban (between 500 meters and  three kilometers)
       •       Region 3 -  Urban background (between three and eight kilometers)

       The resulting TEQ and OCDD concentrations in each region were compared to both the
monitoring data for the corresponding locations and modeling results for the corresponding
combinations of location and emission scenario (i.e., 1992 and 1994 stack tests)  from Lorber et
al. (2000).  In addition, the overall TRIM.FaTE spatial distributions of pollutant  concentrations,
averaged over the last year of the modeling period, were compared to the corresponding TEQ
spatial distributions (presented as isoline figures) in Lorber et al. (2000).
DECEMBER 2004                               2-4        TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                                                                CHAPTERS
                                                      SPECIFICATIONS OF TRIM .FATE SIMULATIONS
3.0   SPECIFICATIONS OF TRIM.FaTE SIMULATIONS

       This chapter briefly summarizes the specifications of the three TRIM.FaTE simulations
described in Section 2.1. This information is supplemented by Appendix A, which provides
detailed documentation of the specifications of these TRIM.FaTE simulations. The modeling
concepts, approaches, algorithms, and assumptions used in TRIM.FaTE are documented in detail
in the two-volume TRIM.FaTE Technical Support Document (EPA 2002a and b) and are not
discussed at length here.

3.1    Modeled Chemicals and Emission Rates

       Each of the TRIM.FaTE simulations included in this analysis modeled the fate and
transport of the same 17 individual dioxin and furan congeners addressed in Lorber et al. (2000).3
These congeners are listed in Table 3 along with the abbreviations that are commonly used for
them.  The chemical properties used in TRIM.FaTE for the these congeners are documented in
Appendix B.

       Emissions from the stack tests conducted at the CMSWTE facility in 1992 (Ohio EPA
1994) and in 1994 (SWACO 1994) were used as the basis for chemical-specific emission rates
for this analysis, just as they were in Lorber et al. (2000).  The detailed calculations of the
chemical-specific emission rates used in both the TRIM.FaTE simulations and in Lorber et al.
(2000) are included in Appendix C.

3.2    Spatial Layout

       For this analysis, the overall size and extent of the area for which pollutant fate and
transport were modeled (i.e., the modeling region) were determined based on the location of the
emissions source, expected mobility of the chemicals of primary interest, locations of receptors
of interest (e.g., monitoring stations), and watershed boundaries for the water bodies of interest.
The vertical dimension of the lower air layer was set to the mixing height, which varied
temporally  as a function of the meteorological  conditions.  Additional detail on the creation of
the modeling region, air layout, and surface layout is provided in Appendix A.

       The modeling region was centered on the source location because the locations of interest
(primarily the air and soil monitoring locations discussed in Lorber et al. 2000) are scattered
around the facility, rather than on one side, and the wind direction in the Columbus area varies
widely over the meteorological periods modeled.  Wind roses generated using the meteorological
data for the site are provided in Appendix D.
    3 Note that in the TRIM.FaTE analysis, emission rates were input for each chemical and air and soil
concentrations were generated for each modeled chemical individually. In contrast, the Lorber et al. (2000) analysis
estimated the fate and transport of the modeled chemicals in the form of a single conservative pollutant, with no
differentiation in fate of the individual compounds. Air and soil concentrations were then calculated using the results
for this single pollutant and the emission rate for each chemical of interest.


DECEMBER 2004                              3-1        TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
CHAPTERS
SPECIFICATIONS OF TRIM.FATE SIMULATIONS
               Table 3. Dioxin and Furan Congeners Used for Comparison
CONGENER
ABBREVIATION
Dioxins
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
l,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
1, 2,3,4,7, 8-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
1, 2,3,6,7, 8-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
1, 2,3,7,8, 9-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
1,2,3, 4,6, 7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
1,2,3, 4,6, 7,8, 9-Octachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
TCDD
PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
HpCDD
OCDD
Furans
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo(p)furan
l,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo(p)furan
2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo(p)furan
l,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)furan
l,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)furan
1,2,3, 7,8, 9-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)furan
2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)furan
l,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo(p)furan
l,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzo(p)furan
l,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo(p)furan
TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
       The configuration of the air layout presented in Figure 1 shows the 33 individual air
parcels (i.e., two-dimensional areas used to subdivide the modeling region) in the lower air layer.
The vertical dimension of the lower air layer (i.e., the upper boundary) was set to the mixing
height, which varied temporally as a function of the meteorological conditions.  A single upper
air layer (not shown on the figure) was also included to track emissions released above the
mixing height (i.e., during times when the mixing height is lower than the source elevation).
This upper air layer is considered a sink for the purposes of this report because the mass released
to this upper layer was not further simulated (e.g., in terms of any transport or transformation
processes).

       The surface layout presented in Figure 2 consists of 27 soil parcels (e.g., Nl, Wl),
including a small source parcel centered on the emission source, and three surface water parcels
(i.e., Scioto, Olentangy, and Combined).  The individual parcels in the surface layout, which
were designed with consideration of watershed boundaries, do not line up exactly with the air
layout, although the outer boundaries of the regions are the same.
DECEMBER 2004
3-2
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                                                                    CHAPTERS
                                                        SPECIFICATIONS OF TRIM .FATE SIMULATIONS
                        Figure 1. Layout of TRIM.FaTE Air Parcels
                                                                            TRIM.FaTE air
                                                                            parcels (e.g.. NNE3)

                                                                            Actual Water Bodies

                                                                            Watersheds
DECEMBER 2004
3-3
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
CHAPTERS
SPECIFICATIONS OF TRIM.FATE SIMULATIONS
                      Figure 2. Layout of TRIM.FaTE Surface Parcels
                                                             TRIM.FaTE surface
                                                             parcels (e.g., N1)

                                                             Watersheds
                                 TRIM.FaTE surface
                                 water parcels

                                 Actual Water Bodies
DECEMBER 2004
3-4
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                                                               CHAPTERS
                                                     SPECIFICATIONS OF TRIM .FATE SIMULATIONS
3.3    Meteorological Data

       The meteorological data used in this analysis are the local airport data from 1989 (for the
soil analyses) and 1994 (for the air analyses) used in Lorber et al. (2000) (M. Lorber, personal
communication, January 2, 2004).  Overall, the 1989 and 1994 meteorological data were similar.
For instance, the wind direction at the site blows predominantly towards the northeast
(approximately 30 percent of the time) for both sets of meteorological data. Appendix D
contains wind roses illustrating the frequencies of different wind speeds and directions during the
1989 and 1994 meteorological data sets, as well as during the 48-hour period between March 15-
17, 1994, which corresponds to the period of air monitoring and modeling described in Lorber et
al. (2000).

3.4    Abiotic and Bio tic Compartment Data

       Lorber et al. (2000) only estimated dioxin and furan concentrations in air and soil and
thus, for the purposes of this comparison, the TRIM.FaTE simulations only needed to include air,
surface soil, and root zone soil compartments, as well as any other compartment types that
significantly impact the overall mass balance.  Abiotic media included in these TRIM.FaTE
simulations were air, soil (surface, root zone, and vadose zone), groundwater, surface water, and
sediment.  Previous TRIM.FaTE analyses indicate that no biotic medium other than vegetation
significantly impacts the overall mass balance and thus only vegetation compartment types  (i.e.,
grasses/herbs, agricultural vegetation, and deciduous forests) were included in these simulations.
Appendix B documents the inputs for all abiotic and biotic compartments included in these
simulations.
DECEMBER 2004                              3-5        TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]

-------
                                                                               CHAPTER 4
	ANALYSIS OF TRIM .FATE RESULTS

4.0    ANALYSIS OF TRIM.FaTE RESULTS

       This chapter presents the results from the TRIM.FaTE simulations and describes the
temporal patterns of pollutant mass, variations in results across modeled chemicals, and spatial
distributions of pollutant concentrations, focusing on the air and soil compartments that are
relevant to the comparisons to Lorber et al. (2000).  The results presented in this section are
provided to give a sense of the overall patterns and trends of the TRIM.FaTE outputs for the
different simulations.

4.1    Temporal Patterns

       This section describes the mass accumulation of the modeled dioxin-like compounds over
time.  Results are presented as annual averages for the simulation using 1989 meteorological data
and 1992 stack test emissions. The overall trends from the TRIM.FaTE simulation using 1994
stack test emissions are similar to the results presented in this section.  All results in this chapter
are shown as TEQ, which represents the toxicity-weighted total mass of all 17 dioxins and
furans.

4.1.1   Overall Mass Distribution

       Figure  3 illustrates the accumulation and loss of dioxin mass from the modeling region
during the 12-year modeling period.  Most of the mass (approximately 90 percent) ends up in the
air advection sinks, the majority of which is transported via horizontal air advection beyond the
modeling region boundaries. After the pollutant mass reaches the air advection sinks, its fate and
transport is no longer modeled. These results are consistent  with results from other TRIM
applications and are reasonable because the dioxin emissions are released in the air, where
transport between compartments occurs rapidly, degradation is relatively slow, and the size of the
modeling region is relatively small (the source to boundary distance ranges from 12 to 14.5 miles
or approximately 19 to 23 kilometers).  Both the other types of advection sinks (i.e.,
erosion/runoff sinks for surface soil and flush rate sinks for surface water) and the
degradation/reaction sinks (associated with all of the compartments) contain more than an order
of magnitude less dioxin mass than the air advection sinks.  Overall, the total dioxin mass in the
sink compartments accounts for 94 percent of the total mass in the system at the end of the first
year of the simulation and 96 percent by the end of the modeling period (i.e., end of year  12).

       Most of the dioxin mass remaining in the modeling region (i.e., not in the sinks) at any
time is in the abiotic compartments.  The dioxin mass in the abiotic compartments increases  over
time until the end of the simulation, at which time it accounts for approximately 4 to 5 percent of
the total dioxin mass in the system (including sinks). The mass of dioxin in the biotic (i.e.,
vegetation) compartments stays relatively constant across years of the simulation.  This is
primarily because all of the dioxin mass in the leaf and particle-on-leaf compartments is
transferred to surface soil during litter fall each year for the vegetation types modeled in this
simulation and thus does not accumulate in these compartments over time. Although root and
stem compartments are also included as part of the modeled vegetation, the accumulation that
occurs in these compartments is substantially less than that in the leaf and leaf particle
DECEMBER 2004                               4-1       TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF TRIM .FATE RESULTS
compartments. The dioxin mass in the vegetation compartments ranges from 1.7 percent of the
total mass after the first year of the simulation to 0.1 percent at the end. As seen on Figure 3,
mass in the sinks and abiotic media continues to increase while mass in the biotic compartments
stays relatively constant, resulting in decreasing percentage of the total mass in the plants over
time.

                         Figure 3. Dioxin TEQ Mass - Log Scale
                  Overall Distribution in All Compartments and Sinks"
  ' .OE-0-
                                             Year
                bi ntic C am pa rtmE nfc
- BistielPlantj Campsrtmenb
-Advectkjn Other Sirts
                                                           >\d¥Ecfi sn Ai r Si rfts
    aAir advection sinks include the mass lost due to horizontal advection and vertical loss to the upper air layer.

4.1.2   Mass Distribution in Abiotic Compartments

       The patterns of accumulation of dioxin mass in the abiotic compartment types of interest
for this analysis (i.e., air and soil) are shown in Figure 4. This figure shows that all of the soil
compartments accumulate mass steadily, whereas the mass in air compartments is relatively
constant over the course of the simulation. Among the abiotic compartment types, the surface
soil compartments contain the most dioxin mass during the entire modeling period, although the
mass in the root zone soil compartments steadily increases from year to year and begins to
approach the surface soil mass towards the end of the simulation.

4.2    Variations Across Modeled  Chemicals

       Results for the 17  individual dioxin congeners are presented in Appendix E as annual
averages for the simulation using 1989 meteorological data and 1992 stack test emissions. The
overall trends from the TRIM.FaTE simulation using 1994 stack test emissions are similar to the
DECEMBER 2004
       4-2
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                                                                CHAPTER 4
                                                             ANALYSIS OF TRIM .FATE RESULTS
results presented in this section. Charts similar to Figures 3 and 4 showing the overall mass
distribution and the mass distributions in the air and soil compartments are presented in
Appendix E for each congener.

                         Figure 4. Dioxin TEQ Mass - Log Scale
                         Distribution in Abiotic Compartments

    - .OE+04 -i
    • .OE-32
     .3E-04
 3 -.3E-05
    - ,wE-20
                                              Year
                            - Si. rase Soil
                                          Roof Zor=
                                                     Vadoss ZOTS
                                                                  -Grot, rcwater
       Generally, the mass distribution patterns are similar for the 17 congeners (see Figures E-l
through E-l 7). Throughout the simulation, the amount of mass in each compartment and sink
ranges over approximately two orders of magnitude across all of the congeners.  In the abiotic
compartments, the mass in the air and root zone soil compartments ranges less than two orders of
magnitude across congeners and slightly more than two orders of magnitude for the surface soil
compartments. The congeners with the shortest half-lives in air (e.g., TCDD and TCDF)
generally have less mass in the abiotic and biotic compartments and advection sinks and slightly
more in the degradation/reaction sinks, and those with longer half-lives in air (e.g.,  1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HpCDF and OCDD) generally have more mass in each of the abiotic and biotic compartments
and advection sinks and slightly less in the degradation/ reaction sinks.

       The relative distribution of mass among the soil compartment types and vegetation is
similar for most of the congeners (see Figures E-18 through E-34). One difference occurs for
2,3,7,8-TCDF (and to a lesser extent,  1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD), for which the root zone soil
compartment contains similar mass  as the surface soil compartment by year 12; for all the other
congeners, mass  in root zone soil remains less than that in surface soil throughout the simulation.
This difference may be explained by the octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) for
2,3,7,8-TCDF, which is the lowest of the modeled chemicals  (1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD is the second
DECEMBER 2004
4-3
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF TRIM .FATE RESULTS	

lowest). In TREVLFaTE, a lower Kow results in increased percolation from surface soil to root
zone soil and thus more mass in the root zone soil compartments.

4.3    Spatial Patterns

       This section examines the spatial variations in dioxin concentrations in the air, surface
soil, and root zone soil  compartment types. Air results are presented as the annual average for
the one-year simulation using 1994 meteorological data and 1994 stack test emissions. Soil
results are presented as the annual average for the final year (i.e., year 12) of the simulation using
1989 meteorological data and 1992 stack test emissions. Both air and soil results are presented
as TEQ concentrations  of dioxins.

4.3.1   Air Concentrations

       The spatial variation of dioxin concentrations across the air compartments is presented in
Figure 5 for the annual  TEQ concentration. The annual average air concentrations displayed in
this figure are presented in tabular form in Appendix F. The spatial patterns of the results for the
48-hr period used for comparison to Lorber et al. (2000) are presented in Section  5.1.  As seen in
Figure 5, air concentrations consistently decrease with distance from the source, with the highest
concentration in the source compartment.  The lowest concentrations (which are found in the
outer ring of parcels) are less than one percent of the concentration in the air compartment
associated with the source parcel (i.e., they differ by more than two orders of magnitude).
However, the differences among the concentrations within each ring are typically less than a
factor of two, and the differences between rings are typically between a factor of two to three.
Although Figure 5 shows concentrations in the north (i.e., the second ring) to be higher than the
other concentrations in  that ring, the differences were only about 25 percent different. It was not
surprising that the concentrations do not vary substantially within and between the rings because,
as the wind rose for 1994 shows (see Appendix D),  the wind blows in many different directions
and thus there is no strong directional pattern in the results.

4.3.2   Soil Concentrations

       The spatial variation of annual average dioxin TEQ concentrations across  the surface soil
compartments is shown in Figure 6.  As expected based on its relationship with surface soil, the
distribution of concentrations in root zone soil is similar and therefore is not presented. The
annual average  surface  and root zone soil  concentrations for the final year of the modeling period
(year 12) are presented  in tabular form in Appendix F. As expected, the surface and root zone
soil concentrations are highest at the source.  In general, the concentrations tend to decrease with
distance from the source and are somewhat higher in the compartments closest to the source in
the west and north directions, which is to be expected based on the erosion and runoff patterns
(see Appendix B) and the predominant wind speeds and directions (see Appendix D for the
annual wind rose plot for 1989).
DECEMBER 2004                               4-4        TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                                                                      CHAPTER 4
                                                                  ANALYSIS OF TRIM .FATE RESULTS
        Figure 5. Spatial Variation in Dioxin TEQ Concentration (Annual Average)
                                     (1994 Emissions): Air Compartments
      e
        Air Concentration (g/m3)
                                                                           Actual Water Bodies
I   I < 1.1E-13        "I 2.8E-13106.4E-13      1 TRIM.FaTEair
                                 1	I parcels (e.g.. NNE3)
  J 1.1E-13to2.7E-13  ^H>64E-13
DECEMBER 2004
         4-5
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF TRIM .FATE RESULTS
  Figure 6. Spatial Variation in Annual Average Dioxin TEQ Concentrations for Year 12
                           (1992 Emissions): Surface Soil Compartments
     e
  Surface Soil Concentration (g/g dry weight)

r~~\ <2.3E-11

  ] 2.3E-11 to5.1E-11 I
                                                                                 Actual Water Bodies
     5.2E-11to1.1E-10       TRIM FaTE surface
                       parcels (e.g., E1)
     * 1'1E"10       HB  TRIM.FaTE surface
                       water parcels
DECEMBER 2004
    4-6
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                                                                 CHAPTERS
                                                     COMPARISON TO LORBER ET AL. (2000) RESULTS
5.0   COMPARISON TO LORBER et al. (2000) RESULTS

       This chapter compares the results from the TRIM.FaTE simulations to the measured and
modeled air and soil results presented in Lorber et al. (2000).

5.1    Air Concentration Comparisons

       As described in Chapter 2, hourly air concentrations of dioxin TEQ and OCDD from the
simulation using meteorological data and stack test emissions from 1994 were averaged over the
period from noon on March 15th until noon on March 17th and compared to corresponding
measured and modeled air concentrations presented in Lorber et al. (2000). The wind rose for
March 15-17, 1994, provided in Appendix D, shows the wind blowing almost exclusively
towards the southeast during this period. Figure 7 presents the TRIM.FaTE concentration results
spatially for this period along with locations of the air monitoring stations  relative to the
TRIM.FaTE air layout. The 48-hour average TEQ air concentrations displayed in this figure, as
well as the individual congener results, are presented in tabular form in Appendix F.

       Table 4 shows the results from the dioxin TEQ  air concentration comparison. Note that
in all cases, the air monitoring locations fell on or very close to TRIM.FaTE parcel boundaries;
therefore, TRIM.FaTE concentrations for the air compartments associated  with both parcels are
used for the comparison.  It is noted that, unlike the annual average results (see Section 4.3.1),
the 48-hour average concentrations for compartments associated with a given ring of TRIM.FaTE
parcels (i.e., those air compartments that end in the same number) can vary by more than an order
of magnitude due to the lesser variation in wind direction during a 48-hour period.

          Table 4. 48-Hour Average Air Dioxin TEQ Concentration Comparison
Comparison
Location
1
2
3
4
Lorber et al. (2000)
Air
Monitoring
Station
SE-3
SN-2
SNW-1
SSW-4
Measured TEQ
concentration
(pg/m3)"
0.12
0.01
0
0
Modeled TEQ
concentration
(pg/m3)b
0.15 -0.30
0.15 -0.30
0.00 -0.15
0
TRIM.FaTE
Corresponding Air
Compartment(s)
ESE2
ENE2
NNE2
NNE3
NNE2
NNW2
WSW3
WSW2
Modeled TEQ
concentration
(pg/m3)
0.33
0.12
0.0081
0.0018
0.0081
0.0023
0.00038
0.0026
aThe measured concentrations reported here are as presented in Figure 2 of Lorber et al. (2000) and, as described
there, are intended to represent the TEQ concentration pertinent to the source that was modeled, taking into account
a "background concentration." For example, the "0.00" entries indicate instances where the adjustment (i.e.,
measured concentrations minus an estimated background concentration) produced a concentration less than or equal
to zero.
bValues were estimated from isolines (based on Figure 2, Lorber et al. 2000); ranges are presented if exact values
could not be determined from the isolines.
DECEMBER 2004
5-1
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
CHAPTERS
COMPARISON TO LORBER ET AL. (2000) RESULTS
          Figure 7. Spatial Variation in 48-hr Average Dioxin TEQ Concentrations
                               (1994 Emissions): Air Compartments and Monitors
                                             48 Hour Air Concentration (g/m3)

                                           < 1.4E-16           2.3E-15to3.5E-14

                                       f~~l 1.4E-16to2.2E-15  ^f > 3.5E-14
                            | Actual Water Bodies

                         |	1 TRIM.FaTE air
                         1    ' parcels (e.g., NNE3)
                          0   Air Monitoring Stations
                              (SN-2, SNW-1, SSW-4. SE-3)
DECEMBER 2004
5-2
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                                                              CHAPTERS
                                                  COMPARISON TO LORBER ET AL. (2000) RESULTS
       The air concentrations estimated by TRIM.FaTE are highest in the southeast, which
corresponds to the highest measured concentration (at monitoring station SE-3) as well as the
predominant wind direction during the 48-hour sampling period. The SE-3 monitor is located
within the ESE2 air compartment in TRIM.FaTE, near its boundary with the ENE2 air
compartment.  The measured and modeled TEQ air concentrations at the SE-3 monitor from
Lorber et al. (2000) fall between the TRIM.FaTE-estimated concentrations in the ESE2 and
ENE2 compartments, although they are closer to the concentration in the ENE2 compartment.
Given the assumed homogeneity within TRIM.FaTE compartments and the location of the
monitor relative to the TRIM.FaTE compartments, the TRIM.FaTE results for this monitor
location compare reasonably well with both the measured and modeled concentrations from
Lorber et al. (2000).

       The SN-2 monitor is located on the boundary between the NNE2 and NNE3 air
compartments in the TRIM.FaTE simulation. The TRIM.FaTE air concentration in NNE2 is
very close (identical to two significant figures) to the measured concentration at SN-2. The
TRIM.FaTE-estimated concentration in NNE3 is slightly lower than the concentrations at NNE2
and monitor SN-2, which is reasonable considering that the concentration in NNE3 represents a
much larger area farther from the source than NNE2 and SN-2. The modeled concentration at
SN-2 in Lorber et al. (2000) is more than an order of magnitude higher than the measured and
TRIM.FaTE modeled concentrations at this location.  Both the TRIM.FaTE results and measured
values at this location are consistent with the meteorological data (see Appendix D), which
shows that the wind blew towards the northeast only about five percent of the time during this
period.  Lorber et al. (2000) suggested that the much higher results in their analysis are perhaps
due to the fact that the plume depletion option was not used for the air modeling with ISCST3.

       The TRIM.FaTE concentrations in air compartments associated with the monitoring
stations SNW-1 and SSW-4 are very close to the measured concentrations at these locations. It
should be noted, however, that a detailed comparison  of the TRIM.FaTE concentrations with the
measured data is difficult at the monitoring locations with concentrations of zero (i.e., SNW-1
and SSW-4) because the detection limits for the air samples are not reported in Lorber et al.
(2000) and the measured values were only reported out to two decimal places.

       Table 5 presents the comparison between TRIM.FaTE 48-hour average concentrations of
OCDD and the corresponding measured and modeled values from Lorber et al. (2000), using the
same degree of precision.  The TRIM.FaTE concentrations for OCDD follow the same pattern
seen in Table 4 for the TEQ concentrations, with the highest concentration in the southeast and
lowest in the southwest. Similarly, the OCDD results presented in Lorber et al. (2000) are
consistent with the pattern for TEQ (see Table 4), although the pattern is not the same as the
pattern of TRIM.FaTE results.  However, the measured values show a different pattern than for
TEQ, with OCDD concentrations highest at monitor SN-2 (located to  the north), which is
somewhat surprising based on the wind rose for this period (Appendix D). In addition, both the
TRIM.FaTE and Lorber et al. (2000) modeled OCDD concentrations are significantly higher than
the measured values at SE-3 (the monitor in the  southeast). The TRIM.FaTE concentrations at
the other two monitoring locations are very close to the measured values (identical to two
decimal places for all but one of the values).
DECEMBER 2004                              5-3       TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
CHAPTERS
COMPARISON TO LORBER ET AL. (2000) RESULTS
             Table 5. 48-Hour Average Air OCDD Concentration Comparison
Lorber et al. (2000)
Air Monitoring
Station
SE-3
SN-2
SNW-1
SSW-4
Measured
concentration
(pg/m3)"
0.4
0.5
0
0
Modeled
concentration
(pg/m3)"
1.2-2.4
2.4 -3.6
0.0 - 1.2
0
TRIM.FaTE
Corresponding Air
Compartment(s)
ESE2
ENE2
NNE2
NNE3
NNE2
NNW2
WSW3
WSW2
Modeled
concentration
(pg/m3)
3.0
1.1
0.073
0.016
0.073
0.021
0.0034
0.024
aThe measured concentrations reported here are as presented in Figure 2 of Lorber et al. (2000) and, as described
there, are intended to represent the TEQ concentration pertinent to the source that was modeled, taking into account
a "background concentration." For example, the "0.0" entries indicate instances where the adjustment (i.e.,
measured concentrations minus an estimated background concentration) produced a concentration less than or equal
to zero.
bValues were estimated from isolines (based on Figure 2, Lorber et al. 2000); ranges are presented if exact values
could not be determined from the isolines.

       When comparing the spatial distributions, the TEQ air concentrations are similar for the
TRIM.FaTE and Lorber et al. (2000) results. As shown in Figure 7, the dioxin TEQ air
concentrations for TRIM.FaTE over the 48-hour period decrease with distance from the source
with the highest concentrations in the southeast, similar to what is expected based on the wind
rose for that period (see Appendix D). The results in Lorber et al. (2000) show more directional
variability (for both TEQ and OCDD concentrations) with the highest air concentrations in both
the southeast (near monitor SE-3) and northeast (near monitor SN-2) and zero air concentrations
in the southwest (near monitor SSW-4). As described above, the large size of the TRIM.FaTE
air parcels may contribute to this difference in spatial distribution of air concentrations.
Averaging over the parcel area likely results in the loss of information about very low and high
point values. However, the TRIM.FaTE results are consistent with the meteorological data and
the TEQ measured concentrations for the period.

5.2    Soil Concentration Comparisons

       Concentrations of dioxins in surface and root zone soil from the TRIM.FaTE simulations
using emissions from 1992 and 1994  stack tests were compared to both measured and modeled
soil concentrations reported in Lorber et al. (2000) for the regions described in Section 2.2.2.
The number of samples taken in each region and the corresponding TRIM.FaTE parcels are
summarized in Table 6 and shown in Figure  8. Note that Figure 8 does not show the complete
extent of the modeling region; only the TRIM.FaTE parcels and sampling locations
corresponding to the regions described in Lorber et al. (2000) are shown for the purposes of the
soil comparison.  It should also be noted that the Lorber et al. (2000) soil samples were collected
DECEMBER 2004
5-4
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                                                              CHAPTERS
                                                   COMPARISON TO LORBER ET AL. (2000) RESULTS
      Table 6. Lorber et al. (2000) Monitoring Regions and Sampling Locations and
                Corresponding TRIM.FaTE Parcels Used for Comparison
Region
1
2
3
Description of region
Within 500 meters of
source
Between 500 m to 3 km of
source
Between 3 km to 8 km of
source
Lorber et al. (2000) Monitoring Region
(Associated Number of Samples)
Off-site (5)
Urban (14)
Urban background (13)
Corresponding
TRIM.FaTE Parcels
Source
N1.E1, Wl, SW1
E2.NNW1, WNW1,
SW2, WSW1
in regions well within the boundaries of the TRIM.FaTE modeling region, which extends
approximately 10 km beyond the Region 3 sampling locations.

       The measured and modeled soil estimates presented in Lorber et al. (2000) were
averaged using a simple mean for all of the sampling locations in each of the regions.  The soil
sampling locations in Lorber et al. (2000) were not distributed evenly throughout the regions and
in some cases were not within the boundaries of the region as described in the study; thus, the
resulting  averages across each region are not necessarily representative of the concentrations
throughout the region.  For Regions 2 and 3, which contain multiple TRIM.FaTE parcels, the
concentrations for the corresponding compartments were area-weighted and averaged to obtain a
single value for each region.

       In Tables 7 and 8, TRIM.FaTE soil concentrations for TEQ and OCDD, respectively, are
compared with measured and modeled results from Lorber et al. (2000).  The measured
concentrations were collected at the end of 1995.  Two sets of modeled results are presented in
Lorber et al. (2000), one based on 1992 stack test emissions  and the other based on 1994 stack
test emissions. For the TRIM.FaTE results, the surface soil and root zone soil concentrations
were used to calculate the upper and lower bound  of soil concentrations at a depth of 7.5 cm,
using the methods described in Section 2.2.2, for both emissions scenarios. In cases where the
upper and lower bound concentrations were different, both concentrations are provided in the
comparison tables.

       Figure 8 presents the TEQ concentrations spatially for the three regions using the 1994
stack test emissions and the upper bound of the TRIM.FaTE concentrations at a depth  of 7.5 cm.
The TRIM.FaTE calculated upper and lower bounds for the soil TEQ concentrations at a depth of
7.5 cm are presented for all compartments in tabular form in Appendix F. The TRIM.FaTE
calculated soil concentrations were also compared to the local background concentration of 4.0E-
12 g/g TEQ cited in Lorber et al. (2000). The TRIM.FaTE concentrations were below this
background level at all locations except the Source, Nl, and Wl  compartments.  This is
consistent with Lorber et al.  (2000), which states that local soil background concentration was
reached at a distance of approximately three kilometers from the source.
DECEMBER 2004
5-5
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
CHAPTERS
COMPARISON TO LORBER ET AL. (2000) RESULTS
  Figure 8. Spatial Variation in Calculated 7.5 cm Soil Dioxin TEQ Concentrations at 11.5
   Years (1994 Emissions): Soil Compartments and Corresponding Sampling Locations
   !—| TRIM.FaTE
      surface parcels (e.g., E1)

   •• Actual Water Bodies
TRIM.FaTE Calculated 7.5 cm Soil Concentration
           (g/g dry weight)
Q<6.0E-13        •2.7E-12to5.7E-12
:	 6.0E-13to1.3E-12   ™
n 1.4E-12to2.6E-12
        Lorber et al. (2000) Soil Sample Locations
           (Approximate locations based
           on Fig. 1 in Lorber et al. 2000)

        H off-site © urban • urban background
       As shown in Table 7, the measured results are generally closer to the modeled
concentrations using the 1994 stack test emissions for both the TRIM.FaTE simulations and the
Lorber et al. (2000) modeling simulations. Because the soil measurements were taken in
December 1995 after the facility was no longer operating, the concentrations in soil were likely
influenced by a range of emission rates (from before and after emission controls were
implemented) and thus neither rate is likely to be truly representative of the actual emissions
affecting these soil samples.  The variations in emissions over the 11.5 year period of operation
are likely to contribute to differences in measured and modeled results.  In general, the modeled
TRIM.FaTE results from both stack test emissions scenarios for both models are within the same
order of magnitude as the measured concentrations, with the measured concentrations falling
DECEMBER 2004
                  5-6
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                                                                CHAPTERS
                                                    COMPARISON TO LORBER ET AL. (2000) RESULTS
                 Table 7. Comparison of Soil Dioxin TEQ Concentrations
Region
1 (within 500 m of
source)
2 (500 m to 3 km
from source)
3 (3 km to 8 km
from source)
Lorber et al. (2000)
Measured
(mean, Dec
1995)
Pg/g dry
weight
45 -466C
9
< 1
Modeled (1992
Stack Test
Emissions)"
Pg/g dry
weight
83 -236
34
8
Modeled (1994
Stack Test
Emissions)"
Pg/g dry
weight
24 - 69
10
2
TRIM.FaTE
Modeled (1992
Stack Test
Emissions)11
Pg/g dry
weight
210-220
21-23
6
Modeled (1994
Stack Test
Emissions)11
Pg/g dry
weight
37-38
4
1
aA range is presented for the Lorber et al. (2000) measured and modeled concentrations in Region 1, corresponding
to the on-site and off-site values as reported in Lorber et al. (2000).
b A range is presented if the estimated upper and lower bounds of the soil concentrations differed based on the
methods used to calculate soil concentrations at a depth of 7.5 cm.
c On-site value for presentation purposes only (see Section 2.2.2).

between the modeled concentrations for 1992 and 1994 emission scenarios.  The TRIM.FaTE
results show a sharper decrease in concentrations closer to the source than the measured or
modeled results presented in Lorber et al. (2000), with the concentrations decreasing by
approximately an order of magnitude between Regions 1 and 2.

       In Region 1, the TRIM.FaTE TEQ soil concentrations fall between the modeled
concentrations from Lorber et al. (2000) for both emissions scenarios.  For the outer two regions,
the TRIM.FaTE concentrations are between 25 and 40 percent lower than the corresponding
Lorber et al. (2000) modeled results for the 1992 emission scenario and between 50 and 60
percent lower for the 1994 emission scenario. The TRIM.FaTE concentrations for the 1994
emission scenario in Regions 1 and 3 are within 20 percent of the measured concentrations, and
the TRIM.FaTE results from Region 2 are approximately 60 percent lower than the measured
concentrations.

       In Table 8, the TRIM.FaTE  soil concentrations for OCDD are compared to the
corresponding modeled and measured results in Lorber et al. (2000). It is worthwhile to point
out that the modeled concentrations of OCDD actually increased between the simulation using
1992 stack test emissions and the simulation using 1994 stack test emissions, despite the overall
TEQ emissions being reduced in 1994 stack test simulation. This is a result of the individual
congener profile changing between the scenarios and emissions actually increasing for OCDD
from the 1992 emission scenario to the 1994 scenario (see Appendix C).  Overall, the measured
soil concentrations of OCDD are much larger than the modeled soil concentrations from both
TRIM.FaTE and Lorber et al. (2000) (by approximately an order of magnitude for Regions 2 and
3), although the TRIM.FaTE concentrations for the 1994 emission scenario are closer to the
measured values in Region 1 than the Lorber et al. (2000) modeled results.
DECEMBER 2004
5-7
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
CHAPTERS
COMPARISON TO LORBER ET AL. (2000) RESULTS
                Table 8. Comparison of Soil Dioxin OCDD Concentrations
Region
1 (within 500 m
of source)
2 (500 m to 3 km
from source)
3 (3 km to 8 km
from source)
Lorber et al. (2000)
Measured
(mean, Dec
1995)
Pg/g dry
weight
1,431C- 2,901
613
150
Modeled (1992
Stack Test
Emissions)"
Pg/g dry
weight
156 -445
64
16
Modeled (1994
Stack Test
Emissions)"
Pg/g dry
weight
243 - 696
100
25
TRIM.FaTE
Modeled (1992
Stack Test
Emissions)11
Pg/g dry
weight
600-610
51
13
Modeled (1994
Stack Test
Emissions)11
Pg/g dry
weight
890 - 900
58
19
aA range is presented for the Lorber et al. (2000) measured and modeled concentrations in Region 1, corresponding
to the on-site and off-site values as reported in Lorber et al. (2000).
b A range is presented if the estimated upper and lower bounds of the soil concentrations differed based on the
methods used to calculate soil concentrations at a depth of 7.5 cm.
c On-site value for presentation purposes only (see Section 2.2.2).

       One possible explanation for some of the modeled differences (e.g., the lower
TRIM.FaTE soil concentrations in Regions 2 and 3 presented in Tables 7 and 8) may be the
different dioxin soil dissipation rates used by the two models. In Lorber et al. (2000), a dioxin
dissipation half-life of 25 years was used to account for dioxin removal from the soil by both
chemical degradation and physical removal processes (e.g., runoff and erosion). In TRIM.FaTE,
a 10-year degradation half-life value was used to model chemical degradation in soil; however,
physical  removal processes were modeled separately. In order to more directly compare the
dissipation rate used in Lorber et al. (2000) to that modeled in TRIM.FaTE, the "effective"
dissipation half-life (taking into account both chemical and physical removal processes) was
calculated empirically from TRIM.FaTE results for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD
and was  found to be approximately 6.5 and nine years, respectively. Therefore, the dioxin
dissipation half-life used in the Lorber et al. (2000) analysis is roughly three times longer than the
effective dissipation half-life used in TRIM.FaTE for these two chemicals. Both the dissipation
rate used in the Lorber et al. (2000) analysis and the effective dissipation rate modeled in
TRIM.FaTE fall within the range of the values reported in the literature for dioxin-like
compounds in surface and subsurface soils (Mackay et al. 2000) and thus it is not clear that one
value is preferable to the other. A more detailed discussion of the differences between the
dissipation rate used in Lorber et al. (2000) and half-life values used in TRIM.FaTE is included
in Appendix B.

       The spatial distributions of the soil concentrations were also compared for the two
models.  Lorber et al. (2000) presents isoline figures of TEQ and OCDD concentrations for the
two emissions scenarios within approximately one kilometer of the source  for modeled
concentrations and within one to two kilometers of the source for the measured values (not
shown here). All of the figures show the highest soil concentrations to the north of the source for
DECEMBER 2004
TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                                                                CHAPTERS
                                                    COMPARISON TO LORBER ET AL. (2000) RESULTS
the modeled results and to the northeast for the measured concentrations. Figure 8 presents the
spatial distribution of TREVLFaTE soil concentrations (calculated to a depth of 7.5 cm) within
approximately three kilometers using 1994 stack test emissions; detailed results from this
simulation are presented in Appendix F. The TREVLFaTE results show the highest soil
concentrations to the north and west of the source, with concentrations of similar magnitudes to
the east near the source (i.e., El). It appears that the modeled soil concentrations estimated in
Lorber et al. (2000) are more similar to the pattern of air concentrations estimated by
TRIM.FaTE (see Figure 5), which show higher air concentrations to the north, than the pattern of
TRIM.FaTE-estimated soil concentrations. There are several possible explanations for this.
First, TRIM.FaTE models runoff and erosion explicitly and requires the user to estimate runoff
and erosion patterns between parcels. Second, the size and shape of the parcels in TRIM.FaTE
simulations may also have contributed to the differences. For instance, surface parcel El covers
a fairly large area (extending out to three kilometers from the source) and it appears from the
measured results that the concentrations in the eastern direction are higher to the north and much
lower to the south; however, this is not distinguishable when looking at the TRIM.FaTE results
because of how the layout was designed (e.g., there is one large parcel versus two or more
smaller ones in the same area).

5.3    Modeling Uncertainties/Limitations

       As with most model-to-monitor and model-to-model comparisons, there were several
uncertainties and limitations in this comparison.  These include model differences, accuracy of
input data, types of algorithms used, and the output format and aggregation of data. Table 1  in
Section 1.4 summarizes the similarities and differences between the two models; other issues
associated with the model-to-model comparisons are discussed below.

       Uncertainties involving the inputs and setup of TRIM.FaTE (e.g., abiotic information,
chemical properties, meteorological data, source emissions, spatial layout), which are
documented in Appendices A and B, are unavoidable considering the amount of information
needed to perform the simulations.4 Site- and chemical-specific data were collected where
possible, although data were not always readily available and much of the congener-specific
information was based on data for TCDD from the literature. The same local airport
meteorological data used in Lorber et al. (2000) were also used in TRIM.FaTE; however,
meteorological data were not collected for every year of the facility's operation and thus this data
set may not have captured the year-to-year variability in meteorological conditions, potentially
affecting the comparison of modeled results  to measurements. It is unlikely that this affected the
comparison of modeled data to measurements in air because dioxins do not accumulate in air
over time. However, it may have affected the comparison to soil measurements because
variations  in meteorological conditions over time can have an impact on the accumulation of
dioxins in soil.
    4 An analysis of the sensitivity of each user-supplied input parameter is included in the TRIM.FaTE Mercury
Test Case evaluation report (EPA 2004).


DECEMBER 2004                               5-9        TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
CHAPTERS
COMPARISON TO LORBER ET AL. (2000) RESULTS
       Lorber et al. (2000) also noted the uncertainty of the source emissions.  The stack tests
may not be completely accurate due to a rain event during the 1992 test and the fact that only the
two stack tests were performed during the entire period of operation. Representative input data
were gathered to the extent possible for TREVI.FaTE, given its availability in the literature and
the resources available for this analysis. Other sources of uncertainty in comparing TRIM.FaTE
to the Lorber et al. (2000) analysis involve the actual mechanisms and algorithms of the
modeling approaches as they relate to dioxin-like compounds. For example, Lorber et al. (2000)
state that ISCST3 does not include an algorithm for dechlorination; in contrast, TRIM.FaTE
models chemical degradation (which includes dechlorination).

       Output format and data aggregation were sources of uncertainty for both the air and soil
comparisons. In Lorber et al. (2000), air concentrations were modeled at the point location of the
air monitors.  For this TRIM.FaTE analysis, the  air concentrations for the comparison were
predicted for individual air compartments that represent areas ranging from 2.4 km2 to 25 km2.
Therefore, TRIM.FaTE air concentrations are not as spatially "fine-tuned" as those estimated
using  ISCST3, making it more difficult to compare the results at a specific location (i.e., the air
monitors).

       The TRIM.FaTE soil concentrations are also predicted for individual compartments with
areas for the comparison ranging from one km2 in Region 1 (for the source compartment) to 102
km2 in Region 3 (for the E2 compartment).  Similarly, the Lorber et al. (2000) results were
presented for spatially aggregated areas (i.e., measured concentrations were averaged for all
samples in each of the three regions); however, not all of sampling locations fell within the
specified regions (e.g., some urban background samples were taken at two kilometers, which is
outside the three to eight kilometer regions specified for urban background). In addition, the
samples were not distributed evenly around the source and thus concentrations in some areas
were weighted more than others.  Therefore,  for the soil comparison, both the aggregation of data
in Lorber et al. (2000) and the size and orientation of the surface parcels in TRIM.FaTE likely
contributed to some of the differences in the modeled and monitored results. It should be noted
that the second report for this dioxin application focuses on the effects of differences in spatial
resolution in TRIM.FaTE for both air and surface compartments.

5.4    Summary of Comparisons

       Overall, the TRIM.FaTE-estimated air and soil concentrations of the 17 dioxin/furan
congeners compared well to the results presented in Lorber et al. (2000).  The modeled air TEQ
concentrations for the 48-hour period from Lorber et al. (2000) and TRIM.FaTE generally have
similar magnitudes, but slightly different spatial patterns. For both TEQ and OCDD air results,
the spatial differences between the Lorber et al. (2000) results and the TRIM.FaTE results are
likely due to some extent to the comparison between point concentrations and compartment
concentrations.  TEQ air concentrations modeled in TRIM.FaTE are generally more similar to the
measured concentrations both in magnitude and  spatial pattern. OCDD measured air
concentrations do not match as well as the TEQ  concentrations for both the TRIM.FaTE and
Lorber et al. (2000) modeling results. The measured concentrations are lower to the southeast
(the predominant wind direction) than both TRIM.FaTE and Lorber et al. (2000) modeled
concentrations.  Also, the measured values are highest to the northeast, which is similar to Lorber

DECEMBER 2004                             5-10       TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                                                               CHAPTERS
                                                   COMPARISON TO LORBER ET AL. (2000) RESULTS
et al. (2000) results spatially although not in magnitude. However, this pattern does not match
TEQ results or TRIM.FaTE results spatially and it does not appear based on the wind rose (see
Appendix D) that this location should have the highest concentration associated with the source.

       For the soil comparison, the TRIM.FaTE soil concentrations are slightly lower than the
Lorber et al. (2000) modeled concentrations for TEQ and OCDD, except for locations close to
the source where the TRIM.FaTE values fall within the range of Lorber et al. (2000) values for
TEQ and are higher than OCDD concentrations. The slightly lower TRIM.FaTE concentrations
in the outer regions may be related to the longer soil dioxin dissipation half-life used in the
Lorber et al. (2000) modeling than in the TRIM.FaTE modeling. The measured TEQ
concentrations fall within the range of TRIM.FaTE results for the two emissions scenarios, but
the measured OCDD concentrations are much higher than all of the modeled concentrations from
both the TRIM.FaTE and the Lorber et  al. (2000) modeling.  Spatially, the TEQ soil results from
the two models are somewhat different  in their patterns (the TRIM.FaTE concentrations are
highest to the west and north, while the Lorber et al. (2000) values are highest directly to the
north). However, the Lorber et al. (2000) spatial distribution for soil concentration matches
closely to the TRIM.FaTE air concentration distribution, which is reasonable because Lorber et
al. (2000) used an overall dissipation rate that does not vary spatially, whereas TRIM.FaTE
models other soil processes (e.g., erosion, runoff) that vary by compartment independent of air.
DECEMBER 2004                              5-11       TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]

-------
                                                                             CHAPTER 6
	REFERENCES

6.0   REFERENCES

Lorber, M., A. Eschenroeder and R. Robinson.  2000.  Testing the USA EPA's ISCST-Version 3
model on dioxins: A comparison of predicted and observed air and soil concentrations.
Atmospheric Environment. 34(23): 3995-4010.

Mackay, D., W.Y. Shiu and K.C. Ma. 2000. Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental
Fate Handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.

McKone T. E. and D. H. Bennett. 2003. Chemical-Specific Representation of Air-Soil
Exchange and Soil Penetration in Regional Multimedia Models. Environmental Science &
Technology. 37(14): 3123 - 3132.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 1994. Risk assessment of potential health
effects of dioxins and dibenzofurans emitted from the Columbus solid waste authority's reduction
facility. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Air Pollution Control.
February 28, 1994.

Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio (SWACO).  1994.  Corrected Data for March 16-18, 1994
Dioxin Test Waste to Energy Facility. Memorandum to U.S. EPA Region 5. October  26, 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  2000.  Dioxin reassessment: Exposure and
human health reassessment of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related
compounds. Draft Final Report. EPA/600/P-00/001Bb. September 2000.  Exposure
Assessment and Risk Characterization Group. National Center for Environmental Assessment -
Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  2002a. Total Risk Integrated Methodology: TREVI.FaTE Technical Support
Document,  Volume I: Description of Module. EPA-453/R-02-01 la. September 2002.
Emissions Standards and Air Quality Strategies and Standards Divisions. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards - Research Triangle Park, NC.

U.S. EPA.  2002b. Total Risk Integrated Methodology: TREVI.FaTE Technical Support
Document,  Volume II: Description of Chemical Transport  and Transformation Algorithms.
EPA-453/R-02-01 Ib. September 2002. Emissions Standards and Air Quality Strategies and
Standards Divisions. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards - Research Triangle Park,
NC.

U.S. EPA. 2004. Evaluation of TRIM.FaTE Volume It: Model Performance Focusing on
Mercury Test Case. In preparation. Emissions Standards and Air Quality Strategies and
Standards Divisions. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.  Research Triangle Park, NC.
DECEMBER 2004                             6-1        TRIM.FATE EVALUATION REPORT VOLUME III

-------
                                   Appendix A.
             SPECIFICATIONS OF TRIM.FATE SIMULATIONS
       This appendix summarizes the specifications of the TRIM.FaTE simulations.

•      Section A.I lists the chemicals modeled in these simulations and describes how the
       chemical-specific emission rates were calculated.

       The spatial layout and the methodology used to develop the layout are described in
       Section A.2.

•      Sections A.3, A.4, and A.5, describe the meteorological, environmental setting, and
       biotic data used in the simulations.

•      The overall simulation settings - including the data, simulation, and output time steps
       and output data export settings - are described in Section A.6.

References are included at the end of the appendix.

       This information is supplemented by Appendices B and C, which provide detailed
documentation of the values and references for all the input parameters used in the TRIM.FaTE
simulations for this analysis. The modeling concepts, approaches, algorithms, equations, and
assumptions used in TRIM.FaTE (including the TRIM.FaTE library used in this analysis) are
documented in detail in a two-volume Technical Support Document (EPA 2002a and b) and are
not discussed at length here.
December 2004                            A-1          TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
A.I    Modeled Chemicals and Emission Rates

       A.1.1  Chemical Data

       Each of the TRIM.FaTE simulations included in this analysis modeled the fate and
transport of the same 17 individual dioxin and furan congeners addressed in the Lorber et al.
2000 report. These congeners are listed in Table 2 of the report along with the abbreviations that
are commonly used for them. The chemical properties used in TRIM.FaTE for the these
congeners are documented in Appendix B.

       The fate and transport of these 17 congeners were modeled in TRIM.FaTE individually.
To facilitate comparison with the results presented in the Lorber et al. reports, the individual
results for these chemicals were subsequently combined into toxic equivalent (TEQ)
concentrations.  These TEQ concentrations were calculated by multiplying the compartment
concentrations of each congener by its corresponding toxicity  equivalent factor (TEF), which
were the exact same as used by Lorber et al. (2000) and described in Appendix C, and then
summing the resulting products across all of the congeners. In addition, congener-specific
compartment results for TCDD and OCDD from TRIM.FaTE  are compared to the corresponding
results from the Lorber et al. 2000 report.  These congeners were chosen because they were the
only two congeners in the Lorber et al. 2000 report for which individual results are presented
both on tables and in spatial plots.

       A. 1.2  Calculating Chemical-specific Emission Rates

       Emissions from stack tests conducted at the CMSWTE facility in 1992 (Ohio EPA 1994)
and 1994 (SWA 1994) that were used in the Lorber et al. 2000 report were also used as the basis
for chemical-specific emission rates for this analysis.  The  detailed calculations using the stack
test data to obtain chemical-specific emission rates for TRIM.FaTE are included in Appendix C.
In these calculations, the  1992 and 1994 stack test data were converted to the correct units for
TRIM.FaTE (grams of chemical emitted per day) and adjusted for usage based on the
assumption that on average 4.22 boilers were used continuously at the facility.  This same
methodology was used to calculate the emissions used in the Lorber report as well.  Appendix C
summarizes the chemical-specific emission rates that were modeled using the 1992  and  1994
stack tests.

       A.1.3  Calculating Specific Emission Rates for each Stack Test

       The Lorber et al. 2000 analysis reported emission rates in terms of TEQ emissions.
Because TRIM.FaTE modeled each congener individually, instead of as TEQ emissions,
congener-specific emission rates needed to be  developed. Using the stack tests referenced as the
source of emissions data for the Lorber et al. 2000  report, emission rates were calculated for each
congener (these calculations are described in detail in Appendix C).
December 2004                             A-2           TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
       The 1994 emissions reflected a combustion improvements at the facility that reduced
emissions by approximately 73 percent in terms of TEQ concentration. The congener-specific
emission rates for 1994 are not all reduced by 73 percent, this only refers to the TEQ
concentration; in fact, some of the congener (e.g., OCDD) concentrations increase from 1992 to
1994.

       To confirm the calculations were correct, the congener-specific emission rates from the
1992 and  1994 stack test were converted into TEQ emission rates (in grams per second) and
compared to the emission rates reported in two Lorber et al. reports (1996 and 2000).  This
comparison showed that the emission rates used in the TRIM.FaTE simulations were consistent
with emissions used by Lorber et al. Appendix C summarizes the emissions in TEQ modeled for
each stack test.
A.2    Spatial Layout

       The spatial layout of parcels
simulation. Thus, it is important
to create a layout that is
representative of the area being
modeled and, in this application,
similar to the areas outlined in the
reports to which these results were
to be compared.  The process of
designing the spatial layout for
this TRIM.FaTE analysis involved
defining the modeling region
(Section A.2.1) and delineating
this region into surface parcels
(Section A.2.2) and air parcels
(Section A.2.3).  Definitions for
important spatial terms used in
this section are summarized in the
text box below.

       A.2.1   Modeling Region
provides the underlying framework for a TRIM.FaTE
  A parcel is a planar (i.e., two-dimensional), horizontal
  geographical area used to subdivide the modeling
  region. Parcels, which are polygons of virtually any size
  or shape, are the basis for defining volume elements
  and do not change for a given scenario.  There can be
  separate parcels for air and for the land  surface (soil or
  surface water).
  A volume element is a bounded three-dimensional
  space that defines the location of one or more
  compartments.
  A compartment is defined as a unit of  space
  characterized by its homogeneous physical composition
  and within which it is assumed, for modeling purposes,
  that all chemical mass is homogeneously distributed
  and is in phase equilibrium.
       For this analysis, the overall size and extent of the area for which pollutant fate and
transport were modeled (i.e., the modeling region) was determined based on the location of the
emissions source, expected mobility of the chemicals of primary interest (i.e., chemicals listed in
Table A.I), locations or receptors of interest (e.g., dairy farms, monitoring stations), and
watershed boundaries for the water bodies of interest.  The size and extent of the modeling
region was determined by identifying the location of interest farthest from the source and
December 2004
        A-3
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
creating a square centered on the source that captured this location1.  A square shape was
selected to allow for an equal number of air parcels in each direction.  The modeling region was
centered on the source location because the locations of interest (primarily the monitoring
locations discussed in the Lorber et al. 2000 report) are scattered around the facility, rather than
on one side, and the wind direction in the Columbus area (based on the available meteorological
data) varies across the site.

       A.2.2  Surface Layout

       The surface parcels were designed based on the source location, locations of water
bodies, watershed boundaries for these water bodies, and locations and receptors of interest.  The
layout is centered on a square source parcel that approximates the surface area of the facility.
Surface parcels included either soil or water parcels.

       Four primary water bodies were identified within the modeling region: Scioto River,
Olentangy River, Walnut Creek, and Alum Creek. Surface parcels were created for the Scioto
River and Olentangy River based on the path and average width of these water bodies.  Walnut
Creek and Alum Creek were combined into a single surface parcel because they run together for
nearly half of their distance within the modeling region.  The remaining surface parcels were
delineated based on the monitoring and modeling locations in the Lorber et al. 2000 report, as
well as the watershed boundaries within the modeling region.

       The resulting surface parcel layout, presented in Figure 1 in the main body of this report,
consists of 27 soil parcels (including a small source parcel centered on the emission source) and
three surface water parcels, for a total of 30 surface parcels.

       For each soil parcel, four volume elements were defined (i.e., surface soil, root soil,
vadose soil, and groundwater) that correspond to soil layers.  The depths for these volume
elements were 1 cm, 81 cm, 153 cm, and 3 m, respectively2. Associated with each surface water
parcels is  a surface water volume element above a sediment volume element.  The depths of the
surface water and sediment volume elements were based on site-specific or regional data and
professional judgment, and are presented in Appendix B.
           TRIM.FaTE User's Guide (EPA 2003) for more information on TRIM.FaTE parcel designs.

       2It is important to note that TRIM.FaTE is very flexible with respect to assigning the depths of
different compartments, including surface soil. The algorithms associated with the surface soil
compartments have been evaluated and shown to be valid at depths of up to one meter. The soil depths in
TRIM.FaTE for this application were selected based on site-specific data and configurations used in
previous TRIM.FaTE applications.

December 2004                               A-4          TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
       A.2.3  Air Layout

       The air parcels were designed based on the source location, the degradation rates of the
modeled chemicals, the locations and receptors of interest, and the desire to maintain a regular,
symmetric layout in an "approximated radial grid" shape. The air portion of the modeling region
was divided into two vertical layers of volume elements. The boundary between the two layers
corresponds to the atmospheric mixing height and varies with time. The air layer closest to the
ground was divided into individual parcels (and associated volume elements) designed to
provide higher spatial resolution near the facility (where the gradient of concentrations is
greater) and less resolution further from the facility (where the gradient of concentrations is
smaller). This bottom air layer was centered on a source parcel that matches exactly with the
source parcel in the surface parcel layout. The remaining air parcels in the bottom layer were
arranged in a grid of polygons designed to approximate a polar grid originating from the source
parcel.  The radial distances between the parcels were selected to maintain a consistent relative
decrease in estimated air concentrations with distance from the source. The upper air layer was
designed as a single air volume element covering the entire modeling region with the top of the
layer set to 4.0 kilometers, which is approximately 1.0 kilometer above the maximum mixing
height for the meteorological data used at the site. This upper air layer was included to track
emissions released above the mixing height (i.e., during times when the mixing height is lower
than the source elevation) and is considered a sink for the purposes of this report since the mass
released to the upper layer remains there and is no longer available.

       The resulting air configuration is presented in Figure 2 in the Report. This figure shows
the 33 individual air parcels in the bottom layer.  The top layer consists of a single volume
element with the same outer boundary as the outer boundary of the bottom layer. The air parcels
do not line up exactly with the surface parcels, although the outer boundaries of both parcel sets
are the same. Figure 2 also shows the air monitoring locations from the Lorber et al. 2000
report.

A.3    Meteorological Data

       The meteorological data used in this analysis correspond exactly to the 1989 data used in
the Lorber et al. 2000 report for the soil analyses,  and the 1994 local airport data for the air
analyses. The surface air data were from Columbus, Ohio, and the upper air data are from
Dayton, Ohio. These data were downloaded from EPA's Support Center for Regulatory Air
Models web site (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/). All meteorological data required by
TRIM.FaTE were presented in one-hour time steps.

       The soil results from the Lorber et al. 2000 report were modeled using only one year of
meteorological data (1989) and assumed that deposition in subsequent years was identical to the
modeled year; therefore, in the two 12-year TRIM.FaTE simulations used for the soil
comparisons, the 1989 meteorological data were repeated for all of the years over the course of
the simulation.
December 2004                                A-5          TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
A.4    Abiotic Compartment Data

       For this report, the results from the TRIM.FaTE model simulations were compared only
to the air and soil concentrations in the Lorber et al. 2000 report.  Therefore, only air, surface
soil, and root zone soil compartments, as well as the other compartment types that significantly
impact the overall mass balance, were needed in the simulations.  Abiotic media included in
these TRIM.FaTE simulations were air, soil (surface, root zone, and vadose zone), groundwater,
surface water, and sediment.

       For the environmental setting (i.e., abiotic) input data, site-specific values were obtained
or calculated, when possible, using U.S. Geological Survey data, topographic maps, and other
resources with local or regional information. The representativeness of the data was evaluated, if
possible, based on the purpose  of the simulation and resources available.  Appendix B contains
the documentation of values for all environmental setting data.  Chemical-specific input data for
the abiotic compartments were  obtained for the  17 dioxin-like compounds and are also
documented in Appendix B. Calculations and assumptions for the surface water data are detailed
at the end of Appendix B for the three surface water bodies included in the TRIM.FaTE
simulations.

A.5    Biotic Compartment Data

       There are no comparison data for biota in the Lorber et al. 2000 report. Based on results
from previous TRIM.FaTE  analyses, the presence of vegetation has the potential to affect the
mass balance in other compartments, such as air (e.g., via the intake of chemicals to leaves
through the stomata) and soil (via transfer of the chemical to soil during litter fall); therefore,
plant compartments were included wherever appropriate. Other biotic compartments, such as
terrestrial and aquatic animals,  are not expected to significantly impact air or soil concentrations
and, thus, were not considered  in this analysis.

       Terrestrial vegetation types (i.e., grasses/herbs, agriculture, and deciduous forests) were
assigned to all surface parcels based on land use information from the National Land  Cover Data
database. Based on these data,  most of the surface parcels  were assigned grasses/herbs. One of
the surface parcels was assigned the deciduous forest vegetation type, and two were assigned
agricultural vegetation.  The remaining surface parcel corresponded to the source location and
was not assigned any vegetation.  Documentation of the vegetation types of each plant
compartment, as well as  and the corresponding input data are included in Appendix B.

A.6    Simulation Settings

       This section describes the settings for the TRIM.FaTE simulations included in the
analysis. Section A.6.1 describes the details of the scenario setup, Section A.6.2 describes the
time-varying inputs used in  the analysis, Section A.6.3 describes the selected simulation and
output time steps, and Section A.6.4 describes the selected options for exporting results from
TRIM.FaTE.

December 2004                              A-6          TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
       A.6.1  Scenario Setup
       Table A-2 lists the three simulations modeled for this comparison report with the details
of the setup.  The emissions, summarized in Section A. 1, refer to the stack tests upon which they
are based. The modeling period used for this comparison report lists the time period that was
chosen to correspond to the those used in the Lorber et al. 2000 report. All of the simulations
were set up using only plants for biota, all  17 dioxins/furans used in the Lorber report, a
meteorological data time step of one hour (the smallest increment that the data are reported), a
simulation time step of one hour (see Section A.6.2), and an output time step of monthly or
hourly (see Section A.6.2).

                   Table A-2. Detailed List of TRIM.FaTE Simulations
Emissions
1994 stack
test
1992 stack
test
1994 stack
test
Modeling Period
Used for
Comparison
1 year
12 years
12 years
Biota
Vegetation
only
Vegetation
only
Vegetation
only
Chemicals
17 dioxin/
furans
17 dioxin/
furans
17 dioxin/
furans
Met Data
Time
Step
Ihr
Ihr
Ihr
Sim
Time
Step
Ihr
Ihr
Ihr
Output Time
Step
Ihr
Monthly
(i.e.,730hrs)
Monthly
(i.e.,730hrs)
Compartments
Used for
Comparison
Air
Surface and root
zone soil
Surface and root
zone soil
       A.6.2  Time-varying Inputs

       Some of the inputs to the TRIM.FaTE simulations described in this report varied with
time: meteorological data and vegetation data (i.e., AllowExchange and litter fall rate).  The
AllowExchange property is a Boolean property that indicates whether it is the growing season
for each vegetation type. For this application, the grasses/herbs, agriculture, and deciduous
forest compartments had a growing season starting on April 15th (the local spring thaw) and
ending on November 5th (the local fall freeze) of each year modeled.  The litter fall rate property
is a seasonal property used to model the loss of plant leaves (and particles on leaves) to soil. For
all three vegetation types modeled, litter fall was set to begin at this site with the first frost on
November 5th of every year, and ended December 4th, and assumed that 99 percent of leaves fall
at a constant rate over these 30 days.

       A.6.3  Simulation and Output Time Steps

       The simulation and output time steps are simulation settings used to specify how often
the model will calculate the mass and concentration in each compartment and how often these
data will be output. The simulation time step specifies the frequency at which the model will
calculate transfer factors and chemical mass exchange between compartments. For all
simulations associated with this analysis, the simulation time step was set to one hour,
December 2004
A-7
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
corresponding to the smallest input data time step (i.e., the time-varying data that changes most
frequently).

       The output time step specifies how often the model outputs (e.g., mass and
concentrations in each compartment, deposition rates to surface soil compartments) will be
reported. The output time step was either monthly3 (for the simulations used for comparison to
soil concentrations) or hourly (for the simulation used for comparison to air concentrations).
Because soil concentrations change more gradually over time than air concentrations and thus do
not need to be output as frequently, monthly time steps were used for the simulations used in the
surface soil comparisons to reduce the volume of output data generated by TRIM.FaTE.
Conversely, air concentrations can change significantly from hour to hour based on changes in
the meteorological conditions and thus the simulations used in the air comparisons used hourly
output time steps.

       A.6.4  Output Data Export Settings

       For each TRIM.FaTE simulation included in this analysis, the following types of outputs
were selected:

             Moles of each modeled chemical in each compartment at each output time step;

       •     Mass of each modeled chemical in each compartment at each output time step;

             Concentration of each modeled chemical in each compartment at each output time
             step; and

             Wet and dry particle and vapor deposition rates to each surface soil compartment
             at each output time step.


In addition to these outputs, several diagnostic outputs (e.g., HTML export) were generated to
provide additional insight into how the model is working.  Although the comparisons focused on
the concentration outputs, the additional outputs were useful for interpreting results.
       3 The monthly output time step outputs the results every 730 hours to approximate the average number of
hours in a month.

December 2004                               A-8          TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
References

Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio (SWA).  1994.  Corrected Data for March 16-18, 1994
Dioxin Test Waste to Energy Facility.  Memorandum to U.S. EPA Region 5. October 26, 1994.

Lorber, M., A. Eschenroeder and R. Robinson. 2000. Testing the USA EPA's ISCST-Version 3
model on dioxins: A comparison of predicted and observed air and soil concentrations.
Atmospheric Environment 34(23): 3995-4010.

Lorber, M., D. Cleverly and J. Schaum. 1996.  A screening-level risk assessment of the indirect
impacts from the Columbus waste to energy facility in Columbus, Ohio. Proceedings of an
International Specialty Conference, sponsored by the Air and Waste Management Association
and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, held April 18-21, 1996 in Washington,
D.C. Published in Solid Waste Management: Thermal  Treatment & Waste-to-Energy
Technologies, VIP - 53. pp. 262-278. Air & Waste Management Association, One Gateway
Center, Third Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 1994. Risk assessment of potential health
effects of dioxins and dibenzofurans  emitted from the Columbus solid waste authority's
reduction facility. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Air Pollution
Control. February 28, 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002a.  Total Risk Integrated Methodology:
TRIM.FaTE Technical Support Document, Volume I: Description of Module.  EPA-453/R-02-
01 la. September 2002.  Emissions Standards & Air Quality Strategies and  Standards Division.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards - Research Triangle Park, NC.

U.S. EPA. 2002b.  Total Risk Integrated Methodology: TRIM.FaTE Technical Support
Document, Volume II: Description of Chemical Transport and Transformation Algorithms.
EPA-453/R-02-01 Ib. September 2002. Emissions Standards & Air Quality Strategies and
Standards Division.  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards - Research Triangle Park, NC.

U.S. EPA. 2003. TRIM.FaTE User's Guide. March 2003.
December 2004                              A-9          TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                      Appendix B
                               DOCUMENTATION OF
                         TRIM.FHTE INPUT PARAMETERS

         This appendix contains the following sets of tables, including supplemental tables with
   calculations and discussion where appropriate, listing and describing the input parameters
   used in TRIM.FaTE:

         chemical-independent parameters for abiotic and biotic (i.e., plant) compartment types;
      •   chemical-dependent (i.e., value varies by chemical) parameters independent of
         compartment type;
         chemical-dependent parameters for abiotic and biotic (i.e., plant) compartment types.

   For each parameter listed, the parameter name, input units, value used, and a reference are
   given. Full citations for each reference are provided at the end. Several attachments, referred to
   in the tables, provide additional detailed documentation.

         Within the framework of the TRIM.FaTE computer model, several different kinds
   of "properties" are defined and used. The input parameters listed in this appendix fall into the
   following  categories of TRIM.FaTE properties:

      •   compartment properties (includes by far the largest number of input parameters);
         volume element (VE) properties;
         link properties;
      •   chemical properties;
      •   source properties; and
         scenario properties.

   In the following tables, the property type is identified for all input parameters that are not
   compartment properties.

         Note that the units listed in these tables are the units in which model input values
   need to be expressed. In a few cases, these computer model input units do not match the units
   used for the same parameter in equations and derivations in TRIM.FaTE Techincal Support
   Document Volume II.  In such cases, there are internal units conversions in the computer model
   that account for the differences.
December 2004                                B-1             TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                    Chemical-lndependent/Abiotic --  Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
                                     (same values used for all air compartments)

Air Compartment Type
Parameter Name
Atmospheric dust load
Density of air
Dust density
Fraction organic matter on particulates
Height [VE property] a
Washout ratio
Units
kg[dust]/m3[air]
g/cm3
kg[dust]/m3[dust]
unitless
m
[mass chem/volume
rain]/[ mass
chem/volume air]
Value Used
7.80E-08
0.0012
1,400
0.2
mixing height
(varies hourly)
33,495
Reference
Bidleman 1988
U.S. EPA 1997
Bidleman 1988
Harnerand Bidleman 1998
Local airport meteorological data, 1989 and 1994
Vulykh and Shatalov2001
aHeight of air volume elements is set in TRIM.FaTE using two properties, the bottom of the volume element (set at 0 meters) and the top of the volume
element (set to the mixing height, which varies hourly).
December 2004
B-2
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                      Chemical-lndependent/Abiotic - Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
                      (same values used for all soil compartments of each type, except where noted)
Soil Compartment Types
Parameter Name
Units
Value Used [Reference
Surface Soil Compartment Type
Air content
Average vertical velocity of water
(percolation)
Density of soil solids (dry weight)
Depth [VE property] a
Erosion fraction [Link property]
Fraction of area available for erosion
Fraction of area available for runoff
Fraction of area available for vertical
diffusion
Organic carbon fraction
Water content
Boundary layer thickness above
surface soil
Total erosion rate
Total runoff rate
volume[air]/volume[compartment]
m/day
kg[soil]/m3[soil]
m
unitless
m2[area available]/m2[total]
m2[area available]/m2[total]
m2[area available]/m2[total]
unitless
volume[water]/volume[compartment]
m
kg [soil]/m2/day
m3[water]/m2/day
0.25
7.00E-02
2600
0.01
compartment boundary-
specific3
varies by parcel
1
varies by parcel
0.02
0.22
0.005
5.50E-04
0.0011
McKone et al. 2001 (Table A-2)
Professional judgment, based on water balance
calculations
McKone et al. 2001 (Table 3)
Professional judgment, based on McKone et al.
2001 (p. 30)
See "Erosion and Runoff Fractions" table
Calculated based on the percentage of parcel area
covered by roads and based on the estimated
density of development; see "Fraction of Area
Available for Erosion and Runoff table
Professional judgment; all area assumed to be
available for runoff
Calculated based on the percentage of parcel area
covered by roads and based on the estimated
density of development; see "Fraction of Area
Available for Erosion and Runoff table
Lorberetal. 1996 (Table 1)
McKone et al. 2001 (Table A-2)
Thibodeaux 1996; McKone et al. 2001 (Table 3)
van der Leeden et al. 1991, as cited in McKone et
al. 2001, p.23
van der Leeden et al. 1991, as cited in McKone et
al. 2001, p.18
Root Zone Soil Compartment Type
Air content
Average vertical velocity of water
(percolation)
Density of soil solids (dry weight)
volume[air]/volume[compartment]
m/day
kg[soil]/m3[soil]
0.19
7.00E-02
2,600
McKone et al. 2001 (Table A-3)
Professional judgment, based on water balance
calculations
McKone et al. 2001 (Table 3)
December 2004
B-3
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                       Chemical-lndependent/Abiotic - Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
                       (same values used for all soil compartments of each type, except where noted)
Soil Compartment Types
Parameter Name
Depth [VE property] a
Organic carbon fraction
Water content
Units
m
unitless
volume[water]/volume[compartment]
Value Used
0.81
0.007
0.24
Reference
McKone et al. 2001 (Table A-3)
McKone et al. 2001 (Table A-3)
McKone et al. 2001 (Table A-3)
Vadose Zone Soil Compartment Type
Air content
Average vertical velocity of water
(percolation)
Density of soil solids (dry weight)
Depth [VE property]3
Organic carbon fraction
Water content
volume[air]/volume[compartment]
m/day
kg[soil]/m3[soil]
m
unitless
volume[water]/volume[compartment]
0.16
7.00E-02
2,600
1.53
0.002
0.23
McKone et al. 2001 (Table A-4)
Professional judgment, based on water balance
calculations
McKone et al. 2001 (Table 3)
McKone et al. 2001 (Table A-4)
McKone et al. 2001 (Table A-4)
McKone et al. 2001 (Table A-4)
Ground Water Compartment Type
Depth [VE property] a
Organic carbon fraction
Porosity
Solid material density in aquifer
m
unitless
volume[total pore
space]/volume[compartment]
kg[soil]/m3[soil]
3
0.002
0.2
2,600
McKone et al. 2001 (Table 3)
McKone et al. 2001 (Table A-4)
McKone et al. 2001 (Table 3)
McKone et al. 2001 (Table 3)
 Set using the volume element properties named "top" and "bottom.'
bSee separate erosion/runoff fraction table.
December 2004
B-4
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                   Chemical-lndependent/Abiotic - Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
                                Fraction of Area Available for Erosion and Runoff
Compartment
SurfSoil E1
SurfSoil E2
SurfSoil ESE2
SurfSoil ESE3
SurfSoil N1
SurfSoil NE2
SurfSoil NNE2
SurfSoil NNW1
SurfSoil NNW2
SurfSoil NNW3
SurfSoil NW2
SurfSoil NWS
SurfSoil NWFarm
SurfSoil SE2
SurfSoil SE3
SurfSoil Source
SurfSoil SW1
SurfSoil SW2
Percentage of Total Area
Covered bv Roads
10.64%
10.64%
4.56%
3.54%
14.98%
8.08%
14.31%
14.98%
13.16%
1 1 .99%
7.55%
3.52%
13.61%
3.72%
2.25%
8.71%
3.85%
3.85%
Urban?
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Fraction of Area Available
for Erosion
0.79
0.79
0.95
0.96
0.70
0.92
0.71
0.70
0.74
0.76
0.92
0.96
0.86
0.96
0.98
0.83
0.96
0.96
Fraction of Area Available for
Vertical Diffusion (Runoff)
0.79
0.79
0.95
0.96
0.70
0.92
0.71
0.70
0.74
0.76
0.92
0.96
0.86
0.96
0.98
0.83
0.96
0.96
December 2004
B-5
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                       Chemical-lndependent/Abiotic - Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
                                      Fraction of Area Available for Erosion and Runoff
Compartment
SurfSoil SW3
SurfSoil SW4
SurfSoil W1
SurfSoil WNW1
SurfSoil WNW2
SurfSoil WNW3
SurfSoil WSW1
SurfSoil WSW2
SurfSoil WSW3
Percentage of Total Area
Covered bv Roads
3.85%
2.32%
8.21%
8.21%
8.21%
3.42%
3.66%
3.66%
2.87%
Urban?
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Fraction of Area Available
for Erosion
0.96
0.98
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.97
0.96
0.96
0.97
Fraction of Area Available for
Vertical Diffusion (Runoff)
0.96
0.98
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.97
0.96
0.96
0.97
Methodology: First, we calculated the percentage of each parcel covered by roads using CIS. We assumed each road was 25 feet
wide, based on the assumption that each lane is, on average, 8 feet wide and there is a mixture of different numbers of lanes
throughout the study area. We then identified which parcels appeared to be highly developed (using USGS quad maps) (these are
indicated by a "Y" in the "Urban?" column) and assumed that the percentage of area available for erosion and vertical diffusion in these
parcels was twice the area covered by roads (to account for buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, etc.).  For the remaining parcels, we
assumed the percentage of area available for erosion and vertical diffusion was equal to the percentage of area covered by roads.
December 2004
B-6
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                   Erosion and Runoff Fractions -- Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
Surface Soil Compartment Type
Originating Compartment
SurfSoil_Source
SurfSoil_N1
SurfSoil_NNW1
SurfSoil_NWFarm
SurfSoil_NW2
SurfSoil_NW3
SurfSoil_NNW2
SurfSoil_NNW3
SurfSoil_W1
SurfSoil_WNW1
Destination Compartment Runoff/Erosion Fraction3
SurfSoil N1
SurfSoil_W1
SW Scioto
SurfSoil Source
SurfSoil W1
SurfSoil_NNW1
SW Scioto
SW_Scioto
SurfSoil Source
SurfSoil_WNW1
SurfSoil NWFarm
SurfSoil NW2
SW Scioto
SurfSoil NNW1
SurfSoil NW2
SW_Scioto
SurfSoil NWFarm
SurfSoil NNW1
SurfSoil NWS
SW Scioto
SurfSoil NW2
SurfSoil_WNW2
out
SW_Scioto
SW Olentangy
SurfSoil NNW3
SW_Scioto
SW Olentangy
SurfSoil NNW2
SurfSoil_Source
SW Scioto
SurfSoil SW1
SurfSoil WNWI
SurfSoil N1
SurfSoil Wl
SurfSoil SW2
SurfSoil WSW1
SurfSoil WNW2
SurfSoil NNW1
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.30
0.20
0.00
0.50
0.30
0.15
0.30
0.25
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.69
0.29
0.02
0.00
0.34
0.00
0.36
0.30
0.55
0.45
0.00
0.30
0.67
0.03
0.00
0.90
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.98
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
December 2004
B-7
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                   Erosion and Runoff Fractions -- Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
Surface Soil Compartment Type
Originating Compartment
SurfSoil_WNW2
SurfSoil_WNW3
SurfSoil_SW1
SurfSoil_SW2
SurfSoil_SW3
SurfSoil_WSW1
SurfSoil_WSW2
SurfSoil_WSW3
SurfSoil_SW4
SurfSoil_E1
Destination Compartment
SurfSoil WNW3
SurfSoil WNW1
SurfSoil WSW2
SurfSoil NNW1
SurfSoil WNW2
SurfSoil WSW3
SurfSoil_NW3
out
SurfSoil W1
SurfSoil_SW2
SW Scioto
SurfSoil SW3
SurfSoil WSW1
SurfSoil WNW1
SurfSoil_SW1
SW Scioto
SW Scioto
SurfSoil SW4
SurfSoil WSW2
SurfSoil SW2
SurfSoil SW2
SurfSoil WSW2
SurfSoil WNWI
SurfSoil WSW3
SurfSoil WSW1
SurfSoil WNW2
SurfSoil SW3
SurfSoil SW4
SurfSoil WSW2
SurfSoil WNW3
SurfSoil_SW4
out
SW Scioto
SurfSoil SW3
SurfSoil WSW2
SurfSoil_WSW3
out
SurfSoil_E2
SW Scioto
Runoff/Erosion Fraction3
0.17
0.77
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.55
0.45
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.25
0.30
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.00
1.00
December 2004
B-8
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                    Erosion and Runoff Fractions -- Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
Surface Soil Compartment Type
Originating Compartment

SurfSoil_E2


SurfSoil_NNE2


SurfSoil NE2


SurfSoil_SE2



SurfSoil ESE2



SurfSoil_ESE3


SurfSoil_SE3

Destination Compartment
SurfSoil E1
SurfSoil_NNE2
SW Combined
SW Scioto
SurfSoil E2
SWjDIentangy
SW Combined
out
SurfSoil ESE2
SW Combined
out
SurfSoil ESE2
SurfSoil ESE3
SurfSoil SE3
SW Combined
SurfSoil NE2
SurfSoil ESE3
SurfSoil SE2
SW Combined
out
SurfSoil ESE2
SurfSoil SE2
SurfSoil SE3
out
SurfSoil SE2
SurfSoil_ESE3
SW Scioto
out
Runoff/Erosion Fraction3
0.10
0.00
0.50
0.40
0.55
0.39
0.06
0.00
0.99
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.56
0.44
0.01
0.39
0.58
0.02
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.32
0.60
                      al_ink properties - all values estimated using site watershed and topographic maps.
December 2004
B-9
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                         Chemical-Independent Properties - Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Site
                                                                 Scioto River
Parameter Name
Algae carbon content (fraction)
Algae density in water column
Algae growth rate
Algae radius
Algae water content (fraction)
Average algae cell density (per vol cell, not water)
Boundary layer thickness above sediment
Chloride concentration
Chlorophyll concentration
Current velocity3
Depth [VE property]
Diffusive exchange coefficient [Link property]b
Dimensionless viscous sublayer thickness
Drag coefficient for water body
Flush rate0
Organic carbon fraction in suspended sediments
PH
Suspended sediment density
Suspended sediment deposition velocity
Total suspended sediment concentration
Water temperature [VE property]
Units
unitless
g[algae]/L[water]
1/day
urn
unitless
g[algae]/m3[algae]
m
mg/L
mg/L
m/s
m
m2/day
unitless
unitless
1/year
unitless
unitless
kg[sediment]/m'3
Fsedimenti
m/day
kg[sediment]/m3
[water column]
degrees K
Value Used
0.465
0.0025
0.7
2.5
0.9
1 ,000,000
0.02
42.1
1 .48E-02
5.30E-01
0.67
2.25E-04
4
0.0011
5.64E+02
0.02
7.72
2.65E+03
2
2.63E-01
289.3
Reference
APHA1995
Derived from Millard et al. 1996
Hudson et al. 1 994 as cited in Mason et al. 1 995
Mason etal. 1995
APHA1995
Mason et al. 1995, Mason et al. 1996
Cal EPA 1993
USGS 2003ad
U.S. EPA 2003ad
USGS 2003ad
Professional judgment, based on maps, stream orders, and Keup 1985
Ambrose etal. 1995
Ambrose et al. 1995
Ambrose et al. 1995
USGS 2003a, professional judgement"
McKone et al. 2001 (Table 3)
USGS 2003ad
U.S. EPA 1998
U.S. EPA 1997
USGS 2003cd
USGS 2003ad
          Flowing water bodies only (i.e., rivers, streams).
         bFor all surface water compartments connected to other surface water compartments.
         °For all surface water compartments connected to a flush rate sink (i.e., all or part of discharge modeled to a sink).
         dSee following sections, "Surface Water Calculations" and "Surface Water Properties" for a detailed description of calculations.
December 2004
                                                                       B-10
                                                                                                            TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume I

-------
                         Chemical-Independent Properties -- Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Site
                                                           Olentangy River
Parameter Name
Algae carbon content (fraction)
Algae density in water column
Algae growth rate
Algae radius
Algae water content (fraction)
Average algae cell density (per vol cell, not water)
Boundary layer thickness above sediment
Chloride concentration
Chlorophyll concentration
Current velocity3
Depth [VE property]
Diffusive exchange coefficient [Link property]13
Dimensionless viscous sublayer thickness
Drag coefficient for water body
Organic carbon fraction in suspended sediments
pH
Suspended sediment density
Suspended sediment deposition velocity
Total suspended sediment concentration
Water temperature [VE property]
Units
unitless
g[algae]/L[water]
1/day
um
unitless
g[algae]/m3[algae]
m
mg/L
mg/L
m/s
m
m2/day
unitless
unitless
unitless
unitless
kg[sediment]/m3
[sediment]
ml day
kg[sediment]/m3
[water column]
degrees K
Value Used
0.465
0.0025
0.7
2.5
0.9
1,000,000
0.02
48.2
1.48E-02
8.30E-01
0.33
2.25E-04
4
0.0011
0.02
7.87
2.65E+03
2
4.50E-02
289.9
Reference
APHA1995
Derived from Millard et al. 1996
Hudson et al. 1994 as cited in Mason et al. 1995
Mason etal. 1995
APHA1995
Mason etal. 1995, Mason etal. 1996
Cal EPA 1993
USGS 2003bc
U.S. EPA2003ac
USGS 2003bc
Professional judgment, based on maps, stream orders, and
Keup 1985
Ambrose etal. 1995
Ambrose etal. 1995
Ambrose et al. 1995
McKone et al. 2001 (Table 3)
USGS 2003bc
U.S. EPA 1998
U.S. EPA 1997
USGS 2003bc
USGS 2003bc
          Flowing water bodies only (i.e., rivers, streams).
         bFor all surface water compartments connected to other surface water compartments.
         °See following sections, "Surface Water Calculations" and "Surface Water Properties" for a detailed description of caluclations.
December 2004
B-11
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume I

-------
                       Chemical-Independent Properties -- Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Site
                                                     Combined Water Body
Parameter Name
Algae carbon content (fraction)
Algae density in water column
Algae growth rate
Algae radius
Algae water content (fraction)
Average algae cell density (per vol cell, not water)
Boundary layer thickness above sediment
Chloride concentration
Chlorophyll concentration
Current velocity3
Depth [VE property]
Diffusive exchange coefficient [Link property]13
Dimensionless viscous sublayer thickness
Drag coefficient for water body
Organic carbon fraction in suspended sediments
PH
Suspended sediment density
Sediment deposition velocity
Total suspended sediment concentration
Water temperature [VE property]
Units
unitless
g[algae]/L[water]
1/day
urn
unitless
g[algae]/m3[algae]
m
mg/L
mg/L
m/s
m
m2/day
unitless
unitless
unitless
unitless
kg[sediment]/m3
[sediment]
m/day
kg[sediment]/m3
[water column]
degrees K
Value Used
0.465
0.0025
0.7
2.5
0.9
1,000,000
0.02
39.0
1.83E-02
3.60E-01
0.31
2.25E-04
4
0.0011
0.02
7.88
2.65E+03
2
2.63E-01
286.2
Reference
APHA1995
Derived from Millard et al. 1996
Hudson et al. 1994 as cited in Mason et al. 1995
Mason et al. 1995
APHA1995
Mason et al. 1995, Mason et al. 1996
Cal EPA 1993
USGS 2003c,dc
U.S. EPA2003ac
USGS 2003c,dc
Professional judgment, based on maps, stream orders, and
Keup1985
Ambrose et al. 1995
Ambrose et al. 1995
Ambrose et al. 1995
McKone et al. 2001 (Table 3)
USGS 2003c,dc
U.S. EPA 1998
U.S. EPA 1997
USGS 2003cc
USGS 2003c,dc
        aFlowing water bodies only (i.e., rivers, streams).
        bFor all surface water compartments connected to other surface water compartments.
        cSee following sections, "Surface Water Calculations" and "Surface Water Properties" for a detailed description of caluclations.
December 2004
B-12
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume I

-------
           Link Properties for Surface Water Compartments --  Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
Parameter Name
Units
Value Used
Reference
Link: Surface water in Olentangy River to surface water in Scioto River
Bulk water flow [Link property]
Distance between midpoints [Link property]
Diffusive exchange coefficient [Link property]
m3[water]/-day
m
m2/day
1 .34E+06
10725
2.25E-04
USGS 2003ba
Site-specific value; calculated using CIS.
Ambrose et al. 1995
Link: Surface water in Combined Creek to surface water in Scioto River
Bulk water flow [Link property]
Distance between midpoints [Link property]
Diffusive exchange coefficient [Link property]
m3[water]/-day
m
m2/day
1 .22E+06
25524
2.25E-04
USGS 2003da
Site-specific value; calculated using CIS.
Ambrose et al. 1995
Links: Groundwater to Surface Water
Recharge Rate [Link property]
m3[water]/m2[area]-day
-
Value not required because there is no horizontal or vertical
overlap between surface water and groundwater.
 See following section, "Surface Water Calculations," for a detailed description of caluclations.
December 2004
B-13
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                   Chemical-lndependent/Abiotic -- Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Test Case

                                (same values used for all sediment compartments)
Sediment Compartment Type
Parameter Name
Depth [VE property] a
Organic carbon fraction
Porosity of the sediment zone
Solid material density in sediment
Units
m
unitless
volume[total pore space]/volume[sediment
compartment]
kg[sediment]/m3[sediment]
Value Used
0.05
0.02
0.6
2,650
Reference
McKone et al. 2001 (Table 3)
McKone et al. 2001 (Table 3)
U.S. EPA 1998
U.S. EPA 1998
 aSet using the volume element properties named "top" and "bottom."
December 2004
B-14
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
       Chemical-Independent Properties -- Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Site
     Surface Water Calculations

       Three surface water bodies were modeled in the Ohio TRIM.FaTE application: the Scioto River,
      the Olentangy River, and a combined water body representing Alum Creek and Big Walnut Creek
      (denoted as Combined Water Body). The following outlines the calculations and assumptions used
      to develop the surface water properties for these three water bodies.

      Surface Water Flow Calculations

      Properties related to surface water flow algorithms in TRIM.FaTE are:

      • river current velocities;
      • bulk flow rates between water bodies;
      • runoff rates for the amount of precipitation that enters surface water bodies; and
      • flushing rates to sinks.

       The general method applied to define these properties and calculate consistent flow rates for the
      Ohio site involved finding measured and regional average flow data for rivers and streams near the
      site, gathering watershed areas and other site data, and identifying methods to maintain a water
      balance in the system. Specific data used were surface water flow rates from nearby USGS gages
      (USGS 2003a,b,c,d), watershed areas from the USGS and CIS data, surface water body properties
      from CIS analysis, and stream dimension data from a nation-wide study of streams and rivers (Keup
      1985). The Keup data were used to help define stream physical properties (e.g., depth) in the
      absence of (or in conjunction with) site-specific  data, and are described below in the discussion of
      depth. Details of the calculations are shown below, and all property values used for the Ohio
      TRIM.FaTE scenario are documented in the input tables included as Appendix A to this report.

      Current Velocities. The average annual stream flow rate was divided by the reported watershed
      area draining to the  gage site to obtain a stream flow per unit watershed area. The mean annual
      stream flow rate was calculated from USGS data; the watershed areajs a product of average width,
      calculated from CIS, and depth, calculated as described in the following section on surface water
      properties.

      • Scioto: 0.53 m3/m2-s, where flow rate = 1387.3 cfs  = 39.2 m3/s, based on the average of the flows
      at the two stations in or near the modeling region (817 cfs and 1432 cfs) and the estimated flow
      leaving the modeling region (2100 cfs).  Average width = 110 m, and depth = 0.67 m.  Current
      Velocity: 39.2 m3/s * 73.7 m2 = 0.53 m3/m2-s.

      • Olentangy: 0.83 m3/m2-s, where flow  rate = 500 cfs = 14.1 m3/s, based on the average of the
      station just north of the modeling region (450 cfs) and the estimated flow at the intersection with the
      Scioto (550  cfs).  Average width = 50 m, and  depth = 0.33 m. Current Velocity: 14.1 m3/s •*• 17  m2 =
      0.83 m3/m2-s.

      • Combined Water Body:  0.36 m3/m2-s, where flow rate = 300 cfs = 8.5 m3/s,  based on the average
      of the stations along Alum Creek (104 cfs and 196 cfs) and Big Walnut Creek (217 cfs and 481 cfs)
      and the estimated flow at the intersection with the Scioto (500 cfs). Average width = 75 m, and
      depth = 0.31 m.  Current Velocity: 8.5 m3/s * 23.3 m2 = 0.36 m3/m2-s.
December 2004                                  B-15    TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
       Chemical-Independent Properties -- Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Site
     Bulk Flow Rates. The bulk flow rates between water bodies were determined using flow data at
     appropriate USGS gaging stations located near the junction of the water bodies.

      • Olentangy River to Scioto River: 550 cfs = 1.34E+06 m3/day, based on 450 cfs estimate at
     upstream station (Olentangy R NR Worthington OH) and assuming a 100 cfs increase in flow from
     station to junction with the Scioto River; 100 cfs increase was estimated using the increase in flow in
     the Scioto River when it merged with the Olentangy River.

      • Combined Water Body  to Scioto River: 500 cfs = 1.22E+06 m3/day, based on estimates ranging
     from 468 to 496 cfs at station (Big Walnut C at Rees OH) just upstream from junction with the Scioto
     River and assuming a small increase in flow from the station to the junction.

     Runoff Rates. The overall erosion rate for the Ohio site was estimated using a regional erosion rate
     (van der Leeden et al. 1990) and assuming that the rate was approximately uniform throughout the
     modeled site. Runoff and erosion fractions between parcels were estimated using the basic
     methods described in the TRIM.FaTE User's Guide (U.S. EPA 2003b).  Watershed data and USGS
     1:24,000 scale topographic maps were used for the site. A transparent overlay with parcel
     boundaries was created to place over the topographic map. Erosion and runoff fractions were
     determined using this parcel layout and identifying watershed boundaries and flow paths on the map.

     Flushing Rates. Flush rates for water bodies that flow out of the modeled area were calculated by
     dividing the flow rate leaving the water body by the water body's volume.  Flow rates were calculated
     using USGS data, and water body volumes are a product of area (based on CIS data) and depth
     (see following section on  surface water properties).

      • Scioto River: 564.1 flushes/yr, calculated by dividing the  annual mean flow  rate leaving the
     modeling region (1.88E+09 m3/yr) by the volume of the water body (3.32E+06 m2). The flow rate
     was estimated based on sum of the flows from an upstream station on the Scioto River of 1,432 cfs,
     from a  downstream station representing the flow from the Combined Creek of 500 cfs, and an
     approximated flow of 170 cfs due to the runoff from the remaining portion of the river (i.e.,
     downstream from where the Combined Creek merges into  the Scioto River to the edge of the
     modeling region).  The volume was calculated by multiplying the area of the water body (4.96E+06
     m2) by the depth (0.67m).
December2004                                  B-16     TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
       Chemical-Independent Properties -- Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Site
     Surface Water Properties

       Where possible, site-specific or regional values were used for water body parameters, such as
     algae properties, chloride and chlorophyll concentrations, depth, suspended sediment properties, pH,
     and water temperature.  Site-specific properties for the Scioto and Olentangy Rivers were available
     from USGS monitoring stations in the river (USGS 2003a,b,c,d). Specific site data for the Ohio site
     were also available from the EPA's STORE! database (U.S. EPA 2003a) and from Alum and Big
     Walnut Creeks (USGS 2003c,d). The time period of the data collection (number of years, period)
     were checked to verify representation of annual conditions.  Data from the specific water body were
     used, if available.  If data were not available, the next closest site was used, minding distance and
     location (e.g., north) from downtown Columbus.  More general "default" values obtained from the
     literature were defined for the remaining required parameters where site-specific or regional
     measurements were not found. Details of assumptions for all calculated properties in the various
     water bodies are included below. See Appendix A for specific values and data sources for all surface
     water properties.

     Chloride Concentration.

      • Scioto River: 42.1 mg/L, based on the average of 31  measurements from 1965-1996 at USGS
     station on Scioto River at Columbus, OH (near center of volume element).

      • Olentangy River: 48.2 mg/L, based on the average of 39 measurements from 1964-1977 at USGS
     station on Olentangy River near Worthington, OH (near northern tip of volume element).

     • Combined Water Body: 39.0 mg/L, based  on the average of values from USGS station on Alum
     Creek (near center of  volume element) and values from Big Walnut Creek (just north of volume
     element).

     Chlorophyll Concentration.

     • Scioto and Olentangy Rivers: 1.48E-02 mg/L, based on the average of 20 Chl-A and 17 Chl-B
     measurements from 1988-1995 at USGS station on Olentangy River near I270 Bridge station.

     • Combined Water Body: 1.83E-02 mg/L, based on the average of 19 Chl-A and 19 Chl-B
     measurements at Alum Creek-Columbus USGS station.

     Depth.  The mean depth of each of the surface water bodies was approximated  using stream orders
     that were estimated based on watershed maps  and USGS mean annual discharge data in cfs, using
     the information in Table 1 of Keup (1985).

      • Scioto River: Based on mapping, the Scioto River appears to be either a 4th or 5th order stream.
     The annual average discharge of the Scioto River ranges from 815 cfs to 1,431 cfs, which falls
     between the calculated discharges in Table  1 of 5th (380 cfs) and 6th (1,800 cfs) order streams.
     Based on this and the stream order of the Olentangy  River (see below, because the order of the
     Olentangy River influences the order of the Scioto River since they merge), the Scioto River was
     assumed to be a 5th order stream.  Mean depth = 2.20 ft.

      • Olentangy River: Based on mapping, the Olentangy River appears to be either a 3rd or 4th order
     stream.  The annual average discharge of the Olentangy River ranges from 158  cfs to 450 cfs, which
     falls between the calculated discharges in Table 1 of 4th (73 cfs) and 5th (380 cfs) order streams.
     Therefore, the Olentangy River was assumed to be a 4th order stream.  Mean depth = 1.10 ft.
December 2004                                 B-17       TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
       Chemical-Independent Properties -- Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Site
      • Alum Creek: Based on mapping, Alum Creek appears to be a 3rd order stream. The annual
     average discharge of Alum Creek ranges from 110 cfs to 177 cfs. These values fall between the
     calculated discharges in Table 1 of 4th (73 cfs) and 5th (380 cfs) order streams, but are closer to the
     values for 4th order streams. The calculated discharge of 3rd order streams (according to Table 1)
     is 15.6 cfs.  Because the measured discharge is higher and the mapping process includes
     uncertainties, an average of the mean depth values for 3rd (0.58 feet) and 4th (1.10 feet) order
     streams was used. Mean depth = (0.58 + 1.10)/2 = 0.84ft.

      • Big Walnut Creek:  Based on mapping, Big Walnut Creek appears to be a 3rd order stream. The
     annual average discharge of Big Walnut Creek ranges from 114 cfs to 478 cfs, which is substantially
     higher than  the calculated discharge for 3rd order streams in Table 1 (15.6 cfs). These discharge
     values fall between the calculated discharges in Table 1 of 4th (73 cfs) and 6th (1,800 cfs) order
     streams. Because it is fairly clear from the map that Big Walnut Creek is not a 5th or 6th order
     stream,  but  because the discharge data indicate that Big Walnut Creek is larger than a 3rd order
     stream,  Big  Walnut Creek was assumed to be a 4th order stream.  Mean depth = 1.10 feet.

      • Combined Water Body: Big Walnut Creek mean depth was weighted twice as much as Alum
     Creek mean depth because its flow contributed approximately twice as much to the  overall flow for
     the combined water body.  Mean depth = (0.84 + 2*1.10)/3= 1.013 feet.

     pH.

      • Scioto River:  7.72, based on the average of 34 measurements from 1965-1996 at USGS station
     on Scioto River at Columbus, OH.

      • Olentangy River: 7.87,  based on the average of 40 measurements from 1964-1989 at USGS
     station on Olentangy River near Worthington, OH.

     • Combined Water Body:  7.88, based on the average of values from USGS station on Alum Creek
     and values from Big Walnut Creek.

     Total Suspended  Sediment Concentration.  Based on data available from around Columbus, OH,
     suspended sediment concentrations are very site-specific and variable, due to impact from several
     environmental variables (e.g., sediment type, flow  volume, flow velocity,  runoff volume, land-use
     around the area). When available, site-specific data were therefore used over regional data.

     • Scioto  River and Combined Water Body: 2.63E-01 kg[sediment]/m3[water column], based on the
     average of 49 measurements from 1969-1973 at USGS station on Alum Creek at Africa, OH. Data
     were not available  for either the Scioto River or Big Walnut Creek.  The station at Africa, OH was
     chosen because it  is upstream of Columbus and probably would be less impacted by urban activities.

     • Olentangy River:  4.50E-02 kg[sediment]/m3[water column], based on the average of 4
     measurements from 1966 at USGS station on Olentangy River near Worthington, OH.
December 2004                                 B-18    TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
       Chemical-Independent Properties -- Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Site
     Water Temperatures.

      • Scioto River: 16.2 degrees C, based on average temp from 51 measurements from 1965-1996 at
     USGS station on Scioto River at Columbus, OH.

      • Olentangy River: 16.8 degrees C, based on average temp from 48 measurements from 1965-
     1989 at USGS station on  Olentangy River near Worthington, OH.

      • Combined Waterbody: 13.9 degrees C, based on average of 54 measurements taken over 28
     years at monitoring station on Big Walnut Creek and 33 measurements taken over 12 years at
     monitoring station on Alum Creek. Big Walnut Creek average temperature was weighted twice as
     much as Alum Creek average temperature because its flow contributed approximately twice as
     much to the overall flow for the combined water body.
December 2004                                B-19    TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                     Terrestrial Vegetation Types -- Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Test Case5
Terrestrial Vegetation
Surface Soil Volume
Element
Source
NNW1
WNW1
WSW2
SW1
E1
WNW2
WSW3
SW2
SE2
ESE2
SE3
ESE3
NE2
NNE2
NNW2
NW2
NWFarm
NNW3
NWS
Deciduous
Forest













X






Grasses/Herbs

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
Agricultural










X






X


None
X



















                      ' Assignments made based on review of land use maps.
December 2004
B-20
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                                     Chemical-lndependent/Biotic — Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Test Case

                                     (same values used for all terrestrial vegetation compartments of a given type)
Terrestrial Vegetation Compartment Types

Parameter Name
Units
Deciduous3
Value Used
Reference
Grass/Herb3
Value Used
Reference
Agricultural3
Value Used
Reference
Leaf Compartment Type
Allow exchange
Average leaf area index
Calculate wet dep interception
fraction
Correction exponent, octanol
to lipid
Degree stomatal opening
Density of wet leaf
Leaf wetting factor
Length of leaf
Lipid content
Litter fall rate
Stomatal area, normalized for
effective diffusion path length
Vegetation attenuation factor
Water content
Wet dep interception fraction
Wet mass of leaf per unit area
1=yes, 0=no
m2[total leaf
area]/m2[underlying
soil area]
1 =yes, 0=no
unitless
unitless
kg[leafwetwt]/m3[leaf]
m
m
kg[lipid]/kg[leafwetwt]
1/day
1/m
m2/kg
unitless
(kg[water]/kg[leaf wet
wt])
unitless
kg[fresh Ieaf]/m2[area]
seasonal11
3.4
0
0.76
1
820
3.00E-04
0.1
0.00224
seasonal0
200
2.9
0.8
0.2
0.6
See note b
Harvard Forest, dom. red oak
and red maple, CDIAC
website
Professional judgment
Trapp 1995, from roots
Set to 1 for daytime based on
professional judgment
(stomatal diffusion is turned
off at night using a different
property, IsDay)
Paterson et al. 1991
Mullerand Prohl 1993, 1E-04
to 6E-04 for different crops
and elements
Professional judgment
Riederer 1995, European
beech
See note c
Wilmer and Fricker 1996
Baes et al. 1984, grass/hay
Paterson et al. 1991
Calculated based on 5 years
of met data from the Maine
test case, 1987-1991
Calculated from leaf area
index, leaf thickness
(SimonichS Hites, 1994),
density of wet foliage
seasonal11
5
0
0.76
1
820
3.00E-04
0.05
0.00224
seasonal0
200
2.9
0.8
0.2
0.6
See note b
Mid-range of 4-6 for old fields,
R.J. Luxmoore, ORNL
Professional judgment
Trapp 1995, from roots
Set to 1 for daytime based on
professional judgment
(stomatal diffusion is turned
off at night using a different
property, IsDay)
Paterson et al. 1991
Mullerand Prohl 1993, 1E-04
to 6E-04 for different crops
and elements
Professional judgment
Riederer 1995, European
beech
See note c
Wilmer and Fricker 1996
Baes et al. 1984, grass/hay
Paterson et al. 1991
Calculated based on 5 years
of met data from the Maine
test case, 1987-1991
Calculated from leaf area
index and Leith 1975
seasonal11
2
0
0.76
1
820
3.00E-04
0.05
0.00224
seasonal0
200
2.9
0.8
0.2
0.4
See note b
GLEAMS 1993, average for
crops
Professional judgment
Trapp 1995, from roots
Set to 1 for daytime based on
professional judgment
(stomatal diffusion is turned
off at night using a different
property, IsDay)
Paterson et al. 1991
Mullerand Prohl 1993, 1E-04
to 6E-04 for different crops
and elements
Professional judgment
Riederer 1995, European
beech
See note c
Wilmer and Fricker 1996
Baes et al. 1984, grass/hay
Paterson et al. 1991
Calculated based on 5 years
of met data from the Maine
test case, 1987-1991
Calculated from leaf area
index and Leith 1975
Particle on Leaf Compartment Type
Allow exchange
1=yes, 0=no
seasonal11
Professional judgment
seasonal11
Professional judgment
seasonal11
Professional judgment
December 2004
                                                                      B-21
                                                                                                            TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume I

-------
                                          Chemical-lndependent/Biotic — Documentation for OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
                                          (same values used for all terrestrial vegetation compartments of a given type)
Terrestrial Vegetation Compartment Types

Parameter Name
Volume particle per area leaf
Units
m3[leaf
particles]/m2[leaf]
Deciduous3
Value Used
1.00E-09
Reference
Coe and Lindberg. 1987,
based on particle density and
size distribution for
atmospheric particles
measured on an adhesive
surface
Grass/Herb3
Value Used
1 .OOE-09
Reference
Coe and Lindberg. 1987,
based on particle density and
size distribution for
atmospheric particles
measured on an adhesive
surface
Agricultural3
Value Used
1. OOE-09
Reference
Coe and Lindberg. 1987,
based on particle density and
size distribution for
atmospheric particles
measured on an adhesive
surface
Root Compartment Type - Nonwoody Vegetation Onlyd
Allow exchange
Correction exponent, octanol
to lipid
Lipid content of root
Water content of root
Wet density of root
Wet mass per area
1=yes, 0=no
unitless
kg[lipid]/kg [root wet
wtl
kg[water]/kg[root wet
wtl)
kg[leaf wet
wl]/m3[root]
kg[root wet wt]/m2[soil]












seasonal11
0.76
0.011
0.8
820
1.4
Professional judgment
Trapp 1995
Calculated
Professional judgment
soybean, Paterson et al. 1991
temperate grassland, Jackson
etal. 1996
seasonal11
0.76
0.011
0.8
820
0.15
Professional judgment
Trapp 1995
Calculated
Professional judgment
soybean, Paterson et al. 1991
crops, Jackson et al. 1996
Stem Compartment Type - Nonwoody Vegetation Only11
Allow exchange
Correction exponent, octanol
to lipid
Density of phloem fluid
Density of xylem fluid
Flow rate of transpired water
per leaf area
Fraction of transpiration flow
rate that is phloem rate
Lipid content of stem
Water content of stem
Wet density of stem
Wet mass per area
1=yes, 0=no
unitless
kg[phloem]/mj[phloem
1
kg[xylem]/m3[xylem]
m3[water]/m2 [leafj-day
unitless
kg[lipid]/kg [stem wet
wt]
kg[water]/kg[stem wet
wtl
kg [stem wet
wll/m3frootl
kg [stem wet
wt]/m2[soil]




















seasonal11
0.76
1,000
900
0.0048
0.05
0.00224
0.8
830
0.24
Professional judgment
from roots, Trapp 1995
Professional judgment
Professional judgment
Crank etal. 1981
Paterson et al. 1991
Riederer 1995, leaves of
European beech
Paterson et al. 1991
Professional judgment
Calculated from leaf and root
biomass density, based on
professional judgment
seasonal11
0.76
1,000
900
0.0048
0.05
0.00224
0.8
830
0.16
Professional judgment
Trapp 1995
Professional judgment
Professional judgment
Crank etal. 1981
Paterson et al. 1991
Riederer 1995, leaves of
European beech
Paterson et al. 1991
Professional judgment
Calculated from leaf and root
biomass density, based on
professional judgment
      See attached table for assignment of vegetation types to surface soil volume elements.
      bBegins April 15 (set to 1), ends November 5 (set to 0). Set to average days of last and first frost, based on meteorological data for Ohio site.
      °Begins November 5, ends December 4; rate = 0.15/day during this time (value assumes first-order relationship and that 99 percent of leaves fall in 30 days).
      Rate is zero at all other times.
      dRoots and stems are not modeled for deciduous forests in the current version of TRIM.FaTE.
December 2004
                                                                                B-22
                                                                                                                           TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume I

-------
             Chemical-Dependent/lndependent of Compartment Type - Documentation for the OH WTE Dioxin Test Case

Chemical
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF
Diffusion coefficient in pure air
Value (m2/d)
1.06E-01
1.01E-01
9.58E-02
9.58E-02
9.58E-02
9.25E-02
8.83E-02
1.49E-01
1.42E-01
1.42E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.23E-01
Reference
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
Diffusion coefficient in pure water
Value (m2/d)
5.68E-05
3.65E-05
3.43E-05
3.43E-05
3.43E-05
3.24E-05
3.08E-06
4.04E-05
3.76E-05
3.76E-05
3.53E-05
3.53E-05
3.53E-05
3.53E-05
3.33E-05
3.33E-05
3.15E-05
Reference
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
U.S. EPA 1999
Henry's Law Constant
Value (Pa-
m3/mol)
3.33
3.33
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.28
0.68
1.46
0.50
0.50
1.45
0.74
0.74
0.74
1.43
1.43
0.19
Reference
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a; value is for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a; value is for 1 ,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a; value is for 1 ,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a; value is for 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
Calculated by the VP/WS ratio technique
as cited in U.S. EPA2000a
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a; value is for 1 ,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a; value is for 1 ,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a; value is for 1 ,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
Calculated by the VP/WS ratio technique
as cited in U.S. EPA2000a
December 2004
                                                            B-23
                                                                                             TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume I

-------
             Chemical-Dependent/lndependent of Compartment Type - Documentation for the OH WTE Dioxin Test Case

Chemical
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF
Octanol-water partition coefficient (K[ow]>
Value
(unitless)
6.31 E+06
4.37E+06
6.31 E+07
1.62E+08
1.62E+08
1.00E+08
1.58E+08
1.26E+06
6.17E+06
3.16E+06
1.00E+07
8.24E+07
3.80E+07
8.31 E+07
2.51 E+07
7.94E+06
1.00E+08
Reference
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
Sijm et al. 1989 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
U.S. EPA 2000b; calculated
U.S. EPA 2000b; calculated
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
Sijm et al. 1989 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
U.S. EPA 2000b; calculated
U.S. EPA 2000b; calculated
U.S. EPA 2000b; calculated
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
Mackay et al. 2000; calculated
Mackay et al. 1992 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a
Melting Point
Value
(Kelvin)
578
513
546
558
517
538
603
500
499
469.25
499
506
508.95
512.5
236.5
222
259
Reference
Mackay et al. 2000, U.S. EPA
2000b
U.S. EPA 2000b
Mackay et al. 2000, U.S. EPA
2000b
U.S. EPA 2000b
NLM 2002
Mackay et al. 2000, ATSDR
1998
Mackay et al. 2000, NLM 2002,
U.S. EPA 2000b
Mackay et al. 2000
ATSDR 1998
Mackay et al. 2000
Mackay et al. 2000
ATSDR 1998
U.S. EPA 2000b
ATSDR 1998
Mackay et al. 2000
Mackay et al. 2000
Mackay et al. 2000
Molecular Weight
Value
(g/mol)
322
356.4
391
390.84
390.84
425.2
460
306
340.42
340.42
374.87
374.87
374.87
374.87
409.31
409.31
443.76
Reference
Mackay et al. 2000, NLM 2002
ATSDR 1998
Mackay et al. 2000
NLM 2002
NLM 2002
Mackay et al. 2000
Mackay et al. 2000
Mackay et al. 2000
ATSDR 1998, Atkinson 1996 as
cited in U.S. EPA 2000a, U.S. EPA
2000b
Mackay et al. 2000, ATSDR 1998,
Atkinson 1996 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a, U.S. EPA 2000b
Mackay et al. 2000, ATSDR 1998,
Atkinson 1996 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a, U.S. EPA 2000b
ATSDR 1998, Atkinson 1996 as
cited in U.S. EPA 2000a, U.S. EPA
2000b
ATSDR 1998, Atkinson 1996 as
cited in U.S. EPA 2000a, U.S. EPA
2000b
ATSDR 1998, Atkinson 1996 as
cited in U.S. EPA 2000a, U.S. EPA
2000b
Mackay et al. 2000, ATSDR 1998,
Atkinson 1996 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a, U.S. EPA 2000b
Mackay et al. 2000, ATSDR 1998,
Atkinson 1996 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a, U.S. EPA 2000b
Mackay et al. 2000, ATSDR 1998,
U.S. EPA 2000b
December 2004
                                                            B-24
                                                                                             TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume I

-------
                            Chemical-Dependent/Abiotic - Documentation for the OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
                          (same values used for all abiotic compartments of a given type, except where noted)

Property Type


Units

Value
2,3,7,8-
TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-
PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-
HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-
HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-
HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HpCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
OCDD

Reference

Air Compartment
Halflife3
day
12
18
42
28
28
64
162
Atkinson 1996 as cited in U.S. EPA 2000s; vapor
phase reaction with hydroxyl radical
Groundwater

Half life


day


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008

Average value of the range presented in Mackay et al.
2000; based on estimated unacclimated aerobic
biodegradation half-life, value is for 2,3,7, 8-TCDD
Sediment

Halflife3


day


1095


1095


1095


1095


1095


1095


1095

Estimation based on Adriaens and Grbic-Galic
1992,1993 and Adriaens et al. 1995 as cited in U.S.
EPA 2000a
Soil - Root Zone
Halflife3
day
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
Mackay et al. 2000; the degradation rate was cited by
multiple authors, value is for 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD
Soil -Surface
Halflife3
day
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
Mackay et al. 2000; the degradation rate was cited by
multiple authors, value is for 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD
Soil - Vadose Zone

Halflife3


day


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008

Average value of the range presented in Mackay et al.
2000; based on estimated unacclimated aerobic
biodegradation half-life, value is for 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD
Surface water




Halflife3








day








2.7








2.7








6.3








6.3








6.3








47








0.67




2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD and 1 ,2,3,7,8-PeCDD: Podoll et al. 1 986
as cited in U.S. EPA 2000a; sunlight, water: acetonitrile
(1:1 v/v), value is for 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD; All HxCDD's:
Choudry and Webster 1989 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a; Hg lamp, wateracetonitrile (2:3 v/v) (value for
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD); 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD: Choudry
and Webster 1989 as cited in U.S. EPA 2000a; Hg
lamp, wateracetonitrile; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD: Kim
and O'Keefe 1998 as cited in U.S. EPA 2000; sunlight,
water from 7 ponds/lakes.
  See "Discussion of Half-life value selection in TRIM.FaTE vs. Lorber et al. (2000)" following this table.
December 2004
B-25
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume I

-------
                                         Chemical-Dependent/Abiotic - Documentation for the OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
                                       (same values used for all abiotic compartments of a given type, except where noted)


Type

Units

Value
2,3,7,8-
TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-
PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-
PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-
HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-
HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-
HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-
HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8
HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9
HpCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9
OCDF

Reference

Air Compartment
Halflife3
day
19
31
33
78
55
51
59
137
122
321
Atkinson 1996 as cited in U.S. EPA 2000a; vapor phase
reaction with hydroxyl radical
Groundwater

Halflife3


day


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008

Average value of the range presented in Mackay et al. 2000;
based on estimated unacclimated aerobic biodegradation half-
life, value is for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Sediment
Halflife3
day
1095
1095
1095
1095
1095
1095
1095
1095
1095
1095
Estimation based on Adriaens and Grbic-Galic 1992,1993 and
Adriaens et al. 1995 as cited in U.S. EPA 2000a
Soil - Root Zone
Halflife3
day
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
Mackay et al. 2000; the degradation rate was cited by multiple
authors, value is for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Soil - Surface
Halflife3
day
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
3650
Mackay et al. 2000; the degradation rate was cited by multiple
authors, value is for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Soil - Vadose Zone

Halflife3


day


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008


1008

Average value of the range presented in Mackay et al. 2000;
based on estimated unacclimated aerobic biodegradation half-
life, value is for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Surface water


Halflife3




day




0.18




0.19




0.19




0.58




0.58




0.58




0.58




0.58




0.58




0.58


2,3,7,8-TCDF: Kim and O'Keefe 1998 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a; sunlight, water from 7 ponds/lakes; 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
and 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF: Friesen et al. 1993 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a; sunlight, lake water (value for 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF); All
other furans: Kim and O'Keefe 1998 as cited in U.S. EPA
2000a; sunlight, water from 7 ponds/lakes (value is for OCDF).
  See "Discussion of Half-life value selection in TRIM.FaTE vs. Lorber et al. (2000)" following this table.
December 2004
                                                                              B-26
                                                                                                                          TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume I

-------
                          Chemical-Dependent/Abiotic -- Documentation for the OH WTE Dioxin Test
  Discussion of Half-life value selection in TRIM.FaTE vs. Lorber et al. (2000)

    The model results presented  in the Lorber et al. (2000) report were calculated using a dioxin dissipation rate, which corresponds to a half-life
  of 25 years (the same value was used for all congeners).  This rate included dioxin removal from the soil by both chemical degradation and
  physical processes (e.g., runoff and erosion). According to Lorber et al. (2000), 25 years was selected as a mid-range value between a half-life
  often years, which is often used for surface dioxin residues, and 100 years, which is speculated to be an upper range for subsurface dioxin
  residues. Also, a study was cited that reported a measured half-life of 20 years for physical and chemical removal processes of dioxins from
  soil.

    TRIM.FaTE models chemical degradation and physical removal separately.  The chemical degradation rate used by TRIM.FaTE for all
  congeners corresponds to a half-life often years.  The ten-year degradation half-life for TRIM.FaTE was selected based on multiple studies
  cited in Mackay et al. (2000),  most of which ranged from one to 12 years for soil or surface soil, although one study reported that half-lives
  could be as high as 100 years for subsurface soil. It is  not always clear whether half-lives reported are degradation  or dissipation half-lives.
  Because most of the dioxin mass remains in the surface soil (with a depth of 1  cm), ten years was selected as a half-life.  Although ten years is
  near the top of the range given by Mackay et al. (excluding the subsurface soil value), the half-life when physical removal processes are taken
  into account is  closer to the middle of the range.

    The physical  removal processes in TRIM.FaTE are not modeled with a single rate constant,  but are modeled with multiple  algorithms and
  parameters based on chemical properties and region-specific runoff and erosion parameters.  To gauge the magnitude of the impact of these
  processes on the TRIM.FaTE effective dissipation half-life (i.e., chemical degradation plus physical removal processes), the dissipation half-life
  was calculated empirically from the decrease in soil concentration when there is no input from the source. The TRIM.FaTE effective
  dissipation half-life is different for each chemical because of different chemical properties, so half-lives for two representative chemicals,
  2,3,7,8-TCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD, were calculated. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD dissipation half-life in the TRIM.FaTE surface  soil is on average
  6.5 years, and the 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD dissipation half-life is on average 9 years.  The difference between the chemicals is due primarily to
  the higher volatilization rate of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Therefore,  due to the range of half-lives available in the literature, different assumptions for
  taking into account subsurface dissipation rates, and different methods used to account for physical removal processes, the dioxin dissipation
  half-life used by Lorber et al. is approximately three times longer than the effective dissipation half-life used in TRIM.FaTE.
December 2004                                                     B-27                       TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                           Chemical-Dependent/Biotic — Documentation for the OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
                         (same values used for all biotic compartments of a given type, except where noted)
Compartment
Property
Units
Value
2,3,7,8-
TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-
PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-
HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-
HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-
HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HpCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8
,9-OCDD
Reference
Terrestrial Vegetation
Leaf - Agriculture - General in
Agriculture - General
Leaf - Agriculture - General in
Agriculture - General
Leaf - Coniferous Forest in
Coniferous Forest
Leaf - Coniferous Forest in
Coniferous Forest
Leaf - Deciduous Forest in
Deciduous Forest
Leaf - Deciduous Forest in
Deciduous Forest
Leaf - Grasses/Herbs in
Grasses/Herbs
Leaf - Grasses/Herbs in
Grasses/Herbs
Particle on Leaf - Agriculture -
General in Agriculture - General
Particle on Leaf - Agriculture -
General in Agriculture - General
Particle on Leaf - Coniferous Forest
in Coniferous Forest
Particle on Leaf - Coniferous Forest
in Coniferous Forest
Particle on Leaf - Deciduous Forest
in Deciduous Forest
Particle on Leaf - Deciduous Forest
in Deciduous Forest
Particle on Leaf - Grasses/Herbs in
Grasses/Herbs
Particle on Leaf - Grasses/Herbs in
Grasses/Herbs
Root - Agriculture - General in
Agriculture - General
Root - Agriculture - General in
Agriculture - General
Root - Grasses/Herbs in
Grasses/Herbs
Root - Grasses/Herbs in
Grasses/Herbs
Stem - Agriculture - General in
Agriculture - General
Stem - Grasses/Herbs in
Grasses/Herbs
Halflife
TransferFactortoLeaf
Particle
Halflife
TransferFactortoLeaf
Particle
Halflife
TransferFactortoLeaf
Particle
Halflife
TransferFactortoLeaf
Particle
Halflife
TransferFactortoLeaf
Halflife
TransferFactortoLeaf
Halflife
TransferFactortoLeaf
Halflife
TransferFactortoLeaf
Halflife
RootSoilWater
Interaction Alpha
Halflife
RootSoilWater
Interaction Alpha
Halflife
Halflife
day
1/day
day
1/day
day
1/day
day
1/day
day
1/day
day
1/day
day
1/day
day
1/day
day
unitless
day
unitless
day
day
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70
70
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70
70
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70
70
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70
70
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70
70
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70
70
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70
70
Arjmand and Sandermann 1985, as cited in Komoba, et al.
1995; soybean root cell culture metabolism test data for DDE.
Calculated as 1 percent of transfer factor to leaf; highly
uncertain.
Arjmand and Sandermann 1985, as cited in Komoba, et al.
1995; soybean root cell culture metabolism test data for DDE.
Calculated as 1 percent of transfer factor to leaf; highly
uncertain.
Arjmand and Sandermann 1985, as cited in Komoba, et al.
1995; soybean root cell culture metabolism test data for DDE.
Calculated as 1 percent of transfer factor to leaf; highly
uncertain.
Arjmand and Sandermann 1985, as cited in Komoba, et al.
1995; soybean root cell culture metabolism test data for DDE.
Calculated as 1 percent of transfer factor to leaf; highly
uncertain.
McCrady and Maggard 1993; photodegradation sorbed to grass
foliage in sunlight; assumed 10 hours of sunlight per day.
Professional judgment based on U.S. EPA 2000a (an estimate
for mercury) and Trapp 1995; highly uncertain.
McCrady and Maggard 1993; photodegradation sorbed to grass
foliage in sunlight; assumed 10 hours of sunlight per day.
Professional judgment based on U.S. EPA 2000a (an estimate
for mercury) and Trapp 1995; highly uncertain
McCrady and Maggard 1993; photodegradation sorbed to grass
foliage in sunlight; assumed 10 hours of sunlight per day.
Professional judgment based on U.S. EPA 2000a (an estimate
for mercury) and Trapp 1995; highly uncertain.
McCrady and Maggard 1993; photodegradation sorbed to grass
foliage in sunlight; assumed 10 hours of sunlight per day.
Professional judgment based on U.S. EPA 2000a (an estimate
for mercury) and Trapp 1995; highly uncertain.
Arjmand and Sandermann 1985, as cited in Komoba, et al.
1995; soybean root cell culture metabolism test data for DDE.
Professional judgment
Arjmand and Sandermann 1985, as cited in Komoba, et al.
1995; soybean root cell culture metabolism test data for DDE.
Professional judgment
Arjmand and Sandermann 1985, as cited in Komoba, et al.
1995; soybean root cell culture metabolism test data for DDE.
Arjmand and Sandermann 1985, as cited in Komoba, et al.
1995; soybean root cell culture metabolism test data for DDE.
December 2004
                                                               B-28
                                                                                                     TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                             Chemical-Dependent/Biotic - Documentation for the OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
                           (same values used for all biotic compartments of a given type, except where noted)

Compartment

Terrestrial Vegetation
Leaf- Agriculture - General in
Agriculture - General
Leaf- Agriculture - General in
Agriculture - General
Leaf- Coniferous Forest in
Coniferous Forest
Leaf- Coniferous Forest in
Coniferous Forest
Leaf- Deciduous Forest in
Deciduous Forest
Leaf- Deciduous Forest in
Deciduous Forest
Leaf- Grasses/Herbs in
Grasses/Herbs
Leaf- Grasses/Herbs in
Grasses/Herbs
Leaf Particle - Agriculture - General
in Agriculture - General
Leaf Particle - Agriculture - General
in Agriculture - General
Leaf Particle - Coniferous Forest in
Coniferous Forest
Leaf Particle - Coniferous Forest in
Coniferous Forest
Leaf Particle - Deciduous Forest in
Deciduous Forest
Leaf Particle - Deciduous Forest in
Deciduous Forest
Leaf Particle - Grasses/Herbs in
Grasses/Herbs
Leaf Particle - Grasses/Herbs in
Grasses/Herbs
Root- Agriculture - General in
Agriculture - General
Root- Agriculture - General in
Agriculture - General
Root- Grasses/Herbs in
Grasses/Herbs
Root- Grasses/Herbs in
Grasses/Herbs
Stem - Agriculture - General in
Agriculture - General

Property


Halflife
TransferFactortoLeaf
Particle
Halflife
TransferFactortoLeaf
Particle
Halflife
TransferFactortoLeaf
Particle
Halflife
TransferFactortoLeaf
Particle
Halflife
TransferFactortoLeaf
Halflife
TransferFactortoLeaf
Halflife
TransferFactortoLeaf
Halflife
TransferFactortoLeaf
Halflife
RootSoilWater
Interaction Albha
Halflife
RootSoilWater
Interaction Alpha
Halflife

Units


day
1/day
day
1/day
day
1/day
day
1/day
day
1/day
day
1/day
day
1/day
day
1/day
day
unitless
day
unitless
day

2,3,7,8-
TCDF

70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70

1,2,3,7,8-
PeCDF

70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70

2,3,4,7,8-
PeCDF

70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70

1,2,3,4,7,8-
HxCDF

70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70

1,2,3,6,7,8-
HxCDF

70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70
Value
1,2,3,7,8,9-
HxCDF

70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70

2,3,4,6,7,8-
HxCDF

70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HpCDF

70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-
HpCDF

70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9
OCDF

70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
70
3.0E-03
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
4.4
3.0E-01
70
0.95
70
0.95
70

Reference


Arjmand and Sandermann 1985, as cited in Komoba,
etal. 1995; soybean root cell culture metabolism test
data for DDE.
Calculated as 1 percent of transfer factor to leaf; highly
uncertain.
Arjmand and Sandermann 1985, as cited in Komoba,
etal. 1995; soybean root cell culture metabolism test
data for DDE.
Calculated as 1 percent of transfer factor to leaf; highly
uncertain.
Arjmand and Sandermann 1985, as cited in Komoba,
etal. 1995; soybean root cell culture metabolism test
data for DDE.
Calculated as 1 percent of transfer factor to leaf; highly
uncertain.
Arjmand and Sandermann 1985, as cited in Komoba,
etal. 1995; soybean root cell culture metabolism test
data for DDE.
Calculated as 1 percent of transfer factor to leaf; highly
uncertain.
McCrady and Maggard 1993; photodegradation of
2,3,7,8-TCDD sorbed to grass foliage in sunlight;
assumed 10 hours of sunlight per day.
Professional judgment based on TCDD information in
U.S. EPA 2000a (an estimate for mercury) and Trapp
1995; highly uncertain.
McCrady and Maggard 1993; photodegradation of
2,3,7,8-TCDD sorbed to grass foliage in sunlight;
assumed 10 hours of sunlight per day.
Professional judgment based on TCDD information in
U.S. EPA 2000a (an estimate for mercury) and Trapp
1995; highly uncertain.
McCrady and Maggard 1993; photodegradation of
2,3,7,8-TCDD sorbed to grass foliage in sunlight;
assumed 10 hours of sunlight per day.
Professional judgment based on TCDD information in
U.S. EPA 2000a (an estimate for mercury) and Trapp
1995; highly uncertain.
McCrady and Maggard 1993; photodegradation of
2,3,7,8-TCDD sorbed to grass foliage in sunlight;
assumed 10 hours of sunlight per day.
Professional judgment based on TCDD information in
U.S. EPA 2000a (an estimate for mercury) and Trapp
1995; highly uncertain.
Arjmand and Sandermann 1985, as cited in Komoba,
etal. 1995; soybean root cell culture metabolism test
data for DDE.
Professional judgment
Arjmand and Sandermann 1985, as cited in Komoba,
etal. 1995; soybean root cell culture metabolism test
data for DDE.
Professional judgment
Arjmand and Sandermann 1985, as cited in Komoba,
etal. 1995; soybean root cell culture metabolism test
data for DDE.
December 2004
                                                                B-29
                                                                                                        TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                     Chemical-Dependent/Biotic - Documentation for the OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
                                  (same values used for all biotic compartments of a given type, except where noted)
         Compartment
                              Property
                                                2,3,7,8-
                                                TCDF
           1,2,3,7,8-
            PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-
 PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-
 HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-
 HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-
 HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-
 HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
  HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-
  HpCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9
  OCDF
  Stem - Grasses/Herbs in
  Grasses/Herbs
day
                                                                     Arjmand and Sandermann 1985, as cited in Komoba,
                                                                     etal. 1995; soybean root cell culture metabolism test
                                                                     data for DDE.
December 2004
                                                                                  B-30
                                                                                                                                     TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                  Meteorological and Other Settings --Documentation for the OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
Parameter Name
Units
Value Used
Reference
Meteorological Inputs (all TRIM.FaTE scenario properties, except mixing height)3
Air temperature
Horizontal wind speed
Wind direction
Rainfall rate
Mixing height (used to set air VE
property named "top")
Day/night
degrees K
m/sec
degrees clockwise
from N (blowing
from)
m3[rain]/m2[surface
area]-day
m
1=day, 0=night
varies hourly
varies hourly
varies hourly
varies hourly
varies hourly
varies hourly
From hourly local composite met data, 1989 and 1994
From hourly local composite met data, 1989 and 1994
From hourly local composite met data, 1989 and 1994
From hourly local composite met data, 1989 and 1994
From hourly local composite met data, 1989 and 1994 (used values for
rural setting)
Based on sunrise/sunset data for source latitude and longitude
Other Settings (all TRIM.FaTE scenario properties)
Start of simulation
End of simulation
Simulation time step
Output time stepb
date/time
date/time
hr
hr
1/1/1 994 or
1/1/1989
1/1/1 995 or
1/1/2001
1
1 or 730
Selected to match start of the air (1994) and soil (1989) simulations
described in Lorber et al. 2000
Selected to match end of the air (1995) and soil (2001) simulations
described in Lorber et al. 2000
Selected value
Selected value of one hour for air simulation and 730 hours
(approximatly one month) for the soil simulations.
   Input data used repeats in one-year cycle throughout modeling period for the 1989 met data.
  bOutput time step is set in TRIM.FaTE using the scenario property "simulationStepsPerOutputStep."
December 2004
B-31
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                      Documentation for the OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
                                  References for Appendix B


Adriaens, P., Q. Fu, and D. Grbic-Galic. 1995. Bioavailability and transformation of highly chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in anaerobic soils and sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29(9):
2252-2260. (as cited in U.S. EPA 2000)

Adriaens, P., and D. Grbic-Galic.  1993. Reductive dechlorination of PCDD/F by anaerobic cultures and
sediments. Organohalogen Compounds. 12: 107-110. (as cited in U.S. EPA 2000)

Adriaens, P., and D. Grbic-Galic.  1992. Effect of cocontaminants and concentration on the anaerobic
biotransformation of PCDD/F in methanogenic river sediments. Organohalogen Compounds. 8: 209-
212. (as cited in U.S. EPA 2000)

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1998. Toxicological Profile for
Chlorodibenzo -p-dioxins (CDDs). http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp32.html

Ambrose, R.A., Jr., T.A. Wool, and J.L. Martin.  1995.  The water quality analysis simulation program,
WASP5, Part A: Model documentation. Athens, GA:  U.S. EPA National Exposure Research
Laboratory, Ecosystems Division.

American Public Health Association (APHA). 1995. Standard  methods for the examination of water
and waste water. Washington, DC.

Arjmand, M., and H. Sandermann. 1985. Metabolism of DDT and related compounds in cell
suspension cultures of soybean (Glycine max L.) and wheat (Tritucum aestivum L.) Pestic. Biochem.
Physiol. 23: 389. (as cited in Komoba, et al. 1995)

Atkinson, R. 1996. Atmospheric chemistry of PCBs, PCDDs and PCDFs. Issues in Environmental
Science and Technology. 6: 53-72.  (as cited in U.S. EPA 2000)

Baes, C.F., III, R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. 1984. A review and analysis of parameters
for assessing transport of environmentally released radionuclides through agriculture. ORNL-5786.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
Bidleman, T.F. 1988. Atmospheric processes. Environmental Science and Technology. 22:361-367.

California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). 1993.  CalTOX, A Multimedia Total-Exposure
Model for Hazardous-Waste Sites, Part II: The Dynamic Multimedia Transport and Transformation.
Model Prepared for:  The Office of Scientific Affairs. Department of Toxic Substances Control.
Sacramento, California.  December.  Draft Final.

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/home.html

Choudhry, G.G., and G.R.B. Webster. 1989. Environmental photochemistry of PCDDs. 2. Quantum
yields of direct phototransformation of 1,2,3,7-tetra-, 1,3,6,8-tetra-,1,2,3,4,6,7,8-hepta-, and
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in aqueous acetonitrile and their sunlight half-lives. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 37: 254-261. (as cited in U.S. EPA 2000a)

Coe, J.M., and S.E. Lindberg. 1987. The morphology and size distribution of atmospheric
particles deposited on foliage and inert surfaces. JAPCA. 37:237-243.

Crank, J., N.R. McFarlane, J.C. Newby, G.D. Paterson, and J.B. Pedley. 1981. Diffusion


December 2004                                  B-32     TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                      Documentation for the OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
                                  References for Appendix B

processes in environmental systems. In: Paterson et al. 1991. London: Macmillan Press, Ltd.

Friesen, K.J., Loewen, M.D., and Foga, M.M. 1993.  Environmental aquatic photodegradation of
chlorinated dibenzofurans and their photoproducts. Organohalogen Compounds. 12: 135-137. (as
cited in U.S.  EPA 2000)

Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems (GLEAMS). 1993.
http://sacs.cpes.peachnet.edu/sewrl/Gleams/gleams_y2k_update.htm
Harner and Bidleman.  1998. Octanol-air partition coefficient for describing particle/gas partitioning of
aromatic compounds in urban air.  Environmental Science and Technology.  32:1494-1502.

Hudson, R., S.A. Gherini, C.J. Watras, and D. Porcella. 1994. Modeling the biogeochemical cycle of
mercury in lakes: The Mercury Cycling Model (MCM) and its application to the MTL Study Lakes.  In:
C.J. Watras and J.W.  Huckabee, eds. Mercury pollution integration and synthesis. Lewis Publishers.
pp. 473-523.
Jackson, R.B., J. Canadell, J.R. Ehleringer, H.A. Mooney, O.E. Sala and E.D. Schulze. 1996. A
global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia. 108:389-411.

Keup, Lowell E.  1985. Flowing Water Resources. Water Resources Bulletin. 21(2): 291-296.

Kim, M., and P. O'Keefe. 1998. The role of natural organic compounds in photosensitized degradation
of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. Organohalogen Compounds. 36: 377-380. (as
cited in U.S. EPA2000a)

Komoba, D., C. Langebartels, and H. Sandermann. 1995. Metabolic processes for organic chemicals
in plants. In: Plant Contamination Modeling and Simulation of Organic Chemical Processes. Trapp, S.,
and Me Farlane, J.C., eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Pages 69-103.

Leith, H.  1975.  Primary productivity in the biosphere. In: H. Leith and R.W. Whitaker. Ecological
studies,  volume  14. Springer-Verlag.
Lorber, M.; Cleverly, D.; and J. Schaum. 1996. A screening-level risk assessment of the indirect
impacts from the Columbus waste to energy facility in Columbus, Ohio. Proceedings of an
International Specialty Conference, sponsored by the Air and Waste Management Association and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, held April 18-21, 1996 in Washington, D.C. Published
in Solid Waste Management: Thermal Treatment & Waste-to-Energy Technologies, VIP - 53. pp. 262-
278. Air & Waste Management Association, One Gateway Center, Third Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222.

Mason, R.P., J.R. Reinfelder, and F.M.M. Morel. 1996. Uptake, toxicity, and trophic transfer of
mercury in a coastal diatom. Environmental Science & Technology. 30(6):1835-1845.

Mason, R.P., J.R. Reinfelder, and F.M.M. Morel. 1995. Bioaccumulation of mercury and
methylmercury.  Water Air and Soil Pollution. 80(1-4):915-921.

McCrady, J.K., and S.P. Maggard. 1993. Update and photodegradation of 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-p-dioxin
sorbed to grass  foliage. Environ. Sci. Tech. 27: 343-350.
December 2004                                 B-33     TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                      Documentation for the OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
                                  References for Appendix B
McKone, I.E., A. Bodnar, and E. Hertwich.  2001.  Development and evaluation of state-specific
landscape data sets for multimedia source-to-dose models.  University of California at Berkeley.
Supported by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Sustainable Techonology Division, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory) and Environmental Defense Fund.  July.  LBNL-43722.
Millard, E.S., D.D. Myles, O.E. Johannsson, and K.M. Ralph. 1996. Phytoplankton photosynthesis at
two index stations in Lake Ontario 1987-1992: Assessment of the long-term response to phosphorus
control.  Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 53:1092-1111.

Muller, H. and G. Prohl.  1993.  Ecosys-87:  A dynamic model for assessing radiological consequences
of nuclear accidents. Health Phys. 64:232-252.

National Library of Medicine (NLM). 2002. Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB).
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen7HSDB

Paterson, S., D. Mackay, and A. Gladman.  1991. A fugacity model of chemical uptake by plants from
soil and  air. Chemosphere. 23:539-565.

Podoll, R.T., H.M. Jaber, and T. Mill. 1986. Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin: Rates of volatilization and
photolysis in the environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 20: 490-492. (as cited in U.S. EPA 2000)

Riederer, M. 1995.  Partitioning and transport of organic chemicals between the atmospheric
environment and leaves. In: Trapp, S. and  J. C. McFarlane, eds. Plant contamination: Modeling and
simulation of organic chemical processes. Boca Raton, FL:  Lewis Publishers,  pp. 153-190.

Simonich, S.L. and R.A. Hites.  1994.  Importance of vegetation in removing polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons from the atmosphere. Nature. 370:49-51.

Thibodeaux, L.J. 1996.  Environmental chemodynamics: Movement of chemicals  in  air, water, and
soil. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Trapp, S. 1995.  Model  for uptake of xenobiotics into plants. In: Trapp, S. and J.  C.  McFarlane, eds.
Plant contamination: Modeling and simulation of organic chemical processes.  Boca Raton, FL: Lewis
Publishers,  pp. 107-151.

United States  Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).  2003a. STOrage and RETrieval
(STORET).  http://www.epa.gov/STORET/

United States  Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003b. TRIM.FaTE User's Guide.  March
2003.

United States  Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000a. Draft exposure and human health
reassessment of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds, Part II: Health
assessment for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)  and related compounds. Chapters 1
through  7. EPA/600/P-00/001Be. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/part2/dritoc.pdf.

United States  Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000b. Estimation Program Interface
(EPI) suite.  Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT).
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/docs/episuitedl.htm
December 2004                                 B-34     TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                     Documentation for the OH WTE Dioxin Test Case
                                  References for Appendix B


United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. Human Health Risk Assessment
Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Solid Waste. EPA-530/D-98-001a, b, c.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1997. Mercury study report to congress.
Volume III: Fate and transport of mercury in the environment. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards and Office of Research and Development.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003a.  USGS 03227500, Scioto River at Columbus, OH.  Accessed
at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/oh/nwis/inventory/?site_no=03227500

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003b.  USGS 03226800 Olentangy River near Worthington, OH.
Accessed at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/oh/nwis/inventory/?site_no=03226800

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003c.  USGS 03228805 Alum Creek at Africa, OH. Accessed at
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/oh/nwis/inventory/?site_no=03228805

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003d.  USGS 03229500 Big Walnut Creek at Rees, OH.  Accessed
at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/oh/nwis/inventory/?site_no=03229500

van der Leeden, F., F.L. Troise and O.K. Todd. 1990. The water encyclopedia. 2nd ed.  Chelsea, Ml:
Lewis Publishers, pp.  70, 83, 94.
Vulykh, N. and V. Shatalov.  2001.  Investigation of Dioxin/Furan Composition in Emissions and in
Environmental Media. Selection of Congeners for Modeling.  Meteorological Synthesizing Centre - E.
MSC-E Technical Note 6/2001.  Accessed at http://www.msceast.org/reps/TN6-2001 .pdf.

Wilmer, C. and M. Fricker. 1996. Stomata. Second ed. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall.
p. 121.
December 2004                                 B-35    TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                                     Appendix C
              DOCUMENTATION OF FACILITY EMISSIONS FOR
                        TREVLFaTE INPUT PARAMETERS
         This appendix contains the following sets of tables, including calculations where
   appropriate, listing and describing the input parameters used in TRIM.FaTE for the
   Columbus, Ohio WTE Facility source emissions:

     •   summary of TRIM.FaTE source input parameters
     •   calculations for facility emissions for 1992 and 1994 stack test emissions

   References are included at the end of the appendix.
December 2004                              C-1    TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                              Source Data - Documentation for Ohio Dioxin Application
Property
Stack Elevation
X-coordinate
Y-coordinate
Units
m
m (UTM)
m (UTM)
Value
82.9
327174.5
4418908.1
Chemical
1, 2,3,4,6,7, 8,9-OCDD
1, 2,3,4,6,7, 8,9-OCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1, 2,3,4,7,8, 9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
All 17 dioxin/furans
All 17 dioxin/furans
Units
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g/day
g TEQ/day
g TEQ/sec
Emission Rate
1992 Stack Test
4.41 E+00
1 .79E+00
4.00E+00
7.40E+00
3.02E+00
6.04E-01
2.46E+00
7.96E-01
2.61 E+00
7.46E-01
5.03E-01
7.18E-01
1 .58E+00
2.96E+00
1 .63E+00
1 .64E-01
5.99E-01
2.69E+00
3.10E-05
1994 Stack Test
6.53E+00
2.00E+00
2.87E+00
4.54E+00
3.41 E-01
3.59E-01
7.36E-01
2.93E-01
6.56E-01
2. 31 E-01
2.93E-02
2.16E-01
1.91 E-01
9. 01 E-01
3.50E-01
1 .38E-02
8.64E-02
7.22E-01
8.35E-06
    Percent reduction from 1992 to 1994 emissions (forTEQ) = 73
December 2004
C-2
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                  Calculations for Emissions of Dioxin-like Compounds at the Columbus WTE Facility
                                         Documentation for Ohio Dioxin Application


Steps to convert data from 1992 stack tests to emissions data for TRIM.FaTE:

1) Compiled stack data using information Table 2 in the Ohio  EPA report from Sept 1994
2) Converted data from grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/DSCF) to grams per DSCF (g/DSCF)
3) Using flow rates (DSCF/min) from Ohio EPA (1994) report, converted data to grams per minute
4) Converted stack emissions to grams per second
5) Adjusted stack emissions for usage,  based on the assumption that on average 4.22 boilers are used
  continuously (i.e., multiplied by 4.22)
6) Converted emissions to grams per day to be consistent with units in TRIM.FaTE
7) Converted emissions to toxicity equivalent (TEQ) emissions by multiplying by toxicity equivalency
  factors (TEFs) for comparison (from Ohio EPA 1994; same as Lorber et al. 2000)
8) Compared TEQ (in grams per year) to Lorber et al., 1996 and 2000 reports
Conversion factors and other constants:
grams per grain
sec/min
sec/day
Number of boilers in use
6.48E-02
60
8.64E+04
4.22
                    Flow Rate (DSCF/min)
       Run 1          Run 2     Run 3    Run 3-1    Run 3-2
     1.17E+05      1.16E+05   1.15E+05   1.15E+05  1.05E+05
December 2004                                                 C-3                      TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                Calculations for Emissions of Dioxin-like Compounds at the Columbus WTE Facility -
                                   Documentation for Ohio Dioxin Application

2,3,7,8 TCDD
1,2,3, 7,8 PeCDD
1, 2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD
1, 2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD
1, 2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8TCDF
1, 2,3,7,8 PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8 PeCDF
1, 2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF
1, 2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8 HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7, 8 HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8, 9 HpCDF
OCDF
STEP1
Run 1
2.65E-09
1 .64E-08
1 .52E-08
2.02E-08
1 .77E-08
9.98E-08
1 .52E-07
1.01E-08
2.65E-08
3.54E-08
5.69E-08
5.69E-08
1 .25E-08
4.30E-08
2.02E-07
1 .90E-08
6.19E-08
Stack Emissions (gr/DSCF)
Run 2 Run 3 Run 3-1
5.13E-09
2.20E-08
1 .59E-08
2.08E-08
2.20E-08
1 .08E-07
1.10E-07
1.59E-08
4.64E-08
4.27E-08
6.96E-08
7.82E-08
2.08E-08
1 .83E-07
1 .83E-07
2.69E-07
5.62E-08
4.84E-09
1.91E-08
1 .20E-08
1 .40E-08
1 .53E-08
7.01 E-08
8.03E-08
1 .66E-08
4.46E-08
3.70E-08
5.61 E-08
6.12E-08
1.12E-08
3.19E-08
1 .53E-07
1 .66E-08
4.84E-08
3.95E-09
2.03E-08
1 .56E-08
2.27E-08
1.91 E-08
1.17E-07
8.86E-08
1 .56E-08
4.31 E-08
4.31 E-08
6.22E-08
6.70E-08
7.66E-09
4.43E-08
1.91E-07
1.91 E-08
6.10E-11
Run 3-2
1.50E-09
9.35E-10
8.29E-09
1.04E-08
8.29E-09
4.81 E-08
5.62E-08
8.28E-09
1.39E-08
2.24E-08
2.67E-08
2.48E-08
3.21 E-09
2.41 E-08
8.82E-08
9.09E-09
3.21 E-08
STEP 2
Run 1
1.7E-10
1.1 E-09
9.8E-10
1.3E-09
1.1 E-09
6.5E-09
9.8E-09
6.6E-10
1.7E-09
2.3E-09
3.7E-09
3.7E-09
8.1E-10
2.8E-09
1.3E-08
1 .2E-09
4.0E-09
Stack Emissions (g/DSCF)
Run 2 Run 3 Run 3-1
3.3E-10
1 .4E-09
1.0E-09
1.3E-09
1 .4E-09
7.0E-09
7.1 E-09
1.0E-09
3.0E-09
2.8E-09
4.5E-09
5.1 E-09
1.3E-09
1 .2E-08
1 .2E-08
1.7E-08
3.6E-09
3.1E-10
1.2E-09
7.8E-10
9.1E-10
9.9E-10
4.5E-09
5.2E-09
1.1 E-09
2.9E-09
2.4E-09
3.6E-09
4.0E-09
7.3E-10
2.1 E-09
9.9E-09
1.1 E-09
3.1 E-09
2.6E-10
1.3E-09
1.0E-09
1.5E-09
1.2E-09
7.6E-09
5.7E-09
1.0E-09
2.8E-09
2.8E-09
4.0E-09
4.3E-09
5.0E-10
2.9E-09
1.2E-08
1.2E-09
4.0E-12
Run 3-2
9.69E-11
6.06E-11
5.37E-10
6.75E-10
5.37E-10
3.12E-09
3.64E-09
5.37E-10
9.00E-10
1 .45E-09
1.73E-09
1 .61 E-09
2.08E-10
1 .56E-09
5.71 E-09
5.89E-10
2.08E-09
December 2004
C-4
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                Calculations for Emissions of Dioxin-like Compounds at the Columbus WTE Facility -
                                   Documentation for Ohio Dioxin Application
STEPS
2,3,7,8 TCDD
1,2,3, 7,8 PeCDD
1, 2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD
1, 2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD
1, 2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8TCDF
1, 2,3,7,8 PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8 PeCDF
1, 2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF
1, 2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8 HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7, 8 HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8, 9 HpCDF
OCDF
Run 1
2.02E-05
1 .25E-04
1.15E-04
1 .54E-04
1 .35E-04
7.60E-04
1.15E-03
7.70E-05
2.02E-04
2.69E-04
4.33E-04
4.33E-04
9.51 E-05
3.27E-04
1 .54E-03
1 .44E-04
4.71 E-04
Stack
Run 2
3.84E-05
1 .65E-04
1.19E-04
1 .56E-04
1 .65E-04
8.05E-04
8.24E-04
1.19E-04
3.48E-04
3.20E-04
5.21 E-04
5.85E-04
1 .56E-04
1 .37E-03
1 .37E-03
2.01 E-03
4.21 E-04
Emissions
Run 3
3.62E-05
1 .43E-04
8.96E-05
1 .05E-04
1.14E-04
5.25E-04
6.01 E-04
1 .24E-04
3.34E-04
2.77E-04
4.20E-04
4.58E-04
8.39E-05
2.38E-04
1.14E-03
1 .24E-04
3.62E-04
(g/min)
Run 3-1
2.95E-05
1 .52E-04
1.16E-04
1 .70E-04
1 .43E-04
8.76E-04
6.62E-04
1.16E-04
3.22E-04
3.22E-04
4.65E-04
5. 01 E-04
5.72E-05
3.31 E-04
1 .43E-03
1 .43E-04
4.56E-07
Run 3-2
1.02E-05
6.39E-06
5.66E-05
7.12E-05
5.66E-05
3.29E-04
3.84E-04
5.66E-05
9.49E-05
1.53E-04
1.83E-04
1.70E-04
2.19E-05
1 .64E-04
6.02E-04
6.21 E-05
2.19E-04
STEP 4
Run 1
3.36E-07
2.08E-06
1 .92E-06
2.56E-06
2.24E-06
1.27E-05
1.92E-05
1 .28E-06
3.37E-06
4.49E-06
7.21 E-06
7.21 E-06
1.59E-06
5.45E-06
2.56E-05
2.40E-06
7.85E-06
Stack Emissions (g/sec)
Run 2 Run 3 Run 3-1
6.40E-07
2.74E-06
1.98E-06
2.59E-06
2.74E-06
1.34E-05
1.37E-05
1.98E-06
5.79E-06
5.34E-06
8.69E-06
9.76E-06
2.59E-06
2.29E-05
2.29E-05
3.36E-05
7.02E-06
6
2
1
1
1
8
1
2
5
4
6
7
1
3
1
2
6
04E-07
38E-06
49E-06
75E-06
91 E-06
74E-06
OOE-05
07E-06
56E-06
61 E-06
99E-06
63E-06
40E-06
97E-06
91 E-05
07E-06
04E-06
4
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
7
8
9
5
2
2
7
92E-07
53E-06
94 E-06
83E-06
39E-06
46E-05
10E-05
94E-06
36 E-06
36 E-06
75E-06
35E-06
54E-07
51 E-06
39E-05
39E-06
61E-09
Run 3-2
1
1
9
1
9
5
6
9
1
2
3
2
3
2
1
1
3
70E-07
06E-07
43E-07
19 E-06
43E-07
48E-06
39E-06
43E-07
58E-06
55E-06
04 E-06
83E-06
65E-07
74 E-06
OOE-05
03E-06
65E-06
December 2004
C-5
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                Calculations for Emissions of Dioxin-like Compounds at the Columbus WTE Facility
                                   Documentation for Ohio Dioxin Application

2,3,7,8 TCDD
1,2,3, 7,8 PeCDD
1, 2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD
1, 2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD
1, 2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8TCDF
1, 2,3,7,8 PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8 PeCDF
1, 2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF
1, 2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8 HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7, 8 HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8, 9 HpCDF
OCDF
STEPS
Facility
Run 1
1 .42E-06
8.79E-06
8.12E-06
1 .08E-05
9.47E-06
5.34E-05
8.12E-05
5.41 E-06
1 .42E-05
1 .89E-05
3.04E-05
3.04E-05
6.69E-06
2.30E-05
1 .08E-04
1.01E-05
3.31 E-05
Emissions,
Run 2
2.70E-06
1.16E-05
8.37E-06
1 .09E-05
1.16E-05
5.66E-05
5.79E-05
8.36E-06
2.44E-05
2.25E-05
3.67E-05
4.12E-05
1 .09E-05
9.65E-05
9.65E-05
1 .42E-04
2.96E-05
Adjusted
Run 3
2.55E-06
1.01 E-05
6.30E-06
7.38E-06
8.05E-06
3.69E-05
4.23E-05
8.72E-06
2.35E-05
1 .95E-05
2.95E-05
3.22E-05
5.90E-06
1 .68E-05
8.05E-05
8.72E-06
2.55E-05
for Usage
Run 3-1
2.07E-06
1.07E-05
8.18E-06
1.19E-05
1.01 E-05
6.16E-05
4.66E-05
8.18E-06
2.26E-05
2.26E-05
3.27E-05
3.52E-05
4.03E-06
2.33E-05
1.01E-04
1.01 E-05
3.21 E-08
(g/sec)
Run 3-2
7.19E-07
4.49E-07
3.98E-06
5. 01 E-06
3.98E-06
2.31 E-05
2.70E-05
3.98E-06
6.68E-06
1.08E-05
1.28E-05
1.19E-05
1 .54E-06
1.16E-05
4.24E-05
4.37E-06
1.54E-05
December 2004
C-6
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                Calculations for Emissions of Dioxin-like Compounds at the Columbus WTE Facility
                                   Documentation for Ohio Dioxin Application

2,3,7,8 TCDD
1, 2,3,7,8 PeCDD
1, 2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD
1, 2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD
1, 2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8TCDF
1, 2,3,7,8 PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8 PeCDF
1, 2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF
1, 2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8 HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7, 8 HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8, 9 HpCDF
OCDF
STEP 6
Facility Emissions, Adjusted for Usage (g/day)
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 3-1 Run 3-2
1.23E-01 2.33E-01 2.20E-01 1.79E-01 6.21 E-02
7.59E-01 1.00E+00 8.69E-01 9.24E-01 3.88E-02
7.01 E-01 7.23E-01 5.45E-01 7.07E-01 3.44E-01
9.35E-01 9.45E-01 6.37E-01 1.03E+00 4.33E-01
8.18E-01 1.00E+00 6.95E-01 8.70E-01 3.44E-01
4.62E+00 4.89E+00 3.19E+00 5.33E+00 2.00E+00
7.02E+00 5.01 E+00 3.65E+00 4.03E+00 2.33E+00
4.68E-01 7.23E-01 7.53E-01 7.07E-01 3.44E-01
1.23E+00 2. 11 E+00 2.03E+00 1.96E+00 5.77E-01
1.64E+00 1.95E+00 1 .68E+00 1.96E+00 9.31 E-01
2.63E+00 3.17E+00 2.55E+00 2.83E+00 1.11 E+00
2.63E+00 3.56E+00 2.78E+00 3.04E+00 1.03E+00
5.78E-01 9.45E-01 5.10E-01 3.48E-01 1.33E-01
1.99E+00 8.34E+00 1 .45E+00 2.01 E+00 9.98E-01
9.35E+00 8.34E+00 6.95E+00 8.70E+00 3.66E+00
8.76E-01 1.22E+01 7.53E-01 8.70E-01 3.77E-01
2.86E+00 2.56E+00 2.20E+00 2.77E-03 1 .33E+00
Average
1.64E-01
7.18E-01
6.04E-01
7.96E-01
7.46E-01
4.00E+00
4.41 E+00
5.99E-01
1.58E+00
1.63E+00
2.46E+00
2.61 E+00
5.03E-01
2.96E+00
7.40E+00
3.02E+00
1.79E+00
% Total
0.5%
2.0%
1 .7%
2.2%
2.1%
11.1%
12.2%
1 .7%
4.4%
4.5%
6.8%
7.2%
1 .4%
8.2%
20.6%
8.4%
5.0%
December 2004
C-7
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                 Calculations for Emissions of Dioxin-like Compounds at the Columbus WTE Facility
                                      Documentation for Ohio Dioxin Application


STEP 7








TEF Converted Emissions (g/day)

2,3,7,8
1,2,3,7
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,6
1,2,3,7
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
2,3,7,8
1,2,3,7
2,3,4,7
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,6
1,2,3,7
2,3,4,6
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4



TCDD
8 PeCDD
7,8 HxCDD
7,8 HxCDD
8,9 HxCDD
6,7,8 HpCDD
6,7,8,9-OCDD
TCDF
8 PeCDF
8 PeCDF
7,8 HxCDF
7,8 HxCDF
8,9 HxCDF
7,8 HxCDF
6,7,8HpCDF
7,8,9HpCDF
6,7,8,9-OCDF
TEQ (g/day)
TEQ (g/yr)
Run 1
1 .23E-01
3.80E-01
7.01 E-02
9.35E-02
8.18E-02
4.62E-02
7.02E-03
4.68E-02
6.14E-02
8.18E-01
2.63E-01
2.63E-01
5.78E-02
1.99E-01
9.35E-02
8.76E-03
2.86E-03
2.61 E+00
9.54E+02

2
5
7
9
1
4
5
7
1
9
3
3
9
8
8
1
2
4
Run 2
.33E-01
.OOE-01
.23E-02
.45E-02
.OOE-01
.89E-02
.01E-03
.23E-02
.06E-01
.73E-01
.17E-01
.56E-01
.45E-02
.34E-01
.34E-02
.22E-01
.56E-03
01 E+00
1 .47E+03

2
4
5
6
6
3
3
7
1
8
2
2
5
1
6
7
2
2
Run 3
.20E-01
.35E-01
.45E-02
.37E-02
.95E-02
.19E-02
.65E-03
.53E-02
.01E-01
.40E-01
.55E-01
.78E-01
.10E-02
.45E-01
.95E-02
.53E-03
.20E-03
70E+00
9.87E+02
Run 3-1
1.79E-01
4.62E-01
7.07E-02
1.03E-01
8.70E-02
5.33E-02
4.03E-03
7.07E-02
9.78E-02
9.78E-01
2.83E-01
3.04E-01
3.48E-02
2.01 E-01
8.70E-02
8.70E-03
2.77E-06
3.02E+00
1.10E+03
Run 3-2
6
1
3
4
3
2
2
3
2
4
1
1
1
9
3
3
1
1
21 E-02
94E-02
44E-02
33E-02
44E-02
OOE-02
33E-03
44E-02
88E-02
66E-01
11 E-01
03E-01
33E-02
98E-02
66E-02
77E-03
33E-03
11 E+00
TEF
1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.001

4.07E+02


Average
1.64E-01
3.59E-01
6.04E-02
7.96E-02
7.46E-02
4.00E-02
4.41 E-03
5.99E-02
7.90E-02
8.15E-01
2.46E-01
2.61 E-01
5.03E-02
2.96E-01
7.40E-02
3.02E-02
1.79E-03
2.69E+00
9.83E+02
STEP 8) Verify emissions with previous reports
                                     TEQ(g/s)  TEQ (g/yr)
Ohio EPA, 1994 (from Step 7)
TEQ emissions used in Lorber et al, 1996
TEQ emissions used in Lorber et al, 2000
3.10E-05
9.83E+02
9.78E+02
9.84E+02
December 2004
                    C-8
                                 TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                  Calculations for Emissions of Dioxin-like Compounds at the Columbus WTE Facility -
                                         Documentation for Ohio Dioxin Application


Steps to convert data from 1994 stack tests to emissions data for TRIM.FaTE:

1) Compiled stack data using information tables in the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio report dated October 26, 1994 (to EPA Region 5)
2) Converted data from nanograms per dry standard cubic meters (ng/DSCM) to grams per DSCM (g/DSCM)
3) Using flow rates (DSCM/min) from Solid Waste Authority report, converted data to grams per minute (g/min)
4) Converted stack emissions to grams per second (g/s)
5) Adjusted stack emissions for usage, based on the assumption that on average 4.22 boilers are used
  continuously (i.e., multiplied by 4.22)
6) Converted emissions to grams per day to be consistent with units in TRIM.FaTE
7) Converted emissions to toxicity equivalent (TEQ) emissions by multiplying by toxicity equivalency
  factors (TEFs) for comparison (from Ohio EPA 1994; same as Lorber et al. 2000)
8) Compared TEQ (in grams per year) to Lorber et al., 1996 and 2000 reports
Conversion factors and other constants:
g/ng
sec/min
sec/day
Number of boilers in use
1.0E-09
60
8.64E+04
4.22
                         Flow Rate (DSCM/min)
                      Run 1      Run 2     Run 3
                       1977      1936       1962
December 2004
C-9
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                Calculations for Emissions of Dioxin-like Compounds at the Columbus WTE Facility
                                   Documentation for Ohio Dioxin Application
Stack C for boiler 6
2,3,7,8 TCDD
1, 2,3,7,8 PeCDD
1, 2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD
1, 2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD
1, 2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8TCDF
1, 2,3,7,8 PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8 PeCDF
1, 2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF
1, 2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8 HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7, 8 HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8, 9 HpCDF
OCDF
STEP1
Stack Emissions (ng/DSCM)
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
2.08 0.89 0.487
28.9 18.3 7.23
43.3 33.0 14.2
34.4 28.0 11.4
29.7 20.2 8.21
281 294 148
572 642 434.0
11.2 6.78 3.77
25.4 14.9 7.83
44.6 29.5 14.0
88.3 64.5 32.6
79.9 54.3 31.0
3.1 2.83 1.46
92.5 85.3 49.4
479 423 243
32.3 34.8 18.9
172 202 130
STEP 2
Stack Emissions (g/DSCM)
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
2.1E-09 8.9E-10 4.9E-10
2.9E-08 1.8E-08 7.2E-09
4.3E-08 3.3E-08 1.4E-08
3.4E-08 2.8E-08 1.1E-08
3.0E-08 2.0E-08 8.2E-09
2.8E-07 2.9E-07 1.5E-07
5.7E-07 6.4E-07 4.3E-07
1.1E-08 6.8E-09 3.8E-09
2.5E-08 1.5E-08 7.8E-09
4.5E-08 3.0E-08 1.4E-08
8.8E-08 6.5E-08 3.3E-08
8.0E-08 5.4E-08 3.1E-08
3.1E-09 2.8E-09 1.5E-09
9.3E-08 8.5E-08 4.9E-08
4.8E-07 4.2E-07 2.4E-07
3.2E-08 3.5E-08 1.9E-08
1.7E-07 2.0E-07 1.3E-07
STEPS
Stack Emissions (g/min)
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
4.11E-06 1.72E-06 9.55E-07
5.71 E-05 3.54E-05 1.42E-05
8.56E-05 6.39E-05 2.79E-05
6.80E-05 5.42E-05 2.24E-05
5.87E-05 3.91 E-05 1.61 E-05
5.56E-04 5.69E-04 2.90E-04
1.13E-03 1.24E-03 8.52E-04
2.21 E-05 1.31 E-05 7.40E-06
5.02E-05 2.88E-05 1.54E-05
8.82E-05 5.71 E-05 2.75E-05
1.75E-04 1.25E-04 6.40E-05
1.58E-04 1.05E-04 6.08E-05
6.13E-06 5.48E-06 2.86E-06
1.83E-04 1.65E-04 9.69E-05
9.47E-04 8.19E-04 4.77E-04
6.39E-05 6.74E-05 3.71 E-05
3.40E-04 3.91 E-04 2.55E-04
December 2004
C-10
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                Calculations for Emissions of Dioxin-like Compounds at the Columbus WTE Facility -
                                   Documentation for Ohio Dioxin Application

2,3,7,8 TCDD
1, 2,3,7,8 PeCDD
1, 2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD
1, 2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD
1, 2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8TCDF
1, 2,3,7,8 PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8 PeCDF
1, 2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF
1, 2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8 HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7, 8 HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8, 9 HpCDF
OCDF
STEP 4
Stack Emissions (g/sec)
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
6.85E-08 2.87E-08 1.59E-08
9.52E-07 5.90E-07 2.36E-07
1 .43E-06 1 .06E-06 4.64E-07
1.13E-06 9.03E-07 3.73E-07
9.79E-07 6.52E-07 2.68E-07
9.26E-06 9.49E-06 4.84E-06
1.88E-05 2.07E-05 1.42E-05
3.69E-07 2.19E-07 1.23E-07
8.37E-07 4.81 E-07 2.56E-07
1.47E-06 9.52E-07 4.58E-07
2.91E-06 2.08E-06 1.07E-06
2.63E-06 1.75E-06 1.01E-06
1.02E-07 9.13E-08 4.77E-08
3.05E-06 2.75E-06 1.62E-06
1.58E-05 1.36E-05 7.95E-06
1.06E-06 1.12E-06 6.18E-07
5.67E-06 6.52E-06 4.25E-06
STEPS
Facility Emissions, Adjusted for
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
2.89E-07 1.21 E-07 6.72E-08
4.02E-06 2.49E-06 9.98E-07
6.02E-06 4.49E-06 1.96E-06
4.78E-06 3.81E-06 1.57E-06
4.13E-06 2.75E-06 1.13E-06
3.91 E-05 4.00E-05 2.04E-05
7.95E-05 8.74E-05 5.99E-05
1 .56E-06 9.23E-07 5.20E-07
3.53E-06 2.03E-06 1.08E-06
6.20E-06 4.02E-06 1.93E-06
1 .23E-05 8.78E-06 4.50E-06
1.11 E-05 7.39E-06 4.28E-06
4.31 E-07 3.85E-07 2.01 E-07
1.29E-05 1.16E-05 6.82E-06
6.66E-05 5.76E-05 3.35E-05
4.49E-06 4.74E-06 2.61 E-06
2.39E-05 2.75E-05 1.79E-05
STEP 6
Facility Emissions, Adjusted for Usage (g
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average
2.50E-02 1.05E-02 5.81 E-03 1.38E-02
3.47E-01 2.15E-01 8.62E-02 2.16E-01
5.20E-01 3.88E-01 1.69E-01 3.59E-01
4.13E-01 3.29E-01 1.36E-01 2.93E-01
3.57E-01 2.38E-01 9.79E-02 2.31 E-01
3.38E+00 3.46E+00 1.76E+00 2.87E+00
6.87E+00 7.55E+00 5.17E+00 6.53E+00
1.35E-01 7.98E-02 4.49E-02 8.64E-02
3.05E-01 1.75E-01 9.34E-02 1.91 E-01
5.36E-01 3.47E-01 1.67E-01 3.50E-01
1.06E+00 7.59E-01 3.89E-01 7.36E-01
9.60E-01 6.39E-01 3.70E-01 6.56E-01
3.72E-02 3.33E-02 1.74E-02 2.93E-02
1.11E+00 1.00E+00 5.89E-01 9.01 E-01
5.75E+00 4.98E+00 2.90E+00 4.54E+00
3.88E-01 4.09E-01 2.25E-01 3.41 E-01
2.07E+00 2.38E+00 1.55E+00 2.00E+00
/day)
% Total
0.1%
1.1%
1 .8%
1 .4%
1.1%
14.1%
32.1%
0.4%
0.9%
1 .7%
3.6%
3.2%
0.1%
4.4%
22.3%
1 .7%
9.8%
December 2004
C-11
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                Calculations for Emissions of Dioxin-like Compounds at the Columbus WTE Facility
                                   Documentation for Ohio Dioxin Application
STEP 7
TEF Converted Emissions (g/day)

2,3,7
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
2,3,7
1,2,3
2,3,4
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
2,3,4
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3



,8
,7
,4
,6
,7
,4
,4
,8
,7
,7
,4
,6
,7
,6
,4
,4
,4




TCDD
8
7
7
8
6
6
PeCDD
,8 HxCDD
,8 HxCDD
,9 HxCDD
,7,8 HpCDD
,7,8,9-OCDD
TCDF
8
8
7
7
8
7
6
7
6


PeCDF
PeCDF
,8 HxCDF
,8 HxCDF
,9 HxCDF
,8 HxCDF
,7,8 HpCDF
,8,9 HpCDF
,7,8,9-OCDF
TEQ (g/day)
TEQ (g/yr)

2
1
5
4
3
3
6
1
1
2
1
9
3
1
5
3
2
Run 1
.50E-02
.74E-01
.20E-02
.13E-02
.57E-02
.38E-02
.87E-03
.35E-02
.53E-02
.68E-01
.06E-01
.60E-02
.72E-03
.11E-01
.75E-02
.88E-03
.07E-03
1.05E+00
3.82E+02

1
1
3
3
2
3
7
7
8
1
7
6
3
1
4
4
2
7
Run 2
.05E-02
.08E-01
.88E-02
.29E-02
.38E-02
.46E-02
.55E-03
.98E-03
.76E-03
.74E-01
.59E-02
.39E-02
.33E-03
.OOE-01
.98E-02
.09E-03
.38E-03
.46E-01
2.72E+02

5
4
1
1
9
1
5
4
4
8
3
3
1
5
2
2
1
3
Run 3
81E-03
31E-02
69E-02
36E-02
79E-03
76E-02
17E-03
49E-03
67E-03
35E-02
89E-02
70E-02
74E-03
89E-02
90E-02
25E-03
55E-03
74E-01
TEF
1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.001

1.36E+02


Average
1.38E-02
1.08E-01
3.59E-02
2.93E-02
2.31 E-02
2.87E-02
6.53E-03
8.64E-03
9.56E-03
1.75E-01
7.36E-02
6.56E-02
2.93E-03
9.01 E-02
4.54E-02
3.41 E-03
2.00E-03
7.22E-01
2.63E+02
STEP 8) Verify emissions with previous reports
(from Step 7)
emission used in Lorberet al, 1996 * 0.27
emission used in Lorber et al, 2000 * 0.27
TEQ (g/s)
8.37E-06
TEQ (g/yr)
2.63E+02
2.64E+02
2.67E+02
December 2004
C-12
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                                  Source Data -  Documentation for Ohio Dioxin Application
References
Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio. 1994.  Corrected Data for March 16-18, 1994 Dioxin Test Waste to Energy Facility. Memorandum to
    U.S. EPA Region 5. October 26, 1994.

Lorber, M.; Cleverly, D.; and J. Schaum.  1996.  A screening-level risk assessment of the indirect impacts from the Columbus waste to energy
    facility in Columbus, Ohio. Proceedings of an International Specialty Conference, sponsored by the Air and Waste Management Association and
    the United States Environmental Protection Agency, held April 18-21, 1996 in Washington, D.C.  Published in Solid Waste Management:
    Thermal Treatment & Waste-to-Energy Technologies, VIP - 53. pp. 262-278. Air & Waste Management Association, One Gateway Center,
    Third Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222.

Lorber, M.; Eschenroeder, A.; and R. Robinson. 2000. Testing the USA EPA's ISCST-Version 3 model on dioxins: A comparison of predicted
    and observed air and soil concentrations.  Atmospheric Environment 34 (2000), pp. 3995-4010.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) (1994) Risk assessment of potential health effects of dioxins and dibenzofurans emitted from
    the Columbus solid waste authority's reduction facility. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Air Pollution Control.
    February 28, 1994.
December 2004                                                  C-13                      TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                                   Appendix D.
                                  WIND ROSES
       This appendix contains the following wind roses using the appropriate meteorological
data:

       Wind rose for Columbus, Ohio using local airport meteorological data from 1989;
       Wind rose for Columbus, Ohio using local airport meteorological data from 1994;
•      Wind rose for Columbus, Ohio using local airport meteorological data from March 15
       through 17, 1994.
December 2004                          D-l          TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                  Wind Rose for Columbus, Ohio -1989
           WIND ROSE PLOT

           Station #14821 - COLUMBUS/PORT COLUMBUS INT'L, OH
                                                                                               :   EAST   :
            Wind Speed (m/s)
                         DISPLAY

                         Wind Speed
                         AVG. WIND SPEED

                         3.36 m/s
                         ORIENTATION
                         Flow Vector
                         (blowing to)
                                                 DATE
                                                 1/6/2004
UNIT

m/s
CALM WINDS

14.09%
PLOT YEAR-DATE-TIME
1989
Jan 1 - Dec 31
Midnight - 11 PM
                                                                         COMPANY NAME
                                                                         PROJECT/PLOT NO.
          WRPLOT View 3.5 by Lake» Environmental Software - www.takeMnvhmmental.com
December 2004
        D-2
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                   Wind Rose for Columbus, Ohio -1994
            WIND ROSE PLOT

            Station #14821 - COLUMBUS/PORT COLUMBUS INT'L, OH
             Wind Speed (m/s)
                          DISPLAY

                          Wind Speed
                          AVG. WIND SPEED

                          3.61 m/s
                          ORIENTATION
                          Flow Vector
                          (blowing to)
                                                  DATE

                                                  1/6/2004
UNIT

m/s
CALM WINDS

18.08%
PLOT YEAR-DATE-TIME
1994
Jan 1  - Dec 31
Midnight - 11 PM
                                                                          COMPANY NAME
                                                                          PROJECT/PLOT NO.
           WRPLOT View 3.5 by Lakes Envhmmental Software -'
                                     nv.lakefranvfronmantal.com
December 2004
       D-3
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                    Wind Rose for Columbus, Ohio -
                                    March 15 through March 17,1994
           WIND ROSE PLOT

           Station #14821 - COLUMBUS/PORT COLUMBUS INT'L, OH
                                                                      to*
            Wind Speed (m/s)
                         DISPLAY
                         Wind Speed
                         AVG. WIND SPEED

                         5.19m/s
                         ORIENTATION
                         Flow Vector
                         (blowing to)
                                                DATE

                                                1/6/2004
UNIT

m/s
CALM WINDS

0.00%
PLOT YEAR-DATE-TIME
1994
Mar 15-Mar 17
Midnight - 11 PM
                                                                       COMPANY NAME
                                                                       PROJECT/PLOT NO.
          WRPLOT Vtow 3.5 by Lakes Envkonmantal Software - vmw.bkas-anvlranmantal.com
December 2004
        D-4
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                 Appendix E.
            DETAILED TRIM.FATE RESULTS BY CONGENER
      This appendix provides charts with congener specific TRIM.FaTE results for:

      The overall distribution of dioxin TEQ mass over time in compartments and sinks.

      The distribution of dioxin TEQ mass over time in abiotic compartments.
December 2004                      E-l          TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                                  Figure E-l
            1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF Mass: Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E+05
           1.0E+04--
           1.0E+03--
           1.0E+02
           1.0E+01 --
           1.0E+00
            1.0E-01
            1.0E-02
            1.0E-03
                                                        B      1
                                                           Year
                                                                                    10      11
                                                                                                   12
            -Abiotic Compartments —•— Biotic Compartments A  Advection Air Sinks —X— Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks X  Advection Other Sinks
                                                  Figure E-2
             1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD Mass:  Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E+05
           1.0E+04--
           1.0E+03--
           1.0E+02
           1.0E+01 --
           1.0E+00
            1.0E-01
            1.0E-02
            1.0E-03
                                                        e      i
                                                           Year
                                                                                    10      11      12
            - Abiotic Compartments -•- Biotic Compartments    Advection Air Sinks -X- Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks -*-Advection Other Sinks
December 2004
E-2
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                                 Figure E-3
           1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD Mass: Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E+05
           1.0E+04--
           1.0E-03
                                                                                    10      11      12
                                                          Year
            - Abiotic Compartments -•- Biotic Compartments   Advection Air Sinks -X- Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks -*- Advection Other Sinks
                                                 Figure E-4
            1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD Mass: Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E+05
           1.0E+04--
           1.0E+03--
           1.0E+02
           1.0E+01 --
           1.0E+00
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
           1.0E-03
                                                                                    10      11
                                                                                                  12
                                                          Year
            - Abiotic Compartments —•— Biotic Compartments —A— Advection Air Sinks  X Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks —3K— Advection Other Sinks
December 2004
E-3
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                                 Figure E-5
             2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF Mass: Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E+05
           1.0E+04--
           1.0E+03
           1.0E+02
           1.0E+01
           1.0E+00-
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
           1.0E-03
                                                                                    10      11      12
                                                          Year
            - Abiotic Compartments -•- Biotic Compartments   Advection Air Sinks -X- Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks -*- Advection Other Sinks
                                                 Figure E-6
             1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF Mass: Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E+05
           1.0E+04--
           1.0E+03
           1.0E+02
           1.0E+01 --
           1.0E+00
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
           1.0E-03
                                                        B       1
                                                          Year
                                                                                    10      11
                                                                                                  12
            -Abiotic Compartments  •  Biotic Compartments A Advection Air Sinks —X— Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks  X Advection Other Sinks
December 2004
E-4
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                                  Figure E-7
            1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF Mass: Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E+05
           1.0E+04
           1.0E+03
           1.0E+02
           1.0E+01
           1.0E+00-
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
           1.0E-03
                                                                                     10      11      12
                                                           Year
            - Abiotic Compartments -•- Biotic Compartments    Advection Air Sinks -X- Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks -*- Advection Other Sinks
                                                  Figure E-8
            1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF Mass: Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E+05
           1.0E+04--
           1.0E+03
           1.0E+02--
           1.0E+01 --
           1.0E+00
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
           1.0E-03
                                                                                     10      11
                                                                                                   12
            -Abiotic Compartments  • Biotic Compartments  A  Advection Air Sinks —X— Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks X  Advection Other Sinks
December 2004
E-5
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                                 Figure E-9
             1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF Mass: Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E+05
           1.0E+04--
           1.0E-03
                                                                                   10     11     12
                                                          Year
            - Abiotic Compartments -•- Biotic Compartments    Advection Air Sinks -X- Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks -*- Advection Other Sinks
                                                Figure E-10
              1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF Mass: Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E+05
           1.0E+04
           1.0E+03
           1.0E+02--
           1.0E+01
           1.0E+00--
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
           1.0E-03
                                                                                   10     11
                                                                                                 12
            -Abiotic Compartments •  Biotic Compartments  A Advection Air Sinks —X— Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks X Advection Other Sinks
December 2004
E-6
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                                Figure E-ll
              2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF Mass: Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E+05
           1.0E+04
           1.0E+03
           1.0E+02--
           1.0E+01
           1.0E+00-
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
           1.0E-03
                                                                                   10
                                                                                                  12
                                                          Year
            - Abiotic Compartments -•- Biotic Compartments    Advection Air Sinks -X- Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks -*- Advection Other Sinks
                                                Figure E-12
             1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD Mass: Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E+05
           1.0E+04
           1.0E-03
                                                                                   10     11
                                                                                                  12
            -Abiotic Compartments •  Biotic Compartments  A Advection Air Sinks —X— Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks X  Advection Other Sinks
December 2004
E-7
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                              Figure E-13
            1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD Mass: Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E-
           1.0E-03
                                                                                10      11     12
                                                       Year
           - Abiotic Compartments -•- Biotic Compartments   Advection Air Sinks -X- Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks -*- Advection Other Sinks
                                              Figure E-14
            1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF Mass: Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E-03
                                                                                10      11
                                                                                             12
              - Compartment  • Biotic Compartments    Advection Air Sinks —X— Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks —3K— Advection Other Sinks
December 2004
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                                Figure E-15
              1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD Mass: Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E-
           1.0E-03
                                                                                   10      11      12
                                                         Year
              - Compartment -•- Biotic Compartments   Advection Air Sinks -X- Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks -*- Advection Other Sinks
                                                Figure E-16
               2,3,7,8-TCDF Mass: Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E+05
           1.0E+04
           1.0E+03--
           1.0E+02
           1.0E+01 --
           1.0E+00
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
           1.0E-03
                                                       B      1
                                                         Year
                                                                                   10      11
                                                                                                 12
           - Abiotic Compartments —•— Biotic Compartments —A— Advection Air Sinks  X Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks —3K— Advection Other Sinks
December 2004
E-9
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                               Figure E-17
               2,3,7,8-TCDD Mass: Overall Distribution in Compartments and Sinks
           1.0E+05
           1.0E+04
           1.0E-02
           1.0E-03
                                                                                 10      11     12
                                                        Year
           - Abiotic Compartments -•- Biotic Compartments    Advection Air Sinks -X- Degradation/Reaction Other Sinks -*- Advection Other Sinks
December 2004
E-10
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                                 Figure E-18
                  1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF Mass: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.0B-04
           1.0&03--
           1.0&02
           1.0&01 --
           1.0&00
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
         3 1.0E-03
         i? 1.0E-04
           1.0E-05
           1.0E-06
           1.0E-07
           1.0E-08
           1.0E-09
           1.0E-10
           1.0E-11
                     12345
                                                                              9      10      11      12
                                                           Year
                          -Air Compartments -•-Surface Soil Compartments   Root Soil Compartments -X- Vadose Soil Compartments
                                                 Figure E-19
                   1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD Mass: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.0&04
           1.0&03--
           1.0&02
           1.0&01 --
           1.0&00
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
         3 1.0E-03
         % 1.0E-04
           1.0E-05
            1.0E-08
            1.0E-09
            1.0E-10
            1.0E-11
                                                         6       7
                                                           Year
                                                                                     10      11
                                                                                                    12
                          - Air Compartments -•— Surface Soil Compartments   Root Soil Compartments -*— Vadose Soil Compartments
December 2004
E-ll
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                                  Figure E-20
                 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD Mass: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.0B-04
           1.0&03-
           1.0&02-
           1.0&01
           1.0&00--
            1.0E-01
            1.0E-02
         — 1.0E-03
         «  1.0E-04
            1.0E-05
            1.0E-06
            1.0E-07--
            1.0E-08
            1.0E-09
            1.0E-10
            1.0E-11
                                                         6      7
                                                           Year
                                                                                      10
                                                                                                    12
                          -Air Compartments -•-Surface Soil Compartments    Root Soil Oompartments -X-Vadose Soil Oompartments
                                                  Figure E-21
                  1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD Mass: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.0&04
           1.0&03--
           1.0&02
            1.0E-01
            1.0E-02
         3 1.0E-03
         (3  1.0E-04
            1.0E-05
            1.0E-06
            1.0E-07--
            1.0E-08
            1.0E-09
            1.0E-10
            1.0E-11
                                                         6      7
                                                           Year
                                                                                      10
                                                                                                    12
                          -Air Oompartments -•-Surface Soil Oompartments    Root Soil Oompartments -X- Vadose Soil Oompartments
December 2004
E-12
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                                 Figure E-22
                   2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF Mass: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.00B-04
           1.00&03-
           1.00E-01
           1.00E-02
         — 1.00E-03
         t/i
         re 1.00E-04
           1.00E-05-
           1.00E-08
           1.00E-09
           1.00E-10
           1.00E-11
                                                         6       7
                                                           Year
                                                                                     10
                                                                                                   12
                          -Air Compartments -•- Surface Soil Compartments    Root Soil Compartments -X- Vadose Soil Compartments
                                                 Figure E-23
                   1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF Mass: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.0&04
           1.0&03
           1.0&02
           1.0&01
           1.0&00
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
         3 1.0E-03
         re 1.0E-04
           1.0E-05
           1.0E-06
           1.0E-07
           1.0E-08
           1.0E-09
           1.0E-10
           1.0E-11
                                                                                     10
                                                                                                   12
                                                           Year
                          - Air Compartments -•— Surface Soil Compartments    Root Soil Oompartrrents -x— Vadose Soil Compartments
December 2004
E-13
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                                  Figure E-24
                  1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF Mass: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.0&04
           1.0&03-
           1.0&02-
           1.0&01
           1.0&00--
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
         5 1.0E-03
         « 1.0E-04
           1.0E-05
           1.0E-06
           1.0E-07--
           1.0E-08
           1.0E-09
           1.0E-10
           1.0E-11
                                                         6      7
                                                           Year
                                                                                      10
                                                                                                    12
                          - Air Compartments -•— Surface Soil Compartments   Root Soil Compartments -x— Vadose Soil Compartments
                                                  Figure E-25
                  1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF Mass: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.0&04
           1.0E+03
           1.0&02--
           1.0&01 --
           1.0&00
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
         3 1.0E-03
         a 1.0E-04
           1.0E-05
           1.0E-06
           1.0E-07
           1.0E-08
           1.0E-09
           1.0E-10
           1.0E-11
                                                                                      10
                                                                                                    12
                                                           Year
                          - Air Compartments -•— Surface Soil Compartments   Root Soil Compartments -x— Vadose Soil Compartments
December 2004
E-14
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                                 Figure E-26
                   1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF Mass: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.0B-04
           1.0&03-
           1.0E-02
         5 1.0E-03
           1.0E-04
           1.0E-07
           1.0E-08
           1.0E-09
           1.0E-10
           1.0E-11
                                                        6      7
                                                          Year
                                                                                    10      11
                                                                                                  12
                         - Air Compartments -•— Surface Soil Compartments   Root Soil Gompartrrents -x— Vadose Soil Oompartments
                                                 Figure E-27
                    1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF Mass:  Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.0&04
           1.0&03
           1.0&02--
           1.0&01
           1.0&00
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
         3 1.0E-03
           1.0E-06
           1.0E-07
           1.0E-08
           1.0E-09
           1.0E-10
           1.0E-11
                                                        6      7
                                                          Year
                                                                                    10
                                                                                                  12
                         - Air Oompartments -•— Surface Soil Oompartments   Root Soil Gompartrrents -*— Vadose Soil Oompartments
December 2004
E-15
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                                  Figure E-28
                     2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF Mass: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.0&04
           1.0&03-
           1.0&02-
           1.0&01
           1.0&00
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
         5 1.0E-03
         « 1.0E-04
           1.0E-05
           1.0E-06
           1.0E-07
           1.0E-08
           1.0E-09
           1.0E-10
           1.0E-11
                     1234567
                                                           Year
                                                                               9      10      11      12
                          - Air Compartments -•— Surface Soil Compartments    Root Soil Compartments -x— Vadose Soil Compartments
                                                  Figure E-29
                   1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD Mass: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.0&04
           1.0&03
           1.0&02--
           1.0&01
            1.0E-02
         3 1.0E-03
            1.0E-04
            1.0E-05
            1.0E-06
            1.0E-07
            1.0E-08--
            1.0E-09
            1.0E-10
            1.0E-11
                                                         67
                                                           Year
                                                                                      10      11
                                                                                                    12
                          - Air Compartments -•— Surface Soil Compartments    Root Soil Compartments -*— Vadose Soil Compartments
December 2004
E-16
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                                 Figure E-30
                   1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD Mass: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.0&04
           1.0&03-
           1.0&02-
           1.0&01
           1.0&00
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
         5 1.0E-03
         « 1.0E-04
           1.0E-05
           1.0E-06
           1.0E-07
           1.0E-08
           1.0E-09
           1.0E-10
           1.0E-11
                                                         6       7
                                                           Year
                                                                                     10
                                                                                                    12
                          -Air Compartments -•-Surface Soil Compartments    Root Soil Compartments -X-Vadose Soil Compartments
                                                 Figure E-31
                   1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF Mass: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.0&04
           1.0&03
           1.0&02--
           1.0&01
           1.0&00--
            1.0E-01
            1.0E-02
         3 1.0E-03
         a  1.0E-04
            1.0E-05
            1.0E-06
            1.0E-07--
            1.0E-08
            1.0E-09
            1.0E-10
            1.0E-11
                                                                                     10
                                                                                                    12
                                                           Year
                          -Air Compartments -•-Surface Soil Compartments    Root Soil Compartments -X- Vadose Soil Compartments
December 2004
E-17
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                                 Figure E-32
                    1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD Mass: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.0&04
           1.0&03-
           1.0&02-
           1.0&01
           1.0&00
           1.0E-01
           1.0E-02
         5 1.0E-03
         « 1.0E-04
           1.0E-05
           1.0E-06
           1.0E-07
           1.0E-08
           1.0E-09
           1.0E-10
           1.0E-11
                                                         6      7
                                                           Year
                                                                                      10
                                                                                                    12
                          -Air Compartments -•-Surface Soil Compartments   Root Soil Compartments -X-Vadose Soil Compartments
                                                 Figure E-33
                      2,3,7,8-TCDF Mass: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.0&04
           1.0&03
            1.0E-01
            1.0E-02
         3 1.0E-03
            1.0E-04
            1.0E-05--
            1.0E-06
            1.0E-07
            1.0E-08
            1.0E-09
            1.0E-10
            1.0E-11
                                                                                      10
                                                                                                    12
                                                           Year
                          -Air Compartments -•-Surface Soil Compartments   Root Soil Compartments -X- Vadose Soil Compartments
December 2004
E-18
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                                 Figure E-34
                      2,3,7,8-TCDD Mass: Distribution in Abiotic Compartments
           1.0&04
           1.0&03-
           1.0&02-
           1.0&01 --
           1.0&00
           1.0E-01 --
           1.0E-02
         5 1.0E-03
         « 1.0E-04
           1.0E-05
           1.0E-06--
           1.0E-07--
           1.0E-08
           1.0E-09
           1.0E-10
           1.0E-11
                                                        6      7
                                                          Year
                                                                                     10
                                                                                                   12
                         -Air Compartments -•-Surface Soil Compartments    Root Soil Compartments -X-Vadose Soil Compartments
December 2004
E-19
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume III

-------
                                     Appendix F
            DOCUMENTATION OF TRIM.FaTE CONCENTRATION
                     RESULTS - SPATIAL DISTRIBUTIONS
         This appendix contains the following sets of tables for the following
   TRIM.FaTE results:

         annual average air TEQ concentrations using 1994 stack test emissions and 1994
         meteorological data;
     •   average 48-hour air individual congener and TEQ concentrations using 1994 stack test
         emissions and 1994 meteorological data;
         annual average (for year 12 of the simulation) surface soil, root zone soil, vadose zone soil
         groundwater, and surface water TEQ concentrations using 1992 stack test emissions and
         1989 meteorological data.
December 2004                             F-1       TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                          Total Dioxin TEQ Concentration:
                   Air Compartments (1994 stack test emissions)
Air compartment
Source
NNW1
NNE1
SSW1
WNW1
SSE1
WSW1
ENE1
ESE1
NNW2
NNE2
SSW2
WNW2
SSE2
WSW2
ENE2
ESE2
NNE3
NNW3
SSE3
SSW3
WSW3
WNW3
ESE3
ENE3
NNW4
NNE4
WSW4
SSW4
WNW4
SSE4
ESE4
ENE4
Annual Average TEQ
Concentration (g/m3)
8.3E-12
1.5E-12
1.4E-12
1.2E-12
1.2E-12
1.2E-12
1.1E-12
1.0E-12
1.0E-12
7.6E-13
7.5E-13
5.9E-13
5.8E-13
5.7E-13
5.7E-13
5.0E-13
4.6E-13
2.6E-13
2.5E-13
1.9E-13
1.9E-13
1.9E-13
1.8E-13
1.6E-13
1.4E-13
8.8E-14
8.7E-14
6.2E-14
6.2E-14
5.7E-14
5.6E-14
5.2E-14
4.9E-14
December 2004
F-2
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                                             Individual Congeners and Total Dioxin TEQ Concentrations:
                                                   Air Compartments (1994 stack test emissions)
Air compartment
Source
ESE1
SSE1
ESE2
SSE2
ENE1
SSW1
ENE2
ESE3
SSE3
SSW2
ESE4
SSE4
ENE3
SSW3
NNE1
ENE4
WSW1
NNW1
SSW4
NNE2
WNW1
WSW2
NNW2
NNE3
WNW2
WSW3
NNW3
NNE4
WNW3
NNW4
WSW4
WNW4
Average 48-hour Concentration (ug/m3)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD
1 .2E-05
5.1E-06
4.8E-06
3.0E-06
2.7E-06
2.7E-06
2.5E-06
1.1E-06
1.1E-06
9.9E-07
9.9E-07
4.2E-07
4.0E-07
3.0E-07
2.5E-07
1.7E-07
8.8E-08
8.9E-08
7.7E-08
7.4E-08
7.3E-08
4.3E-08
2.4E-08
2.1E-08
1 .6E-08
7.2E-09
3.4E-09
3.1E-09
2.1E-09
7.3E-10
3.8E-10
3.6E-10
7.6E-11
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF
3.6E-06
1 .6E-06
1 .5E-06
9.1E-07
8.4E-07
8.1E-07
7.6E-07
3.4E-07
3.4E-07
3.0E-07
3.0E-07
1 .3E-07
1 .2E-07
9.1E-08
7.7E-08
5.1E-08
2.7E-08
2.7E-08
2.4E-08
2.3E-08
2.2E-08
1 .3E-08
7.2E-09
6.5E-09
4.9E-09
2.2E-09
1.0E-09
9.5E-10
6.3E-10
2.2E-10
1.2E-10
1.1E-10
2.3E-11
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD
5.2E-06
2.2E-06
2.1E-06
1.3E-06
1.2E-06
1.2E-06
1.1E-06
4.9E-07
4.8E-07
4.3E-07
4.4E-07
1.8E-07
1.8E-07
1.3E-07
1.1E-07
7.4E-08
3.9E-08
3.9E-08
3.4E-08
3.3E-08
3.2E-08
1.9E-08
1 .OE-08
9.3E-09
7.0E-09
3.2E-09
1 .5E-09
1.4E-09
9.1E-10
3.2E-10
1.7E-10
1.6E-10
3.3E-11
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF
8.3E-06
3.5E-06
3.4E-06
2.1E-06
1.9E-06
1.8E-06
1.7E-06
7.7E-07
7.7E-07
6.9E-07
6.9E-07
3.0E-07
2.8E-07
2.1E-07
1.7E-07
1.2E-07
6.2E-08
6.2E-08
5.4E-08
5.2E-08
5.1E-08
3.0E-08
1.6E-08
1.5E-08
1.1E-08
5.0E-09
2.4E-09
2.2E-09
1.4E-09
5.1E-10
2.7E-10
2.5E-10
5.3E-11
1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF
6.2E-07
2.7E-07
2.5E-07
1 .6E-07
1 .4E-07
1 .4E-07
1 .3E-07
5.8E-08
5.8E-08
5.2E-08
5.2E-08
2.2E-08
2.1E-08
1 .6E-08
1 .3E-08
8.8E-09
4.7E-09
4.7E-09
4.0E-09
3.9E-09
3.8E-09
2.2E-09
1 .2E-09
1.1E-09
8.3E-10
3.8E-10
1.8E-10
1.6E-10
1.1E-10
3.8E-11
2.0E-11
1.9E-11
4.0E-12
1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD
6.5E-07
2.8E-07
2.7E-07
1.6E-07
1.5E-07
1.5E-07
1.4E-07
6.1E-08
6.0E-08
5.4E-08
5.4E-08
2.3E-08
2.2E-08
1.6E-08
1.4E-08
9.2E-09
4.9E-09
4.9E-09
4.3E-09
4.1E-09
4.0E-09
2.3E-09
1.3E-09
1.2E-09
8.7E-10
4.0E-10
1.9E-10
1.7E-10
1.1E-10
4.0E-11
2.1E-11
2.0E-11
4.2E-12
1, 2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF
1.3E-06
5.7E-07
5.5E-07
3.4E-07
3.1E-07
3.0E-07
2.8E-07
1.3E-07
1.2E-07
1.1E-07
1.1E-07
4.8E-08
4.6E-08
3.4E-08
2.8E-08
1.9E-08
1. OE-08
1. OE-08
8.7E-09
8.5E-09
8.3E-09
4.8E-09
2.7E-09
2.4E-09
1.8E-09
8.1E-10
3.9E-10
3.5E-10
2.3E-10
8.3E-11
4.4E-11
4.1E-11
8.6E-12
1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD
5.3E-07
2.3E-07
2.2E-07
1 .3E-07
1 .2E-07
1 .2E-07
1.1E-07
5.0E-08
4.9E-08
4.4E-08
4.4E-08
1 .9E-08
1 .8E-08
1 .3E-08
1.1E-08
7.5E-09
4.0E-09
4.0E-09
3.5E-09
3.3E-09
3.3E-09
1 .9E-09
1.1E-09
9.5E-10
7.1E-10
3.2E-10
1.5E-10
1.4E-10
9.2E-11
3.3E-11
1.7E-11
1.6E-11
3.4E-12
December 2004
                                                                       F-3
                                                                                                                  TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume I

-------
                                             Individual Congeners and Total Dioxin TEQ Concentrations:
                                                   Air Compartments (1994 stack test emissions)
Air compartment
Source
ESE1
SSE1
ESE2
SSE2
ENE1
SSW1
ENE2
ESE3
SSE3
SSW2
ESE4
SSE4
ENE3
SSW3
NNE1
ENE4
WSW1
NNW1
SSW4
NNE2
WNW1
WSW2
NNW2
NNE3
WNW2
WSW3
NNW3
NNE4
WNW3
NNW4
WSW4
WNW4
Average 48-hour Concentration (ug/m3)
1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF
1.2E-06
5.1E-07
4.9E-07
3.0E-07
2.8E-07
2.7E-07
2.5E-07
1.1E-07
1.1E-07
9.9E-08
9.9E-08
4.2E-08
4.0E-08
3.0E-08
2.5E-08
1 .7E-08
8.9E-09
8.9E-09
7.8E-09
7.5E-09
7.3E-09
4.3E-09
2.4E-09
2.1E-09
1 .6E-09
7.2E-10
3.4E-10
3.1E-10
2.1E-10
7.4E-11
3.8E-11
3.6E-11
7.6E-12
1, 2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD
4.2E-07
1 .8E-07
1.7E-07
1.1E-07
9.7E-08
9.4E-08
8.8E-08
3.9E-08
3.9E-08
3.5E-08
3.5E-08
1 .5E-08
1 .4E-08
1 .OE-08
8.9E-09
5.9E-09
3.1E-09
3.1E-09
2.7E-09
2.6E-09
2.6E-09
1 .5E-09
8.4E-10
7.5E-10
5.6E-10
2.6E-10
1.2E-10
1.1E-10
7.3E-11
2.6E-11
1.4E-11
1.3E-11
2.7E-12
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF
5.3E-08
2.3E-08
2.2E-08
1 .3E-08
1 .2E-08
1 .2E-08
1.1E-08
5.0E-09
4.9E-09
4.4E-09
4.4E-09
1 .9E-09
1 .8E-09
1 .3E-09
1.1E-09
7.5E-10
4.0E-10
4.0E-10
3.5E-10
3.3E-10
3.3E-10
1.9E-10
1.1E-10
9.5E-11
7.1E-11
3.2E-11
1.5E-11
1.4E-11
9.3E-12
3.3E-12
1.7E-12
1.6E-12
3.4E-13
1, 2,3,7,8 PeCDD
3.9E-07
1.7E-07
1 .6E-07
9.9E-08
9.1E-08
8.8E-08
8.2E-08
3.7E-08
3.7E-08
3.3E-08
3.3E-08
1 .4E-08
1 .4E-08
9.9E-09
8.3E-09
5.6E-09
3.0E-09
3.0E-09
2.6E-09
2.5E-09
2.4E-09
1 .4E-09
7.8E-10
7.0E-10
5.3E-10
2.4E-10
1.1E-10
1.0E-10
6.9E-11
2.4E-11
1.3E-11
1.2E-11
2.5E-12
1, 2,3,7,8 PeCDF
3.5E-07
1 .5E-07
1 .4E-07
8.7E-08
8.0E-08
7.8E-08
7.3E-08
3.3E-08
3.2E-08
2.9E-08
2.9E-08
1 .2E-08
1 .2E-08
8.7E-09
7.4E-09
4.9E-09
2.6E-09
2.6E-09
2.3E-09
2.2E-09
2.1E-09
1 .2E-09
6.9E-10
6.2E-10
4.7E-10
2.1E-10
1.0E-10
9.2E-11
6.1E-11
2.2E-11
1.1E-11
1.1E-11
2.2E-12
2,3,4,6,7,8 HxCDF
1 .6E-06
7.0E-07
6.7E-07
4.1E-07
3.8E-07
3.7E-07
3.4E-07
1 .5E-07
1 .5E-07
1 .4E-07
1 .4E-07
5.8E-08
5.5E-08
4.1E-08
3.5E-08
2.3E-08
1 .2E-08
1 .2E-08
1.1E-08
1 .OE-08
1 .OE-08
5.9E-09
3.3E-09
2.9E-09
2.2E-09
1 .OE-09
4.7E-10
4.3E-10
2.8E-10
1.0E-10
5.3E-11
5.0E-11
1.0E-11
2,3,4,7,8 PeCDF
6.4E-07
2.7E-07
2.6E-07
1.6E-07
1.5E-07
1.4E-07
1.3E-07
6.0E-08
5.9E-08
5.3E-08
5.3E-08
2.3E-08
2.2E-08
1.6E-08
1.3E-08
9.0E-09
4.8E-09
4.8E-09
4.2E-09
4.0E-09
3.9E-09
2.3E-09
1.3E-09
1.1E-09
8.6E-10
3.9E-10
1.8E-10
1.7E-10
1.1E-10
3.9E-11
2.1E-11
2.0E-11
4.1E-12
2,3,7,8 TCDD
2.5E-08
1.1E-08
1. OE-08
6.3E-09
5.8E-09
5.6E-09
5.3E-09
2.4E-09
2.3E-09
2.1E-09
2.1E-09
9.0E-10
8.6E-10
6.3E-10
5.3E-10
3.5E-10
1.9E-10
1.9E-10
1.6E-10
1.6E-10
1.6E-10
9.0E-11
5.0E-11
4.5E-11
3.4E-11
1.5E-11
7.2E-12
6.6E-12
4.4E-12
1.6E-12
8.2E-13
7.7E-13
1.6E-13
2,3,7,8 TCDF
1.6E-07
6.7E-08
6.4E-08
3.9E-08
3.6E-08
3.5E-08
3.3E-08
1.5E-08
1.5E-08
1.3E-08
1.3E-08
5.7E-09
5.4E-09
3.9E-09
3.3E-09
2.2E-09
1.2E-09
1.2E-09
1. OE-09
1. OE-09
9.7E-10
5.7E-10
3.1E-10
2.8E-10
2.1E-10
9.6E-11
4.5E-11
4.2E-11
2.8E-11
9.8E-12
5.1E-12
4.8E-12
1.0E-12
TEQ
1.3E-06
5.6E-07
5.4E-07
3.3E-07
3.0E-07
2.9E-07
2.8E-07
1.2E-07
1.2E-07
1.1E-07
1.1E-07
4.7E-08
4.5E-08
3.3E-08
2.8E-08
1.9E-08
9.9E-09
9.8E-09
8.6E-09
8.3E-09
8.1E-09
4.7E-09
2.6E-09
2.3E-09
1.8E-09
8.0E-10
3.8E-10
3.5E-10
2.3E-10
8.1E-11
4.3E-11
4.0E-11
8.4E-12
December 2004
                                                                       F-4
                                                                                                                    TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume I

-------
                                     Total Dioxin TEQ Concentration:
      Soil, Groundwater, Surface Water and Sediment Compartments (1992 stack test emissions)

Compartment
Source
W1
N1
SW1
E1
NWFarm
NNW1
WNW1
WSW1
SW2
E2
NNW2
NW2
WSW3
NNW3
NNE2
WSW2
NWS
WNW3
SW3
SW4
WNW2
SE2
SE3
ESE2
NE2
ESE3
Average Annual TEQ Concentration (Year 12)
Surface Soil
g/g dry weight
1.6E-09
2.5E-10
1.8E-10
1.4E-10
1.1E-10
6.7E-11
5.4E-11
5.1E-11
5.0E-11
4.9E-11
3.2E-11
2.2E-11
2.0E-11
1.9E-11
1.9E-11
1.8E-11
1.7E-11
1.6E-11
1.6E-11
1.6E-11
1.5E-11
1.5E-11
1.2E-11
1.2E-11
1.1E-11
1.1E-11
1.0E-11
Root Zone Soil
g/g dry weight
1.0E-12
2.2E-13
1.5E-13
1.2E-13
9.2E-14
4.8E-14
4.7E-14
4.4E-14
4.7E-14
4.3E-14
2.7E-14
1.9E-14
1.7E-14
1.8E-14
1.7E-14
1.6E-14
1.7E-14
1.4E-14
1.4E-14
1.4E-14
1.4E-14
1.4E-14
1.0E-14
1.1E-14
8.0E-15
8.8E-15
8.8E-15
Vadose Zone
Soil
g/g dry weight
7.3E-19
1.7E-19
1.2E-19
9.4E-20
7.1E-20
3.5E-20
3.6E-20
3.4E-20
3.7E-20
3.3E-20
2.1E-20
1.5E-20
1.4E-20
1.4E-20
1.3E-20
1.3E-20
1.4E-20
1.1E-20
1.1E-20
1.1E-20
1.1E-20
1.1E-20
8.0E-21
8.5E-21
6.0E-21
6.8E-21
6.9E-21
Groundwater
9/L
4.1E-25
9.9E-26
6.7E-26
5.5E-26
4.1E-26
2.0E-26
2.1E-26
2.0E-26
2.2E-26
2.0E-26
1.3E-26
8.6E-27
8.0E-27
8.6E-27
7.7E-27
7.5E-27
8.2E-27
6.8E-27
6.6E-27
6.5E-27
6.5E-27
6.5E-27
4.7E-27
5.0E-27
3.4E-27
4.0E-27
4.1E-27
Surface Water
g/g dry weight
N/Aa
Sediment
g/g dry weight
N/Aa
aSurface water and sediment results are not included because an incorrect value for the
 RatioOfConclnAlgaeToConcDissolvedlnWater property was used. This property does not significantly impact
 any of the other abiotic results used in this report; however, it does impact the dissolved surface water
 concentrations and sediment concentrations, and thus, these values are not reported.
December 2004
F-5
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------
                              Total Dioxin TEQ Concentration:
     Calculated Soil Compartments at a Depth  of 7.5 cm (1994 stack test emissions)

Compartment
Source
W1
N1
SW1C
E1C
NWFarmc
NNW1C
WNW1C
WSW1C
SW2C
E2C
NNW2C
NW2C
NNW3C
WSW3C
NNE2C
WSW2C
NW3C
WNW3C
SW3C
SW4C
WNW2C
SE2C
SE3C
ESE2C
NE2C
ESE3C
Instantaneous TEQ Concentration (at Year 11.5)
Surface Soil
g/g dry weight
2.8E-10
4.1E-11
3.0E-11
2.2E-11
1.9E-11
1.1E-11
8.8E-12
8.3E-12
8.0E-12
8.0E-12
5.3E-12
3.7E-12
3.2E-12
3.1E-12
3.0E-12
2.9E-12
2.8E-12
2.6E-12
2.6E-12
2.6E-12
2.5E-12
2.5E-12
2.1E-12
2.0E-12
1.8E-12
1.7E-12
1.7E-12
Root Zone Soil
g/g dry weight
9.5E-14
1.9E-14
1.3E-14
1.0E-14
8.0E-15
4.2E-15
4.0E-15
3.7E-15
3.9E-15
3.6E-15
2.4E-15
1.6E-15
1.5E-15
1.4E-15
1.5E-15
1.4E-15
1.4E-15
1.2E-15
1.2E-15
1.2E-15
1.2E-15
1.2E-15
8.9E-16
9.2E-16
7.0E-16
7.6E-16
7.6E-16
Soil at 7.5 -
minimum a
g/g dry weight
3.7E-11
5.5E-12
4.0E-12
3.0E-12
2.5E-12
1.5E-12
1.2E-12
1.1E-12
1.1E-12
1.1E-12
7.1E-13
4.9E-13
4.3E-13
4.1E-13
4.0E-13
3.9E-13
3.7E-13
3.5E-13
3.5E-13
3.4E-13
3.3E-13
3.3E-13
2.7E-13
2.7E-13
2.4E-13
2.3E-13
2.3E-13
Soil at 7.5 -
maximum b
g/g dry weight
3.8E-11
5.7E-12
4.2E-12
3.1E-12
2.6E-12
1.5E-12
1.2E-12
1.1E-12
1.1E-12
1.1E-12
7.3E-13
5.0E-13
4.5E-13
4.3E-13
4.2E-13
4.1E-13
3.8E-13
3.7E-13
3.6E-13
3.5E-13
3.4E-13
3.4E-13
2.8E-13
2.8E-13
2.5E-13
2.4E-13
2.3E-13
aSoil concentration calculated by dividing the surface soil concentration (i.e., total mass/volume) by 7.5
bSoil concentration calculated by dividing the total mass in the surface and root zone soil compartments
  by the volume to a depth of 7.5 cm
Concentrations for this compartment are below the background concentration (4E-12 g/g)
  presented in Lorber et al. (2000)
December 2004
F-6
TRIM.FaTE Evaluation Report Volume

-------

-------
United States                            Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards                                Publication No. EPA-453/R-04-002
Environmental Protection                 Emissions Standards & Air Quality Strategies and Standards Divisions         December 2004
Agency                                 Research Triangle Park, NC

-------