Industrial Waste
Management
-------
This Guide provides state-of-the-art tools and
practices to enable you to tailor hands-on
solutions to the industrial waste management
challenges you face.
WHAT'S AVAILABLE
Quick reference to multimedia methods for handling and disposing of wastes
from all types of industries
Answers to your technical questions about siting, design, monitoring, operation.
and closure of waste facilities
Interactive, educational tools, including air and ground water risk assessment
models, fact sheets, and a facility siting tool.
Best management practices, from risk assessment and public participation to
waste reduction, pollution prevention, and recycling
-------
;NOWLEDGEMENTS
The rdowing members of the Industrial Waste Focus Group and the Industrial Waste Steering Commiw are grateUy
acknowledged far al of their time and assistance in the development of this guidance document
Current Industrial Waste Focus
Group Members
Paul Bar*, The Dow Chemical
Company
Walter Carey. Nestle USA Inc and
New Miltord Farms
Rama Chaturvedi Bethlehem Steel
Corporation
H.C. Clark. Rice University
Barbara Dodds, League of Women
voters
Chuck Feerick. Exxon Mobil
Corporation
Stacey Ford. Exxon Mobil
Corporation
Robert Giraud OuPont Company
John Harney Citizens Round
Tabte/PURE
Kyle Isakower. American Petroleum
Institute
Richard Jarman, National Food
Processors Association
James Meiers, Cinergy Power
Generation Services
Scott Murto. General Motors and
American Foundry Society
James Roewer, Edison Electric
Institute
Edward Repa. Environmental
Industry Association
Tim Savior, International Paper
Amy Schaffer. Weyerhaeuser
Ed Skemofc, WMX Technologies. Inc
Michael Wach Western
Environmental Law Center
David Wens, University of South
Wabnms Medical Center
Pat Gwn Cherokee Nation of
Oklahoma
Past industrial Waste Focus
Group Members
Dora Cetofius. Sierra Club
Brian Forrestal. Laidlaw Waste
Systems
Jonathan Greenberg. Browning-
Ferris Industries
Michael Gregory, Arizona Toxics
Information and Sierra Club
Andrew Mites The Dexter
Corporation
Gary Robbins, Exxon Company
Kevin Sail. National Paint & Coatings
Association
Bruce SteJne. American Iron & Steel
Lisa Williams, Aluminum Association
Cuircnt Industrial Waste Steering
Committee Members
Keiiy Catalan Aaaocauon oi Slate
and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials
Marc Crooks, Washington State
Department ot Ecology
Cyndi Darling. Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
Jon DilDard Montana Department of
Environmental Qualty
Anne Dobbs. Texas Natural
Resources Conservation
Commission
Richard Hammond New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Elizabeth Haven California State
Waste Resources Control Board
Jim Hul Missouri Department of
Natural Resources
Jim Knudson, Washington State
Department of Ecology
Chris McGuire, Florida Department
of Environmental Protection
Gene Mitchell Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
William Pounds, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Protection
Bijan Sharafkhani Louisiana
Department of Environmental
Qualty
James Warner, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
ittustrial Waste Steering
Pamela um*. nianie
Environmental Protection
NormGumenik Arizona Department
of Environmental Qualty
Steve Jenkins, Alabama Department
of Environmental Management
Jim North Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
-------
Industrial waste is generated by the production
of commercial goods, products, or services.
Examples include wastes from the production
of chemicals, iron and steel, and food goods.
-------
United Stales
Environmental Protected
Agency
&EPA Industrial Waste
Management
Evaluation Model
(IWEM) User's Guide
-------
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W)
Washington, DC 20460
EPA530-R-02-013
August 2002
www.epa.gov/osw
-------
EPA530-R-02-013
August 2002
Industrial Waste Management
Evaluation Model (IWEM)
User's Guide
-------
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
-------
IWEM User's Guide
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Numerous individuals have contributed to this work. Ms. Ann Johnson and Mr. David
Cozzie of the U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste (EPA/OSW) provided overall project
coordination, review, and guidance. Mr. Timothy Taylor (EPA/OSW) provided technical
guidance for the IWEM software development. Ms. Shen-Yi Yang and Mr. John Sager
(EPA/OSW) reviewed and coordinated the development of this document. This report
and the IWEM software were prepared by the staffs of Resource Management Concepts,
Inc. (RMC) and HydroGeoLogic, Inc. (HGL) under EPA Contract Number 68-W-01-004.
-------
IWEM User's Guide
FORMAT AND NOTATION
The main font for this document is 12-point Times New Roman font. The IWEM
command buttons, icons, menu items and other action-controls are shown in 11-point
Arial Narrow font, with small capitals style and with vertical bars at the beginning and
end; for example, IFlLEl and lEVALUATlONl are two of the menu items contained in the IWEM
menu bar. When referring to a sequential series of menu selections, such as "click on
File, then click on Open," this sequence of keystrokes is presented as IFlLE|dPENl.
IWEM screen and dialog box titles are presented in underlined text; user-entry labels
are using the same format as IWEM menu items and other action-controls; and references
to user-supplied text are shown in 12-point Courier font. For example, the user could
provide Rodney' s Waste Dump as Facility Name in screen Tier 2 Input: WMU
Type (17).
The IWEM software is organized into screens and dialog boxes and, for easy
reference, these components are labeled using a common numbering scheme. Within the
main IWEM program window, there are a number of screens that are displayed one at a
time as you move through an IWEM analysis. Each of these screens has a title that tells
you what part of the IWEM software you are in; if the IWEM screen is stretched to fill
the IWEM program window, then the title bar containing these titles is located directly
beneath the IWEM toolbar. Additionally, within some of these screens there are several
tabbed screens that resemble tabbed file folders. Each of these tabbed screens has a title
(placed on the screen itself) that tells you more specifically what type of information is
being requested or displayed on the screen. We refer to all screens and tabbed screens in
this document simply as screens. Finally, when you use certain options on the Infiltration
(19) and Constituent List (20) screens, dialog boxes are displayed to allow entry of
additional information. Each of these dialog boxes has a title (placed on the title bar at
the top of the dialog box) that identifies the type of information requested.
Although there are other ways to navigate through the IWEM software, it is
anticipated that most users will generally start at the beginning of a Tier 1 or Tier 2
analysis and then move through the screens sequentially using the INEXTl and IBACKl
buttons. In order to facilitate the reporting of user comments and problems, EPA has
organized all IWEM components into one common sequential numbering scheme
according to the order in which they would be displayed in a typical analysis. Hence, a
first-time IWEM Tier 1 user will see the following sequence screens:
Introductory Screens (screens 1 through 5)
Tier 1 Input screen group (tabbed screens 6 through 8)
11
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Tier 1 Results screen group (tabbed screens 9 through 13)
Tier 1 Evaluation Summary Screen (screen 14)
Similarly, a Tier 2 user will typically see the following sequence of screens and
dialog boxes (however, there are some slight differences in this sequence depending upon
the WMU type and infiltration option chosen by the user):
Tier 2 input screen group (tabbed screens 16 through 23, including dialog box 19a
that is associated with tabbed screen 19 and dialog boxes 20a to 20d that are
associated with tabbed screen 20)
EPACMTP Run Manager located on the Tier 2 Evaluation Screen (screen 24)
Tier 2 Output tabs (tabbed screens 25 through 28)
Tier 2 Evaluation Summary Screen (screen 29)
Please note that the screenshots presented in this User's Guide were captured using
the following settings to ensure maximum legibility:
monitor set to 800 x 600 resolution
large system font
IWEM program window (parent window) maximized
IWEM (tabbed) screen (child window) enlarged to its fullest extent
If you use other settings while running IWEM, you may need to use the sliders that appear
as necessary on the right and bottom edge of the IWEM windows in order to see the
entire screen.
in
-------
IWEM User's Guide Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Guide for Industrial Waste Management 1-1
1.2 The IWEM Software 1-2
1.3 Objectives 1-3
2.0 IWEM Overview 2-1
2.1 What does the software do? 2-1
2.1.1 Tier 1 Evaluation 2-2
2.1.2 Tier 2 Evaluation 2-3
2.1.3 Tier 3 Evaluation vs IWEM 2-4
2.2 IWEM Software Components 2-5
2.2.1 IWEM User Interface 2-5
2.2.2 EPACMTP Fate and Transport Model 2-6
2.2.2.1 IWEM vs. EPACMTP 2-9
2.2.3 IWEM Databases 2-10
2.3 Assumptions and Limitations of Ground-Water Modeling 2-10
3.0 System Requirements 3-1
4.0 IWEM Software Installation 4-1
5.0 Running the IWEM Software 5-1
5.1 How do I start the IWEM software? 5-1
5.2 What are the key features of the IWEM software? 5-1
5.2.1 What is the Constituent Properties Browser? 5-4
5.2.2 How Do I Navigate Through the IWEM Software? 5-8
5.2.2.1 Screens 5-9
5.2.2.2 Controls 5-9
5.2.3 How Do I Use Online Help? 5-16
5.2.4 How Do I Save My Work? 5-17
5.2.5 How Do I Get Help If I Have a Problem or a Question? 5-18
5.2.6 How Do I Begin Using the IWEM Software? 5-19
5.3 Introductory Screens (Screens 1 through 5) 5-19
5.4 Tier 1 Evaluation 5-28
5.4.1 Tier 1 Input Screen Group 5-28
5.4.1.1 Tier I Input: WMU Type (6) 5-28
5.4.1.2 Tier I Input: Constituent List (7) 5-30
5.4.1.3 Tier I Input: Leachate Concentration (8) 5-34
iv
-------
IWEM User's Guide Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
5.4.2 Tier I Output (Summary) Screen Group: MCL Summary
and HBN Summary (9 and 10) 5-36
5.4.3 Tier 1 Output (Details) Screen Group: Results - No Liner,
Single Clay Liner, and Composite Liner (11, 12, and 13) .... 5-40
5.4.4 Tier 1 Evaluation Summary Screen (14) 5-46
5.4.5 Exiting the IWEM software 5-49
5.5 Tier 2 Evaluation 5-50
5.5.1 Tier 2 Input Screens 5-51
5.5.1.1 Tier 2 Input: Waste Management Unit Type (16) . 5-51
5.5.1.2 Tier 2 Input: WMU Parameters (17) 5-53
5.5.1.3 Tier 2 Input: Subsurface Parameters (18) 5-59
5.5.1.4 Tier 2 Input: Infiltration (19) 5-63
5.5.1.5 Probabilistic Screening Module 5-73
5.5.1.6 Tier 2 Input: Constituent List (20) 5-75
5.5.1.7 Tier 2 Input: Constituent Properties (21) 5-84
5.5.1.8 Tier 2 Input: Reference Ground-Water
Concentrations (22) 5-87
5.5.1.9 Tier 2 Input: Input Summary (23) 5-89
5.5.2 Tier 2 Evaluation: Run Manager (24) 5-91
5.5.3 Tier 2 Evaluation Summary: Summary Results Screen
(Screen 25) 5-96
5.5.4 Tier 2 Output (Details) (26, 27, and 28) 5-99
5.5.5 Tier 2 Evaluation Summary (29) 5-104
6.0 Understanding Your IWEM Input Values 6-1
6.1 Parameters Common to Both Tier 1 and Tier 2 Evaluations 6-1
6.1.1 WMU Type 6-2
6.1.2 Waste Constituents 6-4
6.1.3 Leachate Concentration 6-4
6.1.4 Reference Ground-water Concentrations 6-4
6.1.4.1 Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) 6-5
6.1.4.2 Health-Based Number (HBN) 6-5
6.1.4.3 Selection of the RGC within the IWEM Software . . 6-6
6.2 Additional Parameters for Tier 2 Evaluation 6-6
6.2.1 Basis for Using Site-Specific Parameter Values 6-6
6.2.2 Tier 2 Parameters 6-7
6.2.2.1 Tier 2 Parameters that Require User Inputs 6-7
6.2.2.2 Optional Tier 2 Parameters 6-7
-------
IWEM User's Guide Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
6.2.2.3 Default Values for Missing Data 6-10
6.2.2.4 How IWEM Handles Infeasible User
Input Parameters 6-10
6.2.3 Tier 2 Parameter Descriptions 6-10
6.2.3.1 WMU Parameters 6-11
6.2.3.2 Subsurface Parameters 6-15
6.2.3.3 Infiltration and Recharge Parameters 6-21
6.2.3.4 Constituent Parameters 6-25
7.0 Understanding Your IWEM Results 7-1
7.1 Leachate Concentration Threshold Values (LCTVs) 7-1
7.2 Limits on the LCTV 7-2
7.2.1 Toxicity Characteristic Rule (TC Rule) Regulatory Levels .... 7-2
7.2.2 1,000 mg/L Cap 7-2
7.2.3 Constituents with Toxic Daughter Products 7-3
7.3 IWEM Liner Recommendations 7-5
8.0 Trouble Shooting 8-1
9.0 References 9-1
Appendix A: List of Waste Constituents
Appendix B: Sample Reports from Tier 1 and Tier 2
VI
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1 Sample IWEM Screen 2-6
Figure 2.2 Conceptual View of Aquifer System Modeled by EPACMTP 2-7
Figure 5.1 General IWEM Screen Features 5-2
Figure 5.2 Constituent Properties Browser 5-5
Figure 5.3 Constituent Properties Browser Full Source Dialog Box 5-7
Figure 5.4 Example IWEM Screen Identifying Several Types of Controls 5-10
Figure 5.5 Example IWEM Screen Identifying Several Types of Controls 5-11
Figure 5.6 Example IWEM Screen Identifying Several Types of Controls 5-14
Figure 5.7 Example IWEM Screen Identifying Several Types of Controls 5-15
Figure 5.8 IWEM Online Help 5-16
Figure 5.9 Introduction: IWEM Overview (1) 5-21
Figure 5.10 Introduction: Use of IWEM (2) 5-22
Figure 5.11 Introduction: Data Requirements (3) 5-23
Figure 5.12 Introduction: Model Limitations (4) 5-24
Figure 5.13 Introduction: Choose Evaluation Type (5) 5-25
Figure 5.14 Tier 1 Input: WMU Type (6) 5-29
Figure 5.15 Tier 1 Input: Constituent List (7) 5-31
Figure 5.16 Tier 1 Input: Leachate Concentration (8) 5-34
Figure 5.17 Tier 1 Output (Summary): MCL Summary (9) 5-37
Figure 5.18 Tier 1 Output (Summary): HBN Summary (10) 5-38
Figure 5.19 Tier 1 Output (Details): Results - No Liner (11) 5-41
Figure 5.20 Tier 1 Output (Details): Results - Single Clay Liner (12) 5-42
Figure 5.21 Tier 1 Output (Details): Results - Composite Liner (13) 5-43
Figure 5.22 Tier 1 Evaluation Summary (14) 5-46
Figure 5.23 Tier 2 Input: WMU Type (16) 5-52
Figure 5.24 Tier 2 Input: WMU Parameters (17) for Land Application Units ... 5-54
Figure 5.25 Tier 2 Input: WMU Parameters (17) for Landfills 5-55
Figure 5.26 Tier 2 Input: WMU Parameters (17) for Surface Impoundments .... 5-56
Figure 5.27 Tier 2 Input: WMU Parameters (17) for Waste Piles 5-57
Figure 5.28 Tier 2 Input: Subsurface Parameters (18) - Selecting Subsurface
Environment 5-60
Figure 5.29 Tier 2 Input: Subsurface Parameters (18) - Entering Values
of Subsurface Parameters 5-61
Figure 5.30 Tier 2 Input: Infiltration (19) - Initial Appearance 5-64
Figure 5.31 Tier 2 Input: Infiltration (19) - Land Application Unit 5-65
Figure 5.32 Tier 2 Input: Infiltration (19) - Landfill 5-66
Figure 5.33 Tier 2 Input: Infiltration (19) - Surface Impoundment 5-67
Figure 5.34 Tier 2 Input: Infiltration (19) - Waste Pile 5-68
vii
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Page
Figure 5.35 Tier 2 Input: Climate Center List (19a) 5-71
Figure 5.36 Tier 2 Input: Infiltration (19) - Site Specific Infiltration 5-73
Figure 5.37 Tier 2 Input: Constituent List (20) 5-76
Figure 5.38 Tier 2 Input: Enter New Constituent Data (20a) 5-80
Figure 5.39 Tier 2 Input: New Constituent Data (20b) 5-81
Figure 5.40 Tier 2 Input: Add New Data Source (20d) 5-83
Figure 5.41 Tier 2 Input: Constituent Properties (21) 5-85
Figure 5.42 Tier 2 Input: Reference Ground-Water Concentrations (22) 5-88
Figure 5.43 Tier 2 Input: Input Summary (23) 5-90
Figure 5.44 Tier 2 Evaluation: Run Manager (24) - Appearance Before Launching
EPACMTP Runs 5-92
Figure 5.45 Tier 2 Evaluation: Run Manager (24) - EPACMTP Dialog Box
Displayed During Model Execution 5-94
Figure 5.46 Tier 2 Evaluation: Run Manager (24) - Status and Liner
Protectiveness Summary 5-95
Figure 5.47 Tier 2 Output (Summary): Summary Results (25) 5-97
Figure 5.48 Tier 2 Output (Details): Results-No Liner (26) 5-100
Figure 5.49 Tier 2 Output (Details): Results-Single Liner (27) 5-101
Figure 5.50 Tier 2 Output (Details): Results-Composite Liner (28) 5-102
Figure 5.51 Tier 2 Evaluation Summary (29) 5-105
Figure 6.1 WMU Types Modeled in IWEM 6-3
Figure 6.2 WMU with Base Below Ground Surface 6-12
Figure 6.3 Position of the Modeled Well Relative to the Waste
Management Unit 6-14
Figure 6.4 Locations of IWEM Climate Stations 6-24
Vlll
-------
IWEM User's Guide Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1 IWEM WMU and Liner Combinations 2-2
Table 6.1 Tier 2 Parameters 6-8
Table 7.1 Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Levels 7-3
IX
-------
IWEM User's Guide
CAS Number
cm/sec
CSF
DAF
EPA
EPACMTP
GUI
Guide
HBN
HELP
HQ
IWEM
kd
Koc
LAU
LCTV
LF
MB
MCL
MCLG
mg/L
MINTEQA2
MS
NPDWR
OSW
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number
centimeters per second
Cancer Slope Factor
Dilution and Attenuation Factor
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products
Graphical User Interface
Guide for Industrial Waste Management
Health-Based Number
Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
Hazard Quotient
Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model
Soil - Water Partition Coefficient
Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient
Land Application Unit (also called a Land Treatment Unit)
Leachate Concentration Threshold Value
Landfill
megabyte
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
milligrams per liter
EPA's geochemical equilibrium speciation model for dilute
aqueous systems
Microsoft
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
EPA's Office of Solid Waste
-------
IWEM User's Guide
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
RAM Random Access Memory
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RGC Reference Ground-Water Concentration
SI Surface Impoundment
SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
STORET EPA's Data Storage and Retrieval System, National Water Quality
Database
TC Rule Toxicity Characteristic Rule
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
WMU Waste Management Unit
WP Waste Pile
XI
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 1.0
1.0 Introduction
This document describes how to use the Industrial Waste Management Evaluation
Model (IWEM). IWEM is the ground-water modeling component of the Guide for
Industrial Waste Management (Guide) (U.S. EPA, 2002d), which has been developed by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Solid Waste (OSW) for
the management of non-hazardous industrial wastes. A companion document, the
Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model Technical Background Document (U.S.
EPA, 2002c), provides technical background information. It is strongly recommended
that you take the time to understand the technical background of IWEM in order to make
the best use of this program. This section of the User's Guide provides an overview of
IWEM and its purpose, operation, and application; describes the major components of the
system; and provides an overview of how the remainder of the document is organized.
1.1 Guide for Industrial Waste Management
The EPA and representatives from 12 state environmental agencies have
developed a voluntary Guide (U.S. EPA, 2002d) to recommend a baseline of protective
design and operating practices to manage nonhazardous industrial wastes throughout the
country. The guidance was designed for facility managers, regulatory agency staff, and
the public, and it reflects four underlying objectives:
Adopt a multimedia approach to protect human health and the
environment;
Tailor management practices to risk using the innovative, user-friendly
modeling software provided in the Guide;
Affirm state and tribal leadership in ensuring protective industrial waste
management, and use the Guide to complement state and tribal programs;
and
Foster partnerships among facility managers, the public, and regulatory
agencies.
The Guide recommends best management practices and key factors to consider to
protect ground water, surface water, and ambient air quality in siting, designing and
operating waste management units (WMUs); monitoring WMUs' impact on the
environment; determining necessary corrective action; closing WMUs; and providing
post-closure care. In particular, the guidance recommends risk-based approaches to
choosing liner systems and waste application rates for ground-water protection and to
TT
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 1.0
evaluate the need for air controls. The CD-ROM version of the Guide includes user-
friendly air and ground-water models to conduct these risk evaluations. The IWEM
software described in this User's Guide is the ground-water model that was developed to
support the Guide.
1.2 The IWEM Software
The IWEM software is designed to assist you in determining the most appropriate
WMU design to minimize or avoid adverse ground-water impacts, by evaluating types of
liners, the hydrogeologic conditions of the site, and the toxicity and expected leachate
concentrations of the anticipated waste constituents. That is, this software helps you
compare the ground-water protection afforded by various liner systems with the
anticipated waste leachate concentrations, so that you can determine what minimum liner
system is needed to be protective of human health and ground-water resources (or in the
case of land application units (LAUs), determine whether or not land application is
recommended).
The anticipated users of the IWEM computer program are managers of proposed
or existing units, state regulators, interested private citizens, and community groups. For
example:
Managers of a proposed unit could use the software to determine what
type of liner would be appropriate for the particular type of waste that is
expected at the WMU and the particular hydrogeologic characteristics of
the site.
Managers of an existing unit could use the software to determine
whether or not to accept a particular waste at that WMU by evaluating the
performance of the existing liner design.
State regulators may wish to use the software in developing permit
conditions for a WMU.
Interested members of the public or community groups may wish to
use the software to evaluate a particular WMU and participate during the
permitting process.
In an effort to meet the needs of various stakeholders, the guidance for the
ground-water pathway uses a tiered approach that is based on modeling the fate and
1-2
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 1.0
transport of waste constituents through subsurface soils and ground water to a well1 to
produce a liner recommendation (or a recommendation concerning land application) that
protects human health and the environment. The successive tiers in the analysis
incorporate increasing amount of site-specific data to tailor protective management
practices to the particular circumstances at the modeled site:
Tier 1: A screening analysis based upon national distributions of data;
Tier 2: A location-adjusted analysis using a limited set of the most
sensitive waste- and site-specific data; and
Tier 3: A comprehensive and detailed site assessment.
The IWEM software is designed to support the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses. The
unique aspect of the IWEM software is that it allows the user to perform Tier 1 and Tier 2
analyses and obtain liner recommendations with minimal data requirements. Users
interested in a Tier 3 analysis should consult the Guide for information regarding the
selection of an appropriate ground-water fate and transport model.
1.3 Objectives
The objective of this User's Guide is to provide the information necessary to
perform Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses for four types of WMUs:
Landfills (LFs);
Waste Piles (WPs);
Surface Impoundments (Sis); and
Land Application Units (LAUs) (which are also called Land Treatment
Units).
This User's Guide is organized as follows:
Section 2 provides an overview of the IWEM software;
Section 3 summarizes the computer system requirements for the IWEM
software;
Section 4 provides instructions for installing the IWEM software;
Section 5 provides detailed instructions on how to run the IWEM software,
and guides you step-by-step through Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations;
In IWEM, the term "well" is used to represent an actual or hypothetical ground-water monitoring
well or drinking water well, downgradient from a WMU.
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 1.0
Section 6 presents background information to assist in understanding the Tier
1 and Tier 2 input values; how they affect the model evaluation; and how to
obtain input values for a Tier 2 evaluation;
Section 7 presents background information to assist in understanding the Tier
1 and Tier 2 IWEM results;
Section 8 provides troubleshooting information for some commonly
encountered problems;
Section 9 lists all references cited;
Appendix A presents the list of waste constituents included in IWEM; and
Appendix B presents the Tier 1 and Tier 2 reports for the example evaluations
presented in this document.
If you have a copy of the CD, you can open and read this User's Guide on-screen while
the IWEM software is running on your computer. You may, however, find it easier to use
IWEM's online help or to print out a copy of the User's Guide and refer to this hard copy
while you are using the software.
1-4
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 2.0
2.0 IWEM Overview
The IWEM software developed by the EPA provides a two-tiered analysis that
requires a minimum of data. The analysis produces recommendations for the type of liner
to be used in a WMU and/or whether land application is appropriate. The two-tiered
analysis is presented within a user-friendly, Windows-based program called IWEM.
IWEM will operate on any standard personal computer using Windows 95 or later
operating system (see Section 3.0 for system requirements). A brief overview of IWEM
is provided in the remainder of Section 2.0.
2.1 What does the software do?
The IWEM software is designed to assist you in determining a recommended liner
design for different types of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle
D (non-hazardous) WMUs. IWEM compares the expected leachate concentration2
entered by the user for each waste constituent with the leachate concentration threshold
value (LCTVs)3 calculated by a ground-water fate and transport model for three standard
liner types4.
The IWEM software compiles the results for all constituents expected in the
leachate and then reports the minimum liner scenario that is protective for all
constituents. Table 2.1 shows the combinations of WMUs and liners that are represented
in IWEM. For LAUs, only the no-liner scenario is evaluated because liners are not
typically used at this type of facility.
The IWEM software supports file saving and retrieval so that evaluations can be
archived or retrieved later and modified. The software also has report generation
capabilities to document in hard-copy the input values and resulting liner
recommendations.
The expected leachate concentration means the concentration, in milligrams per liter (mg/L), of
each constituent of concern that is expected to be present in the leachate after emplacement of the waste in a
WMU. Typically this concentration is measured using a laboratory leachate test. Chapter 2 (Characterizing
Waste) of the Guide provides more information on selecting a leachate test.
The LCTV represents the maximum allowable leachate concentration that is protective of ground
water; if the expected leachate concentrations of all constituents are less than their LCTVs for a particular
waste management scenario, then we recommend you select that WMU design to manage that particular
waste.
The three liner designs in IWEM are: no liner, single clay liner, and composite liner (see Table
2.1).
24
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 2.0
Table 2.1 IWEM WMU and Liner Combinations
WMU Type
Landfill
Surface Impoundment
Waste Pile
Land Application Unit
Liner Type
No Liner (in-situ soil)
Single Clay
Liner
N/A
Composite Liner
N/A
N/A = Not applicable
2.1.1 Tier 1 Evaluation
In a Tier 1 evaluation, the required inputs are the WMU type you wish to evaluate,
constituents of concern, and the expected leachate concentration for each constituent of
concern. After providing these inputs, IWEM determines a minimum recommended liner
design that is protective for all waste constituents. This determination is made by
comparing the expected leachate concentration for each constituent to tabulated values of
liner- and constituent-specific LCTVs, and identifying for which liner designs the LCTV
of each constituent is equal to, or greater than the input value of expected leachate
concentration. IWEM incorporates LCTV values for 206 organic and 20 metal
constituents (see Appendix A) that are part of the software's built-in database. These
LCTVs were generated by
running EPA's Composite
Model for Leachate Migration
with Transformation Products
(EPACMTP, described in
Section 2.2.2 below) for a wide
range of site conditions
expected to occur at waste sites
across the United States.
The process used to
simulate varying site conditions
is known as Monte Carlo
analysis. The Monte Carlo
analysis determines the
statistical probability that the
release of leachate would result
in a ground-water
About Monte Carlo Analysis:
Monte Carlo analysis is a computer-based method of analysis
developed in the 1940's that uses statistical sampling
techniques to obtain a probabilistic approximation to the
solution of a mathematical equation or model. The name
refers to the city on the French Riviera that is known for its
gambling and other games of chance. Monte Carlo analysis
is increasingly used in risk assessments where it allows the
risk manager to make decisions based on a statistical level of
protection that reflects the variability and/or uncertainty in
risk parameters or processes, rather than making decisions
based on a single point estimate of risk. For further
information on Monte Carlo analysis in risk assessment, see
the EPA's Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis
(U.S. EPA, 1997).
2-2
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 2.0
concentration exceeding regulatory or risk-based standards. The Tier 1 LCTVs, are
designed to be protective with 90% certainty for possible waste sites in the United States.
The advantages of a Tier 1 evaluation are that it is fast and does not require site-
specific information. Tier 1 is designed to be a screening analysis that is protective for
most sites. This means that a Tier 1 analysis may result in a liner recommendation that is
more stringent - - and costly to implement - - than is needed for a particular site. For
instance, site-specific conditions such as low precipitation and a deep unsaturated zone
may warrant a less stringent liner design.
2.1.2 Tier 2 Evaluation
A Tier 2 evaluation utilizes information on the unit's location and other site-
specific data enabling you to perform a more precise assessment. If appropriate for site
conditions (e.g., an arid climate), it may allow you to avoid constructing an unnecessarily
costly WMU design. It may also provide an additional level of certainty that liner designs
are protective of sites in vulnerable settings, such as areas with high rainfall and shallow
ground water.
To perform Tier 2 evaluations, IWEM runs a complete EPACMTP fate and
transport simulation using site-specific input data, and generates a probability distribution
of expected ground-water well concentrations for each waste constituent and liner
scenario. It then compares the 90th percentile of the modeled ground-water well
concentration to a reference ground-water concentration (RGC5) value (for instance, a
regulatory maximum contaminant level (MCL)) until it has identified the liner design for
which the 90th percentile of the expected ground-water concentration does not exceed the
RGC.
IWEM is designed to allow Tier 2 evaluations with varying levels of available
site-specific information and data. IWEM allows you to provide site-specific values for
the most important modeling parameters, but if you have limited site data available,
IWEM will use default values or distributions for parameters for which you have no data.
IWEM will also assist you in making the most appropriate use of the information you
have available. For instance, if you know that a site has an alluvial aquifer, but you do
not have site-specific values for ground-water parameters such as hydraulic conductivity,
IWEM will assign representative values for alluvial aquifers from its extensive built-in
database of ground-water modeling parameters.
5 See Section 6.1.4 (page 6-4) for a definition of RGC.
2-3
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 2.0
Tier 2 users can perform an evaluation for any of the waste constituents that are
included in Tier 1; Tier 2 users also have the option to include additional waste
constituent(s) and/or modify constituent properties in the default database. Specifically,
you can provide constituent-specific soil - water partition coefficient (kd) and degradation
(A) coefficients, and a user-defined RGC and exposure duration.
In many cases, a Tier 2 evaluation will allow a less stringent and less costly liner
design than the Tier 1 screening analysis will allow. If a site is vulnerable to ground-
water contamination, a Tier 2 analysis will allow you to determine appropriate waste
management options and liner designs with greater confidence than a Tier 1 analysis.
Chapter 4 of the Guide discusses siting considerations for WMUs, including how to
recognize a vulnerable hydrogeological setting. The trade-off in performing a Tier 2
evaluation is that the fate and transport simulations are computationally demanding and
can take hours to complete, even with a very fast personal computer. The reason is that
the Tier 2 model simulations incorporate Monte Carlo analysis to handle the uncertainty
associated with default values and other modeling parameters that are not user-specified.
2.1.3 Tier 3 Evaluation vs IWEM
If the IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2
evaluations do not adequately simulate
conditions at a proposed site because the
hydrogeology of the site is complex, you
may consider a comprehensive site-
specific risk assessment. For example, if
ground-water flow is subject to seasonal
variations, performing a Tier 2
Evaluation in IWEM may not be
appropriate because the model is based
on steady-state flow conditions. A
comprehensive site-specific ground-water
fate and transport analysis may be
required to evaluate risk to ground water
and alternative liner designs or land
application rates. This type of analysis is
beyond the scope of IWEM. If
appropriate, consult with your state
agency and use a qualified professional,
experienced in ground-water modeling.
EPA recommends that you talk to state
officials and/or appropriate trade
associations to solicit recommendations
Why it is important to use a qualified
professional?
Fate and transport modeling can
be very complex; appropriate
training and experience are
required to correctly use and
interpret models.
Incorrect fate and transport
modeling can result in a liner
system that is not sufficiently
protective or an inappropriate
land application rate.
To avoid incorrect analyses,
check to see if the professional
has sufficient training and
experience in analyzing ground-
water flow and contaminant fate
and transport.
2-4
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 2.0
for a good consultant to perform the analysis. For more details see Chapter 7A of the
Guide.
2.2 IWEM Software Components
The IWEM software consists of three main components (or modules): (z) a
Graphical User Interface (GUI) which guides you through a series of user-friendly screens
to perform Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations; (ii) the EPACMTP computational engine and
integrated Monte Carlo processor that perform the ground-water fate and transport
simulations for Tier 2 evaluations; and (Hi) a series of databases of waste constituents,
WMUs, and site-specific parameters. Each of these three components is discussed briefly
in this section.
2.2.1 IWEM User Interface
When you use the IWEM software, you are interacting with the GUI module.
This module consists of a series of data input and display screens, that enable you to
define a Tier 1 and/or a Tier 2 evaluation; view and select parameter input values from
IWEM's built-in database; enter your own site-specific data; and view the results of the
IWEM evaluation. Figure 2.1 shows a sample IWEM user interface screen. A detailed
description of each IWEM user interface screen is provided in Section 5 of this User's
Guide.
If you are performing a Tier 1 evaluation, the software simply performs a table
look-up of the Tier 1 LCTV tables that are built into the software for the WMU and waste
constituent(s) you selected. Once you have specified all the Tier 1 data inputs, the results
of the evaluation are instantaneously available for on-screen display or printing in a hard-
copy report.
If you are performing a Tier 2 evaluation, the GUI will take you through a step-
wise process of assembling the pertinent site-specific data. The GUI module also
includes options to view and modify constituent-specific data, as well as add additional
constituents to IWEM's constituent database. Once IWEM has gathered all your data, it
will then run the EPACMTP model. Upon completion of the site-specific fate and
transport simulations, IWEM will display the liner recommendation and generate a
printed report if desired.
2-5
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 2.0
Menu Bar
Toolbar
Title Bar
Name of
Screen Group
Screen Name
Related
Constituents
79-06-1
ConstrtuentName
Acrylamide
Concentration
Constituent Properties
Toxicity
Standard
RGC
(mg/L)
2 20E-OS
Log(Koc)
(Vkg)
-O.S89
Ka
(/mol/yr)
31.5
Kn(/yr)
0018
Kb
(/mol/yr)
OOOE*00
Kd (L/kg)
Overall Decay
Coefficient (/yr)
Depth of base of the LF below ground surface (m)
*VMU depth (m) [requires site specific value]
Depth to water table (m).
Soil type. SILT LOAM
nfittrotion.
No Liner .0864
Single Liner. .0295
Composite Liner: Monte Carlo
Recharge Rate: 0.0561
-* [Aquifer Thickness (m):
0 Regional hydraulic gradient
32 Aquifer hydraulic conductivity (m/yr)
(not specified) Distance to well (rn).
(not specified)
(not specified)
(not specified)
150
J
« Previous
i
Nexl»
Figure 2.1 Sample IWEM Screen.
2.2.2 EPACMTP Fate and Transport Model
EPACMTP is a sophisticated fate and transport model that simulates the
migration of waste constituents in leachate from land disposal units through soil and
ground water. EPACMTP has been developed by EPA's OSW to support risk-based
ground-water assessments under RCRA. EPACMTP has been applied to waste
identification, hazardous waste listing and other regulatory evaluations. This User's
Guide provides only a brief summary of the EPACMTP; a complete description of the
model is provided in the EPACMTP Technical Background Document (U.S. EPA,
2002a). The IWEM Technical Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002c) describes how
we used EPACMTP to develop the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Evaluations in IWEM.
2-6
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 2.0
LEACHATE CONCENTRATION
WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
UNSATURATED
ZONE
SATURATED
ZONE
LAND SURFACE
WATER TABLE
LEACHATE PLUMED
Figure 2.2 Conceptual View of Aquifer System Modeled by EPACMTP.
EPACMTP simulates fate and transport of constituents in both the unsaturated
zone and the saturated zone. Figure 2.2 shows a conceptual, cross-sectional view of fate
and transport modeled by EPACMTP. The source of constituents is a WMU located at or
near the ground surface overlying an unconfined aquifer. Waste constituents leach from
the base of the WMU into the underlying soil. They migrate vertically downward until
they reach the water table. As the leachate enters the saturated zone, it will mix with
ambient ground water (which is assumed to be free of pollutants) and a ground-water
plume will develop that extends in the direction of downgradient ground-water flow.
Although it is not shown in Figure 2.2, EPACMTP accounts for the spreading of the
plume in all three dimensions.
Leachate generation is driven by the infiltration of precipitation that has
percolated through the WMU into the soil. The type of liner at the base of the WMU
affects the rate of infiltration that can occur and, hence, the release of leachate into the
soil. EPACMTP models flow in the unsaturated zone and in the saturated zone as steady-
state processes, that is, it models long-term average flow conditions. EPACMTP also
simulates the ground-water mounding that may occur underneath a WMU with a high
infiltration rate and its effect on ground-water flow. This may be significant, particularly
in the case of unlined Sis. In cases of very high infiltration rates in settings with shallow
ground water, EPACMTP may cap the infiltration rate to avoid having the modeled
ground-water mound rise above the bottom of the WMU.
EPACMTP accounts for the dilution of the constituent concentration caused by
the mixing of the leachate with ground water. EPACMTP also accounts for attenuation
due to sorption of waste constituents in the leachate onto soil and aquifer solids, as well
2-7
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 2.0
as bio-chemical transformation (degradation) processes in the unsaturated and saturated
zone. These processes decrease constituent concentrations in the ground water as the
distance from the WMU increases.
Sorption refers to the process whereby constituents in the leachate attach
themselves to soil particles. For organic constituents, EPACMTP models sorption
between the constituents and the organic matter in the soil or aquifer, based on
constituent-specific organic carbon partition coefficients (Koc) and a site-specific organic
carbon fraction in the soil and aquifer. For metal constituents, EPACMTP accounts for
more complex geochemical reactions by using effective sorption isotherms for a range of
aquifer geochemical conditions, as generated using the MINTEQA26 geochemical
speciation model.
In Tier 1 and as the default in Tier 2, EPACMTP only accounts for constituent
transformations caused by hydrolysis reactions. Hydrolysis refers to constituent
decomposition that results from chemical reactions with water. In Tier 2 analyses,
however, you may also enter site-specific biodegradation rates. Biodegradation refers to
constituent decomposition reactions involving bacteria and other micro-organisms.
EPACMTP simulates all transformation processes as first-order reactions, that is, as
processes that can be characterized with a half-life.
EPACMTP accounts for constituents which hydrolyze into toxic daughter
products. In that case, the final liner recommendations are determined in such a way that
they accommodate both the parent constituent as well as any toxic daughter products. For
instance, if a parent waste constituent rapidly hydrolyzes into a persistent daughter
product, the ground-water exposure caused by the parent itself may be minimal (it has
already degraded before it reaches the well), but the final liner recommendation would be
based on the exposure caused by the daughter product.
In Tier 2, IWEM makes liner recommendations by comparing ground-water
exposure concentration values predicted by EPACMTP against RGCs that are either
regulatory MCLs or cancer and non-cancer Health-Based Numbers (HBNs). For the
IWEM analysis, the ground-water exposure concentration is evaluated at a hypothetical
well that is located downgradient from the WMU. EPACMTP accounts for the finite life-
span of WMUs, which results in a time-dependent ground-water exposure concentration.
The exposure concentration calculated by EPACMTP is the maximum average
concentration during the time period in which the ground-water exposure at the well
occurs. The length of the exposure averaging period is adjusted to match the assumptions
MINTEQA2 (U.S. EPA, 1991) is a geochemical equilibrium speciation model for computing
equilibria among the dissolved, absorbed, solid, and gas phases in dilute aqueous solution.
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 2.0
incorporated in the RGC. For instance, when the ground-water exposure concentration is
compared to a RGC that is based on cancer risk, the averaging period is set to 30 years;
whereas for non-cancer effects caused by ingestion of water, EPA considered only
childhood exposure, and set the averaging period to 7 years (covering the time period
from birth through the 6th year of life).
In both Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses, the groundwater modeling results of the
EPACMTP model are summarized by IWEM in terms of Dilution and Attenuation
Factors (DAFs). A DAF is a numerical value that represents the reduction in the
concentration of a constituent arriving at the modeled ground-water well as compared to
the concentration of that constituent in the waste leachate. A DAF value of 10 means that
the concentration at the well is 10 times less than the concentration in the leachate. Using
DAFs is a convenient way to go back-and forth between leachate concentrations and
exposure concentrations, or ground-water reference concentrations.
2.2.2.1 IWEM vs. EPACMTP
As an IWEM user, you should understand the differences between IWEM and
EPACMTP. EPACMTP is a full-featured ground-water flow and transport model with
probabilistic modeling capabilities; it is a sophisticated software program which requires
a significant amount of computer and ground-water modeling expertise to create the
necessary input files, execute the model, and interpret the results.
In contrast, IWEM is a relatively simple and user-friendly program created
specifically to conduct Tier 1 and/or Tier 2 analyses of the ground-water pathway within
the context of the EPA's Guide. Specifically, within Tier 1, IWEM can be used to query
a database of existing EPACMTP modeling results in the form of LCTV values, and to
analyze these tabulated results to produce a Tier 1 WMU design recommendation that is
specific to your waste. Within Tier 2, IWEM converts your input values into the required
EPACMTP input files, executes a series of EPACMTP modeling runs, and then compiles
and analyzes the results to produce a Tier 2 WMU design recommendation that is specific
to your waste and your waste site. In addition, for both tiers of analysis the IWEM
software has the capability to print and save document-ready reports that include the liner
recommendations and the input data on which they are based.
In summary, IWEM can be thought of as an application of EPACMTP that is
tailored specifically for use in non-hazardous industrial waste management decision-
making. In order to make IWEM appropriate and easy to use in performing these Tier 1
and Tier 2 analyses, not all of the EPACMTP functionality is available to the IWEM user;
however, the IWEM provides added capabilities to interpret results and develop reports,
which are not available within EPACMTP.
2-9
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 2.0
2.2.3 IWEM Databases
The third component of IWEM is an integrated set of databases that include waste
constituent properties and other ground-water modeling parameters. The waste
constituent database includes 206 organics and 20 metals. Appendix A provides a list of
the constituents in the database. The constituent properties include physical and chemical
data needed for ground-water transport modeling, as well as RGCs. These RGC's
include: 1) regulatory MCLs, and 2) cancer and non-cancer HBNs for drinking water
ingestion and inhalation of volatiles during showering. Section 7 of this User's Guide
discusses how IWEM uses these RGC's to calculate LCTVs.
In addition to constituent data, IWEM includes a comprehensive database of
ground-water modeling data, including infiltration rates for different WMU types and
liner designs for a range of locations and climatic conditions throughout the United
States; and soil and hydrogeological data for different soil types and aquifer conditions
across the United States. Details of these databases are provided in the EPACMTP
Parameters/Data Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002b), and in the IWEM Technical
Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002c).
EPA used these databases to develop the IWEM Tier 1 LCTVs, and they are
incorporated into the IWEM software to perform Tier 2 evaluations. When site-specific
data are available for a Tier 2 evaluation, they will override default database values.
Conversely, when site-specific data are not available for a Tier 2 evaluation, IWEM will
use default values or random sampling of values from distributions in its databases to
augment the user-provided data.
2.3 Assumptions and Limitations of Ground-Water Modeling
The tiered approach developed to evaluate WMU designs uses sophisticated
probabilistic techniques to account for uncertainty and parameter variability. To perform
the evaluations recommended by the Guide, the mathematical models represent
conditions that may potentially be encountered at waste management sites within the
United States. Efforts have been made to obtain representative, nationwide data and
account for the uncertainty in the data.
However, given the complex nature of the evaluations, a number of limitations
and caveats must be delineated. These limitations are described in this section. Before
using this software, you need to verify that the model assumptions are appropriate for the
site you are evaluating. The IWEM Technical Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002c)
provides additional information to assist you in this process.
2-10
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 2.0
EPACMTP represents WMU's in terms of a source area and a defined rate and
duration of leaching. EPACMTP only accounts for the release of leachate through the
base of the WMU and assumes that the only mechanism of constituent release is through
dissolution of waste constituents in the water that percolates through the WMU.
EPACMTP does not account for the presence of non-aqueous free-phase liquids, such as
an oily phase that might provide an additional release mechanism into the subsurface.
EPACMTP does not account for releases from the WMU via other environmental
pathways, such volatilization or surface run-off. EPACMTP assumes that the rate of
infiltration through the WMU is constant, representing long-term average conditions; the
model does not account for fluctuations in rainfall rate, or degradation of liner systems
that may cause the rate of infiltration and release of leachate to vary over time.
EPACMTP does not explicitly account for the presence of macro-pores, fractures,
solution features, faults or other heterogeneities in the soil or aquifer that may provide
pathways for rapid movement of constituents. A certain amount of heterogeneity always
exists at actual sites, and it is not uncommon in ground-water modeling to use average
parameter values. This means that the input values for parameters such as hydraulic
conductivity, dispersivity, etc. represent effective site-wide average values. However,
EPACMTP may not be appropriate for sites overlying fractured or very heterogeneous
aquifers.
EPACMTP is designed for relatively simple ground-water flow systems.
EPACMTP treats flow in the unsaturated zone and saturated zone as steady state and does
not account for fluctuations in the infiltration or recharge rate, either in time or areally.
As a result, the use of EPACMTP may not be appropriate at sites with large seasonal
fluctuations in rainfall conditions, or at sites where the recharge rate varies locally.
Examples of the latter include the presence of surface water bodies such as rivers and
lakes or ponds, and/or man-made recharge sources near the WMU. EPACMTP does not
account for the presence of ground-water sources or sinks such as pumping or injection
wells.
Leachate constituents can be subject to complex biological and geochemical
interactions in soil and ground water. EPACMTP treats these interactions as equilibrium
sorption and first-order degradation processes. In the case of sorption processes, the
equilibrium assumption means that the sorption process occurs instantaneously, or at least
very quickly relative to the time-scale of constituent transport. Although sorption, or the
attachment of leachate constituents to solid soil or aquifer particles, may result from
multiple chemical processes, EPACMTP lumps these processes together into an effective
soil-water partition coefficient. In the case of metals, EPACMTP allows the partition
coefficient to vary as a function of a number of primary geochemical parameters,
including pH, leachate organic matter, soil organic matter, and the fraction of iron-oxide
in the soil or aquifer.
241
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 2.0
Although EPACMTP is able to account for the most important ways that the
geochemical environment at a site affects the mobility of metals, the model assumes that
the geochemical environment at a site is constant and is not affected by the presence of
the leachate plume. In reality, the presence of a leachate plume may alter the ambient
geochemical environment. EPACMTP does not account for colloidal transport or other
forms of facilitated transport. For metals and other constituents that tend to strongly sorb
to soil particles, and which EPACMTP will simulate as relatively immobile, movement
as colloidal particles can be a significant transport mechanism. However given sufficient
site-specific data, it is possible to approximate the effect of these transport processes by
using a lower value for the kd as a user-input in Tier 2.
EPA's ground-water modeling database includes constituent-specific hydrolysis
rate coefficients for constituents that are subject to hydrolysis transformation reactions;
for these constituents, EPACMTP simulates transformation reactions subject to site-
specific values of pH and soil and ground-water temperature, but other types of
transformation processes are not explicitly simulated in EPACMTP. For many organic
constituents, biodegradation can be an important fate mechanism, but EPACMTP has
only limited ability to account for this process. The user must provide an appropriate
value for the effective first-order degradation rate. In the IWEM application of
EPACMTP, the model uses the same degradation rate coefficient for the unsaturated and
saturated zones if this parameter is provided as a user-input in Tier 2 evaluations. In an
actual leachate plume, biodegradation rates may be different in different regions in the
plume; for instance in portions of the plume that are anaerobic some constituents may
biodegrade more readily, while other constituents will biodegrade only in the aerobic
fringe of the plume. EPACMTP does not account for these or other processes that may
cause a constituent's rate of transformation to vary in space and time.
2-12
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 3.0
3.0 System Requirements
The IWEM software is designed to run under the Microsoft (MS) Windows
operating system. Version 1.0 of IWEM has been designed and tested to run on the latest
versions of Windows 95, 98, NT version 4.0, 2000, and XP. In addition, in order to
ensure that all the files required to run IWEM are present on your computer, the latest
version of MS Internet Explorer that is compatible with your operating system needs to be
installed. Details are given in the table below:
Latest versions of MS Windows operating systems
95 (Version 4.00.950B)
98 Second Edition (Version 4.10.2222A)
NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6a)
2000 (Service Pack 2)
XP (Version 2002)
Corresponding version of MS
Internet Explorer
Version 5.5 Service Pack 2
Version 6.0
Version 6.0
Version 6.0
Version 6.0
If you do not have the latest version of your particular operating system, you may
encounter IWEM installation or execution problems (see Section 8.0). To avoid these
problems, make sure that you have the latest version MS Windows and Internet Explorer
installed on your computer before installing the IWEM software. To check the version
number of the operating system installed on your computer, right-click on the I MY
GovPUTERl icon on your desktop. Then choose I PROPERTIES! from the displayed list. The
ISYSTEM PROPERTIES! dialog box is then displayed, and the IGENERAL! screen is displayed by
default. The operating system name and version number are displayed under the ISYSTEM
heading.
If you find that you do not have the latest version of your particular operating
system, consult with your computer system administrator, or you may download the
updated version for free from the following website:
http://www.microsoft.com
From the main menu, click on |DCWNLQADS|WNDCWS UPDATE]. Then click on the link for
PRODUCT UPDATES|. The first time you do this, you will be asked to install the Windows
Update Control Package. Doing so will enable the automatic creation of a list of
available updates that is customized for your computer and operating system. Then
install the recommended updates to ensure that you are running the latest version of your
operating system.
3-1
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 3.0
To check the version of MS Internet Explorer that is installed on your computer,
double-click on the I INTERNET EXPLORER! icon on your desktop. From the main menu, choose
hELP ABOUT INTERNET EXPLORER). The version number is displayed beneath the MS Internet
Explorer banner; make sure that the version number is at least 5.50.xxxx.xxxx if you are
running Windows 95 or is at least 6.00.xxxx.xxxx if you are running Windows 98 or
later. Only the first few digits of the Internet Explorer version number are important to
ensure correct operation of the IWEM software.
If you find that you do not have the latest version of MS Internet Explorer, you
may download the updated version for free from the following website:
http://www.microsoft.com
From the main menu, click on |DCWNLQADS|WNDOV\S UPDATE|. Then click on the link for
PRODUCT UPDATES! . The first time you do this, you will be asked to install the Windows
Update Control Package. Doing so will enable the automatic creation of a list of
available updates that is customized for your computer and operating system. If you do
not have the latest version of MS Internet Explorer, then this program will be included in
the list of recommended updates. In that case, download and install the recommended
file(s) in order to ensure that IWEM will operate correctly.
Your computer must meet the minimum hardware requirements for the version of
Windows that is installed on your computer. In addition, it is recommended that the
computer have at least 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM and 100 MB or more of available
hard-drive space. A printer is required for printing hard-copy reports.
To check your computer's random access memory (RAM), right-click on the IIW
GoiVPUTERl icon on your desktop. Then choose I PROPERTIES! from the displayed list. The
ISYSTEM PROPERTIES! dialog box is then displayed, and the IGENERAL! screen is displayed by
default. The amount of RAM is displayed as the last item under the IGoiVPUTERl heading.
To check your computer's available hard-drive space, double-click on the I MY GoiVPUTERl
icon on your desktop. Then choose |VIEW]DETAILS] from the main menu. The I MY GoiVPUTERl
dialog box is then displayed where you can check the amount of free space on your hard-
drive.
Running Tier 2 evaluations is computationally demanding. A fast computer
processor (e.g., at least a 500 MHz Pentium IE) is strongly recommended. Even
so, you should expect that Tier 2 analyses for multiple waste constituents may take
several hours to complete. A screen will be displayed during your Tier 2
evaluation to keep you informed about the progress of the computations.
3-2
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 4.0
4.0 IWEM Software Installation
To use the IWEM software for the first time, you must install the software on your
hard-drive from the Guide CD-ROM, or download it from the EPA's non-hazardous
industrial waste website (http://www.epa.gov/industrialwaste/). Depending on the
security settings of your operating system, if your computer is connected to a network, or
if your computer uses the Windows NT, 2000, or XP operating systems, this software
may need to be installed and uninstalled by someone with administrator privileges.
Instructions for installing and uninstalling the program are provided below. Any updates
to these instructions are located in the Readme.txt file on the Guide CD-ROM and on the
website. If you have difficulty implementing the instructions below, please see your
network administrator for help, or contact the RCRA Information Center as explained in
Section 5.2.5.
Installation from the Guide CD-ROM
1. Close all applications, such as word processing and e-mail programs. Close or
disable virus protection software.
2. If you have previously installed the Guide on your computer, then insert the
Guide CD into your CD-ROM drive. Depending upon your computer settings,
the Guide CD may automatically be launched.
If not, double-click on IMYGoiVPUTERl, double-click on your CD-ROM drive, and
then double-click on ISTART.EXEl
OR
Select |START|RUN| and type "D : \START . EXE," replacing the "D :" in this command
with the correct drive designation for your CD-ROM, as appropriate.
3. After following the prompts to log onto the Guide CD, use the command buttons
within the interactive Guide CD to navigate to the Industrial Waste Management
Main Menu. From there, select the Protecting Ground Water section, and then
select the Assessing Risk to Ground Water subsection.
4. Click the INEXT| button to display the Assessing Risk to Ground Water Topic Menu,
and then click on the following sequence of command buttons:
ITOOLS AND RESOURCES!
ITOOLS!
I INFO! for the IWEM model
I LAUNCH|
44
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 4.0
llNSTALLNO/Vl
5. The IWEM Welcome screen then appears. If all your other applications are
already closed (Step 1), click INDCTl. If not, press the ITABl key while the lALTl key is
depressed to scroll through your open applications, closing each in turn.
6. The next screen is titled Choose Destination Location. This screen displays the
default installation location for the IWEM files. If you want to change the
location, click the IBROASEl button and specify a different directory. Click the INDCTl
button to proceed with the IWEM installation process.
7. The next screen is titled Select Program Manager Group. The default setting is to
create a new program group named "IWEM;" however, if desired, you can instead
choose one of the existing program groups from the list below or replace "IWEM"
with a name that you type in. Then click the INDCTl button to proceed with the
IWEM installation process.
8. The next screen is titled Start Installation. If you are happy with your selections
up to this point, click the INDCTl button to install the IWEM software to your hard-
drive. Otherwise, click the IBACKl button to change your installation settings.
9. The next screen is titled Installing. The Current File and All Files progress bars
are automatically updated as files are copied to your hard drive, and an estimate of
the time required to finish the installation is displayed on-screen.
10. As the installation process is finishing, a message box will be displayed that says
"Updating System Configuration, please wait..."
11. If you do not encounter any installation problems, the Installation Complete
screen will display the message, "IWEM has been successfully installed." In this
case, all you need to do is click on the IFlNlSHl button to complete the installation.
However, if you do experience installation problems, please see your computer
system administrator for help, or contact the RCRA Information Center as
explained in Section 5.2.5.
Installation from the EPA's non-hazardous industrial waste website
1. Close all applications, such as word processing and e-mail programs. Close or
disable virus protection software.
2. Open your internet browser and type in the following website:
4-2
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 4.0
http://www.epa.gov/industrialwaste/
3. From the bulleted list, double-click on the link for the Guide.
4. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the link for the IWEM.
5. Scroll down the page and click on the Download Model link.
6. The File Download dialog box will then appear. Choose the option to save the
program to disk and click the ION button to download this IWEM setup file to
your hard-drive.
7. The Save As dialog box will then appear. Navigate to the folder where you would
like the file to be saved and then click the ISAVEl button. The progress bar is
automatically updated as the IWEM setup file (IWEMSetup.exe) is downloaded to
your hard drive.
8. At the bottom of the Save As dialog box is a checkbox to specify if you want the
dialog box to close automatically when the download is complete. If you leave
the checkbox empty, then click on the lOPENl button when the download is
complete. If you have the checkbox selected, the dialog box will close upon
completion of the download. In this case, open IIWCoMPUTERl, browse to the folder
location where you saved the IWEM setup file, and double-click on the icon for
I I\AEMSERJP.EXE!
OR
Select ISfARTlRUNl, and either browse to the folder location where you saved the
IWEM setup file or type this folder location directly into the textbox. Then click
on the I OKI button.
9. The IWEM Welcome screen then appears. If all your other applications are
already closed (Step 1), click I NEXTl. If not, press the ITABl key while the lALTl key is
depressed to scroll through your open applications, closing each in turn.
10. The next screen is titled Choose Destination Location. This screen displays the
default installation location for the IWEM files. If you want to change the
location, click the IBROASEl button and specify a different directory. Click the INDCTl
button to proceed with the IWEM installation process.
11. The next screen is titled Select Program Manager Group. The default setting is to
create a new program group named "IWEM;" however, if desired, you can instead
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 4.0
choose one of the existing program groups from the list below or replace "IWEM"
with a name that you type in. Then click the INEXTl button to proceed with the
IWEM installation process.
12. The next screen is titled Start Installation. If you are happy with your selections
up to this point, click the INEXTl button to install the IWEM software to your hard-
drive. Otherwise, click the IBACKl button to change your installation settings.
13. The next screen is titled Installing. The Current File and All Files progress bars
are automatically updated as files are copied to your hard drive, and an estimate of
the time required to finish the installation is displayed on-screen.
14. As the installation process is finishing, a message box will be displayed that says
"Updating System Configuration, please wait..."
15. If you do not encounter any installation problems, the Installation Complete
screen will display the message, "IWEM has been successfully installed." In this
case, all you need to do is click on the IFlNlSHl button to complete the installation.
However, if you do experience installation problems, please see your computer
system administrator for help, or contact the RCRA Information Center as
explained in Section 5.2.5.
Uninstalling
1. Click on the Microsoft Windows ISTARTI button in the extreme lower left corner of
your screen.
2. Select ISETTiNGSl, and then IGoNTTOL PANEL!.
3. Double-click on IADD/REMOVE PROGRAMS!.
4. Select I IWEM and then click on the ICHANGE/REMOVEl button.
5. The IWEM Select Uninstall Method screen is now displayed. You can choose
either an automatic or a custom uninstall process. The automatic process removes
only the IWEM files that were copied to your computer during IWEM installation;
that is, files of saved IWEM analyses are not deleted if you choose the automatic
uninstallation process. The custom uninstallation process allows you to specify
exactly which files you want to delete. Clicking on the ISELECTALLl button each
time it appears in the custom process can be used to delete every file that is
associated with the IWEM application, including shared files and saved IWEM
analyses.
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 4.0
6. The IWEM Perform Uninstall screen then appears. If you are happy with your
selections up to this point, click the IFlNlSHl button to uninstall the IWEM software
from your hard-drive. Otherwise, click the IBACKl button to change your
uninstallation settings.
7. If the IWEM uninstall program finds that any of the files to be deleted is a shared
file that is no longer used by any programs, a message box titled Remove Shared
Component then appears. The filename will be displayed and you will be asked if
you want to delete this file. If any programs are still using this file and it is
removed, then those programs may not function correctly. Leaving the file on
your computer will not harm your system, but it does take up space on your hard-
drive. If you are unsure what to do, then you should select the I No TO ALLl button.
8. If you do not encounter any uninstallation problems, the IWEM program will then
be removed from the list of programs on the Add/Remove Programs dialog box.
However, if you do experience uninstallation problems, please see your computer
system administrator for help, or contact the RCRA Information Center as
explained in Section 5.2.5.
4-5
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
5.0 Running the IWEM Software
This section provides detailed instructions on how to run the IWEM software.
Specifically, this section:
Instructs you how to launch the IWEM software;
Explains the key features of the IWEM software; and
Guides you step-by-step through Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations.
5.1 How do I start the IWEM software?
To use the program for the first time, you can install the software from the Guide
CD (or download it from EPA's website: http://www.epa.gov/industrialwaste) to your
hard-drive. Section 4 gives detailed installation instructions.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office
of Solid Waste
Industrial Waste Management
Evaluation Model
IWEM
Version 1.0
Initializing...
After installation, you can launch the program by choosing | START PROGRAMS | (at
the lower left corner of the screen) and then choosing I\AEM program group and the
program I\AEM . Alternatively, you can create a short-cut to the | I\AEM| program and
move it to your Windows desktop. In this case, the program can be launched by double-
clicking the IWEM | icon
on your desktop.
5.2 What are the key features of the IWEM software?
The IWEM software has a user-friendly interface which is designed to operate in
accordance with MS Windows conventions. The first screen that you see after
5-1
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
launching the program is the Start-Up screen (shown above) which will appear only while
the program is loading.
The first time you run the IWEM software, it displays five Introduction screens.
After reading them once, you can skip these screens in the future by un-checking the box
at the lower left of the introduction screens (see Section 5.3).
Menu Bar
Toolbar
Title Bar
i;HlWEM [Untitledwen
nput Summary (23)
Constituent Properties
Related
Constituents
CAS
Constituent Name
Leachate
Concentration
(mgAJ
Toxiclty
Standard
RGC
(mg/L)
Log(Koc)
(Ukg)
Ka
(/mol/yr)
Kn(/yr)
Kb
(/mol/yr)
Kd (L/kg)
Overall Decay
Coefficient (/yr)
79-06-1
Acrylernide
01
HBN - 2 20E-05
Ingestion
Cancer
-0.989
315
0018
O.OOE«00
Area (m*2):
Depth of base of the LF below ground surface (m):
WMU depth (m) [requires site specific value]
Depth to water table (m).
Soil type. SILTLOAM
nfiltration:
No Liner: .0561
Single Liner. .0295
Composite Liner: Monte Carlo
Recharge Rate 0.0561
- t^quifer thickness (m).
0 Regional hydraulic gradient,
32 Aquifer hydraulic conductivity (m/yr)
(not specified) Distance to well (m)
(not specified)
(not specitiecf)
(not specified)
150
~~
,1
Next»
Figure 5.1 General IWEM Screen Features.
5-2
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
As shown in Figure 5.1, the IWEM software interface follows a common layout
with the following features:
Menu Bar allows you to perform common file operations;
Toolbar also allows you to perform common operations efficiently;
Title Bar at the top displays the software title and the name of the current
IWEM project file;
Name of Screen Group identifies the general topic addressed by the
individual screens that comprise this group (e.g., Tier 2 input screen group);
Screen Name more specifically identifies the type of information being
requested or displayed in the screen;
| PREVIOUS| button takes you to the previous screen; and
Ntxr| button allows you to proceed to the next screen.
From the menu bar, you can select among the following menu items:
File: performs general file operations, such as open and save;
Evaluation: proceeds directly to either the Tier 1 Evaluation or the Tier 2
Evaluation;
Options: enables or suppresses toolbar visibility; and
Help: provides access to the following information: search IWEM online
help; view IWEM introductory screens; browse constituent properties; view
contact information for IWEM technical support; and view the IWEM About
screen.
Using the toolbar is a quick way to perform common operations:
ml
Clicking on this button begins a | NEW EVALUATION |
C3l
Clicking on this button launches the | OPEN RLE dialog box to select the
previously saved evaluation file to be opened;
Clicking on this button launches either the | SAVE As or | SAVE| dialog box
so that you can specify the filename and folder for your analysis;
5-3
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
Clicking on this button begins the TIER 1 EVALUATION |;
Clicking on this button begins the TlER 2 EVALUATION |; and
Clicking on this button opens the | CCNSTITIJENT PROPERTIES BROWSER dialog
box.
&
If you are unsure about the function of any of the toolbar buttons, you can display
| TOOL TIPS| (which identifies the button's function) for each button by placing the mouse
cursor on top of the button.
In this section of the User's Guide, we present detailed, step-by-step instructions
for running the IWEM software. These instructions include screenshots for each of the
screens and dialog boxes that you will see when performing a Tier 1 or Tier 2 analysis in
IWEM. The screenshots presented in Section 5 have added annotations (in small boxes
above and below the screenshot) to point out the important features on each screen.
These annotations are each labeled with a letter (A, B, C, etc) and are then listed and
explained sequentially in the text immediately following each screenshot.
5.2.1 What is the Constituent Properties Browser?
The Constituent Properties Browser, accessed from the Main Menu sequence
I-ELP CONSTITUENT PROPERTIES] or by clicking on the flask toolbar button, displays the data in
the constituent properties database that is distributed with IWEM (see Figure 5.2). You
can select a constituent by Chemical Abstract Service Registry number (CAS number) or
by name. The information displayed in the upper portion of the browser includes
chemical and physical properties required for fate and transport modeling. RGC values,
cancer slope factors (CSFs), and non-cancer reference doses and reference concentrations
are given in the lower portion of the screen. For each property value in the database
(except constituent type, carcinogenicity, and molecular weight), the |DATASCURCE| field
provides access to a complete bibliographic citation (see Figure 5.3).
5-4
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
r^rence.nthe.WEM
JH Constituent Properties Brotiser
Select a constituent bv CAS n
CAS Number: 17440-36-0
Physical Properties
urnber
^J Constituent Name: |Antimor y
_|p|x|
il
Parameter
|Value
Data
Source
Carcinogen1? No
Molecular weight (g/mol)
Log KOC (distribution coefficient for organic carbon) N/A
Ka: acid-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant (1 /yr) N/A
Kn: neutral hydrolysis rate constant (1 /yr) N/A
Kb: base-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant (1 /yr)
Solubility (mg/L)
Diffusivity in air (cm~2/s)
121 76 N/A
J
1000000 iCanmidgeSoft Cojp£rati£n.^OoT"J
Reference Ground-water Concentration Values
Parameter
Maximum Contaminant Level
HBN - Ingestion. Cancer
Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral
HBN - Ingestion. Non-Cancer
Value
0.006
N/A
N/A
01
1098
Data Source
USEPA 2000h
USEPA 3
Olb
3
J
^J
To view a full source, dick in the Data
Source cell, then click the "Full Source"
button.
QK
Full Source
D. Reference ground-water
concentrations and
abbreviated reference
in the IWEM database
F. Click to view full
|[)ATA SOURCE| of
selected property
Figure 5.2 Constituent Properties Browser.
The features identified in Figure 5.2 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. Choose Constituent to View by Selecting CAS Number
To select which constituent to view, use either of the two list boxes at the top of
the screen. You can click on the drop-down list control ~ at the right edge of the CAS
NUMBER listbox to display a drop-down list of all available waste constituents. Then use
5-5
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
the mouse or the | ARROW) keys on your keyboard to scroll through the list of constituents
until the desired constituent is highlighted. You can also type in the leading digits of the
CAS number for the constituent you would like to view. IWEM will then skip forward in
the list to the first constituent whose CAS number starts with the entered digits, and you
can then use the mouse or the ARROW keys on your keyboard to move to the desired
constituent. Left click on the mouse or hit the ENTER | key to make your selection.
B. Choose Constituent to View by Selecting Name
You can also select which constituent to view by using the | CONSTITUENT NAIVE)
listbox on the right side of the screen. Click on the drop-down list control _LJ at the right
edge of the | CONSTITUENT NAIVE) listbox to display a drop-down list of all available waste
constituents. Then use the mouse or the ARROW keys on the keyboard to scroll through
the list of constituents until the desired constituent is highlighted. You can also type in
the first letter of the name of the constituent that you would like to view. IWEM will
then skip forward in the list to the first constituent whose name begins with the entered
letter, and you can then use the mouse or the ARROW keys on your keyboard to move to
the desired constituent. Left click on the mouse or hit the ENTER) key to make your
selection.
C. Physical Properties and Abbreviated Reference in the IWEM Database
For the selected waste constituent, the pertinent physical and chemical property
values that are used in the IWEM analysis and their corresponding data sources are listed
in the upper window on this screen.
D. Reference Ground-water Concentrations and Abbreviated Reference in the IWEM
Database
For the selected waste constituent, the RGC input parameter values that are used
in the IWEM analysis and their corresponding data sources are listed in the lower table on
this screen.
E. Close Constituent Properties Browser
Click the OK) button at the bottom of the screen to close this screen.
5-6
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
F. Click to View Full | DATA SOURCE | of Selected Property
You can view the complete bibliographic citation of a constituent property by
selecting the corresponding entry under the | DATA SOURCE heading and clicking on the
| FULL SOURCE button on the lower right-hand side of the screen. Doing so will cause a
message box to appear on-screen, as is shown in Figure 5.3.
Constituent Properties Browser
Select a. constituent by CAS number or name.
CAS Number: 17440-36-0
- Physical Properties
Constituent Name; (Antimony
lvalue
No
j/mol)
3n coefficient for organic carbon) N/A
hydrolysis rate constant (1 /yr) N/A
sis rate constant (1 /yr) N/A
i hydrolysis rate constant (1 /yr) N/A
| Data Source
121.76 N/A
1000000 CambridgeSott Corporation. 2001
A |
J
Full Source
Reference Ground^a
Parameter
CambrldgeSoft Corporation. 2001. ChemFinder .com database and Internet searching.
http://chemfinder.cambridgesoft.com. Accessed July 2001.
Maximum Contaminai
HBN - Ingestion, Cane
Carcinogenic Slope F
HBN-Ingestion, Non-Cancer
To view a full source, click in the Data
Source cell, then click the "Full Source"
button.
0.0098 I
JSEPA2001b
Full Source
B. Click to close the
|FuiL SOURCE]
dialog box
A. Full IDATA SOURCE]
of selected property
Figure 5.3 Constituent Properties Browser Full Source Dialog Box.
5-7
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
The features identified in Figure 5.3 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. Full | DATA SOURCE | of Selected Property
The bibliographic citation of the selected property is displayed in the FULL
SOURCE dialog box.
B. Click to Close the | FULL SOURCE Dialog Box
Click the OK| button to close the dialog box.
5.2.2 How Do I Navigate Through the IWEM Software?
The IWEM software is comprised of a series of screens containing controls for
entering data and viewing results. This section describes in detail how to move from
screen to screen and control to control, as well as how the various controls are used
together to facilitate your use of the IWEM software. Although this guide assumes you
will be using a mouse to navigate through the screens and features, you may also navigate
using the keyboard exclusively.
Navigating with the keyboard involves the use of the following keys: the |TAB|
key, the |BACK-TAB| key, the |ARRCW| keys, the |ALT| key, and the |ENTER| key. The |TAB| key
moves the cursor from one control to the next in a predefined order. The term cursor
refers to either a vertical bar "I" that indicates the position of the next typed character, or
the change in a control's appearance from normal to a highlighted appearance, as
presented below.
OK
OK
Normal Highlighted
When a control is highlighted, it is considered actively awaiting input from the
keyboard or mouse. The |BACK-TAB| key (press the |TAB| key while holding down the |SHIFT|
key) moves the cursor in the reverse order. When the cursor is on a command button,
press the |ENTER| key to "click" the button. Radio buttons always appear in a set of two or
more options; when the cursor is on any radio button, press the |ARRCW-UP| or |ARROW-DCWN|
key to select a different radio button. The TAB| key moves you off the radio button group.
The |TAB|, |BACK-TAB|, and |ARRCW| keys are also used to move from cell to cell in a data grid.
A drop-down list displays the current choice of several possible choices; when the drop-
5-8
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
down list is active (highlighted), use the |ARROW-UP| or |ARRCW-DOV\M| keys to display the
desired choice.
The |ALT| key is used in combination with other key strokes to access controls or
menu items quickly through pre-defined "hot-keys" that correspond to underlined
characters on a control or menu item. For example, the underlined "O" on the |OK| button
above indicates that pressing and holding down the |Al_l| key and then pressing the |Q key
would have the same result as a mouse click on the button. Similarly, the main menu
system is activated by pressing the |Al_l| key; the first letter of each menu item is
underlined and can be accessed in the manner just described.
5.2.2.1 Screens
Screens in IWEM appear as a single screen or as a group of screens with manila
folder-like "tabs" along the top to differentiate between the individual screens. The
Introductory screens (see Figures 5.9 through 5.13) are examples of individual screens
that have PREVIOUS! and/or |NEXT| command buttons along the bottom for navigating from
screen to screen. The Tier 1 Input screen group (see Figure 5.14) consists of three screens
where you select a WMU type, identify the constituents in your waste, and enter your
leachate data. In addition to the navigational command buttons available on single
screens, you can also move to adjacent screens by clicking on their corresponding "tab".
5.2.2.2 Controls
The following controls make the IWEM software easy-to-use:
Text boxes;
Dialog boxes;
List boxes;
Radio Buttons;
Data grids;
Command buttons; and
Drop-down lists.
Each of these controls is explained in more detail in this section. In general, a
control is activated or selected by clicking on it with the mouse or by using the keyboard
(e.g., using the |TAB| key or the hot-key).
5-9
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
Text Boxes
Text boxes are used to display or accept information. The screen shown in Figure
5.4, text boxes (box B) are used to accept the name or CAS number of a constituent. As
you type characters or numbers into the text box, the list box cursor moves to the
constituent in the list that best matches your input. The screen shown in Figure 5.5 uses
text boxes to display data (box B) and to receive inputs (box E).
Search By -
mstituent Nam;
CAS Numbs r
Infiltraii :n (19)
Constituent List (20)
SortBy-
I Constituent Pit aerties (21)
Constituent Name
CAS Number
Type of Constitut nt
< All constituents
<~ Orgonics
r Metals
All Constituen s
83-32-9 Acer aphthene
75-07-0 Acet
ildehyde [Ethanal]
67-64-1 Acetlne (2-propanone)
75-05-8 Acetinitrile (methyl cyanide)
98-85-2 Aceflphenone
107-02-8 Acrolain
79-06-1 Acrylamide
79-10-7 Acrylic acid fpropenoic acid]
HihflfcifJBBlS
309-00-2 Aldrin
107-18-6 Allyl alcohol
62-53-3 Aniline (benzeneamine)
Selected Constituents
CAS
Number
107-13-1
Constituent Name
Aoylonitrile
Add New ConqMuent
Leach ate
Concentration
(mg/L)
« Previous
Next»
D. Command Button
to move to previous
E. Command Buttons to
move items from list box
to data grid and vice
versa
F. Command Button
to start adding a
new constituent
G. Data Grid for
data display and
entry
H. Command
Button to
move to next
Figure 5.4 Example IWEM Screen Identifying Several Types of Controls.
5-10
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
A. Data Grid for
display and selection
B. Text Boxes for
data display
Cone. (22) ] Input Summery (23) 1
^pply Standards" button to save each selectior
Constituent Properties (21)
[ Reference GV
Si ilect a constituent from the grid, then the desired standard fror i the list Click the "
Related
Constituents
Constituent
Standard
Parent
107-1H Acrylonitnle
HBN-lngestion, C-encer
Daughter
Daughter
79-06-1 Acrylernide
HBN - Ingestion. Cancer
79-10-7 Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
HBN - Ingestion. NonCancer
Standards for 79-10-7 Acrylin acid ||>rii| enoic acid]
Reference Grqund-weter Ex aosure
Concentration
rng/L)
Du
Select Standard
r
C HI.::
<~ HBN - Inhalation. Non-Cancer
C HP'
( HBN - Ingestion. Nort-Cancer
r User-Defined
» Compare to all available standards
:elect the desired standard by clicking its radio button. Click the "Apply Stan
ation (yr)
12
T
Justification
T
aids" button to save your selection.
« Previous
(Apply Standard(s)
Next»
C. Radio Buttons
for option selection
D. Command Button
for option
confirmation
E. Text Boxes for
data entry
Figure 5.5 Example IWEM Screen Identifying Several Types of Controls.
Dialog and Message Boxes
Dialog boxes appear throughout the IWEM software as additional data entry
screens containing one or more of the controls mentioned above (i.e., see Figure 5.35: the
Climate Center List dialog box), or as a way of informing the user (i.e., see Figure 5.3:
the Full Source message box). Data entry dialog boxes usually appear as a direct result of
clicking on a command button, whereas message boxes appear as the result of a user's
input, or the model's calculation.
5-11
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
List Boxes
List boxes are used to display a list from which you can select one or many of the
listed items. In Figure 5.4, the list box (box A) displays all of the constituents in the
IWEM database that can be used in a Tier 2 analysis. This list permits multiple selections
and is described in more detail in Section 5.5.1.6 of this document.
Radio Buttons
Radio buttons always appear in a set of two or more options and have a variety of
uses. In the screen in Figure 5.4, the radio buttons (box C) control the display of
constituents in the list box (box D). In the screen in Figure 5.5, you can use the radio
buttons to select one of the available standards for the current constituent (box C). The
selection is not recorded, however, until the APPLYSTANDARD command button is pressed.
Data Grids
Data grids are used in many different ways throughout the IWEM software: to
display data, to accept data, a combination of data display and entry, or to select a grid
item that affects other controls on a screen. As a user, you will need to manipulate these
grids to view, enter and select information. The grids are very similar to a spreadsheet in
that the column widths and row heights can be manipulated with the mouse by moving
the mouse cursor over the separators along the left side or top of the grid until the cursor
changes to a horizontal or vertical bar. When the cursor changes, click and drag the
mouse until you are happy with the new grid dimension, then release the mouse button.
Moving from cell to cell can be controlled by mouse clicks or by the ITABl or lARRO/Vl keys
as explained in Section 5.2.2.
Selecting a particular row of the grid is accomplished by clicking on the cell in
that row or along the left border of the grid or using the ITABl or lARROM keys to move to a
particular row. In the screen in Figure 5.4, removing a constituent from the list displayed
in the data grid (box G) requires selecting the row of the grid and then clicking the
command button with the left-pointing arrow (box E). Selecting a row in a grid is also
required when you are assigning a standard to a constituent on the screen presented in
Figure 5.5. When moving from row to row in this grid (box A), the radio buttons (box C)
and text boxes (box E) change as a function of the constituent displayed in the selected
grid row. In addition, when a standard has been selected, the last column in the grid is
updated to reflect the selected standard.
5-12
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
Command Buttons
Command buttons are used throughout the tool to execute an action, to navigate
from screen to screen, to verify a choice, or to acknowledge a message. Figure 5.4 shows
a screen from IWEM where command buttons are used for various purposes: navigation
(boxes D, H), moving information (box E), and initiating some action (box F). Command
buttons are activated by a mouse click or by pressing the (ENTER key when the button is
highlighted or active. The screen in Figure 5.5 (box D) uses a command button to verify a
selection made with a radio button group and then updates a cell in a data grid with the
selected standard.
Drop-down Lists
Drop-down lists are used to make one selection from a list and then display only
the selected item. In some cases, the list may be modified by the user. In Figure 5.6, you
can select from the list of chosen constituents (box A) to view and/or edit constituent
properties. The data grids are updated based upon the selection in the drop-down list. In
Figure 5.7, a drop-down list is used to choose from a pre-defined list of options (box A),
however, you may enter your own data. This type of control is usually referred to as
"combo" box control: a combination of a text box control and drop-down box control.
5-13
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
A. Drop-down lists
to choose item
1
__J_nJ x |
J Constituent List (20
I Constituent Properties (21) | Reference GWConc. (22)
Select a constituent from the first list below. Properties of IP
properties of a daughter product select it from the second
iected constituent will be displayed in the gr ds. To see the
Waste Constituents: 1107-13-1 Acrylonitrile
Daughter products: |
Default Properties of 107-13-1 Acrylonitrile
3
User Supplied Property Values
Property
Koc(L/kg)
Rate
Acid-catalyzec
hydrolysis - Ka
(/mol/yr)
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
A. Drop-down list
for data entry or
selection
Tier 2 Input
WMU Type (16)
WMU Parameters (17) [ Subsurface Parameters (18)
This screen allows you to enter or change surface impoundment parameters. Justifications for parameters ere r
Distance to Nearest Surface Water Body (m) [Unknown, but less than 2000m (Model uses 360m)
iquired.
Parameter
Value | Data Source
Depth of base of the SI below ground surface (m)
Sludge thickness (m)
Surface impoundment area (m"2) [requires site specific value]
Ponding depth (m) [requires site specific value]
Operational lite (yr)
150
0
.2
1234556
1.6
Default
Default
Default
Topo maps
Initial Estimate
50 Default
« Previous
Apply Defaults
Next»
B. Command Button
to populate
data grid
Figure 5.7 Example IWEM Screen Identifying Several Types of Controls.
5-15
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
5.2.3 How Do I Use Online Help?
IWEM provides online |hELP| that can be accessed from any screen either by
pressing the IF1I key or by selecting hELP CONTENTS from the IWEM menu bar. Selecting
hELP CONTENTS] from the IWEM menu bar will cause the screen shown as Figure 5.8 to be
displayed.
Help Topics: Industrial Waste Management Eval
Contents j |ndex \ Find |
Click a book, and then click Open. Or click another tab, such as Index.
Program Overview
Working With IWEM
^ Program Components
^ Navigating the IWEM Interface
^t Understanding IWEM Inputs
^ Interacting with EPACMTP
^ Interpreting TWEM Results
^ IWEM Reports
) Help for Specific Dialogs
^p Introductory Screens
^ Tier 1 Evaluation Screens
^ Tier 2 Evaluation Screens
^ Windows Available at Any Time
Open
Print...
Cancel
Figure 5.8 IWEM Online Help.
From this main hELP screen (shown in Figure 5.8), you can use the mouse or
keyboard keys to explore the IGcNTENTSl tab which is automatically displayed by default, or
you can navigate to either of the other two tabs: I INDEX! and IFiNDl. On the IGoNTENTSl tab,
you can double-click on the book icon to the left of each topic to expand that topic; some
main topics contain multiple levels of sub-topics, but after navigating down to the most
detailed level, a |hELP| screen will be displayed that contains descriptive text that explains
a particular feature of the IWEM software. Many of these text descriptions contain
5-16
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
hyper-text links to related items in the online hELP; these hyper-text links are formatted
with colored and underlined text. Double-click on any hyper-text link to display detailed
information about that topic. On the llNDEXl tab, you can find help for a particular topic by
typing a phrase into the text box at the top or by selecting a topic from the list box at the
bottom and then clicking the IDSPLAYl button. The IFlNDl tab enables you to search for
specific words and phrases in online hELP, instead of searching for information by
category. Just follow the on-screen prompts on the |FiND| tab to create and search a list of
words in online hELP.
Pressing the IF1I key will automatically display an online |hELP| screen that is
appropriate for the current IWEM screen that you are using. This information is similar
to that presented in Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of this document and is also presented in the last
topic listed on the IGoNTHsnBl tab: IhELP FOR SPECIFIC DIALOGS!.
Once you find the information you need in online hELP, you can use the main
menu or the command buttons at the top of the |hELP| screen to skip to other sections of
online hELP or to print out a particular topic.
5.2.4 How Do I Save My Work?
You have several options within the IWEM software to save your analysis. After
performing a new Tier 1 or Tier 2 analysis, you can click on the ISAVEI button on the
Toolbar or choose IFlLElSAVEl or IFlLElSAVE Asl from the Menu Bar to launch the standard
Windows iSave Asl dialog box. If you open a saved analysis, and then make changes to it,
clicking on the ISAVEI button on the Toolbar or choosing IFlLElSAVEl from the Menu Bar
will overwrite the contents of your original file with the current analysis settings; if you
want to save these changes to a new file, you must choose IFlLElSAVE Asl from the Menu
Bar. If you forget to save before trying to exit the IWEM software, a dialog box will
automatically ask if you want to save your data before exiting the software.
For each saved analysis, IWEM creates two project files:
*.wem file
*.mdb file
The combination of these two files completely describes the information you have
entered (*.mdb) and any model-generated results (*.wem). The asterisk (*) is replaced by
the name you assign to the project; the files will be saved in the project folder you
specified.
5-17
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
Note that IWEM will not allow you to save both model inputs and results at a
point where the inputs do not correspond to the model-generated results (e.g., when Tier 2
results have been generated, you return to an input screen, change an input and attempt to
save the project). If you do choose to save your work in a situation like this, only the
inputs will be saved; that is, when you later open up this file, you will have to run either
the Tier 1 or Tier 2 analysis to create the corresponding results.
You may open a previously saved IWEM analysis by clicking on any one of the
following options:
lOPENl button on the Toolbar
IFlLE|OPENl selection from the Menu Bar
IOPEN SAVED ANALYSIS (*.WEMFiLE)l radio button from the I IWEM ANALYSIS
OPTIONS! dialog box (see Item B in Section 5.3)
Once the lOPENl dialog box is displayed, highlight the appropriate file and click the
lOPENl button to open the desired file. You will then see a dialog box in which you can
specify what type of analysis you want to perform - Tier 1 or Tier 2 (see Item B in
Section 5.3).
5.2.5 How Do I Get Help If I Have a Problem or a Question?
If you have a copy of the Guide CD, you can open and read this User's Guide on-
screen while the IWEM software is running on your computer. You may find it easier to
use IWEM's online help or to print out a copy of the User's Guide and refer to this hard
copy while you are learning to use the IWEM software or to use the IWEM online |hELP|
(see Section 5.2.3). This section of the User's Guide contains screen-by-screen
instructions for using the software.
A dialog box containing a keyword or parameter definition used in IWEM can be
displayed by clicking on any underlined text in the Data Requirements screen (see Screen
3, in Section 5.3). These definitions can also be displayed at any time by choosing
| DEFINITION WNDCW from the I-ELP| menu.
If you have a technical question about installing or running the IWEM software,
you should contact the RCRA Information Center. This information center is a publicly
accessible clearinghouse that provides up-to-date information on RCRA rulemakings and
responds to requests for regulatory publications and information resources. Please note
that the information center cannot provide regulatory interpretations.
To get your technical questions about the IWEM software answered, please
contact the RCRA Information Center in any of the following ways:
548
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
E-mail: rcra-docket@epa.gov
Phone: 703-603-9230
Fax: 703-603-9234
In person: Hours: 9:00 am to 4:00 pm, weekdays, closed on Federal Holidays
Location: U. S. EPA
West Building, Basement
1300 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
Mail: RCRA Information Center (5305W)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460-0002
When contacting the RCRA Information Center, please cite RCRA Docket
number: F1999-IDWA-FFFFF.
5.2.6 How Do I Begin Using the IWEM Software?
The following subsections provide a screen-by-screen tutorial that describes the
data you are asked to enter at each screen and your data entry options (for instance, some
Tier 2 input data are required and others are optional). The guidance will assist you in
performing a Tier 1 and a Tier 2 analysis for an industrial WMU to determine the
minimum recommended WMU design that will be protective of ground water. You will
not need all the information provided here because this document addresses all WMU
liner designs and several different levels of site-specific data for Tier 2. Follow only
those subsections that are applicable to your particular waste and WMU.
5.3 Introductory Screens (Screens 1 through 5)
The text on Screens 1 through 5 provides a brief introduction to the IWEM
software. Specifically, these screens present an overview of IWEM statement regarding
proper use of the model and coordination with regulatory agencies, a list of data input
requirements, a summary of model limitations, and the option to begin a Tier 1 or Tier 2
evaluation.
The key operational features of the introductory screens are as follows.
5-19
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
The features identified in Figures 5.9 through 5.13 are explained in more detail in
the following paragraphs.
A. Explanatory Text about IWEM
The following five screens contain brief introductory information on the following
aspects of the software:
Screen 1: An overview of the IWEM software
Screen 2: How to use IWEM
Screen 3: Data requirements
Screen 4: Model limitations
Screen 5: Evaluation types
5-20
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
i * ^ Introduction
njxj
IWEM Overview (1)
Purpose: This program is designed to give facility managers, regulatory agency staff, and
citizens a simple-to-use tool to evaluate appropriate liner systems for landfills, surface
impoundments, and waste piles, and to evaluate whether wastes are suitable for land application.
How: This program provides the results of fate and transport modeling of constituents from a
waste management unit through subsurface soils to ground water. The model contains two
evaluation tiers. Tier 1 provides recommendations for each type of waste management unit,
based on estimated constituent concentrations in leachate from the unit. Tier 2 provides
location-adjusted recommendations that are more tailored to a specific site, while still less
resource intensive than a detailed site-specific analysis.
Tier 2 allows the user to enter data for a limited
waste characteristics, to get recommendations
i umber of site-specific parameters, along with
or protective unit design and management.
Results: The model provides four types of recot imendations
Next»
Figure 5.9 Introduction: IWEM Overview (1).
5-21
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
Use of IWEM (2)
This model is in final form and can be used to assist in waste management decision-making.
We strongly encourage the user of this model to work with his/her State Agency prior to using this
tool or making decisions regarding design standards for new waste management units.
We also strongly encourage users to review the "Assessing Risk" section of Chapter 7 ("Protecting
Ground-water Quality") in the Guide for Industrial Waste Management for a description of the model
and a discussion of key parameters and critical issues that affect modeling results.
« Previous
Next» ( i
Figure 5.10 Introduction: Use of IWEM (2).
5-22
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
:orl
er 1, the model requires the following information:
WMU type.
Estimated leachate concentration for each constituent.
For Tier 2, the model requires the following location-adjusted information:
WMU type,
WMU area.
WMU depth for landfills or ponding depth for surface impoundments
Estimated leachate concentration for each constituent,
WMU infiltration rate(user-defined or select from database with soil type
and geographic location for all WMUs except surface impoundments)
Regional infiltration rate (select from database with soil type and geographic location)
For Tier 2, the model uses the following optional information (The user may
Show these introductory screens each time IWEM starts.
« Previous
Next»
Figure 5.11 Introduction: Data Requirements (3).
5-23
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
Model Limitations (4)
As is true of any model, this model is based on a number of simplifying assumptions which may
make the use of this model inappropriate in certain situations. This model should not be used in the
following situations:
1) If the soil and aquifer cannot be treated as uniform porous media, each consisting of a single
layer. For instance, if the aquifer is composed of limestone or fractured bedrock, ground-water flow
is likely to be significantly influenced by preferential pathways, such as solution cavities or fractures.
The model does not account for the presence of preferential ground-water flow pathways or layering
in the unsaturated or saturated zones.
2) If there is a mobile oil phase or other Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) present at the facility.
Significant contaminant migration may occur within such a phase (due to the differing densities of
NAPL and ground water), which is not accounted for in the model.
These are the most important limitations of the m odel. The IWEM Background Document discusses
J7 [Show these introductory screens each time IWEM starts.!
«Previous 0
Next»
Figure 5.12 Introduction: Model Limitations (4).
5-24
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
Choose Evaluation Type (5)
Select the Tier 1 evaluation to compare your estimated leachate concentrations against the
thresholds calculated by the EPA using national data. Choose the Tier 2 evaluation to investigate the
impact of using model input parameters that are specific to a particular facility and location. First
time users may want to begin with the Tier 1 evaluation and then proceed to the Tier 2 evaluation, if
desired.
J7 [Show these introductory screens each time IWEM starts]
«Previous A | Tier 1 Evaluation
Tier 2 Evaluation
Figure 5.13 Introduction: Choose Evaluation Type (5).
B, Vncheck to Skip Introductory Screens at Next Start-up
After reading this introductory information, you can uncheck the SHO/VTHESE
IMTRODUCTORYSCREENS EACHTllVE IWEMSfARTS check-box at the bottom of the screen to
prevent these screens from being displayed the next time the program is run. The
introductory information can be viewed at any time by choosing INTRODUCTION) from the
I HELP menu.
If you uncheck this check box, the next time you launch IWEM, you will see the
following dialog box:
5-25
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
IWEM Analysis Options
Start New Tier 1 Analysis!
Start NGWTier 2 Analysis
Open Saved Analysis f .wem File)
Select the ISfART NBA/TIER 1 ANALYSIS! radio button and click the lOPENl button to start
a new Tier 1 analysis; doing so will take you directly to the WMU Type (6) screen - the
first Tier 1 input screen.
Select the ISfARTNEWTiER 2 ANALYSIS! radio button and click the lOPENl button to start
a new Tier 2 analysis; doing so will take you directly to the WMU Type (16) screen - the
first Tier 2 input screen.
Select the IdPEN SAVED ANALYSIS (*.wemRLE)l radio button and click the IdPENl button to
open a previously saved IWEM analysis; doing so will launch the familiar Windows
lOPENl dialog box where you can navigate to the folder and file containing the previously
saved IWEM analysis. This file will have a ".wem" file extension. After you select the
appropriate file, the following dialog box will be displayed:
Open File For...
(* Tier 1 Analysis
P Tier 2 Analysis
I
You can select the ITiER 1 ANALYSIS! radio button and click the lOPENl button to open
your saved analysis in Tier 1; doing so will take you directly to the WMU Type (6) screen
- the first Tier 1 input screen. Or, you can select the ITlER 2 ANALYSIS! radio button and click
the IdPENl button to open your saved analysis in Tier 2; doing so will take you directly to
the WMU Type (16) screen - the first Tier 2 input screen. By default, IWEM will open
the file for a Tier 1 analysis.
5-26
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
C. Go to Next IWEM Screen
Click the NEXT button at the bottom right of the screen to proceed to the next
screen.
D. Go to Previous IWEM Screen
Click the PREVIOUS button at the bottom left of the screen to go back to the
previous introductory screen.
E. Click to Display More Information
Clicking on any keyword displayed in blue underlined text will display a text box
containing a definition or other information about the underlined item. After reading the
definition, you can click on the OK button at the bottom of the dialog box to close the
text box and return to the Data Requirements (3) screen.
F. Move Slider Down to View More Text
Depending upon your monitor settings, you may need to use the scroll-bar on the
far right side of these screens to display more text if the complete text does not fit on the
screen all at once.
G. Go to WMU Type (6) screen
Click on the TIER 1 EVALUATION | button to begin a Tier 1 analysis for your waste.
Generally, you should perform the Tier 1 analysis first and then proceed on to the Tier 2
analysis, if appropriate. A Tier 1 evaluation begins at WMU Type (6) screen (Section
5.4).
H. Go to WMU Type (16) screen
Click on the TIER2 EVALUATION) button to begin a Tier 2 analysis for your waste.
Generally, you should perform the Tier 1 analysis first and then proceed on to the Tier 2
analysis, if appropriate. However, if desired, you can proceed directly to Tier 2 by
clicking this button. A Tier 2 evaluation begins at WMU Type (16) screen (Section 5.5).
You can also begin an evaluation by using either of these methods:
Click on the | EVALUATION) menu and choose from | TIER 11 or TIER2 , or
Click on the T1 or T21 toolbar buttons.
5-27
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
5.4 Tier 1 Evaluation
The IWEM Tier 1 analysis automates the comparison of your expected leachate
concentration^) with the Tier 1 LCTV lookup table to produce waste management
recommendations for your particular waste. The IWEM Tier 1 analysis consists of four
main screen groups: Tier 1 Input, Tier 1 Output (Summary), Tier 1 Output (Details), and
Tier 1 Evaluation Summary. Each of the first three of these groups contains several
screens.
The Tier 1 Input screen group consists of three screens:
WMU Type (6)
Constituent List (7)
Leachate Concentration (8)
The Tier 1 Output (Summary) screen group consists of two screens:
MCL Summary (9)
HBN Summary (10)
The Tier 1 Output (Details) screen group consists of three screens:
Results for No Liner (11) [based on MCL and HBN1
Results for Single Liner (12) [based on MCL and HBN1
Results for Composite Liner (13) [based on MCL and HBN]
The overall Tier 1 result is then displayed on the Tier 1 Evaluation Summary (14)
screen.
The available options and data displayed on each of these screens are explained in
the following sections.
5.4.1 Tier 1 Input Screen Group
5.4.1.1 Tier I Input: WMU Type (6)
This is the first input screen for a Tier 1 evaluation; you can select the WMU type
and enter facility identification information on this screen, as explained below.
5-28
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
« Tie -1 Input
! WMU Type (6)
SelfdWMU Type
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
Landfill
Surface Impoundment
Waste Pile
Land Application Unit
B. Enter Descriptive Facility Identification Information
Then, in the text boxes located in the lower half of the screen, enter the following
information about the WMU being evaluated:
Facility name
Address of the WMU (street, city, state, zip)
Date of waste constituent sample analysis
User name (name of the person performing the liner evaluation)
Any additional identifying information that you would like to include
All facility identification information will be included on the printed Tier 1, and if
performed, Tier 2 Evaluation Reports.
C. Go to Next IWEM screen
After entering your site information, click the | NEXT| button at the bottom right of
the screen to proceed to the next screen.
5.4.1.2 Tier I Input: Constituent List (7)
On this screen you can, select constituents expected in leachate by searching for
the name or CAS number or by scrolling through the displayed list of IWEM constituents,
as explained below.
What waste constituents can I enter in the IWEM software?
On the Constituent List (7) screen, you will find the list of waste constituents that
are included in the IWEM database. This list of constituents includes 206 organics and
20 metals. These constituents are presented in Appendix A.
5-30
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
D. ADD highlighted
constituents to
1 SELECTED CONSTITUENTS]
list
WMUType(6)
Constituent
Se
Constituent Name:|
CASNumberr
All Constituents
83-32-9 Acenaphthene
75-07-0 Acetaldehyde [Ethanel]
67-64-1 Acetone (2-propanone)
75-05-8 Acetomtrile (methyl cyanide)
98-86-2 Acetophenone
1 07-02-8 Acrolem
79-06-1 Acrylemide
79-1 0-7 Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
107-13-1 Acrvlomtnle
309-00-2 Ald'rm
107-1 8-6 Allyl alcohol
62-53-3 Aniline (benzenearnme)
120-1 2-7 Anthracene
M40-36-0 Antimony
7440-38-2 Arsenic
jst (7)
iortBy
Constituent Name
CAS Number
A. Filter
ALL CONSTITUENTS
ist
Leachate Concentration (8)
Type of Constituent
ff All Constituents
l~ Organics
r Metals
Selected Constituents
71 -43-2 Benzene
75-09-2 Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
7440-36-0 Antimony
« Previous
C. Select constituents
to be included in
Tier 1 analysis
F. REMOVE highlighted
constituents from
SELECTED CONSTITUENTS]
list
Figure 5.15 Tier 1 Input: Constituent List (7).
The features identified in Figure 5.15 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. Filter ALLGOr^nTUENTs| List
You can choose to display only organics, only metals, or all constituents by
clicking one of the radio buttons within the frame titled | TYPEOFGOrxBHTUErxTr|.
5-31
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
B. Choose Sorting Order for ALL CCNSTnUENlS\ List
You can determine whether the constituents are sorted by name or by CAS
number by clicking one of the radio buttons within the frame titled | SORT BY .
C. Select Constituents to be Included in Tier 1 Analysis
The following keyboard functions simplify the selection of more than one waste
constituent:
To add a group of constituents that are displayed sequentially in the list (that
is, one after another without any non-selected constituents in the middle),
click on the first desired waste constituent, press down the SHIFT| key, and
then click on the last desired waste constituent. All waste constituents listed
between the first and last chosen constituents should now be highlighted.
To add a number of constituents that not are displayed sequentially, click on
the first waste constituent, and then hold down the | CONTROL | (Ctrl) key while
selecting additional constituents using the mouse.
Once your selection is complete, use the ADD button (described below) to
transfer all the highlighted constituents to your list.
D. Add Highlighted Constituents to \ SELECTED CONSTITUENTS List
Once the appropriate constituents are highlighted in the list (on the left of the
screen), you can click the ADD button ,XJ in the center of the screen to transfer it to your
list of constituents present in the leachate (on the right side of the screen). Note that a
waste constituent can also be added quickly to your list by double-clicking on it in the list
on the left. Likewise, multiple selections can be added using the same technique:
double-clicking on your highlighted list of constituents once you have created it using the
| SHIFT| or CONTROL | keys, as described above.
E. List of Constituents to be Included in Tier 1 Analysis
After adding a constituent to your analysis, that constituent's name and CAS
number will appear in the | SELECTED CONSTITUENT| listbox on the right side of the screen.
5-32
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
F. Remove Highlighted Constituents from SELECTED CONSTITUENTS | List
Similarly, you can click the
REMOVE) button ~3*J to remove highlighted
constituent(s) from your list of selected constituents. You may also use the short-cut
techniques previously described in item D above ( SHIFT and CONTROL keys, double-
clicking) to delete constituents.
G. Search for Constituents by Name or CAS Number
As an alternative to selecting constituents by scrolling through the display list, you
can search for constituents by entering their name or CAS number in the | SEARCH B/| box
at the top-left of the screen. IWEM will match the name or CAS number to its database
while you type and as soon as you have typed in enough information to identify one of the
listed constituents, that waste constituent will be highlighted in the list. You can use the
| ARROW| keys on the keyboard to move up or down the list if the highlighted constituent is
not exactly the one you intended to select.
You can move through the constituent display list to select a particular constituent
by using any of these methods:
To move through the list of waste constituents:
1) Use the scroll bar at the right of the displayed list
2) Use the ARROW keys on the keyboard (once one
constituent in the list is selected)
3) Type in the constituent name or CAS number in the
I SEARCH BY text box
Once your list of waste constituents is complete, you can proceed with the Tier 1
evaluation by clicking on either the screen titled | LEACHATECCNCEMTFiATlCN| or the NEXT|
button at the bottom of the screen.
5-33
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
5.4.1.3 Tier I Input: Leachate Concentration (8)
On this screen, you can enter the expected leachate concentration (in milligrams
per liter [mg/L]) for each selected waste constituent, as explained below. Please see
Chapter 2 - Waste Characterization of the Guide for analytical procedures that can be
used to determine leachate concentrations for waste constituents.
The Tier 1 Evaluation cannot be performed until an expected leachate
concentration is entered for each selected waste constituent.
MTier 1 Input
.JnJxJ
Leachate Concentration (8)
CAS
Constituent Name
Es
mated Leachate Concentration
(mg/L)
71-43-^
75-03-2
7440-36-0
Benzene
0.01
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Antimony
0.02
0.03
« Erevious
Mext»
Figure 5.16 Tier 1 Input: Leachate Concentration (8).
5-34
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
The features identified in Figure 5.16 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. List of Constituents to be Included in Tier 1 Analysis
The constituent names and CAS numbers for all selected waste constituents will
appear in the table on this screen.
B. Enter Expected Leachate Concentration^)
This table is similar to a spreadsheet. Using the mouse, click on the first empty
cell in the | ESTIMATED LEACHATE CONCENTRATION column, and type in your expected leachate
concentration. The concentration must be entered in units of mg/L, and cannot exceed
1,000 mg/L.1 The IWEM software will display a warning message similar to the one
shown below (after the description of item C) if you enter an expected leachate
concentration that exceeds the solubility of that constituent, as cited in the IWEM
database. If you accidentally entered the wrong value, click the | YES| button and correct
the expected leachate concentration on the Leachate Concentration (8) screen. If you
want to proceed with the evaluation using your entered value, click the No| button. In
this case, a similar warning message about your input leachate concentration will be
included in the printed report.
After entering the expected leachate concentration for the first selected
constituent, then click on the cell below, press the | TAB| key, or press the ARROW-DOWN
key to move to the next cell and enter the next concentration. Repeat this process until
you have entered expected leachate concentrations for all waste constituents. You can
move up and down through the list of leachate concentration values and edit them by
using the ARROW-UP and ARROW-DOWMJ keys on your keyboard or by using the mouse to
click on the value that you want to change and entering a new concentration value.
C. Perform Tier 1 Analysis
Simply click on the | NEXT| button at the bottom right of the screen to perform the
Tier 1 evaluation and view your results. Before allowing you to proceed, IWEM will
check to make sure that you have entered a leachate concentration for all constituents, and
will compare the leachate concentration(s) to the corresponding solubility limits in the
EPA does not expect leachate concentrations from units covered by this guidance to exceed 1,000 mg/L for
a single constituent. Additionally, the fate and transport assumptions in IWEM may not be valid at high
concentrations. Therefore, the EPA has designed IWEM so that the input expected leachate concentrations
are not allowed to exceed 1,000 mg/L.
5^35
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
constituent database. If any leachate concentration^) exceed the solubility limit, the
following warning message will be displayed to alert you and to ask if you want to change
the concentration value. If you select No|, the analysis will proceed.
The leachate concentration specified for Acenaphthene is greater than the cited solubility value in
the database of 4.24 mg/l.
Do you want to change the leachate concentration ?
Ves
No
5.4.2 Tier I Output (Summary) Screen Group: MCL Summary and HBN
Summary (9 and 10)
The IWEM Tier 1 analysis is essentially a query to an existing database of
modeling results. The results of this database query are immediately presented in
summary form on screens 9 and 10, as shown below in Figures 5.17 and 5.18.
5-36
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
IJB Tier 1 Output (Summary)
MCL Summary (9)
HBN Summary (10)
CAS Number Constituent Name
Minimum Liner Recommendation
71-13-2
Benzene
No Liner
75-09-2
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Single Liner
7440-36-0
Antimony
SlllL|lK' L III':
Based on consideration of the MCL values of all listed constituents, the Single Liner
minimum liner recommended is:
« Previous
Detailed Results
Next»
C. Go to
Results - No Liner (II)
B. Overall
Tier 1 liner
recommendation
based on MCLs
D. Go to
HBN Summary (10)
screen
Figure 5.17 Tier 1 Output (Summary): MCL Summary (9).
5-37
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
H Tier 1 Output (Summary)
MCL Summary (9)
J HBN Summary (10)
Minimum Liner Recommendation
Composite Liner
No Liner
Single Liner
CAS Number
Constituent Name
71 -43-2
75-09-2
Benzene
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
7440-36-0
Antimony
Based on consideration of the HBN values of all listed constituents, the
minimum liner recommended is:
Composite Liner
« Previous
Detailed Results
Becommendation >:
i.
C. Go to
Results-No Liner (I I)
E. Go to
Tier 1 Evaluation
Summary (14)
Figure 5.18 Tier 1 Output (Summary): HBN Summary (10).
The features identified in Figures 5.17 and 5.18 are explained in more detail in the
following paragraphs.
A. Tier 1 Liner Recommendations Based on MCLs/HBNs
The results of the Tier 1 Evaluation are first presented on-screen in summary
form. The summary results are divided into two screens: one, for LCTVs calculated
based on MCLs; and one, for LCTVs calculated based on HBNs.
5-38
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
Not all waste constituents have both an MCL and an HBN. The MCL summary
screen provides a minimum liner recommendation for each of the selected constituents
that have an MCL. Likewise, the HBN screen presents a minimum liner recommendation
for each of the selected constituents that have an HBN. These recommendations are
based on a comparison of the expected leachate concentration for that constituent to the
calculated LCTV using the constituent-specific MCL or HBN. For those constituents that
have more than one HBN, the LCTV is calculated for each HBN, and the HBN that
produces the lowest LCTV is used to determine the Tier 1 liner recommendation. The
value and type (pathway and effect) of the controlling HBN are shown on the Detailed
Results screens (11 through 13).
For each constituent in an IWEM Tier 1 evaluation, a liner recommendation that
is protective is presented in green text. If the composite liner scenario is not protective,
this message is presented in red text. If a constituent does not have a liner
recommendation on the MCL Summary (9) screen because it does not have an MCL, this
message is presented in black text.
B. Overall Tier 1 Liner Recommendation Based on MCLs/HBNs
This text box displays an overall minimum liner recommendation which is based
on consideration of all waste constituents.
The overall liner recommendation may be different based upon whether HBNs or
MCLs are being used. Depending upon the waste constituents being evaluated and the
appropriate RGC for each, you may have to create for yourself a final list of LCTV values
and minimum liner recommendations, some based on MCLs and some based on HBNs.
You should obtain direction from your state regulatory authority regarding which RGC
should be used for the Tier 1 evaluation of a particular waste.
C. Go to Results - No Liner (11) screen
Clicking on this button will take you to a detailed listing of the Tier 1 results,
including the constituent-specific LCTVs for all evaluated liner scenarios.
D. Go to HBN Summary (10) screen
Clicking on this button will take you to minimum liner recommendations based
on a comparison of expected leachate concentrations to calculated LCTVs.
5-39
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
E. Go to Tier 1 Evaluation Summary (14) screen
Clicking on this button will skip over the Tier 1 detailed results and will take you
directly to the Tier 1 Evaluation Summary Screen where you can choose to view the Tier
1 report or proceed on to a Tier 2 Evaluation.
5.4.3 Tier 1 Output (Details) Screen Group: Results - No Liner, Single Clay Liner,
and Composite Liner (11,12, and 13)
Clicking the | DETAILED RESULTS button leads you to the detailed results of the Tier
1 Evaluation. This screen group consists of the following three screens, one for each liner
scenario: no liner; single clay liner; and composite liner. Each screen presents results
based on MCL and HBN reference concentrations for one of the liner scenarios.
The layout of these screens is the same, the only difference is the liner scenario,
which is indicated on the tab showing the screen name.
5-40
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
A. No-liner
LCTV based
on MCL
fTier 1 Output (Details)
Results -No Liner (11)
Results - Single Liner (1 2)
CAS Constituent MCI
71-43-2 Benzene
. 75-09-2 Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
7440-36-0 Antimony
CAS Constituent HBN
(mg/L) Cc
71-43-2 Benzene 00016
75-09-2 Methylene Chloride 0.013
(Dichloromethane)
7440-36-0 Antimony 00098
Results Based on MCL
-(mg/L) Leactee
Concentration (mg/L)
0005 001
0.005 002
0.006 003
DAF
(
22 i
B. Results of
comparison between
LCTV and expected
leachate concentratioi
Res
CTV Protective
ig/q
| 0011
2,2 0011 Ho
i
-Inlxl
ills - Composite Liner (1 3)
\
N/A 0014 No
Results Based on HBN
Leachate DAF
ncentration (mg/L)
LCTV (mg/L)
Out 22 00036
0.02 2.2 g
0.03 N/A
'Some LCTVs may be capped Details are given m Tier! Report See User's Guide or Help tor mort
« Previous
F. Go ba
Summa
screen
i ) Summary Results
. 0.029
0023
Protective? Controlling Pathway & Effect
No Inhalat
'sst
No
rnformation
ck to C. No-liner
rv Results (9) LCTV based
on HBN
on Cancer
1 Ingestjon Cancer .
Ingestron Non-cancer
Ne>
D. Results of
comparison
between LCTV
and expected
leachate
concentration
1
»
E. HBN
and effect
Figure 5.19 Tier 1 Output (Details): Results - No Liner (11).
5-41
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
1 Output (Detailt)
Results-No Liner (11)
Results - Single Liner (12)
B. Results of
comparison between
LCTV and expected
leachate concentration
ills - Composite Liner (13)
Results Based on MCL
CAS
75-09-2
7440-36-0
Constituent
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Antimony
MCL(mg/L)
0.005
0.006
Leach &IB
Concentration (mg/L)
0.02
0-03
DAF
6.2
N/A
I JTV
( i
0.031
Protective
Results Based on HBN
CAS
Constituent
HBN
uriy.'L)
Leachate
Concentration (mg/L)
DAF
LCTV
(mg/L)
Protective'
Controlling Pathway i Effed
71-43-2
Benzene
75-Q9-Z
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
00016
0.01
6,1
0,0097
Inhalation Cancer
0.013
6.2 0.081
Ingestion Cancer
7440-36-0
Antimony
00096
0.03
N/A
O.OE9
Yes
ingestion Non-cancer
* Some LCTVs mey be capped Details are given in Tierl Report See User's Guide or Help for rtiori
Summary Results
F. Go back to
Summary Results (9)
Figure 5.20 Tier 1 Output (Details): Results - Single Clay Liner (12).
5-42
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
A. Composite-
liner LCTV
based on MCL
B. Results of
comparison
between LCTV
and expected
leachate
concentration
Results Based on HBN
CAS
Constituent
HBN
inig/L)
Leachate
Concentration (mg/L)
DAF
LCTV
(mg/L)
Protective?
Controlling Pathway & Etfecl
71-13-2
Benzene
00016
0,01 1.90E*04
0.5
Inhalation Cancer
75-09-2
71-10-36-0
Methylene Chlonde
(Dictiloromethane)
Antimony
0013
00098
0,02
0,03
6.30E»05
N/A
1000
Yes
1000
Yes
Ingestion Cancer
Ingestion Non-cancer
* Some LCTVs may be capped Details are given in Tierl Report, See User's Guide or Help lor more int
« Previous
Summary Results
BfiCGrnffi -ndatron
F. Go back to
Summary Results (9)
Figure 5.21 Tier 1 Output (Details): Results - Composite Liner (13).
5-43
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
The features identified in Figures 5.19 through 5.21 are explained in more detail
in the following paragraphs.
A. Liner-Specific LCTV based on MCL
The Tier 1 constituent- and liner-specific LCTV is displayed on this screen. An
LCTV is the maximum concentration of a constituent in the waste leachate that is
protective of ground water. That is, if the concentration in the leachate does not exceed
the LCTV, then the modeled concentration in ground water (at the modeled well) will not
exceed the MCL for that constituent.
B. Results of Comparison between LCTV and Expected Leachate Concentration
The data displayed in the top window of the screen present the result on which the
liner recommendation is based for each selected constituent. The last column in the table
(with the header PROTECTIVE? ) tells you whether or not the specified liner is protective of
ground water for that constituent. This determination is made by comparing the entered
leachate concentration with the LCTV calculated from the MCL. If the expected leachate
concentration is greater than the LCTV, the liner is not recommended as being protective
("No"), whereas, if the expected leachate concentration is less than the LCTV, the liner is
recommended as being protective ("Yes"). If the LCTV is not calculated for that
constituent because the MCL is not available, "NA" (not applicable) is displayed in this
cell.
To properly interpret the results of the Tier 1 Evaluation, you should consult with
the appropriate state regulatory agency to determine which RGC should be used for each
constituent of concern. For wastes with multiple constituents of concern, you may need
to construct your own final list of liner recommendations, some from LCTVs based on
MCLs and some from LCTVs based on HBNs.
For waste streams with multiple constituents, the most protective liner specified
for any one constituent is the overall recommended liner type.
C. Liner-Specific LCTV based on HBN
The Tier 1 constituent- and liner-specific LCTV is displayed on this screen. An
LCTV is the maximum concentration of a constituent in the waste leachate from a
modeled WMU that is protective of ground water. That is, if the concentration in the
leachate does not exceed the LCTV, then the modeled concentration in ground water (at
the modeled well) will not exceed the HBN for that constituent.
5-44
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
D. Results of Comparison between LCTVand Expected Leachate Concentration
The data displayed in the bottom window of the screen present the liner
recommendation for each selected constituent. The column with the header PROTECTIVE?
tells you whether or not the specified liner is protective of ground water for that
constituent. This determination is made by comparing the entered leachate concentration
with the LCTV based on the most protective HBN. If the expected leachate concentration
is greater than the LCTV, the liner is not recommended as being protective ("No"),
whereas, if the expected leachate concentration is less than the LCTV, the liner is
recommended as being protective ("Yes").
To properly interpret the results of the Tier 1 evaluation, you should consult with
the appropriate state regulatory agency to determine which RGC should be used for each
constituent of concern. For wastes with multiple constituents of concern, you may need
to construct your own final list of liner recommendations, some from LCTVs based on
MCLs and some from LCTVs based on HBNs.
For waste streams with multiple constituents, the most protective liner specified
for any one constituent is the overall recommended liner type. For constituents that have
more than one HBN, IWEM calculates the LCTV for each HBN and uses the HBN that
produces the lowest LCTV to determine the Tier 1 liner recommendation.
E. HBN Pathway and Effect
The exposure pathway and health effect for the HBN that is used to calculate the
LCTV, that is, the controlling HBN, is displayed in the column labeled | CONTROLLING
PATHWAY & EFFECT . IWEM accounts for direct ingestion and inhalation pathways, and
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects. The |H3N| column in the table shows
the value, in mg/L, of the controlling HBN.
F. Go Back to the Summary Results (9) screen
Clicking on this button will take you back to the Tier 1 MCL Summary Results
(9) screen.
G. Go to Tier 1 Evaluation Summary (14) screen
Clicking on the RECOMI\/ENDAT1ON| button on screen 13 will take you to the next
screen, the Tier 1 Evaluation Summary screen, where you can choose to view the
printable Tier 1 report, or proceed on to a Tier 2 evaluation.
5-45
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
5.4.4 Tier 1 Evaluation Summary Screen (14)
This screen (Figure 5.22) contains an overall summary of the Tier 1 evaluation
results along with options for further (Tier 2) evaluation. You can also view or print a
report of the Tier 1 evaluation by clicking on the REPORT button at the bottom of the
screen.
111 Tier 1 Evaluation Summary
To refine the
the Tier 2 evi
Tier 1 Evaluation Summary (14)
The results of the Tier 1 analysis recommend the following design:
Composite Liner
liner recommendation, you may continue on with this program. You will be guided through
luation. where you will have the opportunity to input data that are specific to your site.
In addition to gathering site-specific data for a Tier 2 analysis, you may consider pollution prevention,
treatment, and more protective liner designs as well as consultation with regulators, the public, and
industry to ensure that wastes are protectively managed.
You may print the Tier 1 results before continuing or exiting this program.
« Previous
Report
Continue
Figure 5.22 Tier 1 Evaluation Summary (14).
The features identified in Figure 5.22 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
5-46
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
A. Overall Tier 1 Liner Recommendation
The Tier 1 liner recommendation, based on consideration of all available RGC
values for each waste constituent, is displayed at the top of this screen. For landfills,
surface impoundments, and waste piles the available recommendations are: "no liner,"
"single clay liner," "composite liner," or "not protective." For LAUs, the available
recommendations are: "no liner" or "not protective." If your Tier 1 evaluation results in a
recommendation of "not protective," this indicates that either the chosen WMU is not
appropriate for managing your waste or you may need to continue to a Tier 2 or Tier 3
analysis to further evaluate your site.
B. List of IWEM Options
After reviewing your Tier 1 results on-screen, you can choose to continue by,
Going back to the previous screens of the Tier 1 results by clicking on
the PREVIOUS button,
Viewing the Tier 1 report by clicking the REPORT | button, or
Beginning a Tier 2 Evaluation by clicking the CONTINUE button.
Or, you can choose to save your results and exit IWEM as described in Section
5.2.4 of this User's Guide.
C. Display Tier 1 Reports
Clicking on the REPORT button first displays a dialog box with the following
question:
| DO YOU WANTTOSHOWTHE DETAILS?
Choosing | No| will display a summary version of the IWEM Tier 1 Report. This
short version of the report includes the following information and data:
Facility data entered on Screen 6
List of selected constituents and their corresponding leachate
concentrations
Tier 1 summary results for each selected constituent, based on both MCLs
and HBNs
Tier 1 detailed results for each selected constituent, based on both MCLs
and HBNs, and including an explanation of any caps or warnings that
apply to the presented LCTVs
5-47
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
Choosing | YES| will display a complete version of the IWEM Tier 1 Report. This
detailed version of the report includes the following additional information and data:
Constituent properties and RGCs for each selected constituent, including
full references for the data sources.
After making your choice, the selected report will be displayed on-screen. The
following toolbar buttons to print, save, and scroll through the pages of the report are
prov ided along the top of the screen:
Print the report; the PRINT | dialog box allows you to adjust printer
settings or print all or selected pages.
Export the report in order to save it to a file; after specifying the file
type, destination type, and the pages to be included, the | CHOOSE
EXPORT RLE | dialog box then appears; you can specify the file type, and
then select the file name and directory. The file types in this list are
dependent upon what software you have installed on your personal
computer. Most users will find that the option for PDF format will
produce a document-ready report.
View the next page of the report.
View the last page of the report.
View the previous page of the report.
View the first page of the report.
5-48
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
1QO%
Change the display size of the report.
A Tier 1 Report Includes:
1) List of selected waste constituent(s) and constituent
data
2) Minimum liner requirement based on MCLs
3) Minimum liner requirement based on HBNs
4) Data used to calculate the LCTV for each liner
An example Tier 1 report is included in this User's Guide in Appendix B.
D. Go to WMU Type (16) screen
Clicking here will take you to the Tier 2 Input screen. WMU Type, facility
description information, and your list of selected Tier 1 constituents are automatically
transferred to the Tier 2 analysis.
5.4.5 Exiting the IWEM software
You can exit the IWEM software by clicking on the | RLE| menu, and choosing
| EXIT . If you forget to save before trying to exit the IWEM software, a dialog box will
ask if you want to save your data before exiting the software.
5-49
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
5.5 Tier 2 Evaluation
In a Tier 2 evaluation, IWEM analyzes available site-specific data to develop liner
recommendations that are more tailored to your site conditions than the national,
screening-level Tier 1 evaluations. This section of the User's Guide describes the Tier 2
input and results screens.
The main Tier 2 Input screen group (Figure 5.23) consists of the following screens
and dialog boxes:
WMUTvpe(16)
WMU Parameters (17)
Subsurface Parameters (18)
Infiltration (19)
Climate Center List (19a)
Constituent List (20)
Enter New Constituent Data (20a)
Add New Constituent (20b)
Add New Data Source (20d)
Constituent Properties (21)
Toxicity Standards (22)
Input Summary (23)
After you complete the Tier 2 data inputs, IWEM will begin the Tier 2 analysis.
The Tier 2 Evaluation Run Manager (24) screen is displayed during the Tier 2
analysis. Depending upon the model inputs and the speed of your PC, a Tier 2 analysis
may take anywhere from several minutes to several hours to complete.
The Tier 2 results are then presented on the Summary Results (25) screen. The
Detailed Results screen for the Tier 2 Evaluation varies according to the option you chose
for the infiltration rate. When using an IWEM-generated location-based estimate of
infiltration, the Detailed Results screen for Tier 2 consists of either three screens (for
landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles) or one screen (for LAUs):
Results - No Liner (26)
Results - Single Clay Liner (27)
Results - Composite Liner (28)
5-50
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
When using a user-specified infiltration rate, the Detailed Results screen for
Tier 2 consists of only a single screen:
User-Defined Liner Results (28)
The overall Tier 2 result is then displayed on the Tier 2 Evaluation Summary (29).
The available options and data displayed on each of these screens and dialog
boxes are explained in the following sections.
5.5.1 Tier 2 Input Screen Group
If you begin with the Tier 1 Evaluation and choose to proceed to the Tier 2
Evaluation with the same selected constituents, then the WMU type, list of waste
constituents, and the expected leachate concentrations specified in Tier 1 are
automatically transferred to Tier 2. These values can also be edited in Tier 2, if desired.
5.5.1.1 Tier 2 Input: Waste Management Unit Type (16)
The first screen of the Tier 2 Input screen group, WMU Type (16), is identical to
the Tier 1 WMU Type screen.
5-51
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
M Tier 2 Input
WMU Typ
> (16) ] WMU Parameters (17) ]
Select WMU T^e
<" Surface Impoundment
<~ Waste Pile
<~ Land Application Unit
Facility Identification Information
Southern Industries Landfill
122 Industrial Ave
Raleigh
27611
October 31,1998
Next»
B. Enter descriptive
facility information
Figure 5.23 Tier 2 Input: WMU Type (16).
The features identified in Figure 5.23 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. Choose WMU Type
First, select one of the following choices from the | SELECT\AMJTYPE) option list by
clicking on the appropriate radio button:
Landfill
Surface Impoundment
Waste Pile
Land Application Unit
5-52
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
B. Enter Descriptive Facility Information
In the text boxes located in the lower half of the screen, enter the following
information about the WMU being evaluated:
Facility name
Address of the WMU (street, city, state, zip)
Date of waste constituent analysis
Your name (name of the person performing the liner evaluation)
Any additional identifying information that you would like to include
All information entered in these text boxes will be included on the printed Tier 2
Evaluation Reports (and in the Tier 1 report, if these data were carried over from a
previous Tier 1 analysis).
5.5.1.2 Tier 2 Input: WMU Parameters (17)
The Tier 2 evaluation uses site-specific WMU data to assess potential ground-
water impacts. The WMU parameters are entered on the WMU Parameters (17) screen.
A complete list of all WMU parameters is shown below, however, not all parameters are
applicable for each WMU type. For instance, data on the WMU's operational life is used
only for surface impoundments, waste piles, and LAUs. This parameter is not applicable
to landfills. Some parameters are marked as (required). This means that you must
provide a site-specific value for this parameter. If a parameter is not marked as
(required), IWEM will use a site-specific value if you have it. If you do not have this
data, IWEM gives you the option to select a default value, or distribution of values.
These default values are generally the median values of the distributions of values used in
Tier 1.
WMU Parameters:
Area of the WMU (required)
Distance to well
Depth of WMU (LF only) (required)
Ponding depth (SI only) (required)
Operational life of WMU (WP, SI, and LAU only)
Depth of WMU base below ground surface (LF, WP, and SI only)
Sludge thickness (SI only)
Distance to nearest surface water body (SI only)
Brief explanation for each site-specific value (required)
5-53
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
For each type of WMU, the Tier 2 WMU screen looks slightly different, as shown
below in Figures 5.24 through 5.27.
IJB Tier 2 Input
-JDlxl
WMU Type (16) | WMU Parameters (17) \ Subsurface Parameters (18) |
This screen allows you to enter or change land application unit parameters. Justifications for parameters are required.
A. Enter available
site-specific
values for LAU
Figure 5.24 Tier 2 Input: WMU Parameters (17) for Land Application Units.
5-54
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
WMUType(16)
WMU Parameters (17) Subsurface Parameters (18)
This screen allows you to enter or change landfill parameters. Justifications for parameters are required.
Perameter
Value | Data Source
6.5
Distance to well (m)
150
Landfill area (rrT2) [requires site specific value]
Depth of base of the LF below ground surface (m)
123556
Log Book
Default
Topo Maps
Default
« Previous
Apply Defaults
Ne>
A. Enter available
site-specific
values for LF
Figure 5.25 Tier 2 Input: WMU Parameters (17) for Landfills.
5-55
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
C. Enter or select
the distance to
the nearest surface
water body
t Tier 2 Input
WMUType(16)
Subsurface Parameters (18)
This screen allows you to enter or change surface impoundment parameters Justifications for parameters are n
Distance to Nearest Surface Water Body (m) [Unknown, but less than 2000m (Model uses 360m)
quired.
Parameter
Radial distance to well (m)
Depth of base of the SI below ground surface (m)
Sludge thickness (m)
Surface impoundment area (m"2) [requires site specific value]
Ponding depth (m) [requires site specific value]
erational life (yr)
Value | Data Source
150
Default
Default
.2 Default
1234556 Topo maps
1.6
50
Initial Estimate
Default
« Previous
Apply Defaults
A. Enter available
site-specific
values for SI
Figure 5.26 Tier 2 Input: WMU Parameters (17) for Surface Impoundments.
5-56
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
WMU Type (16) | WMU Pa
This screen allows you to enter or change waste pile parameters. Justifications for parameters are required
A. Enter available
site-specific
values for WP
Figure 5.27 Tier 2 Input: WMU Parameters (17) for Waste Piles.
For all Tier 2 input parameters for which you enter site-specific values,
remember to type in a brief justification or explanation of this value. This
information is required and will be included in the printed report.
The features identified in Figure 5.24 through 5.27 are explained in more detail in
the following paragraphs.
5-57
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
A. Enter Available Site-Specific Values
Land Application Unit (Figure 5.24)
For LAUs, site-specific values for the following parameters may be entered:
Area of the LAU (required)
Distance to nearest well (optional; default = 150m)
Operational life of the LAU (optional; default = 40 yrs)
Landfill (Figure 5.25)
For LFs, site-specific values for the following parameters may be entered:
Area of the LF (required)
Distance to nearest well (optional; default = 150m)
Depth of the LF (required)
Depth of the LF base below ground surface (optional; default = Om)
Surface Impoundment (Figure 5.26)
For Sis, site-specific values for the following parameters may be entered:
Area of the SI (required)
Distance to nearest well (optional; default = 150m)
Ponding depth (required)
Operational life of the SI (optional; default = 50 yrs)
Depth of SI base below ground surface (optional; default = Om)
Sludge thickness (optional; default = 0.2 m)
Waste Pile (Figure 5.27)
For WPs, site-specific values for the following parameters may be entered:
Area of the WP (required)
Distance to nearest well (optional; default = 150m)
Operational life of the WP (optional; default = 20 yrs)
Depth of the WP base below ground surface (optional; default = Om)
5-58
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
B. Enter Data Source
For all Tier 2 input parameters for which you enter site-specific values, remember
to type in a brief explanation of this value. This information is required and will be
included in the printed report.
C. Enter or Select the Distance to the Nearest Surface Water Body
For a SI, you must also either enter a value for the distance to the nearest
(permanent) surface water body or choose one of the default selections for this input
parameter. This parameter is used in the calculation of ground-water mounding to ensure
the model uses a realistic infiltration rate. If you do not know the exact distance to the
nearest surface water body, select "unknown" from the drop-down list by clicking on the
drop-down list control _LJ to select an approximate distance (i.e., unknown (model uses
360 m); unknown, but less than 2,000 m; unknown, but greater than 2,000 m).
5.5.1.3 Tier 2 Input: Subsurface Parameters (18)
This screen is where you enter site-specific data that describes the subsurface
environment at your site.
The subsurface parameters used in IWEM are listed below. You must select the
type of subsurface environment at your site from the supplied list. Section 6.2.3.2
provides more information on the subsurface environments. If you have no
hydrogeological information for your site, then "unknown" is an available choice. If your
list of waste constituents includes any metals, you must also provide a value for the
ambient ground-water pH. For the other subsurface parameters, you can provide a site-
specific value if you have it, but IWEM will use a default value or distribution of values
if you do not have this data.
Subsurface Parameters:
Subsurface environment (required, although "unknown" is an available
choice)
Depth to water table
Aquifer thickness
Regional hydraulic gradient
Aquifer hydraulic conductivity
Ground-water pH (required only if a metal is included in the waste
constituents)
5-59
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
Subsurface Parameters (IB) [^
Infiltration (19)
This screen allows you to enter or change the subsurface parameters
You MUST select a Subsurface Environment. If you select 'unknown' then the default values will be used for all parameters. In addition, you WAY enter values for one or
more hydrogeologic parameter(s). Data sources are required.
Select the Subsurface Environment: |
Alluvial & Flood Plain with Overtoank Deposits
Alluvial & Flo get P'l^in ''itflin!J-' ''i'1
Depiti to water table (m)
Aquiter hydraulic conductivity (in/v,
Regional hydraulic gradient
kness(m)
Till and Till over Outwash
Unconsoltdated and Semiconsolidated Shallow Aquifers
Coastal Beaches
Solution Limestone
Unknown
« Previous
Next»
A. Select subsurface
environment
Figure 5.28 Tier 2 Input: Subsurface Parameters (18)
Selecting Subsurface Environment.
The features identified in Figure 5.28 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraph.
A. Select Subsurface Environment
IWEM includes twelve different types of subsurface environments that represent
different hydrogeological settings. If you do not know what type of environment is
appropriate for your site, select "unknown." In effect, the "unknown" subsurface
environment is an average of the twelve known environments. You must select one of
the available subsurface environments. Figure 5.29 presents an example of what this
screen will look like if you choose one of the available subsurface environments (the
screen appears only slightly different if you set the subsurface environment to
"unknown").
5-60
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
This screen allows you to enter or change the subsurface parameters
You MUST select a Subsurface Envitonrnent. II you select 'unknown' then the default values will be used for all parameters. In addition, you MAY enter values for one or
more hydrogeologic parameter(s). Data sources are required.
Selectthe Subsurface Environment; (Sand and Gravel _^J
\ Parameter
Ground-water pH value (metals
Depth to water table (m)
. ikauliccGnduclrvityfm/yr)
Regional hydraulic gradient
Aquifer thickness (m)
Default
Value Data Source
I Distribution
Monte Carlo [see IWEM TBD 4.2.3.1]
Distribution
I Distribution
I Distribution
I Distribution
Monte Carlo [see IWEM TBD 4.2.3.1]
Monte Carlo [see IWEM TBD 4.2.3.1]
Monte Carlo [see IWEM TBD 4.2.3.1]
Monte Carlo [see IWEM TBD 4.2.3.1]
« Previous
Next»
A. Enter available
site-specific values
Figure 5.29 Tier 2 Input: Subsurface Parameters (18) -
Entering Values of Subsurface Parameters.
The features identified in Figure 5.29 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. Enter Available Site-Specific Values
If you select one of the twelve subsurface environments, then screen 18's
appearance will be similar to that shown in Figure 5.29. You may enter values for any
subsurface parameters for which you have site-specific data. However, you may enter
data for only some (but not all) of the parameters and continue with the Tier 2 analysis.
In this case, a distribution of parameter values that corresponds to the specified
subsurface environment will be used to generate values for any parameter for which you
do not enter a site-specific value. The word "Distribution" displayed in the default value
column and the phrase "Monte Carlo [see IWEM TBD 4.2.3.1]" in the data source
5-61
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
column indicate that IWEM will randomly select values for this parameter from the
appropriate distribution during the Tier 2 analysis process. The distributions reflect the
range of values that each parameter can have.
If you do not know the type of subsurface environment beneath your WMU, then
you can select the "unknown" subsurface environment. For the unknown subsurface
environment, a default value (the one displayed in the default value column) will be used
for any input parameter for which you do not enter a site-specific value; that is, the value
displayed on the screen will be input to the model as a constant value (no distribution of
values is used). Each default value corresponds to the mean value of the available data
for that parameter from all twelve subsurface environments. This value is representative
of a national average. You may enter values for subsurface parameters that you have site-
specific data for. However, if you are lacking data for one or more of the requested
parameters for your site, you can still perform a Tier 2 analysis. In this case, the default
(displayed) value will be used. The displayed value in the data source column and the
phrase "Default [see IWEM TBD 4.2.3.1]" in the data source column indicate that IWEM
will use the displayed default value for this input parameter in the Tier 2 analysis.
The subsurface parameters for which you can enter site-specific values are:
Ground-water pH
Depth to water table
Aquifer hydraulic conductivity
Regional hydraulic gradient
Aquifer thickness
A site-specific value for ground-water pH is only required if the modeled waste
constituents include metals; this parameter is not needed as a user-input for modeling
organic constituents.
B. View or Edit Data Source for Each Value
If you select one of the twelve subsurface environments, then for any Tier 2 input
parameter that you enter as a site-specific value, you must document the data source or
explain the value used. IWEM provides a default data source for all optional data. The
default data source is "Monte Carlo [see IWEM TBD 4.2.3.1]" as a reminder that a
distribution of values (rather than a single, constant value) is being used for this
parameter. All data sources or explanations for default or user-specified data are included
in the printed Tier 2 report.
5-62
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
If you select the unknown subsurface environment, then for any Tier 2 input
parameter that you enter as a site-specific value, you must document the data source or
explain the value used. IWEM provides a data source for all default data. For the
"unknown" subsurface environment, the default data source is "Default [see IWEM TBD
4.2.3.1]" as a reminder that a single, constant value (rather than a distribution of values)
The information provided on screens 17 and 18 completely describes the WMU
setting as required by IWEM. When you click NEXT| on screen 18, IWEM will
check your inputs to evaluate whether the setting you have described is physically
possible and consistent with the EPACMTP model.
IWEM verifies that:
the bottom of LFs and WPs are above the water table; and
the elevation of ponded water in a SI is higher than the water table
elevation.
If you do not specify the depth to ground water, IWEM will postpone this evaluation
until screen 19 has been completed. IWEM will notify you if either of the above
conditions is violated with a message box informing you of your options. If none of
the suggested options is consistent with the conditions at your site, IWEM is not
appropriate for your site, and you should consider a Tier 3 analysis. Consult Section
2.3 of this User's Guide, or the IWEM Technical Background Document (U.S. EPA,
2002c) for more information on the assumptions built into the EPACMTP model
which may make it unsuitable for a particular site.
is being used for this parameter. All data sources or explanations for default or
user-specified data are included in the printed Tier 2 report.
5.5.1.4 Tier 2 Input: Infiltration (19)
On screen 19 (Figure 5.30), you enter or select the infiltration rate that IWEM will
use in modeling your site. The first selection is whether you have site-specific infiltration
data, or wish to use IWEM default data if you do not have site-specific data.
In IWEM, infiltration refers to the liquid (leachate) that infiltrates to the
subsurface directly below a WMU; recharge refers to the natural precipitation that
infiltrates to the subsurface outside the footprint of the WMU.
5-63
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
Choose one of the following options for specifying infiltration rate:
YES, I HAVE9iE-spEancIMPLICATION| (i.e., a measured, modeled, or calculated
value);
No, I DO NOT HAVE 9TE-SPEanc INFLATION | (the model will estimate values for
you based on the selected soil type (or waste type permeability, for WPs) and
geographic location of the WMU site).
^^^^~ T v
[ Subsurface Parameters (18) [
3SUI
Do you have site-specific infiltration?
P Yes, I have Site-Specific Infiltration Results will be reported
for your user-defined liner.
Soil Data
Please select a soil type.
Coarse-grained soil (sandy loam)
Medium-grained soil (silt loam)
Fine-grained soil (silty clay loam)
Constiti ant List (20)
Mo. I do not have Site-Specific Infiltration. Re
reported forJhejJefault linertype(sj._
ultswillbej
i
r Local Climate Data -
Nearest Climate Center
View Cities List
Selected city Ptease select a city
Infiltration Rates (m/yr)
No Liner
| Single Liner | Composite Liner
<
uL
1
_^
Recharge Rate (m/yr)
All Scenarios
« Previous
Next»
Figure 5.30 Tier 2 Input: Infiltration (19) - Initial Appearance.
5-64
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
At its initial appearance (with the | No, I DO NOT HAVE 9TE-SPEQFIC INFILTRATION | radio
button selected by default), screen 19 will generally appear like Figure 5.30 (although this
screen can be slightly different depending upon the selected WMU type).
jl Tier 2 Input
VMU Parai; -
| Subsurface Parameters (1 8) |
Do you have site-specific infiltration?
.- Yes, 1 have Site-Specific Infiltration. Results will be reported .- No,
for your user-defined liner. rep
Infiltration (19) [
Id
3rtt
Constituent List (20)
o not have Site-Specific Infiltration. Results will be
sd for the default liner type(s).
Please select a soil tv/oe" [Coarse-qramed soil (sandy loam)
1
/ledium-aramed soil (silt oam)
Fine-grained soil (silty clay loam)
[Unknown soil type
I rw r.
Nearest Climate Center
Selected city
_
No Liner
0.326
View Cities List
Greensboro NC
« Previous
F
_
All Scenarios
0.326
Next»
Figure 5.31 Tier 2 Input: Infiltration (19) - Land Application Unit.
If you do not have a site-specific value for infiltration, once you have selected a
soil type (or waste type permeability, for waste piles) and climate center, screen 19 will
appear like one of the screens presented in Figures 5.31 through 5.34 depending on the
WMU type you have selected.
5-65
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
j| Tier 2 Input
Jn|x|
Subsurface Parameters (18) [ jjnfijtration (19]J
Constituent List (20)
Do you have site-specific infiltration?
,~ Yes. I have Site-Specific Infiltration. Results will be reported ff No. I do not have Site-Specific Infiltration. Results will be
for your user-defined liner. reported for the default liner type(s).
Please select a soil type:
Nearest Climate Center
Selected city
_ .
No Liner | Si
0.326 0.(
±LJ
Coarse-grained soil (sandy loam)
Fine-grained soil (silty clay loam)
Unknown soil type
View Cities List
Greensboro NC
_ _ . , .
ngle Liner Composite Liner All Scenarios
36 Monte Carlo 0.326
t
« Previous
Next»
Figure 5.32 Tier 2 Input: Infiltration (19) - Landfill.
5-66
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
j| Tier 2 Input
__JoJjx]
Subsurface Parameters (18)
Infiltration (19)
Constituent List (20)
Do you have site-specific infiltration?
-- Yes, I hove Site-Specific Infiltration. Results will be reported ,~ No. I do not have Site-Specific Infiltration. Results will be
for your user-defined liner. reported for the default liner type(s).
Soil Data ===^======^^^^^^^=^^^^^^^^=^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^=
Please select a soil type: |Coars^trainedsoil(sandyloarri)
rvtedium-drained sen ism looml
Fine-grained soil (silty clay loam)
Unknown soil type
Local Climate Data
Nearest Climate Center
View Cities List
Selected city Greensboro
Infiltration Rates (m/yr)
NC
No Liner
I Single Li
iner
Monte Carlo
Monte Carlo
I Composite Liner
Monte Carlo
Recharge Rate (m/yr)
All Scenarios
0.326
« Previous
Next»
Figure 5.33 Tier 2 Input: Infiltration (19) - Surface Impoundment.
5-67
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
|f Tier 2 Input
»M1~:> J Subsurface Parameters (18) J Infiltration (1 9) | Constituent List (20)
Do you have site-specific infiltration?
P Yes, 1 have Site-Specific Infiltration. Results will be reported ^ |No, 1 do not have Site-Specific Infiltration. Results will be j
for your user-defined liner. jreported for the default liner typejs).
Soil Data
PlpnsRSRlfirtnsniltvna- | Coarse-grained soil(sandy loam)
IBratHllnBilr-llitailai
ilrsilt loam)
Fine-grained soil(silty clay loam)
Unknown soil type
Reese select a permeability Low permeability
corresponding to waste type: Medium permeability *f_ , View Cities List
Hiqh permeability Climate Center
_ . ,
No Liner | Single Liner
Monte Carlo Monte Carlo
r-, u r^ . / / \
Compos te Liner All Scenarios |
Monte C< ilo 0.326
|_ J J
« Previous
Next»
F. Select waste
type according
to permeability
Figure 5.34 Tier 2 Input: Infiltration (19) - Waste Pile.
The features identified in Figures 5.30 through 5.34 are explained in more detail
in the following paragraphs.
A. Specify Infiltration Data Option
Displayed at the top of screen 19 is the following question:
"Do you have a site-specific value for infiltration rate?"
Select one of the two available options:
YES, I HAVE A9TE-SPEQFIC INFILTRATION RATE|, or
NO, I DO NOT HAVE A9TE-SPEQFIC INFILTRATION RATE |
5-68
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
If you choose | No , the Tier 2 evaluation will be performed for the default liner
type(s). There are three liner types for landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles
(no liner, single clay liner, and composite liner). IWEM will evaluate only the no-liner
scenario for land application units because engineered liners are not usually used at this
type of facility.
If you choose | YES| , the Infiltration Screen will appear as in Figure 5.36 and the
Tier 2 evaluation will be performed for your specified WMU infiltration rate. This liner
scenario is referred to as a "user-defined liner". This is the appropriate option to choose
if you know the infiltration rate for your particular liner design.
The final result of a Tier 2 analysis is a recommended minimum liner design that
is protective for all the selected constituents in your waste. When you specify a site-
specific infiltration rate, IWEM will evaluate a "user-defined liner" scenario for
protectiveness; otherwise, IWEM will evaluate all appropriate default liner scenarios.
B. Choose Soil Type
Regardless of whether or not you have a site-specific value for infiltration, you
need to specify the soil type and geographic location of the WMU so that the model can
generate a recharge rate for your site. Additionally, if you do not have a site-specific
value for infiltration, the specified soil type and geographic location are used to estimate
the infiltration rate for your site for the standard liner scenarios for landfills, land
application units, and waste piles (infiltration rates for surface impoundments are a
function of the ponding depth).
First, select the appropriate soil type from the choices shown in the SOIL DATA|
dialog box:
Coarse-grained soil (sandy loam)
Medium-grained soil (silt loam)
Fine-grained soil (silty clay loam)
Unknown soil type
If you choose one of the three default soil types, the Tier 2 Monte Carlo process
will randomly assign values for the required soil-related input parameters according to
probability distributions that are appropriate for the specified soil type. If you choose
"unknown soil type" (the default selection), the Tier 2 Monte Carlo process will randomly
select one of the three possible soil types in accordance with their nationwide frequency
of occurrence. For more details, please see Section 4.2.3.2 of the IWEM Technical
Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002c).
5-69
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
C. Choose Climate Center
For unlined units, except Sis, and for single clay-lined LFs and WPs, infiltration
and recharge rates for representative regions and locations, or "climate centers," around
the country have been calculated based on meteorological data and soil type. By
choosing the climate center that is representative of the modeled WMU site, you can use
the infiltration and recharge rate(s) for this climate center as an estimate of the rate(s)
expected at your site.
In many cases, selecting the climate center that is closest to your site will provide
the best estimate of infiltration rate. A map of the IWEM climate centers is presented in
Figure 6.4 of Section 6.2.3.3 of this document. You should, however, verify that the
overall climate conditions at the selected climate station are representative of your site.
Section 4.2.2 of the IWEM Technical Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002c) provides
a detailed discussion of how the infiltration rates were developed. To choose a climate
center, click on the | VlEWQTlESLJST button. The dialog box shown in Figure 5.35 will
appear.
D. Infiltration Rate(s)
If you do not have a site-specific infiltration rate (see Figures 5.31 through 5.34),
once you have selected a soil type and the nearest climate center, the model will estimate
the infiltration rates for each of three standard liner scenarios (no liner, single clay liner,
and composite liner) for your WMU site (note that only the no-liner scenario is evaluated
for LAUs). The resulting value(s) are listed in the table at the bottom left of the
infiltration screen.
E. Recharge Rate
Once you have selected a soil type and the appropriate climate center, the model
will estimate the recharge rate for your WMU site. The resulting value is listed in the
table at the bottom right of the infiltration screen.
F. Select Waste Type According to Permeability
For a WP, you must also specify the waste type permeability (this value is used in
determining the no-liner and single clay-liner infiltration rate). There are three choices
for waste permeability: high (4.1 x 10~2 centimeters per second [cm/sec]), medium (4.1 x
10~3 cm/sec), and low (5.0 x 10~5 cm/sec). These values are representative of wastes
commonly disposed in WPs.
5-70
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
To choose a climate center to provide default recharge and infiltration data, click
on the VlEWQlESUST button on the Infiltration (19) screen. The dialog box shown below
in Figure 5.35 will then be displayed.
C. Select nearest
climate center
B Climate Center 1 ist (19a)
m^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m
^lease select a cil
Albuquerque
Annette
Astoria
Atlanta
Augusta
Bang or
Bethel
Bismarck
Boise
Boston
iBridqep
^^^^^^w^^^^^^^^^^
f from this list
MM
AK
OR
GA
ME
ME
AK
ND
ID
VIA
ort CT
B. Slide down
to scroll
through list
-In
t
j
X
h
w
'
Brownsville TX
Burlington VT
Caribou ME
Cedar City UT
Central Park NY _^J
You selected Bridgeport CT
Cancel
<* SortbyCily
Sort by State
D. Verify
selected
climate center
A. Select
sort order
E. Enter selected
climate center and
return to
Infiltration (19) screer
Figure 5.35 Tier 2 Input: Climate Center List (19a).
5-71
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
The features identified in Figure 5.35 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. Select Sort Order
You can sort the climate centers alphabetically by city or by state by choosing one
of the SORT BY options.
B. Slide Down to Scroll through List
You can view the entire list using the ARROW keys on the keyboard or by
manipulating the scroll bar to the right of the list.
C. Select Nearest Climate Center
Select a climate center by using the | ARRCW| keys to highlight an entry, or by a
single click on the entry with your mouse.
D. Verify Selected Climate Center
You can verify that the correct climate center is selected by looking at the city
name printed at the bottom of this dialog box.
E. Enter Selected Climate Center and Return to Infiltration (19) screen
Clicking on the OK| button or double-clicking on the highlighted entry will enter
your selection and return you to the Infiltration (19) screen.
If you choose the YES, I HAVE STE-SPECIFIC INFILTRATION option at the top of the
Infiltration (19) screen, then this screen will appear as shown in Figure 5.36.
-------
fWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
[^j Tier 2 Input
Subsurface Parameters (1 8) ] Infiltration (19)
-Inlxj
Constituent List (20)
Do you have site-specific infiltration?
ff Yes, 1 have Site-Specific Infiltration. Results will be reported p No. 1 do not have Site-Specific Infiltration. Results will be
for your user-defined liner. reported for the default liner type(s).
Rnil Datn
Ploaco cplort « enil K,pB- [Coatsp-grained sculisandy loam)
EEs
LFme
Unk
o-, ~ , . .
Parameter
M Site-specific
infiltration (m/vr)
lum-grained somsilt loam)
-grained soil(silty clay loam)
i own soil type
Value
012
(
, , ,_,._ ^_ r,_*_
Nearest Climate Center
Vie
Selected city Greensboro
« Previous
Data Source
Test Value
!
n r-,,._ / I. ...
'Cities List AILScenarios
NC
Next»
A. Enter site-specific
infiltration rate
and data source
Figure 5.36 Tier 2 Input: Infiltration (19) - Site Specific Infiltration.
The features identified in Figure 5.36 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. Enter Site-Specific Infiltration Rate and Data Source
Enter your site-specific infiltration rate and provide a brief explanation of the data
source for your value in the DATASOURCE cell. Both the value and your explanation will
be included in the printed Tier 2 report.
5.5.1.5 Probabilistic Screening Module
The EPACMTP model used in IWEM to simulate ground-water fate and transport
incorporates certain constraints to ensure that the parameter values that are selected in the
5-73
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
Tier 2 Monte Carlo process will represent physically realistic WMU settings. These
constraints are:
1. The base of a LF or WP must be above the water table,
or,
The elevation of ponded water in a SI must be higher than the water table
elevation; and
2. Infiltration- and recharge-induced mounding of the water table cannot rise
above the ground surface.
If either one of these constraints is violated, the model will not run. Given the
range of parameter values that may be generated in the Monte Carlo process, in
combination with user-specified site-specific values, it is possible that the simulation
model might encounter a scenario where a constraint is frequently violated, and the model
is unable to complete the Monte Carlo simulation process.
IWEM screens your Tier 2 input values and parameter distributions prior to
performing the EPACMTP Monte Carlo simulation to ensure that an adequate number of
Monte Carlo realizations can be conducted. The Probabilistic Screening module of
IWEM examines your inputs to determine if you have provided complete and valid
information. If you specify a constant value for every parameter on screens 17 through
19, the screener will determine the magnitude of water table mounding (that is, IWEM
will evaluate the constraints on hydraulic connections between the WMU and the water
table). If the screening is successful, IWEM will take you to screen 20, otherwise a
message box will alert you to the most violated constraint and suggest potential remedies.
If all proposed remedies are inconsistent with site conditions, then IWEM is not
appropriate for your site and a Tier 3 analysis should be considered.
If you do not provide site-specific values for all possible Tier 2 inputs, the
screener will generate values for the missing input parameters according to their
appropriate distributions, and then evaluate the constraints. The screening process
usually takes ten or twenty seconds to complete, but can take up to a minute or two. A
progress bar, like the one displayed below, is updated during the screening process.
Now checking the Feasibility of your input values .
Please Wait.
5-74
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
As part of the screening process, IWEM will check that the aquifer that will be
modeled has a sufficiently high transmissivity to supply enough water to a domestic
drinking water well. A low transmissivity value corresponds to a combination of a low
hydraulic conductivity in the saturated zone and a small saturated thickness. If this
situation is encountered, IWEM will display a warning message dialog box like the one
shown below which asks if you want to continue. If you click | OK|, IWEM will continue
with the input parameters you provided.
v
X
Transmissivity Check Warning
IWEM has determined that the aquifer system you have described is not likely to support a
drinking water well,
If this is inconsistent with your site conditionsj you may wish to increase the value of aquifer
thickness or aquifer hydraulic conductivity,If either of these changes are inappropriate for your
site, you may still proceed with the analysis.
Do you wish to proceed with this analysis?
Yes |
No
5.5.1.6 Tier 2 Input: Constituent List (20)
This is where you select the constituents that are present in the waste, and enter
their leachate concentration. You can select constituents in several ways. You can:
Search by Constituent Name or CAS Number, or
Scroll through the list of IWEM constituents, using display and sort
options.
If you performed a Tier 2 evaluation immediately after a Tier 1 evaluation, the
waste constituents selected in Tier 1 are automatically transferred to Tier 2 and the Tier 1
leachate concentrations are also imported. If you are starting a Tier 2 evaluation and need
to enter waste constituents, follow the steps described here.
The Constituent List (20) screen for Tier 2 is nearly identical to the Tier 1
Constituent List (7) screen, and the options and controls on this screen work exactly the
same as the ones on the Screen 7. You can choose to include in your Tier 2 analysis any
of the 206 organic constituents and 20 metal constituents included in the IWEM database
5-75
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
(see Appendix A). However, unlike Tier 1, in Tier 2 you can also add constituents to the
IWEM list.
D. Add highlighted
constituent to
[SELECTED CONSTITUENTS!
B. Choose sorting order
for |Au CONSTITUENTS]
list
reme't
Infilfra
Search By i
instituentNamef
CAS Number: T
All Constituents
83-32-9 Acenaphthene
75-07-0 Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
67-64-1 Acetone (2-propanone)
75-05-8 Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
98-86-2 Acetophenone
107-02-8 Acrolein
79-06-1 Acrylemide
79-10-7 Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
309-00-2 Aldrin
107-18-fa\llyl alcohol
62-53-3, sniline (benzeneamme) w \
on (19)
Constituei
A. Filter
IALL CONSTITUENTSl
list
t List (20) J Constituent Properti
Sort By
" Constituent Name
~ CAS Number
Type of Constituent
< All constituents
(~ Organics
(~ Metals
s(21)
Selected Constituents
CAS
Number
Constituent Name
107-13-1 Actylonitrile
Add New Confluent
Leach ote
Concentration
(mg/L)
01
« Previous
N >xt»
G. Remove highlighted
constituent from
SELECTED CONSTITUENTS]
I. Add new
constituent
E. List of
constituents
to be included
in Tier 2 analysis
F. Enter
expected
leachate
concentration! s)
Figure 5.37 Tier 2 Input: Constituent List (20).
5-76
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
The features identified in Figure 5.37 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. Filter ALL CONSTITUENTS | List
You can choose to display only organic constituents, only metals, or a combined
list of all constituents by clicking one of the radio buttons under TYPE OF CONSTITUENT .
B. Choose Sorting Order for ALL CONSTITUENTS | List
You can determine whether the constituents are sorted by name or by CAS
number by clicking one of the SORT BY radio buttons.
C. Select Constituents to be Included in Tier 2 Analysis
To move through the list of waste constituents:
1) Use the scroll bar at the right of the display window
2) Use the ARROW keys on the keyboard (once one
constituent in the list is selected)
3) Type in the constituent name or CAS number in the
I SEARCH BY! box
You can select constituents by using one of these methods:
To add an individual constituent, select that constituent by clicking on its
name.
To add multiple constituents that are listed in contiguous order (that is, one
after another without any non-selected constituents in the middle), click on the
first waste constituent, press down the SHIFT| key, and then click on the last
waste constituent. All waste constituents listed between the first and last
chosen constituents should now be highlighted.
To add multiple constituents that are not in contiguous order, click on the first
waste constituent, and then hold down the CTRL key while selecting
additional constituents using the mouse.
5-77
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
Once your selection is complete, use the ADD button (described below) to
transfer all the highlighted constituents to your list.
D. Add Highlighted Constituent^) to SELECTED CONSTITUENTS List
Once the appropriate constituents are highlighted in the list (on the left of the
screen), you can click the ADD ,2J button in the center of the screen to transfer it to your
list of leachate constituents (on the right side of the screen). Note that a waste constituent
can also be added directly to your list by double-clicking on it in the list on the left.
E. List of Constituents to be Included in Tier 2 Analysis
Once you have successfully added a constituent to your analysis, that constituent's
name and CAS number will appear in the SELECTED CONSTITUENTS window on the right
side of the screen.
If any of the selected waste constituents hydrolyze into toxic daughter products,
the daughter products are automatically added to the Tier 2 evaluation. You can modify
constituent properties and toxicity standards of the daughter product(s) in the upcoming
screens.
F. Enter Expected Leachate Concentrations
For each waste constituent in the | SELECTED CONSTITUENTS list, you must enter your
expected leachate concentration in mg/L. This value cannot exceed 1,000 mg/L. Consult
Chapter 2-Characterizing Waste in the Guide (U.S. EPA, 2002d) for analytical
procedures that can be used to determine expected leachate concentrations for waste
constituents. Because the expected leachate concentrations of daughter products are
controlled by the leachate concentration of the parent constituent, the daughter product
leachate concentrations are not IWEM inputs.
The IWEM software will display a warning message similar to the one shown
below if you enter an expected leachate concentration that exceeds the solubility of that
constituent, as cited in the IWEM database. If you accidentally entered the wrong value,
click the YES button and correct the expected leachate concentration on the Leachate
Concentration (8) screen. If you want to proceed with the evaluation using your entered
value, click the | No| button. In this case, a similar warning message about your input
leachate concentration will be included in the printed report.
5-78
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
The leachate concentration specified For Acenaphthene is greater than the cited solubility value in
the database of 4.24 rng/l.
Do you want to change the leachate concentration ?
Yes
No
The Tier 2 Evaluation cannot be performed until the expected leachate
concentration is entered for each selected waste constituent.
G. Remove Highlighted Constituent from \ SELECTED CONSTITUENTS List
Analogous to the | ADD| button, you can click the REMOVE | _£J button to delete a
highlighted constituent from the your list of selected constituents.
H. Search for Constituents by Name or CAS #
Type the name or the CAS number in the SEARCH BY| window to select a particular
constituent on the IWEM list. As soon as you have typed in enough information to
identify the constituent, it will be highlighted in the constituent window on the left of the
screen. You can then use the | ARROW| keys on the keyboard to move up or down in the
list if the highlighted constituent is not exactly the one you intended to select.
/. Add New Constituent
To add a new waste constituent, click on the ADD NEW CONSTITUENT | button at the
bottom of the Constituent List. The message box shown below in Figure 5.38 will
appear:
5-79
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
A. Enter B. Enter
CAS number constituent name
LJH
[ Infiltration (1 9) |
mstituentName:!
CAS Numberl
Cc nstituent List (!
G Co istituent Name
<~ CA 3 Number
MM Enter New Constituent Data (20a)
83-32-9 Acenophthene
75-07-0 Acetaldehyde [Ethanal] Q^g Number
67-64-1 Acetone (2-propanone)
75-05-3 Acetonitrile (methyl cyanid
98-86-2 Acetophenone ' Constituent Nome
1 07-02-8 Acrolein
79-06-1 Acrylamide
179-1 0-7 Acrylic acid [pro noicac Cancel
<
OK
QTQQOQjg^^QQQ^im^m
1 07-1 8-6 Alryl alcohol
62-53-3 Aniline (benzeneamine) w\
Add New Constituent
« Previous
^JnJ.xJ
1) Constituent Properties (21)
-T tr*
< All constituents
f Organics
C Metals
x]
1 1
s
Leachate
Concentration
(mg/L)
0.1
Next»
C. Click to enter
new constituent data
Figure 5.38 Tier 2 Input: Enter New Constituent Data (20a).
The features identified in Figure 5.38 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. Enter CAS Number
The CAS number of a new constituent must be entered and it must be a number
that is not already in use by one of the IWEM constituents. If a CAS number is not
available or you do not know the number for a new constituent, any number can be used
here, as long as it is a unique number between 50,000 and 999,999,999.
5-80
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
B. Enter Constituent Name
The constituent name must be entered and it must be a name that is not already in
use by one of the constituents in the IWEM database.
C. Click to Enter New Constituent Data
After you click OK , a new entry in the database will be created for your new
constituent, and screen 20b (Figure 5.39) will appear.
-lolxl
Data Source
Molecular weigh!
Solubility value
Log(Koc) (L/kg)
stalyzed hydrolysis rate constant - Ka
Neutral hydrolysis rate constent- Kn (/yr))
Base-catalyjed hydrolysis rote constant - Kb
, -!
Qirtustvity in water (m2/yr)
Henrys law constant (etm-m3/mol)
CambndgeSoft Corpotation 2001 ChemFinder com
New Source
NO REFERENCE AVAILABLE
CambridgeSoft Corporation. 2001. ChemFindef.com database and internets
USEPA 199 3a Environmental Fate Constants lor Orgaimc Chemicals Undet
USEPA 1997a. Heaitli Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). EP>
t
irching.
-540-R-97-036.
USEPA 1996d Evaluation of the Potential Cardnogeniciy ot Elhyl Melhane! ultonate
USEPA 1986a. Addendum to the Health Assessment Document for Tstrach iroelhylene
I Propertj
MCL (mg/L)
hBN[>:-lnges](mg/L)
CSFo (kg-d/mg)
HBN [NC-lngest] (mg/L)
RID (mg/kg-d)
HBN[O-lnhal](mg/l)
'<"r~\ (kg-d/mg)
J [NC-lnhol.] Cmg/U
(mg/m3)
Value
Data Source
Cancel
C. Add new constituent to the
database and return to
Constituent List (20)
screen
A. Enter available
data for constituent
properties
Figure 5.39 Tier 2 Input: New Constituent Data (20b).
5-81
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
The features identified in Figure 5.39 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. Enter Available Data for Constituent Properties
You can provide the following constituent physical-chemical data as optional
inputs. In addition, you can provide a "User-defined RGC" later on, in screen 22.
Molecular weight
Solubility
Log Koc
Acid-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant
Neutral hydrolysis rate constant
Base-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant
Diffusivity in air
Diffusivity in water
Henry's Law constant
MCL (Maximum Contaminant Levels)
HBN (Non-carcinogenic-Ingestion)
HBN (Carcinogenic-Ingestion)
HBN (Non-carcinogenic-Inhalation)
HBN (Carcinogenic-Inhalation)
If you do not enter a value for the physical-chemical parameters, a default value of
zero will be used for each of these parameters. However, for each constituent at least one
non-zero RGC value must be entered (either an MCL, or an HBN). If you enter an HBN
RGC, you must also enter its corresponding toxicity value (listed in the column next to
each HBN). IWEM assumes a 30-year exposure duration for cancer HBNs and 7-year
exposure duration for non-cancer HBNs.
B. Select Type of Data Source for Each Input Value
For each constituent property value that you enter, you must specify the source of
the data. Clicking in the | DATA SOURCE field after entering your data will display the drop-
down list control J. Click on this control to reveal the drop-down list shown in Figure
5.39. You can select from the current list of references in the IWEM database, or you can
choose NEWSOURCE to enter a bibliographic reference that is not included in the IWEM
database (see Figure 5.40).
5-82
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
C. Add New Constituent to the Database and Return to the Constituent List (20)
screen
After entering the available data and selecting or entering a reference for each
value, click the | ADD| button to update the list of IWEM constituents. Once you have
done this, a message box will appear asking if you want to include this newly added
constituent in your Tier 2 analysis. Even if you decide not to use the new constituent in
your current analysis, the new constituent will be permanently added to the IWEM
database.
Add New Data Sourc e (20d)
x]
Source
Data Source
| Data Source (Full Entry)
Author. Year
Enter full bibliographic citation here
Add New Source
Cancel
C. Add data source
and go back to
Add New Constituent (20b)
D. Cancel the creation
of a new data source
and go back to
Add New Constituent (20b)
screen
Figure 5.40 Tier 2 Input: Add New Data Source (20d).
5-83
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
The features identified in Figure 5.40 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. Enter Brief Bibliographic Citation
If you choose | NBA/SOURCE on dialog box 20b, the dialog box shown in Figure
5.40 will appear. Enter a brief bibliographic citation in this field, in the form of "Author,
Year." IWEM uses this information to index all citations, and therefore, this entry must
not duplicate an existing reference in the IWEM database.
B. Enter Complete Bibliographic Citation
Enter a complete bibliographic citation in this field. You can use the existing
references in the IWEM database as a guide for formatting your newly added citation.
C. Add Data Source and Go Back to Add New Constituent (20b) screen
Click the ADD NBA/SOURCE | button to enter this citation into the IWEM database
and return to dialog box 20b.
D. Cancel and Go Back to Add New Constituent (20b) screen
Check the | CANCEL button if you do not wish to use the new bibliographic
citation. This will return you to dialog box 20b.
5.5.1.7 Tier 2 Input: Constituent Properties (21)
On this screen, you can modify constituent sorption and degradation parameters.
For each selected waste constituent, IWEM will display default values that are stored in
its database. These values will be used in the Tier 2 analysis, unless you override them
with user-supplied values. For all constituents, you can enter a value for the soil-water
partition coefficient (kd). For organic constituents, you can also enter an overall first-
order degradation rate.
5-84
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
Constituent List (20
Select a constituent from the first list below. Properties oft!
properties of a daughter product select it from the second
Waste Constituents: 1107-13-1 Acrylonitnle
Daughter products: |
Default Properties of 107-13-1 Acrylonitrile
Reference GWConc (22)
lected constituent will be displayed in the grids. To see the
User Supplied Property Values
Property
Koc(L/kg)
Rate
Acid-catalyjec
hydrolysis - Ka
(/mol/yr)
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
constituents, click on the drop-down list control -=J at the right edge of the DAUGHTER
PRODUCTS listbox. If the DAUGHTER PRODUCTS box is blank, it means that the currently
displayed waste constituent has no hydrolysis daughter products. Then use the mouse or
the | ARRCW| keys to scroll through the list of constituents until the desired constituent is
highlighted. Left click on the mouse or hit the ENTER key to make your selection.
B. Default Values
The constituent properties and their default values for the selected waste
constituent are listed in the table on the left side of the screen.
C. Data Sources for Default Values
The data source for each default parameter value of the selected waste constituent
is listed in the "Data Source" field.
D. Enter Site-Specific or Updated Values
For each constituent, IWEM assigns default values for Koc (kd for metals) and
hydrolysis rate constants (for organics only) (see constituent list in Appendix A);
however, you can enter and use site-specific values for kd (organics and metals) and
overall decay rate (organics only) if these data are available. To enter site-specific values,
just type them into the table on the right side of the screen.
By default, IWEM accounts for degradation from constituent hydrolysis only.
IWEM calculates the hydrolysis rate from constituent-specific values for the acid-
catalyzed (ka), neutral (kn) and base-catalyzed (kb) hydrolysis rate constants.
Biodegradation can also be an important process. However, biodegradation rates can
vary greatly from site to site. You should only increase the overall decay rate above the
value corresponding to the hydrolysis rate constants if there is clear evidence of
biodegradation occurring at a site. For organics, the calculation of the overall decay rate
from the hydrolysis rate constants and the calculation of kd from Koc is given in Sections
4.2.4.1 and 4.2.4.3 of the IWEM Technical Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002c).
E. Enter Data Source
For each Tier 2 input parameter for which you enter a site-specific value,
remember to type in a brief explanation of this value. This information is required and
will be included in the printed report.
5-86
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
Once your list of waste constituents and expected leachate concentrations is
complete, click on the | NEXT| button to specify RGC values to be used in the Tier 2
evaluation.
5.5.1.8 Tier 2 Input: Reference Ground-Water Concentrations (22)
In screen 22, you select which RGC is to be used to evaluate each waste
constituent in the Tier 2 analysis. You can select RGCs (MCLs and HBNs) that are in the
IWEM database, or you can supply a user-defined RGC. The following options are
available:
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Health-Based Number (HBN)
User-defined standard (this can be any value and is generally determined by
your state regulatory authority)
Compare to all available standards
The features identified in Figure 5.42 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. Select Constituent
On the row for the desired constituent, click in the cell on the far left of the table
to display a small arrow indicating which constituent is selected. Once a constituent is
selected, the available toxicity standards are displayed on the bottom half of this screen.
B. Select Standard(s) to Apply
Once a constituent listed at the top of the screen is selected, the available ground-
water standards (and RGC values) are displayed at the bottom. Using the radio buttons,
click on the appropriate standard to use in your Tier 2 analysis. If a constituent has more
than one standard, you should consult with the appropriate state regulatory agency to
determine which RGC should be used. If none of the default choices are appropriate for
your analysis, you can enter a new RGC value and associated exposure duration (see
items C and D, below). Additionally, if you choose the last option, | COMPARE TO ALL
AVAILABLE STANDARDS |, then the IWEM model will use the most stringent standard to
determine the Tier 2 liner recommendation.
5-87
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
i ilect a constituent from the grid, then the desired standard from the list. Click the "Apply Standards" button to save each selectior
Constituent Properties (21) [ Reference GW Cone. (22) ] Input Summary (23)
Related
Constituents
Constituent
standard
Parent
107-13-1 Acrylonitrile
HBN - Ingestion. Cancer
Daughter
Daughter
79-06-1 Acrylamide
HBN-Ingestion. Cancer
79-10-7 Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
HBN - Ingestion. NonCancer
Standards for 79-10-7 Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Reference Ground-water
Concentration (mg/L)
Select Standard
r
r ,
f HBN - Inhalation. Non-Cancer
r HI
( HBN - Ingestion. Non-Cancer
r User-Defined
Compare to all available standards
electthe desired standard I.'. .<> tnq its radio button Click the "Apply S
Exposure
Duration (yr)
12
T
Justification
T
andards" button to save yout selection
« Previous
Apply Standard(s)
Next»
E. Apply selected
standard) s) to
selected constituent
C. View default
values or enter
user-defined value
Figure 5.42 Tier 2 Input: Reference Ground-Water Concentrations (22).
C. View Default Values or Enter User-Defined Value
These textboxes display the RGC values in the IWEM database; and in the case of
the user-defined RGC, this is where you enter the appropriate RGC value and its
associated exposure duration. In the IWEM model, the exposure duration corresponds to
the time interval over which the average ground-water concentration is calculated.
Consult with the appropriate state regulatory agency for additional guidance on entering
your own RGC value and exposure duration.
5-88
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
D. Enter Data Source for User-Defined Value
If you enter a user-specified RGC for any constituent, be sure to provide a brief
explanation of this value in the JUSTIFICATION textbox.
E. Apply Selected Standard(s) to Selected Constituent
After you have chosen the appropriate standard(s) for the selected constituent,
click on the | APPLY STANDARDS button to input your choice. After you have done so, your
selection will be displayed in the | STANDARD | column in the table at the top of the screen.
5.5.1.9 Tier 2 Input: Input Summary (23)
This screen displays a summary of the input data for your Tier 2 analysis. You
cannot enter or edit data on the Input Summary screen; rather, its purpose is to
consolidate into one place all the data you have already entered for the Tier 2 Evaluation.
If you notice that you have entered any data incorrectly, use the PREVIOUS button or click
on the desired screen tab to go back to the appropriate screen on the Tier 2 Input Screen.
The input summary screen has three sections containing data on: 1) constituent
properties; 2) source and unsaturated zone; and 3) saturated zone. Each section has a
scroll bar which can be used to view information that does not fit on the screen.
The features identified in Figure 5.43 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. Identification of Constituent as Either a Parent or a Toxic Daughter
The first section contains a table of the selected waste constituents, listing their
CAS number, name, expected leachate concentration, the type and value of the selected
RGC, and fate parameters (log Koc, kd, hydrolysis rate constants, and/or overall decay
rate). The entry in the "Related Constituents" column on the left side of the screen
indicates whether the constituent is present in the waste ("parent") or whether it is
included because it is a daughter product of a waste constituent ("daughter"). In the latter
case, the parent constituent is listed immediately above the daughter.
B. Summary of Constituent Properties
For your reference, the constituent-specific properties for each waste constituent
in the Tier 2 analysis are displayed in the table at the top of the screen.
5-89
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
C. Verify Tier 2 Input Values
The bottom section of this screen consists of two tables that present the selected
values for the WMU and subsurface parameters. To the left, the selected values for the
WMU (source) and unsaturated zone parameters are displayed. To the right, the selected
values for the saturated zone parameters are listed. Note that each table has a scroll bar
on the right-hand side which can be used to view information which does not fit on the
screen.
B. Summary of
constituent properties
Re
erenceGWConc (22)
Input Summary (23)
Constituent Properties
Related
Constituents
CAS
Constituent
Name
Leachate
Concentratjon
(mg/L)
Toxiaty
Standard
RGC
(mg/L)
Log(Koc)
(L/kg)
Ka
(/mol/yr)
Kn(/yr)
Kb
(/mo!/yr)
Kd (L/kg)
Overall Decay
Coefficient (/yr)
107-13-1
Acrylonitnle
0 1 HBN -
Ingeslion.
Cancer
1 8DE-04 -0.089
500
O.OOE'OO
5.20E*03
Daughter
79-06-1
Acryamide
0134 HBN-
Ingestion.
Cancer
Daughter
79-10-7
1
Aciylicacid
propenoic acid]
nniii
-0969
31.5
0018
0,OOE»00
HBN-
Ingestion.
NonCancer
12
-1.B4
O.OOE*00
O.OOE+00
UUOE-DO
Depth to
oil type.
ndKrolion
I ''('
»se ol the LF below ground surface (m)
(rr>) [requires site specific value].
r table (m):
SILT LOAM
2345 AJAquifer thickness (m)
0 Regional hydreu ic gradient:
6.5 Aquiter hydraulic conductivity (m/yr)
(not specified) Distance to well (m):
(not specified)
(not specified)
(not specified)
150
No Liner: 3256
Single Liner 0362
Composite Liner Monte Carlo
Recharge Rate 0 3256
« previous
A. Identification of
constituent as either
a parent or a toxic
daughter
Figure 5.43 Tier 2 Input: Input Summary (23).
5-90
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
5.5.2 Tier 2 Evaluation: Run Manager (24)
After you have verified that all Tier 2 inputs are correct, click the NEXr| button on
the Input Summary screen (23) to perform the Tier 2 evaluation. The Tier 2 Run
Manager (Screen 24) will be displayed.
In a Tier 2 evaluation, after you click on the START EPACMTP| button, the ground-
water model is automatically executed for each waste constituent for each applicable liner
scenario using the chosen waste constituent-specific and site-specific inputs. Any toxic
daughter products produced by hydrolysis of the selected constituents are also evaluated.
Each combination of constituent and liner scenario requires one probabilistic Monte
Carlo modeling run consisting of 10,000 model realizations. Depending upon model
inputs and the speed of your personal computer, each modeling run may take from several
minutes to several hours. For this reason, we have developed a Run Manager dialog box
which displays the current status of your modeling analysis; this way, you will know that
the model is working and how much progress has been made at any given point in time.
The following sequence of screen images (Figures 5.44 through 5.46) demonstrate
how the Tier 2 Run Manager and the EPACMTP dialog box help you track the progress
of your Tier 2 modeling analysis.
5-91
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
A. EPACMTP run
status and liner
protectiveness
summary
2 Evaluation Run Manager (24)
EPACMTP Run Status
>
Index
1
2
3
Constituent Name
Acrylonitrile
Acrylemide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Related
Constituents
Parent
Daughter
Daughter
R
<
for Landfills
n Status
1
No Liner
Single Liner
Composite
Liner
«P_revious
Start EPACMTP
C. Go to
Input Summary (23)
screen
B. Launch EPACMTP
runs for selected set
of constituents
Figure 5.44 Tier 2 Evaluation: Run Manager (24) -
Appearance Before Launching EPACMTP Runs.
The features identified in Figure 5.44 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
Figure 5.44 shows a summary table listing all the constituents and liner scenarios
in a typical Tier 2 analysis prior to launching the first EPACMTP run. During an
EPACMTP run, a dialog box is displayed (Figure 5.45), allowing you to track the
progress of the model's execution. The summary table shown in the background (Figure
5.46) keeps you informed of the overall progress of the Tier 2 analysis. The EPACMTP
runs proceed from the first to the last selected constituent. For each constituent,
5-92
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
EPACMTP runs are sequentially launched for the no-liner, single clay-liner, and
composite-liner scenarios until a protective scenario is found. That is, if the single clay-
liner scenario is determined to be protective for a given constituent, the composite-liner
scenario for that constituent is not modeled. For the LAU or user-defined liner/
infiltration scenarios, only one scenario per constituent is evaluated. During EPACMTP
model execution, the message "Running" appears in the table cell corresponding to the
current constituent and liner scenario. After the completion of a run, the results are
analyzed by IWEM to determine whether the liner scenario is protective for the current
constituent. An up-to-date summary of the results is displayed in the summary table as
shown in Figure 5.46.
A. EPACMTP Run Status and Liner Protectiveness Summary
This summary table shows the current status of the analysis. For each waste
constituent, you can see whether the required modeling is in progress or has been
completed. In addition, this table will tell you whether or not each liner scenario is
protective of ground water.
B. Launch EPACMTP Runs for Selected Set of Constituents
Click on the START EPACMTP | button to launch the required EPACMTP runs for
the selected set of waste constituents. During an EPACMTP model run, the dialog box
shown below in Figure 5.45 appears on-screen and displays the status of the current
model run, including estimated time to completion.
C. Go to Input Summary (23) screen
You can click the PREVIOUS button at the bottom left of the screen to go back to
the Tier 2 Input Summary (23)screen.
5-93
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
EPACMTP V2
File View State Help
i Processing
INDUSTRIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
EVALUATION MODEL
GROUND-WATER PATHWAY
FATE AND TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
BASED ON
EPA'S COMPOSITE MODEL FOR LEACHATE
MIGRATION WITH TRANSFORKATION PRODUCTS
VERSION 2.0
Simulating
Acryloniccile
Leaching From
A Landfill With No Liner
Current Realization: 63 OF 10000
Elapsed Time: 0:00:15 (hh:Rtn:ss)
Estimated Time Remaining
In This Simulation: 0:37:29 (hh:ra»:ss)
m
nnmg
A. Status of
current
EPACMTP run
Figure 5.45 Tier 2 Evaluation: Run Manager (24) - EPACMTP
Dialog Box Displayed During Model Execution.
5-94
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
A. Status of Current EPACMTP Run
A Run Manager dialog box will be displayed during each EPACMTP run to help
you monitor the model's progress in real time. Note that the information displayed on
this screen includes: constituent name, WMU type and liner scenario, current realization
number, time elapsed, and estimated time remaining.
The summary table displayed on the Run Manager (24) screen, presented below in
Figure 5.46, shows you the overall progress of the Tier 2 analysis - the liner
recommendation for each completed EPACMTP model run and which (if any) model
runs have not yet begun.
A. EPACMTP run
status and liner
protectiveness
summary
Tier 2 Evaluation - Run Manager (24)
EPACMTP Run Statu
for Landfills
Index
Constituent Name
Related
Constituents
Run Status
No Liner
Single Liner
Composite
Liner
Acrylonitnle
Parent
Completed
Not Protective
Not Protective
Protective
Acryl amide
Daughter
Completed
Not Protective
Not Protective
Protective
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Daughter ' Completed
Protective
Protective
Protective
«£revious
C. Go to
Input Summary (IB)
screen
B. Go to
Summary Results (251
Figure 5.46 Tier 2 Evaluation: Run Manager (24) -
Status and Liner Protectiveness Summary.
5-95
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
The features identified in Figure 5.46 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. EPACMTP Run Status and Liner Protectiveness Summary
This summary table shows the current status of the analysis. For each waste
constituent, you can see whether the required modeling is in progress or has been
completed. In addition, this table will tell you whether or not each liner scenario is
protective of ground water.
B. Go to Summary Results (25) screen
You can click on the | NEXT| button at the bottom right of the screen to proceed to
the brief listing of the Tier 2 results that is presented on the Summary Results (25) screen.
C. Go to Input Summary (23) screen
You can click the PREVIOUS button at the bottom left of the screen to go back to
the Tier 2 Input Summary (23) screen.
5.5.3 Tier 2 Evaluation Summary: Summary Results Screen (Screen 25)
The presentation of the liner recommendation for the Tier 2 evaluation is
determined by which option you chose to specify the infiltration rate (either a location-
based estimate or a user-specified value) and your WMU type. But whichever infiltration
option you choose, the results are divided into two sets: summary results and detailed
results. The first set of results is a summary which reports a liner recommendation for
each individual waste constituent and the overall liner recommendation that is protective
for all constituents. The second set of results, the detailed results, present the data upon
which the liner evaluation is based. For each waste constituent, the expected leachate
concentration, the DAF, the Tier 2 LCTV, specified RGC type and value, and the
resulting 90th percentile ground-water concentration calculated by EPACMTP are listed.
These detailed results allow you to understand how the liner design recommendations
were developed.
The results of the Tier 2 Evaluation are first presented on-screen in a summary
form. The Summary Results screen provides a liner design recommendation for each of
the selected constituents which are listed by name and CAS number. The
recommendation is based on a comparison of the resulting 90th percentile ground-water
concentration and the specified RGC. If the ground-water concentration does not exceed
the specified RGC, then the evaluated liner scenario is protective for that constituent. If
5-96
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
the ground-water concentration exceeds the specified RGC, then the evaluated liner
scenario is not protective for that constituent. Only the no-liner soil scenario is evaluated
for LAUs. In this case, if the no-liner scenario is not protective of ground water, then
land application of the modeled waste is not recommended at the site.
A. Tier 2 liner
recommendation
for each constituent
Tier 2 Output - Output Summary (25)
>
CAS Number
107-13-1
79-06-1
79-10-7
Constituent Name
Actylonitrile
Acryl amide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Mi
<
innum Liner Recommendation
Composite Liner
> Composite Liner
No Liner
Based on consideration of the toxicity standards of all listed constituents, the Composite Liner
minimum liner recommended is:
« Previous
detailed Results
Recommendation »
D. Go to
Results - No Liner (26)
B. Overall Tier 2
liner recommendation
based on selected
toxicity standard(s)
C. Go to
Tier 2 Evaluation
Summary (29J
Figure 5.47 Tier 2 Output (Summary): Summary Results (25).
5-97
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
The features identified in Figure 5.47 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. Tier 2 Liner Recommendation for Each Constituent
If you evaluated a landfill, waste pile, or surface impoundment and used a
location-based estimate of the infiltration rate, the liner recommendation is the minimum
recommended liner of the three types that are evaluated (no liner, single clay liner, and
composite liner). If you evaluated a LAU and used a location-based estimate of the
infiltration rate, the resulting recommendation is whether or not land application of this
waste at this site will be protective of ground-water.
If you entered a site-specific infiltration rate (for any type of WMU), then the liner
recommendation is whether or not the modeled liner type is recommended as being
protective of ground water.
For a Tier 2 evaluation, the no-liner, single clay-liner, and composite-liner
recommendations are displayed in green text. If the composite liner is not protective,
then this message is displayed in red text. If the liner recommendation is "Not
Applicable," then this message is displayed in black text.
B. Overall Tier 2 Liner Recommendation Based on Selected Toxicity Standard(s)
The bottom of the screen displays an overall liner recommendation which is based
on consideration of all waste constituents (and their daughter products).
If EPACMTP predicts that the 90th percentile values of ground-water well
concentration for all constituents under the no-liner scenario are below their respective
RGCs, then IWEM will recommend that no liner is needed to protect groundwater. If the
modeled ground-water concentration of any constituent under the no-liner scenario is
higher than its RGC, then at least a single clay liner is recommended (or in the case of
LAUs, land application is not recommended). If the predicted ground-water
concentration of any constituent exceeds the RGC under the composite liner scenario,
then consider pollution prevention, treatment, and more protective liner designs, as well
as consultation among regulators, the public, and industry to ensure such wastes are
protectively managed. See Chapter 4 of the Guide (U.S. EPA, 2002d) for further
information.
For waste streams with multiple constituents, the least stringent liner design that is
protective for all constituents is the overall recommended liner design.
5-98
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
C. Go to Tier 2 Evaluation Summary (29) screen
Clicking on the RECQMI\/ENDAT1ON| button will take you to the Tier 2 Evaluation
Summary screen where you can choose to view the Tier 2 report or save your analysis and
exit the IWEM software.
D. Go to Results - No Liner (26) screen
Clicking on the DETAILED RESULTS) button will take you to a detailed listing of the
Tier 2 results, including the constituent-specific modeling results for all evaluated liner
scenarios.
5.5.4 Tier 2 Output (Details) Screen Group (26, 27, and 28)
The detailed results table for each evaluated liner type presents the data on which
the liner recommendation are based. For each waste constituent, this information
includes the expected leachate concentration, the DAF, the Tier 2 LCTV, the specified
RGC type and value, the resulting 90th percentile ground-water concentration, and text
explaining whether or not the liner is recommended as being protective of ground water.
These detailed results allow you to understand how the liner design recommendations
were developed.
If you directly enter a value for infiltration (for any of the four types of WMUs),
EPACMTP will use this value of the infiltration rate in its fate and transport simulation,
and IWEM will then compare the predicted ground-water well concentration to each
constituent's RGC. In this case, the detailed results will consist of only one screen, rather
than the three that are shown below in Figures 5.48 through 5.50.
Also, for a Tier 2 analysis of a LAU, only the no-liner scenario is evaluated since
engineered liners are not typically used at this type of facility. In this case, the detailed
results will consist of only one screen.
5-99
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
E. Selected
RGC value
2 OutpuKDetaifc)
F. Exposure
level
(ground-water
concentration)
Results - No Liner (26)
Results - Sing "Liner (27)
Results - Composite L
ner (28)
CAS
Constituent Name
107-13-1 Aciytonitnl
79-06-1 Aoylamide
73-1 D-7
Acrylic acid
(propenoic acid]
I eecHate
:entrotion
ng/L)
0131
01358
L'/ h
(mg/l 1
M 11 IE
2.5
2.1
550E-05
288
Toxicitj
Standar
HBN-lngefion,
Cancer
HBN-lngestion,
Cancer
HBN-lngestion.
NonCancer
Referenci
Concent
Groundwater
stton (mg/L)
90tti F srcsntile
Expos ire Level
(n g/U
1 8QE-OT
0,0113
220E-06
12
0.0539
00562
Protectiv
H. Go to
Summary Results (25)
Figure 5.48 Tier 2 Output (Details): Results-No Liner (26).
5-100
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
E. Selected
RGC value
Her 2 Output (Detaik)
F. Exposure
level
(ground-water
concentration)
Results - No Liner (26)
I lesulls - Sing
e Liner (27)
Results - Composite I
ner(28)
CAS
Constituent
Nome
C on
chate
intration
Kig/L)
D/F
LC V
(mg L)
Toxicrty
Standard
Reft 'ence Groundwater
Co centrotion (mg/L)
Oth Percentile
E
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
E. Selected
RGC value
2 Output (I M.| ,,rl,)
F. Exposure
level
(ground-water
concentration)
- nix
Results - No Liner (26)
Resulls-Sing
esults - Composite
.iner (28)
CAS Constituent Name
1.1 n
.eachate
icentration
(mg/L)
DAF
uprv
Toxicrt> Standard
irence Groundwater
ncentration (rng/L)
90lh Percsntile
Ixposure Level
(mg/L)
Protective?
107-13-1
Acrylomtnle
01
40E.04
432 HBN - In^estion.
Cancer
1 80E-04
410E-06
Acrylamide
0131
1.00E*30
1000
HBN - Ingestion.
Cancer
2 20E-05
OOOE-00
79-10-7
Acrylic acid
[propenoic acid]
01358
N/A
N/A
HBN - Ingestion.
NonCancer
12
N/A
See No Liner Results
« Brevious
Summary Results
Becommendation »
H. Goto
Summary Results (25)
1. Goto
Tier 2 Evaluation
Summary (21)) screen
Figure 5.50 Tier 2 Output (Details): Results-Composite Liner (28).
The features identified in Figures 5.48 through 5.50 are explained below.
A. Entered Leachate Concentration
The entered leachate concentration for each constituent is displayed in the third
column. This is the value that was used by IWEM in the EPACMTP ground-water fate
and transport modeling.
5-102
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
B. Dilution and Attenuation Factor
This column shows the 90th percentile value of the ground-water DAF calculated
by EPACMTP. DAF values are capped at IxlO30.
C. Estimated LCTV
The constituent- and liner-specific Tier 2 LCTV is also displayed on this screen.
The LCTV for organics is calculated as follows:
LCTV = DAF x RGC
where:
LCTV = leachate concentration threshold value (mg/L)
DAF = dilution-attenuation factor (EPACMTP model output)
(dimensionless)
RGC = reference ground-water concentration (MCL, HBN, or user-
specified value) (mg/L)
In Tier 2, the LCTV for metal constituents is an estimated value due to the non-
linear nature of metals adsorption (that is, for metals the DAF is not constant across all
leachate concentrations, as it is for organics). For this reason, an adjustment factor of
0.85 is used to estimate the LCTVs for metals in order to ensure adequate protection of
the ground water. The Tier 2 LCTV for metals is calculated as follows:
LCTV = DAF x RGC x 0.85
D. Selected RGC Type
The selected RGC type is displayed in this table for your reference. In addition to
regulatory MCLs, four types of HBNs can be evaluated in the IWEM software, covering
the direct ingestion and inhalation pathways, and carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
health effects. However, if the existing values in the IWEM software are not appropriate
for your analysis, you may enter your own RGC to be used in the Tier 2 analysis. In any
case, the specified RGC type and value are displayed for each waste constituent.
E. Selected RGC Value
The selected RGC value is also displayed in this table for your reference. Note
that is value may be an MCL, an HBN, or a user-defined value.
5-103
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
F. Exposure Level (Ground-water Concentration)
In order to determine whether or not this liner scenario is protective for a given
constituent, the resulting 90th percentile ground-water concentration is compared with the
specified RGC. If the ground-water concentration does not exceed the specified RGC,
then the evaluated liner is protective for that constituent. If the ground-water
concentration exceeds the specified RGC, then the evaluated liner is not protective for
that constituent.
G. Is the Exposure Level Less than the RGC?
The result of the comparison between the modeled 90th percentile exposure level
(ground-water concentration) and the specified RGC is displayed at the far right of this
table.
If the 90th percentile exposure level does not exceed the specified RGC, then the
evaluated liner is protective for that constituent and the text in the last column of this
table will read | YES for that constituent.
If the 90th percentile exposure level exceeds the specified RGC, then the evaluated
liner is not protective for that constituent and the text in the last column of this table will
read | NO for that constituent.
H. Go to Summary Results (25) Screen
Clicking on the RESULTS SuiVMARY button will take you back to the Tier 2
Summary Results (25) screen.
/. Go to Tier 2 Evaluation Summary (29) Screen
Clicking on the RECOMI\/ENDAT1ON| button will take you to the next screen, the Tier
2 Evaluation Summary (29) screen where you can choose to view the Tier 2 report or
save your analysis and exit the IWEM software.
5.5.5 Tier 2 Evaluation Summary (29)
The Tier 2 Evaluation Summary screen identifies the overall Tier 2 liner
recommendations and lists the available options within the IWEM software.
5-104
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
B. List of
IWEM options
A. Overall Tier 2
liner recommendation
Tier 2 Evalual ion Summary
You may choc
1 or Tier 2 ev«
Tier 2 Evaluation Summary (29)
The results of the Tier 2 analysis recommend the following design:
Composite Liner
se to print the results and exit this program. You may also return to the beginning of the Tier
Juation, or you may conduct your own site-specific assessment.
Beport
D. Go back to
previously viewed
results screen
Figure 5.51 Tier 2 Evaluation Summary (29).
The features identified in Figure 5.51 are explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
A. Overall Tier 2 Liner Recommendation
The Tier 2 liner recommendation is displayed at the top of this screen. For
landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles that were modeled using a location-
based estimate of the infiltration rate, the available recommendations are: no-liner, single
clay-liner, composite-liner, and not protective. For LAUs that were modeled using a
location-based estimate of the infiltration rate, the available recommendations are: no-
liner and not protective. If you entered a user-specified value for the infiltration rate, the
5-105
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
available recommendations are: protective and not protective. If your Tier 2 evaluation
results in a recommendation of "not protective", then the chosen WMU for managing the
waste may not be appropriate at the selected site. In this case, consider pollution
prevention, treatment, and more protective liner designs, as well as consultation among
regulators, the public, and industry to ensure such wastes are protectively managed. See
Chapter 4 of the Guide (U.S. EPA, 2002d) for further information.
B. List of IWEM Options
After reviewing your Tier 2 results on-screen, you have several options to
continue within the IWEM software:
Go back to the previous screens of the Tier 2 results by clicking on the
| PREVIOUS| button.
View the Tier 2 report by clicking the | REPORT) button.
At this point, you can also choose to save your results, exit the IWEM software, or
conduct a Tier 3 Evaluation. For more information about Tier 3 Evaluations, see Chapter
7A (Protecting Ground Water - Assessing Risk) of the Guide.
There are several ways to save the Tier 2 Evaluation:
Click on the | FILE) menu and choose | SAVE) or | SAVE As . A dialog box will
then open which prompts you for the filename and directory location, as
appropriate. Once you have provided a filename, the tool will save two files,
automatically applying the "wem" and "mdb" extensions for you. The
combination of these two files completely describes the data you have entered
and any model-generated results. Please note that you cannot save any files to
the cd-rom, so you must specify a directory on your hard-drive or a floppy disk
to save the file.
Click on the | SAVE| button on the toolbar. If you are editing a previously
saved evaluation, the file will be automatically updated. If you have created a
new evaluation, the SAVE As dialog box will open, as described above.
Note that IWEM will not allow you to save both model inputs and results at a
point where the inputs do not correspond to the model-generated results. If you do
choose to save your work in a situation like this, only the inputs will be saved; that is,
when you later open up this file, you will have to perform either the Tier 1 or Tier 2
evaluation to create the corresponding results. Once you have completed an evaluation
5-106
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
you should save it under an appropriate file name. If you want to start a new evaluation
by editing an existing IWEM file, you should first save the new evaluation under a
different name to avoid losing the results of your original evaluation.
EXIT
You can exit the IWEM software by clicking on the | RLE) menu, and choosing
If you forget to save before trying to exit the IWEM software, a dialog box will
ask if you want to save your data before exiting the software.
You can open a previously saved IWEM analysis by clicking on any one of the
following options:
IdPENl button on the Tool Bar
IFlLE|OPENl selection from the Menu Bar
IOPEN SAVED ANALYSIS (*.WEMFiLE)l radio button from the I IWEM ANALYSIS OpnoNSl
dialog box (see Item B in Section 5.3)
Once the lOPENl dialog box is displayed, highlight the appropriate file and click the
lOPENl button to open the desired file. You will then see a dialog box in which you can
specify what type of analysis you want to perform - Tier 1 or Tier 2.
C. Display Tier 2 Reports
Clicking on the REPORT button displays the IWEM Tier 2 Report.
Once the Tier 2 report is displayed on-screen, you can then use the following
toolbar buttons to print, save, and scroll through the pages of the report:
Print the report; the PRINT | dialog box then appears where you
can adjust printer setting or choose to print selected pages.
Export the report in order to save it to a file; after specifying the
file type, destination type, and the pages to be included, the
| CHOOSE EXPORT FILE | dialog box then appears; you can specify
the file type, and then select the file name and directory. The
file types in this list are dependent upon what software you have
installed on your PC. Most users will find that the option for
PDF format will produce a document-ready report.
View the next page of the report
5-107
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 5.0
H
View the last page of the report.
View the previous page of the report
View the first page of the report.
!"IQO% ^1 Change the display size of the report.
Tier 2 Report Includes:
WMU facility data entered on screen 16
List of selected constituents and their corresponding leachable concentrations
entered on screen 20
List of Tier 2 input values and explanations of user-input data, as summarized on
screen 23
Tier 2 summary results for each selected constituent, based on the user-specified
RGC for each constituent
Tier 2 detailed results for each selected constituent, based on the user-specified
RGC for each constituent, and including an explanation of any appropriate caps
or warnings about the presented results
Constituent properties and RGCs for each selected constituent, including full
references for the data sources
5-108
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 5.0
An example Tier 2 report is included in this User's Guide in Appendix B.
D. Go Back to Previously Viewed Tier 2 Results
Click on the PREVIOUS button to return to the Tier 2 results that were previously
displayed. That is, if you navigated directly to the Tier 2 Evaluation Summary (29)
screen from the Summary Results (25) screen, then screen 25 is the screen you will return
to. However, if you viewed the detailed results before navigating to the Tier 2 Evaluation
Summary (29) screen, then clicking the | PREVIOUS | button will return you to the Results-
Composite Liner (28) screen.
5-109
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
6.0 Understanding Your IWEM Input Values
This section of the User's Guide will assist you in understanding the WMU, waste
constituent and other fate and transport data that IWEM uses to evaluate whether a liner
design is protective.
Broadly speaking, there are three main categories of input values:
WMU data,
Waste constituent data, and
Location-specific climate and hydrogeological data.
A Tier 1 analysis requires only a few key inputs. A Tier 2 analysis, which is
designed to provide a more accurate evaluation, requires you to provide additional site-
specific input data. Section 6.1 describes basic inputs that are common to both Tier 1 and
Tier 2 evaluations. Section 6.2 describes the additional inputs for a Tier 2 evaluation.
The IWEM Technical Background Document (TBD) provides additional detail on
the Tier 1 and Tier 2 input values. To assist you in cross-referencing the discussion on
each input parameter to the corresponding section(s) of the TBD, specific references to
the TBD are provided for each IWEM input. The references are indicated pictorially as
follows:
J Section x.y.z
TBD
6.1 Parameters Common to Both Tier 1 and Tier 2 Evaluations
The common parameters are:
1) WMU type.
2) Constituent(s) of concern that are present in the WMU, and
3) Leachate concentration (in mg/L) of each constituent.
6-1
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
6.1.1 WMUType UJ Section 3.1; 4.2.1
TBD
IWEM address four different types of WMUs. Each of the four unit types reflects
waste management practices that are likely to occur at industrial Subtitle D facilities. The
WMU can be a landfill, a waste pile, a surface impoundment, or a land application unit.
The latter is also sometimes called a land treatment unit. Figure 6.1 presents schematic
diagrams of the different types of WMU's modeled in IWEM.
Landfill. Landfills are facilities for the final disposal of solid waste on land.
IWEM considers closed landfills with an earthen cover and either no-liner, a single clay
liner, or a composite, clay-geomembrane liner. IWEM assumes there is no leachate
collection system. The release of waste constituents into the soil and ground water
underneath the landfill is caused by dissolution and leaching of the constituents due to
precipitation which percolates through the landfill. The type of liner that is present
controls, to a large extent, the amount of leachate which is released from the unit.
Because the landfill is closed, the concentration of the waste constituents will diminish
with time due to depletion of landfill wastes. The leachate concentration value that is
used as an input is the expected initial leachate concentration when the waste is 'fresh'.
Surface Impoundment. A surface impoundment is a WMU which is designed to
hold liquid waste or wastes containing free liquid. Surface impoundments may be either
ground level or below ground level flow-through units. They may be unlined, or they
may have a single clay liner or a composite clay-geomembrane liner. Release of leachate
is driven by the ponding of water in the impoundment, which creates a hydraulic head
gradient across the barrier underneath the unit. In Tier 1, IWEM uses a national
distribution of values for surface impoundment operational life. In Tier 2, you can enter a
site-specific value. The Tier 2 default is 50 years.
Waste Pile. Waste piles are typically used as temporary storage or treatment units
for solid wastes. Due to their temporary nature, they will not typically be covered.
IWEM does consider liners to be present, similar to landfills. In Tier 1 analyses, IWEM
assumes that waste piles have a fixed operational life of 20 years, after which the waste
pile is removed. In Tier 2, you can provide a site-specific value for the operational life.
The default value is 20 years. After the operational period, IWEM assumes the waste pile
is removed.
Land Application Unit. Land application units (or land treatment units) are areas
of land receiving regular applications of waste which can be either tilled directly into the
soil or sprayed onto the soil and subsequently tilled into the soil. IWEM models the
leaching of wastes after they have been tilled with soil.
6-2
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 6.0
Cover
unsaturated zone
V
saturated zone
(A) LANDFILL
unsaturated zone
V
saturated zone
(C) WASTE PILE
unsaturated zone
V
saturated zone
(B) SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
unsaturated zone
V
saturated zone
(D) LAND APPLICATION UNIT
Figure 6.1 WMU Types Modeled in IWEM.
6-3
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
IWEM does not account for the losses due to volatilization during or after waste
application. In Tier 1, land application units have a 40 year active life. In Tier 2, you can
enter a site-specific value. The Tier 2 default value for operational life is 40 years. Land
application units are evaluated for only the no-liner scenarios because liners are not
typically used at this type of facility.
6.1.2 Waste Constituents
The IWEM software includes a built-in database with 206 organic constituents
and 20 metals. Appendix A provides a list of these constituents. In IWEM you select the
waste constituents for each WMU scenario that you wish to evaluate from a drop-down
list, either by constituent name or by Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) identification
number, or from a list of constituents sorted by constituent name or by CAS number.
With each constituent, you also select a set of constituent-specific reference ground-water
concentrations (see Section 6.1.4) and fate and transport characteristics. The fate and
transport characteristics include sorption parameters and hydrolysis rate constants.
In Tier 1, you can only evaluate constituents found in the built-in database, and
you are not able to change the fate and transport characteristic values associated with each
constituent. In Tier 2, you can add constituents to IWEM's database as well as modify
fate and transport characteristic values for constituents already in the database.
6.1.3 Leachate Concentration tsUI Section 4.2.1.3
TBD
You must provide the leachate concentration in mg/L for each selected waste
constituent that you expect in the leachate that will infiltrate into the soil underneath a
WMU. EPA has developed a number of tests to measure the leaching potential of
different wastes and waste constituents in the laboratory. These include the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching
Procedure (SPLP). Consult Chapter 2 of the Guide (Characterizing Waste) for analytical
procedures that can be used to determine expected leachate concentrations for waste
constituents.
6.1.4 Reference Ground-water Concentrations tsUI Section 5.0
TBD
Associated with each waste constituent is a set of RGCs that reflect not-to-exceed
exposure levels for both drinking water ingestion and shower inhalation cancer risks and
non-cancer hazards. These include regulatory MCLs and HBNs. Collectively, HBNs and
MCLs are referred to in IWEM as RGCs. Each type of RGC is briefly described below.
6-4
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
6.1.4.1 Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) IbU Section 5.0
TBD
For a number of constituents, the EPA has set MCLs as part of the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR). The MCL is the maximum permissible
level of a contaminant in public water systems. For each contaminant to be regulated,
EPA first sets a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) at a level that protects
against health risks. EPA then sets each contaminant's MCL as close to its MCLG as
feasible, taking costs and available analytical and treatment technologies into
consideration.
6.1.4.2 Health-Based Number (HBN) !UJ Section 5.0
TBD
All constituents included in the IWEM software have one or more HBNs. An
HBN is the maximum exposure concentration of a contaminant in a domestic water
supply that will not cause adverse health effects. Health effects and certain exposure
assumptions are considered in the determination of the HBN, while other factors, such as
the cost of treatment, are not considered. The HBNs in IWEM are based on the ingestion
of drinking water and the inhalation of volatiles during showering. HBN values are based
on a target risk of IxlO"6 for carcinogens and a hazard quotient of 1 for non-carcinogens.
HBNs in IWEM were calculated using standard EPA risk assessment assumptions and
equations. An overview of the approach used to develop HBNs is given below. Section
5 of the IWEM Technical Background Document provides a detailed description.
Ingestion of Drinking Water fcsU Section 5.1
TBD
We calculated ingestion HBNs for a residential receptor who ingests contaminated
drinking water for 350 days/year. Consistent with EPA policy, the ingestion HBNs were
calculated to reflect consideration of children's exposure. The calculation of cancer
HBNs assumed an exposure duration of 30 years and used a time-weighted average
drinking water intake rate for individuals aged 0 to 29 years, equal to 0.0252 liters per day
per kilogram body weight. In the case of cancer HBNs, the 30-year exposure period
represents a high-end (95th percentile) value for population mobility. We chose the 30-
year period to cover ages 0-29 to ensure childhood years were included. Non-cancer
ingestion HBNs were developed to be protective of children aged 0 to 6 years; the
calculations used a daily ingestion rate that is representative of children in this age-group,
and is equal to 0.0426 liters per day per kilogram body weight.
6-5
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
Inhalation of Volatiles During Showering fcsU Section 5.2
TBD
Inhalation HBNs were calculated for adults because we assumed that children take
baths. We assumed daily 15 minutes showers for 350 days per year over 30 years and
used a shower model to calculate the average constituent concentration in air to which an
individual is exposed during a day as a result of volatilization of a constituent in shower
water. We assumed that the shower water is ground water from the well modeled by
EPACMTP. We also made the important assumption that constituents are released into
household air only a result of showering activity, and that exposure to air-phase
constituents only occur in the shower stall and bathroom. EPA acknowledges that not
considering exposures to children who bathe in bathtubs may be a significant limitation.
However, we have not yet developed a "bath" model for evaluating children.
6.1.4.3 Selection of the RGC within the IWEM Software
Tier 1 LCTVs are provided for both MCLs and HBNs. In the case of HBNs, the
LCTV reflects the most restrictive pathway and effect, i.e., the lowest of the available
HBNs. At Tier 2, you can select the type of RGC (either MCL, ingestion HBN,
inhalation HBN, or all) that you wish to use. You may also enter your own constituent-
specific RGC values. For example, your state regulatory authority may request that you
use HBNs that are calculated using a different target risk level or a different assumption
regarding the weight of an adult. (Instructions regarding the selection of RGCs and
entering user-specified RGCs are provided in Section 5.4.1.6 of this User's Guide.)
6.2 Additional Parameters for a Tier 2 Evaluation
This section describes the additional parameters for which you can provide site-
specific values in a Tier 2 evaluation. There are two categories of Tier 2 input
parameters: required parameters for which you must provide site-specific values; and
optional parameters for which you can provide site-specific values if data are available.
When site-specific data for some of the optional model inputs are not available, the
suggested default values or distributions of values can be used.
6.2.1 Basis for Using Site-Specific Parameter Values
The Tier 1 evaluation provides a quick screening analysis of whether or not a
WMU design is protective for wastes of concern. The IWEM Tier 1 analysis
compensates for the lack of site-specific information by being conservative. Tier 1
LCTVs are based on simulating a wide range of conditions, and then selecting the 90th
percentile of the predicted ground-water concentration as the basis for assigning the
6-6
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
LCTV. In other words, the Tier 1 evaluation is expected to be protective in 90% of the
cases.
The Tier 2 evaluation, which is designed to simulate a specific WMU, has less
uncertainty in its liner recommendation than a Tier 1 evaluation of the same site. This
reduction in uncertainty is achieved by using site-specific data which are both easily
measured and important to the model output.
6.2.2 Tier 2 Parameters
Table 6.1 provides a list of the Tier 2 IWEM parameters. The table indicates: (1)
the parameters the user may specify in Tier 2 grouped by the main input groups of the
IWEM software, (2) the units of measurement; (3) whether the parameter is a required
user input; (4) the IWEM default if the parameter is not a required user input; and (5) the
ranges of allowable input values.
Parameters that require user inputs are indicated with YES in the corresponding
column of the table. All other parameters are optional user inputs. The following
sections discuss the Tier 2 parameters in more detail.
6.2.2.1 Tier 2 Parameters that Require User Inputs
Parameters in Table 6.1 that are marked with YES in the 'Required User Input?'
column are those for which you must provide a site-specific value in Tier 2; the software
does not have a default value. In addition to selecting the WMU type and providing
constituent leachate concentrations, there are only four other key parameters for which the
user must provide data. They are:
WMU Area;
WMU Depth for landfills;
Ponding Depth for surface impoundments; and
Climate Center that is nearest to your site.
6.2.2.2 Optional Tier 2 Parameters
Except the required parameters listed above, all other Tier 2 parameters listed in
Table 6.1 are optional user input parameters. Use of site-specific data is strongly
recommended for these parameters, but if you do not have a value, the IWEM software
will allow you to select a default value.
6-7
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 6.0
Table 6.1 Tier 2 Parameters
Parameter
Units
Required
User
Input?
Default
Range
Min
Max
WMU Parameters
WMU Area
WMU Depth (LF only)
Ponding Depth (SI Only)
Sediment Layer Thickness (SI Only)
WMU Base Depth below ground surface
Operational Life (SI, WP, LAU)
Surface Water Body within 2,000
(SI Only)
Distance to Ground-Water Well
m2
m
m
m
m
yr
m
m
YES
YES
YES
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.0
CO
360
150
1
>0
0.01
0.2
-100b)
1.0
0
0
l.OE+8
10
100
100a)
100b)
200
5,000
1,609
Subsurface Parameters
Subsurface Environment
Depth to Water Table
Saturated Zone Thickness
Hydraulic Gradient
Hydraulic Conductivity
Subsurface pH
- Solution limestone environment
- All other
-
m
m
m/m
m/yr
~
-
-
-
-
-
~
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
7.5
6.2
NA
0.1
0.3
>0
3.15
7
1
NA
1,000
1,000
1
IxlO8
14
14
Infiltration and Recharge Parameters
Infiltration Rate
Nearest Climate Center
Regional Soil Type
Waste Type Permeability
m/yr
-
-
-
-
YES
-
-
(4)
(5)
(6)
(6)
0
NA
NA
NA
100
NA
NA
NA
Constituent Parameters
Constituent Name
CAS Number
Koc (organics only)
Overall Decay Coefficient (organics only)
Acid Hydrolysis Rate
Neutral Hydrolysis Rate
-
-
L/kg
1/yr
l/(M-yr)
1/yr
-
-
-
-
-
-
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
NA
50-00-0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NA
999999-99-9
l.OE+10
100
l.OE+10
100
6-8
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 6.0
Table 6.1 Tier 2 Input Parameters (continued)
Parameter
Base Hydrolysis Rate
MCL
Ingestion HBN - Cancer
Ingestion HBN - Non Cancer
Inhalation HBN - Cancer
Inhalation HBN - Non Cancer
User RGC
Exposure Duration
Units
l/(M-yr)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
vrs
Required
User
Input?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Default
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
(8)
(9}
Range
Min
0.0
>0
>0
>0
>0
>0
>0
>0
Max
l.OE+10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
70
NA = Not Applicable
a) Value cannot be larger than impoundment ponding depth
b) Negative value indicates base is above ground surface; depth value cannot be larger than depth to water
table.
NOTES:
(1) Default operational life is 50 years for Surface Impoundments, 20 years for Waste Piles, and 40
years for Land Application Units.
(2) Select from the IWEM list; if you select type "unknown," the subsurface parameters will be set to
mean values from the IWEM nationwide database.
(3) Assigned from the IWEM database according to the selected subsurface environment.
(4) Assigned from the IWEM database according to the selected climate station, soil type or waste
type.
(5) You must select a center from the IWEM list, usually the center nearest to your WMU location.
(6) Select from the IWEM list; if you select type "unknown," the soil type or waste type will be chosen
randomly from the three known types during the Tier 2 modeling process.
(7) Applicable only when you wish to add constituents to the IWEM constituent list; you must provide
at least one MCL or HBN value for each new constituent.
(8) Applicable when you want to add an HBN to a constituent already in the IWEM database.
(9) Applicable only when you supply a user-specific RGC.
6-9
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
6.2.2.3 Default Values for Missing Data
Default values for Tier 2 parameters are generally obtained from IWEM's internal
ground-water modeling and constituent property databases. The IWEM software is
designed to help you make reasonable choices for default parameter values. For instance,
if you do not know the specific values for ground-water parameters, such as the thickness
of the saturated aquifer zone and the hydraulic ground-water gradient, but you do know
the general hydrogeology of your site (e.g., you have an alluvial aquifer at your site),
IWEM will use this information to select appropriate ground-water values for alluvial
aquifers.
Depending on the parameter involved, IWEM may use either a single default
value for a missing parameter, or it may use a probability distribution of values, to
accommodate a range of possible values.
6.2.2.4 How IWEM Handles Infeasible User Input Parameters
The IWEM software checks all entered data values. It verifies that only numeric
data are entered in data fields and that values are non-negative. In addition, IWEM
checks that values are all within feasible ranges. When a value is outside the feasible
range, IWEM will display a warning and will not allow you to proceed until you change
the entered value. Table 6.1 lists the minimum and maximum allowed values for each
Tier 2 parameter.
In addition to checking individual parameters, IWEM ensures that combinations
of parameters will not lead to physically unrealistic results. This is particularly the case
for parameter combinations which could cause an excessive degree of ground-water
mounding underneath a WMU. The extent of ground-water mounding depends on WMU
characteristics, the permeability of the unsaturated and saturated zones of the aquifer, the
depth to ground water and the saturated thickness of the saturated zone. IWEM checks
for infeasible parameter combinations after you have entered all Tier 2 parameters and
alerts you if it has found a problem. If IWEM determines that the data you have provided
will cause an excessive degree of ground-water mounding, IWEM will reduce the
allowed infiltration rate.
6.2.3 Tier 2 Parameter Descriptions
This section provides a detailed description of the individual Tier 2 parameters,
including how you may obtain site-specific values. The parameters are organized in
groups, according to the grouping in the IWEM software data entry screens.
6-10
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
6.2.3.1 WMU Parameters fcU Sections 3.1, 4.2.1.3, 4.2.5
TBD
WMU Area (m2). This parameter represents the footprint area of the WMU (area
= length x width). This is a required user-input value for a Tier 2 evaluation. The area
must be entered in square meters. To convert other units to square meters, use the
following factors:
1 Acre = 4,046.9 m2
1 Hectare = 10,000 m2
1 ft2 = 0.093 m2
WMU Depth (m). If you select 'Landfill' as the WMU type, you must also enter
the depth of the landfill. This parameter represents the average waste thickness in the
landfill at closure. For landfills this is a required user input value. It does not apply to
waste piles or land application units. For surface impoundments, you must enter an
equivalent parameter, the ponding depth (see below). The landfill depth must be entered
in meters. To convert other units to meters, use the following factors:
1 Foot = 0.305 m
1 Inch = 0.0254 m
Ponding Depth (m). This is a required user input parameter for surface
impoundments only. This parameter represents the average depth of free liquid in the
impoundment. Surface impoundments tend to build up a layer of consolidated 'sludge' at
their bottom; the thickness of the layer, if present, should not be counted as part of the
ponding depth. The ponding depth must be entered in meters. To convert other units to
meters, use the same conversion factors listed above.
Sediment Layer Thickness (m). This is an optional user input value. It is
applicable to surface impoundments only. This parameter represents the average
thickness of accumulated sediment ('sludge') deposited on the bottom of the
impoundment. The sediment layer thickness must be entered in meters. The default
value is 0.2 m. To convert other units to meters, use the same conversion factors listed
above.
Depth of the WMU Base Below Ground Surface (m). This is an optional user
input value. It represents the depth of the base of the unit below the ground surface, as
schematically depicted in Figure 6.2. The depth of the unit below the ground surface
reduces the distance in the unsaturated zone through which leachate constituents have to
travel before they reach ground water. This depth must be entered in meters. The default
value is 0.0 meters, i.e., the base of the unit is level with the ground surface. To convert
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
other units to meters, use the same conversion factors listed above. There may be
circumstances in which the base of the WMU is elevated above the ground surface.
IWEM can handle this situation in two ways:
a) If you know the depth to ground water of your site, you can enter the total
vertical distance between the base of the WMU and the water table as the Depth
of the Water Table in the subsurface parameters input screen. In this case, set
the Depth of the WMU Base Below Ground Surface to zero (0.0).
b) If you do not know the depth to the water table, then you can enter the elevation
of the WMU base as a negative value for the Depth of the WMU Base Below
Ground Surface. For instance, if the unit is 1 meter above ground surface, enter
a value of -1 as the depth.
WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
K^M
DEPTH OF THE WMU BASE " I/VAVVWJ
VLINER DEPTHTO
WATER TABLE v
SATURAT
THICK
1
GROUND SURFACE
WATER TABLE
ED ZONE
NESS
//&/&/&/&/&^
Figure 6.2 WMU with Base Below Ground Surface.
Operational Life (yr). For waste piles, surface impoundments, or land application
units, the operational life is an optional Tier 2 user input parameter. This parameter does
not apply to landfills because each landfill is assumed closed with waste in place and the
time required to deplete the contaminants in a landfill waste is calculated for the user by
IWEM. See Section 6.1.1 for more details on leaching durations. The operational life
represents the number of years the WMU is in operation, or, more precisely for the
purpose of IWEM, the number of years the unit releases leachate. Default values for this
parameter are as follows:
6-12
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
Waste Pile = 20 years
Land Application Unit = 40 years
Surface Impoundment = 50 years
Distance to Nearest Surface Water Body (m). For surface impoundments, IWEM
needs to know whether or not there is a permanent surface water body within 2,000
meters of the WMU, (i.e., a river, pond, or lake). This parameter is used in the
calculation of ground-water mounding to cap the infiltration rate from surface
impoundments. The surface water body does not have to be located in the direction of
ground-water flow and can be in any direction from the WMU unit. If you know the
distance to the nearest surface water body, IWEM will use that value. If the distance is
unknown or known with some uncertainty, IWEM provides the following options:
Distance to surface water body is unknown (IWEM uses 360 m),
Exact distance is unknown but it is less than 2000 m (IWEM uses 360 m), or
Exact distance is unknown but it is greater than 2000 m (IWEM uses 5000 m).
Distance to nearest well (m). This parameter represents the distance, in the
direction of downgradient ground-water flow, to an actual or potential ground-water
exposure location. This exposure location can be represented as a ground-water well.
Figure 6.3 depicts how the well distance is measured. This figure shows a plan view
(upper graph) and a cross-sectional view (lower graph) of a groundwater constituent
plume emanating from a WMU. The WMU is represented as the dark rectangular area in
the figure. The constituent plume is represented by the lighter shaded area. In this figure,
the direction of ground-water flow underneath the WMU is from left to right. The
constituent plume follows the direction of ground-water flow, but as it moves, the plume
also spreads laterally (upper graph) as well as vertically (lower graph). In IWEM, these
processes are modeled by EPACMTP. Figure 6.3 also shows the location of the well.
IWEM always assumes that the well is located along the center line of the plume,
but the software randomly varies the depth of the well intake point (see lower graph)
during the Monte Carlo simulation process. The distance between WMU and the location
of the well is an optional user input parameter at Tier 2. This parameter must be entered
in meters, and has a default value of 150 meters (492 feet). To enter a site-specific value,
determine the direction of ground-water flow, and then the horizontal distance to the
nearest well (or location at which you want to ensure that constituent concentrations in
ground water do not exceed protective levels) along the direction of groundwater flow. If
you are unsure of the ground water flow direction, it will be protective to enter the
shortest distance between the edge of the WMU and the nearest location of concern.
6-13
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 6.0
PLAN VIEW
CONTAMINANT
PLUME
CENTERLINE
SECTIONAL VIEW
DOWNGRADIENT DISTANCE
WELL
LOCATION
LAND SURFACE
Figure 6.3 Position of the Modeled Well Relative to the Waste
Management Unit.
For compatibility with the EPACMTP ground-water model and consistency with
related EPA programs, we assume the well is located within 1 mile, or 1,609 meters,
from the WMU. IWEM will not accept larger values.
While IWEM allows you to enter a site-specific value for the distance between the
well and the WMU, the model does not allow you to modify the depth of the well intake
point below the water table. In IWEM evaluations, the depth of the well intake point is
always treated as a 'Monte Carlo' parameter, i.e., the tool will vary the well depth during
the model simulations, from zero (right at the water table), up to a maximum depth of 10
meters (30 feet) below the water table. If the value for the saturated thickness of your
6-14
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
aquifer (see section 6.2.3.2) is less than 10 meters, IWEM will use that actual depth as the
maximum value for the well depth. Also, IWEM does not allow you to vary the distance
from the center line of the plume.
6.2.3.2 Subsurface Parameters tsUI Section 4.2.3.1
TBD
The subsurface parameters in IWEM comprise a group of the most important
ground-water modeling parameters. Unfortunately, these parameters are not easily
measured. Obtaining site-specific values for these parameters requires a hydrogeological
site characterization. Such information may be available from WMU planning and siting
studies, environmental impact assessments, and RCRA permit applications. The United
States Geological Survey (www.usgs.gov) and your local state geological survey may also
be good sources of site-specific information.
To assist you in performing a Tier 2 evaluation, the IWEM software provides
multiple options for entering subsurface parameters to assist you in making the best
possible use of information you have. The preferred option is to use accurate site-specific
values for all of the parameters, entering them directly in the appropriate data input
screens. The second option is where you have values for some, but not all of the
parameters. In this case, you enter the parameter values that you know, and IWEM makes
a best estimate of the missing values, utilizing knowledge the software has as to how the
various parameters tend to be correlated from its national ground-water modeling
database. The third, and least desirable, option is where you have no site-specific
subsurface data whatsoever. In this case, IWEM simply assigns parameter values that are
average values from its database.
The individual IWEM parameters in this group are discussed below.
Subsurface Environments. IWEM includes a built-in database of hydrogeological
parameters, organized by 12 different subsurface environments, plus one 'unknown'
category, as follows:
1) Metamorphic and Igneous
2) Bedded Sedimentary Rock
3) Till over Sedimentary Rock
4) Sand & Gravel
5) Alluvial Basins, Valleys & Fans
6) River Valleys and Floodplains with Overbank Deposits
7) River Valleys and Floodplains without Overbank Deposits
8) Outwash
9) Till and Till over Outwash
10) Unconsolidated and Consolidated Shallow Aquifers
645
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
Subsurface Environment Descriptions
1) Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks
This hydrogeologic environment is underlain by consolidated bedrock of volcanic origin. This hydrogeologic
environment setting is typically associated with steep slopes on the sides of mountains, and a thin soil cover.
Igneous and metamorphic rocks generally have very low porosities and permeabilities This hydrogeologic
environment can occur throughout the United States, but is most prevalent in the western US.
2) Bedded Sedimentary Rock
Sedimentary rock is formed through erosion of bedrock. Deposited layers of eroded material may later be buried
and compacted to form sedimentary rock. Generally, the deposition is not continuous but recurrent, and sheets of
sediment representing separate events come to form distinct layers of sedimentary rock. Typically, these deposits
are very permeable and yield large quantities of ground water. Examples of this hydrogeologic environment
setting are found throughout the United States.
3) Till Over Sedimentary Rock
This hydrogeologic environment is found in glaciated regions in the northern United States which are frequently
underlain by relatively flat-lying consolidated sedimentary bedrock consisting primarily of sandstone, shale,
limestone, and dolomite. The bedrock is overlain by glacial deposits which, consists chiefly of till, a dense
unsorted mixture of soil and rock particles deposited directly by ice sheets. Ground water occurs both in the
glacial deposits and in the sedimentary bedrock. Till deposits often have low permeability.
4) Sand and Gravel
Sediments are classified into three categories based upon their relative sizes; gravel, consisting of particles that
individually may be boulders, cobbles or pebbles; sand, which may be very coarse, coarse, medium, fine or very
fine; and mud, which may consist of clay and various size classes of silt. Sand and gravel hydrogeologic
environments are very common throughout the United States and frequently overlie consolidated and semi-
consolidated sedimentary rocks. Sand and gravel aquifers have very high permeabilities and yield large
quantities of ground water.
5) Alluvial Basins, Valleys and Fans
Thick alluvial deposits in basins and valleys bordered by mountains typify this hydrogeologic environment.
Alluvium is a general term for clay, silt, sand and gravel that was deposited during comparatively recent geologic
time by a stream or other body of running water. The sediments are deposited in the bed of the stream or on its
flood plain or delta, or in fan shaped deposits at the base of a mountain slope. Alluvial basins, valleys and fans
frequently occupy a region extending from the Puget Sound-Williamette Valley area of Washington and Oregon
to west Texas. This region consists of alternating basins or valleys and mountain ranges. The surrounding
mountains, and the bedrock beneath the basins, consist of granite and metamorphic rocks. Ground water is
obtained mostly from sand and gravel deposits within the alluvium. These deposits are interbedded with finer
grained layers of silt and clay.
6-16
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
Subsurface Environment Descriptions (continued)
6) River Alluvium with Overbank Deposits
This hydrogeologic environment is characterized by low to moderate topography and thin to moderately thick sediments of
flood-deposited alluvium along portions of a river valley. The alluvium is underlain by either unconsolidated sediments or
fractured bedrock of sedimentary or igneous/metamorphic origin. Water is obtained from sand and gravel layers which are
interbedded with finer grained alluvial deposits. The alluvium typically serves as a significant source of water. The flood plain
is covered by varying thicknesses of fine-grained silt and clay, called overbank deposits. The overbank thickness is usually
greater along major streams and thinner along minor streams but typically averages 5 to 10 feet.
7) River Alluvium without Overbank Deposits
This hydrogeologic environment is identical to the River Alluvium with Overbank Deposits environment except that no
significant fine-grained floodplain deposits occupy the stream valley. The lack of fine grained deposits may result in
significantly higher recharge in areas with ample precipitation.
8) Outwash
Sand and gravel removed or "washed out" from a glacier by streams is termed outwash. This hydrogeologic environment is
characterized by moderate to low topography and varying thicknesses of outwash that overlie sequences of fractured bedrock of
sedimentary, metamorphic or igneous origin. These sand and gravel outwash deposits typically serve as the principal aquifers
within the area. The outwash also serves as a source of regional recharge to the underlying bedrock.
9) Till and Till Over Outwash
This hydrogeologic environment is characterized by low topography and outwash materials that are covered by varying
thicknesses of glacial till. The till is principally unsorted sediment which may be interbedded with localized deposits of sand
and gravel. Although ground water occurs in both the glacial till and in the underlying outwash, the outwash typically serves as
the principal aquifer because the fine grained deposits have been removed by streams. The outwash is in direct hydraulic
connection with the glacial till and the glacial till serves as a source of recharge for the underlying outwash.
10) Unconsolidated and Semi-consolidated Shallow Surficial Aquifers
This hydrogeologic environment is characterized by moderately low topographic relief and gently dipping, interbedded
unconsolidated and semi-consolidated deposits which consist primarily of sand, silt and clay. Large quantities of water are
obtained from the surficial sand and gravel deposits which may be separated from the underlying regional aquifer by a low
permeability or confining layer. This confining layer typically "leaks", providing recharge to the deeper zones.
11) Coastal Beaches
This hydrogeologic environment is characterized by low topographic relief, near sea-level elevation and unconsolidated deposits
of water-washed sands. The term beach is appropriately applied only to a body of essentially loose sediment. This usually
means sand-size particles, but could include gravel. Quartz particles usually predominate. These materials are well sorted, very
permeable and have very high potential infiltration rates. These areas are commonly ground-water discharge areas although they
can be very susceptible to the intrusion of saltwater.
12) Solution Limestone
Large portions of the central and southeastern United States are underlain by limestones and dolomites in which the fractures
have been enlarged by solution. Although ground water occurs in both the surficial deposits and in the underlying bedrock, the
limestones and dolomites, which typically contain solution cavities, generally serve as the principal aquifers. This type of
hydrogeologic environment is often described as "karst."
13) Unknown Environment
If the subsurface hydrogeological environment is unknown, or it is different from any of the twelve main types used in IWEM,
select the subsurface environment as Type 13. In this case, IWEM will assign values of the hydrogeological parameters (depth
to groundwater, saturated zone thickness, saturated zone hydraulic conductivity, and saturated zone hydraulic gradient) that are
simply national average values.
6-17
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
11) Coastal Beaches
12) Solution Limestone
13) Unknown
This User's Guide provides a summary of the geologic and hydrogeologic
characteristic of each environment (see text box). You are cautioned that the assignment
of a subsurface environment is best done by a professional trained in hydrogeology and is
familiar with local site conditions.
Depth to the Water Table (m) This parameter is the vertical distance from the
ground surface to the water table as depicted in Figure 6.2. The water table in this case is
meant to represent the 'natural' water elevation, as it is or would be without the influence
from the WMU. The presence of a WMU, particularly a surface impoundment, may
cause a local rise in the water table called mounding. When you run a Tier 2 evaluation,
IWEM assumes that the depth to water table value you have entered does not include
mounding. The tool will calculate the predicted impact of each liner design on the
ground water as part of the modeling evaluation.
If the water table elevation at your site shows seasonal fluctuation, it is best to
enter an average annual depth to ground-water value. Note that entering a smaller depth
to ground-water value will mean that constituents have less distance to travel before they
reach the ground water, and this will tend to result in a more protective IWEM result (i.e.,
IWEM will tend to predict higher ground-water exposure concentrations and hence return
a lower LCTV). It is also important to remember that the depth to ground water should
be measured from the ground surface, not from the base of the WMU. If the base of the
unit is lower than the ground surface and, therefore, closer to the watertable, you should
enter that value as the Depth of the WMU Base Below the Ground Surface (see section
6.2.3.1 above).
The depth to ground water should be entered in meters. To convert from other
units to meters, use the factors listed in section 6.2.3.1. The default value for this
parameter is a function of the selected subsurface environment. If you selected the
"unknown" subsurface environment, IWEM will use the national average of 5.2 meters.
If you selected one of the twelve subsurface environments and do not specify the depth to
the water table, IWEM will treat the depth to the water table as a Monte-Carlo variable:
IWEM will use a distribution of values that is appropriate for the selected subsurface
environment.
Saturated Zone Thickness (m). This parameter represents the vertical distance
from the watertable down to the base of the aquifer, as shown in the diagram in Figure
6.2. Usually the base is an impermeable layer, e.g., bedrock. This parameter is used in
6-18
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
the Tier 2 model simulation to describe the thickness of the ground-water zone over
which the leachate plume can mix with ground water. If your site has a highly stratified
hydrogeology, it may be difficult to precisely define the "base of the aquifer," but in such
cases, the stratification may effectively limit the vertical plume travel distance. In this
case it may be appropriate to enter the maximum vertical extent of the plume as an
"effective" saturated zone thickness in IWEM.
The parameter must be entered in meters. To convert from other units to meters,
use the factors given in section 6.2.3.1. The default saturated zone thickness is a function
of the selected subsurface environment. If you selected the "unknown" subsurface
environment, IWEM will use the national average of 10.1 meters. If you selected one of
the twelve subsurface environments and did not specify the saturated thickness, IWEM
will treat the depth to the saturated thickness as a Monte-Carlo variable and use a
distribution of values that is appropriate for the selected subsurface environment.
Hydraulic Gradient (m/m). For unconfined aquifers, the hydraulic gradient is
simply the slope of the water table in a particular direction. It is calculated as the
difference in the elevation of the water table measured at two locations divided by the
distance between the two locations. In IWEM, this parameter represents the average
horizontal ground-water gradient in the vicinity of the WMU location. The gradient is
meant to represent the 'natural' ground-water gradient as it is, or would be, without
influence from the WMU. The presence of a WMU, particularly a surface impoundment,
may cause local mounding of the water table and associated higher local ground-water
gradients. When you run a Tier 2 evaluation, IWEM assumes that the gradient value you
have entered does not include mounding; rather the software will calculate the predicted
impact on the ground water of each liner design as part of the modeling evaluation.
The hydraulic gradient, together with the hydraulic conductivity (see below),
controls the ground-water flow rate, in accordance with Darcy's Law. The effect of
varying ground-water flow rate on contaminant fate and transport is complex. Intuitively,
it would seem that factors that increase the ground-water flow rate would cause a higher
ground-water exposure level at the receptor well, but this is not always the case. A higher
ground-water velocity will cause leachate constituents to arrive at the well location more
quickly. For constituents that are subject to degradation in ground water, the shorter
travel time will cause the constituents to arrive at the well at higher concentrations as
compared to a case of low ground-water velocity and long travel times. On the other
hand, a high ground-water flow rate will tend to increase the degree of dilution of the
leachate plume, due to mixing and dispersion. This will in turn tend to lower the
magnitude of the concentrations reaching the well. The Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations are
based on the maximum constituent concentrations at the well, rather than how long it
6-19
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
might take for the exposure to occur, and therefore a higher ground-water flow rate may
result in lower predicted exposure levels at the well.
The hydraulic gradient is a unitless parameter. Its default value depends on the
subsurface environment you selected. If you selected the "unknown" environment,
IWEM will use a nationwide average value of 0.0057. If you selected one of the twelve
subsurface environments and did not specify the hydraulic gradient, IWEM will treat the
hydraulic gradient as a Monte-Carlo variable, and it will use a distribution of values that
is appropriate for the selected subsurface environment.
Hydraulic Conductivity (m/yr). This parameter represents the permeability of the
saturated aquifer in the horizontal direction. The hydraulic conductivity, together with
the hydraulic gradient, controls the ground-water flow rate. For the same reasons as
discussed above, assigning a low hydraulic conductivity value will not necessarily result
in lower predicted ground-water exposures and higher LCTVs. In a broader sense, it
means that siting a WMU in a low permeability aquifer setting is not always more
protective than a high permeability setting. Low ground-water velocity means that it will
take longer for the exposure to occur, and as a result, there is more opportunity for natural
attenuation to degrade contaminants. For long-lived waste constituents, it also means that
little dilution of the plume may occur.
The hydraulic conductivity of aquifers is sometimes reported as a transmissivity
value, which is usually denoted with the symbol'T'. Transmissivity is simply the
product of hydraulic conductivity and saturated thickness. To back-calculate the
hydraulic conductivity, you should divide the transmissivity by the value of the saturated
zone thickness. The hydraulic conductivity parameter in IWEM must be entered in
meters per year. To convert from other units, use the following factors:
1 meter/second = 31,536,000 m/yr
1 foot/second = 9,612,173 m/yr
1 gallon/day/foot2 = 14.89 m/yr
The default value of hydraulic conductivity in IWEM varies with the subsurface
environment you have selected. If you selected the "unknown" subsurface environment,
IWEM will use a nationwide average value of 1,890 m/yr. If you selected one of the
twelve hydrogeologic environments and the hydraulic conductivity as "unknown," IWEM
will treat the hydraulic conductivity as a Monte-Carlo variable, and it will use a
distribution of values that is appropriate for the selected subsurface environment.
Subsurface pH. This parameter represents the alkalinity or acidity of the soil and
aquifer. The pH is one of the most important subsurface parameters controlling the
6^20
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
mobility of metals. Most metals are more mobile under acidic (low pH) conditions, as
compared to neutral or alkaline (pH of 7 or higher) conditions. The pH may also affect
the hydrolysis rate of organic constituents; some constituents degrade more rapidly or
more slowly as pH varies. The pH of most aquifer systems is slightly acidic, the primary
exception being aquifers in solution limestone settings. These may also be referred to as
'karst', 'carbonate' or 'dolomite' aquifers. The ground water in these systems is usually
alkaline.
IWEM assumes the subsurface pH value is the same in the unsaturated zone and
saturated zone. The default pH value depends on the hydrogeologic environment you
selected; if you selected "Solution Limestone" (Subsurface Environment 12), the default
pH is 7.5. In all other hydrogeologic environments, the default pH value is 6.2. These
default values represent median values from EPA's Data Storage and Retrieval System,
National Water Quality Database (STORET). If you do not know the hydrogeologic
environment, IWEM will assume that the subsurface environment is of a
non-solution-limestone type with the default pH of 6.2.
6.2.3.3 Infiltration and Recharge Parameters tsUI Section 4.2.2
TBD
In IWEM, the infiltration rate is defined as the rate (annual volume divided by
WMU area) at which leachate flows from the bottom of the WMU (including any liner)
into the unsaturated zone beneath the WMU. Recharge is the regional rate of aquifer
recharge outside of the WMU. For landfills, waste piles, and land application units, the
infiltration rate is primarily determined by the local climatic conditions, especially annual
precipitation, and WMU liner characteristics. For surface impoundments, the infiltration
rate from the unit is a function of the surface impoundment ponding depth, liner
characteristics, and the presence of a 'sludge' layer at the bottom of the impoundment.
The regional recharge rate is a function of the annual precipitation rate, and varies with
geographical location and soil type.
The WMU related parameters are entered in IWEM in the WMU Parameters
group (see Section 6.2.3.1). The location and soil related parameters are entered in the
Infiltration and Recharge Parameters group. Infiltration rate is among the most sensitive
site-specific parameters in an IWEM evaluation, and, therefore, the software gives you
the option to provide a site-specific value in Tier 2. The model is usually much less
sensitive to recharge rate. IWEM determines the appropriate value for you, as a function
of site location and soil type. The specific IWEM parameters in this group are as follows.
Site-specific Infiltration Rate (m/yr). This parameter represents the actual annual
volume of leachate, per unit area of the WMU, which flows from the bottom of the WMU
into the unsaturated zone underneath the WMU. The performance characteristics of a
liner, if present, are among the most important factors controlling the infiltration rate, and
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
therefore, the rate of leachate release. IWEM provides you the option to enter a site-
specific infiltration rate to accommodate liner designs that are different from the standard
liner designs (i.e., (1) no liner, (2) single clay liner, or (3) composite liner), and to
evaluate extreme climatic conditions.
IWEM provides default values for infiltration rate, which are a function of WMU
type, liner design, and site location. These values are used in Tier 1 and as defaults in a
Tier 2 evaluation. The default infiltration rates used in IWEM for landfills, waste piles,
and land application units were developed using the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill
Performance (HELP) model (Schroeder et. al, 1994). The infiltration rate from a WMU
is difficult to measure directly; if you wish to determine site-specific WMU infiltration
rates for use in IWEM, it is recommended to use a model such as HELP to estimate the
rates.
The infiltration rate in IWEM must be entered in units of meter/year. To convert
from other units, use the following factors:
1 foot/year = 0.305 m/yr
1 inch/year = 0.0254 m/yr
Climate Center. IWEM includes a database of infiltration rates and regional
recharge rates for 102 climate centers located throughout the United States. To ensure
that IWEM will use the most appropriate values (if you choose to let IWEM select a
default value), you must select the climate center which is most appropriate for your site.
Usually this is the nearest climate center. However, this is not always the case. Especially
in coastal and mountain regions, the nearest climate center does not always represent
conditions that most closely approximate conditions at your site. You should therefore
use your judgment and also consider other adjacent climate centers. In the IWEM
software tool, you select the climate center from a drop-down list which can be sorted by
City or by State. Figure 6.4 shows the geographic locations of the 102 climate stations in
the United States.
Regional Soil Type. In order to assign an appropriate recharge rate, IWEM needs
to know the dominant, regional soil type in the vicinity of your site. IWEM provides a
selection of three major soil types, which are representative of most soils in the United
States:
Sandy Loam
Silty Loam
Silty Clay Loam.
6-22
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
IWEM also allows you to select the soil type "unknown." In that case, IWEM
will treat the soil type as a Monte-Carlo variable and randomly select from the three
available soil types, in accordance with the relative frequency of occurrence of each type
across the United States. By selecting the soil type, IWEM also assigns the soil
parameters that are used in the modeling of fate and transport in the unsaturated zone of
the aquifer.
Waste Type Permeability This parameter is used only for waste piles. Waste
piles are not typically covered and the permeability of the waste itself is a factor in
determining the rate of leachate released due to water percolating through the WMU. For
waste piles, IWEM recognizes three categories of waste permeability and their associated
infiltration rate: high permeability (0.041 cm/sec); moderate permeability (0.0041
cm/sec); and low permeability (0.00005 cm/sec). The waste permeability is correlated
with the grain size of the waste material, ranging from coarse to five-grained materials.
If you do not specify the waste type for waste piles, IWEM will default to
randomly selecting between the infiltration rates for each of the three waste types in the
Tier 2 Monte Carlo process, with each type having equal probability. That is, IWEM will
use a uniform probability distribution.
6-23
-------
ON
to
;hua
La
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
6.2.3.4 Constituent Parameters INd!! Section 5.0
IWEM includes a database of 206 organic constituents and 20 metals. Appendix
A provides a list of these constituents and their properties. The database provides the
following information for each constituent.
Descriptive Data: Name,
CAS Number
Physical and Constituent Properties: Organic Carbon Partition
Coefficient (KJ
Metals sorption isotherm data (kd)
Hydrolysis Rate Constants
Reference Ground-water Concentrations: Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Health Based Numbers (HBN)
To preserve the integrity of the database, IWEM gives you limited flexibility to
modify these data. IWEM does give you the option of specifying an overall constituent
decay rate which can include biodegradation, proving a constituent partitioning
coefficient (kd), and specifying one additional RGC to augment the built-in MCL and
HBN values.
IWEM allows you to add new constituents to its database and this provides an
indirect mechanism to assign different constituent parameter values, by entering a
constituent of interest as a 'new' constituent in the database with its own parameter
values.
The following sections discuss the IWEM constituent parameters.
Descriptive Data
Constituent Name and CAS Number. These parameters are used in IWEM to
identify each constituent. Whereas constituents may have multiple names, the CAS
number is an industry-standard, unique, identification code. If you want to use the "Add
New Constituent" option to assign different fate and transport parameters to an existing
IWEM constituent, it is recommended to use the actual CAS number and enter a new
constituent name.
6-25
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
Physical and Constituent Properties fcsU Section 4.2.4
TBD
The physical and constituent properties that affect subsurface fate and transport
include sorption parameters and degradation parameters.
Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (Koe). This parameter describes the sorption,
or affinity of a constituent to attach itself to soil and aquifer grains. This parameter is
applicable to organic constituents which tend to sorb onto the organic matter in soil or in
an aquifer. Constituents with high Koc values tend to move more slowly through the soil
and ground water. Volatile organics tend to have low Koc values, whereas semi-volatile
organics often have high Koc values. Koc values can be obtained from many constituent
property handbooks, as well as online databases, (e.g., Handbook of Environmental Data
on Organic Constituents, Verschueren, 1983). Sometimes, these references provide an
octanol- water partition coefficient (Kow), rather than a Koc value. Kow and Koc are roughly
equivalent parameters. A number of conversion formulas exist to convert Kow values into
Koc, and can be found in handbooks on environmental fate data (e.g., Verschueren, 1983;
Kollig et. al., 1983). Different conversion formulas exist for different constituents and
environmental media, and there is no single formula that is valid for all organic
constituents; therefore, they should be used with some caution.
In IWEM, Koc has units of liters/kilogram (L/kg) or, equivalently, milliliters/gram
(mL/g).
Metals Isotherm Data. In the case of metals, sorption is expressed in the partition
coefficient kd. IWEM provides a set of kd values calculated using the MINTEQA2
geoconstituent speciation model for each metal. Rather than using a single kd value for
each metal constituent, IWEM includes multiple sets of kd values to reflect the impact of
variations in ground-water pH and other geochemical conditions. Each set of kd values is
referred to as a sorption isotherm. The sorption parameters for metals in IWEM are part
of the software's built-in database and they cannot be modified by the user. Further
information on how the MINTEQ sorption isotherms were developed can be found in the
IWEM Technical Background Document and the EPACMTP Parameters/Data
Background Document.
If you are adding a new constituent to the IWEM database, you can enter a single
kd value to model sorption for the constituent. The kd must be entered in units of L/kg or,
equivalently, mL/g.
Hydrolysis Rate Constants. Hydrolysis refers to the transformation of constituent
constituents through reactions with water. For organic constituents, hydrolysis can be one
of the main degradation processes that occur in soil and ground water. The hydrolysis
6^26
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
rate values that are part of the IWEM database have been compiled by the U.S. EPA
Office of Research and Development (Kollig, 1993). For each organic constituent, the
database includes three hydrolysis rate constants: an acid-catalyzed rate constant, a
neutral rate constant, and a base-catalyzed rate constant.
Biodegradation
Biodegradation can be a significant attenuation process for organic constituents in
the subsurface. However, this process is also highly site- and constituent-specific. It is
not possible to provide reliable default biodegradation rates to be used in IWEM.
Evidence of the significance of biodegradation should be carefully considered in
accordance with EPA guidance, such as the OSWER Directive 9200.4-17P on Use of
Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground
Storage Tank Sites. A compendium of EPA bioremediation documents is available
online at www.epa.gov/ORDAVebPubs/biorem.html.
By default, IWEM does not explicitly take into account biodegradation processes,
and the IWEM constituent database does not include biodegradation rates. However, in
Tier 2, the IWEM software allows you to add a constituent-specific biodegradation decay
coefficient to its database, as part of the constituent properties input group8. This decay
coefficient has units of 1/yr. The value of the decay coefficient is related to half-life as:
Decay Coefficient (1/yr) = 0.693 / Half-life (yr)
IWEM stores user-defined decay coefficients in its constituent property database.
You should, however, be careful in using a decay coefficient value which is appropriate
for one site and not appropriate for others.
Reference Ground-Water Concentrations IbUI Section 5.0
TBD
The final set of parameters in the IWEM constituent database is a set of
constituent-specific RGCs, comprising MCLs and risk-based HBNs.
The use of these RGCs in IWEM is discussed in Chapter 7 of this User's Guide.
The derivation of the HBN values is discussed in Section 5 of the IWEM Technical
Background Document. You cannot change existing RGCs in the IWEM database. You
can, however, add a user-specified RGC value for each constituent in the database when
selected for a Tier 2 analysis. IWEM imposes no restrictions on user-specified RGCs,
Strictly speaking this decay coefficient can represent any first-order transformation process other
than hydrolysis, which is already explicitly considered in IWEM.
6^27
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 6.0
other than that they should be expressed in units of mg/L and an exposure duration is
provided (in years) that is consistent with the way the RGC was derived.
User-specified RGCs may represent either more or less stringent health-based
values, or alternative regulatory standards. IWEM makes no assumptions about user-
specified RGCs and, consequently, the software cannot check whether your value is
correct or not.
If you wish to add constituents to the IWEM database, you will be required to
provide at least one RGC for each new constituent, either a MCL, an ingestion HBN, or
an inhalation HBN. Consult the IWEM Technical Background Document for details on
the derivation of HBN values. This mechanism also provides an indirect way of using
modified MCL and/or HBN values for constituents that are already in the database. In this
case, you can add the constituent to the database as a 'new' constituent and provide your
own HBN values.
6-28
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 7.0
7.0 Understanding Your IWEM Results
After completing an analysis, IWEM provides a recommendation for a liner
design for a WMU or the appropriateness of land application. Section 7 provides
guidance on how IWEM may assist you in answering the following questions:
What kind of liner will be necessary to safely manage my waste in a landfill,
surface impoundment or waste pile?
Is land application appropriate for my waste?
What are the maximum allowable leachate concentrations for all constituents
in a waste for a particular type of WMU and liner design?
Should you consider a Tier 3 assessment?
The IWEM liner recommendations and determination of maximum allowable
leachate concentrations are based on protective ground-water concentrations at wells. In
Tier 1, IWEM uses the tabulated LCTV values that represent protective national
screening values. In Tier 2, IWEM calculates LCTVs to provide guidance on what
leachate levels need to be achieved, for instance through treatment, to safely allow
disposal in a particular WMU design. To help you understand the IWEM results, we will
discuss LCTVs first.
7.1 Leachate Concentration Threshold Values (LCTVs)
An LCTV is the maximum concentration of a constituent in the waste leachate
that is protective of ground water. That is, if the concentration in the leachate does not
exceed the LCTV, then the concentration in ground water at the well will not exceed the
RGC. IWEM uses the EPACMTP fate and transport model to calculate LCTVs.
EPACMTP is a fate and transport model that simulates the concentration of a constituent
in ground-water, as a function of the constituent's concentration in the waste leachate.
The LCTV is determined by comparing the predicted well concentration against a
selected RGC, i.e., an MCL or HBN. By definition, the LCTV is the value of the leachate
concentration for which the well concentration is equal to the RGC. LCTVs depend on:
1) the combined effects of WMU design characteristics and hydrogeological fate and
transport processes; and 2) the effect of constituent-specific regulatory standards such as
an MCL and constituent toxicity represented by the HBN.
7-1
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 7.0
Tier 1 LCTVs are different from Tier 2 LCTVs. LCTVs from the Tier 1 analysis
are generally applicable to sites across the country. Tier 2 LCTVs on the other hand, are
based on site-specific data for several sensitive parameters and are not applicable to other
sites.
7.2 Limits on the LCTV
While the LCTVs are based on fate and transport modeling, and regulatory and
risk-based ground-water standards, EPA also considered other factors in developing final
LCTV values for some waste constituents. These are described in this section.
7.2.1 Toxicity Characteristic Rule (TC Rule) Regulatory Levels fcU Section 6.2
TBD
In 1990, EPA adopted the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Rule making wastes
containing certain constituents at or above listed leachate concentrations a hazardous
waste.
For any waste constituent included in the TC rule, we capped the LCTV at the TC
Rule Regulatory Level. This level is the leachate concentration above which the waste is
considered to be a hazardous waste (U.S. EPA, 1990). TC levels have been determined
for the constituents listed in Table 7.1.
7.2.2 1,000 mg/L Cap fcU Section 6.2
TBD
EPA does not expect leachate concentrations from WMUs covered by this
guidance to exceed 1,000 mg/L for a single constituent, and therefore, has limited the
expected waste constituent leachate concentrations to be less than or equal to 1,000 mg/L.
One of the reasons to cap the leachate concentration in IWEM is that the fate and
transport assumptions in IWEM may not be valid at high concentrations. For instance,
high leachate concentrations may indicate the presence of a free organic phase.
Consequently, all Tier 1 and Tier 2 LCTVs are capped at a maximum value of 1,000
mg/L.
7-2
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 7.0
Table 7.1 Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Levels
Waste Constituent
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Cadmium
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chromium
o-cresol
m-cresol
p-cresol
2,4-D
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-dichloroethane
1 , 1 -dichloroethylene
2,4-dinitrotoluene
Endrin
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenze
TC Rule Leachate
Regulatory Level
(mg/L)
5
100
0.5
1
0.5
0.03
100
6
5
200
200
200
10
7.5
0.5
0.7
0.13
0.02
0.008
0.13
Waste Constituent
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachloroethane
Lead
Lindane
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Methyl ethyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pyridine
Selenium
Silver
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2,4,5-TP acid (silvex)
Vinyl chloride
TC Rule Leachate
Regulatory Level
(mg/L)
0.5
3
5
0.4
0.2
10
200
2
100
5
1
5
0.7
0.5
0.5
400
2
1
0.2
7.2.3 Constituents with Toxic Daughter Products
J Section 6.2
TBD
A number of the constituents included in the IWEM constituent database can be
transformed in soil and ground water into one or more toxic daughter products as a result
of hydrolysis reactions. For these constituents, the LCTVs are calculated such that they
accommodate both the parent constituent as well as any toxic daughter products. For
instance, if a parent waste constituent rapidly hydrolyses into a persistent daughter
product, the ground-water exposure caused by the parent itself may be minimal (it has
already degraded before it reaches the well), but the final LCTV for this constituent
would be based on the exposure caused by the daughter product, under the protective
assumption that the parent compound fully transforms into the daughter product. If an
IWEM constituent has more than one toxic daughter product, the final LCTV is based on
the LCTV for the most protective compound in the parent-daughter sequence. If the
7-3
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 7.0
LCTV of the parent constituent is lower than that of the daughter, the LCTV of the parent
remains unchanged. Additionally, if the daughter constituent has a particular RGC but
the parent constituent does not, the RGC of the daughter product is used to determine the
parent constituent LCTV. This methodology is designed to be protective of downgradient
ground water in terms of both the parent waste constituent and its daughter constituent(s).
The IWEM constituent database includes information on the toxic daughter
products associated which each hydrolyzing constituent, and the user does not need to
know which constituents transform into toxic daughter products. In Tier 1, the capping
the LCTV of parent constituents at the LCTV of their respective daughters is transparent
to the user. The capping of LCTVs is done automatically by the software and are flagged
in the Tier 1 tables and reports.
In a Tier 2 evaluation, if you select a waste constituent that hydrolyses, the IWEM
software will automatically add any toxic daughters products associated with that
constituent to the evaluation. In the Tier 2 input screens, daughter products are listed
immediately after their parent(s) in the Toxicity Standards Screen (Screen 22, see Figure
5.23). Constituents that are included because they are daughter products of constituents
in the waste, are identified as such in the input screens. In the Tier 2 reports, the results
of all waste constituents and any toxic daughter constituents produced by hydrolysis are
shown in the Tier 2 report. Daughter products are listed separately from parent
constituents, but for each daughter product, the parent waste constituent from which it
originated is identified.
Due to the chemical transformation of waste constituents, it is possible the same
constituent is included more than once in the evaluation. A constituent can be selected
because it is present in the waste, but it can also be added by the IWEM software because
it is produced as the result of hydrolysis transformations on one or more other waste
constituents. IWEM evaluates each occurrence of the constituent separately, and the
same constituent may lead to different liner recommendations in the same Tier 2
evaluation. For instance, assume that a constituent is present at low concentration in the
waste itself, but this compound is also produced as the result of hydrolysis of a second
waste constituent which is in the waste at a much higher concentration. IWEM will first
evaluate the constituent as an original waste constituent. In this example, we assumed
that the concentration in the waste is low, and the IWEM software in that case may
recommend a no-liner design as being protective. Next, IWEM will evaluate the ground-
water impact of the same constituent as a daughter product resulting from the
transformation of the second waste constituent. Because this second waste constituent
(the parent) is present in the waste at high concentrations, its transformation may cause
the ground-water concentration of our constituent of concern (which is now evaluated as
a daughter product) to be so high that IWEM determines that a no-liner design is not
7-4
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 7.0
protective. This example would lead to a result in which the same constituent has two
different liner recommendations.
Even though the chemical compound is the same, IWEM treats these two
instances as if they were different constituents. One of the reasons EPA chose to do this,
is that it allows the user to make waste management decisions in terms of the constituents
that are actually present in the waste. In the example described here, an option may be to
treat the waste to reduce constituent concentrations to acceptable levels. In our example,
the goal should be not to reduce the level of the constituent of concern in the waste (it is
only present at low levels), but rather to reduce the concentration of its parent constituent.
Doing this will automatically reduce the ground-water impact of its daughter product(s).
7.3 IWEM Liner Recommendations Udl Section 6.3
TBD
IWEM makes liner recommendations by identifying the minimum design that is
protective of ground water for all waste constituents. In Tier 1, a liner design is
protective if the expected leachate concentrations for all waste constituents are less than
the LCTV determined by IWEM for the same constituents. In the case of LAUs, land
application of waste is considered appropriate if the leachate concentrations of all
constituents do not exceed LAU LCTVs.
The IWEM Tier 1 software automatically performs the comparisons of leachate
concentration to all of the LCTVs for each waste constituent and liner scenario. The
results of the evaluation are presented in terms of a MCL summary and a HBN summary.
The HBN summary reflects the liner recommendation based on the most protective, that
is the lowest, HBN available for each constituent. The recommendation also takes into
account the possible formation of toxic daughter products, as discussed in Section 7.2.3.
If the leachate concentrations for all constituents are lower than the corresponding
no-liner LCTVs, then no liner is recommended as being sufficiently protective of
groundwater. If any leachate concentration is higher than the corresponding no-liner
LCTV, then a minimum of a single clay liner is recommended. If any leachate
concentration is higher than the corresponding single clay liner LCTV, then a minimum
of a composite liner is recommended. If any concentration is higher than the composite
liner, consider pollution prevention, treatment, or additional controls. For waste streams
with multiple constituents, the recommended liner design is the most protective minimum
recommended liner.
After conducting a Tier 1 analysis, you can choose to implement the Tier 1
recommendation by designing the unit based on the liner recommendations given by the
IWEM software. If you choose to implement the Tier 1 recommendation, consultation
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 7.0
with state authorities is recommended to ensure compliance with state regulations, which
may require more protective measures than the Tier 1 lookup tables recommend.
Alternatively, if the waste has one or very few "problem" constituents that call for a more
stringent and costly liner system (or which make land application inappropriate), evaluate
pollution prevention, recycling, and treatment efforts for those constituents.
If, after conducting the Tier 1 analysis, you are not satisfied with the resulting
recommendations, or if site-specific conditions seem likely to support the use of a liner
design different from the one recommended (or suggest a different conclusion regarding
the appropriateness of land application of a waste), then you may conduct a Tier 2
analysis or a site-specific groundwater fate and transport analysis (Tier 3).
In a Tier 2 evaluation, IWEM uses the EPACMTP fate and transport model to
determine the ground-water exposure concentration that is expected for each waste
constituent given its leachate concentration. IWEM uses the technique of Monte Carlo
analysis to develop a probability distribution of ground-water well exposure
concentrations for each constituent and liner scenario. Analogous to Tier 1 (which uses a
90th percentile LCTV value), IWEM uses the 90th percentile of the ground-water well
exposure concentration in Tier 2 to make liner recommendations. The software compares
the 90th percentile ground-water exposure concentration to the RGC(s) for that
constituent. IWEM first makes this evaluation for the no-liner scenario. If the ground-
water exposure concentration is less than the applicable RGC(s), then the no-liner
scenario is protective for that constituent. IWEM evaluates all waste constituents in this
manner. If the 90th percentile ground-water exposure concentrations of all waste
constituents are below their respective RGCs, then IWEM recommends the no-liner
scenario as being protective and the evaluation is complete. However, if the ground-
water exposure concentrations of one or more waste constituents exceed their RGCs, then
the no-liner scenario is not protective, and IWEM will evaluate the single clay liner
scenario (unless the WMU is a LAU). If the single clay liner scenario is protective for all
constituents, IWEM will recommend this design. If any waste constituents fail the single
clay liner design, then IWEM will recommend at least a composite liner.
In a Tier 2 evaluation, IWEM also calculates LCTVs. The Tier 2 LCTVs are
different from the Tier 1 values; they represent location-adjusted thresholds. While the
Tier 2 LCTVs are not directly used in IWEM to make liner recommendations, they are
displayed on the detailed results screen, and printed in the IWEM reports. These LCTVs
can be used in the same manner as in Tier 1 to identify pollution prevention, recycling, or
treatment alternatives to reduce the leachate concentrations of "problem" constituents to
levels that allow disposal of a waste in a less stringent WMU design.
7-6
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 7.0
The Monte Carlo simulations required for a Tier 2 evaluation can be
computationally demanding, and an evaluation of multiple liner designs for a single waste
constituent can take several hours. In order to optimize the computational process,
IWEM will first perform the liner evaluations from least protective (no-liner) to most
protective (composite liner). If during this process, IWEM identifies a liner design that is
protective for all constituents (for instance, a single clay liner), it will stop the evaluation
process, and not evaluate more protective designs (in the example case, it would skip the
composite liner evaluation).
After conducting the Tier 2 Evaluation, you can choose to implement the Tier 2
recommendation by designing the unit based on the liner recommendations given by the
IWEM software or continue to a Tier 3 analysis. If you choose to implement the Tier 2
recommendation, consultation with state authorities is recommended to ensure
compliance with state regulations, which may require more protective measures than the
Tier 2 results recommend.
If after conducting the Tier 2 Evaluation, you are not satisfied with the resulting
recommendations or if site-specific conditions seem likely to support the use of a liner
design different from the one recommended (or suggest a different conclusion regarding
the appropriateness of land application of a waste), then you may conduct a fully
site-specific groundwater fate and transport analysis (Tier 3).
7-7
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 8.0
8.0 Trouble Shooting
The IWEM Version 1.0 has been extensively tested on the following
combinations of Windows operating system and Internet Explorer:
Latest versions of MS Windows operating
systems
95 (Version 4.00.950B)
98 Second Edition (Version 4.10.2222A)
NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6 a)
2000 (Service Pack 2)
XP (Version 2002)
Corresponding version of MS Internet
Explorer
Version 5.5 Service Pack 2
Version 6.0
Version 6.0
Version 6.0
Version 6.0
If you encounter any problems during installation, it is likely that your operating
system and/or version of Internet Explorer are not up-to-date. Check the version of your
operating system and Internet Explorer and compare them to the list above. If either of
these two are not up-to-date, visit the Microsoft Support web site at
http://support.microsoft.com, click on the |DCWMLOADSOFTWARE| link, and then click on
either the |MCROSCFT\MNDOV\S UPDATES] link or the (INTERNET EXPLORER link and follow the
prompts to download and install the updates. Check with your system administrator if
you do not have the correct privileges to install software on your computer.
How do I determine what version of Windows I am using?
Right click on the (MYGoivPirTER icon on your desktop and select PROPERTIES from
the pop-up menu. A dialog box will appear and near the top will be the version
information of Windows installed on your computer.
How do I determine what version of Internet Explorer I am using?
Start Internet Explorer, click on I^LP ABOUT INTERNET EXPLORER]. A dialog box will
appear and list first is the version of Internet Explorer installed on your computer.
What do I do if I am still having problems?
If your operating system and Internet Explorer versions are up-to-date and you
still encounter problems installing or running the IWEM software, please contact the
RCRA Information Center in any of the following ways:
8-1
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Section 8.0
E-mail: rcra-docket@epa.gov
Phone: 703-603-9230
Fax: 703-603-9234
In person: Hours: 9:00 am to 4:00 pm, weekdays, closed on Federal Holidays
Location: USEPA
West Building Basement
1300 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, D.C.
Mail: RCRA Information Center (5305W)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460-0002
When contacting the RCRA Information Center, please cite RCRA Docket
number: F1999-IDWA-FFFFF.
8-2
-------
IWEM User's Guide Section 9.0
9.0 References
Schroeder, P.R., Dozier, T.S., Zappi, P.A., McEnroe, B.M., Sjostrom, J.W., and Peyton,
R.L., 1994. The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model,
Engineering Document for Version 3, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH 45268,
EPA/600/R-94/168b.
U.S. EPA, 1990. Toxicity Characteristic Final Rule. 55 FR 11796. March 29, 1990.
U.S. EPA, 1991. MINTEQA2/PRODEFA2, A Geochemical Assessment Model for
Environmental Systems: Version 3.0 User's Manual EPA/600/3-91/021, Office of
Research and Development, Athens, Georgia 30605.
U.S. EPA, 1993. Environmental Fate Constants for Organic Chemicals under
Consideration for EPA's Hazardous Waste Identification Projects. Compiled and
edited by Heinz Kollig. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research
and Development, Athens, GA.
U.S. EPA, 1996d. Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories. Office of Water,
Washington, DC. October (EPA 822-B-96-002).
U.S. EPA, 1997. Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis. EPA/630/R-97/1001
Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC 20460.
U.S. EPA, 2002a. EPACMTP Technical Background Document. Office of Solid Waste,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 2002b. EPACMTP Parameters/Data Background Document Office of Solid
Waste, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 2002c. IWEM Technical Background Document.. Office of Solid Waste,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 2002d. Guide for Industrial Waste Management. Office of Solid Waste,
Washington, DC.
Verschueren, K., 1983. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York.
9-1
-------
Appendix A
List of Waste Constituents
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Appendix A
Appendix A
List of Waste Constituents
CAS Number
Constituent Name
CAS Number
Constituent Name
Organics
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
B enz { a } anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzofb jfluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene, 1, 3-
Butanol
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro- 1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
218-01-9
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
Chloropropene, 3- (Allyl Chloride)
Chrysene
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
DDD
DDE
DDT, p,p '-
Diallate
Dibenz { a,h } anthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropanel ,2-
Dichlorobenzenel ,2-
Dichlorobenzenel ,4-
Dichlorobenzidine3 ,3 '-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethanel ,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans- 1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene l,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
A-l
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Appendix A
Appendix A (continued)
List of Waste Constituents
CAS Number
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
91-20-3
Constituent Name
Dichloropropene trans- 1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenzf a} anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine, 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane, 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate, 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Naphthalene
CAS Number
206-44-0
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
109-86-4
110-49-6
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
1746-01-6
Constituent Name
Fluoranthene
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
Indeno{l,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-
A-2
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Appendix A
Appendix A (continued)
List of Waste Constituents
CAS Number
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
Constituent Name
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8-
CAS Number
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
Constituent Name
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidine o-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
A-3
-------
IWEM User's Guide
Appendix A
Appendix A (continued)
List of Waste Constituents
CAS Number
Constituent Name
CAS Number
Constituent Name
Metals
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
16984-48-8
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
7439-98-7
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-28-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
A-4
-------
Appendix B
Sample Reports From Tier 1 and Tier 2
-------
Tier 1 Evaluation Results
6/20/2002
5:00:55PM
Recommendation :
Composite Liner
Facility Type
Facility name
Street address
City
State
Zip
Date of sample analysis
Name of user
Additional information
Landfill
Southern Industries Landfill
122 Industrial Ave
Raleigh
NC
27611
October 31, 1998
List of Constituents Selected by the User
CAS Number
71-43-2
7440-36-0
75-09-2
Constituent Name
Benzene
Antimony
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Leachate
Cone. (mg/L)
0.01
0.03
0.02
Minimum Liner Recommendation Based on MCL
CAS Number
71-43-2
7440-36-0
75-09-2
Constituent Name
Benzene
Antimony
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Minimum Liner Recommendation
No Liner
Single Liner
Single Liner
Minimum Liner Recommendation Based on HBN
CAS Number
71-43-2
7440-36-0
75-09-2
Constituent Name
Benzene
Antimony
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Minimum Liner Recommendation
Composite Liner
Single Liner
No Liner
1 of 7
-------
In the following tables, the LCTV is generally calculated as LCTV = DAF * RGC. However, in some instances, the DAF is denoted here with an asterisk (*). This occurs
when the ground-water concentration is either exceedingly low, thus capping the LCTV, or the LCTV is capped by some other constraint. In instances where the toxic
daughter cap is applied, the RGC is either absent or denoted by an asterisk. Please refer to Section 7.2 of the IWEM User's Guide (Limits on the Leachate
Concentration Threshold Value) for more details. A brief explanation of LCTV caps is given in this report after the detailed HBN results.
Detailed Results Based on MCL - No Liner
CAS Number
71-43-2
7440-36-0
75-09-2
Constituent Name
Benzene
Antimony
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
MCL (mg/L)
0.005
0.006
0.005
DAF
2.2
2.2
LCTV
(mg/L)
0.011
0.014
0.011
Leachate
Cone. (mg/L)
0.01
0.03
0.02
Protective ?
Yes
No
No
Detailed Results Based on MCL - Single Liner
CAS Number
71-43-2
7440-36-0
75-09-2
Constituent Name
Benzene
Antimony
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
MCL (mg/L)
0.005
0.006
0.005
DAF
6.1
6.2
LCTV
(mg/L)
0.031
0.04
0.031
Leachate
Cone. (mg/L)
0.01
0.03
0.02
Protective ?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Detailed Results Based on MCL - Composite Liner
CAS Number
71-43-2
7440-36-0
75-09-2
Constituent Name
Benzene
Antimony
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
MCL (mg/L)
0.005
0.006
0.005
DAF
1 .90E+04
6.20E+05
LCTV
(mg/L)
0.5 (A)
1000(B)
1000(B)
Leachate
Cone. (mg/L)
0.01
0.03
0.02
Protective?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Detailed Results Based on HBN - No Liner
CAS Number
71-43-2
7440-36-0
75-09-2
Constituent Name
Benzene
Antimony
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
HBN (mg/L)
0.0016
0.0098
0.013
Exposure
Pathway & Effect
Inhalation Cancer
Ingestion Non-cancer
Ingestion Cancer
DAF
2.2
2.2
LCTV
(mg/L)
0.0036
0.023
0.029
Leachate
Cone . (mg/L)
0.01
0.03
0.02
Protective?
No
No
Yes
Tier 1 Evaluation Results
Facility Name: Southern Industries Landfill
Facility Type: Landfill
6/20/2002
2 of 7
-------
Detailed Results Based on HBN - Single Liner
CAS Number
71-43-2
7440-36-0
75-09-2
Constituent Name
Benzene
Antimony
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
HBN (mg/L)
0.0016
0.0098
0.013
Exposure
Pathway & Effect
Inhalation Cancer
Ingestion Non-cancer
Ingestion Cancer
DAF
6.1
6.2
LCTV
(mg/L)
0.0097
0.068
0.081
Leachate
Cone. (mg/L)
0.01
0.03
0.02
Protective ?
No
Yes
Yes
Detailed Results Based on HBN - Composite Liner
CAS Number
71-43-2
7440-36-0
75-09-2
Constituent Name
Benzene
Antimony
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
HBN (mg/L)
0.0016
0.0098
0.013
Exposure
Pathway & Effect
Inhalation Cancer
Ingestion Non-cancer
Ingestion Cancer
DAF
1 .90E+04
6.30E+05
LCTV
(mg/L)
0.5 (A)
1000(B)
1000(B)
Leachate
Cone. (mg/L)
0.01
0.03
0.02
Protective?
Yes
Yes
Yes
CAPS & WARNINGS
A - The LCTV is capped by the Toxicity Characteristic Rule Exit Level (TC LEVEL) of the constituent.
B - The LCTV is capped by 1000 mg/L (EPA Policy).
C - The LCTV exceeds the cited solubility for this constituent.
D - The parent constituent LCTV is derived from the LCTV of a more conservative toxic daughter product(s).
E - The parent constituent does not have a RGC for this exposure pathway and effect, but the toxic daughter product(s) does. The LCTV of the parent is derived from
the LCTV of the toxic daughter product.
Tier 1 Evaluation Results
Facility Name: Southern Industries Landfill
Facility Type: Landfill
6/20/2002
3 of 7
-------
Constituent Name
Benzene
CAS ID
71-43-2
Physical Properties
Property
Constituent Type
Molecule Weight (g/mol)
Log Koc (distribution coefficient for organic carbon) (mL/g)
Ka: acid-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant (1/mol yr)
Kn: neutral hydrolysis rate constant (1/yr)
Kb: base-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant (1/mol yr)
Solubility (mg/L)
Diffusivity in air (cmA2/sec)
Diffusivity in water (mA2/yr)
Henry's law constant (atm-mA3/mol)
Value
Organic
78.1134
1.8
0
0
0
1750
282
0.0325
0.0056
Data Source
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1997c
Calc., based on USEPA, 2001 a
Calc., based on USEPA, 2001 a
USEPA, 1997c
Reference Ground-water Concentration Values
Property
Maximum Contamination Level (mg/L)
HBN-lngestion, Non-Cancer (mg/L)
HBN-lngestion, Cancer (mg/L)
HBN-lnhalation, Non-Cancer (mg/L)
HBN-lnhalation, Cancer (mg/L)
Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)
Reference Concentration (mg/mA3)
Carcinogenic Slope Factor-Oral (1 /mg/kg-day)
Carcinogenic Slope Factor-Inhalation (1 /mg/kg-day)
Value
0.005
0.0018
0.19
0.0016
0.06
0.055
0.027
Data Source
USEPA, 2000h
USEPA, 2001 b
CALEPA, 1999b
USEPA, 2001 b
CALEPA, 2000
USEPA, 2001 b
Calc, based on USEPA, 2001 b
Tier 1 Evaluation Results
Facility Name: Southern Industries Landfill
Facility Type: Landfill
6/20/2002
4 of 7
-------
Constituent Name
Antimony
CAS ID
7440-36-0
Physical Properties
Property
Constituent Type
Molecule Weight (g/mol)
Log Koc (distribution coefficient for organic carbon) (mL/g)
Ka: acid-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant (1/mol yr)
Kn: neutral hydrolysis rate constant (1/yr)
Kb: base-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant (1/mol yr)
Solubility (mg/L)
Diffusivity in air (cmA2/sec)
Diffusivity in water (mA2/yr)
Henry's law constant (atm-mA3/mol)
Value
Metal
121.76
1.00E+06
Data Source
CambridgeSoft Corporation, 2001
Reference Ground-water Concentration Values
Property
Maximum Contamination Level (mg/L)
HBN-lngestion, Non-Cancer (mg/L)
HBN-lngestion, Cancer (mg/L)
HBN-lnhalation, Non-Cancer (mg/L)
HBN-lnhalation, Cancer (mg/L)
Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)
Reference Concentration (mg/mA3)
Carcinogenic Slope Factor-Oral (1 /mg/kg-day)
Carcinogenic Slope Factor-Inhalation (1 /mg/kg-day)
Value
0.006
0.0098
0.0004
Data Source
USEPA, 2000h
USEPA, 2001 b
USEPA, 2001 b
Tier 1 Evaluation Results
Facility Name: Southern Industries Landfill
Facility Type: Landfill
6/20/2002
5 of 7
-------
Constituent Name
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
CAS ID
75-09-2
Physical Properties
Property
Constituent Type
Molecule Weight (g/mol)
Log Koc (distribution coefficient for organic carbon) (mL/g)
Ka: acid-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant (1/mol yr)
Kn: neutral hydrolysis rate constant (1/yr)
Kb: base-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant (1/mol yr)
Solubility (mg/L)
Diffusivity in air (cmA2/sec)
Diffusivity in water (mA2/yr)
Henry's law constant (atm-mA3/mol)
Value
Organic
84.9328
0.93
0
0.001
0.6
1.30E+04
315
0.0394
0.0022
Data Source
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1997c
Calc., based on USEPA, 2001 a
Calc., based on USEPA, 2001 a
USEPA, 1997c
Reference Ground-water Concentration Values
Property
Maximum Contamination Level (mg/L)
HBN-lngestion, Non-Cancer (mg/L)
HBN-lngestion, Cancer (mg/L)
HBN-lnhalation, Non-Cancer (mg/L)
HBN-lnhalation, Cancer (mg/L)
Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)
Reference Concentration (mg/mA3)
Carcinogenic Slope Factor-Oral (1 /mg/kg-day)
Carcinogenic Slope Factor-Inhalation (1 /mg/kg-day)
Value
0.005
1.5
0.013
10
0.028
0.06
3
0.0075
0.0016
Data Source
USEPA, 2000h
USEPA, 2001 b
USEPA, 2001 b
USEPA, 1997a
USEPA, 2001 b
USEPA, 2001 b
USEPA, 1997a
USEPA, 2001 b
Calc, based on USEPA, 2001 b
Tier 1 Evaluation Results
Facility Name: Southern Industries Landfill
Facility Type: Landfill
6/20/2002
6 of 7
-------
References
CalEPA. 1999b. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part III. Technical Support Document for the Determination of Noncancer Chronic
Reference Exposure Levels. SRP Draft. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Berkeley, CA. http://www.oehha.org/hotspots/RAGSII.html.
CalEPA. 2000. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part III. Technical Support Document for the Determination of Noncancer Chronic
Reference Exposure Levels. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Berkeley, CA. Available online (in 3 sections) at
http://www.oehha.org/air/chronic_rels/22RELS2k.html, http://www.oehha.org/air/chronic_rels/42kChREL.html,
http://www.oehha.org/air/chronic_rels/Jan2001 ChREL.html.
CambridgeSoft Corporation. 2001. ChemFinder.com database and internet searching, http://chemfinder.cambridgesoft.com. Accessed July 2001.
USEPA. 1993a. Environmental Fate Constants for Orgainic Chemicals Under Consideration for EPA's Hazardous Waste Identification Projects, EPA/600/R-93/132,
August 1993.
USEPA. 1997a. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). EPA-540-R-97-036. FY 1997 Update. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1997c. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). SCDMWIN 1.0 (SCDM Windows User's Version), Version 1. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington DC: GPO. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/scdm/index.htm. Accessed July 2001
USEPA. 2000h. Code of Federal Regulations, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, CFR 40, Part 141, Section 32. www.epa.gov/safewater/regs/cfr141 .pdf.
USEPA. 2001a. WATER9. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/software/water/index.html.
Accessed July 2001.
USEPA. 2001 b. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/iris/
Calculated from inhalation unit risk factors from USEPA, 2001 b.
Tier 1 Evaluation Results Facility Name: Southern Industries Landfill Facility Type: Landfill 6/20/2002 7 of 7
-------
6/20/2002 5:12:46PM
Tier 2 Evaluation Results
Recommendation: Composite Liner
Facility Type Landfill
Facility name
Street address
City
State
Zip
Date of sample analysis
Name of user
Additional information
Landfill Parameters
Parameter Value
Depth of base of the LF below ground surface (m) 0
Distance to well (m) 150
Landfill area (mA2) [requires site specific value] 1 .23E+04
WMU depth (m) [requires site specific value] 6.5
Subsurface Parameters
Subsurface Environment Sand and Gravel
Parameter Value
Ground-water pH value (metals only) Distribution
Depth to water table (m) Distribution
Aquifer hydraulic conductivity (m/yr) Distribution
Regional hydraulic gradient Distribution
Aquifer thickness (m) Distribution
Data Source
Default
Default
132
zxc
Data Source
Monte Carlo [See IWEM TBD 4.2.3.1]
Monte Carlo [See IWEM TBD 4.2.3.1]
Monte Carlo [See IWEM TBD 4.2.3.1]
Monte Carlo [See IWEM TBD 4.2.3.1]
Monte Carlo [See IWEM TBD 4.2.3.1]
1 of 7
-------
Regional Soil and Climate Parameters
Parameter
Soil Type
Climate Center
No Liner Infiltration Rate (m/yr)
Clay Liner Infiltration Rate (m/yr)
Composite Liner Infiltration Rate (m/yr)
Recharge Rate (m/yr)
Value
Medium-grained soil (silt loam)
Greensboro NC
.3256
.0362
Monte Carlo
0.3256
Constituent Reference Ground-water Concentrations and Constituent Properties
Constituent Name
Acrylonitrile
RGC
(mg/L)
0.0002
RGC Based On Kd* (L/kg)
HBN - Ingestion, Cancer
"If a site-specific value was entered by the user, it will be displayed here; otherwise, the model used the constituent properties listed at the end
Daughter Constituent Reference Ground-water Concentrations and Constituent Properties
Parent Constituent
Acrylonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Decay Coeff* Leachate
(1/yr) Cone. (mg/L)
0.1
of the report.
RGC
Daughter Constituent RGC Based On
(mg/L)
Acrylamide 2.20E-05 HBN - Ingestion, Cancer
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid] 12 HBN - Ingestion, NonCancer
"If a site-specific value was entered by the user, it will be displayed here; otherwise
Detailed Results for Parent Constituents - No Liner
Constituent Name
Acrylonitrile
Leachate
Cone. (mg/L)
0.1
DAF
(mg/L)
2.4
the model used the constituent properties listed at the end
Decay Coeff.*
Kd-(Ukg) (*/vr)
of the report.
LCTV RGC
(mg/L) Selected RGC (mg/L)
4.11E-05(D) HBN -Ingestion, Cancer 2.20E-05
90th %tile Exp.
Cone. (mg/L) Protective?
0.0413 No
Detailed Results for Parent Constituents - Clay Liner
Constituent Name
Acrylonitrile
Leachate
Cone. (mg/L)
0.1
DAF
(mg/L)
13
LCTV RGC
(mg/L) Selected RGC (mg/L)
0.0003 (D) HBN - Ingestion, Cancer 2.20E-05
90th %tile Exp.
Cone. (mg/L) Protective?
0.0075 No
Detailed Results for Parent Constituents - Composite Liner
Constituent Name
Acrylonitrile
Leachate
Cone. (mg/L)
0.1
DAF
(mg/L)
2.40E+04
LCTV
(mg/L)
4.32
Selected RGC
HBN - Ingestion, Cancer
RGC
(mg/L)
2.20E-05
90th %tile Exp.
Cone. (mg/L)
4.10E-06
Protective?
Yes
Tier 2 Evaluation Results
Facility Name:
Facility Type: Landfill
6/20/2002
2 of 7
-------
Detailed Results for Daughter Constituents - No Liner
Constituent Name
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Leachate
Cone. (mg/L)
0.134
0.1358
DAF
(mg/L)
2.5
2.4
LCTV
(mg/L)
5.50E-05
28.8
Selected RGC
HBN - Ingestion, Cancer
HBN - Ingestion, NonCancer
RGC
(mg/L)
2.20E-05
12
90th %tile Exp.
Cone. (mg/L)
0.0539
0.0562
Protective?
No
Yes
Detailed Results for Daughter Constituents - Clay Liner
Constituent Name
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Leachate
Cone. (mg/L)
0.134
0.1358
DAF
(mg/L)
17
NA
LCTV
(mg/L)
0.0004
NA
Selected RGC
HBN - Ingestion, Cancer
All Available
RGC
(mg/L)
2.20E-05
90th %tile Exp.
Cone. (mg/L)
0.008
NA
Protective?
No
See No Liner
Detailed Results for Daughter Constituents - Composite Liner
Constituent Name
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Leachate
Cone. (mg/L)
0.134
0.1358
DAF
(mg/L)
1 .OOE+30
NA
LCTV
(mg/L)
1000
NA
Selected RGC
HBN - Ingestion, Cancer
All Available
RGC
(mg/L)
2.20E-05
90th %tile Exp.
Cone. (mg/L)
0
NA
Protective?
Yes
See No Liner
CAPS & WARNINGS
A - The LCTV is capped by the Toxicity Characteristic Rule Exit Level (TC LEVEL) of the constituent.
B - The LCTV is capped by 1000 mg/L (EPA Policy).
C - The LCTV exceeds the cited solubility for this constituent.
D - The parent constituent LCTV is derived from the LCTV of a more conservative toxic daughter product(s).
Tier 2 Evaluation Results
Facility Name:
Facility Type: Landfill
6/20/2002
3 of 7
-------
Constituent Name
Acrylonitrile
CAS ID
107-13-1
Physical Properties
Property
ChemicalType
Molecule Weight (g/mol)
Log Koc (distribution coefficient for organic carbon) (mL/g)
Ka: acid-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant (1/mol yr)
Kn: neutral hydrolysis rate constant (1/yr)
Kb: base-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant (1/mol yr)
Solubility (mg/L)
Diffusivity in air (cmA2/sec)
Diffusivity in water (mA2/yr)
Henry's law constant (atm-mA3/mol)
Value
Organic
53.0634
-0.089
500
0
5200
7.40E+04
360
0.0388
0.0001
Data Source
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1997c
Calc., based on USEPA, 2001 a
Calc., based on USEPA, 2001 a
USEPA, 1997c
Reference Ground-water Concentration Values
Property
Maximum Contamination Level (mg/L)
HBN-lngestion, Non-Cancer (mg/L)
Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)
HBN-lngestion, Cancer (mg/L)
Carcinogenic Slope Factor-Oral (1 /mg/kg-day)
HBN-lnhalation, Non-Cancer (mg/L)
Reference Concentration (mg/mA3)
HBN-lnhalation, Cancer (mg/L)
Carcinogenic Slope Factor-Inhalation (1 /mg/kg-day)
Value
0.025
0.001
0.0002
0.54
0.038
0.002
0.001
0.24
Data Source
USEPA, 1997a
USEPA, 1997a
USEPA, 2001 b
USEPA, 2001 b
USEPA, 2001 b
USEPA, 2001 b
USEPA, 2001 b
Calc, based on USEPA, 2001 b
Tier 2 Evaluation Results
Facility Name:
Facility Type: Landfill
6/20/2002
4 of 7
-------
Constituent Name
Acrylamide
CAS ID
79-06-1
Physical Properties
Property
ChemicalType
Molecule Weight (g/mol)
Log Koc (distribution coefficient for organic carbon) (mL/g)
Ka: acid-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant (1/mol yr)
Kn: neutral hydrolysis rate constant (1/yr)
Kb: base-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant (1/mol yr)
Solubility (mg/L)
Diffusivity in air (cmA2/sec)
Diffusivity in water (mA2/yr)
Henry's law constant (atm-mA3/mol)
Value
Organic
71 .0786
-0.989
31.5
0.018
0
6.40E+05
337
0.0397
1.00E-09
Data Source
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1997c
Calc., based on USEPA, 2001 a
Calc., based on USEPA, 2001 a
USEPA, 1997c
Reference Ground-water Concentration Values
Property
Maximum Contamination Level (mg/L)
HBN-lngestion, Non-Cancer (mg/L)
Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)
HBN-lngestion, Cancer (mg/L)
Carcinogenic Slope Factor-Oral (1 /mg/kg-day)
HBN-lnhalation, Non-Cancer (mg/L)
Reference Concentration (mg/mA3)
HBN-lnhalation, Cancer (mg/L)
Carcinogenic Slope Factor-Inhalation (1 /mg/kg-day)
Value
0.0049
0.0002
2.20E-05
4.5
5.1
4.6
Data Source
USEPA, 2001 b
USEPA, 2001 b
USEPA, 2001 b
USEPA, 2001 b
USEPA, 2001 b
Calc, based on USEPA, 2001 b
Tier 2 Evaluation Results
Facility Name:
Facility Type: Landfill
6/20/2002
5 of 7
-------
Constituent Name
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
CAS ID
79-10-7
Physical Properties
Property
ChemicalType
Molecule Weight (g/mol)
Log Koc (distribution coefficient for organic carbon) (mL/g)
Ka: acid-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant (1/mol yr)
Kn: neutral hydrolysis rate constant (1/yr)
Kb: base-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant (1/mol yr)
Solubility (mg/L)
Diffusivity in air (cmA2/sec)
Diffusivity in water (mA2/yr)
Henry's law constant (atm-mA3/mol)
Value
Organic
72.1
-1.84
0
0
0
1 .OOE+06
325
0.0378
1.17E-07
Data Source
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1993a
USEPA, 1997c
Calc., based on USEPA, 2001 a
Calc., based on USEPA, 2001 a
USEPA, 1997c
Reference Ground-water Concentration Values
Property
Maximum Contamination Level (mg/L)
HBN-lngestion, Non-Cancer (mg/L)
Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)
HBN-lngestion, Cancer (mg/L)
Carcinogenic Slope Factor-Oral (1 /mg/kg-day)
HBN-lnhalation, Non-Cancer (mg/L)
Reference Concentration (mg/mA3)
HBN-lnhalation, Cancer (mg/L)
Carcinogenic Slope Factor-Inhalation (1 /mg/kg-day)
Value
12
0.5
15
0.001
Data Source
USEPA, 2001 b
USEPA, 2001 b
USEPA, 2001 b
USEPA, 2001 b
Tier 2 Evaluation Results
Facility Name:
Facility Type: Landfill
6/20/2002
6 of 7
-------
References
USEPA. 1993a. Environmental Fate Constants for Orgainic Chemicals Under Consideration for EPA's Hazardous Waste Identification Projects, EPA/600/R-93/132,
August 1993.
USEPA. 1997a. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). EPA-540-R-97-036. FY 1997 Update. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1997c. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). SCDMWIN 1.0 (SCDM Windows User's Version), Version 1. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington DC: GPO. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/scdm/index.htm. Accessed July 2001
USEPA. 2001a. WATER9. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/software/water/index.html. Accessed
July 2001.
USEPA. 2001 b. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/iris/
Calculated from inhalation unit risk factors from USEPA, 2001 b.
Tier 2 Evaluation Results Facility Name: Facility Type: Landfill 6/20/2002 7 of 7
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Waste
Management
Evaluation Model
(IWEM) Technical
Background
Document
-------
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W)
Washington, DC 20460
EPA530-R-02-012
August 2002
www.epa.gov/osw
-------
EPA530-R-02-012
August 2002
Industrial Waste Management
Evaluation Model (IWEM)
Technical Background
Document
-------
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Numerous individuals have contributed to this work. Ms. Ann Johnson and Mr. David
Cozzie of the U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste (EPA/OSW) provided overall project
coordination and review throughout this work. Ms. Shen-Yi Yang and Mr. Timothy
Taylor of EPA provided specific technical guidance. This report was prepared by the
staffs of Resource Management Concepts, Inc (RMC) and HydroGeoLogic, Inc (HGL)
under EPA Contract Number 68-W-01-004. Chapter 5 and Appendix E were prepared by
Research Triangle Institute under Contract 68-W-98-085.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Acknowledgments i
Executive Summary x
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Guide For Industrial Waste Management And IWEM 1-1
1.2 IWEM Design 1-3
1.2.1 What Does the Software Do? 1-3
1.2.2 IWEM Components 1-3
1.3 About This Document 1-5
2.0 Overview of the Tier 1 And Tier 2 Approach 2-1
2.1 Purpose of The Tier 1 And Tier 2 Tools 2-1
2.2 Approach Used to Develop Tier 1 And Tier 2 Tools 2-2
2.2.1 Tier 1 2-3
3.0 What Is The EPACMTP Model? 3-1
3.1 WMU Source Module 3-4
3.1.1 How EPACMTP Determines Releases From a Source 3-4
3.1.2 How EPACMTP Determines Infiltration Rate for Surface
Impoundments 3-6
3.2 EPACMTP Unsaturated Zone Module 3-7
3.3 Saturated Zone Module 3-10
3.4 Conducting Probabilistic Analyses Using EPACMTP 3-13
3.5 EPACMTP Assumptions and Limitations 3-16
4.0 How EPA Developed the Tier 1 and Tier 2 IWEM Evaluations 4-1
4.1 Overview 4-1
4.1.1 EPACMTP Modeling Options and Parameters 4-2
4.2 EPACMTP Input Parameters Used to Develop Tier 1 and
Tier 2 Tools 4-8
4.2.1 WMU Parameters 4-9
4.2.1.1 WMU Types 4-9
4.2.1.2 WMU Data Sources 4-11
4.2.1.3 WMU Parameters Used in Developing the Tier 1
and Tier 2 Tools 4-17
4.2.2 Infiltration and Recharge Rates 4-21
11
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
4.2.2.1 Using the HELP Model to Develop Recharge and
Infiltration Rates 4-22
4.2.2.2 Infiltration Rates for Unlined Units 4-31
4.2.2.3 Single-Lined Waste Units 4-34
4.2.2.4 Infiltration Rates for Composite-Lined Units ....4-38
4.2.2.5 Determination of Recharge Rates 4-42
4.2.3 Parameters Used to Describe the Unsaturated and
Saturated Zones 4-42
4.2.3.1 Subsurface Parameters 4-42
4.2.3.2 Unsaturated Zone Parameters 4-44
4.2.3.3 Saturated Zone Parameters 4-48
4.2.4 Parameters Used to Characterize the Chemical Fate
of Constituents 4-50
4.2.4.1 Constituent Transformation 4-51
4.2.4.2 Other Constituent Degradation Processes 4-53
4.2.4.3 Constituent Sorption 4-53
4.2.4.3.1 Sorption Modeling for
Organic Constituents 4-54
4.2.4.3.2 Sorption Modeling for Inorganic
Constituents (Metals) 4-54
4.2.4.4 Partition Coefficient and Degradation Rate Threshold
Criteria EPA Used to Define Conservative Constituents
in Developing the Tier 1 Evaluation 4-60
4.2.5 Well Location Parameters 4-60
4.2.6 Screening Procedures EPA Used to Eliminate Unrealistic
Parameter Combinations in the Monte Carlo Process 4-61
5.0 Establishing Reference Ground-water Concentrations 5-1
5.1 Ingestion HBNs 5-3
5.1.1 Ingestion HBNs for Constituents That Cause Cancer 5-4
5.1.2 Ingestion HBNs for Constituents that Cause Noncancer
Health Effects 5-6
5.2 Inhalation HBNs 5-7
5.2.1 Calculation of Exposure Concentrations from Showering .... 5-8
5.2.2 Calculating Inhalation HBNs 5-8
5.2.2.1 Inhalation HBNs for Constituents that
Cause Cancer 5-9
in
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section
Page
5.2.2.2 Inhalation HBNs for Constituents that Causes Non-
Cancer Health Effects 5-11
6.0 How Does IWEM Calculate LCTVs and Make Liner Recommendations? ... 6-1
6.1 Determining Liner Recommendations Corresponding to a 90th
Percentile Exposure Concentration 6-1
6.1.1 Calculating LCTVs for Organic Constituents 6-3
6.1.2 Determining LCTVs for Metals 6-5
6.2 Capping the LCTVs 6-6
6.2.1 Hydrolysis Transformation Products 6-6
6.2.2 1,000 mg/L /Cap 6-11
6.2.3 TC Rule Cap 6-11
6.3 Making Liner Recommendations 6-11
6.3.1 Use and Interpretation of Tier 1 Evaluation 6-12
6.3.2 Use and Interpretation of Tier 2 Evaluation 6-14
7.0 REFERENCES 7-1
Appendix A: Glossary
Appendix B: List of IWEM Waste Constituents and Default Chemical Property Data
Appendix C: Tier 1 Input Parameters
Appendix D: Infiltration Rate Data
Appendix E: Background Information for the Development of Reference Ground-water
Concentration Values
Appendix F: Tier 1 LCTV Tables
IV
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure EX-1 Conceptual Cross-Section View of the Subsurface System
Simulated by EPACMTP xv
Figure 2.1 Three Liner Scenarios Considered in IWEM 2-2
Figure 3.1 Conceptual Cross-Section View of the Subsurface System Simulated
by EPACMTP 3-2
Figure 3.2 Conceptual Relationship Between Leachate Concentration (a)
and Ground-Water Exposure Concentration (b) 3-3
Figure 3.3 Leachate Concentration Versus Time for Pulse Source and Depleting
Source Conditions 3-5
Figure 3.4 Surface Impoundment Infiltration Module 3-6
Figure 3.5 Graphical Representation of the EPACMTP Monte Carlo Process . . 3-16
Figure 4.1 WMU Types Modeled in IWEM 4-10
Figure 4.2 Geographic Locations of Landfill WMUs 4-13
Figure 4.3 Geographic Locations of Surface Impoundment WMUs 4-14
Figure 4.4 Geographic Locations of Waste Pile WMUs 4-15
Figure 4.5 Geographic Locations of Land Application Unit WMUs 4-16
Figure 4.6 WMU with Base Elevation below Ground Surface 4-19
Figure 4.7 Locations of HELP Climate Stations 4-27
Figure 4.8 Ground-water Temperature Distribution for Shallow Aquifers in the
United States (from Todd, 1980) 4-47
Figure 4.9 Example Unsaturated Zone Isotherm for Cr(VI) Corresponding to
Low LOA, Medium FeOx, High POM, pH-6.3 4-59
Figure 4.10 Position of the Modeled Ground-water Well Relative to the WMU . . 4-62
Figure 4.11 Flowchart Describing the Infiltration Screening Procedure 4-66
Figure 4.12 Infiltration Screening Criteria 4-67
Figure 6.1 Determination of Time-Averaged Ground-Water Well Concentration . 6-2
Figure 6.2 Relationship Between Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of
Well Concentrations and Dilution and Attenuation Factors (DAFs) . . . 6-4
v
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table EX-1 IWEM WMU and Liner Combinations xi
Table 1.1 IWEM WMU and Liner Combinations 1-3
Table 1.2 IWEM Constituents 1-6
Table 4.1 Summary of EPACMTP Options and Parameters 4-4
Table 4.2 Methodology Used to Compute Infiltration for LFs 4-23
Table 4.3 Methodology Used to Compute Infiltration for Sis 4-24
Table 4.4 Methodology Used to Compute Infiltration for WPs 4-25
Table 4.5 Methodology Used to Compute Infiltration for LAUs 4-26
Table 4.6 Grouping of Climate Stations by Average Annual Precipitation
and Pan Evaporation (ABB, 1995) 4-29
Table 4.7 Hydraulic Parameters for the Modeled Soils 4-31
Table 4.8 Moisture Retention Parameters for the Modeled WP Materials 4-33
Table 4.9 Sensitivity Analysis of Tier 1 LCTVs for Clay-lined LFs to Regional
Versus Location-specific Infiltration Rates for 17 Climate Stations . . 4-36
Table 4.10 Sensitivity Analysis of Tier 1 LCTVs for Clay-lined WPs to Regional
Versus Location-specific Infiltration Rates for 17 Climate Stations . . 4-38
Table 4.11 Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Infiltration Rate for Composite-
Lined LFs and WPs 4-40
Table 4.12 Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Leak Density for Composite-
Lined Sis 4-41
Table 4.13 Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Infiltration Rate for Composite-
Lined Sis 4-41
Table 4.14 HGDB Subsurface Environments (from Newell et al, 1989) 4-43
Table 4.15 Nationwide Distribution of Soil Types Represented in IWEM 4-44
Table 4.16 Statistical Parameters for Soil Properties for Three Soil Types Used in
IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 Development (Carsel and Parrish, 1988) . . . 4-45
Table 4.17 Probability Distribution of Soil and Aquifer pH 4-47
Table 4.18 Empirical Distribution of Mean Aquifer Particle Diameter
(from Shea, 1974) 4-49
Table 4.19 Ratio Between Effective and Total Porosity as a Function of Particle
Diameter (after McWorther and Sunada, 1977) 4-49
Table 4.20 Cumulative Probability Distribution of Longitudinal Dispersivity at
Reference Distance of 152.4 m (500 ft) 4-50
Table 5.1 Exposure Parameter Values for Ingestion HBNs - Carcinogens 5-5
Table 5.2 Exposure Parameter Values for Ingestion HBNs - Noncarcinogens .. 5-7
Table 5.3 Exposure Parameter Values for Inhalation HBNs 5-10
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs 5-12
VI
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
Table 6.1 IWEM Constituents with Toxic Hydrolysis Transformation Products . 6-9
Table 6.2 IWEM Daughter Constituents Without RGC Values 6-10
Table 6.3 Toxicity Characteristic Regulatory Levels (U.S. EPA, 1990) 6-12
vn
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1-D One-dimensional
3-D Three-dimensional
API American Petroleum Institute
CDF Cumulative (Probability) Density Function
cm/sec centimeters per second
CQA Construction Quality Assurance
CSF Cancer Slope Factor
CSFi Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor
CSFo Oral Cancer Slope Factor
DAF Dilution and Attenuation Factor
DOM Dissolved Organic Matter
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPACMTP EPA-Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation
Products
FeOOH Goethite
FeOx Ferric oxide
GUI Graphical User Interface
HBN Health-Based Number
HOPE High-Density Polyethylene
HELP Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
HGDB Hydrogeologic Database for Ground-Water Modeling
HQ Hazard Quotient
HWIR Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
in/yr inches per year
IWEM Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model
kd Soil-Water Partition Coefficient
kg/m3 kilograms per cubic meter
Koc Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient
L/kg Liters per kilogram
LAI Leaf Area Index
LAU Land Application Unit
LCTV Leachate Concentration Threshold Value
LDS Leak Detection System
Vlll
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
LF Landfill
LOA Leachate organic acids
m2/yr meters squared per year
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
mg/kg/day milligram per kilogram per day
mg/L Milligrams per liter
MINTEQA2 EPA's geochemical equilibrium speciation model for dilute aqueous
systems
mm2 Millimeters squared
Mton Mega-ton
POM Particulate Organic Matter
RfC Reference Concentration
RfD Reference Dose
RGC Reference Ground-Water Concentration
SCL Silly Clay Loam
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SI Surface Impoundment
SLT Silt Loam
SNL Sandy Loam
SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
TC Toxicity Characteristic
TC Rule Toxicity Characteristic Rule
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TOC Total Organic Carbon
URF Unit Risk Factor
WMU Waste Management Unit
WP Waste Pile
IX
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Objectives
This document provides technical background on the assumptions, methodologies
and data used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop Tier 1 and
Tier 2 ground-water impact evaluation tools as part of the Agency's Guide for Industrial
Waste Management (hereafter, the Guide). The evaluation tools are combined in the
Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM).
The EPA and representatives from 12 state environmental agencies have
developed a voluntary Guide to recommend a baseline of protective design and operating
practices to manage nonhazardous industrial waste throughout the country. The guidance
was designed for facility managers, regulatory agency staff, and the public, and it reflects
four underlying objectives:
Adopt a multimedia approach to protect human health and the
environment;
Tailor management practices to risk using the innovative, user-friendly
modeling tools provided in the Guide;
Affirm state and tribal leadership in ensuring protective industrial waste
management, and use the Guide to complement state and tribal programs;
and
Foster partnerships among facility managers, the public, and regulatory
agencies.
The Guide recommends best management practices and key factors to consider to
protect ground water, surface water, and ambient air quality in siting, operating, and
designing waste management units (WMUs); monitoring WMUs' impact on the
environment; determining necessary corrective action; closing WMUs; and providing
post-closure care. In particular, the Guide recommends risk-based approaches to design
liner systems, determine waste application rates for ground-water protection, and
evaluate the need for air controls. The CD-ROM version of the Guide includes user-
friendly air and ground-water models to conduct these risk evaluations. The IWEM
software described in this Background Document is the ground-water tool that was
developed to support the Guide.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Executive Summary
The IWEM software helps determine the most appropriate WMU design to
minimize or avoid adverse ground-water impacts, by evaluating one or more types of
liners, the hydrogeologic conditions of the site, and the toxicity and expected leachate
concentrations of the anticipated waste constituents.
For the ground-water pathway, the Guide recommends a tiered approach that is
based on modeling the fate and transport of waste constituents through subsurface soils to
a ground-water well1 to produce a liner recommendation (or a recommendation
concerning land application) that protects human health and the environment. The
successive tiers in the analysis incorporate more site-specific data to tailor protective
management practices to the particular circumstances at the modeled site:
Tier 1: A screening analysis based upon national distributions of
data;
Tier 2: A location-adjusted analysis using a limited set of the most
sensitive waste- and site-specific data; and
Tier 3: A comprehensive and detailed site assessment
The IWEM software is designed to support the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses. The
IWEM tool compares the expected leachate concentration for each waste constituent
entered by the user with leachate concentration threshold values (LCTVs) calculated by
a ground-water fate and transport model for three standard liner types. The IWEM
software compiles the results for all constituents expected in the leachate and then reports
the minimum liner scenario that is protective for all constituents. Table EX-1 shows the
WMU types and liner types that are evaluated in IWEM.
Table EX-1 IWEM WMU and Liner Combinations
WMU Type
Landfill
Surface Impoundment
Waste Pile
Land Application Unit
Liner Type
No Liner (in-situ soil)
Single Clay Liner
N/A
Composite Liner
N/A
N/A = Not Applicable
For land application units (LAUs) only the No Liner scenario is evaluated because
liners are not typically used for this type of unit.
1 In IWEM, the term "well" is used to represent an actual or hypothetical ground-water
monitoring well or drinking-water well, located downgradient from a WMU.
XI
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Executive Summary
Waste Management Units
Four WMUs are represented in the IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 tool and have the
following key characteristics:
Landfill (LF). IWEM considers closed LFs with an earthen cover and
either no-liner, a single clay liner, or a composite, clay-geomembrane
liner. The release of waste constituents into the soil and ground water
underneath the LF is caused by dissolution and leaching of the
constituents due to precipitation which percolates through the LF. The
type of liner which is present controls, to a large extent, the amount of
leachate which is released from the unit. Because the LF is closed, the
concentration of the waste constituents will diminish with time due to
depletion of LF wastes. The leachate concentration value which is used
an IWEM input is the expected initial leachate concentration, when the
waste is "fresh".
Waste Pile (WP). WPs are typically used as temporary storage units for
solid wastes. Due to their temporary nature, they typically will not be
covered. IWEM does allow liners to be present, similar to LFs. In Tier 1
analyses, IWEM assumes that WPs have a fixed operational life of 40
years, after which the WP is removed. IWEM therefore models WPs as a
temporary source.
Surface Impoundment (SI). In IWEM, Sis are ground level or below-
ground level, flow-through units, which may be unlined, have a single
clay liner, or a composite liner. Release of leachate is driven by the
ponding of water in the impoundment, which creates a hydraulic head
gradient with the ground water underneath the unit.
Land Application Unit (LAU). LAUs (or land treatment units) are areas
of land which received regular applications of waste that can be either
tilled or sprayed directly onto the soil and subsequently mixed with the
soil. IWEM models the leaching of wastes after tilling with soil. IWEM
does not account for the losses due to volatilization during or after waste
application. Only the no-liner scenario is evaluated for LAUs because
liners typically are not used for this type of unit.
xn
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Executive Summary
Tier 1 and Tier 2 Evaluations
Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations in IWEM can be summarized as follows:
Tier 1: Using only the expected leachate concentrations of constituents in a
waste, generic tables provide WMU design recommendations (liner system or maximum
allowable leachate concentration). If the waste contains several constituents, the Tier 1
evaluation will choose the most protective design indicated for any of the constituents.
This tier of the analysis uses national data and generally will recommend more stringent
controls. The Tier 1 evaluation is designed to be protective for 90% of the potential
waste sites across the United States.
Tier 2 : In Tier 2, site-specific data for up to twenty of the most sensitive WMU
and hydrogeologic characteristics can be entered to assess whether a particular design
will be protective. In addition, some default constituent fate parameters can be modified,
including adding biodegradation. This tier is generally more representative because it
allows the user to incorporate some site-specific information in the analysis.
In Tier 1, the only required IWEM inputs are the type of WMU to be evaluated,
the waste constituents present in the leachate, and the expected leachate concentration
value of each constituent.
In Tier 2, there are a small number of required site-specific user-input parameters
in addition to the Tier 1 inputs, as well as a number of optional site-specific user-input
parameters. The additional required site-specific Tier 2 parameters are:
WMU Area
WMU Depth (LF and SI)
WMU location (to select the appropriate climate parameters)
Optional site-specific Tier 2 inputs are:
Distance to the nearest surface water body (SI)
Depth of the base of the WMU below ground surface (LF, SI, and WP)
Operational Life of the WMU (SI, WP, and LAU)
Sludge Thickness (SI)
Waste Type (WP)
Leakage (infiltration) rate from the WMU
Distance to the nearest down-gradient well
Unsaturated zone soil type
Xlll
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Executive Summary
Hydrogeologic Environment, and/or individual values of:
Depth from the base of the WMU to the water table
Saturated thickness of the upper aquifer
Hydraulic conductivity in the saturated zone
Regional hydraulic gradient in the saturated zone
Ground-water pH
Constituent fate parameters:
sorption coefficient (Kd)
(bio-)degradation rate
Constituent-specific reference ground water concentrations, and
corresponding exposure durations.
EPACMTP Ground Water Fate and Transport Model
IWEM uses the EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products (EPACMTP) to model the fate and transport of constituents in
the subsurface as they migrate through the subsurface. Figure EX. 1 shows a conceptual,
cross-sectional view of the aquifer system modeled by EPACMTP.
EPACMTP simulates fate and transport in both the unsaturated zone and the
saturated zone (ground water) using the advection-dispersion equation with terms to
account for equilibrium sorption and first-order transformation. The source of
constituents is a WMU located at the ground surface overlying an unconfmed aquifer.
The base of the WMU can be below the actual ground surface. Waste constituents leach
from the base of the WMU into the underlying soil. They migrate vertically downward
until they reach the water table. As the leachate enters the ground water, it will mix with
ambient ground water (which is assumed to be free of pollutants) and a ground-water
plume will develop which extends in the direction of downgradient ground-water flow.
EPACMTP accounts for the spreading of the plume in all three dimensions.
Leachate generation is driven by the infiltration of precipitation that has
percolated through the waste unit, from the base of the WMU into the soil. Different
liner designs control the rate of infiltration that can occur. EPACMTP models flow in the
unsaturated zone, and in the saturated zone as steady-state processes, that is, representing
long-term average conditions.
xiv
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Executive Summary
LEACHATE CONCENTRATION
UNSATURATED
ZONE
WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
SATURATED
ZONE
LAND SURFACE
WATEH TABLE
LEACHATE PLUM
Figure EX.1 Conceptual Cross-Section View of the Subsurface System Simulated by
EPACMTP.
In addition to dilution of the constituent concentration caused by the mixing of
the leachate with ground water, EPACMTP accounts for attenuation due to sorption of
waste constituents in the leachate onto soil and aquifer solids, and for bio-chemical
transformation (degradation) processes in the unsaturated and saturated zone. In Tier 1,
and by default in Tier 2, EPACMTP only accounts for chemical transformations caused
by hydrolysis reactions. In Tier 2 analyses, however, you can use site-specific
biodegradation rates. EPACMTP simulates all transformation processes as first-order
reactions, that is, as processes that can be characterized with a half-life.
For organic constituents, EPACMTP models sorption between the constituents
and the organic matter in the soil or aquifer, based on constituent-specific organic carbon
partition coefficients, and a site-specific organic carbon fraction in the soil and aquifer.
In the case of metals, EPACMTP accounts for more complex geochemical reactions by
using effective sorption isotherms for a range of aquifer geochemical conditions,
generated using EPA's geochemical equilibrium speciation model for dilute aqueous
systems (MINTEQA2).
The output from EPACMTP is the predicted maximum ground-water exposure
concentration, measured at a well situated down-gradient from a WMU. In Tier 1 the
well is always located on the plume centerline at a fixed distance of 150 meters from the
downgradient edge of the WMU. In Tier 2, the well is also restricted to be on the plume
centerline, but the distance (up to one mile) can be entered as a site-specific value.
xv
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Executive Summary
Monte Carlo Implementation
In developing the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluation, EPA uses Monte Carlo simulation
to determine the probability distribution of predicted ground-water concentrations, as a
function of the variability of modeling input parameters. The Monte Carlo technique is
based on the repeated random sampling of input parameters from their respective
frequency distribution, executing the EPACMTP fate and transport model for each
realization of input parameter values. At the conclusion of the Monte Carlo analysis, it is
then possible to construct a probability distribution of ground-water concentration values
and associated ground-water dilution and attenuation factors (DAFs). Tier 1 and Tier 2
results are based on Monte Carlo analyses of 10,000 realizations.
For Tier 1, we used a series of databases that describe the expected nationwide
variations in climate, soil, and hydrogeological conditions. In order to determine Tier 1
WMU design recommendations, we used the 90th percentile of the predicted nationwide
distribution of ground-water concentration values. Tier 1 results are therefore designed
to be protective of 90% of waste sites in the United States. The advantage of a Tier 1
evaluation is that it is very rapid and does not require site-specific information. The
trade-off is that while the Tier 1 evaluation will provide a protective screening
assessment for the majority of waste sites, it is not possible to guarantee that it will be
protective at all sites.
A Tier 2 evaluation uses information on waste site location and other site-specific
data, to perform a more precise (less uncertain) assessment. If appropriate for site
conditions (e.g., an arid climate), it may be possible to avoid unnecessarily costly WMU
designs. It may also provide an additional level of certainty that liner designs are
protective of sites in vulnerable settings, such as high rainfall and shallow ground water.
If site-specific data for ground-water modeling parameters are not available, values are
drawn randomly (except for the required parameters that the user must input). The
underlying assumption at Tier 2 is that if a site-specific parameter value is not available,
the uncertainty in the value of the parameter is captured by the nationwide range in
values of that parameter. The resulting location-specific Tier 2 predicted ground-water
concentrations therefore represent a 90th percentile protection level for the specified site
conditions.
Reference Ground-Water Concentrations
Reference Ground-Water Concentrations (RGCs) are maximum allowable
concentrations of constituents in ground water. The IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations
incorporate two types of RGCs:
xvi
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Executive Summary
1) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). MCLs are available for some IWEM
constituents. MCLs are maximum permissible constituent concentrations allowed
in public drinking water and are established under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). In developing MCLs, EPA considers not only a constituent's health
effects, but also additional factors, such as the cost of treatment.
2) Health-based numbers (HBNs). EPA developed HBNs for residential exposures
via ingestion and inhalation routes of exposure. HBNs are the maximum
constituent concentrations in ground water that we expect will not usually cause
adverse noncancer health effects in the general population (including sensitive
subgroups), or that will not result in an additional incidence of cancer in more
than approximately one in one million individuals exposed to the constituent.
HBNs were developed for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects. In the case
of inhalation, this exposure route was evaluated for volatile organic constituents and
mercury. HBN values were calculated by "rearranging" standard EPA risk equations to
calculate constituent concentration, rather than cancer risk or noncancer hazard. The
IWEM HBNs correspond to a "target risk" and a "target hazard quotient (HQ)." The
target risk for carcinogens is 1 x 10"6 (one in one million). The target HQ for
noncarcinogens is 1 (unitless). A HQ of 1 indicates that the estimated dose is equal to the
Reference Dose (RfD) and, therefore, a HQ of 1 is frequently EPA's threshold of concern
for noncancer effects. These targets were used to calculate separate HBNs for each
constituent of concern, and separate HBNs for each exposure route of concern (ingestion
or inhalation). The Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations do not consider combined exposure
from ground-water ingestion (from drinking water) and ground-water inhalation (from
showering), nor do they consider the potential for additive exposure to multiple
constituents.
Leachate Concentration Threshold Values and Liner Recommendations
The IWEM tool provides recommendations for waste management in terms of
LCTVs and type of liner. LCTVs represent the highest concentration in leachate that is
protective of human health for a particular WMU and liner scenario. In Tier 1, the liner
recommendations are based on comparing expected waste leachate concentrations to
tabulated LCTVs. In Tier 2, IWEM uses ground-water modeling to predict expected
waste- and site-specific ground-water exposure concentrations for all waste constituents.
IWEM then compares the exposure concentrations to RGCs to determine whether or not
a liner design is protective. In the Tier 2 analysis, IWEM calculates LCTVs to help users
determine whether waste minimization may be appropriate to meet a specific liner
design. Because the Tier 2 analysis includes site-specific considerations, LCTVs from
this analysis are not applicable to other sites. The basic calculation of LCTVs can be
summarized as follows:
xvn
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Executive Summary
where:
LCTV =
DAF =
RGC =
LCTV = DAF x RGC
Leachate Concentration Threshold Value
Dilution and Attenuation Factor
Reference Ground-Water Concentration
In this relationship, DAF represents the reduction in constituent concentration
between the WMU leachate, and the eventual ground-water exposure concentration at a
downgradient ground-water receptor well. The DAF is chemical- and site-specific and is
calculated using EPACMTP. DAF values used in IWEM represent 90th percentile levels.
In other words, the LCTVs are designed to be protective with a 90% certainty.
The RGC accounts for a constituent's regulatory (MCL) or risk-based (HBN)
standard. As expressed in the relationship above, the LCTV is directly proportional to
the RGC. Thus, LCTVs for constituents with similar DAFs will differ based on the
difference in the regulatory or risk-based standards.
For some constituents, the LCTVs are based not only on toxicity and DAFs, but
also on other criteria that are applied to cap the model-calculated values. IWEM caps
leachate concentrations from an industrial solid WMU at a level no higher than 1000
mg/1 for any single constituent. Concentrations higher than this level may indicate the
pressure of free-product conditions which are outside the validity of IWEM.
The 39 hazardous waste toxicity characteristic (TC) constituents are capped at
their TC levels because concentrations above those levels are hazardous waste. For the
18 constituents that hydrolyze, LCTVs may be capped by toxic daughter products. The
final LCTVs are then calculated such that they accommodate both the parent constituent
as well as any toxic daughter products. For instance, if a parent waste constituent rapidly
hydrolyzes into a persistent daughter product, the ground-water exposure caused by the
parent itself may be minimal (it has already degraded before it reaches the well), but the
final LCTV and liner recommendation generated by IWEM would be based on the
exposure caused by the daughter product, under the assumption that the parent compound
fully transforms into the daughter product. If a IWEM constituent has more than one
toxic daughter product, the final LCTV and liner recommendation take all daughter
products into account.
xvin
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Executive Summary
The final IWEM liner recommendations are based on the minimum liner design
that is protective for all constituents. In applying the IWEM tool, a Tier 1 screening
evaluation is typically performed first. If the expected leachate concentrations of all
waste constituents are lower than their respective no-liner LCTVs, the proposed WMU
does not need a liner to protect ground water. If any constituent concentration is higher
than the corresponding no-liner LCTV, than a single or composite liner would be
recommended. If any constituent is higher than the corresponding single liner LCTV,
than the recommendation is at least a composite liner. Because a Tier 1 evaluation is
designed to be protective of sites across the United States, if the analysis indicates that no
liner is recommended, it is generally not necessary to proceed to a Tier 2 evaluation. On
the other hand, if the Tier 1 analysis indicates a liner is recommended, a user may wish to
confirm this recommendation by proceeding to a Tier 2 (or Tier 3) analysis for at least
those constituents whose expected leachate concentrations indicate that a liner is
recommended.
xix
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 1.0
1.0 Introduction
This document provides technical background information on the Industrial
Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM). A companion document, the IWEM
User's Guide provides detailed information on how to install and use the IWEM software
that is distributed as part of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Industrial
Waste Management Guide.
1.1 Guide For Industrial Waste Management And IWEM
The EPA and representatives from 12 state environmental agencies have
developed a voluntary Guide for Industrial Waste Management (hereafter, the Guide) to
recommend a baseline of protective design and operating practices to manage
nonhazardous industrial waste throughout the country. The guidance was designed for
facility managers, regulatory agency staff, and the public, and it reflects four underlying
objectives:
Adopt a multimedia approach to protect human health and the
environment;
Tailor management practices to risk using the innovative, user-friendly
modeling tools provided in the Guide;
Affirm state and tribal leadership in ensuring protective industrial waste
management, and use the Guide to complement state and tribal programs;
and
Foster partnerships among facility managers, the public, and regulatory
agencies.
The Guide recommends best management practices and key factors to consider to
protect ground-water, surface water, and ambient air quality in siting, operating, and
designing waste management units (WMUs); monitoring WMUs' impact on the
environment; determining necessary corrective action; closing WMUs; and providing
postclosure care. In particular, the guidance recommends risk-based approaches to
design liner systems and determine waste application rates for ground-water protection,
and evaluate the need for air controls. The CD-ROM version of the Guide includes user-
friendly air and ground-water models to conduct these risk evaluations. The IWEM
model described in this document, is the ground-water tool that was developed to support
the Guide.
1-1
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 1.0
The IWEM software helps determine the most appropriate WMU design to
minimize or avoid adverse ground-water impacts by evaluating one or more types of
liners, the hydrogeologic conditions of the site, and the toxicity and expected leachate
concentrations of the anticipated waste constituents. The software can help compare the
ground-water protection afforded by various liner systems with the anticipated waste
leachate concentrations, so that you can determine the minimum recommended liner
system that will be protective of human health and ground-water resources.
The anticipated users of the IWEM software are managers of proposed or existing
units, state regulators, interested private citizens, and community groups. For example:
Managers of a proposed unit may use the software to determine what
type of liner would be appropriate for the particular type of waste that is
expected at the WMU and the particular hydrogeologic characteristics of
the site.
Managers of an existing unit may use the software to determine whether
or not to accept a particular waste at that WMU by evaluating the
performance of the existing liner design.
State regulators may use the software in developing permit conditions for
a WMU.
Interested members of the public or community groups may use the
software to evaluate a particular WMU and participate during the
permitting process.
In an effort to meet the needs of the various stakeholders, the guidance for the
ground-water pathway recommends a tiered approach that is based on modeling the fate
and transport of waste constituents through subsurface soils to a well2 to produce a liner
recommendation. The successive tiers in the analysis incorporate more site-specific data
to tailor protective management practices to the particular circumstances at the site:
Tier 1: A screening analysis based upon national distributions of
data;
Tier 2: A location-adjusted analysis using a limited set of the most
sensitive waste- and site-specific data; and
Tier 3: A comprehensive and detailed site assessment
2 In IWEM, the term "well" is used to represent an actual or hypothetical ground-water
monitoring well or drinking water well, located downgradient from a WMU.
"U2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 1.0
The IWEM software is designed to support the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses. The
unique aspect of the IWEM software is that it allows the user to perform Tier 1 and Tier
2 analyses and obtain liner recommendations with minimal data requirements. Users
interested in a Tier 3 analysis are directed to the Guide for information regarding the
selection of an appropriate ground-water fate and transport model.
1.2 IWEM Design
1.2.1 What Does the Software Do?
IWEM helps you determine a recommended liner design for different types of
Subtitle D WMUs that will minimize the potential for adverse ground-water impacts
caused by the leaching of waste constituents. The IWEM tool compares the expected
leachate concentration for each waste constituent that is entered by the user with the
leachate concentration threshold value (LCTV) or exposure concentration calculated by a
ground-water fate and transport model for three standard liner types. The IWEM
software compiles the results for all constituents expected in the leachate and then reports
the minimum liner scenario that is protective for all constituents. Table 1.1 shows the
WMU types and liner types that are evaluated in IWEM.
Table 1.1 IWEM WMU and Liner Combinations
WMU Type
Landfill
Surface Impoundment
Waste Pile
Land Application Unit
Liner Type
No Liner (in-situ soil)
Single Clay Liner
N/A
Composite Liner
N/A
N/A = Not Applicable
For Land Application Units (LAUs) only the No Liner scenario is evaluated
because liners are not typically used at this type of facility.
1.2.2 IWEM Components
The IWEM software consists of three main components (7) A graphical user
interface (GUI) which guides you through a series of user-friendly screens to perform
Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations; (2) the EPACMTP computational engine and integrated
Monte Carlo processor that performs the ground-water fate and transport simulations for
Tier 2 evaluations; and (3) a series of data bases that contain waste constituent
1-2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 1.0
characteristics and WMU and ground-water modeling parameters. Each of these three
components is discussed briefly below.
1. Graphical User Interface (GUI)
The IWEM GUI consists of a series of data input and display screens which allow
you to define all aspects of a Tier 1 or Tier 2 evaluation. The user interface
provides a tailored front-end to the EPACMTP computational engine and built-in
databases for Tier 1 and Tier 2. The user interface module is described in detail
in the IWEM User's Guide (U.S. EPA, 2002c).
2. EPACMTP Ground-Water Fate and Transport Simulation Model
EPACMTP is the computational engine of IWEM. EPACMTP simulates the
migration of chemical waste constituents in leachate from land disposal units,
through soil and ground water. Tier 1 leachate concentration thresholds were
generated using EPACMTP. In a Tier 2 evaluation, the fate and transport
simulation is performed directly inside the IWEM tool. EPACMTP is described
in detail in the EPACMTP Technical Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002a).
This document discusses the application of EPACMTP as part of IWEM.
3. Databases
The third component of IWEM is an integrated set of databases that include Tier
1 lookup tables, as well as waste constituent properties and ground-water
modeling parameters for Tier 2 evaluations. The waste constituent database
includes 206 organics and 20 metals. Table 1.2 provides a list of the constituents
in the database. The constituent databases includes physical and chemical data
needed for ground-water transport modeling, as well as reference ground-water
concentrations (RGCs), in the form of maximum constituent levels (MCLs) and
cancer and non-cancer health-based numbers (HBNs) for ingestion of drinking
water, and inhalation of volatiles during showering. Appendix B provides a
complete list of all constituent property data.
In addition to constituent data, the IWEM tool includes a comprehensive database
of ground-water modeling parameters, including infiltration rates for different
WMU types and liner designs for a range of locations and climatic conditions
throughout the United States, and soil and hydrogeological data for different soil
types and aquifer conditions. Details of the databases are provided in this
background document, and in the EPACMTP Parameters/Data Background
Document (U.S. EPA, 2002b).
1-4
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 1.0
1.3 About This Document
The remainder of this document is organized as follows:
Section 2.0; Overview of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Approach, presents the purpose of,
and the methodology behind the Tier 1 and Tier 2 tools;
Section 3.0; What is the EPACMTP Model, provides an overview of the
EPACMTP ground-water simulation model;
Section 4.0; How EPA Developed the Tier 1 and Tier 2 IWEM Tools, describes
the application of EPACMTP for the development of the IWEM tools, in particular the
input parameters used for Tier 1 and Tier 2;
Section 5.0; Establishing Reference Ground-water Concentrations, describes how
we developed health-based reference concentrations (RfCs) based on ingestion and
inhalation risks;
Section 6; How Does IWEM Calculate LCTVs and Make Liner Recommendations,
describes the calculation of leachate concentration thresholds, including the development
ofRGCs;
Section 7.0; References, lists literature references;
Appendix A presents a glossary of technical terms used in this document;
Appendix B presents the list of waste constituents included in IWEM and the
default values for the constituent-specific inputs (decay coefficient and organic carbon
partition coefficient [Koc]);
Appendix C presents tables of EPACMTP input parameters used in developing
the Tier 1 LCTVs;
Appendix D presents infiltration rate data for each WMU and liner design
combination;
Appendix E presents detailed information on the methodology we used to develop
inhalation and ingestion HBNs; and
Appendix F presents the Tier 1 LCTV tables.
1-5
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 1.0
Table 1.2 IWEM Constituents
CAS Number
Constituent Name
CAS Number
Constituent Name
Organics
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
10061-02-6
60-57-1
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Benz {a} anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
B i s(2-ethy Ihexyl )phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene, 1, 3-
Butanol
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-l,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Dichloropropene trans- 1,3-
Dieldrin
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
218-01-9
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
206-44-0
50-00-0
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
Chloropropene, 3- (Allyl Chloride)
Chrysene
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT, p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a,h}anthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropanel,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1 ,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1 ,4-
Dichlorobenzidine3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1 ,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans- 1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene l,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Fluoranthene
Formaldehyde
1-6
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 1.0
Table 1.2 IWEM Constituents (continued)
CAS Number
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
91-20-3
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
Constituent Name
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine, 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane, 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate, 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
CAS Number
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
109-86-4
110-49-6
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
Constituent Name
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
Indeno {1,2,3-cd} pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
1-7
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 1.0
Table 1.2 IWEM Constituents (continued)
CAS Number
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
Constituent Name
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8-
CAS Number
3689-24-5
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
Constituent Name
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidine o-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene
Tri s(2, 3 -dibromopropy 1 )pho sphate
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 1.0
Table 1.2 IWEM Constituents (continued)
CAS Number
Constituent Name
CAS Number
Constituent Name
Metals
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
16984-48-8
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
7439-98-7
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-28-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
1-9
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 2.0
2.0 Overview of the Tier 1 And Tier 2 Approach
This section provides an overview of the methodology we used to develop the
Tier 1 and Tier 2 tools. Section 2.1 discusses the purpose of the tools in terms of waste
management scenarios addressed by IWEM. Section 2.2 presents the approach and
parameters used for a Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluation.
2.1 Purpose of The Tier 1 And Tier 2 Tools
IWEM analyzes the potential ground-water impacts of four types of WMU; LF,
SI, waste pile (WP), and LAUs; and three liner scenarios: no liner, single clay liner, and
composite liner. The purpose of both the Tier 1 and the Tier 2 evaluation is to determine
the minimum recommended liner design that is protective of ground water for the waste
of concern.
The primary method of controlling the release of waste constituents to the
subsurface is to install a low permeability liner at the base of a WMU. A liner generally
consists of a layer of clay or other material with a low hydraulic conductivity that is used
to prevent or mitigate the flow of liquids from a WMU. However, the type of liner that is
appropriate for a specific WMU is highly dependent upon a number of location-specific
parameters, such as climate and hydrogeology. In addition, the amount of liquid that
migrates into the subsurface from a WMU has been shown to be a highly sensitive
parameter in predicting the release of constituents to ground-water. Therefore, one of the
main objectives of the tiered modeling approach is to evaluate the appropriateness of a
proposed liner design in the context of other location-specific parameters such as
precipitation, evaporation, and the hydrogeologic characteristics of the soil and aquifer
beneath a facility.
EPA chose to evaluate three types of liner designs, the no-liner, single-liner, and
composite-liner designs. The no-liner design (Figure 2. la) represents a WMU that is
relying upon location-specific conditions such as low permeability native soils beneath
the unit or low annual precipitation rates to mitigate the release of constituents to ground-
water. The single-liner design represents a 3 foot thick clay liner with a low hydraulic
conductivity (1 x 10"7 centimeters per second [cm/sec]) beneath a WMU (Figure 2. Ib). A
composite liner in IWEM consists of a 60 mil (1.5 millimeter) high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) layer underlain by either a geosynthetic clay liner with a maximum hydraulic
conductivity of 5x 10"9 cm/sec or a three-fool compacted clay liner with a maximum
hydraulic conductivity of IxlO"7 cm/sec. (Figure 2.1c).
2-1
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 2.0
Waste
Compacted Clay
a) No-Liner Scenario b) Single Liner Scenario
Waste
HOPE
Liner
Waste
Compacted Clay
Geosynthetic Liner
~7
c) Composite Liner Scenario
Figure 2.1 Three Liner Scenarios Considered in IWEM.
For a given waste management scenario and waste leachate concentration, IWEM
uses ground-water modeling to predict the exposure concentration at a well located
downgradient from the WMU, and then compares the predicted exposure concentration
to established regulatory or health-based RGCs. The recommended liner design is the
minimum liner for which the predicted ground-water concentration of all constituents is
less than their RGC. For land application, the model evaluates whether wastes can be
protectively land applied, based on leachate constituent concentrations. The Tier 1 and
Tier 2 evaluations can be summarized as follows:
Tier 1: Using only expected leachate concentrations of constituents in a waste,
generic tables provide design recommendations (liner system or maximum allowable
leachate concentrations). If the waste contains several constituents, choose the most
protective design indicated for any of the constituents. This tier of analysis uses national
data and is designed to be protective for 90% of the possible combinations of waste sites
and environmental settings across the United States; Tier 1 results will therefore be
protective for the majority of sites.
Tier 2: You can enter site-specific data for up to twenty of the most sensitive
WMU and hydrogeologic characteristics to assess whether an alternative design will be
protective. In addition, you can modify the default constituent fate parameters, including
adding biodegradation. This tier is generally more representative than Tier 1 because it
allows the user to incorporate site-specific information in the analysis.
2.2 Approach Used to Develop Tier 1 And Tier 2 Tools
There are several important concepts that are critical to the understanding of how
IWEM functions. These concepts include 90th percentile exposure concentration, dilution
and attenuations factors (DAFs), reference ground-water concentrations (RGCs), and
leachate concentration threshold values (LCTVs). This section presents how we used
these concepts in developing IWEM, and the similarities and differences between Tier 1
and Tier 2.
2-2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 2.0
2.2.1 Tier 1
We developed Tier 1 of IWEM around the concept of Leachate Concentration
Threshold Values (LCTVs). An LCTV is the maximum leachate concentration that is
protective of ground-water. That is, the LCTV will result in a ground-water exposure
concentration that does not exceed RGCs. The basic calculation that is performed to
develop LCTVs can be summarized as follows:
where:
LCTV=
DAF =
RGC =
LCTV = DAF xRGC
Leachate Concentration Threshold Value
Dilution and Attenuation Factor
Reference Ground-water Concentration
(e.g.,MCLorHBN)
In this relationship, DAF represents the reduction in constituent concentration
between the point of release at the base of the WMU, and the eventual ground-water
exposure concentration at a downgradient well. IWEM uses the EPACMTP ground-
water fate and transport model to calculate expected ground-water well concentrations
from which the DAFs are determined. EPACMTP and its application under IWEM are
discussed in detail in Sections 3 and 4 of this document. The DAF is chemical- and site-
specific and is defined as the ratio of the constituent concentration in the waste leachate
to the concentration at the monitoring well, or:
C,
DAF = -
'RW
where:
CL = is the leachate concentration (milligrams per liter [mg/L])
CRW = is the well concentration (mg/L).
The ground-water exposure is evaluated at a well located downgradient from the
WMU. The distance between the WMU and the well can vary, but IWEM assumes the
well is always located on the centerline of the ground-water plume.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 2.0
The magnitude of a DAF reflects the combined effect of all dilution and
attenuation processes that occur in the unsaturated and saturated zone. The lowest
possible value of DAF is one; a DAF value of one means that there is no dilution or
attenuation at all; the concentration at the well is the same as that in the waste leachate.
High values of DAF on the other hand correspond to a high degree of dilution and
attenuation and mean that the expected concentration at the well will be much lower than
the concentration in the leachate.
IWEM uses EPACMTP in a probabilistic (Monte Carlo) mode to generate a
probability distribution of well concentrations that reflects the variability in the various
modeling parameters, for instance the variation of rainfall rate across the United States.
IWEM uses the 90th percentile exposure concentration to represent the estimated
constituent concentration at a well for a given leachate concentration to determine the
DAF that is used in the calculation of LCTVs. The 90th percentile exposure
concentration is determined by running EPACMTP in a Monte Carlo mode for 10,000
realizations. For each realization, EPACMTP calculates a maximum time-averaged
concentration at a well, depending on the exposure duration of the reference
ground-water concentration (RGC) of interest. For example, IWEM assumes a 30-year
exposure duration for carcinogens, and therefore, the maximum time-averaged
concentration is the highest 30-year average across the modeling horizon. After
calculating the maximum time-averaged concentrations across the 10,000 realizations,
the concentrations are arrayed from lowest to highest and the 90th percentile of this
distribution is selected as the constituent exposure concentration for IWEM. In Tier 1,
the EPACMTP modeling used data on WMUs collected throughout the United States.
LCTVs used in Tier 1 are therefore designed to be protective with a 90% certainty
considering the range of variability associated with waste sites across the United States.
We performed EPACMTP Monte Carlo simulations to determine constituent-
specific DAF values for each combination of WMU type and liner listed in Table 1.1.
We then multiplied these DAFs with constituent-specific RGCs to obtain the Tier 1
LCTVs. The RGCs included Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as established
under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and HBNs, calculated from constituent-
specific toxicity data, using standard exposure assumptions for residential receptors (see
Section 5.2 of this document). IWEM incorporates HBNs for exposures due to drinking
water ingestion and inhalation of volatiles while showering. Constituent-specific HBNs
in IWEM correspond to a cancer risk of 10"6, and non-cancer hazard quotient (HQ) of 1,
respectively. The relationship shown at the beginning of this section expresses how the
LCTV is directly proportional to the RGC and that the LCTV will be lower for
constituents with lower MCLs or HBNs even if they have the same fate and transport
characteristics (same DAF).
2-4
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 2.0
After calculating the Tier 1 LCTVs as outlined above, we applied a series of caps
that:
Restrict LCTVs to not exceed 1,000 mg/L,
Restrict LCTVs to not exceed Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Rule leachate
levels (for the 39 constituents identified in the TC Rule), and
Account for transformation of leachate constituents into toxic hydrolysis
daughter products.
Section 6 discusses these caps in more detail. The final result is a set of
nationwide leachate screening values. The final Tier 1 LCTVs are listed in Appendix F
of this document. They are also incorporated as a series of lookup tables in the IWEM
software.
To perform a Tier 1 evaluation only the following information is needed:
WMU type;
Constituents present in the leachate; and
Expected leachate concentration of each constituent.
The IWEM software will compare expected leachate concentrations with LCTVs
for each constituent, and determine a minimum recommended liner design that is
protective for all waste constituents.
2.2.2 Tier 2
A Tier 2 evaluation is also based on a 90th percentile ground-water protection
level, but takes into account site-specific factors. If appropriate for site conditions (for
example, an arid climate), it may be possible to avoid unnecessarily costly WMU
designs. It may also provide an additional level of certainty that liner designs are
protective of sites in vulnerable settings, such as high rainfall and shallow ground-water.
In Tier 2, EPACMTP uses site-specific information to determine the expected 90th
percentile exposure concentration for each waste constituent and liner scenario. IWEM
then directly compares these exposure concentrations to RGCs to determine whether a
particular liner scenario is protective or not. If the ground-water exposure concentration
of each constituent is less than its RGC, then the liner scenario being evaluated is
protective. If the exposure concentration of any waste constituent exceeds its RGC, then
the liner scenario is not protective. In the Tier 2 analysis, IWEM also calculates LCTVs.
These are provided to help users determine whether waste minimization may be
appropriate to meet a specific liner design. For example, a facility may find it more cost
effective to reduce the concentration of constituents in waste and design a clay-lined LF
than to dispose of the current waste in a LF with a composite liner. The LCTVs
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 2.0
calculated for the Tier 2 analysis is based on the expected exposure concentration for a
specific site, and LCTVs from this analysis are not applicable to other sites. The trade-
off in performing a Tier 2 evaluation is that although a more site-specific result is
generated, the fate and transport simulations which are performed inside the IWEM
software are computationally very demanding and can take hours to complete, even on
high-speed desk top computers.
For Tier 2, the same inputs as Tier 1 are required. In addition, there are several
more required site-specific parameters, as well as other optional parameters. The
required additional site-specific parameters that a user must input for Tier 2 are:
Geographic location of the WMU;
Footprint area of the WMU, and
Depth of the WMU (LF or SI)
If sufficient site-specific data is available, the user may also provide the following
optional Tier 2 site-specific characteristics:
Distance to the nearest surface waterbody (SI)
Depth of the base of the WMU below ground surface (LF, SI, and WP)
Operational life of the WMU (SI, WP and LAU)
Sludge thickness (SI)
Waste type (WP)
Leakage (infiltration) rate from the WMU
Distance to the nearest down-gradient well
Unsaturated zone soil type
Subsurface environment type, and/or individual of values of:
Depth from ground surface to the water table
Saturated thickness of the upper aquifer
Hydraulic conductivity in the saturated zone
Regional hydraulic gradient
Ground water pH
Constituent fate parameters:
Sorption coefficient (kd)
(Bio-) degradation rate
Constituent-specific RGC values and corresponding exposure durations
As in Tier 1, liner recommendations and LCTVs are based not only on toxicity
and DAFs, but also incorporate other criteria to cap the model-calculated values. IWEM
caps leachate concentrations from an industrial solid WMU at a level no higher than 1000
mg/L for any single constituent. The 39 constituents covered by the TC Rule are capped
at their TC levels because concentrations above those levels mean that the waste is
classified as hazardous waste. The final liner recommendations and LCTVs
2-6
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 2.0
accommodate both the parent constituent as well as any toxic daughter products. For
instance, if a parent waste constituent rapidly hydrolyzes into a persistent daughter
product, the ground-water exposure caused by the parent itself may be minimal (for
example, it has already degraded before it reaches the ground-water well), but the final
liner recommendation and LCTV generated by IWEM would be based on the exposure
caused by the daughter product.
2-7
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 3.0
3.0 What Is The EPACMTP Model?
EPACMTP is a subsurface fate
and transport model used by EPA to
evaluate migration of waste
constituents through the ground-water
pathway from land disposal units to
wells and establish protective levels in
waste.
Figure 3.1 depicts a cross-
sectional view of the subsurface
system simulated by EPACMTP.
EPACMTP treats the subsurface
aquifer system as a composite domain,
consisting of an unsaturated (vadose)
zone and an underlying saturated
zone. The two zones are separated by
the water table. EPACMTP simulates
one-dimensional (1-D), vertically
downward flow and transport of
constituents in the unsaturated zone
beneath a waste disposal unit as well
as ground-water flow and three-
dimensional (3-D) constituent transport in the underlying saturated zone. The
unsaturated zone and saturated zone modules are computationally linked through
continuity of flow and constituent concentration across the water table directly
underneath the WMU. The model accounts for the following processes affecting
constituent fate and transport: advection, hydrodynamic dispersion and molecular
diffusion; linear or nonlinear equilibrium sorption; first-order decay and zero-order
production reactions (to account for transformation breakdown products); and dilution
from recharge in the saturated zone.
The primary input to the model is the rate of constituent release (leaching) from a
WMU along with WMU design and site hydrogeological characteristics. The output
from EPACMTP is a prediction of the constituent concentration arriving at a
downgradient well. This can be either a steady-state concentration value, corresponding
to a continuous source scenario, or a time-dependent concentration, corresponding to a
finite source scenario. In the latter case, the model can calculate the peak concentration
arriving at the well or a time-averaged concentration corresponding to a specified
exposure duration (for example a 30-year average exposure time).
EPACMTP consists of four major components:
A source module that simulates the rate and
concentration of leachate exiting from
beneath a WMU and entering the unsaturated
zone;
An unsaturated zone module which simulates
1-D vertical flow of water and dissolved
constituent transport in the unsaturated zone;
A saturated zone model which simulates
ground-water flow and dissolved constituent
transport in the saturated zone; and
A Monte Carlo module for randomly
selecting input values to account for the effect
of variations in model parameters on
predicted ground-water well concentrations,
and determining the probability distribution
of predicted ground-water concentrations.
5-1
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 3.0
LEACHATE CONCENTRATION
-WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
UNSATURATED
ZONE
SATURATED
ZONE LEACHATE PLUMI
Figure 3.1 Conceptual Cross-Section View of the Subsurface System Simulated by
EPACMTP.
The relationship between the constituent concentration leaching from a LF WMU
and the resulting ground-water exposure at a well located down-gradient from the WMU
is depicted in Figure 3.2. Figure 3.2a shows how the leachate concentration emanating
from the LF unit gradually diminishes over time as a result of depletion of the waste mass
remaining in the unit. As seen in Figure 3.2b, the constituent does not arrive at the at the
well until some time after the leaching begins, but eventually the ground-water
concentration will reach a peak value, and then begin to diminish because the leaching
from the waste unit occurs only over a finite period of time. This curve is also called the
breakthrough curve. The maximum constituent concentration at the well will generally
be lower than the original leachate concentration as a result of various dilution and
attenuation processes which occur during the transport through the unsaturated and
saturated zones. EPACMTP has the capability to calculate the maximum average
ground-water concentration over a specified time period, as depicted by the horizontal
dashed line in Figure 3.2b.
The following sections describe the four main components, or modules, of
EPACMTP and the role of each in simulating constituent fate and transport.
3-2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 3.0
o
z;
TO
8
o
o
o
ra
o
ra
Initial Leachate Concentration,
Time *
(a) Leachate Concentration Versus Time
O)
o
0
o
o
o
1
Peak
Concentration
. Time-averaged well concentration,
Time
Exposure
Averaging Period
(b) Groundwater Well Concentration Versus Time
Figure 3.2 Conceptual Relationship Between Leachate
Concentration (a) and Ground-Water Exposure
Concentration (b).
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
3.1 WMU Source Module
This section describes how EPACMTP models the release of constituents from a
WMU. Section 3.1.1 provides a general overview of the EPACMTP source module;
Section 3.1.2 presents a discussion of how EPACMTP handles infiltration from SI units.
3.1.1 How EPACMTP Determines Releases From a Source
The purposes of the WMU source module in EPACMTP is to provide a leachate
flux and concentration to the unsaturated zone. The source module is a function of both
the design and operational characteristics of the WMU and the waste stream
characteristics (quantity and concentrations) and is defined in terms of four primary
parameters:
1) Area of the waste unit;
2) Leachate flux rate emanating from the waste unit (infiltration rate);
3) Constituent-specific leachate concentration; and
4) Leaching duration.
Based on these parameters, EPACMTP generates a rate of leaching and the
constituent concentration in the leachate as a function of time from the bottom of the
WMU.
Mathematically, EPACMTP regards the source as a rectangular planar area
located between the bottom of the well and the top of the unsaturated zone column,
through which leachate passes. The WMU source module determines the magnitude of
the rate of water infiltration and constituent concentration crossing this plane. The model
does not attempt to account explicitly for the multitude of physical and biochemical
processes inside the waste unit that may control the release of waste constituents to the
subsurface. Instead, the net result of these processes are used as inputs to the model. For
instance, in developing the IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations for LFs, WPs, and
LAUs, we used the Hydrologic Evaluation of LF Performance (HELP) model (Schroeder
et al, 1994) to determine infiltration rates for unlined and single lined units outside of
EPACMTP, and used these infiltration rates as inputs to EPACMTP. Likewise, the
model does not explicitly account for the complex physical, biological, and geochemical
processes that may influence leachate concentration. These processes are typically
estimated outside the EPACMTP model using geochemical modeling software,
equilibrium partitioning models, or analytical procedures such as the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) or Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
(SPLP) test; the resulting leachate concentration is then used as an EPACMTP input.
3-4
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 3.0
EPACMTP models the leaching process in one of two ways: 1) as a depleting
source; or 2) as a pulse source. In the depleting source scenario, the WMU is considered
permanent and leaching continues until all waste that is originally present has been
depleted. In the pulse source scenario, leaching occurs at a constant leachate
concentration for a fixed period of time, after which leaching stops3. EPACMTP uses the
pulse source scenario to model temporary WMUs; usually the leaching period represents
the operational life of the unit. Under this scenario, we assume clean closure conditions
and the leaching stops when the unit is closed.
Figure 3.3 graphically presents the leachate concentration under the depleting
source scenario and the pulse source scenario. In the depleting source scenario, the
leachate concentration gradually decreases over time. The user must provide a value for
the initial leachate concentration (for example, a measured value from a leaching test)
and EPACMTP will calculate the rate of depletion as a function of the infiltration rate
through the unit. The EPACMTP Technical Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002a)
provides a detailed discussion of the depleting source scenario. In the pulse source
scenario, the user must provide the value of the leachate concentration (for example, a
measured value from a leaching test), and the duration of the leaching period. Based on
these values, EPACMTP will calculate the leachate pulse.
O)
c
0
1
0
0
Q
S
0
1
_l
Initial Leachate Concentration
^^^
^^ . Pulse Source
*^^ £_
s
v s. Depleting Source
^""-e
"- «,
- ^ _ __
~" ~-
Time » 1
Figure 3.3 Leachate Concentration Versus Time
for Pulse Source and Depleting Source
Conditions.
conditions.
If the leaching period is set to a very large value, EPACMTP will simulate continuous source
5-5
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 3.0
3.1.2 How EPACMTP Determines Infiltration Rate for Surface Impoundments
Because the infiltration rate from Sis is controlled primarily by the unit's
engineering and operational characteristics rather than external climate factors, the
EPACMTP source module includes the capability to calculate SI infiltration rates as a
function of impoundment depth and other SI parameters. In particular, the SI module
calculates the infiltration rate through a zone of reduced permeability materials (which
may or may not included engineered liners) at the base of the impoundment. The various
reduced permeability layers represented in the SI infiltration module are depicted
graphically in Figure 3.4.
Ground
Surface
Elevation
Ground
Surface
Elevation
Unaffected Native Material
Infiltration
~ Water
-=- Table
Figure 3.4 Surface Impoundment Infiltration Module.
EPACMTP assumes that while the impoundment is in operation, a layer of fine-
grained sediment ('sludge') naturally accumulates at the bottom of the impoundment as
the result of the settling of suspended solids in the waste liquid. The upper half of this
layer consists of unconsolidated material; the lower half is consolidated (compacted) due
to the weight of the sediment above it. EPACMTP calculates the effective hydraulic
conductivity of the consolidated sediment layer as a function of its porosity, using an
empirical relationship based on work of Lambe and Whitman (1969) which results in a
calculated hydraulic conductivity on the order of 1 x 10"7 to 6x 10"7 cm/s. The module also
takes into account the hydraulic properties of a clay liner (if present) as well as the
properties of the native soil underlying the impoundment. If no liner is present,
EPACMTP assumes that over time, the upper soil layer becomes 'clogged' due to
deposition of solids from the impoundment. The thickness of this clogged layer is always
assigned a value of 0.5 meters, and the hydraulic conductivity of this clogged layer is
assigned a value of 10% of the hydraulic conductivity of the native soil material.
3-6
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
If a clay liner is present, the liner replaces the 'clogged native material' layer that
is depicted in Figure 3.4. If EPACMTP is used to model a lined SI, the thickness and
hydraulic conductivity of the clay liner are model inputs. The EPACMTP SI module
calculates the steady state infiltration rate through the multi-layer system of sediment-
clogged native soil/clay liner-native soil by applying the 1-D Richards equation (Jury et
al., 1991) with a constant head boundary condition, given by the SI ponding depth.
EPACMTP uses the Richards equation to accommodate partially saturated conditions
which may exist in the multi-layer system. For a detailed description of the solution of
the Richards equation for the system, see the EPACMTP Technical Background
Document (U.S. EPA, 2002a).
3.2 EPACMTP Unsaturated Zone Module
EPACMTP models water flow and solute transport in the unsaturated zone
between the base of the WMU and the water table as a 1-D, vertically downward process.
As shown in Figure 3.1, constituents migrate downward from the WMU through the
unsaturated zone to the water table. EPACMTP assumes the flow rate is steady-state,
that is, it does not change in time. The soil underneath the WMU is assumed to be
uniform with hydraulic properties described by the Mualem-Van Genuchten model (Jury
et al., 1991). The flow rate is determined by the long-term average infiltration rate
through the WMU. Inputs to the unsaturated zone module are the rate of water and
constituent leaching from the disposal facility, as well as soil hydraulic properties.
EPACMTP solves the governing 1-D steady-state Richards flow equation (Jury et al.,
1991) using a semi-numerical technique described in the EPACMTP Technical
Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002a).
Constituent transport in the unsaturated zone is assumed to occur by advection
and dispersion4. The unsaturated zone is assumed to be initially constituent-free and
constituents migrate vertically downward from the WMU. EPACMTP can simulate both
steady-state and transient transport in the unsaturated zone with single-species or
multiple-species chain decay reactions. The transport module can also simulate the
effects of both linear and nonlinear sorption reactions. When decay reactions involve the
formation of daughter products, EPACMTP has the capability to perform a multi-species
transport simulation of a decay chain consisting of up to seven members. Mathematically
the transport process is represented by the advection-dispersion equation:
4 In the case of metals which are subject to nonlinear sorption, EPACMTP uses a method-of-
characteristics solution method that does not include dispersion. In this case, transport is dominated by the
nonlinear sorption behavior and dispersion effects are minor.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 3. 0
JL D\ - V
dz { dz) dz
QR
dt
Q
(3.1)
here
z
t
c
D
V
R
A
0
Q
Soil depth coordinate (L),
Time (T),
Constituent concentration (M/L3),
Dispersion coefficient, (L2/T),
Darcy velocity (L/T),
Retardation factor (dimensionless),
First-order decay constant (1/T),
Volumetric water content (dimensionless), and
Zero-order production term to account for transformation of parent
constituents (M/(L3-T)).
EPACMTP uses units of meters for L(ength), years for T(ime), and kilograms for
M(ass). Consistent with common practice, EPACMTP uses units of mg/L for constituent
concentration. Numerically, this is the same as kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3).
The dispersion coefficient in the above transport equation accounts for the effects
of hydrodynamic dispersion and molecular diffusion and is defined as:
where
D
a
D
V
D
= Dispersion coefficient (meter squared per year [m2/yr])
= Dispersivity (m)
= Molecular diffusion coefficient (m2/yr)
= Darcy velocity (m/yr)
(3.2)
The effective molecular diffusion coefficient is calculated using the Millington-
Quirk relationship (Jury et al., 1991) as:
D
= D010/3/02
(3.3)
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
where
Dm = Effective molecular diffusion coefficient (m2/yr)
Dw = Free-water diffusion coefficient (m2/yr)
0 = Volumetric water content (dimensionless)
The retardation factor R in the transport equation accounts for the effects of
equilibrium sorption of dissolved constituents onto the solid phase as:
R = l+(pbkd)/0 (3.4)
where
R = Retardation factor (dimensionless)
pb = Bulk density (kg/L)
kd = Constituent-specific soil-water partition coefficient (L/kg)
6 = Volumetric water content (dimensionless)
EPACMTP's unsaturated zone module includes options for both linear and
nonlinear sorption isotherms. In the first case, the partition coefficient, kd is independent
of the constituent concentration. In the second case, the value of the partition coefficient
is a function of concentration. For linear sorption isotherms the partition coefficient can
be entered as a single EPACMTP parameter, or the model can calculate its value from the
fraction organic carbon in the soil and a constituent-specific organic carbon partition
coefficient as:
kd = foe X Koc (3.5)
where:
kd = Partition coefficient (L3/kg)
foc = Fraction organic carbon in the soil (dimensionless)
Koc = Constituent-specific organic carbon partition coefficient (L/kg)
When modeling constituents with non-linear sorption isotherms, the partition
coefficient data are read in by EPACMTP as a table of paired concentration-kd values. In
principle, the user can employ a variety of methods for generating the concentration-kd
values including using measured data. In practice, EPACMTP applications typically use
data generated using the MINTEQA2 geochemical speciation model (see Section
4.2.4.3.2).
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
The parameter A in the transport equation accounts for first-order transformation
processes. Finally, the term Q in the equation is a source term that represents the
production of a constituent species due to the transformation of parent constituents. This
term is zero for parent constituents that are at the beginning of a decay chain, but non-
zero for any transformation daughter products.
The output from the unsaturated zone transport solution is a time history
(breakthrough curve) of the constituent concentration arriving at the water table, which
provides the input for the saturated zone transport simulation.
3.3 Saturated Zone Module
The saturated zone module of EPACMTP is designed to simulate flow and
transport in an unconfined aquifer with constant saturated thickness (see Figure 3.1). The
model simulates regional flow in a horizontal direction with recharge and infiltration
from the overlying unsaturated zone and WMU entering at the water table. The lower
boundary of the aquifer is assumed to be impermeable.
EPACMTP assumes that flow in the saturated zone is steady-state. In other
words, EPACMTP models long-term average flow conditions. EPACMTP accounts for
different recharge rates beneath and outside the WMU area. Ground-water mounding
beneath the source is represented in the flow system by increased head values at the top
of the aquifer. It is important to realize that while EPACMTP calculates the degree of
ground-water mounding that may occur underneath a WMU due to high infiltration rates,
and will restrict the allowable infiltration rate to prevent physically unrealistic input
parameter combinations (see Section 4.2.6), the actual saturated flow and transport
modules in EPACMTP are based on the assumption of a constant saturated thickness, i.e.
fixed water table position, and the only direct effect of ground-water mounding is to
increase simulated ground-water velocities.
EPACMTP incorporates a number of different mathematical solutions for
saturated zone flow and transport. The EPACMTP Technical Background Document
(U.S. EPA, 2002a) discusses these in detail. Because of the high premium on
computational efficiency in the IWEM Tier 2 Monte Carlo tool, we used a pseudo-3-D
modeling approach in IWEM. The pseudo-3-D module simulates ground-water flow
using a 1-D steady-state solution for predicting hydraulic head and Darcy velocities. The
flow solution is formulated based on the Dupuit-Forchheimer's assumption of hydrostatic
pressure distribution (de Marsily, 1986). The hydraulic head is also horizontally
averaged in the cross-gradient direction.
EPACMTP models transport of dissolved constituents in the saturated zone using
the advection-dispersion equation. The aquifer is assumed to be initially constituent-free,
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
and constituents enter the saturated zone only from the unsaturated zone directly beneath
the WMU. In the pseudo-3-D option of EPACMTP used for IWEM, it is assumed that
advection is predominantly along the longitudinal direction (direction along the ambient
ground-water gradient), while dispersion occurs in three dimensions.
The pseudo-3-D transport option is based on the concept that when ground-water
flow is dominantly in one direction, the movement of a dissolved constituent plume can
be approximated as the product of three terms: The first term describes the movement by
advection and dispersion along the direction of ground-water flow (the x-direction); the
second and third terms account for the effect of dispersion in the horizontal transverse
(y-) direction, and the vertical (z-) direction, respectively. The effects of constituent
sorption and transformation are incorporated into the first term of the mathematical
solution. The second (y-direction) and third (z-direction) terms in the solution can be
regarded as adjustment factors that account for the reduction in concentration along the
x-direction, due to dispersion into the y- and z-directions. The y- and z- solution terms
are given by straight-forward error-functions that can be computed very quickly. From a
computational point, the pseudo-3-D solution option therefore requires about the same
effort as a 1-D solution.
The governing equation for transport in the saturated zone can be written as:
where
i,j = Indices to represent different spatial directions; i,j = 1, 2, or 3
x; = Spatial coordinate (L)
t = Time (T)
c = Constituent concentration (M/L3)
Dy = Dispersion coefficient (L2/T),
Vx = Ground-water flow rate in the x-direction (L/T)
A = First-order transformation coefficient (1/T)
R = Retardation coefficient (dimensionless)
cj) = Porosity (dimensionless)
Q = Zero-order production term to account for transformation of parent
constituents (M/L3-T)
EPACMTP uses units of meters for L(ength), years for T(ime), and kilograms for
M(ass). Consistent with common practice, EPACMTP uses units mg/L for constituent
concentration, which numerically is the same as kg/m3.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
The transport processes modeled in the saturated zone module of EPACMTP are
analogous to those in the unsaturated zone, but they are extended to three dimensions,
instead of just one. The spatial coordinate, x;, in equation 3.6 represents the three
dimensions. The coordinate xt (or just x), represents the horizontal coordinate along the
direction of ground-water flow. The coordinate x2 (or y) represents the horizontal
coordinate perpendicular to the flow direction; and the coordinate x3 (or z) represents the
vertical direction. The dispersion coefficient D;j (where i and j can be 1, 2, or 3) is
subscripted to indicate that this coefficient has components in all three directions.
Conversely, the ground-water flow term, Vx, has only a single subscript to indicate the
assumption in the pseudo-3-D option of EPACMTP, that ground-water flow is a 1-D
process. The other terms in equation 3.6 are defined in the same way as in equation 3.1,
except that the porosity, c|), replaces the volumetric water content, Q. By definition, under
fully saturated conditions, the water content of a porous medium is equal to its porosity,
therefore using c|) instead of Q in equation 3.6 is just another way of stating that the
system is water-saturated.
In many aquifers, only a portion of the total pore space is active in the transport
process, so that the effective porosity (cj)e) is less than the total porosity (<$>). EPACMTP
uses the effective porosity in the calculation of ground-water seepage velocity, i.e.:
- (37)
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
where
R = Retardation coefficient (dimensionless)
pb = Saturated zone bulk density (kg/L)
kd = Constituent-specific partition coefficient (L/kg)
cj) = Porosity (dimensionless)
In order to determine the value of c|)e, EPACMTP uses a statistical distribution of
the ratio fyjfy, which is presented in Section 4.2.3.3.
The dispersion coefficient (Dy) in equation 3.6 accounts for hydrodynamic
dispersion and molecular diffusion, and uses separate longitudinal, horizontal transverse
and vertical dispersivities as described by Burnett and Frind (1987). The effect of
molecular diffusion is incorporated using the Millington-Quirk equation, as described in
the preceding section. Likewise, the retardation and transformation terms are modeled in
the same way in the saturated zone module of EPACMTP as they are in the unsaturated
zone module.
A key distinction between the way the saturated zone module handles constituent
fate and transport, as compared to the unsaturated zone module, is the approach for
constituents with nonlinear sorption isotherms. The saturated zone module only
simulates linearized isotherms. For constituents with nonlinear sorption isotherms, the
unsaturated zone module simulates partitioning by using concentration-dependent
partitioning coefficient; the saturated zone module uses a linearized isotherm, based upon
the maximum constituent concentration at the water table (see EPACMTP Technical
Background Document; U.S. EPA, 2002a). The reason is that upon dilution of the
leachate in the ambient ground-water as the leachate enters the saturated zone,
concentrations will be reduced to a range in which constituent isotherms generally are
linear.
3.4 Conducting Probabilistic Analyses Using EPACMTP
The final component of EPACMTP is a Monte Carlo module which allows the
model to perform probabilistic analyses of constituent fate and transport. Monte Carlo
simulation is a statistical technique by which a quantity is calculated repeatedly, using
randomly selected parameter values for each calculation. The results approximate the full
range of possible outcomes, and the likelihood of each. The Monte Carlo module in
EPACMTP makes it possible to incorporate variability into the subsurface pathway
modeling analysis, and to quantify the impact of parameter variability on well
concentrations. In particular, we use Monte Carlo simulation to determine the likelihood,
or probability, that the concentration of a constituent at a well, and hence exposure and
risk, will be either above or below a certain value.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 3.0
In a Monte Carlo simulation the values of the various source-specific, chemical-
specific, unsaturated zone-specific and saturated zone-specific model parameters are
represented as probability distributions, reflecting both the range of variation that may be
encountered at different waste sites, as well as our uncertainty about the specific
conditions at each site. Strictly speaking Monte Carlo analysis can accommodate only
parameter variability, not uncertainty. Variability describes parameters whose values are
not constant, but which we can
measure and characterize with relative
precision in terms of a frequency
distribution. An example is annual
rainfall in different parts of the
country. Uncertainty pertains to
parameters whose values we know
only approximately, such as the
hydraulic conductivity of an aquifer.
In practice, we use probability
distributions to describe both
variability and uncertainty, and for the
purpose of the
EPACMTP Monte Carlo module, we
treat them as more or less equivalent.
The Monte Carlo module in
EPACMTP is described in detail in the
EPACMTP Technical Background
Document (U.S. EPA, 2002a), and the
EPACMTP Parameters/Data
Background Document (U.S. EPA,
2002b). A general overview of the
methodology is presented in the
following paragraphs. The specific
methodology we used to determine
LCTVs for IWEM is presented in
Section 6 of this document.
Figure 3.5 presents a graphical
illustration of the Monte Carlo
simulation process. The Monte Carlo
method requires that for each input
parameter, except constant parameters,
a probability distribution be provided
(Figure 3.5a). The method involves
EPACMTP Monte Carlo Bootstrap
Analysis
In a Monte Carlo analysis the output
percentile values depend on the number of
realizations. For instance, if we perform a Monte
Carlo analysis consisting of 10 realizations of
randomly selected model input values, the 90th
percentile of the model output can be determined by
ordering the output values from low to high and then
picking the 9th highest value. This 90th percentile
value is likely to be different if we perform another
Monte Carlo simulation of 10 realizations with
randomly selected inputs, and different still if we
simulate 1,000 realizations to calculate the 90th
percentile output value.
Bootstrap analysis is a technique of
replicated resampling of a large data set for
estimating standard errors, biases, confidence
intervals, or other measures of statistical accuracy. It
can produce accuracy estimates in almost any
situation without requiring subjective statistical
assumptions about the original distribution.
As part of the background for EPA's proposed 1995
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) we
conducted a bootstrap analysis for the EPACMTP
model to evaluate how Monte Carlo convergence
improves with increasing numbers of realizations.
The analysis was based on a continuous source, LF
disposal scenario in which the 90th percentile DAF
was 10. The bootstrap analysis results suggested
that, with 10,000 realizations, the expected value of
the 90th percentile DAF was 10 with a 95 percent
confidence interval of 10 ± 0.7. Decreasing the
number of realizations to 5,000 increased the
confidence interval to 10 ± 1.0.
3-14
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
the repeated generation of random values of the input variables (drawn from the known
distribution and within the range of any imposed bounds). The EPACMTP model
(Figure 3.5b) is executed for each set of randomly generated model parameters and the
corresponding ground-water well exposure concentration is calculated and stored. Each
set of input values and corresponding well concentration is termed a realization. In using
a Monte Carlo modeling approach, a higher number of realizations usually leads to a
more stable and more accurate result. However, it is generally not possible to determine
beforehand how many realizations are needed to achieve a specified degree of
convergence (that is, stability) because the value can be highly dependent on parameter
distributions. EPA has used an empirical technique called bootstrap analysis to
determine the appropriate number of realizations for EPACMTP Monte Carlo analyses
(see side bar box).
At the conclusion of the Monte Carlo simulation, the realizations are statistically
analyzed to yield a cumulative (probability) density function (CDF) of the ground-water
exposure concentration (Figure 3.5c). The construction of the CDF simply involves
sorting the ground-water well concentrations calculated in each of the individual Monte
Carlo realizations from low to high. In the example used to construct Figure 3.5, we
assumed an EPACMTP input leachate concentration value of 10 mg/L and performed a
Monte Carlo simulation of 10,000 realizations. The well concentration values simulated
in the EPACMTP Monte Carlo process range from very low values to values that
approach the leachate concentration. By examining how many of the 10,000 Monte
Carlo realizations resulted in a high value of the predicted ground-water concentration, it
is possible to assign a probability to these high-end events, or conversely determine what
is the expected ground-water concentration corresponding to a specific probability of
occurrence.
3-15
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 3.0
Distribution of values
for Input Parameter "X,'
(A)
100%
f
I
(C)
Distribution of values Distribution of values
for Input Parameter "X?" for Inpul Parameter "X:r
EPACMTP
(B) ( Contaminant Fate and
Transport Equations
ROSUH 01 7.594IM
M>illi.MLtlOf> Of
EPACMTP
577lh realization
11 th realization
2,9651h reaJiiollon
* G4th realization
ate...
10 10 1O 10 10 10 1 10
Groundwater Well Concentration
Distribution of values
for Input Parameter "Xn
Input parameter values
randomly selected for
7.594th realization of
EPACMTP
Figure 3.5 Graphical Representation of the EPACMTP Monte Carlo
Process.
3.5 EPACMTP Assumptions and Limitations
EPA designed the EPACMTP fate and transport model to be used for regulatory
assessments in a probabilistic framework. The simulation algorithms that are
incorporated into the model are intended to meet the following requirements:
Account for the primary physical and chemical processes that affect
constituent fate and transport in the unsaturated and saturated zone;
Be able to be used with relatively little site input data; and
Be computationally efficient for Monte Carlo analyses.
This section discusses the primary assumptions and limitations of EPACMTP that
EPA made in developing the model to balance these competing requirements. EPACMTP
3-16
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
may not be suitable for all sites, and the user should understand the capabilities and
limitations of the model to ensure it is used appropriately.
Source Module
The EPACMTP source module provides a relatively simple representation of
different types of WMU's. WMU's are represented in terms of a source area, and a
defined rate and duration of leaching. EPACMTP only accounts for the release of
leachate through the base of the WMU, and assumes that the only mechanism of
constituent release is through dissolution of waste constituents in the water that
percolates through the WMU. In the case of Sis, EPACMTP assumes that the leachate
concentration is the same as the constituent concentration in the waste water in the SI.
EPACMTP does not account for the presence of non-aqueous free-phase liquids, such as
an oily phase that might provide an additional release mechanism into the subsurface.
EPACMTP does not account for releases from the WMU via other environmental
pathways, such volatilization or surface run-off. EPACMTP assumes that the rate of
infiltration through the WMU is constant, representing long-term average conditions.
EPACMTP does not account for fluctuations in rainfall rate, or degradation of liner
systems that may cause the rate of infiltration and release of leachate to vary over time.
Unsatumted Zone and Saturated Zone Modules
Uniform Soil and Aquifer Assumption
EPACMTP simulates the unsaturated zone and saturated zone as separate
domains that are connected at the water table. Both the unsaturated zone and saturated
zone are assumed to be uniform porous media. EPACMTP does not explicitly account
for the presence of macro-pores, fractures, solution features, faults or other
heterogeneities in the soil or aquifer that may provide pathways for rapid movement of
constituents. A certain amount of heterogeneity always exists at actual sites and it is not
uncommon in ground-water modeling to use average parameter values. This means that
parameters such as hydraulic conductivity and dispersivity represent effective site-wide
average values. However, EPACMTP may not be appropriate for sites overlying
fractured or very heterogeneous aquifers.
3-17
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
Steady-State Flow Assumption
Flow in the unsaturated zone and saturated zone is assumed to be driven by long-
term average infiltration and recharge; EPACMTP treats flow in the unsaturated zone as
steady state and does not account for fluctuations in the infiltration or recharge rate,
either in time or areally. The use of EPACMTP may not be appropriate at sites with
large seasonal fluctuations in rainfall conditions, or at sites where the recharge rate varies
locally. Examples of the latter include the presence of surface water bodies such as rivers
and lakes or ponds and man-made recharge sources near the WMU.
EPACMTP models ground-water flow based on the assumption that the
contribution of recharge and infiltration from the unsaturated zone are small relative to
the regional ground-water flow, and that the saturated aquifer thickness is large relative
to the head difference that establishes the regional gradient. The implication is that the
saturated zone can be modeled as having a uniform thickness, with mounding underneath
the WMU represented by an increased head distribution along the water table. The
mathematical ground-water flow solutions incorporated in EPACMTP are based on
confined aquifer conditions. While EPACMTP accounts for ground-water mounding
underneath a WMU, the saturated zone module of EPACMTP only accounts for the
effect of mounding on ground-water flow velocities; it does not simulate the actual
physical increase in the thickness of the saturated zone. The assumption of constant and
uniform saturated zone thickness means that EPACMTP may not be suitable at sites with
a non-uniform thickness of the water-bearing zone, or sites with significant seasonal
variations in water table elevation. EPACMTP is designed for relatively simple ground-
water flow systems in which flow is dominated by a regional gradient. EPACMTP does
not account for the presence of ground-water sources or sinks such as pumping or
injection wells. The presence of such man-made or natural features may cause a more
complicated flow field than EPACMTP can handle. EPACMTP does not account for
free-phase flow conditions of an oily or non-aqueous phase liquid.
Constituent Fate and Transport Assumptions
The unsaturated zone and saturated zone modules of EPACMTP account for
constituent fate and transport by advection, hydrodynamic dispersion, molecular
diffusion, sorption and first-order transformation. Advection refers to transport along
with ground-water flow. Hydrodynamic dispersion and molecular diffusion both act as
mixing processes. Hydrodynamic dispersion is caused by local variations in ground-
water flow rate and is usually a significant plume-spreading mechanism. Molecular
diffusion, on the other hand, is usually a very minor mechanism, except when ground-
water flow rates are very low. EPACMTP does not account for matrix-diffusion
processes, which may occur when the aquifer formation is comprised of zones with large
contrast in permeability. In these situations, transport occurs primarily in the more
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
permeable zones, but constituents can move into and out of the low permeability zones
by diffusion.
Leachate constituents can be subject to complex geochemical interactions in soil
and ground water. EPACMTP treats these interactions as equilibrium sorption processes.
The equilibrium assumption means that the sorption process occurs instantaneously, or at
least very quickly relative to the time-scale of constituent transport. Although sorption,
or the attachment of leachate constituents to solid soil or aquifer particles, may result
from multiple chemical processes, EPACMTP lumps these processes together into an
effective soil-water partition coefficient.
For organic constituents, EPACMTP assumes that the partition coefficient is
constant, and equal to the product of the mass fraction of organic carbon in the soil or
aquifer, and a constituent-specific organic carbon partition coefficient. In the case of
metals, EPACMTP allows the partition coefficient to vary as a function of a number of
primary geochemical parameters, including pH, leachate organic matter, soil organic
matter, and the fraction of iron-oxide in the soil or aquifer.
For metals, EPACMTP uses a set of effective sorption isotherms which were
developed by EPA by running the MINTEQA2 geochemical speciation model for each
metal and each combination of geochemical parameters. In modeling metals transport in
the unsaturated zone, EPACMTP uses the complete, nonlinear sorption isotherms. In
modeling metals transport in the saturated zone, EPACMTP uses linearized MINTEQA2
isotherms, based on the assumption that after dilution of the leachate plume in ground-
water, concentration values of metals will typically be in a range where the isotherm is
approximately linear. This assumption may not be valid when metals concentrations in
the leachate are high. Although EPACMTP is able to account for the effect of the
geochemical environment at a site on the mobility of metals, the model assumes that the
geochemical environment at a site is constant and not affected by the presence of the
leachate plume. In reality, the presence of a leachate plume may alter the ambient
geochemical environment.
EPACMTP does not account for colloidal transport or other forms of facilitated
transport. For metals and other constituents that tend to strongly sorb to soil particles,
and which EPACMTP will simulate as relatively immobile, movement as colloidal
particles can be a significant transport mechanism. It is possible to approximate the
effect of these transport processes by using a lower value of the partition coefficient as a
user-input. In the IWEM application of EPACMTP, the model uses the same partition
coefficient for the unsaturated and saturated zone if this parameter is provided as a user-
input in Tier 2 evaluations.
3-19
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 3.0
EPACMTP accounts for biological and chemical transformation processes as
first-order degradation reactions. That is, it assumes that the transformation process can
be described in terms of a constituent-specific half-life. EPACMTP allows the
degradation rate to have different values in the unsaturated zone and the saturated zone,
but the model assumes that the value is uniform throughout the unsaturated zone and
uniform throughout the saturated zone for each constituent. EPA's ground-water
modeling database includes constituent-specific hydrolysis rate coefficients for
constituents that are subject to hydrolysis transformation reactions; for these constituents,
EPACMTP simulates transformation reactions subject to site-specific values of pH and
soil and ground-water temperature, but other types of transformation processes are not
explicitly simulated in EPACMTP.
For many organic constituents, biodegradation can be an important fate
mechanism, but EPACMTP has only limited ability to account for this process. The user
must provide an appropriate value for the effective first-order degradation rate. In the
IWEM application of EPACMTP, the model uses the same degradation rate coefficient
for the unsaturated and saturated zone if this parameter is provided as a user-input in Tier
2 evaluations. In an actual leachate plume, biodegradation rates may be different in
different regions in the plume; for instance in portions of the plume that are anaerobic
some constituents may biodegrade more readily, while other constituents will biodegrade
only in the aerobic fringe of the plume. EPACMTP does not account for these or other
processes that may cause a constituent's rate of transformation to vary in space and time.
Monte Carlo Module
The Monte Carlo module of EPACMTP allows you to take into account the effect
of parameter variability on predicted ground-water concentrations. The resulting
probability distribution of outcomes is valid only to the extent that EPACMTP can
accurately simulate actual constituent fate and transport processes; it does not account for
the uncertainty that results from processes that are not included in EPACMTP, or are
modeled in EPACMTP in a simplified manner. For instance, the Monte Carlo modeling
process can account for the site-to-site variability in the average hydraulic conductivity in
the aquifer, but it does not account for the uncertainty that results from treating each site
as uniform and ignoring aquifer heterogeneity.
3-20
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
4.0 How EPA Developed the Tier 1 and Tier 2 IWEM
Evaluations
This chapter describes how EPA developed the Tier 1 and Tier 2 IWEM
evaluations using EPACMTP. Section 4.1 provides an overview of the selected
EPACMTP modeling options and parameters to develop the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses.
Section 4.2 provides a detailed discussion of the input data for Tier 1 and Tier 2.
4.1 Overview
To develop the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, we linked the EPACMTP model
described in the previous chapter to a series of databases that describe WMU
characteristics, hydrogeological characteristics, and constituent fate and transport data.
We used EPACMTP in a Monte Carlo mode to obtain a probability distribution of model
outcomes, that is, predicted concentration levels at a ground-water well located
downgradient from a WMU.
In Tier 1, the Monte Carlo process reflects the nationwide variations in WMU and
site conditions that might affect the impact of leachate on ground water. In Tier 2, the
user is required to input a few site-specific parameters; the user may also set several more
parameters to site-specific values if these data are available. If site-specific data are not
available, and for the additional parameters which cannot be modified by the user, values
are drawn randomly from national or regional distributions. The underlying assumption
in Tier 2 is that if a site-specific parameter value is not available, the uncertainty in the
value of the parameter is captured by the nationwide range in values of that parameter.
The Tier 2 evaluation also has the capability to reduce the uncertainty in some of the
modeling parameters by using supporting site characterization data even if the actual
value of a parameter is not known. For instance, if the actual value of hydraulic
conductivity in the saturated zone is unknown, but information is available about the type
of subsurface environment at the site (for example, alluvial versus sedimentary rock), the
Tier 2 evaluation will use this information to reduce the uncertainty in the hydraulic
conductivity by selecting only hydraulic conductivity values in the Monte Carlo process
that are representative of alluvial aquifers. This methodology is discussed in detail in
Section 4.2.3.1.
In using a Monte Carlo modeling approach, a higher number of realizations
usually leads to a more stable and more accurate result. The desire to use the most
accurate result possible, however is balanced by the computational demands of running
Monte Carlo simulations with a large number of realizations. Based on the results of a
bootstrap analysis (see Section 3.4), we determined that performing 10,000 Monte Carlo
realizations would achieve the goals for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analysis. The Tier 1 LCTV
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
tables which are presented in Appendix F and incorporated into the IWEM software, are
based on 10,000 Monte Carlo realizations. Likewise, in a Tier 2 analysis, the IWEM
software evaluation will execute 10,000 realizations of EPACMTP. We used the 90th
percentile of the CDF of predicted ground-water concentrations to determine LCTVs for
the Tier 1 analyses and to compare directly with RGCs in Tier 2 analyses.
For each realization, EPACMTP computes a maximum average constituent
exposure concentration at a well (see Section 3.0). We used the same averaging period
as the exposure period upon which the corresponding RGC is based. For instance, MCLs
are compared against the peak ground-water well concentration; FtBNs based on
carcinogenic effects are compared against the maximum 30-year well concentration, and
non-cancer FtBNs are compared against the maximum 7-year well concentration. For the
Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses, EPACMTP used a 10,000 year maximum time horizon to
calculate ground-water well concentrations. This means that EPACMTP determined the
maximum ground-water concentration occurring within a period of 10,000 years after
leaching begins. This does not mean that we ran all EPACMTP simulations out to
10,000 years; in most cases the leachate plume reaches the ground-water well much
sooner. However in certain cases (e.g., low infiltration rate, deep unsaturated zone,
strongly sorbing constituents) it is possible that EPACMTP would predict it takes more
than 10,000 years to reach the well. In these cases the concentration value returned by
the model is the concentration at 10,000 years (or more exact, the average concentration
up to the 10,000 year time horizon for the RGC of concern, for example, the average
concentration between years 9,970 - 10,000 in the case of carcinogenic HBNs).
To enable the IWEM Tier 2 evaluation to perform the Monte Carlo analyses on
common desktop computer systems, we implemented EPACMTP using a
computationally efficient pseudo-3-D approximation for modeling saturated zone plume
transport (see Section 3.3 of the document). The resulting computer time requirements
for a Tier 2 evaluation, involving all three liner designs (no-liner, single liner, and
composite liner) is approximately 3 hours per waste constituent.4
4.1.1 EPACMTP Modeling Options and Parameters
In Tier 1, the only required IWEM inputs are the type of WMU to be evaluated,
the waste constituents present in the leachate, and the leachate concentration value for
each constituent. In Tier 2, there are a small number of additional required site-specific
user input parameters, as well as a number of optional site-specific user-input parameters.
The required additional site-specific Tier 2 parameters are:
4 This estimate is for a 500 MHz, Pentium-Ill or equivalent personal computer.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
WMU Area
WMU Depth (for LF and Sis)
WMU location (to select the appropriate climate parameters)
Optional site-specific Tier 2 inputs are:
Distance to the nearest surface waterbody (for Sis)
Depth of the base of the WMU below ground surface (LFs, WPs, and Sis)
Operational Life of the WMU (for Sis, WPs, and LAUs)
Sludge thickness (SI)
Waste type (WP)
Leakage (infiltration) rate from the WMU
Distance to the nearest down-gradient well
Unsaturated zone soil type
Subsurface environment type, and/or individual values of;
Depth from ground surface to the water table
Saturated thickness of the upper aquifer
Hydraulic conductivity in the saturated zone
Regional hydraulic gradient in the saturated zone
Ground water pH
Constituent-specific sorption coefficient (Kd)
Constituent-specific (bio-)degradation rate
Constituent-specific RGC and corresponding exposure duration
Table 4.1 summarizes the modeling options and parameters we used to developed
the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses. Parameters that are used differently in Tier 1 versus Tier
2 are flagged as such; usually this is the case for Tier 2 parameters that the user may
input as site-specific values.
IWEM parameters can be grouped into five categories: WMU infiltration and
recharge, well location, soil and hydrogeology, and constituent-specific. The required
site-specific parameters are underlined in Table 4.1. The third column in Table 4.1
indicates where you can find a detailed discussion of each parameter in this section. The
IWEM User's Guide provides additional guidance in selecting site-specific values for
these parameters.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.1 Summary of EPACMTP Options and Parameters
Modeling Element
Description or Value
Section
Reference
WMU Parameters
Waste Management
Scenario
WMU Location (Nearest
Climate Station)
Leachate concentration (mg/L)
Operational Life (Leaching
Duration) (yrs)
WMU Area (m2)
Depth of Waste in WMU (m)
WMU Base Elevation below
Ground Surface (m)
Distance to Nearest Surface
Water Body (m)
SI sediment layer thickness (m)
Waste type permeability
(cm/sec)
LF
SI
WP
LAU
Tier 1: Monte Carlo from nationwide distribution
Tier 2: Required site-specific user input
Tier 1: Required constituent-specific user input
Tier 2: Required constituent-specific user input
LF:
Calculated inside EPACMTP; leaching continues until all
waste depleted.
SI, WP&LAU:
Tier 1: SI = Distribution from SI survey
WP = 20 yrs
LAU = 40 yrs
Tier 2: Optional user input; defaults same as Tier 1
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution from industrial WMU
surveys;
Tier 2: Required site-specific user input
Used for LFs and Sis; not applicable in case of WP or LAU.
Equivalent to ponding depth for Sis.
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution from industrial WMU
surveys;
Tier 2: Required site-specific user input for LF and SI
Tier 1: Distribution for SI. For all other units set to 0.0 (unit
base at ground surface)
Tier 2: Optional user input; default = 0.0
Used to evaluate water table mounding for SI units
Tier 1: 360 m
Tier 2: Optional user input; default = 360 m
Thickness of accumulated sediment (sludge)layer in SI
Tierl: 0.2m
Tier 2: Optional user input; default = 0.2 m
Used for WPs only; not applicable to other WMUs
Tier 1: Nationwide, uniform distribution of three waste
types (low-medium-high permeability)
Tier 2: Optional user input; default same as Tier 1
4.2.1
4.2.1.3
4.2.1.3
4.2.1.3
4.2.1.3
4.2.1.3
4.2.1.3
4.2.1.3
4.2.1.3
4.2.2.2
4-4
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.1 Summary of EPACMTP Options and Parameters (continued)
Modeling Element
Description or Value
Section
Reference
Infiltration and Recharge Parameters
No Liner Infiltration (m/yr)
LF:
Tier 1:
Tier 2:
SI:
Tier 1:
Tier 2:
WP:
Tier 1:
Tier 2:
LAU:
Tier 1:
Tier 2:
Nationwide distribution derived using HELP model
based on survey of industrial landfill locations
Optional user input; default generated using HELP
model based on site location
Calculated by EPACMTP based on distribution of
SI ponding depths
Optional user input; default calculated by
EPACMTP based on site-specific ponding depth
Nationwide distribution derived using HELP model
based on survey of industrial waste pile locations
Optional user input; default generated using HELP
model based on site location
Nationwide distribution derived using HELP model
based on survey of industrial LAU locations
Optional user input; default generated using HELP
model based on site location
4.2.2.2
4.2.2.2
4.2.2.2
4.2.2.2
Single Liner Infiltration (m/yr)
LF:
Tier 1:
Tier 2:
SI:
Tier 1:
Tier 2:
WP:
Tier 1:
Tier 2:
LAU:
Nationwide distribution derived using HELP model
with 3 ft. clay liner and survey of industrial landfill
locations
Optional user input; default generated using HELP
model based on site location and 3 ft. clay liner
Calculated by EPACMTP based on SI ponding
depth distribution and 3 ft clay liner
Optional user input; default calculated by
EPACMTP based on site-specific ponding depth
and 3 ft clay liner
Nationwide distribution derived using HELP model
with 3 ft. clay liner and survey of industrial waste
pile locations
Optional user input; default generated using HELP
model based on site location and 3 ft. clay liner
Not Applicable
4.2.2.3
4.2.2.3
4.2.2.3
4-5
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.1 Summary of EPACMTP Options and Parameters (continued)
Modeling Element
Composite Liner Infiltration
(m/yr)
Recharge Rate (m/yr)
Description or Value
LF:
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution of reported leak detection
system flow rates for composite lined units
Tier 2: Optional user input; default same as Tier 1.
SI:
Tier 1: Calculated using Bonaparte (1989) equation for
geomembrane liner using nationwide distribution
of leak densities and unit-specific ponding depths;
Tier 2: Optional user input; default same as Tier 1
WP:
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution of reported leak detection
system flow rates for composite lined units;
Tier 2: Optional user input; default same as Tier 1
LAU: Not Applicable
All WMU types:
Tier 1: Monte Carlo based on nationwide distribution of
WMU locations and regional soil types
Tier 2: Monte Carlo based on distribution of soil types and
location-specific climate conditions
Section
Reference
4.2.2.4
4.2.2.4
4.2.2.4
4.2.2.5
Soil and Hydrogeologic Parameters
Subsurface environment
Depth to ground water (m)
Soil Hydraulic Parameters:
(Hydraulic conductivity;
saturated water content;
residual water content;
moisture retention curve
parameters)
Soil Temperature (°C)
Bulk density (kg/L)
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution of 13 major aquifer types
associated with the locations of WMUs.
Tier 2: Optional user input; default is unknown subsurface
environment
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution, correlated with subsurface
environment
Tier 2: Optional user input; default derived from
subsurface environment if known, otherwise
national average value (5.18m)
Distribution of values corresponding to three major soil types
(sandy loam, silt loam, and silty clay loam). Probability of
occurrence of each soil type based on nationwide distribution
Assigned based on WMU location
Assigned based on selected soil type (sandy loam, silt loam,
or silty clay loam)
4.2.3.1
4.2.3.1
4.2.3.2
4.2.3.2
4.2.3.2
4-6
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.1 Summary of EPACMTP Options and Parameters (continued)
Modeling Element
Unsaturated Zone Percent
Organic Matter
Unsaturated Zone pH
Saturated Zone Hydraulic
Conductivity (m/yr)
Regional Ground water
Hydraulic Gradient
Saturated Zone Thickness (m)
Saturated Zone Porosity
Saturated Zone Bulk Density
(kg/L)
Saturated Zone pH
Saturated Zone Fraction
Organic Carbon
Saturated Zone Temperature
(°C)
Description or Value
Distribution of values corresponding to three major soil types
(sandy loam, silt loam, and silty clay loam). Probability of
occurrence of each soil type based on nationwide distribution
Assumed to be same as saturated zone pH; nationwide
distribution derived from STORET ground-water quality
database
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution, correlated with subsurface
environment
Tier 2: Optional user input; default derived from
subsurface environment if known, otherwise
national average (1890 m/y)
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution, correlated with subsurface
environment
Tier 2: Optional user input; default derived from
subsurface environment if known, otherwise
national average (0.0057 m/m)
Tier 1: Nationwide distribution, correlated with subsurface
environment
Tier 2: Optional user input; default derived from
subsurface environment if known, otherwise
national average (10.1 m)
Derived from nationwide distribution of mean aquifer
particle diameter
Derived from saturated zone porosity
Nationwide distribution derived from STORET water quality
database
Nationwide distribution derived from STORET water quality
database
Assigned based on WMU location
Section
Reference
4.2.3.2
4.2.3.2
4.2.3.3
4.2.3.1
4.2.3.1
4.2.3.3
4.2.3.3
4.2.3.3
4.2.3.3
4.2.3.3
Constituent Fate and Transport Parameters
Molecular Diffusion
Coefficient (mVyr)
Accounts for constituent transport via diffusion in soil and
ground water. Calculated from constituent-specific free-
water diffusion coefficients
3.2,3.3
4-7
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.1 Summary of EPACMTP Options and Parameters (continued)
Modeling Element
Transformation Parameters
Hydrolysis Rate (yr"1)
(Bio-)degradation (yr"1)
Sorption Parameters
Organic Carbon Partition
Coefficient (kg/L)
Soil-Water Partition
Coefficient (kg/L)
Description or Value
Tier 1 and Tier 2 account for hydrolysis transformation
reactions using constituent-specific hydrolysis rate constants.
Other types of (bio-)degradation processes can be entered as
optional Tier 2 constituent specific parameters
For organic constituents, equilibrium sorption is taken into
account via constituent-specific organic carbon partition
coefficients; for metals, effective equilibrium partition
coefficients are generated using the MINTEQA2
geochemical speciation model
Section
Reference
4.2.4.1
4.2.4.3
Well Location Parameters
Downgradient Distance from
WMU(m)
Transverse Distance from
Plume Centerline (m)
Depth of Well Intake (m)
Tier 1: Set to 150 meters
Tier 2: Optional user input (limited to 1600 meters);
default same as Tier 1
Well always on centerline of plume, transverse distance is
0.0
Uniform distribution from 0 - 10 m below water table
4.2.5
4.2.5
4.2.5
4.2 EPACMTP Input Parameters Used to Develop Tier 1 and Tier 2
Tools
This section describes the parameters we used to develop the Tier 1 and Tier 2
tools, including their data sources, methodologies, and values. Appendix C provides
detailed tables of Tier 1 parameter values. Section 4.2.1 describes WMU parameters.
Section 4.2.2 describes the infiltration and recharge parameters. Section 4.2.3 describes
the unsaturated zone and saturated zone parameters. Section 4.2.4 describes constituent-
specific chemical fate parameters. Section 4.2.5 describes the well location parameters,
and Section 4.2.6 describes the screening procedures we implemented in the Monte Carlo
analysis to eliminate physically unrealistic parameter combinations.
4-8
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
4.2.1 WMU Parameters
4.2.1.1 WMU Types
IWEM simulates four different types of WMUs. Each of the four IWEM units
reflects waste management practices that are likely to occur at industrial Subtitle D
facilities. The WMU can be a LF, a WP, a SI, or a LAU. The latter is also sometimes
called a land treatment unit. The four WMU types are represented graphically in Figure
4.1. In developing the IWEM tools, we assumed all units contained only one type of
waste so that the entire capacity of the WMU is devoted to a single waste.
Landfill (LF). IWEM only considers closed LFs. A closed LF is
assumed to have an 2-foot soil cover and one of three liner types: no-liner;
a single clay liner; or a composite liner. The LF is filled with waste
during the unit's operational life. Upon closure of the LF, the waste is left
in place, and a final soil cover is installed. The starting point for the
simulation is at the time when the LF is closed, i.e., the unit is at
maximum capacity. The release of waste constituents into the soil and
ground water underneath the LF is caused by dissolution and leaching of
the constituents due to precipitation which percolates through the unit.
The type of liner that is present controls, to a large extent, the amount of
leachate which is released from the unit. We modeled LFs as a permanent
WMU, with a rectangular footprint and a uniform depth. We did not
simulate any loss process that may occur during the unit's active life (for
example, due to leaching, volatilization, runoff or erosion, or biochemical
degradation. We modeled the leaching of waste constituents from LFs as
a depleting source scenario. In the depleting source scenario, the WMU is
considered permanent and leaching continues until all waste that is
originally present has been depleted. In IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2, the
magnitude of the initial leachate concentration is a model input; the rate of
depletion is calculated internally in EPACMTP (see EPACMTP Technical
Background Document) .5 The leachate concentration value which is used
an IWEM input is the expected initial leachate concentration, when the
waste is 'fresh'.
5 In EPACMTP's finite source module for LFs, the rate of depletion is a function of the ratio
between the waste concentration (Cw) and the leachate concentration (CL). In IWEM, we set this ratio to a
constant, protective value of CW/CL = 10,000.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Cover
unsaturated zone
V
saturated zone
(A) LANDFILL
unsaturated zone
v
saturated zone
(C) WASTE PILE
unsaturated zone
V
saturated zone
(B) IMPOUNDMENT
unsaturated zone
V
saturated zone
(D) LAND APPLICATION UNIT
Figure 4.1 WMU Types Modeled in IWEM.
4-10
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
Waste Pile (WP). IWEM models WPs as temporary sources used for
storage of solid wastes. Due to their temporary nature, they typically will
not be covered. IWEM allows liners to be present, similar to LFs. In Tier
1 analyses, IWEM assumes that WPs have a finite operational life after
which the WP is removed. In IWEM, we modeled WPs as a pulse-type
source, with pulse duration equal to the unit's operating life.
Surface Impoundment (SI). In IWEM, Sis are ground level or below-
ground level, flow-through units, which may be unlined, have a single
clay liner, or have a composite clay-geomembrane liner. Release of
leachate is driven by the ponding of water in the impoundment, which
creates a hydraulic head gradient with the ground water underneath the
unit. At the end of the unit's operational life, we assume there is no
further release of waste constituents to the ground water (that is, clean
closure from the SI). We modeled Sis as pulse-type sources; leaching
occurs at a constant leachate concentration over a fixed period of time
which is equal to the unit's operating life. We also assume a constant
ponding depth (depth of waste water in SI) during the operational life.
Land Application Unit (LAU). LAU (or land treatment units) are areas
of land which receive regular applications of waste that can be either tilled
or sprayed directly onto the soil and subsequently mixed with the soil.
IWEM models the leaching of wastes after tilling with soil. IWEM does
not account for the losses due to volatilization during or after waste
application. LAUs are modeled in IWEM as a constant pulse-type
leachate source, with a leaching duration equal to the unit's operational
life. We evaluated only the no-liner scenario for LAUs because liners are
not typically used at this type of unit.
4.2.1.2 WMU Data Sources
In order to develop WMU parameters for IWEM, we used data from two
nationwide EPA surveys of industrial Subtitle D WMUs. Data for LFs, WPs, and LAUs
were obtained from an EPA survey of industrial D facilities conducted in 1986 (U.S.
EPA, 1986). The survey provides a statistical sample design based set of observations of
site specific areas, volumes and locations for industrial Subtitle D facilities in the United
States. In the following description of WMU data, we will refer to this survey as the
"1986 Subtitle D survey. " Data for Sis were obtained from a recent Agency survey of
industrial Sis (U.S. EPA, 2001). We will refer to this survey as the "Surface
Impoundment Study."
4-11
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
Landfills
The 1986 Subtitle D survey provided LF data consisting of 824 observations of
facility locations, area, number of units in the facility, facility design capacity, total
remaining facility capacity, and the relative weight of each facility. The relative weight
was assigned based on the total number of employees working at the facility and reflects
the quantity of the waste managed in that facility.
We screened the LF data by placing constraints on the WMU depth and volume to
eliminate unrealistic observations. The WMU depth, calculated by dividing the unit
capacity by its area, was constrained to be either greater than or equal to 2 feet (0.67m),
or less than or equal to 33 feet (10m). In addition, the LF volume was constrained to be
greater than the remaining capacity. Ten area observations were reported missing and
none were screened. Ninety-one volume observations were reported missing and 232
additional volume observations were screened.
In cases where the WMU depth or remaining capacity constraints were violated,
we replaced the observed unit volume by generating a random realization from the
volume probability distribution conditioned on area assuming that the unit area value was
more likely to be correctly reported. The joint distribution was derived from the non-
missing unit area/volume pairs that met the unit depth and remaining capacity constraints
and was assumed to be lognormal. Missing values were generated from the joint
area/volume probability if both the area and volume were missing, and from the
corresponding conditional distribution if only one of the two values was missing. Final
depth values were calculated by dividing the unit volume by the area.
Figure 4.2 shows the geographic locations of LF WMUs used in developing the
Tier 1 and Tier 2 tools. A summary of the descriptive statistics of the LF parameters is
provided in Appendix C; additional detailed data is provided in the EPACMTP
Parameters/Data Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002b).
4-12
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Figure 4.2 Geographic Locations of Landfill WMUs.
Surface Impoundments
The IWEM tools incorporate SI parameters from EPA's recent 5-year study of
nonhazardous (Subtitle D) industrial Sis (U.S. EPA, 2001) in the United States. The
Surface Impoundment Study is the product of a national survey of facilities that operate
non-hazardous industrial waste Sis. We used information in the Surface Impoundment
Study to create a database of SI characteristics comprising 503 SI units located at 143
facilities throughout the United States.
The Surface Impoundment Study provided data on impoundment locations, area,
operating depths (depth of ponding in the impoundment), depth of the SI base below the
ground surface, operational life of the impoundment, and proximity of the impoundment
to a surface water body.
4-13
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Figure 4.3 shows the geographic locations of the 143 SI facilities used from the
Surface Impoundment Study. Due to the scale of this map, the individual units at each
facility are not shown. A summary of the descriptive statistics of the SI unit parameters
is provided in Appendix C; additional detailed data are provided in theEPACMTP
Parameters/Data Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002b).
Figure 4.3 Geographic Locations of Surface Impoundment WMUs.
Waste Piles
The 1986 Subtitle D survey included 847 WP facilities with data on facility area,
number of units, and the total amount of waste placed in the facility (waste volume) in
1985. We obtained unit values by dividing the facility values by the number of units in
the facility. No screening constraints were placed on the WP data other than setting the
114 facility areas and the 30 facility waste volumes reporting zero values to 0.005 acres
(20 m2) and 0.005 mega-tons (Mton), respectively.
Thirty waste volume observations were reported missing. No area observations
were reported missing. We replaced missing volume values by random realizations from
4-14
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
the probability distribution of volume conditioned on area. The conditional distribution
was assumed to be lognormal and was derived from the non-missing unit area/volume
pairs.
Figure 4.4 shows the geographic locations of WP WMUs used in developing the
Tier 1 and Tier 2 tools. A summary of the descriptive statistics of the WP parameters is
provided in Appendix C; additional detailed data is provided in the EPACMTP
Parameters/Data Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002b).
Figure 4.4 Geographic Locations of Waste Pile WMUs.
Land Application Units
The 1986 Subtitle D survey included 352 LAU facilities, with data on location,
area, number of units in each facility, and the total amount of waste managed (waste
volume) in 1985. We obtained unit values obtained by dividing the facility values by the
number of units in the facility. We screened the LAU data by constraining waste
application rates to be less than 10,000 tons/acre/year to eliminate unrealistic values. The
application rate was calculated by dividing the waste managed in 1985 by the site
acreage. (The upper bound was derived by assuming a maximum application rate of 200
dry tons/acre/year with a 2% solids content).
4-15
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Eight waste volume observations were reported missing; twelve were screened
out due to the application rate constraint. No area observations were reported missing
and none were screened. As in the case of WPs, areas and volumes reported as zero were
replaced with lower bounds. Three reported zero areas and nine reported zero waste
volumes were set to 0.005 acres (20 m2) and 0.005 Mton, respectively.
We replaced missing and screened values by random realizations from the joint
area/volume probability distribution or the corresponding marginal distributions
depending on whether both or only one of either the waste volume or area values were
missing or screened. The joint distribution was assumed to be lognormal and was
derived from the non-missing unit area/volume pairs that met the unit depth constraint.
Figure 4.5 shows the geographic locations of LAU WMUs used in developing the
Tier 1 and Tier 2 tools. A summary of the descriptive statistics of the LAU parameters is
provided in Appendix C; additional detailed data are provided in theEPACMTP
Parameters/Data Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002b).
Figure 4.5 Geographic Locations of Land Application Unit WMUs.
4-16
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
4.2.1.3 WMU Parameters Used in Developing the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Tools
This section discusses the individual WMU-related parameters used in the IWEM
modeling for Tier 1 and Tier 2. In most cases, the Tier 1 parameters are described by
nationwide probability distributions. Appendix C provides a summary of the parameter
distributions for each WMU type. With the exceptions noted in the following sections,
these same distributions are used as the defaults in Tier 2.
Waste Leachate Concentration (ntg/L)
Values of leachate concentration for all constituents of concern are required Tier
1 and Tier 2 input parameters. This parameter can be an actual measured value, or it can
be an expected or estimated value. The user-provided leachate concentration values are
the basis for IWEM's determination of the minimum protective liner design.
The Tier 1 software compares user-supplied leachate concentration values against
each constituent's aqueous solubility. If the user input value exceeds the aqueous
solubility of that constituent in the IWEM data base, IWEM will display a warning
message. A leachate concentration value above the aqueous solubility value may
indicate a number of conditions: (1) a measurement error, or (2) a case outside the
validity of the EPACMTP fate and transport model. The model is designed to simulate
transport of dissolved aqueous phase constituents, and therefore, the solubility is the
theoretical maximum concentration value that may occur. However, IWEM will not
reject user supplied leachate concentration values.
WMU Location
We obtained WMU locations from the 1986 subtitle D survey and the 2001
Surface Impoundment Study, respectively. The WMU locations are shown in Figures 4.2
- 4.5. In developing the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, we used information on WMU
locations to assign appropriate site-based climate and hydrogeological parameter values
to each location in the WMU database. Location-specific climate data from 102 climate
stations were used to develop infiltration and recharge rates using the HELP model for
unlined and single-lined WMUs (see Section 4.2.2), and to determine soil and aquifer
temperature in order to calculate hydrolysis transformation rates (see Section 4.2.4). We
also used information on WMU locations to assign location-specific soil and aquifer
hydrogeological parameter values (see Section 4.2.3). In Tier 2, the WMU location is a
required site-specific user input value that is needed by IWEM to assign the appropriate
climate-related parameter values.
4-17
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
WMUArea (m2)
This parameter reflects the footprint area of the WMU (that is, length by width).
Tier 1 values were obtained from EPA's 1986 Subtitle D Survey and the Surface
Impoundment Study. The WMU footprint area is a required site-specific user-input value
for a Tier 2 evaluation. This parameter represents the total surface area over which
infiltration and leachate enter the subsurface.
WMU Waste Depth (m)
The WMU waste depth is used for LF and SI simulations. This parameter is not
used for WPs or LAUs. In the case of LFs, this parameter represents the average waste
thickness in the LF at closure. EPACMTP uses the waste depth as one of the parameters
to calculate the LF source depletion rate (see EPACMTP Technical Background
Document; U.S. EPA, 2002a). The Tier 1 evaluation is based on a nationwide
distribution of LF depths obtained from the 1986 Subtitle D survey. In Tier 2, the user is
required to provide a site-specific value.
For Sis, the waste depth is equal to the ponding depth, or average depth of free
liquid in the impoundment. The SI ponding depth represents the hydraulic head that
drives leakage of water from the SI; EPACMTP uses this parameter in order to calculate
SI infiltration rates (see Section 3.1.2). The Tier 1 evaluation is based on a nationwide
distribution of SI ponding depths obtained from the 2001 Surface Impoundment Study. In
Tier 2, this is a required site-specific user input parameter.
Surface Impoundment Sediment (Sludge) Layer Thickness (m)
This parameter is applicable to Sis only and represents the average thickness of
accumulated sediment (sludge) deposits on the bottom of the impoundment. This layer
of accumulated sediment is different from an engineered liner underneath the
impoundment, but its presence will serve to restrict the leakage of water from an
impoundment, especially in unlined units. EPACMTP uses this parameter to calculate
the rate of infiltration from unlined and single lined Sis. The EPACMTP SI infiltration
module is described in Section 3.1, with a detailed description in the EPACMTP
Technical Background Document (U.S. EPA, 2002a).
To model Sis, we assumed that the accumulated sediment consists of two equally
thick layers, an upper unconsolidated layer and a lower consolidated layer ('filter cake')
that has been compacted due to the weight of the sediment above it, and therefore has a
reduced porosity and permeability. In Tier 1, we used a total (unconsolidated +
consolidated) sediment layer thickness of 0.2 meters. In Tier 2, this is an optional site-
specific user input parameter, with a default value of 0.2 m.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Depth of the WMU Base Below Ground Surface (m)
This parameter represents the depth of the base of the unit below the ground
surface, as schematically depicted in Figure 4.6. The depth of the unit below the ground
surface reduces the travel distance through the unsaturated zone before leachate
constituents reach ground water. The SI characterization data from the EPA's 2001
Surface Impoundment Study provided unit-specific data for Sis that we used in the Tier 1
modeling. This parameter was not included in the EPA's 1986 Industrial Subtitle D
Survey of LFs, WPs, and LAUs. For the Tier 1 analyses of these types of WMUs, we set
this parameter to zero, which is equivalent to assuming the base of the unit is level with
the ground surface.
In Tier 2, this parameter is an optional site-specific user input parameter, with a
default value of zero. If a non-zero value is entered at Tier 2, IWEM will verify that the
entered value, in combination with the depth to the water table, and magnitude of the
unit's infiltration rate, does not lead to a physically infeasible condition (e.g., water table
mound height above the ground surface or above the level of the waste liquid in an
impoundment) in accordance with the infiltration screening methodology presented in
Section 4.2.6.
y WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
GROUND SURFACE
DEPTH OF THE WMU BASE ''
3ELOW GROUND SURFACE v
WATER TABLE v
\
VL.NER DEPTHT°
1
1
SATURAT
THICK
*
i
WATER TABLE
ED ZONE
NESS
Ill^Iil^li^Iil^ill^ll^ili^ill^li^iii^il/^ill^lil^ll^l/^lll^lii^lil^
Figure 4.6 WMU with Base Elevation below Ground Surface.
4-19
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
Operational Life (Duration of Leaching Period) (yr)
For LFs, IWEM determines the duration of the leaching period internally, as a
function of the amount of waste in the unit at closure and IWEM does not use an
operational life. Because WPs, Sis and LAUs are modeled as finite duration pulse
sources, we assumed the duration of the leaching period is equal to the unit's operational
life.
In Tier 1, we determined unit-specific operational lives for SI, from information
in the Surface Impoundment Study on present age of the unit and the planned closing
date. If this information was missing, we assigned an operational life of 50 years. For
WPs and LAUs, the 1986 Industrial Subtitle D Survey did not provide information on
operational life. We assigned a life of 20 years for WPs and 40 years for LAUs.
In Tier 2, the operational life is an optional site-specific user input parameter for
Sis, WPs, and LAUs. Tier 2 default values for this parameter are as follows:
LAU = 40 years
WP 20 years
SI 50 years
Distance to Nearest Surface Water Body (m)
For Sis, IWEM uses information on the distance to the nearest permanent surface
water, (that is, a river, pond or lake), in the infiltration screening procedure presented in
Section 4.2.6. In Tier 1, we used reported data from the EPA's Surface Impoundment
Study to assign a distance value to each SI unit in the national database. The data from
the Surface Impoundment Study indicated a distribution of values with a range of 30 to
5,000 meters (3.1 miles), and a median value of 360 meters (see Appendix C).
In Tier 2, this parameter is an optional site-specific user input. Because the exact
distance may not be known in many cases, the input is in terms of whether or not there is
surface water body within 2,000 meters of the unit. If a surface water body is present
within 2,000 meters, IWEM uses the median value of 360 meters as a default. If there is
no water body within 2,000 meters, IWEM will use a value of 5,000 meters in its
calculations.
4-20
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
4.2.2 Infiltration and Recharge Rates
IWEM requires the input of the rate of downward percolation of water and
leachate through the unsaturated zone to the water table. The model distinguishes
between two types of percolation, infiltration and recharge:
Infiltration (WMU leakage rate) is defined as water percolating through
the WMU - including a liner if present - to the underlying soil.
Recharge is water percolating through the soil to the aquifer outside the
WMU.
Infiltration is one of the key parameters affecting the leaching of waste
constituents into the subsurface. For a given leachate concentration, the mass of
constituents leached is directly proportional to the infiltration rate. In the IWEM Tier 1
and Tier 2 analyses, selecting different liner designs directly correlates to changing the
infiltration rate; more protective liner designs reduce leaching by decreasing the rate of
infiltration.
In contrast, recharge introduces pristine water into the aquifer. Increasing
recharge therefore tends to result in a greater degree of plume dilution and lower
constituent concentrations. High recharge rates may also affect the extent of ground-
water mounding and ground-water velocity. The recharge rate is independent of the type
and design of the WMU; rather it is a function of the climatic and hydrogeological
conditions at the WMU location, such as precipitation, evapotranspiration, surface run-
off, and regional soil type.
We used several methodologies to estimate infiltration and recharge. We used the
HELP model (Schroeder et al, 1994) to compute recharge rates for all units, as well as
infiltration rates for LAUs, and for LFs and WPs with no-liner and single-liner designs.
For LFs and WPs, composite liner infiltration rates were compiled from leak-detection-
system flow rates reported for actual composite-lined waste units (TetraTech, 2001).
For unlined and single-lined Sis, infiltration through the bottom of the
impoundment is calculated internally by EPACMTP, as described in Section 3.1 of this
document. For composite-lined Sis, we used the Bonaparte (1989) equation to calculate
the infiltration rate assuming circular (pin-hole) leaks with a uniform leak size of 6 mm2,
and using the distribution of leak densities (number of leaks per hectare) assembled from
the survey of composite-lined units (TetraTech, 2001).
Tables 4.2 through 4.5 summarize the liner assumptions and infiltration rate
calculations for LFs, WPs, Sis, and LAUs. The remainder of Section 4.2.2 provides
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
background on how we used the HELP model in conjunction with data from climate
stations across the United States to develop nationwide recharge and infiltration rate
distributions and provides detailed discussion of how we developed infiltration rates for
different liner designs for each type of WMU.
4.2.2.1 Using the HELP Model to Develop Recharge and Infiltration Rates
The HELP model is a quasi-two-dimensional hydrologic model for computing
water balances of LFs, cover systems, and other solid waste management facilities
(Schroeder et al., 1994). The primary purpose of the model is to assist in the comparison
of design alternatives. The HELP model uses weather, soil and design data to compute a
water balance for LF systems accounting for the effects of surface storage, snowmelt,
runoff, infiltration, evapotranspiration, vegetative growth, soil moisture storage, lateral
subsurface drainage, leachate recirculation, unsaturated vertical drainage, and leakage
through soil, geomembrane or composite liners. The HELP model can simulate LF
systems consisting of various combinations of vegetation, cover soils, waste cells, lateral
drain layers, low permeability barrier soils, and synthetic geomembrane liners.
For the IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, HELP Versions 3.03 and 3.07 were
used. We started with an existing database of no-liner infiltration for LFs, WPs and
LAUs, and recharge rates for 97 climate stations in the lower 48 contiguous states (ABB,
1995), representing 25 climatic regions, that was developed with HELP version 3.03. To
develop the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, we added five climate stations (located in
Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico) to ensure coverage throughout all of the United States.
Figure 4.7 shows the locations of the 102 climate stations.
The current version of HELP (version 3.07) was used for the additional modeling
for the no-liner scenario. We compared the results of Version 3.07 against Version 3.03
and found that the differences in calculated infiltration rates were insignificant. We also
used this comparison to verify a number of counter-intuitive infiltration rates that were
generated with HELP Version 3.03. We had observed that for some climate stations
located in areas of the country with low precipitation rates, the net infiltration for unlined
LFs did not always correlate with the relative permeability of the LF cover. We found
some cases in which a less permeable cover resulted in a higher modeled infiltration rate
as compared to a more permeable cover. Examples can be seen in the detailed listing of
infiltration data in Appendix D. Table D-l shows that for a number of climate stations,
including Albuquerque, Denver, and Las Vegas, the modeled infiltration rate for LFs
with a silty clay loam (SCL) cover is higher than the values corresponding to silt loam
(SLT) and sandy loam (SNL) soil covers. We determined that in all these cases, the
HELP modeling results for unlined LFs were correct and could be explained in terms of
other water balance components, including surface run-off and evapotranspiration.
4-22
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.2 Methodology Used to Compute Infiltration for LFs
No Liner
Single Liner
Composite Liner
Method
HELP model simulations to
compute an empirical
distribution of infiltration rates
for a 2 ft. thick cover of three
native soil cover types using
nationwide coverage of climate
stations. Soil-type specific
infiltration rates for a specific
site are assigned by using the
infiltration rates for respective
soil types at the nearest climate
station.
HELP model simulations to
compute an empirical
distribution of infiltration rates
through a single clay liner using
nationwide coverage of climate
stations. Infiltration rates for a
specific site were obtained by
using the infiltration rate for the
nearest climate station.
Compiled from literature
sources (TetraTech, 2001) for
composite liners
Final Cover
Monte Carlo selection from
distribution of soil cover types.
2 ft thick native soil (1 of 3 soil
types: silty clay loam, silt loam,
and sandy loam) with a range of
mean hydraulic conductivities
(4.2xlO'5 cm/s to 7.2xlO'4 cm/s).
3 ft thick clay cover with a
hydraulic conductivity of 1*10"7
cm/sec and a 10 ft thick waste
layer. On top of the cover, a 1
ft layer of loam to support
vegetation and drainage and a 1
ft percolation layer.
No cover modeled; the
composite liner is the limiting
factor in determining infiltration
Liner Design
No liner
3 ft thick clay liner with a
hydraulic conductivity of 1*10"7
cm/sec. No leachate collection
system. Assumes constant
infiltration rate (assumes no
increase in hydraulic
conductivity of liner) over
modeling period.
60 mil HOPE layer with either
an underlying geosynthetic clay
liner with maximum hydraulic
conductivity of 5* 10"9 cm/sec,
or a 3-foot compacted clay liner
with maximum hydraulic
conductivity of 1*10"7 cm/sec.
Assumes same infiltration rate
(i.e., no increase in hydraulic
conductivity of liner) over
modeling period.
IWEM
Infiltration
Rate
Monte Carlo selection from
HELP generated location-
specific values.
Monte Carlo selection from
HELP generated location-
specific values.
Monte Carlo selection from
distribution of leak detection
system flow rates.
4-23
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.3 Methodology Used to Compute Infiltration for Sis
Method
Ponding
Depth
Liner Design
IWEM
Infiltration
Rate
No Liner
EPACMTP SI module for
infiltration through
consolidated sludge and
native soil layers with a unit-
specific ponding depth from
EPA's SI Study (EPA, 2001).
Unit-specific based on EPA's
SI study.
None. However, barrier to
infiltration is provided by
layer of consolidated sludge
at the bottom of the
impoundment, and a layer of
clogged native soil below the
consolidated sludge. The
sludge thickness is assumed
to be constant over the
modeling period. The
hydraulic conductivity of the
consolidated sludge is
between 1. 3 xlO'7 and l.SxlO'7
cm/sec. The hydraulic
conductivity of the clogged
native material is assumed to
be 0.1 of the unaffected native
material in the vadose zone.
Calculated by EPACMTP
based on Monte Carlo
selection of unit-specific
ponding depth.
Single Liner
EPACMTP module for
infiltration through a layer of
consolidated sludge and a
single clay liner with unit-
specific ponding depth from
EPA's SI study.
Unit-specific based on EPA's
SI study.
3 ft thick clay liner with a
hydraulic conductivity of
1 x 10"7 cm/sec. No leachate
collection system. Assumes
no increase in hydraulic
conductivity of liner over
modeling period. Additional
barrier is provided by a layer
of consolidated sludge at the
bottom of the impoundment,
see no-liner column.
Calculated based on Monte
Carlo selection of unit-
specific ponding depth
Composite Liner
Bonaparte equation (1989) for
pin-hole leaks using
distribution of leak densities
for units installed with formal
CQA programs
Unit-specific based on EPA's
SI study.
60 mil HOPE layer with
either an underlying
geosynthetic clay liner with
maximum hydraulic
conductivity of 5*10"9 cm/sec,
or a 3 -foot compacted clay
liner with maximum hydraulic
conductivity of 1 x 10"7 cm/sec.
Assumptions: 1) constant
infiltration rate (i.e., no
increase in hydraulic
conductivity of liner) over
modeling period;
2) geomembrane liner is
limiting factor that determines
infiltration rate.
Calculated based on Monte
Carlo selection of unit-
specific ponding depth and
distribution of leak densities
4-24
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.4 Methodology Used to Compute Infiltration for WPs
Method
Cover
Liner Design
IWEM
Infiltration
Rate
No Liner
HELP model simulations to
compute distribution of
infiltration rates for a 10 ft.
thick layer of waste, using
three waste permeabilities
(copper slag, coal bottom ash,
coal fly ash) and nationwide
coverage of climate stations.
Waste-type-specific
infiltration rates for a specific
site are obtained by using the
infiltration rates for respective
waste types at the nearest
climate station.
None
No liner.
Monte Carlo selection from
HELP generated location-
specific values.
Single Liner
HELP model simulations to
compute distribution of
infiltration rates through 10 ft.
waste layer using three waste
permeabilities and nationwide
coverage of climate stations.
Infiltration rates for a specific
site were obtained by using
the infiltration rate for the
nearest climate station.
None
3 ft thick clay liner with a
hydraulic conductivity of
1 x 10"7 cm/sec, no leachate
collection system, and a 10 ft
thick waste layer. Assumes
no increase in hydraulic
conductivity of liner over
unit's operational life.
Monte Carlo selection from
HELP generated location-
specific values.
Composite Liner
Compiled from literature
sources (TetraTech, 2001) for
composite liners
None
60 mil HOPE layer with
either an underlying
geosynthetic clay liner with
maximum hydraulic
conductivity of 5*10"9 cm/sec,
or a 3 -foot compacted clay
liner with maximum hydraulic
conductivity of 1 x 10"7 cm/sec.
1) same infiltration rate (i.e.,
no increase in hydraulic
conductivity of liner) over
unit's operational life;
2) geomembrane is limiting
factor in determining
infiltration rate.
Monte Carlo selection from
distribution of leak detection
system flow rates
4-25
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.5 Methodology Used to Compute Infiltration for LAUs
Method
Liner
Design
IWEM
Infiltration
Rate
No Liner
HELP model simulations to
compute an empirical
distribution of infiltration rates
for a 0.5 ft thick sludge layer,
underlain by a 3 ft layer of
three types of native soil using
nationwide coverage of
climate stations. Soil-type
specific infiltration rates for a
specific site are assigned by
using the infiltration rates for
respective soil types at the
nearest climate station.
No liner
Monte Carlo selection from
HELP generated location
specific values.
Single Liner
N/A
N/A
N/A
Composite Liner
N/A
N/A
N/A
4-26
-------
-1^
K>
CesWb
Q-and Island . North Omaha
, Lake Charlfe^i Ngw Origans
Ran Antonio *T """ " r Tampa
TO
8
I
I
b
o
TO
SS
TO
^
o'
Alaska
Hawaii
Puerto Rico
Figure 4.7 Locations of HELP Climate Stations
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
The first 97 climate stations were grouped into 25 climate regions based on
ranges of average annual precipitation and pan evaporation, as shown in Table 4.6. For
each modeled climate station, HELP provides a database of five years of climatic data.
We used this climatic data, along with data on the regional soil type and WMU design
characteristics, to calculate a water balance for each applicable liner design as a function
of the amount of precipitation that reaches the top surface of the unit, minus the amount
of runoff and evapotranspiration. The HELP model then computed the net amount of
water that infiltrates through the surface, waste, and liner layers, based on the initial
moisture content and the hydraulic conductivity of each layer.
In addition to climate factors and liner designs, the infiltration rates calculated by
HELP are affected by LF cover design, permeability of the waste material in WP, and
LAU soil type. For every climate station and WMU type, we calculated three HELP
infiltration rates. In Tier 1, for a selected WMU type and liner design, we used the
EPACMTP Monte Carlo modeling process to select randomly from among the HELP-
derived infiltration and recharge data, to capture both the nationwide variation in climate
conditions, as well as variations in LF soil cover type and WP waste permeability. In
Tier 2, the WMU location is a required user input, and the climate factors used in HELP
are therefore also fixed; however, Tier 2 still accounts for local variability in LF soil
cover type and WP waste permeability.
The factors related to soil type that affect the HELP-generated infiltration and
recharge rates are the permeability of the soil used in the LF cover, and - in the case of
recharge or for LAU units - the permeability of the soil type in the vicinity of the WMU.
We used a consistent set of soil properties in the infiltration and recharge rate
calculations as we did in the unsaturated zone fate and transport simulations (see Section
4.2.3). We used HELP to calculate infiltration and recharge for sandy loam, silty loam,
and silty clay loam soils.
In the case of WPs, which do not have a cover, the permeability of the waste
material itself plays a role similar to that of a LF cover in regulating infiltration rate. We
modeled WPs with three different waste types, having different waste permeabilities, and
each having equal likelihood of occurrence. The data for the different waste types are
presented in Section 4.2.2.2.
4-28
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.6 Grouping of Climate Stations by Average Annual Precipitation
and Pan Evaporation (ABB, 1995)
City
Boise
Fresno
Bismarck
Denver
Grand Junction
Pocatello
Glasgow
Pullman
Yakima
Cheyenne
Lander
Rapid City
Los Angeles
Sacramento
San Diego
Santa Maria
Ely
Cedar City
Albuquerque
Las Vegas
Phoenix
Tucson
El Paso
Medford
Great Falls
Salt Lake City
State
ID
CA
ND
CO
CO
ID
MT
WA
WA
WY
WY
SD
CA
CA
CA
CA
NV
UT
NM
NV
AZ
AZ
TX
OR
MT
UT
Climate Region
Precipitation
(in/yr)
<16
<16
<16
<16
<16
16-24
Evaporation
(in/yr)
<30
30-40
40-50
50-60
>60
30-40
City
Columbia
Put-in-Bay
Madison
Columbus
Cleveland
Des Moines
E. St. Louis
Topeka
Tampa
San Antonio
Portland
Hartford
Syracuse
Worchester
Augusta
Providence
Nashua
Ithaca
Boston
Schenectady
NY City
Lynchburg
Philadelphia
Seabrook
Indianapolis
Cincinnati
Bridgeport
State
MO
OH
WI
OH
OH
IA
IL
KS
FL
TX
ME
CT
NY
MA
ME
RI
NH
NY
MA
NY
NY
VA
PA
NJ
IN
OH
CT
Climate Region
Precipitation
(in/yr)
32-40
32-40
32-40
40-48
40-48
Evaporation
(in/yr)
30-40
40-50
50-60
<30
30-40
4-29
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.6 Grouping of Climate Stations by Average Annual Precipitation
and Pan Evaporation (ABB, 1995) (continued)
City
Grand Island
Flagstaff
Dodge City
Midland
St. Cloud
E. Lansing
North Omaha
Dallas
Tulsa
Brownsville
Oklahoma City
Bangor
Concord
Pittsburgh
Portland
Caribou
Chicago
Burlington
Rutland
Seattle
Montpelier
Sault St. Marie
State
NE
AZ
KS
TX
MN
MI
NE
TX
OK
TX
OK
ME
NH
PA
OR
ME
IL
VT
VT
WA
VT
MI
Climate Region
Precipitation
(in/yr)
16-24
16-24
16-24
24-32
24-32
24-32
24-32
24-32
32-40
Evaporation
(in/yr)
40-50
50-60
>60
<30
30-40
40-50
50-60
>60
<30
Citv
Jacksonville
Orlando
Greensboro
Watkinsville
Norfolk
Shreveport
Astoria
New Haven
Plainfield
Nashville
Knoxville
Central Park
Lexington
Edison
Atlanta
Little Rock
Tallahassee
New Orleans
Charleston
W. Palm Beach
Lake Charles
Miami
State
FL
FL
NC
GA
VA
LA
OR
CT
MA
TN
TN
NY
KY
NJ
GA
AK
FL
LA
SC
FL
LA
FL
Climate Region
Precipitation
(in/yr)
40-48
>48
>48
>48
>48
Evaporation
(in/yr)
40-50
<30
30-40
40-50
50-60
4-30
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
4.2.2.2 Infiltration Rates for Unlined Units
Landfill
We used the HELP model to simulate infiltration through closed LFs for each of
the 102 climate station locations shown in Figure 4.7. A 2-foot cover was included as
the minimum Subtitle D requirement. Three different soil cover types were modeled:
sandy loam, silty loam, and silty clay loam soils. Table 4.7 presents the hydraulic
parameters for these three soil types.
Table 4.7 Hydraulic Parameters for the Modeled Soils
Soil Type
Sandy Loam
Silt Loam
Silty Clay Loam
HELP
Soil
Number
6
9
12
Total
Porosity
(vol/vol)
0.453
0.501
0.471
Field
Capacity
(vol/vol)
0.190
0.284
0.342
Wilting
Point
(vol/vol)
0.085
0.135
0.210
Saturated
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
0.000720
0.000190
0.000042
Other LF design criteria included:
A cover crop of "fair" grass this is the quality of grass cover suggested
by the FtELP model for LFs where limitations to root zone penetration and
poor irrigation techniques may limit grass quality.
The evaporation zone thickness selected for each location was generally
the depth suggested by the model for that location for a fair grass crop;
however, the evaporation zone thickness was not allowed to exceed the
soil thickness (24 inches).
The leaf area index (LAI) selected for each location was that of fair grass
(2.0) unless the model indicated a lower maximum for that location.
The LF configuration was based on a one-acre facility with a 2% top slope
and a drainage length of 200 feet (one side of a square acre). Runoff was
assumed to be possible from 100% of the cover.
Appendix D, Table D-l, presents the infiltration rate data for the 102 climate
stations. The unlined LF infiltration rate for each soil type at each of the 102 climate
4-31
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
centers was used as the ambient regional recharge rate for that climatic center and soil
type.
Surface Impoundment
We calculated SI infiltration rates using the built-in SI module in EPACMTP (see
Section 3.1). This means that for EPACMTP, the SI infiltration rate is not really an input
parameter, rather the model calculates infiltration rates "on the fly" during the simulation,
as a function of impoundment ponding depth and other SI characteristics. For unlined
Sis, the primary parameters that control the infiltration rate are the ponding depth in the
impoundment, the thickness and permeability of any accumulated sediment layer at the
base of the impoundment, and the presence of a 'clogged' (i.e., reduced permeability)
layer of native soil underneath the impoundment caused by the migration of solids from
the impoundment. In addition, IWEM checks that the calculated infiltration rate does not
result in an unrealistic degree of ground-water mounding (see Section 4.2.6).
For IWEM, we used unit-specific data on SI ponding depths from EPA's Surface
Impoundment Study (U.S. EPA, 2001). We assumed a fixed sediment layer thickness of
20 cm at the base of the impoundment. The resulting sediment layer permeability has a
relatively narrow range of variation between 1.26x 10 "7 and 1.77x 10 "7 cm/s. We
assumed that the depth of clogging underneath the impoundment was 0.5 m in all cases,
and that saturated hydraulic conductivity of the clogged layer is 10% of that of the native
soil underlying the impoundment. The parameters used to calculate SI infiltration rates
are tabulated as part of the Tier 1 parameter tables in Appendix C.
In the event that the SI is reported to have its base below the water table, we
calculated the infiltration using Darcy's law based on the hydraulic gradient across and
the hydraulic conductivity of the consolidated sediment at the bottom of the
impoundment unit.
Waste Pile
For the purpose of estimating leaching rates, we considered WPs to be similar to
non-covered LFs with a total waste thickness of 10 feet. The infiltration rates for unlined
WPs were, therefore, generated with the HELP model using the same general procedures
as for LFs, but with the following modifications:
No cover
We modeled the leachate flux through active, uncovered piles. We
modeled the WP surface as having no vegetation. The evaporative zone
depth was taken as the suggested HELP model value for the "bare"
4-32
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
condition at each climate center. The LAI was set to zero to eliminate
transpiration.
Variable waste permeability
For uncovered WPs, we found that the infiltration rates predicted by
HELP model are sensitive to the permeability of the waste material itself.
Based on these results, we simulated WP infiltration rates for three
different WP materials: relatively high permeability, moderate
permeability, and relatively low permeability. Parameters for the three
waste types are presented in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8 Moisture Retention Parameters for the Modeled WP Materials
Waste Type
Low Permeability
Moderate Permeability
High Permeability
HELP
Soil
Number
30
31
33
Total
Porosity
(vol/vol)
0.541
0.578
0.375
Field
Capacity
(vol/vol)
0.187
0.076
0.055
Wilting
Point
(vol/vol)
0.047
0.025
0.020
Saturated
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
0.00005
0.00410
0.04100
We calculated WP infiltration rates for all 102 climate stations and waste material
permeabilities. Appendix D, Table D-2, presents the WP infiltration rate values for all
climate stations and waste types.
Land Application Unit
LAUs were modeled with HELP using two soil layers. The top layer was taken
as six inches in thickness and represented the layer into which the waste was applied.
The bottom layer was of the same material type as the top layer and was set at a thickness
of 36 inches. Both of these layers were modeled as vertical percolation layers. The same
three soil types for LFs were also used for LAUs.
We assumed the waste applied to the LAU to be a sludge-type material with a
high water content. We also assumed a waste application rate of 7.25 inches per year
(in/yr) with the waste having a solids content of 20% and a unit weight of 75 Ib/ft3.
Assuming that 100% of the water in the waste was available as free water, an excess
water amount of 5.8 in/yr, in addition to precipitation, would be available for percolation.
HELP model analyses showed that the additional water available for percolation
generally would have little effect on the simulated water balance and net infiltration,
except for sites located in arid regions of the United States with very little natural
4-33
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
precipitation. For more representative waste application rates, the effect disappeared
because introducing additional moisture in the simulated water balance results in a
commensurate increase in runoff and removal by evapotranspiration. The LAU
infiltration values are presented in Appendix D, Table D-3.
4.2.2.3 Single-Lined Waste Units
IWEM includes infiltration rates for lined LFs, WPs, and Sis. In the case of LAUs,
only unlined units are considered.
Landfill
We calculated infiltration rates for single-lined LFs using the HELP model. We
modeled the LF as a four-layer system, consisting, from top to bottom of:
1-foot percolation cover layer;
3-foot compacted clay cover with hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10"7 cm/s ;
10-foot thick waste layer; and
3-foot thick compacted clay liner with a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10"7
cm/sec.
We simulated the cover layer as a loam drainage layer supporting a "fair" cover
crop with an evaporative zone depth equal to that associated with a fair cover crop at the
climate center. The remaining conditions were identical to those described in Section
4.2.2.2 for unlined LFs.
In developing infiltration rates for Tier 1, we used the grouping of climate stations
into 25 regions of similar climatic conditions depicted in Table 4.6 in order to reduce the
number of required HELP simulations. Rather than calculating infiltration rates for each
of the 102 individual climate stations, we calculated infiltration rates for the 25 climate
regions, and then assigned the same value to each climate station in one group. To
ensure a protective result, we chose the climate center with the highest average
precipitation in each climate region as representative of that region. Appendix D, Table
D-4, shows the infiltration rate values for clay-lined LFs that we used in developing the
Tier 1 LCTVs. The actual climate stations that were used in the HELP simulations for
each climate region are shown in bold face in the table. We calculated individual
infiltration rates for the five climate centers in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico that were
not assigned to a climate region.
We used the database of HELP-generated infiltration rates to provide estimates of
LF infiltration rates in Tier 2 when a user does not have site-specific data. During the
process of assembling the HELP infiltration values for the IWEM software tool, we
4-34
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
realized that the grouping of climate centers into regions for clay-lined units, resulted in a
number of apparent anomalies in which the suggested infiltration rate for a lined unit
would be higher than the unlined infiltration rate at the same climate station. This
resulted from the fact that we used the infiltration rate for the climate center with the
highest annual precipitation in each region for clay-lined units, but then compared it with
a location-specific infiltration value for unlined units. The occurrence of these anomalies
was restricted to climate stations in arid parts of the United States, and was noticeable
only when the absolute magnitude of infiltration was low. In order to remove these
counter-intuitive results, we re-calculated location-specific HELP infiltration rates for
clay-lined units at 17 climate stations (Glasgow, MT; Yakima, WA; Lander, WY;
Cheyenne, WY; Pullman, WA; Pocatello, ID; Grand Junction, CO; Denver, CO; Great
Falls, MT; Salt Lake City, UT; Cedar City, UT; El Paso, TX; Ely, NV; Las Vegas, NV;
Rapid City, SD; Phoenix, AZ; and Tucson, AZ). We then incorporated location-specific
infiltration rates for these 17 climate stations into the Tier 2 IWEM software, to replace
the regional values used for these stations in Tier 1.
As a result of the additional HELP model simulations for clay-lined units that we
performed after the Tier 1 LCTVs had been generated, the database of infiltration rates
that is incorporate into the IWEM software is slightly different from the data used in Tier
1. We performed a sensitivity analysis to assess what would have been the impact on
Tier 1 LCTVs had we used location-specific infiltration values, rather than regional
values, for the 17 climate stations involved. We used three constituents in the sensitivity
analysis: a weakly sorbing constituent (benzene, Koc = 63 mL/g); a moderately sorbing
constituent (carbon tetrachloride, Koc= 257 mL/g); and a strongly sorbing constituent
(heptachlor, Koc= 162,000 mL/g). Table 4.9 summarizes the results of this sensitivity
analysis. This table follows the format of the Tier 1 LCTV tables presented in Appendix
F of this report.
For each of the three constituents, Table 4.9 compares the actual Tier 1 LCTVs to
values calculated using location-specific infiltration rates for the 17 climate stations. The
updated values are shaded and shown in bold-face. The table indicates that if we had
used these data in the Tier 1 evaluations, it would have resulted in slightly higher LCTVs
for some constituents, notably weakly to moderately sorbing constituents. Constituents
that are strongly sorbing (as represented by heptachlor), and/or that rapidly degrade,
would be less affected because the LCTVs for these constituents are often controlled by
various imposed caps (see Section 6). Even for the constituents that are affected, the
change in LCTV would have been very slight. The largest LCTV impact in Table 4.9 is
0.004 mg/L for the MCL-based LCTV of carbon tetrachloride. The sensitivity analysis
shows that the use of regional infiltration rates for clay-lined LFs in Tier 1 resulted in
slightly more protective LCTVs than if we had used location-specific values. This
confirms the intent of Tier 1 to provide protective screening values.
4-35
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.9 Sensitivity Analysis of Tier 1 LCTVs for Clay-lined LFs to Regional
Versus Location-specific Infiltration Rates for 17 Climate Stations
Constituent
Benzene TIER 1
Benzene REVISED INFIL.DATA
Carbon tetrachloride TIER 1
Carbon tetrachloride REVISED
INFIL.DATA
Heptachlor TIER 1
Heptachlor REVISED INFIL.DATA
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.030
0.033
0.055
0.059
8.0E-03 a
8.0E-03 a
Non-Care. Effect
LCTV
based on
Ingestion
0.2
0.2
8.0E-03 a
8.0E-03 a
LCTV
based on
Inhalation
0.50 a
0.50 a
0.23
0.25
Care. Effect
LCTV
based on
Ingestion
0.011
0.012
8.2E-03
8.7E-03
8.0E-03 a
8.0E-03 a
LCTV
based on
Inhalation
0.010
0.010
8.4E-03
8.9E-03
8.0E-03 a
8.0E-03 a
' TC Rule exit level cap
Waste Pile
We calculated infiltration rates for single-lined WPs using the HELP model. We
modeled the WP as a two-layer system, consisting, from top to bottom, of:
10-foot thick, uncovered, waste layer; and
3-foot thick compacted clay liner with a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10"7
cm/sec.
Other parameters were set to the same values as in the unlined WP case. The
same three waste material types were used as in Tier 1. We also modeled a bare surface
for the evaporative zone depth.
In developing WP infiltration rates for Tier 1, we used the same grouping of
climate stations in 25 climate regions as previously discussed for LFs. Appendix D,
Table D-4, shows the infiltration rate values for clay-lined WPs that we used in
developing the Tier 1 LCTVs. The actual climate centers that were used in the HELP
simulations for each climate region are shown in bold face in the table. We calculated
individual infiltration rates for the five climate centers in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto
Rico that were not assigned to a climate region.
Analogous to the situation encountered for LFs, we found a number of apparent
anomalies between WP infiltration rates for unlined as compared to clay-lined WPs,
resulting from the use of regional infiltration values for clay-lined units. The occurrence
4-36
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
of these anomalies for WPs was also restricted to climate centers in arid parts of the
United States, for which the absolute magnitude of infiltration was low. In order to
remove these counter-intuitive results, we re-calculated location-specific HELP
infiltration rates for clay-lined WP units at 17 climate stations (Glasgow, MT; Yakima,
WA; Lander, WY; Cheyenne, WY; Pullman, WA; Pocatello, ID; Grand Junction, CO;
Denver, CO; Great Falls, MT; Salt Lake City, UT; Cedar City, UT; El Paso, TX; Ely,
NV; Las Vegas, NV; Rapid City, SD; Phoenix, AZ; and Tucson, AZ). We then
incorporated location-specific infiltration rates for these 17 climate stations into the Tier
2 IWEM software to replace the regional values used for these stations in Tier 1.
We also assessed the impact on Tier 1 LCTVs had we used location-specific
infiltration values, rather than regional values, for the 17 climate stations. Table 4.10
summarizes the results of this sensitivity analysis for WP units. This table follows the
format of the Tier 1 LCTV tables presented in Appendix F of this report. For each of the
three constituents, the table compares the actual Tier 1 LCTVs to values calculated using
location-specific infiltration rates for the 17 climate stations given above. The updated
values are shaded and shown in bold-face. The results of the sensitivity analysis for WPs
are consistent with, and of similar magnitude, as the results we found for LFs.
Table 4.10 indicates that if we had used the additional location-specific
infiltration data in the Tier 1 evaluations, it would have resulted in slightly higher LCTVs
for some constituents, notably weakly to moderately sorbing constituents. Constituents
that are strongly sorbing (as represented by heptachlor), and/or that rapidly degrade,
would be less affected because the LCTVs for these constituents are often controlled by
various imposed caps (see Section 6). Even for the constituents that are affected, the
change in LCTV would have been very slight. The largest LCTV impact in Table 4.10 is
0.03 mg/L for the MCL-based LCTV of carbon tetrachloride. The sensitivity analysis
shows that the use of regional infiltration rates for clay-lined WPs in Tier 1 resulted in
slightly more protective LCTVs than if we had used location-specific values. This
confirms the intent of Tier 1 to provide protective screening values.
During the process of verifying the HELP-generated infiltration rates for clay-
lined units we also replaced incorrect values for clay-lined WPs assigned to the Lake
Charles, LA and Miami, FL climate stations. These two climate stations have high
precipitation (Table 4.6), but were assigned low infiltration rates in the Tier 1 analyses
(see Appendix D, Table D-4). We re-ran the HELP model for the clay-lined WP scenario
for the three clay-lined WP scenarios, that is low, medium, and high waste permeability.
4-37
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.10 Sensitivity Analysis of Tier 1 LCTVs for Clay-lined WPs to Regional
Versus Location-specific Infiltration Rates for 17 Climate Stations
Constituent
Benzene TIER 1
Benzene REVISED INFIL.DATA
Carbon tetrachloride TIER 1
Carbon tetrachloride REVISED
INFIL.DATA
Heptachlor TIER 1
Herjtachlor REVISED INFIL.DATA
LCTV
based on
MCL
(me/L)
0.13
0.15
0.21
0.24
8.0E-03 a
8.0E-03 a
Non-Care. Effect
LCTV
based on
Ineestion
0.50 a
0.50 a
8.0E-03 a
8.0E-03 a
LCTV
based on
Inhalation
0.50 a
0.50 a
0.50 a
0.50 a
Care. Effect
LCTV
based on
Insestion
0.06
0.07
0.043
0.048
8.0E-03 a
8.0E-03 a
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.056
0.064
0.044
0.049
8.0E-03 a
8.0E-03 a
1TC Rule exit level cap
The re-calculated infiltration rate values averaged 0.066 m/yr, as compared to 0.019 m/yr
in Tier 1. We incorporated the re-calculated values in the IWEM software tool for Tier 2.
Note that the underestimation of infiltration rates for Lake Charles and Miami will have
had the effect of partially compensating for overestimating infiltration rates at other
locations in the national Tier 1 screening analysis.
Surface Impoundment
For single-lined Sis, infiltration rates were calculated inside of EPACMTP in the
same manner as described in the previous section for unlined units, with the exception
that we added a 3-foot compacted clay liner with a hydraulic conductivity of 1 * 10"7 cm/s
at the bottom of the WMU and we did not include the effect of clogged native material
due to the filtering effects of the liner.
4.2.2.4 Infiltration Rates for Composite-Lined Units
We conducted an information collection effort that involved searching the
available literature for data that quantify liner integrity and leachate infiltration through
composite liners (TetraTech, 2001). We assembled these data and applied them to
develop the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses as follows:
Landfill and Waste Pile
We treated composite-lined LFs and WPs as being the same for the purpose of
determining infiltration rates. For these WMU's, we developed an infiltration rate
4-38
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
distribution from actual leak detection system (LDS) flow rates reported for clay
composite-lined LF cells.
We based the distribution of composite-lined LF and WP infiltration rates on
available monthly average LDS flow rates from 27 LF cells reported by TetraTech
(2001). The data and additional detail for the 27 LF cells are provided in Appendix D,
Table D-5. The data included monthly average LDS flow rates for 22 operating LF cells
and 5 closed LF cells. The 27 LF cells are located in eastern United States: 23 in the
northeastern region, 1 in the mid-Atlantic region, and 3 in the southeastern region. Each
of the LF cells is underlain by a geomembrane/ geosynthetic clay liner which consists of
a geomembrane of thickness between 1 and 1.5 mm (with the majority, 22 of 27, being
1.5 mm thick), overlying a geosynthetic clay layer of reported thickness of 6 mm. The
geomembrane is a flexible membrane layer made from FtDPE. The geosynthetic clay
liner is a composite barrier consisting of two geotextile outer layers with a uniform core
of bentonite clay to form a hydraulic barrier. The liner system is underlain by a LDS.
We decided in this case to use a subset of the reported flow rates compiled by
TetraTech (2001) in developing the composite liner infiltration rates for IWEM. We did
not include LDS flow rates for geomembrane/compacted clay composite-lined LF cells in
our distribution. For compacted clay liners (including composite geomembrane/
compacted clay liners), there is the potential for water to be released during the
consolidation of the clay liner and yield an unknown contribution of water to LDS flow,
such that it is very difficult to determine how much of the LDS flow is due to liner
leakage, versus how much is due to clay consolidation. We also decided in this case to
not use LDS flow rates from three geomembrane/geosynthetic clay lined-cells. For one
cell, flow rate data were available for the cell's operating period and the cell's post-
closure period. The average flow rate for the cell was 26 liters/hectare/day when the cell
was operating and 59 liters/hectare/day when the cell was closed. We believe these flow
rates, which were among the highest reported, are difficult to interpret because the flow
rate from the closed cell was over twice the flow rate from the open cell, a pattern
inconsistent with the other open cell/closed cell data pairs we reviewed. For the two
other cells, additional verification of the data may be needed in order to fully understand
the reported flow rates.
The resulting cumulative probability distribution of infiltration rates for
composite-lined LFs and WPs for use in this application is based on the 27 remaining
data points is presented in Table 4.11. Note that over 50% of the values are zero, that is,
they have no measurable infiltration.
4-39
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.11 Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Infiltration Rate for Composite-
Lined LFs and WPs
Ipercentile
Infiltration Rate (m/yr)
0
0.0
10
0.0
25
0.0
50
0.0
75
7.30xlO-5
90
l.VSxlO-4
100 1
4.01xl04 |
Surface Impoundment
We calculated leakage through circular defects (pin holes) in a composite liner
using the following equation developed by Bonaparte et al. (1989):
Q =
1 h
°-9
where:
Q = steady-state rate of leakage through a single hole in the liner (m3/s)
a = area of hole in the geomembrane (m2)
h = head of liquid on top of geomembrane (m)
Ks = hydraulic conductivity of the low-permeability soil underlying the
geomembrane (m/s)
This equation is applicable to cases where there is good contact between the
geomembrane and the underlying compacted clay liner. For each SI unit, we determined
its infiltration rate using the above equation. We used the unit-specific ponding depth
data (corresponding to h in the above equation) from the recent Surface Impoundment
Study (U.S. EPA, 2001) in combination with a distribution of leak densities (expressed as
number of leaks per hectare) compiled from 26 leak density values reported in TetraTech
(2001). The leak densities are based on liners installed with formal Construction Quality
Assurance (CQA) programs.
The 26 sites with leak density data are mostly located outside the United States: 3
in Canada, 7 in France, 14 in United Kingdom, and 2 with unknown locations. The
WMUs at these sites (8 LFs, 4 Sis, and 14 unknown) are underlain by a layer of
geomembrane of thickness varying from 1.14 to 3 mm. The majority of the
geomembranes are made from HDPE (23 of 26) with the remaining 3 made from
prefabricated bituminous geomembrane or polypropylene. One of the sites has a layer of
compacted clay liner beneath the geomembrane, however, for the majority of the sites (25
of 26) material types below the geomembrane layer are not reported. The leak density
data above were used for Sis. The leak density distribution is shown in Table 4.12.
Table D-6, Appendix D, provides additional detail.
4-40
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
To use the Bonaparte equation, we assumed a uniform leak size of 6 millimeters
squared (mm2). The leak size is the middle of a range of hole sizes reported by Rollin et
al. (1999), who found that 25 percent of holes were less than 2 mm2, 50 percent of holes
were 2 to 10 mm2, and 25 percent of holes were greater than 10 mm2. We assumed that
the geomembrane is underlain by a compacted clay liner whose hydraulic conductivity is
lx!0'7cm/s.
In order to ascertain the plausibility of the leak density data, we conducted an
infiltration rate calculation to estimate the range of infiltration resulting from the leaks in
geomembrane. Because of the absence of documented infiltration data for Sis, we used
the infiltration data for LFs, described previously under the LF and WP section, as a
surrogate infiltration data set for comparison purposes. Because the comparison was
made on the basis of LF data, we set the head of liquid above the geomembrane to 0.3 m
(1 foot) which is a typical maximum design head for LFs. Calculation results are shown
in Table D-6, Appendix D. The results indicate that the calculated leakage rates, based
on the assumptions of above-geomembrane head, hole dimension, hydraulic conductivity
of the barrier underneath the geomembrane, and good contact between the geomembrane
and the barrier, agree favorably with the observed LF flow rates reported in Table D-5,
Appendix D. This result provided confidence that the leak density data could be used as
a reasonable basis for calculating infiltration rates using actual SI ponding depths.
The resulting frequency distribution of calculated infiltration rates for composite-
lined Sis used in Tier 1 is presented in Table 4.13. For Tier 2, the user is required to
specify the unit's ponding depth. IWEM will then determine the unit's infiltration
distribution using the Bonaparte equation and the leak density distribution in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12 Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Leak Density for Composite-
Lined Sis
Percentile
Leak density
(No. Leaks/ha)
0
0
10
0
20
0
30
0
40
0.7
50
0.915
60
1.36
70
2.65
80
4.02
90
4.77
100
12.5
Table 4.13 Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Infiltration Rate for Composite-
Lined Sis
1 Percentile
Infiltration Rate (m/yr)
0
0.0
10
0.0
25
0.0
50
1.34X10'5
75
1.34X104
90
3.08xl04
100 1
4.01 xlO'3 1
4-41
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
4.2.2.5 Determination of Recharge Rates
We estimated recharge rates for the three primary soil types across the United
States (SNL, SLT, and SCL) and ambient climate conditions at 102 climate stations
through the use of the HELP water-balance model as summarized in 4.2.2.1. We
assumed the ambient regional recharge rate for a given climate center and soil type (for
all four WMU types) is the same as the corresponding unlined LF infiltration rate.
4.2.3 Parameters Used to Describe the Unsaturated and Saturated Zones
We used a number of data sources to obtain parameter values for the unsaturated
and saturated zone modeling in Tier 1 and Tier 2. A primary data source was the
Hydrogeologic Database for Ground-Water Modeling (HGDB), assembled by Rice
University on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute (API) (Newell et al, 1989).
This database provides probability distributions of a number of key ground-water
modeling parameters for various types of subsurface environments.
For unsaturated zone modeling, we used a database of soil hydraulic properties
for various soil types, assembled by Carsel and Parrish (1988), in combination with
information from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) on the nationwide prevalence of
different soil types across the United States.
4.2.3.1 Subsurface Parameters
The HGDB database provides site-specific data on four key subsurface
parameters6:
Depth to ground water;
Saturated zone thickness;
Saturated zone hydraulic conductivity; and
Saturated zone hydraulic gradient;
The data in this hydrogeological database were collected by independent
investigators for approximately 400 hazardous waste sites throughout the United States.
In the HGDB, the data are grouped into twelve subsurface environments, which are based
on EPA's DRASTIC classification of hydrogeologic settings (U.S. EPA, 1985). Table
4.14 lists the subsurface environments. The table includes a total of 13 categories; 12 are
distinct subsurface environments, while the 13th category, which is labeled "other" or
6 The database also provides data on ground-water seepage velocity and on "vertical penetration
depth" of a waste plume below the water table. We did not use these data. EPACMTP calculates the
ground-water velocity directly and the vertical penetration depth is not used in EPACMTP.
4^42
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
"unknown", was used for waste sites that could not be classified into one of the first 12
environments. The subsurface parameter values in this 13th category are simply averages
of the parameter values in the 12 actual subsurface environments. Details on the
individual parameter distributions for each subsurface environment are provided in the
EPACMTP Parameters/Data BackgroundDocument (U.S. EPA, 2002b).
Table 4.14 HGDB Subsurface Environments (from Newell et al, 1989)
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Description
Metamorphic and Igneous
Bedded Sedimentary Rock
Till Over Sedimentary Rock
Sand and Gravel
Alluvial Basins Valleys and Fans
River Valleys and Floodplains with Overbank Deposit
River Valleys and Floodplains without Overbank Deposits
Outwash
Till and Till Over Outwash
Unconsolidated and Semi-consolidated Shallow Aquifers
Coastal Beaches
Solution Limestone
Other (Not classifiable)
The key feature of this database is that it provides a set of correlated values of the
four parameters for each of the 400 sites in the database. That is, the value of each
parameter is associated with the three other subsurface parameters reported for the same
site. We preserved these correlations because having information on some parameters
allows us to develop more accurate estimates for missing parameter values.
In Tier 1 we used the HGDB in conjunction with a geographical classification of
aquifers developed by the United States Geological Survey (Heath, 1984) to assign each
waste site in our nationwide database of Subtitle D WMU's (see Section 4.2.1) to one of
the 13 subsurface environments. For each type of WMU, we used information on its
location (see Figures 4.2 - 4.5), in combination with USGS state-by-state aquifer maps to
determine the type of subsurface environment at that site. Sites that could not be
classified into one of the 12 categories were assigned as "other" (that is, they were
assigned to environment number 13). Using the subsurface parameters in the HGDB for
each of the 13 environments, we could then assign a probability distribution of parameter
values to each WMU location. This methodology is consistent with how we assigned
HELP-derived infiltration and recharge rates to each WMU in the IWEM modeling
database.
4-43
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
In Tier 2, the type of subsurface environment, as well as each of the four
individual subsurface parameters (depth to ground water, saturated thickness, saturated
hydraulic conductivity, and hydraulic gradient) are optional, site-specific user inputs.
Depending on the extent of available site data, IWEM will use statistical correlations
developed from the HGDB to estimate missing or unknown parameters. If site-specific
values for all four parameters are known, then Tier 2 will use these values and in this
case, information on the type of subsurface environment is not needed. If one or more of
the four subsurface parameters are unknown, but the type of subsurface environment at
the site is known, Tier 2 will use the known parameters to generate a probability
distribution for the unknown parameters, using the statistical correlations that correspond
to the type of environment at the site. If no site-specific hydrogeologic information is
known, IWEM will treat the site as being in subsurface environment number 13 and
assign values that are national averages.
4.2.3.2 Unsaturated Zone Parameters
To model flow of infiltration water through the unsaturated zone, we used data on
unsaturated hydraulic properties assembled by Carsel and Parrish (1988) in conjunction
with information from the SCS on the nationwide prevalence of different soil types
across the United States. First, we used SCS soil mapping data to estimate the relative
prevalence of light- (sandy loam), medium- (silt loam), and heavy-textured (silty clay
loam) soils across the United States. The estimated percentages are shown in Table 4.15.
The soil types used in the unsaturated zone modeling were also used in the HELP model
to derive infiltration and recharge rates (See Section 4.2.2) in order to have a consistent
set of soil modeling parameters. We then used the soil property data reported by Carsel
and Parrish to determine the probability distributions of individual soil parameters for
each soil type, and used these distributions in the Monte Carlo modeling for Tier 1 and
Tier 2. Table 4.16 presents the unsaturated zone parameter values used in the Tier 1 and
Tier 2 development.
Table 4.15 Nationwide Distribution of Soil Types Represented in IWEM
Texture Category
Light textured
Medium textured
Heavy textured
SCS Soil Type
Sandy Loam
Silt Loam
Silty Clay Loam
Relative Frequency (%)
15.4
56.6
28.0
4-44
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.16 Statistical Parameters for Soil Properties for Three Soil Types Used in
IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 Development (Carsel and Parrish, 1988)
Parameter1
Distribution
Type2
Limits of Variation
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Soil Type - Siltv Clay Loam
Ksat (cm/hr)
Or
a (cm"1}
P
%OM
Pb
SB
NO
SB
NO
SB
Constant
Constant
0
0
0
1.0
0
3.5
0.115
0.15
1.5
8.35
0.017
0.089
.009
1.236
0.11
1.67
0.43
2.921
0.0094
.097
0.061
5.91
Soil Type - Silt Loam
Ksat (cm/hr)
&r
a (cm"1}
P
%OM
Pb
LN
SB
LN
SB
SB
Constant
Constant
0
0
0
1.0
0
15.0
0.11
0.15
2.0
8.51
.343
.068
.019
1.409
0.105
1.65
0.45
.989
0.071
0.012
1.629
5.88
Soil Type - Sandy Loam
Ksat (cm/hr)
Or
a (cm1)
ft
%OM
Pb
SB
SB
SB
LN
SB
Constant
Constant
0
0
0
1.35
0
30.0
0.11
0.25
3.00
11.0
2.296
0.065
0.070
1.891
0.074
1.60
0.41
24.65
0.074
0.171
0.155
7.86
1 Ksat is saturated hydraulic conductivity; 6r is residual water content; a, P are retention curve parameters; % OM
is percent Organic Matter, pb is bulk density; 6S is saturated water content.
2 NO is Normal (Gaussian) distribution; SB is Log ratio distribution where Y = In [(x-A)/(B-x)], A < x < B; LN
is Log normal distribution, Y = In [x , where Y = normal distributed parameter
The parameters a, p, and 6r in Table 4.16 are specific to the Mualem-Van
Genuchten model that is employed in the EPACMTP unsaturated zone flow module
described in Section 3.2 (see the EPACMTP Technical Background Document for
details).
In addition to the soil hydraulic parameters listed in Table 4.16, IWEM also
requires certain soil transport parameters. These are the soil bulk density and percent
organic matter, which are used to calculate the constituent-specific retardation
coefficients, the unsaturated zone dispersivity, and the soil pH and temperature. The
4-45
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
latter two parameters are used to calculate hydrolysis transformation rates; pH is also a
key parameter for modeling transport of metals. Soil bulk density and percent organic
matter were obtained from the Carsel and Parrish (1988) database and are presented in
Table 4.16. These parameters are used to calculate the retardation factor in the
constituent transport equation (Section 3.2). We used the data on the percent organic
matter to calculate the fraction organic carbon according to:
, % OM
foe =
174
where:
foe = Mass fraction organic carbon in the soil (kg/kg)
% OM = Percent organic matter
174 = Conversion constant
We calculated dispersivity in the unsaturated zone, ocuz as a function of the travel
distance (Du m) between the base of the WMU and the water table, according to the
following relationship:
auz = 0.02+ (0.022 x Du)
where:
auz = longitudinal dispersivity in the unsaturated zone (m)
Du = Depth of the unsaturated zone, from the base of the WMU to the
water table (m)
This relationship is based on a regression analysis of field scale transport data
presented by Gelhar et al. (1985). We capped the maximum allowed value of
dispersivity at one meter in IWEM.
Soil temperature and pH were obtained from nationwide distributions. For these
parameters we used the same distributions for the entire aquifer, that is, both for the
unsaturated zone and for the saturated zone. In both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, we
used a nationwide aquifer pH distribution, derived from EPA's STORET database. The
pH distribution is an empirical distribution with a median value of 6.8 and lower and
upper bounds of 3.2 and 9.7, respectively, as shown in Table 4.17.
4-46
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Table 4.17 Probability Distribution of Soil and Aquifer pH
Percentile
pH Value
0
3.20
1
3.60
5
4.50
10
5.20
25
6.07
50
6.80
75
7.40
90
7.90
95
8.2
99
8.95
100
9.7
As modeled in IWEM, soil and aquifer temperature affects the transformation rate
of constituents that are subject to hydrolysis, through the effect of temperature on
reaction rates (see Section 4.2.4.1). In the IWEM development, we used information on
average annual temperatures in shallow ground-water systems (Todd, 1980) to assign a
temperature value to each WMU in the modeling database, based on the unit's
geographical location. For each WMU site, the assigned temperature was an average of
the upper and lower values for that temperature region, as shown in Figure 4.8. In other
words, all WMU's located in the band between 10° and 15° were assigned a temperature
value of 12.5 degrees C.
Figure 4.8 Ground-water Temperature Distribution for Shallow
Aquifers in the United States (from Todd, 1980).
4-47
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
IWEM Monte Carlo Methodology for Soil Parameters
In both Tier 1 and Tier 2, we assumed that soil properties are uniform at each site.
That is, while we selected a new set of soil parameters for each realization in the Tier 1
and Tier 2 modeling process, the soil properties were assumed uniform for a given
realization. However, the methodology for assigning soil types differed. In Tier 1, we
randomly selected one of the three soil types shown in Table 4.15 for each realization,
with a probability given by each soil type's frequency of occurrence, i.e., we would select
silt loam soils in 56.6% of the realizations, sandy loam soils in 15.4% of the cases, and
silty clay loam soils in 28% of the cases. The selection of the soil type also determines
the distribution of recharge and - for unlined and single-lined LF, WP, and LAUs - the
infiltration rate through the unit (see Section 4.2.2). Based on the selected soil type,
values for each of the unsaturated zone modeling parameters were generated using the
distributions presented in Table 4.16.
In Tier 2, the soil type is a optional site-specific user input parameter. Because
the site location must always be entered by the user, the selection of the soil type
determines the recharge rate, as well as the HELP-derived infiltration rates which the
IWEM tool will use in the evaluation. Based on the selected soil type, the IWEM tool
will randomly select values for the parameters in Table 4.16 from the probability
distributions corresponding to the soil type. If the soil type in Tier 2 is entered as
"unknown", the Tier 2 Monte Carlo process for the unsaturated zone parameters will
default to that used in Tier 1, that is, IWEM will randomly select one of the three
possible soil types in accordance with their nationwide frequency of occurrence.
4.2.3.3 Saturated Zone Parameters
In addition to the four site-related subsurface parameters discussed in Section
4.2.3.1, IWEM requires a number of additional saturated zone transport parameters.
They are: saturated zone porosity; saturated zone bulk density; longitudinal, transverse
and vertical dispersivities; fraction organic carbon; aquifer temperature; and aquifer pH.
Saturated zone porosity is used in the calculation of the ground-water seepage
velocity; saturated zone porosity and bulk density are used in the calculation of
constituent-specific retardation coefficients. In IWEM, we used default, nationwide
distributions for aquifer porosity and bulk density, that is, they are not user inputs. Both
were derived from a distribution of aquifer particle diameter presented by Shea (1974).
This distribution is presented in Table 4.18. Using the data in Table 4.18 as an input
distribution, IWEM calculates porosity, c|), from particle diameter using an empirical
relationship based on data reported by Davis (1969) as:
c|) = 0.261 - 0.0385 7w(d)
4^48
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
where
cj) = Porosity (dimensionless)
d = Mean particle diameter (cm)
In = Natural logarithm
Additionally, we used relationships presented in McWorther and Sunada (1977),
to establish relationships between total ($) and effective porosity (c|)e) as a function of
mean particle diameter, see Table 4.19.
Table 4.18 Empirical Distribution of Mean Aquifer Particle Diameter
(from Shea, 1974)
Percentile
Particle
Diameter
(cm)
0.0
3.9x10-"
3.8
7.8xlO'4
10.4
0.0016
17.1
0.0031
26.2
0.0063
37.1
0.0125
56.0
0.025
79.2
0.05
90.4
0.1
94.4
0.2
97.6
0.4
100
0.8
Table 4.19 Ratio Between Effective and Total Porosity as a Function of Particle
Diameter (after McWorther and Sunada, 1977)
Mean Particle Diameter (cm)
< 6.25 xlO'3
6.25 xlO'3- 2.5 xlO'2
2.5xlO-2-5.0xlO-2
S.OxlO^-lO'1
>io-'
J Range
0.03-0.77
0.04-0.87
0.31-0.91
0.58-0.94
0.52-0.95
IWEM calculates apparent saturated zone dispersivities as a function of the
distance between the waste unit and the modeled ground-water well, using regression
relationships based on a compilation of field-scale dispersivity data in Gelhar et al.
(1985). These relationships are:
OL(X) = afFx(x/152.4)°-5
OCT = aL/8
av = aL/160
4-49
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
where
x = downgradient ground-water travel distance (m)
OCL = longitudinal dispersivity (m)
OCT = horizontal transverse dispersivity (m)
«v = vertical transverse dispersivity (m)
% = reference dispersivity value (m)
We used the longitudinal dispersivity corresponding to a distance of 152.4 m (500
feet) as a reference to calculate dispersivity at different well distances, according to the
probability distribution presented in Table 4.20.
Table 4.20 Cumulative Probability Distribution of Longitudinal Dispersivity at
Reference Distance of 152.4 m (500 ft)
Percentile
TV *. REFf \
Dispersivity, aL (m)
0.0
0.1
1.00
1.0
70.0
10.0
100.0
100.0
We used data as the fraction organic carbon in the aquifer (foc) to model sorption
of organic constituents, as discussed in Section 3.2. In the development of the IWEM
Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, we used a nationwide distribution obtained from values of
dissolved organic carbon in EPA's STORET water quality database. The distribution
was modeled as a Johnson SB frequency distribution (see EPACMTP Parameters/Data
Background Document) with a mean of 4.32><10"4, a standard deviation of 0.0456, and
lower and upper limits of 0.0 and 0.064, respectively.
We determined values of the ground-water temperature and pH in the same
manner as we did for soil pH and temperature (see Section 4.2.3.2).
4.2.4 Parameters Used to Characterize the Chemical Fate of Constituents
For the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations the chemical fate of constituents as they are
transported through the subsurface is presented in terms of an overall first-order decay
coefficient, a retardation coefficient which reflects equilibrium sorption reactions, and for
transformation daughter-products, a production term that represents the formation of
daughter compounds due to the transformation of parent constituents.
This section describes how we developed constituent-specific parameter values
for these chemical fate processes. Section 4.2.4.1 describes constituent transformation
processes, while Section 4.2.4.2 discusses all constituent degradation processes. Section
4.2.4.3 describes how we modeled sorption processes. Section 4.2.4.4 describes the
4^50
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
criteria we applied to determine whether constituents could be treated as being effectively
non-reactive (i.e., zero transformation and sorption) in developing the Tier 1 evaluation.
4.2.4.1 Constituent Transformation
For organic constituents, IWEM accounts for chemical and biological
transformations by considering a first-order overall degradation coefficient in the
transport analysis (see Section 3.2). In Tier 1, we considered only hydrolysis reactions.
In Tier 2, the default hydrolysis rate coefficients in the IWEM constituent database can
be replaced with a user-specified overall degradation rate that can account for any type of
transformation process, including biodegradation.
Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis refers to the transformation of chemical constituents through reactions
with water. For organic constituents, hydrolysis can be one of the main degradation
processes that occur in soil and ground water and is represented in the EPACMTP model
by means of an overall first-order chemical decay coefficient. For modeling hydrolysis
in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, we used constituent-specific hydrolysis rate
constants compiled at the EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory in Athens, GA
(Kollig et al., 1993). These are listed in Appendix B.
The hydrolysis process as modeled in IWEM is affected by both aquifer pH,
aquifer temperature and constituent sorption, through the following equations. The
tendency of each constituent to hydrolyze is expressed through constituent-specific acid-
catalyzed (Kar), neutral (K^ *) and base-catalyzed (Kbr)rate constants. The superscript
Tr indicates that the values are measured at a specified reference temperature, Tr. First,
the values of the rate constants are modified to account for the effect of aquifer
temperature through the Arrhenius equation:
K.J = Kjr exp [E/R( - )]
j j F L j g^+273 r+273'J
where:
T
Kj = Hydrolysis rate constant for reaction process J and temperature T
J = a for acid, b for base, and n for neutral
T = Temperature of the subsurface (°C)
Tr = Reference temperature (°C)
Rg = Universal gas constant (1.987E-3 Kcal/deg-mole)
Ea = Arrhenius activation energy (Kcal/mole)
4-51
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document _ Section 4. 0
Next, the effect of pH on hydrolysis rates is incorporated via:
^ = KaT[H+] + KnT + KbT[OH-]
where
= First-order decay rate for dissolved phase (1/yr)
KTa , K^ , Kl = Hydrolysis rate constants
[H+] = Hydrogen ion concentration (mole/L)
[OH'] = Hydroxyl ion concentration (mole/L)
[H+] and [OH] are computed from the pH of the soil or aquifer using
[H+] = 10-pH
[OH'} = 10-(14-pH)
The sorbed phase hydrolysis rate is calculated as:
A2 = lQKar[H+] + KnT
where:
A2 = First-order hydrolysis rate for sorbed phase (1/yr)
KTa = Acid-catalyzed hydrolysis rate constant (1/mole/yr)
KTn = Neutral hydrolysis rate constant (1/yr)
10 = Acid-catalyzed hydrolysis enhancement factor
Finally, the overall first-order transformation rate for hydrolysis is calculated as:
4-52
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
where:
A = Overall first-order hydrolysis transformation rate (1/yr)
A! = Dissolved phase hydrolysis transformation rate (1/yr)
A2 = Sorbed phase hydrolysis transformation rate (1/yr)
c|) = Porosity (water content in the unsaturated zone) (dimensionless)
p6 = Bulk density (kg/L)
kd = Partition coefficient (L/kg)
We used the information on hydrolysis transformation pathways presented in
Kollig et al. (1993) to identify toxic hydrolysis daughter products; Section 6 of this
document describe how we incorporated this information into the determination of Tier 1
and Tier 2 LCTVs.
4.2.4.2 Other Constituent Degradation Processes
Many organic constituents may be subject to biodegradation in the subsurface,
and in Tier 2, the IWEM tool allows the user to provide a constituent-specific overall
degradation coefficient, which can include both aerobic or anaerobic biodegradation.
IWEM does not specifically simulate biodegradation reactions, and therefore, the IWEM
user must ensure that the value entered is representative of actual site conditions, and that
the transformation reactions can be adequately characterized as a first-order rate process,
(that, is a process that can be represented in terms of a characteristic half-life). The
overall degradation rate parameter that is used as a Tier 2 input is related to the
constituent's subsurface half-life and is expressed as:
A = 0.693/t1/2
where
A = IWEM degradation rate input value (1/yr)
t,/2 = Constituent half-life (yr)
4.2.4.3 Constituent Sorption
In addition to physical and biological transformation processes, the transport of
constituents can be affected by a wide range of complex geochemical reactions. From a
practical view, the important aspect of these reactions is the removal of solute from
solution, irrespective of the process. For this reason IWEM lumps the cumulative effects
of the geochemical processes into a single term (i.e., solid-water partition coefficient)
4^53
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document _ Section 4. 0
which is one of several parameters needed to describe the degree to which a constituents
mobility is retarded relative to ground water. In the EPACMTP fate and transport model
upon which IWEM is based, this process is defined by the retardation factor defined in
Section 3.2. The remainder of this section describes the procedures we used to model
sorption for organic constituents and inorganic constituents, specifically, metals.
4.2.4.3.1 Sorption Modeling for Organic Constituents
For organic constituents we determined kd values as the product of the
constituent-specific Koc and the fraction organic carbon in the soil or ground water:
kd =Kocxfoc
where
kd = partition coefficient (L/kg),
Koc = normalized organic carbon distribution coefficient (kg/L), and
foc = fractional organic carbon content (dimensionless)
Koc values for IWEM constituents are listed in Appendix B. For IWEM, we
calculated the fraction organic carbon in the unsaturated zone from the percent organic
matter in the soil (see section 4.2.3.2) as:
, %OM
where
foc = fractional organic carbon content (kg/kg),
%OM = percent organic matter in the soil, and
174 = conversion factor.
In the saturated zone modeling we used the nation-wide data on the fraction
organic carbon on ground water to provide direct values for foc (see Section 4.2.3.3)
4. 2. 4. 3. 2 Sorption Modeling for Inorganic Constituents (Metals)
Partition coefficients (kd) for metals in the IWEM tool modeling are selected from
non-linear sorption isotherms estimated using the geochemical speciation model,
MINTEQA2. For a particular metal, kd values in a soil or aquifer are dependent upon the
metal concentration and various geochemical characteristics of the soil or aquifer and the
associated porewater.
4^54
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
Geochemical parameters that have the greatest influence on the magnitude of kd
include the pH of the system and the nature and concentration of sorbents associated with
the soil or aquifer matrix. In the subsurface beneath a disposal facility, the concentration
of leachate constituents may also influence kd. Although the dependence of metal
partitioning on the total metal concentration and on pH and other geochemical
characteristics is apparent from partitioning studies reported in the scientific literature,
the reported kd values for individual metals do not cover the range of metal
concentrations or geochemical conditions relevant in the IWEM scenarios. For this
reason, we chose to use an equilibrium speciation model, MINTEQA2, to estimate metals
partition coefficients for the IWEM development. We used the speciation model to
estimate kd values for a range of total metal concentrations in various model systems
designed to depict natural variability in those geochemical characteristics that most
influence metal partitioning.
From input data consisting of total concentrations of inorganic chemicals,
MINTEQA2 calculates the fraction of a constituent metal that is dissolved, adsorbed, and
precipitated at equilibrium. The ratio of the adsorbed fraction to the dissolved fraction is
the dimensionless partition coefficient. We converted the dimensionless partition
coefficient to kd with units of liters per kilogram (L/kg) by normalizing the mass of soil
(in kg) with one liter of porewater in which it is equilibrated (the phase ratio).
We used MINTEQA2 to develop isotherms for Antimony (Sb-5+), Arsenic (As-
3+ and As-5+) Barium (Ba), Beryllium (Be), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr-3+ and Cr-
6+), Cobalt (Co), Copper (Cu), Fluoride (F), Manganese (Mn-2+), Mercury (Hg), Lead
(Pb), Molybdenum (Mo-5+), Nickel (Ni), Selenium (Se-4+ and Se-6+), Silver (Ag),
Thallium (T1-1+), Vanadium (V-5+), and Zinc (Zn).
MINTEQA2 Input Parameters
We accounted for the expected natural variability in kd for a particular metal in
the MINTEQA2 modeling by including variability in important input parameters upon
which kd depends. The input parameters for which variability was incorporated include
ground-water compositional type, pH, concentration of sorbents, and concentration of
metal. In addition, we varied the concentration of representative anthropogenic organic
acids that may be present in leachate from a waste site.
We modeled two ground-water compositional types - one with composition
representative of a carbonate-terrain system and one representative of a non-carbonate
system. The two ground-water compositional types are correlated with the subsurface
environment (see Section 4.2.3.1, Table 4.14). The carbonate type corresponds to the
"solution limestone" subsurface environment setting. The other eleven subsurface
environments in IWEM are represented by the non-carbonate ground-water type. If the
4^55
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
subsurface environment is "unknown", then IWEM will also assume it is a non-carbonate
type. For both ground-water types, a representative, charge-balanced ground-water
chemistry specified in terms of major ion concentrations and natural pH was selected
from the literature. The carbonate system was represented by a sample reported in a
limestone aquifer. This ground water had a natural pH of 7.5 and was saturated with
respect to calcite. The non-carbonate system was represented by a sample reported from
an unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifer with a natural pH of 7.4. We selected an
unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifer to represent the non-carbonate compositional type
because it is the most frequently occurring of the twelve subsurface environments in
HGDB database.
We included two types of adsorbents in modeling the kd values: ferric oxide
(FeOx) and particulate organic matter (POM). Mineralogically, the ferric oxide was
assumed to be goethite (FeOOH). We used a database of sorption reactions for goethite
reported by Mathur (1995) with the diffuse-layer sorption model in MINTEQA2 to
represent the interactions of protons and metals with the goethite surface. The
concentration of sorption sites used in the model runs was based on a measurement of
ferric iron extractable from soil samples using hydroxylamine hydrochloride as reported
in EPRI (1986). This method of Fe extraction is intended to provide a measure of the
exposed amorphous hydrous oxide of Fe present as mineral coatings and discrete
particles and available for surface reaction with pore water. The variability in FeOx
content represented by the variability in extractable Fe from these samples was included
in the modeling by selecting low, medium and high FeOx concentrations corresponding
to the 17th, 50th and 83rd percentiles of the sample measurements. The specific surface
area and site density used in the diffuse-layer model were as prescribed by Mathur.
Although we used the same distribution of extractable ferric oxide sorbent in the
saturated and unsaturated zones, the actual concentration of sorbing sites corresponding
to the low, medium, and high FeOx settings in MINTEQA2 was different in the two
zones because the phase ratio was different (4.57 kg/L in the unsaturated zone; 3.56 kg/L
in the saturated zone.)
We obtained the concentration of the second adsorbent, POM, from organic
matter distributions already present in the IWEM modeling database. In the unsaturated
zone, low, medium, and high concentrations for components representing POM in the
MINTEQA2 model runs were based on the distribution of solid organic matter for the silt
loam soil type. (The silt loam soil type is intermediate in weight percent organic matter
in comparison with the sandy loam and silty clay loam soil types and is also the most
frequently occurring soil type among the three.) The low, medium, and high POM
concentrations used in the saturated zone MINTEQA2 model runs were obtained from
the organic matter distribution for the saturated zone. For both the FeOx and POM
adsorbents, the amount of sorbent included in the MINTEQA2 modeling was scaled to
correspond with the phase ratio in the unsaturated and saturated zones.
4^56
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
We obtained a dissolved organic matter (DOM) distribution for the saturated zone
from the EPA's STORET database. This distribution was used to provide low, medium,
and high DOM concentrations for the MINTEQA2 model runs. The low, medium, and
high DOM values were used exclusively with the low, medium, and high values,
respectively, of POM. In the unsaturated zone, there was no direct measurement of DOM
available. The ratio of POM to DOM for the three concentration levels (low, medium,
high) in the unsaturated zone was assumed to be the same as for the saturated zone. In
MINTEQA2, the POM and DOM components were modeled using the Gaussian
distribution model. This model includes a database of metal-DOM reactions (Susetyo et
al., 1991). Metal reactions with POM were assumed to be identical in their mean binding
constants with the DOM reactions.
Leachate exiting a WMU may contain elevated concentrations of anthropogenic
leachate organic acids (LOA). We included representative carboxylic acids for leachate
from industrial WMUs in the MINTEQA2 modeling. An analysis of total organic carbon
(TOC) in LF leachate by Gintautas et al. (1993) was used to select and quantify the
organic acids. We assigned the low, medium, and high values for the representative acids
in the modeling based on the lowest, the average, and the highest measured TOC among
the six LF leachates analyzed. Because we expect leachate from industrial WMUs to be
lower in organic matter than in municipal LFs, we included only the low and medium
LOA values in IWEM.
MINTEQA2 Modeling and Results
We conducted the MINTEQA2 modeling separately for each metal in three steps
for the unsaturated zone, and these were repeated for the saturated zone:
Sorbents were pre-equilibrated with ground waters: Each of nine possible
combinations of the two FeOx and POM sorbent concentrations (low
FeOx, low POM; low FeOx, medium POM; etc.) were equilibrated with
each of the two ground-water types (carbonate and non-carbonate).
Because the sorbents adsorb some ground-water constituents (calcium,
magnesium, sulfate, fluoride), the input total concentrations of these
constituents were adjusted so that their equilibrium dissolved
concentrations in the model were equal to their original (reported) ground-
water dissolved concentrations. This step was conducted at the natural pH
of each ground water, and calcite was imposed as an equilibrium mineral
for the carbonate ground-water type. Small additions of inert ions were
added to maintain charge balance.
The pre-equilibrated systems were titrated to new target pH's: Each of the
nine pre-equilibrated systems for each ground-water type were titrated
4^57
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
with NaOH to raise the pH or with HNO3 to lower the pH. Nine target
pH's spanning the range 4.5 to 8.2 were used for the non-carbonate
ground water. Three target pH's spanning the range 7.0 to 8.0 were used
for the carbonate ground water. Titration with acid or base to adjust the
pH allowed charge balance to be maintained.
LO As and the constituent metal were added: Each of the eighty-one pre-
equilibrated, pH-adjusted systems of the non-carbonate ground water and
the twenty-seven pre-equilibrated, pH-adjusted systems of the carbonate
ground water were equilibrated with two concentrations (low and
medium) of LOAs. The equilibrium pH was not imposed in MINTEQA2;
pH was calculated and reflected the acid and metal additions. The
constituent metal was added as a metal salt (e.g., PbNO3) at a series of
forty-four total concentrations spanning the range 0.001 mg/L to 10,000
mg/L of metal. Equilibrium composition and Kd were calculated at each
of the forty-four total metal concentrations to produce an isotherm of
sorbed metal versus metal concentration. The isotherm can also be
expressed as kd versus metal concentration.
This modeling resulted in eighty-one isotherms for the non-carbonate
environment and twenty-seven isotherms for the carbonate environment for the
unsaturated zone. A like number of isotherms for each environment was produced for the
saturated zone. Each isotherm corresponds to a particular setting of FeOx sorbent
concentration, POM sorbent (and associated DOM) concentration, leachate acid
concentration, and pH. An example isotherm for Cr(VI) is shown in Figure 4.9. This
isotherm corresponds to the following conditions: low LOAs, medium FeOX
concentration, high POM concentration, for pH 6.3 in unsaturated zone, non-carbonate
environment.
We computed isotherms for two environmentally relevant oxidation states of
chromium, arsenic, and selenium. The different oxidation states of these metals have
different geochemical behavior, and in the case of chromium also distinctly different
toxicological behavior. Chromium-3+ exhibits behavior typical of a cation, but
chromium-6+ behaves as an anion (chromate). Chromium-3+ and chromate are most
strongly sorbed at opposite ends of the pH spectrum: sorption of chromium-3+ tends to
increase with pH over the pH range 4 to 8, whereas sorption of chromate tends to
decrease with pH over this range. In addition, separate health-based toxicity values have
been established for chromium-3+ and chromate. The dissimilarity in sorption behavior
and the availability of separate toxicity benchmarks warrants treating chromium-3+ and
4-58
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
120
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0
-3-2-101 23
log Total Cr(VI) (mg/L)
Figure 4.9 Example Unsaturated Zone Isotherm for Cr(VI) Corresponding to
Low LOA, Medium FeOx, High POM, pH-6.3.
chromate as if they were separate metals. Thus, IWEM considers chromium-3+ and
chromium-6+ as different constituents and we used both sets of Cr isotherms to produce
Tier 1 LCTVs for both forms.
The two oxidation states of arsenic and selenium also exhibit differences in
sorption behavior, but both metals tend always to behave as anions. Unlike chromium,
separate toxicity values have not been established for the two forms of arsenic and
selenium. We therefore incorporated the more mobile forms only of arsenic and
selenium in IWEM as the more protective approach. We ran EPACMTP with both sets
of isotherms for these metals to discover which oxidation state was more mobile. The
results indicate that As and Se should be assumed to be present as As-5+ and Se-6+.
Accordingly, these are the species used in producing the Tier 1 LCTVs, and partition
coefficients for these are provided for use in Tier 2 modeling.
4-59
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
4.2.4.4 Partition Coefficient and Degradation Rate Threshold Criteria EPA Used
to Define Conservative Constituents in Developing the Tier 1 Evaluation
In developing the Tier 1 LCTVs, we conducted a very large number of
EPACMTP Monte Carlo runs to account for all constituents and combinations of WMU
types and liner designs. We expedited these modeling analyses by treating all
conservative organic constituents as a single group. This was permissible, because as
modeled in EPACMTP, constituents that have the same fate characteristics will show the
same subsurface transport behavior.
A conservative chemical is defined as a chemical that neither adsorbs to the
soil matrix nor degrades as it is transported through the subsurface. Metals are not
regarded as conservative chemicals because they tend to sorb strongly to the soil matrix.
Organic chemicals, however, vary in degrees of sorptivity and susceptibility to
degradation. Some of the organic chemicals may be approximated as equivalent to
conservative chemicals due to their recalcitrance to degradation and low sorptivity. The
sorptivity and degradation of organic chemicals are governed by two key parameters: the
organic carbon distribution coefficient (Koc) and the effective degradation rate constant
(A), respectively. For an organic to be considered conservative, it must have sufficiently
small Koc and A.
We determined cutoff values for Koc and A by conducting a sensitivity analysis
for selected waste management scenarios, each with several combinations of Koc and A.
Based on the results if this analysis, we used threshold values of Koc =100 L/kg, and A =
1 x 10"4 I/year to categorize constituents as conservative for the purpose of developing
the IWEM Tier 1 LCTVs for unlined and single-lined WMUs only. In other words, we
treated constituents with Koc and A values below these thresholds as conservative species.
For all composite liner evaluations, we conducted individual Monte Carlo runs for each
chemical. The reason is that at the low infiltration rates associated with composite liners,
the DAF values predicted by EPACMTP become very sensitive to even small differences
in Knr and A.
"-oc
4.2.5 Well Location Parameters
In the IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 development, we modeled the ground-water
exposure location as the intake point of a ground-water well located down gradient from
the WMU. The location of the well in IWEM is described by three parameters:
Downgradient distance from the waste unit (x-location)
Transverse distance from the plume centerline (y-location)
Vertical distance below the water table (z-location)
4-60
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
The well location parameters are depicted schematically in Figure 4.10, which
shows the location of the well relative to WMU in plan view and in cross-section view.
Downgradient Distance from WMU (m)
This parameter represents the distance between the downgradient edge of the
WMU and the position of the well, measured along the direction of ground-water flow.
This direction represents the x- coordinate as depicted in Figure 4.10. In Tier 1, we
assigned this parameter a fixed value of 150 meters. In Tier 2, this parameter is an
optional site-specific user input value, with a maximum allowed value of 1609 meters (1
mile). The default value in Tier 2 is 150 meters.
Well Transverse Distance from the Plume Centerline (m)
This parameter represents the horizontal distance between the well and the
modeled centerline of the plume, see Figure 4.10. For the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations,
we always set this parameter to zero, that is, we modeled the ground-water well as
always being located at the centerline of the plume. This is a protective assumption
because the ground-water concentrations predicted by the model will be highest along the
centerline of the plume, and decrease with distance away from the centerline.
Well Intake Depth Below the Water Table (m)
This parameter represents the vertical distance of the well intake point below the
water table. In calculating the position of the well intake, the model uses the water table
elevation before any mounding effects are taken into consideration. In both Tier 1 and
Tier 2, we assigned the well depth parameter a uniform probability distribution with a
range of 0 - 10 meters. This means that all depth values are between 0 to 10 meters
below the water table are equally likely. For each Monte Carlo realization in which the
modeled saturated zone thickness is less than 10 meters, the maximum well depth of 10
meters is replaced with the actual saturated zone thickness used in the realization.
4.2.6 Screening Procedures EPA Used to Eliminate Unrealistic Parameter
Combinations in the Monte Carlo Process
Inherent to the Monte Carlo process is that parameter values are drawn from
multiple data sources, and then combined in each realization of the modeling process.
Because the parameter values are drawn randomly from their individual probability
distributions, it is possible that parameters are combined in ways that are physically
infeasible and that violate the validity of the EPACMTP flow and transport model. We
4-61
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
PLAN VIEW
CONTAMINANT
PLUME
CENTERLINE
WMU .4
SECTIONAL VIEW
DOWNGRADIENT DISTANCE (X)
WELL
LOCATION
LAND SURFACE
Figure 4.10 Position of the Modeled Ground-water Well
Relative to the WMU.
implemented a number of checks to eliminate or reduce these occurrences as much as
possible. As a relatively simple measure, upper and lower limits are specified on
individual parameter values to ensure that their randomly generated values are within
physically realistic limits. Where possible, we used data sources that contained multiple
parameters, and implemented these in the Monte Carlo process in a way that preserved
the existing correlations among the parameters. For example, we used the HGDB
database of subsurface parameters (see Section 4.2.3) in combination with knowledge of
the subsurface environments at each waste site location in our WMU parameter database
to assign the most appropriate combinations of subsurface parameters to each site.
4-62
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
Likewise, we assigned climate-related parameters based on each site's proximity to an
infiltration modeling database of 102 climate stations, as described in Section 4.2.2.
We also specified upper and lower limits on secondary parameters whose values
are calculated (derived) internally in the Monte Carlo module as functions of the primary
EPACMTP input parameters, see the EPACMTP Parameters/Data Background
Document (U.S. EPA, 2002b), and implemented a set of screening procedures to ensure
that infiltration rates and the resulting predicted ground-water mounding would remain
physically plausible. Specifically, we screened the parameter values generated in each
Monte Carlo realization for the following conditions:
Infiltration and recharge so high they cause the water table to rise above
the ground surface;
Water level in a SI unit below the water table, causing flow into the SI;
and
Infiltration rate from a SI exceeds the saturated hydraulic conductivity of
the soil underneath.
These screening procedures are discussed in more detail below. Mathematical
details of the screening algorithms are presented in the EPACMTP Technical Background
Document (U.S. EPA, 2002a).
The logic diagram for the infiltration screening procedure is presented in Figure
4.11; Figure 4.12 provides a graphical illustration of the screening criteria. The
numbered criteria checks in Figure 4.11 correspond to the numbered diagrams in Figure
4.12. Note that high infiltration rates are most likely with (unlined) Sis. Therefore, the
screening procedure is the most involved for SI WMUs.
Figure 4.1 l(a) depicts the screening procedures for LFS, WPs, and LAUs. For
these units, after the four correlated subsurface parameters (depth to water table, aquifer
saturated thickness, aquifer hydraulic conductivity, and regional gradient), as well as
recharge associated with the selected soil type and the nearest climate center, and source
infiltration have been generated for each Monte Carlo realization, the IWEM tool
calculates the estimated water table mounding that would result from the selected
combination of parameter values. The combination of parameters is accepted if the
calculated maximum water table elevation (the ground-water 'mound') remains below
the ground surface elevation at the site. If the criterion is not satisfied, the selected
parameters for the realization is rejected and a new data set is selected.
4-63
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
For Sis, there are two additional screening steps, as depicted in Figure 4.1 l(b).
At each Monte Carlo realization, a SI unit is selected from the SI WMU database. The
unit-specific parameter, including ponding depth, and base depth below ground surface
are retrieved from the database. The four correlated subsurface parameters are then
selected from the hydrogeologic database, based on the subsurface environment at that
WMU location. Using the information on the base depth and water table elevations, we
can determine whether the SI unit is hydraulically connected to the water table. If the
base of the SI is below the water table, the SI unit is said to be hydraulically connected to
the water table (see Figure 4.12, Criterion 1). The realization is rejected and a new set of
hydrogeologic parameters is generated if the hydraulically connected SI is an inseeping
type, that is, the water surface in the SI is below the water table (see Figure 4.12,
Criterion l(b)). As long as the elevation of the waste water surface in the impoundment
is above the watertable, the first criterion is passed (Figure 4.12, Criterion l(a)).
If the base of the unit is located above the ambient water table, that is, before any
adjustment to the water table elevation to account for mounding is made, the unit is said
to be hydraulically separated from the water table (see Figure 4.12, Criterion 2).
However, in this case, it is necessary to ensure that the calculated infiltration rate does
not exceed the maximum feasible infiltration rate. The maximum feasible infiltration rate
is the maximum infiltration that allows the water table to be hydraulically separated from
the SI. In other words, it is the rate that does not allow the crest of the local ground-
water mound to be higher than the base of the SI. This limitation allows us to determine
a conservative infiltration rate that is based on the free-drainage condition at the base of
the SI. The infiltration rate is no longer conservative if the water table is allowed to be in
hydraulic contact with the base of the SI. If the maximum feasible infiltration rate (Imax)
is exceeded, IWEM will set the infiltration rate to this maximum value.
IWEM handles the screening in this order to accommodate the internal software
logic in EPACMTP. If the SI is a hydraulically connected type based on the user-
supplied information on the WMU and water table positions, EPACMTP will simulate
this system by by-passing the unsaturated zone module. On the other hand, if the
hydraulic connection results from water table mounding, i.e., the original water table
elevation is below the WMU, EPACMTP cannot easily handle this situation, and the
realization is therefore rejected.
Once the infiltration limit has been imposed, the third criterion is checked to
ensure that any ground-water mounding does not result in a rise of the water table mound
above the ground surface, in the same manner as done for other types of WMU.
In the IWEM software, the parameter constraints are checked after all Tier 2
inputs have been specified, but before the actual EPACMTP Monte Carlo simulations are
initiated. The first check applies when the user provides all Tier 2 input parameters as
4^64
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 4.0
site-specific values. In this case, the software checks that the combination of input values
does not violate the infiltration and water table elevation constraints. The second check
applies when some Tier 2 inputs are set to site-specific values, while default probability
distributions are used for other Tier 2 inputs. In this case, it is possible that the
combination of fixed, site-specific values with national or regional distributions, results
in a high frequency of rejections in the EPACMTP simulations. An example would be
simulating an unlined SI at a site where the depth to ground-water is set to a very small
value. This combination is likely to lead to a large number of rejections in the
EPACMTP Monte Carlo simulation due to violation of the ground-water mounding
constraint. This, in turn, may result in very long EPACMTP run times. It also indicates
that IWEM may not be appropriate for that site.
IWEM therefore checks the Tier 2 user inputs through a probabilistic screening
routine which generates random combinations of EPACMTP parameter values in
accordance with the specified Tier 2 inputs and measures the number of rejections. This
routine will check that 20,000 acceptable parameter combinations can be generated in
100,000 or less random realizations. If the inputs fail this test, the software will report
the most frequently violated constraint and suggest potential remedies in the user inputs.
4-65
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
Landfill
Waste Pile
Land Application Unit
Pick
Correlated
Hydrogeological
Parameters
Accept
Perform
Unsaturated
Zone
Simulation
Perform
Saturated
Zone
Simulation
Next
Realization
(A)
Surface
Impoundment
Pick
Correlated
Hydrogeological
Parameters
Perform
Unsaturated
Zone
Simulation
Accept
Perform
Saturated
Zone
Simulation
Next
Realization
(B)
Figure 4.11 Flowchart Describing the Infiltration Screening Procedure.
4-66
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 4.0
1.a Outseeping SI Unit
Water -=-
Table
si/
/ v / ^
\
/ \ Ground surface
1.b Inseeping SI Unit
Water
Table
SI
v
Ground surface
Accepted
The unsaturated zone is bypassed.
Rejected
;
(1: Surface impoundment initially hydraulically connected with the saturated zone.
r\
si 7
HK
?.
Groundwater mound
' due to infiltration
'max = maximum feasible infiltration rate
Initial Water Table
2 Surface impoundment initially hydraulically separated from the saturated zone.
Recharge
V? New Water Table
SI
Initial Water Table
3 Water table below ground surface criterion for all WMU types.
Figure 4.12 Infiltration Screening Criteria.
4-67
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 5.0
5.0 Establishing Reference Ground-water Concentrations
This section presents the RGCs that we used to establish protective constituent
concentrations in the modeled well. The constituent-specific MCL and HBN values we
used in IWEM are provided in Table 5.4 at the end of this chapter. Appendix E of this
background document provides detailed background information on the methodology and
human health benchmarks used in developing the HBNs.
The IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations incorporate two types of RGCs:
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). MCLs are available for some
constituents in IWEM. MCLs are maximum constituent concentrations
allowed in public drinking water and are established under the SDWA. In
developing MCLs, EPA considers not only a constituent's health effects,
but also additional factors, such as the cost of treatment.
Health-based numbers (HBNs). HBNs (for ingestion and/or inhalation
route(s) of exposure) are available for all constituents. To calculate
HBNs, we only consider parameters that describe a constituent's toxicity
and a receptor's exposure to the constituent. For the purposes of
developing the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations, HBNs are the maximum
constituent concentrations in ground water that we expect generally will
not cause adverse noncancer health effects in the general population
(including sensitive subgroups), or that will not result in an additional
incidence of cancer in more than approximately one in one million
individuals exposed to the constituent.
The sections below provide our methodology for calculating the cancer and
noncancer HBNs for ingestion and inhalation of the constituents included in the IWEM
software. We calculated the HBNs by "rearranging" standard risk equations (see EPA's
Risk Assessment Guidance for Super fund: Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation
Manual [U.S. EPA, 199la]) so that we could calculate constituent concentration, rather
than cancer risk or noncancer hazard. The standard equations for cancer risk and
noncancer hazard are comprised of two sets of variables: variables that describe an
individual's exposure to a constituent and a variable that describes the toxicity of the
constituent.
Exposure is the condition that occurs when a constituent comes into contact with
the outer boundary of the body, such as the mouth and nostrils. Once EPA establishes
the concentrations of constituents at the points of exposure, we can estimate the
magnitude of each individual's exposure, or the potential dose of constituent. The dose is
5-1
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 5.0
the amount of the constituent that crosses the outer boundary of the body and is available
for absorption at internal exchange boundaries (lungs, gut, skin) (U.S. EPA, 1992). For
example, if an exposure to a carcinogen through ingestion of contaminated drinking
water occur, the dose is a function of the concentration of the constituent in drinking
water (assumed to be the concentration of the constituent at the receptor well), as well as
certain "exposure factors," such as how much drinking water the individual consumes
each day (the intake rate), the period of time over which the individual is exposed to the
contaminated drinking water (the exposure duration), how often the individual is exposed
to contaminated drinking water during the exposure duration (the exposure frequency),
and the body weight of the individual. For effects such as cancer, where we usually
describe the biological response in terms of lifetime probabilities even though exposure
does not occur over the entire lifetime, we average doses over an individual's lifetime,
which we call the "averaging time."
Constituent toxicity is described through the use of "human health benchmarks."
Human health benchmarks are quantitative expressions of dose-response relationships.
Human health benchmarks include:
Oral cancer slope factors (CSFo) for oral exposure to carcinogenic
(cancer-causing) constituents;
Reference doses (RfD) for oral exposure to constituents that cause
noncancer health effects;
Inhalation cancer slope factors (CSFi), that are derived from Unit Risk
Factors (URFs), for inhalation exposure to carcinogenic constituents; and
Reference concentrations (RfC) for inhalation exposure to constituents
that cause noncancer health effects.
EPA defines the cancer slope factor (CSF) as "an upper bound, approximating a
95% confidence limit, on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime exposure to an agent
[constituent]." Because the CSF is an upper bound estimate of increased risk, EPA is
reasonably confident that the "true risk" will not exceed the risk estimate derived using
the CSF and that the "true risk" is likely to be less than predicted. CSFs are expressed in
units of proportion (of a population) affected per milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day).
For non-cancer health effects, we use the RfD and the RfC as health benchmarks for
ingestion and inhalation exposures, respectively. RfDs and RfCs are estimates of daily
oral exposure (in the case of an RfD) or a continuous inhalation exposure (in the case of
an RfC) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects in the general
population, including sensitive individuals, over a lifetime. The methodology used to
5-2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 5.0
develop RfDs and RfCs is expected to have an uncertainty spanning an order of
magnitude.
We combined estimates of constituent dose and estimates of constituent toxicity
(the health benchmarks) to calculate estimates of excess lifetime cancer risk for
individuals who may be exposed to carcinogenic constituents and HQs for those
constituents that produce noncancer health effects. Excess lifetime cancer risk is the
incremental probability (chance) of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime as a
result of exposure to a carcinogen. We estimate cancer risk resulting from exposure to a
carcinogenic constituent by multiplying the constituent's CSF by our estimate of
constituent dose. We calculate a receptor's ingestion HQ resulting from exposure to a
noncarcinogenic constituent by dividing our estimate of daily constituent dose by the
RfD (the HQ is the ratio of an individual's chronic daily constituent dose to the RfD for
chronic exposures to the constituent). We calculated a receptor's inhalation HQ by
dividing the concentration of the constituent in air by the RfC.
We developed the IWEM HBNs to correspond to a "target risk" and a "target
HQ." The target risk we use to calculate the HBNs for carcinogens is 1 x 10"6 (one in one
million). The target HQ we use to calculate the HBNs for noncarcinogens is 1 (unitless).
A HQ of 1 indicates that the estimated dose is equal to the RfD and, therefore, an HQ of
1 is frequently EPA's threshold of concern for noncancer effects. These targets are used
to calculate separate HBNs for each constituent of concern, and separate HBNs for each
exposure route of concern (ingestion or inhalation). The Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations do
not consider combined exposure from ground-water ingestion (from drinking water) and
ground-water inhalation (from showering), nor do they consider the potential for additive
exposure to multiple constituents.
Usually, doses less than the RfD (HQ=1) are not likely to be associated with
adverse health effects and, therefore, are less likely to be of regulatory concern. As the
frequency and/or magnitude of the exposures exceeding the RfD increase (HQ>1), the
probability of adverse effects in a human population increases. However, it should not be
categorically concluded that all doses below the RfD are "acceptable" (or will be
risk-free) and that all doses in excess of the RfD are "unacceptable" (or will result in
adverse effects).
5.1 Ingestion HBNs
Section 5.1.1 describes how we calculated ingestion HBNs for constituents that
cause cancer, and Section 5.1.2 describes how we calculated ingestion HBNs for
constituents that cause adverse health effects other than cancer.
5O
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 5.0
5.1.1 Ingestion HBNs for Constituents That Cause Cancer
To calculate ingestion HBNs for carcinogens, we rearranged the standard
equation for estimating risk so that instead of solving for risk, we solve for constituent
concentration in water. The constituent concentration in water that corresponds to the
target cancer risk is the cancer HBN for ingestion exposures, as follows:
CJNGESTJJBN = X*k_targefAT'365
CSFo'EF'ED'CRw
where
C_INGEST_HBN = cancer HBN for ingestion of water (mg/L)
Risk_target = target risk for carcinogens = 1 x 10"6
CSFo = constituent -specific oral cancer slope factor
(mg/kg-d)-1
AT = averaging time = 70 years [yrs]
EF = exposure frequency = 350 d/yr
CRw = intake rate of water = 0.0252 L/kg/d
ED = exposure duration = 30 yr
365 = conversion factor (d/yr).
In this equation, the CSFo quantifies the toxicity of the constituent. The
averaging time, exposure frequency, intake rate of water (which is expressed as the
amount of water an individual consumes each day per kilogram of their body weight),
and exposure duration quantify aspects of an individual's potential exposure. In our
calculation of cancer and noncancer ingestion HBNs, we use data that combine the
factors for intake rate and body weight. That is, we express intake in terms of the amount
of water an individual consumes per kilogram of their body weight. For example, if an
individual consumes 2 liters (L) of water per day (d), and that individual weighs 65 kg,
then their intake would be 2 L/d per 65 kg, or 0.03 L/kg/d. Table 5.1 summarizes the
basis for the exposure parameter values that we used in this equation.
Inspection of the equation above shows that the HBN value is directly
proportional to the target risk. That is, if the target risk were set to 10"5 instead of 10"6, we
would obtain a 10 times higher HBN value.
5-4
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.1 Exposure Parameter Values for Ingestion HBNs - Carcinogens
Exposure
Parameter
Drinking Water Intake
Rate
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Averaging Time
Value
25.2
350
30
70
Units
mL/kg/d
d/yr
yr
yr
Source
The value is a time-weighted average of mean
drinking water intake rates (per kilogram body
weight) for individuals aged 0 to 29 years.
Table 3-7 of the Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S.
EPA, 1997a)
The exposure frequency is the number of days per
year that an individual is exposed. A value of 350
days per year considers that an individual is away
from home for 2 weeks per year.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Super fund:
Volume 1 Human Health Evaluation Manual (U.S.
EPA, 199 la)
The exposure duration is the number of years that an
individual is exposed. Thirty years is the 95th
percentile value for population mobility (exposure
duration).
Table 15-176 of the Exposure Factors Handbook
(U.S. EPA, 1997b)
Averaging time is the period of time over which a
receptor's dose is averaged. When evaluating
carcinogens, dose is averaged over the lifetime of the
individual, assumed to be 70 years.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Super fund:
Volume 1 Human Health Evaluation Manual
(U.S. EPA, 1991a)
5-5
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 5.0
5.1.2 Ingestion HBNs for Constituents that Cause Noncancer Health Effects
To calculate ingestion HBNs for constituents that cause health effects other than
cancer, we rearranged the standard equation for estimating HQ so that instead of solving
for the HQ, we solve for constituent concentration in water. The constituent
concentration in water that corresponds to the target HQ is the cancer HBN for ingestion
exposures, as follows:
NCJNGEST HBN = ffQ_target'RfD'365
EF»CRw
where
NC_INGEST_HBN = noncancer HBN for ingestion of water (mg/L)
HQ_target = target HQ for noncarcinogens = 1
RfD = constituent-specific reference dose (mg/kg-d)
EF = exposure frequency = 350 d/yr
CRw = intake rate of water = 0.0426 L/kg/d
365 = conversion factor (d/yr).
In this equation, the exposure frequency and intake rate of water (expressed as the
amount of water an individual consumes each day per kilogram of body weight) quantify
aspects of an individual's exposure. To develop noncancer ingestion HBNs that are
protective of children, the intake rate in this equation assumes that the individual who is
drinking water from the modeled well is a child who is exposed from age 0 to 6 years.
Children in this age range typically ingest greater amounts of water per unit body weight
(that is, have greater exposure) than do adults.
The RfD in the equation quantifies the toxicity of the constituent. Even though
the RfDs that we use in this analysis are defined to pertain to exposures that occur over a
lifetime, these "chronic" RfDs commonly are used to evaluate potential noncancer effects
associated with exposures that occur over a significant portion of a lifetime (generally
assumed to be between seven years and a lifetime). We do not average the dose for
noncarcinogens over the lifetime of an individual (the "averaging time") as we do for
carcinogens, rather, we average dose over only the period of exposure. Consequently,
the values for exposure duration and averaging time are the same, and cancel each other
out (that is why they are not included in the above equation). Table 5.2 summarizes the
basis for the exposure parameter values that we used in this equation.
Inspection of the equation above shows that the HBN value is directly
proportional to the target HQ. That is, if the target risk were set to 0.1 instead of 1, we
would obtain a 10 times lower HBN value.
5-6
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.2 Exposure Parameter Values for Ingestion HBNs - Noncarcinogens
Exposure Parameter
Drinking Water Intake
Rate
Exposure Frequency
Value
42.6
350
Units
mL/kg/d
d/yr
Source
The value is a time-weighted average of mean
drinking water intake rates (per kilogram body
weight) for children aged 0 to 6 years.
Table 3-7 of the Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S.
EPA, 1997a)
The exposure frequency is the number of days per
year that an individual is exposed. A value of 350
days per year considers that an individual is away
from home for 2 weeks per year.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Volume 1 Human Health Evaluation Manual
(U.S. EPA, 1991a)
5.2 Inhalation HBNs
In the IWEM tool, the inhalation HBN is the maximum concentration of a
constituent in ground water that is not expected to cause adverse health effects in most
adults who inhale the constituent as a result of activities associated with showering. We
did not evaluate children's shower-related exposure in developing inhalation HBNs
because we assume that children take baths. Because we have not yet developed a "bath
model" for evaluating children, we do not have inhalation HBNs that consider children's
exposure. We calculated inhalation HBNs only for constituents that (1) volatilize (that is,
mercury and organic constituents) and (2) have an inhalation health benchmark available
(that is, a RfC, inhalation URF, and/or CSFi).
We developed the inhalation HBNs as follows:
First, we used a shower model to calculate, on a per unit ground-water
concentration basis, the average concentration of each constituent in indoor air that an
adult will be exposed to daily as a result of activities associated with showering. In this
analysis, we assume that the shower water is ground water from the well. However, in
this step of the analysis we only have to model a "unit" ground-water concentration. This
is because the average concentration of a constituent in indoor air is directly proportional
to the concentration of the constituent in the water coming into the shower. As a result,
we can back-calculate the ground-water concentration that would result in any given
constituent concentration in indoor air by simple scaling. Section 5.2.1 describes how we
use the shower model to calculate the average concentration of a constituent in indoor air
to which an adult is exposed during the day.
5-7
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 5.0
Second, we used the unit average constituent concentration in indoor air,
determined above, to calculate the HBN. We first calculated the risk or HQ associated
with the unit air concentration from the shower model, and then scaled this result to
determine the ground-water concentration associated with the target risk level or target
HQ. The ground-water concentration that generates the air concentration associated with
a risk of 1 x 10'6 or a HQ of 1 is the inhalation HBN.
5.2.1 Calculation of Exposure Concentrations from Showering
Individuals may be exposed to constituents through inhalation of air-phase
emissions from ground water. Such exposure may occur during the time spent in the
shower while showering, in the shower stall after showering, and in the bathroom after
showering. To evaluate these exposures, EPA uses a shower model to estimate
constituent concentrations in a shower stall and in bathroom air.
A primary assumption of our evaluation is that constituents are released into
household air only as the result of showering activity, and that exposure to air-phase
constituents only occurs in the shower stall and in the bathroom. Some investigators
evaluate constituent emissions resulting from other household uses of water (for example,
use of water in sinks, toilets, washing machines, and dishwashers) and the associated
inhalation exposure that occurs during the time spent in the non-bathroom portions of the
house (that is, "the remainder of the house"). The model we used only focuses on
exposure in the shower stall and bathroom, and the exposure that results from showering.
The shower model is based on the mathematical formulation presented in McKone
(1987) and Little (1992a). A detailed description of the shower model, its assumptions
and limitations, and the parameter values we used to develop inhalation HBNs is
provided in Appendix E.
5.2.2 Calculating Inhalation HBNs
To calculate HBNs, we used a unit ground-water concentration (usually 1 mg/L)
within the solubility limits of each constituent and implemented the shower model using
that concentration. The result of the shower model was the average concentration of a
constituent in air to which an individual is exposed on a daily basis. We used this "unit"
air concentration to calculate a corresponding "unit" risk (for cancer-causing chemicals)
or "unit" HQ (for constituents that cause noncancer health effects). Because ground-
water concentration and inhalation risk or hazard are directly proportional, we used
simple ratios to adjust the unit ground-water concentration to the ground-water
concentration corresponding to the target risk or target HQ (that is, to calculate the
inhalation HBNs). Section 5.2.2.1 describes our application of this methodology to
carcinogens and Section 5.2.2.2 describes our application of this methodology to
noncarcinogens.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
5.2.2.1 Inhalation HBNs for Constituents that Cause Cancer
Using the shower model, we estimated the average concentration of a constituent
in air to which an individual is exposed on a daily basis. To calculate the inhalation HBN
for carcinogens, we first calculate the inhalation risk that corresponds to this modeled
constituent concentration:
D. . , , , (Cair modeled IR ED EF) .
Risk modeled = = - CSFi
(BW AT 365)
where
Risk_modeled
Cair modeled
IR
ED
EF
BW
AT
CSFi
365
inhalation risk resulting from the modeled constituent
concentration in air
average constituent concentration in air to which an
individual is exposed during a day (mg/m3) (calculated
from the unit ground-water concentration using the shower
model)
inhalation rate = 13.25 m3/d
exposure duration = 30 yr
exposure frequency = 350 d/yr
body weight (kg) = 71.8 kg
averaging time = 70 yr
constituent-specific inhalation cancer slope factor (mg/kg-
d)"
conversion factor (d/yr).
In this equation, the CSFi quantifies the toxicity of the constituent. We use the
average constituent concentration in air, inhalation rate, exposure duration, exposure
frequency, body weight, and averaging time to quantify the individual's exposure, or
dose. Table 5.3 summarizes the basis for the exposure parameter values used in this
equation.
5-9
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.3 Exposure Parameter Values for Inhalation HBNs
Exposure Parameter
Inhalation Rate
Body Weight
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Averaging Time
Value
13.25
71.8
350
30
70
Units
mVd
kg
d/yr
yr
yr
Source
The value corresponds to the mean inhalation rates for
adults (ages 19 to 65+). The value was calculated by
averaging the daily mean inhalation rates for females
(11.3 mVd) and males (15.2 mVd).
Table 5-23 of the Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S.
EPA, 1997a)
The value corresponds to the mean body weight of 18-
to 75-year-old men and women.
Tables 7-2 and 7-11 of the Exposure Factors
Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997a)
The exposure frequency is the number of days per year
that an individual is exposed. A value of 350 days per
year considers that an individual is away from home
for 2 weeks per year.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Super fund:
Volume 1 Human Health Evaluation Manual
(U.S. EPA, 1991a)
The exposure duration is the number of years that an
individual is exposed. Thirty years is the 95th
percentile value for population mobility (exposure
duration).
Table 15-176 of the Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S.
EPA, 1997b)
Risk Assessment Guidance for Super fund:
Volume 1 Human Health Evaluation Manual (U.S.
EPA, 199 la)
The modeled constituent concentration in air was based on evaluating a unit
constituent concentration in ground water (a constituent concentration in ground water
that we selected somewhat arbitrarily). To calculate the ground-water concentration that
corresponds to the target inhalation risk (that is, the inhalation HBN) we adjusted the
modeled unit ground-water concentration using a simple ratio of target risk and modeled
risk:
CJNHALEJfBN = Rlsk-tarSet
Risk modeled
CGWmodeled
5-10
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document _ Section 5. 0
where
C_INHALE_HBN = concentration in ground water resulting in target risk
(|ig/L) (cancer HBN for inhalation)
C_GW_modeled = unit concentration in ground water used in shower model
Risk_target = target risk for carcinogens = 1><10"6
Risk_modeled = risk resulting from ground-water concentration modeled.
This equation assumes that ground-water concentration and inhalation risk are
directly proportional, which we confirmed by running the shower model using the target
ground-water concentration (the inhalation HBN) for several constituents and comparing
the results to the target risk level.
Inspection of the equation above shows that the HBN value is directly
proportional to the target risk. That is, if the target risk were set to 10"5 instead of 10"6, we
would obtain a 10 times higher HBN value.
5.2.2.2 Inhalation HBNs for Constituents that Causes Non-Cancer Health Effects
Calculating inhalation HBNs for noncarcinogens is simpler than calculating
HBNs for carcinogens because the toxicity benchmark (RfC) is expressed as a
concentration in air. To calculate the HBN, we first determine the HQ resulting from the
unit air concentration output by the shower model:
j , j Cair modeled
HQ modeled = - = -
u RfC
where
HQ_modeled = HQ resulting from the ground-water concentration modeled
(unitless)
Cair_modeled = average air concentration to which an individual is exposed
during a day (mg/m3) (calculated from the unit ground- water
concentration using the shower model)
RfC = constituent-specific reference concentration (mg/m3).
We then derive the target ground-water concentration (that is, the inhalation
HBN) by adjusting the modeled unit ground-water concentration using the ratio of the
target HQ to the modeled HQ:
NCJNHALEJJBN = HQ-tar8et . C_GW_modeled
HQ_modeled
5-11
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
where
NC_INHALE_HBN =
C_GW_modeled
HQjarget
HQ_modeled =
concentration in ground water resulting in target HQ
(l-ig/L) (non-cancer HBN for inhalation)
unit concentration in ground water used in shower model
target HQ for noncarcinogens = 1
HQ resulting from ground-water concentration modeled.
Inspection of the equation above shows that the HBN value is directly proportional
to the target HQ. That is, if the target risk were set to 0.1 instead of 1, we would obtain a
10 times lower HBN value.
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs
CAS
Number
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
Chemical Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo {b }fluoranthene
MCL
(mg/L)
6.0E-03
5.0E-02
2.0E+00
5.0E-03
2.0E-04
Ingestion HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
2.2E-05
1.8E-04
5.7E-06
1.7E-02
6.4E-05
8.1E-05
1.8E-03
4.2E-07
1.3E-05
8.1E-05
Non-Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.5E+00
2.5E+00
2.5E+00
4.9E-01
4.9E-03
1.2E+01
2.5E-02
7.3E-04
1.2E-01
7.3E+00*
9.8E-03
7.3E-03
1.7E+00
7.3E-02
Inhalation HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
4.1E-02
5.1E+00
l.OE-03
l.OE-05
2.2E+00
1.8E-02*
1.6E-03
2.6E+00
5.4E-03*
6.3E-04
Non-cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
2.2E-01
1.5E+03
3.1E+00
3.3E-04
1.5E+01
3.8E-02
9.3E-01
1.9E-01
5-12
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs (continued)
CAS
Number
100-44-7
100-51-6
7440-41-7
39638-32-9
111-44-4
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
88-85-7
85-68-7
7440-43-9
56-23-5
75-15-0
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
106-44-5
Chemical Name
Benzyl chloride
Benzyl alcohol
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1,3-
Butanol
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-
(Dinoseb)
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon disulfide
Chlordane
Chloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
Chloropropene 3- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol p-
MCL
(mg/L)
4.0E-03
6.0E-03
8.0E-02
7.0E-03
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
2.0E-03
l.OE-01
8.0E-02
8.0E-02
l.OE-01
l.OE-01
1.3E+00**
Ingestion HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
5.7E-04
1.4E-03
8.8E-05
6.9E-03
1.6E-03
7.4E-04
2.8E-04
3.6E-04
1.2E-03
7.4E-03
8.1E-04
Non-Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
7.3E+00
4.9E-02
9.8E-01
4.9E-01*
4.9E-01
3.4E-02
2.5E+00
2.5E-02
4.9E+00*
1.2E-02
1.7E-02
2.5E+00
1.2E-02
4.9E-01
9.8E-02
4.9E-01
4.9E-01
4.9E-01
2.5E-01
1.2E-01
3.7E+01
7.3E-02
4.9E-01
1.2E-01
Inhalation HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
5.2E-04
5.9E-03
1.1E-03
2.8E+01*
8.0E-04
4.0E-05
7.6E-04
1.5E-03
1.2E+00
7.5E-04
5.9E-03
1.9E-03
7.3E-03*
Non-cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.8E+02*
1.5E-02
6.0E-02
2.1E-02
1.9E+00
2.8E-02
2.2E-02
2.0E-01
3.0E+01
3.3E-01
2.6E-01
9.7E-03
3.0E-03
1.3E+03
5-13
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs (continued)
CAS
Number
108-39-4
95-48-7
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
117-84-0
84-74-2
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
106-46-7
95-50-1
91-94-1
75-71-8
107-06-2
75-34-3
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-02-6
10061-01-5
60-57-1
84-66-2
Chemical Name
Cresol M-
Cresol o-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT p,p'-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diallate
Dibenz{a,h}anthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans- 1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3 -(mixture of
isomers)
Dichloropropene trans- 1,3-
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
MCL
(mg/L)
2.0E-04
7.5E-02
6.0E-01
5.0E-03
7.0E-02
l.OE-01
7.0E-03
7.0E-02
5.0E-03
Ingestion HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
4.0E-04
2.8E-04
2.8E-04
1.6E-03
1.3E-05
6.9E-05
4.0E-03
2.2E-04
1.1E-03
1.6E-04
1.4E-03
9.7E-04
9.7E-04
9.7E-04
6.0E-06
Non-Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.2E+00
1.2E+00
1.2E+00
2.5E+00
4.2E-04
1.2E+02
1.2E-02
4.9E-01*
2.5E+00
2.2E+00
4.9E+00
2.5E+00
2.5E-01
4.9E-01
2.2E-01
7.3E-02
2.5E-01
2.2E+00
7.3E-01
7.3E-01
7.3E-01
1.2E-03
2.0E+01
Inhalation HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
8.8E-03
3.8E-01
7.9E-02
1.3E-03
4.9E+00*
6.3E-04
7.4E-03
2.2E-04
2.9E-03
3.5E-03
3.3E-03
l.OE-04
Non-cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.2E+03
8.8E+02
1.1E+03
1.3E+00
3.9E-04
2.9E-03
3.0E+00
7.7E-01
5.8E-01
l.OE+01
1.6E+00
2.1E-01
1.4E-02
6.1E-02
7.5E-02
7.0E-02
5-14
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs (continued)
CAS
Number
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
62-50-0
97-63-2
141-78-6
60-29-7
100-41-4
96-45-7
107-21-1
75-21-8
106-93-4
206-44-0
Chemical Name
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,6-
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1,2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II,
mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1,2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene thiourea
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene dibromide
(1,2-Dibromoethane)
Fluoranthene
MCL
(mg/L)
2.0E-03
7.0E-01
5.0E-05
Ingestion HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
2.1E-08
6.9E-03
1.1E-05
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
8.8E-03
1.2E-04
9.8E-03
3.3E-07
8.8E-04
9.5E-05
1.1E-06
Non-Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
4.9E-03
2.5E+00
4.9E-01
2.5E-03
4.9E-02
4.9E-02
2.5E-02
6.1E-01
9.8E-04
1.5E-01
7.3E-03
4.9E-02
9.8E+00
7.3E+00
2.2E+00
2.2E+01
4.9E+00
2.5E+00
2.0E-03
4.9E+01
9.8E-01*
Inhalation HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
3.0E-03
8.1E-01
1.8E-01
2.0E-02
1.9E-01
1.1E-02
1.6E+03
5.2E-04
8.4E-05
Non-cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
7.1E+02
1.1E+03
6.0E-02
2.4E-01
2.9E+03
3.0E+02
3.3E+00
1.2E+04
4.1E-01
9.8E-04
5-15
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs (continued)
CAS
Number
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-84-6
58-89-9
319-85-7
1024-57-3
76-44-8
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
34465-46-8
55684-94-1
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439.97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
110-49-6
109-86-4
80-62-6
78-93-3
Chemical Name
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH alpha-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH beta-
Heptachlor epoxide
Heptachlor
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
[HxCDDs]
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane N-
Hydrogen Sulfide
Indeno{ l,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl ethyl ketone
MCL
(mg/L)
4.0E+00
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
l.OE-03
5.0E-02
1.5E-02**
2.0E-03
4.0E-02
Ingestion HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.5E-05
7.4E-05
5.4E-05
1.1E-05
2.2E-05
1.2E-03
6.0E-05
6.2E-09
6.2E-09
6.9E-03
8.1E-05*
l.OE-01
Non-Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
2.9E+00
4.9e+00
4.9E+01
7.3E-02
2.0E-01
7.3E-03
3.2E-04
1.2E-02
7.3E-03
2.0E-02*
1.5E-01
2.5E-02
7.3E-03
2.7E+02*
7.3E-02
7.3E+00
4.9E+00
1.2E-02
1.2E+00
2.5E-03
2.5E-03
1.2E+01
1.2E-01*
4.9E-02
2.5E-02
3.4E+01
1.5E+01
Inhalation HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.5E+00
3.6E-04
1.6E-03
1.7E-02
2.8E-04
1.5E-05
6.1E-04
3.6E-05
1.4E-07
1.4E-07
3.3E-03
3.8E-02*
Non-cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
5.1E+01
2.2E+01
6.9E-04
6.6E-01
5.3E+02
7.0E-04
6.5E-03
1.5E+03
5.1E+02
4.4E+02
5.3E+00
3.3E+01
5-16
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs (continued)
CAS
Number
298-00-0
108-10-1
1634-04-4
56-49-5
75-09-2
74-95-3
7439.98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
55-18-5
62-75-9
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
36088-22-9
30402-15-4
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
Chemical Name
Methyl parathion
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Methylene bromide
(Dibromomethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
[PeCDDs]
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
MCL
(mg/L)
5.0E-03
l.OE-03
Ingestion HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.3E-02
1.8E-05
1.4E-05
6.4E-07
1.9E-06
2.0E-02
4.4E-06
4.6E-05
6.2E-10
1.2E-09
3.7E-04
8.1E-04
Non-Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
6.1E-03
2.0E+00
1.5E+00
2.5E-01
1.2E-01
4.9E-01
4.9E-01
1.2E-02
2.0E-04
4.9E-01
4.9E-02
1.5E-01
2.0E-02
7.3E-02
7.3E-01
1.5E+01
2.0E-03
1.5E-01
4.9E-03
4.9E+01
Inhalation HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.2E-03
2.8E-02
2.3E-05
2.0E-05
1.5E-03
4.3E-05
4.0E-04
5.2E-01
4.5E-03
8.7E-03
9.2E-01
6.0E-08
6.3E-08
5.4E+01
Non-cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.2E+00
1.7E+01
l.OE+01
1.9E-02
1.5E-01
3.3E-01
9.0E+02
1.3E+04*
5-17
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs (continued)
CAS
Number
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
1746-01-6
51207-31-9
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
106-49-0
95-53-4
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
Chemical Name
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate
(Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidine p-
Toluidine o-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro- 1 ,2,2-trifluoro-ethane 1 , 1 ,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-)
MCL
(mg/L)
5.0E-04
5.0E-02
l.OE-01
3.0E-08
5.0E-03
2.0E-03
l.OE+00
3.0E-03
8.0E-02
7.0E-02
2.0E-01
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
Ingestion HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
2.4E-04
4.0E-04
5.4E-04
6.2e-10
6.2E-09
3.7E-03
4.8E-04
1.9E-03
3.0E-05
5.1E-04
4.0E-04
8.8E-05
1.2E-02
1.7E-03
8.8E-03
Non-Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
4.9E-04
1.8E+00
7.3E-01*
2.5E-02
1.2E-01
1.2E-01
7.3E-03
4.9E+00
7.3E-03
2.5E-08
7.3E-01
1.5E+00
2.5E-01
7.3E-01
1.2E-02
2.0E-03
1.2E-01
4.9E+00
4.9E-01
7.3E+02*
2.5E-01
6.9E+00
9.8E-02
Inhalation HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
1.4E-04
1.7E-02
2.2E-09
l.OE-07
1.9E-03
5.0E-04
2.1E-02
7.5E+00
3.6E-02
3.6E-03
1.9E-02
1.1E-03
6.8E-03
Non-cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
4.9E-01
1.4E+00
3.6E+00
9.4E-01
1.3E+00
9.5E+01
8.3E-01
6.9E+00
1.9E+00
5-18
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 5.0
Table 5.4 IWEM MCLs and HBNs (continued)
CAS
Number
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
95-47-6
108-38-3
106-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
Chemical Name
Trie hlorofluoro methane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid
2-(2,4,5-(Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (Trinitrobenzene
1,3,5-) sym-
Tris(2,3 -dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene o-
Xylene m-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
MCL
(mg/L)
5.0E-02
2.0E-03
l.OE+01
Ingestion HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
8.8E-03
1.4E-05
9.9E-06
1.3E-04
Non-Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
7.3E+00
2.5E+00
2.0E-01
2.5E-01
1.5E-01
7.3E-01
1.7E-01
2.5E+01
7.3E-02
4.9E+01
4.9E+01
4.9E+01
4.9E+01
7.3E+00
Inhalation HBNs
Cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
2.8E-01
2.5E-03
Non-cancer
HBN
(mg/L)
2.1E+00
3.4E-02
1.1E-01
1.2E+00
2.9E-01
1.4E+00
1.3E+00
1.3E+00
1.4E+00
Key:
* = Value exceeds constituent's water solubility
** = Value exceeds drinking water action level as specified by 40 CFR 141.32(e)(13) and (14)
5-19
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
6.0 How Does IWEM Calculate LCTVs and Make Liner
Recommendations?
The objective of the ground-water fate and transport model is to determine the
amount of dilution and attenuation a constituent may undergo as it migrates from a WMU
to a ground-water well and determine the constituent concentration at the well. For Tier
1, once the amount of dilution and attenuation is determined, that data are used in
conjunction with RGCs (either drinking water MCLs or HBNs which reflect a
constituent's toxicity) to establish the maximum allowable leachate constituent
concentrations for wastes that can be protectively managed in a particular unit design.
We refer to these maximum allowable leachate concentrations as LCTVs. For Tier 2, the
amount of dilution and attenuation help determine an exposure concentration that can be
compared to RGCs. The dilution and attenuation also may be used to estimate an LCTV
in Tier 2. This section describes the methods we used to develop the basis for the liner
recommendations for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analysis in IWEM.
6.1 Determining Liner Recommendations Corresponding to a 90th
Percentile Exposure Concentration
Every single realization of EPACMTP in the Monte Carlo process results in a
predicted concentration at the modeled ground-water well. Because the predicted
ground-water concentrations are compared against health-based RGC's which reflect
specific exposure duration assumptions (see Section 5), the ground-water concentrations
calculated in IWEM represent time-averaged values, as depicted conceptually in Figure
6.1.
Depending on the type of RGC, the IWEM tool uses different averaging times in
calculating ground-water well concentrations, as follows:
MCL: Peak ground-water well concentration
Non-cancer HBN: Maximum 7-year average well concentration
Cancer HBN: Maximum 30-year average well concentration
At the conclusion of a Monte Carlo simulation consisting of 10,000 realizations,
the 10,000 values of predicted ground-water concentration for each specific averaging
time period are sorted from low to high into a CDF function, see Figure 6.2. In Tier 1,
the CDF represents the range in expected ground-water concentrations due to nationwide
variations in site hydrogeologic and other conditions; in Tier 2, the CDF represents the
6-1
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 6.0
Ul
c
o
c
0)
u
c
o
o
Peak
Concentration
Time
Exposure
Averaging Period
Figure 6.1 Determination of Time-Averaged
Ground-Water Well Concentration.
range in the expected location-specific ground-water concentration due to uncertainty and
variability in the local conditions.
For the development of the IWEM tool we selected the 90th percentile of the
predicted ground-water concentration CDF as the basis for determining the Tier 1 LCTVs
and as the point of comparison for the Tier 2 analysis. We based the selection of a 90th
percentile protection level on: (1) the need to have a large degree of confidence that the
results are adequately protective of human health and the environment given the degree
of uncertainty inherent in the data and the analyses; and (2) the need to choose a level of
protection that is consistent with EPA's Guidance for Risk Characterization (U.S. EPA,
1995b). The Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations are based on a high-end risk assessment which
is used to describe the risk or hazard for individuals in small, but definable segments of
the population. EPA's Guidance for Risk Characterization (U.S. EPA, 1995b) advises
that "conceptually, high-end exposure means exposure above about the 90th percentile of
the population distribution, but not higher than the individual in the population who has
the highest exposure." Use of the 90th percentile protection level in IWEM implies that,
of the modeled scenarios, 90% result in well concentrations that are lower than the
specified RGC, and thus, are considered protective for at least 90% of the cases.
By definition, the LCTV is that value of leachate concentration for which the 90th
percentile of the predicted ground-water well concentration is equal to the RGC. In the
6-2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
case of organic constituents, the well concentration is linearly proportional to the leachate
concentration input value. We used this relationship to facilitate the determination of
LCTVs. For metals constituents that are subject to nonlinear sorption processes (see
Section 4.2.4), we followed a slightly different process to determine LCTVs. The
methodologies for organics and metals are discussed in the following sections.
6.1.1 Calculating LCTVs for Organic Constituents
For organic constituents, the fate and transport equations solved by EPACMTP
are linear, which means that the magnitude of the predicted ground-water well
concentration is linearly proportional to the value of the leachate concentration. In other
words, a doubling of the EPACMTP input value of leachate concentration would result in
a doubling of the predicted ground-water well concentration, as long as all other model
parameters stay the same. This relationship can be expressed in terms of a Dilution and
Attenuation Factor (DAF):
DAF =
where:
CRW = Ground-water well concentration (mg/L)
CL = Leachate concentration (mg/L)
DAF = Dilution and attenuation factor (dimensionless)
Because both the leachate concentration and the well concentration can vary with
time, the calculation of DAF uses the maximum value of a constituent's leachate
concentration, that is, the initial concentration at the time when leaching from the WMU
begins, and uses the maximum time-average well exposure concentration (see Figure 6.1
forC,
-'RW-
The DAF accounts for the aggregate effects of all fate and transport processes
simulated by EPACMTP. The value of the DAF is constituent-specific, as well as
WMU- and liner design-specific, that is, more protective liner designs increase the value
of the DAF for a given chemical constituent. Likewise, constituents which are subject to
degradation and sorption in the subsurface will have higher DAFs than constituents
which do not react in the subsurface.
For the purpose of determining IWEM LCTVs, the IWEM tool first converts the
CDF of predicted ground-water well concentrations into an equivalent CDF of DAF
values. This is depicted schematically in Figure 6.2. The 90th percentile DAF is the DAF
value that corresponds to the 90th percentile value of the ground-water well concentration
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 6.0
for a fixed value of leachate concentration. Because the DAF is inversely related to the
ground-water well concentration, a lower DAF value indicates that the concentration at
the well is closer to the leachate concentration and this provides a higher degree of
protection. As depicted in Figure 6.2, the CDF of DAF is ordered from high to low
values, and the 90th percentile DAF is defined such that 90% of DAF values are higher
than this threshold.
10
10°
10°
I 10
10
10*
Ground water Well Co
ncentratlon
PercentllB
9O IOC
Figure 6.2 Relationship Between Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of Well
Concentrations and Dilution and Attenuation Factors (DAFs).
Because the RGCs represent acceptable threshold values for the concentration of
chemical constituents in ground water, the RGC can be substituted for CRW in the
equation above. In this case, CL then represents the allowable concentration in the
leachate, or the LCTV. Making these substitutions and rearranging to solve for the
LCTV gives us:
LCTV = DAF90 x RGC
6-4
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
where
LCTV = Leachate Concentration Threshold Value (mg/L)
DAF90 = Dilution and attenuation factor at a 90th percentile protection level
RGC = Reference ground-water concentration (mg/L)
For each organic constituent in Tier 1, we conducted one modeling run (consisting
of 10,000 realizations) per WMU and liner scenario to determine the DAF90, and then
used the equation above to calculate the Tier 1 LCTV. As we will discuss in Section 6.2,
these "raw" Tier 1 LCTVs were then subjected to several caps to determine the final Tier
1 LCTVs. The final LCTVs presented in the Tier 1 look-up tables were rounded to two
significant digits. For organic constituents, the Tier 1 LCTV tables in Appendix F
include the DAF values generated by EPACMTP.
In Tier 2, once all of the user-specified inputs have been entered, and the Monte
Carlo simulations are complete, the IWEM software constructs the CDFs of the ground-
water well concentration and the DAF, and then develops a liner recommendation by
directly comparing expected exposure concentrations to RGCs. In addition, IWEM
calculates Tier 2 LCTVs using the same equation and caps as used for Tier 1.
6.1.2 Determining LCTVs for Metals
In the case of metals constituent whose geochemical behavior is characterized by
nonlinear sorption isotherms (see Section 4.2.4), the concept of a DAF is still applicable,
but due to their nonlinear transport behavior, the metals do not have a DAF that is
constant across all leachate concentrations. Therefore, for metals, we used a slightly
different methodology to determine the Tier 1 LCTVs. For each metal constituent and
WMU/liner scenario, we ran multiple EPACMTP Monte Carlo simulations using a
number of different input values of leachate concentration. For each value of leachate
concentration we compared the 90th percentile value of the predicted well concentration
to each of the applicable RGCs until we found the leachate concentration that resulted in
10% of the simulations exceeding the given RGC - a protection level of 90%. In this
way, we determined the Tier 1 LCTVs for metals directly, without the intermediate step
of determining the DAF. For this reason, DAF values are not presented for the metals in
the Tier 1 Look-up Tables (Appendix F) in the results of the IWEM software.
For each metal constituent and WMU/liner scenario, we continued the iterative
process of running EPACMTP with different values of leachate concentration, until we
found the leachate concentration value for which the predicted ground-water
concentration would match the target RGC between 89.9 and 90.1 percentile probability,
i.e., we used a convergence tolerance of ± 0.1 percentile point. We then rounded this
convergent input leachate concentration to two significant digits and reported it as the
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
LCTV of the metal constituent for the specified liner scenario. As a quality control check
on these calculations, we performed an independent Monte Carlo simulation for each
metal LCTV, with the above value as input, and verified that the 90th percentile of the
predicted ground-water well concentrations did indeed match the target RGC, up to the
first two significant digits.
In Tier 2, the LCTV for metal constituents is an estimated value. Rather than
performing time-consuming iterative EPACMTP Monte Carlo simulations to determine
exact LCTVs, IWEM estimates values using an empirical adjustment factor of 0.85 in
order to ensure adequate protection of ground water. Tier 2 LCTVs for metals are
calculated as:
LCTV = DAF x RGC x 0.85
6.2 Capping the LCTVs
Once the raw LCTV was determined for each constituent, this value was then
subjected to the following limits:
Toxic hydrolysis transformation products cap;
1,000 (mg/L) cap; and
TC Rule cap.
6.2.1 Hydrolysis Transformation Products
For organic constituents with transformation products that are produced by
chemical hydrolysis, the final LCTV values of the parent are modified if necessary to be
protective for the daughter product(s). That is, we also calculated LCTVs for any
transformation product(s) into which the parent might hydrolyze, assuming complete
transformation. Then, if any of the daughter products was found to have a lower LCTV
than the parent, the parent LCTV was set equal to (that is, capped at) the LCTV of the
daughter. Details of the calculation procedure we used to develop the daughter product
caps are presented in the text box which follows this page.
Table 6.1 presents the IWEM constituents that have toxic hydrolysis
transformation products that are included in the IWEM Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses. We
assembled this table from information in Kollig et al. (1993) and Jeffers et al. (1989).
The last column of Table 6.1 presents the ratio of the number of moles of the daughter
product to the number of moles of the parent compound; for instance, a "1" in this
column means that one mole of the daughter is produced by the hydrolysis of one mole of
the parent, and a "2" in this column means that two moles of the daughter are produced
by the hydrolysis of one mole of the parent compound.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
In accounting for hydrolysis daughter products, we did not explicitly model the
formation, fate, and transport of transformation products along with the parent
constituent in the EPACMTP simulations, but rather made the adjustments by applying a
cap to the parent LCTV if necessary. This methodology is relatively simple and
protective because it is based on the assumption that the parent compounds are fully
transformed. In reality, the rate of hydrolysis may be quite slow with half-lives on the
order of several hundred years, and the formation of certain daughter products may also
depend on pH and other factors. When we calculated the parent LCTVs for slowly
hydrolyzing compounds we used the actual, constituent-specific hydrolysis parameters
(see Appendix B). Only when we calculated the daughter LCTVs did we assume that
100% transformation would occur.
6-7
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
Calculation Procedure to Determine Daughter Product Caps
Suppose that we have a parent chemical (P) that hydrolyzes to form two daughter products (Dl and D2). The
molecular weights of these chemicals are MW(P), MW(D1), and MW(D2). The EPACMTP-modeled DAFs are
DAF(P), DAF(l), and DAF(2). The reference ground-water concentrations for these chemicals are RGC(P),
RGC(D1), and RGC(D2). The "raw" LCTVs are calculated as the product of the modeled DAF and the given RGC;
these values are denoted as LCTV(P), LCTV(D1) and LCTV(D2) and are referred to as "raw" LCTVs because they
are the calculated values that have not yet been affected by the capping procedure. One mole of P hydrolyzes to
form n(l) moles of D(l) and n(2) moles of D(2); n(l) and n(2) are referred to as the stoichiometric factors.
For a given RGC (reference ground-water concentration, e.g., MCL, HBN), the following steps are followed to
calculate the final LCTV of the parent compound:
1. Determine the raw LCTV of the parent chemical, using the following equation:
LCTV(P) = DAF(P)x RGC(P)
2. Determine the (raw) LCTV of each daughter, using the following equations:
LCTV(Dl) = DAF(Dl) x RGC(Dl)
LCTV(D2) = DAF(D2) x RGC(D2)
3. Using the molecular weight and stoichiometric factor of each daughter, calculate the adjusted LCTV (denoted
as LCTV(P(i)*) in the equations below) of the parent based on each daughter.
ForDl:
LCTV(P(D1)*) = LCTV(Dl) x MW(P)/ (n(Dl) xMW(Dl))
ForD2:
LCTV(P(D2)*) = LCTV(D2) x MW(P)/ (n(D2) xMW(D2))
4. For each daughter, compare the adjusted LCTV of the parent based on that daughter to the uncapped LCTV of
the parent; if the adjusted LCTV of the parent is less than the uncapped LCTV of the parent, replace the uncapped
LCTV of the parent with the adjusted LCTV of the parent based on that daughter:
ForDl:
If (LCTV(P) < LCTV(D1) x MW(P)/ (n(Dl) xMW(Dl))
thenLCTV(P(D1)*) = LCTV(Dl) x MW(P)/ (n(Dl) xMW(Dl))
Otherwise LCTV(P(D1)*) = LCTV(P)
ForD2:
If (LCTV(P) < LCTV(D2) x MW(P)/ (n(D2) xMW(D2))
then LCTV(P(D2)*) = LCTV(D2) x MW(P)/ (n(D2) xMW(D2))
Otherwise LCTV(P(D2)*) = LCTV(P)
5. Compare all the adjusted LCTV of the parent, and pick the smallest value as the final LCTV of the parent:
LCTV(P) = Min (LCTV(P(D1)*), LCTV(P(D2)*))
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 6.0
Table 6.1 IWEM Constituents with Toxic Hydrolysis Transformation Products
Parent
Constituent
CAS#
107-13-1
100-44-7
74-83-9
50-29-3
80-62-6
75-09-2
79-34-5
71-55-6
79-00-5
75-34-3
107-06-2
111-44-4
58-89-9
319-84-6
630-20-6
60-51-5
131-11-3
298-00-0
Common Name
Acrylonitrile
Benzyl chloride
Bromomethane
DDT, p,p'-
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Dimethoate
Dimethyl phthalate
Methyl parathion
Transformation
Product(s)
CAS#
79-06-1
79-10-7
100-51-6
67-56-1
72-55-9
67-56-1
50-00-0
79-01-6
75-35-4
75-35-4
75-07-0
75-01-4
75-01-4
75-21-8
107-21-1
123-91-1
120-82-1
120-82-1
79-01-6
7783-06-4
67-56-1
67-56-1
67-56-1
7783-06-4
Common Name
Acrylamide
Acrylic Acid
Benzyl alcohol
Methanol
DDE
Methanol
Formaldehyde
Trichloroethylene
Dichloroethy lene 1,1-
Dichloroethy lene 1,1-
Acetaldehyde
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene Glycol
Dioxane 1,4-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethylene
hydrogen sulfide
Methanol
Methanol
Methanol
hydrogen sulfide
Molar
Ratio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
A number of daughter products that are produced by hydrolysis of these parent
compounds could not be included in the IWEM analyses due to a lack of toxicological
benchmarks for the daughter compounds. Table 6.2 presents a list of these daughter
products along with their IWEM parent constituents. Several parent constituents have
the same hydrolysis end-products, and a number of the daughters in Table 6.2 therefore
are listed with multiple parents. An example is hydrochloric acid which is a breakdown
product of a several chlorinated components.
6-9
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 6.0
Table 6.2 IWEM Daughter Constituents Without RGC Values
Daughter Constituent
CAS No.
64-19-7
7664-41-7
111-46-6
107-20-0
107-07-3
628-89-7
7647-01-0
7783-06-4
79-14-1
79-41-4
4376-18-5
100-02-7
7664-38-2
88-99-3
87-61-6
Name
Acetic acid
Ammonia
Bis(2-hydroxyethyl)ether
Chloroacetaldehyde
Chloroethanol, 2-
(2-chloroethoxy)ethanol,2-
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydroxacetic acid
Methylacrylic acid
Methylhydrogen phthalate
Nitrophenol, 2-
Phosphoric acid
Phthalic acid
Trichlorobenzene
IWEM Parent Constituent
CAS No.
71-55-6
107-13-1
111-44-4
79-00-5
107-06-2
111-44-4
100-44-7
7647-01-0
75-09-2
79-34-5
71-55-6
79-00-5
75-34-3
107-06-2
111-44-4
58-89-9
319-84-6
630-20-6
630-20-6
298-00-0
60-51-5
630-20-6
80-62-6
131-11-3
298-00-0
298-00-0
131-11-3
58-89-9
319-84-6
Name
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Acrylonitrile
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
Dichloroethane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Benzyl chloride
DDT, p,p'-
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
HCH, gamma-
HCH, alpha-
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2-
Methylparathion
Dimethoate
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2-
Methylmethacrylate
Dimethyl phthalate
Methylparathion
Methylparathion
Dimethylphthalate
HCH, gamma-
HCH, alpha-
6-10
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
6.2.2 1,000 mg/L /Cap
The second cap we applied was to limit the calculated LCTV for any constituent
at 1,000 mg/L. If the LCTV calculated from the ground-water modeling analysis is
greater than 1,000 mg/L, the LCTV will be set to 1,000 mg/L. The basis for this cap is
that leachate concentrations from nonhazardous wastes are not expected to exceed this
value. The calculated "raw" LCTVs exceeded the 1,000 mg/L cap in a significant
number of cases for composite liner designs. Review of the LCTV tables in Appendix F
shows that many of the composite liner LCTVs are capped at this value.
6.2.3 TC Rule Cap
Finally, we capped the LCTVs for the 39 constituents that are identified in the
Toxicity Characteristic Rule (TC Rule) (40 CFR 261.24; U.S. EPA, 1990) at their
regulatory TC level (see Table 6.3). The basis for applying this cap is that any waste
with leachate concentrations equal to or greater than the TC Rule regulatory level is a
characteristically hazardous waste under RCRA and state statutes.
6.3 Making Liner Recommendations
The IWEM tool allows the user to enter chemical and facility information and
automatically analyzes the results of the database query (Tier 1) or the modeling analysis
(Tier 2) to determine an appropriate WMU design that is protective of ground water.
The use and interpretation of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations are described in this
section.
When interpreting the Tier 1 and 2 liner recommendations, the following key
risk assessment issues should be kept in mind:
The IWEM HBNs correspond to a target risk of 1 x 10"6 for carcinogens
and a target HQ of 1 for noncarcinogens. These targets are used to
calculate separate HBNs for each constituent of concern, and separate
HBNs for each exposure route of concern (ingestion or inhalation).
The Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations do not consider combined exposure
from ground-water ingestion (from drinking water) and ground-water
inhalation (from showering), nor do they consider the potential for
additive exposure to multiple constituents. Therefore, use caution
when evaluating multiple constituents that have similar fate and
transport characteristics (e.g., similar kds and hydrolysis rates), as well
as constituents with non-cancer health effects associated with the same
target organ.
6-11
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Section 6.0
Table 6.3 Toxicity Characteristic Regulatory Levels (U.S. EPA, 1990)
Constituent
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chromium
o-Cresol
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
Cresol
2,4-D
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethy lene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Endrin
Heptachlor
TC Rule Leachate
Concentration
Limit
(mg/L)
5.0
100
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.03
100
6.0
5.0
200
200
200
200
10.0
7.5
0.5
0.7
0.13
0.02
0.008
Constituent
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Hexachloroethane
Lead
Lindane
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Methyl ethyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pyridine
Selenium
Silver
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-TP Acid (Silvex)
Vinyl chloride
TC Rule Leachate
Concentration
Limit
(mg/L)
0.13
0.5
3.0
5.0
0.4
0.2
10.0
200.0
2.0
100.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
0.7
0.5
0.5
400
2.0
1.0
0.2
Usually, doses less than the RfD (HQ=1) are not likely to be associated with
adverse health effects and, therefore, are less likely to be of regulatory
concern. As the frequency and/or magnitude of the exposures exceeding the
RfD increase (HQ>1), the probability of adverse effects in a human
population increases. However, it should not be categorically concluded
that all doses below the RfD are "acceptable" (or will be risk-free) and that
all doses in excess of the RfD are "unacceptable" (or will result in adverse
effects).
6.3.1 Use and Interpretation of Tier 1 Evaluation
The Tier 1 evaluation is intended to provide a rapid, national-scale screening
assessment to determine if a proposed WMU design will be protective of human health
and the environment.
6-12
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
In a Tier 1 analysis, the potential impact that a WMU may have on ground-water
resources is characterized by comparing the expected constituent leachate concentration
(based on the TCLP or another appropriate leachate test method) to the calculated LCTV
in the appropriate look-up table. That is, the Tier 1 user only needs to know the type of
WMU to be evaluated, the chemical constituents expected in the waste (these
constituents are chosen from a list provided in the IWEM software), and their expected
leachate concentrations. EPA has performed the Tier 1 Monte Carlo simulations for each
of the IWEM constituents and assembled the results into Tier 1 LCTV look-up tables.
An electronic version of these look-up tables is included in the IWEM software as the
Tier 1 Evaluation, and a printed copy of the tables are included in Appendix F of this
document. This appendix presents LCTV values corresponding to each of the available
RCGs for each constituent, that is LCTVs based on MCLs as well as on ingestion and
inhalation cancer and non-cancer HBNs. Where a RGC is not available, for instance, a
constituent does not have an inhalation HBN, the LCTV entry in the table is left blank.
The IWEM Tier 1 evaluation automatically performs the required comparisons of
leachate concentration to all of the LCTVs for each waste constituent and liner scenario.
The result of this comparison determines the recommended liner system for the WMU or
determines whether land application of this waste is appropriate (that is, determines
whether the waste constituent concentrations will not exceed HBNs at a well if a
particular WMU design is implemented). In Tier 1, the results of the evaluation are
presented in terms of a MCL summary and a HBN summary. The HBNs summary
reflects the liner recommendation based on the most protective, that is the lowest, HBN
available for each constituent.
If the user-identified leachate concentrations for all constituents are lower than
the corresponding no-liner LCTVs in the look-up table, then no liner is recommended as
being sufficiently protective of ground water. If any leachate concentration is higher than
the corresponding no-liner LCTV, then a minimum of a single clay liner is
recommended. If any leachate concentration is higher than the corresponding single-liner
LCTV, then a minimum of a composite liner is recommended. If any concentration is
higher than the composite liner, consider pollution prevention, treatment, or additional
controls. For waste streams with multiple constituents, the most protective minimum
recommended liner that is specified for any one constituent is the recommended liner
design.
After conducting a Tier 1 analysis, the user can choose to implement the Tier 1
recommendation by designing the unit based on the liner recommendations given by the
IWEM software. If the user chooses to implement the Tier 1 recommendation,
consultation with state authorities is recommended to ensure compliance with state
regulations, which may require more protective measures than the Tier 1 lookup tables
recommend. Alternatively, if the waste has one or very few "problem" constituents that
call for a more stringent and costly liner system (or which make land application
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
inappropriate), evaluate pollution prevention, recycling, and treatment efforts for those
constituents.
If, after conducting the Tier 1 analysis, the user is not satisfied with the resulting
recommendations or if site-specific conditions seem likely to support the use of a liner
design different from the one recommended (or suggest a different conclusion regarding
the appropriateness of land application of a waste), then the user can proceed to the Tier
2 analysis or conduct a site-specific ground-water fate and transport analysis (Tier 3).
6.3.2 Use and Interpretation of Tier 2 Evaluation
The Tier 2 analysis is designed to provide user-friendly software that allows users
to input location-specific data for a number of EPACMTP input parameters and quickly
determine if a proposed WMU design will be protective of human health and the
environment.
As with Tier 1, the IWEM software provides the Tier 2 user with a list of
constituents commonly encountered when managing industrial waste, along with the
opportunity to input constituent-specific data that are necessary for a Tier 2 analysis (for
examples parameters such as decay rate and sorption coefficients, as well as HBNs
and/or MCLs). The IWEM Tier 2 evaluation also allows the user to define new
chemicals and enter the required chemical property data, including user-specified RGCs.
Once the list of constituents and their chemical data have been specified, the user is
requested to input location-specific data, where available, and to document the source of
these data. In Tier 2, the user also selects the type of RGC to be used in the evaluation.
This can be MCL, HBN, or all available. If the user selects one type of RGC, IWEM
performs the evaluation only for that RGC. If all available RGCs are selected, then all
are considered in the evaluation and the final liner recommendation will be based on the
most protective, that is the lowest, RGC for each constituent.
After entering the available data, the EPACMTP model is automatically launched
by the IWEM software. In Tier 2, EPACMTP will perform Monte Carlo simulations,
comprising 10,000 model realizations for each waste constituent and liner design, in
order to determine the minimum recommended liner design at a 90th percentile protection
level. The Monte Carlo simulations can be computationally demanding, and an
evaluation of multiple liner designs for a single waste constituent can take several hours.
In order to optimize the computational process, IWEM will first perform the liner
evaluations from least protective (no-liner) to most protective (composite liner). If
during this process, IWEM identifies a liner design that is protective for all constituents
(for instance, a single clay liner), it will stop the evaluation process, and not evaluate
more protective designs (in the example case, it would skip the composite liner
evaluation). Once the modeling analyses are complete, the user is provided with
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 6.0
recommendations regarding whether or not a specific liner type for a WMU is protective
based on the modeled 90th percentile exposure concentrations using the location-specific
data and the RGCs for the chemicals of concern.
After conducting the Tier 2 Evaluation, you can choose to implement the Tier 2
recommendation by designing the unit based on the liner recommendations given by the
IWEM software or continue to a Tier 3 analysis. If the user chooses to implement the
Tier 2 recommendation, consultation with state authorities is recommended to ensure
compliance with state regulations, which may require more protective measures than the
Tier 2 results recommend. Alternatively, if the waste has one or very few "problem"
constituents that call for a more stringent and costly liner system (or which make land
application inappropriate), evaluate pollution prevention, recycling, and treatment efforts
for those constituents. If you are not satisfied with the resulting recommendations or if
site-specific conditions seem likely to support the use of a liner design different from the
one recommended (or suggest a different conclusion regarding the appropriateness of
land application of a waste), then you may wish to consider a fully site-specific ground-
water fate and transport analysis (Tier 3).
6-15
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 7.0
7.0 REFERENCES
ABB Environmental Services, 1995. Estimation of Leachate Rates from Industrial Waste
Management Facilities. August, 1995.
Bonaparte, R., J. P. Giroud, and B.A. Cross, 1989. Rates of leakage through landfill
liners. Geosynthetics 1989 Conference, San Diego, California.
Burnett, R.D. and E.O. Frind, 1987. Simulation of contaminant transport in three
dimensions. 2. Dimensionality effects. Water Resources Research 23(4): 695-
705.
Carsel, R.F., and R.S. Parrish, 1988. Developing joint probability distributions of soil
water retention characteristics. Water Resources Research 29:755-770.
Coburn, J., 1996. Memo to Dana Greenwood on Emission Flux Equations for
Showering, July 1.
Davis, S. N., 1969. Porosity and permeability of natural materials. In Flow Through
Porous Media, R. J. M. de Wiest, Editor, Academic Press, NY.
de Marsily, G., 1986. Quantitative Hydrogeology - Groundwater hydrology for
Engineers. Academic Press, 44 pp.
EPRI, 1986. Physiochemical Measurements of Soils at Solid Waste Disposal Sites.
Electric Power Research Institute, prepared by Battelle, Pacific Northwest
Laboratories, Richland, WA, EPRI EA-4417.
Gelhar, L.W., A. Mantoglou, C. Welty, and K.R. Rehfeldt, 1985. A review of field scale
physical solute transport processes in saturated and unsaturated porous media.
Report EPRI-EA-4190. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Gintautas, P.A., K.A. Huyck, S.R. Daniel, andD.L. Macalady, 1993. Metal-Organic
Interactions in Subtitle D Landfill Leachates and Associated Groundwaters, in
Metals in Groundwaters, H.E. Allen, E.M. Perdue, and D.S. Brown, eds. Lewis
Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI.
Heath, R.C., 1984. Ground-Water Regions of the United States. United States
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2242, 78 pp.
7-1
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 7.0
Jeffers, P.M., L.M. Ward, L.M. Woytowitch, and N.L. Wolfe, 1989. "Homogeneous
Hydrolysis Rate Constants for Selected Chlorinated Methanes, Ethanes, Ethenes,
and Propanes." Environ. Sci. Technol. 23, 965-969.
Jury, W.A., W.R. Gardner, and W.H. Gardner, 1991. Soil Physics. J. Wiley and Sons,
327 pp.
Kollig et al, 1993. Environmental Fate Constants for Organic Chemicals Under
Consideration for EPA's Hazardous Waste Identification Projects. Report No.
EPA/600/R-93/132. Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA 30605.
Lambe, T.W., and Whitman, R.V., 1969. Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons.
Little, J.C., 1992a. Applying the two resistance theory to constituent volatilization in
showers. Environmental Science and Technology 26(7):1341-1349.
Little, J.C., 1992b. Applying the two resistance theory to constituent volatilization in
showers. Environmental Science and Technology 26(4); 836-837.
Mathur, S. S., 1995. Development of a Database for Ion Sorption on Goethite Using
Surface Complexation Modeling. Master's Thesis, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
McKone, I.E., 1987. Human exposure to volatile organic compounds in household tap
water: The indoor inhalation pathway. Environmental Science and Technology
21:1194-1201.
McWorther, D. B., and D. K. Sunada, 1977. Groundwater Hydrology and Hydraulics,
Water Resources Publications, Fort Collins, CO.
Newell, C., J.M., L. P. Hopkins, and P. B. Bedient, 1989. Hydrogeologic Database for
Ground Water Modeling. API Publication No. 4476. American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, DC 20005.
Rollin, A.L., M. Marcotte, T. Jacquelin, and L. Chaput, 1999. Leak location in exposed
geomembrane liners using an electrical leak detection technique. Geosynthetics
'99: Specifying Geosynthetics and Developing Design Details, Vol. 2, pp 615-
626.
7-2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 7.0
Schroeder, P.R., T.S., Dozier, P.A. Zappi, B.M. McEnroe, J. W. Sjostrom, and R.L.
Peton, 1994. The hydrologic evaluation of landfill performance model (HELP):
Engineering Documentation for Version 3. EPA/600/R-94/1686. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Shea, J.H., 1974. Deficiencies of elastic particles of certain sizes, Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology 44:985-1003.
Susetyo, W., L.A. Carreira, L.V. Azarraga, andD.M. Grimm, 1991. Fluorescence
techniques for metal-humic interactions. Fresenius J Anal Chem, 339:624-635.
TetraTech, Inc., 2001. Characterization of infiltration rate data to support groundwater
modeling efforts (Draft). Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Contract No. 68-W6-0061, May, 2001.
Todd, O.K., 1980. Groundwater Hydrology (2nd edition), John Wiley & Sons, 535 pages.
U.S. EPA, 1985. DRASTIC: A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground Water
Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeologic Settings. EPA/600-2-85/018,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1986. Industrial Subtitle D Facility Study (Telephone Survey), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October, 1986.
U.S. EPA, 1990. Toxicity Characteristic Final Rule. 55 FR 11796. March 29, 1990.
U.S. EPA, 199 la. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 -Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Goals).
EPA/540/R-92/003. Interim Draft. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1991b. MINTEQA2/PRODEFA2, A Geochemical Assessment Model for
Environmental Systems: Version 3.0 User's Manual EPA/600/3-91/021, Office
of Research and Development, Athens, Georgia 30605.
U.S. EPA, 1992. 57 Federal Register 22888. Final Guidelines for Exposure Assessment.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 29.
U.S. EPA, 1995a. Hazardous Waste: Identification and Listing; Proposed Rule. 40
CFR Parts 260, 261, 266, and 268.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Section 7.0
U.S. EPA, 1995b. Guidance for Risk Characterization. Science Policy Council, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February.
U.S. EPA, 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document.
EPA/540/R95/128. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. May.
U.S. EPA, 1997'a. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume I, General Factors.
EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1997b. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 11, FoodIngestion Factors.
EPA/600/P-95/002Fb. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1997c. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume III, Activity Factors.
EPA/600/P-95/002Fc. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 2000. Volatilization Rates from Water to Indoor Air, Phase II. EPA/600/R-
00/096. National Center for Environmental Assessment-Washington Office,
Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. October.
U.S. EPA, 2001. Industrial Surface Impoundments in the United States. U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC 20460. USEPA 530-R-01-005.
U.S. EPA, 2002a. EPACMTP Technical Background Document. Office of Solid Waste,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 2002b. EPACMTP Parameters/Data BackgroundDocument. Office of Solid
Waste, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 2002c. IWEM User's Guide. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.
7-4
-------
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
GLOSSARY
Adsorption - Adherence of molecules in solution to the surface of solids.
Adsorption isotherm - The relationship between the concentration of constituent in
solution and the amount adsorbed at constant temperature.
Advection - The process whereby solutes are transported by the bulk mass of flowing
fluid.
Alluvium - The general name for all sediments, including clay, silt, sand, gravel or
similar unconsolidated material deposited in a sorted or semi-sorted condition by a
stream or other body of running water, in a stream bed, floodplain, delta or at the base of
a mountain slope as a fan.
Anisotropy - The condition of having different properties in different directions.
Aquifer - A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that contains
sufficient saturated permeable material to yield significant quantities of water to wells
and springs.
Aquifer system - A body of permeable material that functions regionally as a
water-yielding unit; it comprises two or more permeable beds separated at least locally
by confining beds that impede ground-water movement but do not greatly affect the
regional hydraulic continuity of the system; includes both saturated and unsaturated parts
of permeable material.
Area of influence of a well - The area surrounding a pumping or recharging well within
which the potentiometric surface has been changed.
Breakthrough curve - A graph of concentration versus time at a fixed location.
Cancer slope factor (CFS) - An upper bound estimate, approximating a 95% confidence
limit, on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime exposure to an agent. This estimate,
usually expressed in units of proportion (of a population) affected per mg/kg/day, is
generally reserved for use in the low-dose region of the dose-response relationship, that
is, for exposures corresponding to risks less than 1 in 100.
Cation exchange capacity - The sum total of exchangeable cations that a porous
medium can absorb. Expressed in moles of ion charge per kilogram of soil.
A-l
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Chronic daily intake (GDI) - Exposure expressed as mass of a substance contacted per
unit body weight per unit time, averaged over a long period of time.
Confined - A modifier that describes a condition in which the potentiometric surface is
above the top of the aquifer.
Confined aquifer - An aquifer bounded above and below by impermeable beds or by
beds of distinctly lower permeability than that of the aquifer itself; an aquifer containing
confined ground water.
Confining unit - A body of impermeable or distinctly less permeable material which
separates water-bearing layers.
Darcian velocity - The rate of ground-water flow per unit area of porous or fractured
media measured perpendicular to the direction of flow. See specific discharge.
Darcy's law - An empirical law which states that the velocity of flow through porous
medium is directly proportional to the hydraulic gradient.
Desorption - Removal of a substance adsorbed to the surface of an adsorbent. Also, the
reverse process of sorption.
Diffusion - Spreading of solutes from regions of higher concentration to regions of lower
concentration caused by the concentration gradient. In slow-moving ground water, this
can be a significant mixing process.
Diffusion coefficient - The rate at which solutes are transported at the microscopic level
due to variations in the solute concentrations within the fluid phases.
Dispersion coefficient - A measure of the tendency of a plume of dissolved constituents
in ground water to spread. Equal to the sum of the coefficients of mechanical dispersion
and molecular diffusion in a porous medium.
Dispersion, longitudinal - Process whereby some of the water molecules and solute
molecules travel more rapidly than the average linear velocity and some travel more
slowly. Results in the spreading of the solute in the direction of the bulk flow.
Dispersion, transverse - Process whereby some of the water molecules and solute
molecules spread in directions perpendicular to the bulk flow.
A-2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Dispersivity - A geometric property of a porous medium that determines the dispersion
characteristics of the medium by relating the components of pore velocity to the
dispersion coefficient.
Distribution coefficient - The quantity of a constituent sorbed by a solid per unit weight
of solid divided by the quantity dissolved in water per unit volume of water.
Dose-response relationship - The relationship between a quantified exposure (dose),
and the proportion of subjects demonstrating specific, biological changes (response).
Evapotranspiration - The combined loss of water from a given area by evaporation
from the land and transpiration from plants.
Exposure pathway - The course a chemical or physical agent takes from a source to an
exposed organism. An exposure pathway describes a unique mechanism by which an
individual or population is exposed to chemicals or physical agents at, or originating
from, a site. Each exposure pathway includes a source or release from a source, an
exposure point, and an exposure route. If the exposure point differs from the source,
transport/exposure medium (e.g., water) or media (in case of intermedia transfer) also is
included.
Exposure point - A location of potential contact between an organism and a chemical or
physical agent.
Exposure point concentration - an estimate of the of the arithmetic average
concentration of a contaminant at a exposure point.
Flow, steady - A characteristic of a flow system where the magnitude and direction of
specific discharge are constant in time at any point. See also flow, unsteady.
Flow, uniform - A characteristic of a flow system where specific discharge has the same
magnitude and direction at any point.
Flow, unsteady - A characteristic of a flow system where the magnitude and/or direction
of the flow rate changes with time.
Flow velocity - The rate of ground-water flow per unit area of porous or fractured media
measured perpendicular to the direction of flow. See specific discharge.
Flux - The rate of ground-water flow per unit area of porous or fractured media measured
perpendicular to the direction of flow. See specific discharge.
Fracture - A break or crack in the bedrock.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Geohydrologic system - The geohydrologic units within a geologic setting, including
any recharge, discharge, interconnections between units, and any natural or
human-induced processes or events that could affect ground-water flow within or among
those units. See ground-water system.
Geohydrologic unit - An aquifer, a confining unit, or a combination of aquifers and
confining units comprising a framework for a reasonably distinct geohydrologic system.
See hydrogeologic unit.
Ground water - Water present below the land surface in a zone of saturation. Ground
water is the water contained within an aquifer.
Ground water, confined - Ground water under pressure significantly greater than
atmospheric and whose upper limit is the bottom of a confining unit.
Ground-water discharge - Flow of water out of the zone of saturation.
Ground-water flow - The movement of water in the zone of saturation.
Ground-water flux - The rate of ground-water flow per unit area of porous or fractured
media measured perpendicular to the direction of flow. See specific discharge.
Ground-water mound - A raised area in a water table or potentiometric surface created
by ground-water recharge.
Ground-water recharge - The process of water addition to the saturated zone or the
volume of water added by this process.
Ground-water system - A ground-water reservoir and its contained water. Also, the
collective hydrodynamic and geochemical processes at work in the reservoir.
Ground-water table - That surface below which rock, gravel, sand or other material is
saturated. It is the surface of a body of unconfmed ground water at which the pressure is
atmospheric. Also called water table; synonymous with phreatic surface.
Ground-water travel time - The time required for a unit volume of ground water or
solute to travel between two locations. The travel time is the length of the flow path
divided by the pore water velocity. If discrete segments of the flow path have different
hydrologic properties, the total travel time will be the sum of the travel times for each
discrete segment.
A-4
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Ground water, unconfined - Water in an aquifer that has a water table. See also ground
water, confined.
Hazard quotient - The ratio of a single contaminant exposure level over a specified time
period to a reference dose for that contaminant derived from a similar period.
Health-based number (HBN) - The maximum constituent concentration in ground
water that is expected to not usually cause adverse noncancer health effects in the general
population (including sensitive subgroups), or that will not result in an additional
incidence of cancer in more than approximately one in one million individuals exposed to
the contaminant.
Heterogeneity - A characteristic of a medium in which material properties vary
throughout the medium.
Homogeneity - A characteristic of a medium in which material properties are identical
throughout the medium.
Hydraulic conductivity - A coefficient of proportionality describing the rate at which
water can move through an aquifer or other permeable medium. Synonymous with
permeability.
Hydraulic gradient - Slope of the water table or potentiometric surface.
Hydraulic head - The level to which water rises in a well with reference to a datum such
as sea level.
Hydrodynamic dispersion - The spreading of the solute front during ground-water
plume transport resulting from both mechanical dispersion and molecular diffusion.
Synonymous with mechanical dispersion.
Hydrogeologic unit - Any soil or rock unit or zone that by virtue of its porosity or
permeability, or lack thereof, has a distinct influence on the storage or movement of
ground water.
Hydrologic properties - Those properties of a rock that govern the entrance of water and
the capacity to hold, transmit, and deliver water. Hydrologic properties include porosity,
effective porosity, and permeability.
Hydrolysis - The splitting (lysis) of a compound by a reaction with water. Example are
the reaction of salts with water to produce solutions that are not neutral, and the reaction
of an ester with water.
A-5
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Hydrostratigraphic unit - See hydrogeologic unit.
Igneous rocks - Rocks that solidified from molten or partly molten materials, that is from
a magma or lava.
Immiscible - The chemical property of two or more phases that, at mutual equilibrium,
cannot dissolve completely in one another, for example, oil and water.
Impermeable - A characteristic of some geologic material that limits its ability to
transmit significant quantities of water under the head differences ordinarily found in the
subsurface.
Infiltration - The downward entry of water into the soil or rock, specifically from a
waste management unit.
Isotropy - The condition in which the property or properties of interest are the same in
all directions.
Leachate - A liquid that has percolated through waste and has extracted dissolved or
suspended materials.
Leaching - Separation or dissolving out of soluble constituents from a waste by
percolation of water.
Matrix - The solid particles in a porous system and their spatial arrangement. Often used
in contrast to the pore space in a porous system.
Matrix diffusion - The tendency of solutes to diffuse from the larger pores in the system
into small pores inside the solid matrix from where they can be removed only very
slowly.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) - Legally enforceable standards regulating the
maximum allowed amount of certain chemicals in drinking water.
Mechanical dispersion - The process whereby solutes are mechanically mixed during
advective transport caused by the velocity variations at the microscopic level.
Synonymous with hydrodynamic dispersion.
Metamorphic rocks - Any rock derived from pre-existing rocks by mineralogical,
chemical, and/or structural changes, essentially in the solid state, in response to marked
changes in temperature, pressure, shearing stress, and chemical environment, generally at
depth in the Earth's crust.
A-6
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Miscible - The chemical property of two or more fluid phases that, when brought
together, have the ability to mix and form one phase.
Model - A simplified representation of a physical system obeying certain specified
conditions, whose behavior is used to understand the real world system. Often, the model
is a mathematical representation, programmed into a computer.
Moisture content - The ratio of either (a) the weight of water to the weight of solid
particles expressed as moisture weight percentage or (b) the volume of water to the
volume of solid particles expressed as moisture volume percentage in a given volume of
porous medium. See water content.
Molecular diffusion - The process in which solutes are transported at the microscopic
level due to variations in the solute concentrations within the fluid phases. See diffusion.
Monte Carlo simulation - A method that produces a statistical estimate of a quantity by
taking many random samples from an assumed probability distribution, such as a normal
distribution. The method is typically used when experimentation is infeasible or when
the actual input values are difficult or impossible to obtain.
Mounding - Commonly, an outward and upward expansion of the free water table
caused by surface infiltration or recharge.
Outwash deposits - Stratified drift deposited by meltwater streams flowing away from
melting ice.
Overburden - The layer of fragmental and unconsolidated material including loose soil,
silt, sand and gravel overlying bedrock, which has been either transported from elsewhere
or formed in place.
Permeability - The property of a porous medium to transmit fluids under an hydraulic
gradient.
Permeable - The property of a porous medium to allow the easy passage of a fluid
through it.
pH - A numerical measure of the acidity or alkalinity of water ranging from 0 to 14.
Neutral waters have pH near 7. Acidic waters have pH less than 7 and alkaline waters
have pH greater than 7.
Pore-water velocity - Average velocity of water particles. Equals the Darcian velocity
divided by the effective porosity. Synonymous with seepage velocity.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Porosity - The ratio, usually expressed as a percentage, of the total volume of voids (or
pores) of a given porous medium to the total volume of the porous medium.
Porosity, effective - The ratio, usually expressed as a percentage, of the total volume of
voids (or pores) available for fluid transmission to the total volume of the porous
medium.
Receptor - The potentially exposed individual for the exposure pathway considered.
Recharge - The process of addition of water to the saturated zone; also the water added.
In IWEM, recharge is the result of natural precipitation around a waste management unit.
Reference concentration (RfC) - An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an
order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from a NOAEL, LOAEL, or
benchmark concentration, with uncertainty factors generally applied to reflect limitations
of the data used. Generally used in EPA's noncancer health assessments.
Reference Dose (RfD) - An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of
magnitude) of a daily oral or dermal exposure to the human population (including
sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects
during a lifetime.
Retardation factor - The ratio of the average linear velocity of ground water to the
velocity of a dissolved constituent. A value greater than one indicates that the constituent
moves more slowly than water, usually caused by sorption.
Risk - The probability that a constituent will cause an adverse effect in exposed humans
or to the environment.
Risk assessment - The process used to determine the risk posed by contaminants
released into the environment. Elements include identification of the contaminants
present in the environmental media, assessment of exposure and exposure pathways,
assessment of the toxicity of the contaminants present at the site, characterization of
human health risks, and characterization of the impacts or risks to the environment.
Saturated Zone - The part of the water bearing layer of rock or soil in which all spaces,
large or small, are filled with water.
Sedimentary rocks - Rocks formed from consolidation of loose sediments such as clay,
silt, sand, and gravel.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Seepage velocity - See pore-water velocity.
Soil bulk density - The mass of dry soil per unit bulk soil.
Soil moisture - Subsurface liquid water in the unsaturated zone expressed as a fraction of
the total porous medium volume occupied by water. It is less than or equal to the
porosity.
Solubility - The total amount of solute species that will remain indefinitely in a solution
maintained at constant temperature and pressure in contact with the solid crystals from
which the solutes were derived.
Solute transport - The net flux of solute (dissolved constituent) through a hydrogeologic
unit controlled by the flow of subsurface water and transport mechanisms.
Sorption - A general term used to encompass the process of adsorption.
Source term - The kinds and amounts of constituents that make up the source of a
potential release.
Specific discharge - The rate of discharge of ground water per unit area of a porous
medium measured at right angle to the direction of flow. Synonymous with Darcian
velocity, or (specific) flux.
Till - Till consists of a generally unconsolidated, unsorted, unstratified heterogeneous
mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel and boulders of different sizes and shapes. Till is
deposited directly by and underneath glacial ice without subsequent reworking by
meltwater.
Toxicity - The degree to which a chemical substance elicits a deleterious or adverse
effect on a biological system of an organism exposed to the substance over a designated
time period.
Transient flow - See flow, unsteady.
Transmissivity - The rate at which water is transmitted through a unit width of the
aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient. It is equal to an integration of the hydraulic
conductivities across the saturated part of the aquifer perpendicular to the flow paths.
Transport - Conveyance of dissolved constituents and particulates in flow systems. See
also solute transport.
A-9
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix A
Unconfined - A condition in which the upper surface of the zone of saturation forms a
water table under atmospheric pressure.
Unconfined aquifer - An aquifer that has a water table.
Unconsolidated deposits - Deposits overlying bedrock and consisting of soil, silt, sand,
gravel and other material which have either been formed in place or have been
transported in from elsewhere.
Unsaturated flow - The movement of water in a porous medium in which the pore
spaces are not filled to capacity with water.
Unsaturated zone - The subsurface zone between the water table and the land surface
where some of the spaces between the soil particles are filled with air.
Vadose zone - See unsaturated zone.
Volatiles - Substances with relatively large vapor pressures that easily volatilize when in
contact with air.
Water content - The amount of water lost from the soil after drying it to constant weight
at 105 °C, expressed either as the weight of water per unit weight of dry soil or as the
volume of water per unit bulk volume of soil. See also moisture content.
Water table - The upper surface of a zone of saturation except where that surface is
formed by a confining unit. The water pressure at the water table equals atmospheric
pressure.
Water table aquifer - See unconfined aquifer.
Well - A bored, drilled or driven shaft, or a dug hole extending from the ground surface
into the ground water, that is used to inject (injection well) or extract ground water.
Well screen - A cylindrical filter used to prevent sediment from entering a water well.
There are several types of well screens, which can be ordered in various slot widths,
selected on the basis of the grain size of the aquifer material where the well screen is to
be located. In very fine grained aquifers, a zone of fine gravel or coarse sand may be
required to act as a filter between the screen and the aquifer.
A-10
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF IWEM WASTE CONSTITUENTS AND DEFAULT
CHEMICAL PROPERTY DATA
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Table B-l: Constituent Chemical Properties
CAS
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
Constituent Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acidl
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1,3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-l,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloridel
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
Chloropropene 3- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a,h}anthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Molecular
Weight
(g/mol)
(a)
154.2
44.1
58.1
41.1
120.2
56.1
71.1
72.1
53.1
364.9
58.1
93.1
178.2
121.8
74.9
137.3
228.3
78.1
184.2
252.3
252.3
108.1
126.6
9.0
143.0
171.1
390.6
163.8
94.9
54.1
74.1
312.4
240.2
112.4
76.1
153.8
409.8
88.5
127.6
112.6
325.2
208.3
64.5
119.4
50.5
128.6
76.5
52.0
52.0
228.3
58.9
63.5
108.1
108.1
108.1
324.4
120.2
100.2
98.1
320.0
318.0
354.5
270.2
278.4
236.3
147.0
147.0
253.1
Solubility
(mg/L)
(b)
4.24
1.0E+06(e)
1.0E+06(e)
1.0E+06(e)
6.13E+03
2.13E+05
6.4E+05
1.0E+06(e)
7.4E+04
0.18
1.0E+06(e)
3.6E+04
4.3E-02
9.4E-03
1.75E+03
500.0
1.62E-03
1.5E-03
4.0E+04
525.00
1.72E+04
1.31E+03
0.34
6.74E+03
1.52E+04
735.00
7.4E+04
2.69
52.00
1.19E+03
793.00
0.06
1.74E+03
5.3E+03
472.00
11.10
2.6E+03
5.68E+03
7.92E+03
5.33E+03
2.2E+04
3.37E+03
1.6E-03
2.27E+04
2.6E+04
2.15E+04
2.34E+04
61.30
4.3E+04 (e)
5.0E+03
0.09
0.12
0.03
40.00
0.00
1.23E+03
156.00
73.80
3.11
LogK,,
(log[mL/g])
(c)
3.75
-0.21 (h)
-0.59
-0.71
1.26
-0.22
-0.99
-1.84
-0.09
6.18
1 .47 (e)
0.60
4.21
5.34
1.80
1.26
5.80
5.80
0.78
2.84
0.80
2.39
7.13
1.77
0.76
2.06 (e)
0.50
4.23
2.02
1.84
2.41
5.89
1.74
1.61
2.58
4.04
1.91
0.51
1.58
0.91
1.82
1.13
5.34
1.76
1.76
1.76
2.12
3.40
l.H(B)
1.82
5.89
6.64
6.59
4.17
6.52
1.94
3.08
3.05
3.32
Hydrolysis Rate Constants (c)
Acid
Catalyzed
(Ka)
(1/mol/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
31.5
0
500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Neutral
(Kn)
(i/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
6.7E+08
0.018
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
410
0.23
0
9.46
0
0
0
0
0.017
0
0
0
0
0
0
l.OE-04
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.025
0
0.06
0.1
0
4.0E-03
0
0
0
Base
Catalyzed
(Kb)
(1/mol/yr)
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
5.2E+03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 .4E+03
5.0E+04
0
0
1.2E+05
0
31500
0
37.7
0
0
0
2.8E+06
2.5E+04
0
2740
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.2E+04
0
3.1E+05
8.0E+03
0
1.2E+05
0
0
0
Diffusion
Coefficient
in Water
(Dw)
(m2/yr)
(d)
0.0426
0.0363
0.0445
0.0385
0.0397
0.0378
0.0388
0.0184
0.0319
0.0186(1)
0.0325
0.0239
0.0208
0.0174(i)
0.0278
0.0275
0.0233
0.0132
0.0337
0.0426
0.0325
0.041
0.0308
0.0172
0.0315
0.0299
0.0173
0.0334
0.0366
0.0344
0.0429
0.0299
0.0341
0.0213
0.0294
0.0311
0.0291
0.0299
0.0248
0.0295
0.014
0.019
0.0281
0.0281
0.0274
0.0173(1)
B-l-1
-------
Table B-l: Constituent Chemical Properties
CAS
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
156-59-2
156-60-5
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
Constituent Name
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 1 2)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans- 1,2-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene l,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF1
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1,2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II,mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1,2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Hep tachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFsl
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDsl
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
Indeno{l,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Molecular
Weight
(g/mol)
(a)
120.9
99.0
99.0
96.9
96.9
96.9
163.0
221.0
113.0
111.0
111.0
111.0
380.9
222.2
268.4
229.2
0.0
73.1
256.3
212.3
122.2
278.3
168.1
184.1
182.1
182.1
390.6
88.1
169.2
184.2
274.4
406.9
380.9
92.5
72.1
90.1
132.2
88.1
74.1
114.1
124.2
106.2
187.9
62.1
44.1
102.2
202.3
19.0
30.0
46.0
96.1
290.8
290.8
290.8
373.3
389.3
260.8
284.8
272.8
374.9
390.9
236.7
406.9
86.2
34.1
276.3
74.1
138.2
Solubility
(mg/L)
(b)
280.00
5.06E+03
8.52E+03
2.25E+03
3.5E+03
6.3E+03
4.5E+03
677.00
2.8E+03
2.8E+03
2.72E+03
2.72E+03
0.20
1.08E+03
0.10
2.5E+04
60.00
1.0E+06(g)
2.50E-02
1.3E+03
7.87E+03
11.20
861.00
2.79E+03
270.00
182.00
0.02
1.0E+06(e)
35.70
68.00
16.30
0.51
0.25
6.59E+04
9.5E+04 (e)
1.0E+06(e)
2.29E+05 (g)
8.03E+04
5.68E+04
3.67E+03
6.3E+03
169.00
4.18E+03
1.0E+06(e)
1.0E+06(e)
6.2E+04
0.21
5.5E+05
1.0E+06(e)
1.1E+05
0.24
6.80
2.00
0.18
0.20
3.23
0.01
1.80
8.25E-06(fl
4.0E-06 (fl
50.00
140.00
12.40
437.00
2.2E-05
8.5E+04
1.2E+04
LogK,,
(log[mL/g])
(c)
2.16
1.46
1.13
1.79
1.70
1.60
2.49
0.68
1.67
1.43
1.80
1.80
5.08
1.99
4.09
0.13
1.49
-0.99 (h)
6.64
2.55
2.29
4.37
1.31
-0.09
1.68
1.40
7.60
-0.81
3.30
2.82
2.94
3.55
4.60
-0.53
0.90 (e)
-0.54
0.70 (g)
0.35
0.55
1.27
-0.27
3.00
1.42
-1.50
-1.10
0.00
4.63
-1.30
-2.70
0.80 (j)
3.43
3.40
3.43
5.21
4.90
4.46
5.41
4.72
7.00
6.38 (g)
3.61
5.00
2.95 (k)
6.26
0.44
1.90
Hydrolysis Rate Constants (c)
Acid
Catalyzed
(Ka)
(1/mol/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.5E+04
0
0
3.5E+03
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.9E+05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Neutral
(Kn)
(i/yr)
1.13E-02
9.61E-03
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
40
6.30E-02
0
0
1.68
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.3
0.055
30.9
0
0
4.8E-03
0
0
1.25E+03
0
0.63
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.05
0
61
0.063
0
0
24.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Base
Catalyzed
(Kb)
(1/mol/yr)
0.378
54.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.1E+05
0
4.48E+06
0
0
0
0
0
1.8E+06
0
0
0
0
5.2E+05
0
0
0
5.4E+04
0
0
0
0
3.4E+06
0
1.1E+06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.7E+06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Diffusion
Coefficient
in Water
(Dw)
(m2/yr)
(d)
0.0341
0.0334
0.0344
0.0347
0.0307
0.0319
0.0322
0.0319
0.019
0.0353
0.0172(1)
0.0249
0.0331
0.0229
0.035
0.0331
0.0308
0.0252
0.0267
0.0331
0.0429
0.046
0.0319(1)
0.0549
0.0337
0.0233
0.023
0.0232
0.018
0.0176
0.0222
0.0248
0.0228
0.0133(i)
0.013 (i)
0.028
0.0256
0.0164(0
0.0238
B-l-2
-------
Table B-l: Constituent Chemical Properties
CAS
143-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439.97.6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
109-86-4
110-49-6
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439_98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
Constituent Name
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE1
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFsl
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDsl
Pentachloromtrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropanel
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuraml
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidine o-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform
Molecular
Weight
(g/mol)
(a)
490.6
207.2
54.9
200.6
67.1
32.0
345.7
76.1
118.1
72.1
100.2
100.1
263.2
88.1
268.4
173.8
84.9
95.9
128.2
58.7
123.1
89.1
102.1
74.1
158.2
130.2
198.2
88.1
114.1
100.1
286.3
291.3
250.3
340.4
356.4
295.3
266.3
94.1
336.7
108.1
260.4
148.1
256.1
58.1
202.3
79.1
162.2
79.0
107.9
334.4
104.2
215.9
306.0
322.0
167.8
167.8
165.8
231.9
322.3
204.4
240.4
92.1
122.2
107.2
107.2
252.7
Solubility
(mg/L)
(b)
7.60
0.06
25400.00
1.0E+06(e)
0.05
1.0E+06(e)
1.0E+06(m)
2.23E+05
1.9E+04
1.5E+04
55.00
5.13E+04(e)
0.00
1.19E+04
1.3E+04
31.00
2.09E+03
1.7E+04
9.3E+04
1.0E+06(e)
1.27E+03
9.89E+03
35.10
1.97E+04
7.65E+04
1.0E+06(e)
1.0E+06(m)
6.54
1.33
2.40E-04 (f)
1.18E-04(f)
0.55
1.95E+03
8.28E+04
2.0E+03
2.55E+06
50.00
6.2E+03
0.07
32.80
4.05E+05 (e)
0.14
1.0E+06(e)
810.67
160.00
310.00
0.60
6.92E-04 (f)
7.91E-06(f)
1.1E+03
2.97E+03
200.00
100.00
25.00
30.00
526.00
3.37E+04
1.66E+04
782.00
0.74
3.1E+03
LogK,,
(log[mL/g])
(c)
4.15
0.22
-1.08
4.90
0.95 (e)
-0.03
0.87
0.74
2.47
1.05(e)
7.00
1.21
0.93
3.11
1.51
0.23
-0.03
0.45
2.09
1.03
2.84
1.03
-0.02
-0.57
-0.51
3.15
5.39
4.93 (g)
6.3 (g)
4.57
3.06
1.23
0.00
-0.30
2.64
1.56(e)
6.19
2.63
1 .40 (e)
4.92
0.34
2.34
1.90
2.84
4.28
6.62
6.10
2.71
2.07
2.21
2.32
3.51
2.83 (e)
2.43
0.02
1.24
1.24
4.31
2.05
Hydrolysis Rate Constants (c)
Acid
Catalyzed
(Ka)
(1/mol/yr)
0
500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.9E+03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Neutral
(Kn)
(i/yr)
0
0
0
0.69
0
0
0
0
0
2.8
0
1.7E-02
0
l.OE-03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
4.9E+05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0137
5.1E-03
0
0
84
0
0
0
0
0
0.07
Base
Catalyzed
(Kb)
(1/mol/yr)
0
5.2E+03
0
1.2E+04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.7E+06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
610
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.13E+04
1.59E+07
0
0
9.0E+06
0
0
0
0
0
2.8E+04
l.OE+04
Diffusion
Coefficient
in Water
(Dw)
(m2/yr)
(d)
0.0949
0.0334
0.052
0.0347
0.0275
0.0322
0.0264
0.0292
0.0272
0.0194
0.0394
0.0264
0.0298
0.0322
0.0288
0.0363
0.0215
0.0245
0.0227
0.0315
0.029
0.0319
0.0142 (i)
0.0138 (i)
0.0253
0.0325
0.0308
0.0189
0.0382
0.0344
0.0278
0.0153(1)
0.0148 (i)
0.0287
0.0293
0.0298
0.0291
0.0282 (i)
0.029
0.0173
0.0328
B-l-3
-------
Table B-l: Constituent Chemical Properties
CAS
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
Constituent Name
Trichloro- 1 ,2,2-trifluoro-ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1 ,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethylene 1,1,2-)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5-
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (Trinitrobenzene 1,3,5-)
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
Molecular
Weight
(g/mol)
(a)
187.4
181.4
133.4
133.4
131.4
137.4
197.4
197.4
269.5
255.5
147.4
101.2
213.1
697.6
50.9
86.1
62.5
106.2
106.2
106.2
318.5
65.4
Solubility
(mg/L)
(b)
170.00
34.60
1.33E+03
4.42E+03
1.1E+03
1.1E+03
1.2E+03
800.00
140.00
268.30
1.75E+03
5.5E+04 (e)
350.00
8.00
2.0E+04
2.76E+03
161.00
178.00
185.00
175.00
LogK,,
(log[mL/g])
(c)
2.97
3.96
2.16
1.73
2.10
2.11
2.93
2.25
1.74
1.43
1.66
1.31 (1)
1.05
3.19
0.45
1.04
3.09
3.02
3.12
3.08
Hydrolysis Rate Constants (c)
Acid
Catalyzed
(Ka)
(1/mol/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Neutral
(Kn)
(i/yr)
0
0
0.64
2.73E-05
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.7E-02
0
0
8.8E-02
0
0
0
0
0
0
Base
Catalyzed
(Kb)
(1/mol/yr)
0
0
2.4E+06
4.95E+04
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.6E+03
0
0
3.0E+05
0
0
0
0
0
0
Diffusion
Coefficient
in Water
(Dw)
(m2/yr)
(d)
0.0271
0.0265
0.0303
0.0315
0.0322
0.0319
0.0255
0.0291
0.0247
0.0315
0.0378
0.0267
0.027
0.0267
0.0268
Note: Data sources for chemical property values are indicated in the column headings; exceptions are noted in parentheses for individual chemical values.
Data sources:
a. http://chemfinder.cambridgesoft.com (CambridgeSoft
b. U.S.EPA, 1997b. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). SCDMWIN 1.0 (SCDM Windows User's Version), Version 1. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Washington DC: GPO. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/scdm/index.htm. Accessed July 2001
c. Kollig, H. P. (ed.), 1993. Environmental fate consultants for organic chemicals under consideration for EPA's hazardous waste identification projects. Environmental
Research Laboratory, Office of R&D, U.S. EPA, Athens, GA.
d. Calculated based on Water 9. U.S. EPA, 2001. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/software/water/indi
Accessed July 2001
e. Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC), 1999. CHEMFATE Chemical Search, Environmental Science Center, Syracuse, NY. http://esc.syrres.com/efdb/Chemfate.htm.
Accessed July 2001.
f. Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 2000. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3, 7,8-Tetmchlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin(TCDD) and Related Compounds, Part 1, Vol. 3.
Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC: GPO.
g. USNLM (U.S. National Library of Medicine), 2001. Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB). http://toxnet.nlm.mh.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen/HSDB. Accessed July 2001.
h. MI DEQ. Environmental response Division Operational Memorandum #18 (Opmemo 18): Part 201 Generic Cleanup Criteria Tables, Revision 1, State of Michigan,
Department of Environmental Quality, http://www.deq.state.mi.us/erd/opmemol 8/index.html.
i. Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1987. Process Coefficients and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and Heavy Metals in Surface Waters. Office of Research and Develop
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office (GPO).
j. U.S. EPA, 1999. Region III Soil-to-Groundwater SSLs. Region III, Philadelphia, PA. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/ssl.pdf
k. U.S. EPA, 2000. Physical-chemical Data.http://www.epa.gov/Rgeion9/waste/sfund/prg/index.htm
1. Calculated from octanol-water partition coefficient using regression equation log[Koc] = 1.029 x log[Kow] - 0.18; presented in Table 10.2 of G. deMarsily,
1986. Quantitative Hydrogeology. Academic Press
m. Lyman, W.J., W.F. Reehl, and D.H. Rosenblatt, 1990. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds.
Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
B-l-4
-------
APPENDIX C
TIER 1 INPUT PARAMETERS
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table C-l. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Landfill, No Liner Scenario . . . C-l-1
Table C-2. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Surface Impoundment,
No Liner Scenario C-2-1
Table C-3. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Waste Pile, No Liner Scenario . C-3-1
Table C-4. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Land Application Unit Scenario C-4-1
Table C-5. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Landfill, Single Liner Scenario . C-5-1
Table C-6. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Surface Impoundment,
Single Liner Scenario C-6-1
Table C-7. WEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Waste Pile, Single
Liner Scenario C-7-1
Table C-8. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Landfill, Composite
Liner Scenario C-8-1
Table C-9. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Surface Impoundment,
Composite Liner Scenario C-9-1
Table C-10. IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Waste Pile, Composite
Liner Scenario C-10-1
C-i
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Table C-l: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Landfill, No Liner Scenario
Input
Type
8
g
Unsaturated Zone
Saturated Zone
Input
No.
SSI
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS11
SS12
SS13
FS1
SS15
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
US6
US7
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
USB
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
AS5
AS6
AS7
ASS
AS9
AS10
ASH
AS12
AS13
AS14
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Duration of Leaching
Fraction of Landfill Occupied by Waste of Concern
Depth of Waste Disposal Facility
Density of Hazardous Waste
Ratio ot Waste Concentration to Leachate
Concentration
Base Depth Below Grade
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficienl
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Eladial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficienl
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Constant
Lognormal '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Johnson SB '
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
in
in
m/yr
m/yr
yr
unitless
in
g/cnr1
L/kg
in
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
in
in
unitless
g/cnr1
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
in
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
in
in
in
degrees C
standard units
unitless
in
degrees
in
cnrVg
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles2
0
40.5
6.36
l.OOE-05
l.OOE-05
9,340
10
486
22.0
0.0135
0.0135
48,200
25
2,430
49.3
0.0686
0.0658
94,500
50
12,100
110
0.122
0.109
199,000
75
52,600
229
0.308
0.274
521,000
90
142,000
376
0.438
0.411
1,810,000
100
3,120,000
1,770
1.15
1.08
1.20E+10
1.00
0.510
0.700
0.880
0.737
1.32
0.794
2.57
0.889
4.09
1.33
6.13
1.45
10.1
2.10
10000
0.00
0.00377
0.129
1.03
0.0106
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00358
1.60
0.594
0.596
1.20
0.0489
0.410
1.68
0.0570
0.0341
1.60
2.04
0.935
1.27
0.0609
0.430
3.96
0.107
0.0567
1.65
7.80
1.52
1.37
0.0746
0.450
6.10
0.154
0.1020
1.65
35.0
2.71
1.53
0.0857
0.450
15.2
0.354
0.177
1.67
169
5.90
1.82
0.0937
0.450
42.7
0.959
0.289
1.67
2,450
21.8
2.50
0.115
0.450
610
1.00
1.69
1.67
chemical-specific va ue
1.00
chemical-specific va ue
0.00
0.0004
0.0501
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.0015
0.107
1.30
4.27
174
0.00557
0.164
1.43
7.62
804
0.0191
0.236
1.56
14.3
1,890
0.0409
0.296
1.63
32.4
11,000
0.0762
0.334
1.70
91.4
31,500
0.211
0.426
1.80
914
4,290,000
1.00
0.000002
0.100
0.0009
3.15
0.002
16.3
0.0057
55.0
0.0151
321
0.0310
1,320
0.491
11,000
chemical-specific va ue
0.109
0.0136
0.00500
7.50
3.21
0.0000164
0.928
0.116
0.00580
7.50
5.17
0.000132
2.72
0.340
0.0170
12.5
6.05
0.000234
6.18
0.773
0.0387
12.5
6.81
0.000433
9.76
1.22
0.0610
17.5
7.41
0.000810
14.5
1.81
0.0903
22.5
7.92
0.00139
40.0
4.99
0.250
22.5
9.70
0.00984
150
0.00
0.00321
0.945
2.52
6.42
16.4
47.0
897
chemical-specific va ue
1.00
chemical-specific va ue
0.00
References
USEPA 1986 and 1997b
Derived
ABB, 1995 and USEPA, 1997b
ABB, 1995 and USEPA, 1997b
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
USEPA 1986 and 1997b
Schanz and Salhotra, 1992
Policy for Tier 1
No data available
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPRI, 1985; USEPA 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPA STORET database
USEPA STORET database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
1 The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among the three soil types; each soil
type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-1-1
-------
Table C-2: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Surface Impoundment, No Liner Scenario
Input
Type
8
g
Unsaturated Zone
Saturated Zo
Saturated Zone (cont'd)
Input
No.
SSI
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS15
SS7
SS16
SS22
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
US6
US7
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
USB
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
AS5
AS6
AS7
ASS
AS9
AS10
ASH
AS12
AS13
AS14
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Operational Life (Duration of Leaching)
Base Depth Below Grade
Waste Water Ponding Depth
Sediment Thickness (Thickness of Sludge)
Distance to Nearest Surface Water Body
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Eladial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
DBGS
HZERO
DSLUDGE
DISSW
Lognormal '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Johnson SB '
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
m
m
m/yr
m/yr
li-
ra
m
m
m
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
m
m
unitless
g/cm3
cnrVg
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
m
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
m
m
m
degrees C
standard units
unitless
m
degrees
m
cnrVg
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles2
0
9.30
3.05
0.0000100
3.78E-15
4.00
0.00
0.0100
10
174
13.2
0.00990
0.270
15.0
0.00
0.460
25
401
20.0
0.0465
0.521
50.0
0.00
0.993
50
1,770
42.1
0.144
1.14
50.0
1.22
1.81
75
6,970
83.5
0.269
2.27
50.0
3.05
2.95
90
28,300
168
0.377
3.51
50.0
4.57
4.24
100
4,860,000
2,200
1.84
22.3
95.0
33.5
18.2
0.20
0.00
0.00224
0.104
1.03
0.00997
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00285
1.60
90.0
0.318
0.516
1.18
0.0525
0.410
2.74
0.0803
0.0316
1.60
240
1.08
0.801
1.23
0.0674
0.430
4.27
0.114
0.0552
1.65
360
4.94
1.36
1.31
0.0812
0.430
9.14
0.22
0.100
1.6700
800
43.8
3.19
1.61
0.0905
0.430
15.2
0.354
0.181
1.67
5,000
301
7.88
1.91
0.0976
0.450
35.4
0.799
0.302
1.67
5,000
2,420
22.3
2.43
0.115
0.450
610
1.00
1.98
1.67
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
0.000400
0.0500
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00145
0.108
1.29
4.57
126
0.00546
0.162
1.43
7.62
315
0.0196
0.233
1.56
15.2
2,210
0.0418
0.294
1.63
30.5
9,780
0.0777
0.333
1.70
79.3
24,800
0.211
0.430
1.80
914
7,660,000
1.00
5.00E-07
0.100
0.000508
2.48
0.00200
11.1
0.00670
43.4
0.0141
227
0.0330
814
0.538
10,800
chemical-specific value
0.104
0.0130
0.00500
7.5
3.20
0.0000128
0.802
0.100
0.00501
7.5
5.21
0.000135
2.44
0.305
0.0152
12.5
6.06
0.000235
5.71
0.714
0.0357
17.5
6.81
0.000430
9.01
1.13
0.0563
17.5
7.42
0.000790
15.6
1.95
0.0976
17.5
7.91
0.00137
40.0
5.00
0.250
27.5
9.69
0.0120
150
0.00
0.000126
0.953
2.49
6.04
15.2
39.4
904
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
References
USEPA, 2001
Derived
ABB 1995 and USEPA, 1997b
Derived
USEPA, 2001
USEPA, 2001
USEPA, 2001
Assumption
USEPA, 2001
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPRI, 1985;
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPA'STORET database
USEPA STORET database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among the three soil types; each
soil type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-2-1
-------
Table C-3: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Waste Pile, No Liner Scenario
Input
Type
K
&
Unsaturated Zone
Saturated Zone
Input
No.
SSI
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS15
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
US6
US7
USS
US9
US10
US11
US12
US13
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
ASS
AS6
AS7
ASS
AS9
AS10
ASH
AS12
AS13
AS14
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Operational Life (Duration of Leaching)
Base Depth Below Land Surface
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Radial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm (soil/water distribution coeff)
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Lognormal '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Johnson SB '
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
m
m
m/yr
m/yr
yr
m
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
m
m
unitless
g/cm3
cnrVg
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
m
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
m
m
m
degrees C
standard units
unitless
m
degrees
m
cnrVg
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles2
0
5.06
2.25
0.00001
0.0003
10
20.2
4.49
0.0508
0.0602
25
20.2
4.49
0.0787
0.128
50
121
11.0
0.145
0.255
75
1,210
34.8
0.282
0.391
90
4,170
64.6
0.417
0.538
100
1,940,000
1,390
1.84
1.82
20.0
0.00
0.00347
0.120
1.02
0.0114
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00421
1.60
0.617
0.624
1.20
0.0487
0.410
1.83
0.0603
0.0339
1.60
2.10
0.946
1.26
0.0608
0.430
3.96
0.107
0.0569
1.65
8.32
1.55
1.38
0.0742
0.450
7.01
0.174
0.100
1.65
36.2
2.71
1.53
0.0854
0.450
15.2
0.354
0.175
1.67
165
5.76
1.82
0.0934
0.450
36.6
0.825
0.294
1.67
2,400
20.2
2.52
0.114
0.450
610
1.00
3.56
1.67
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
0.000401
0.0501
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00153
0.105
1.30
3.60
126
0.00549
0.161
1.43
7.38
317
0.0193
0.235
1.56
15.2
1,890
0.0408
0.297
1.63
33.5
11,000
0.0740
0.335
1.69
91.4
31,500
0.212
0.421
1.80
914
6,750,000
1.00
0.000002
0.101
0.0009
2.69
0.00200
10.8
0.00570
46.8
0.0170
272
0.0330
1,260
0.301
10,900
chemical-specific value
0.101
0.0126
0.00500
7.50
3.21
0.0000128
0.848
0.106
0.00530
7.50
5.20
0.000132
2.50
0.313
0.0156
12.5
6.07
0.000237
5.59
0.699
0.0350
12.5
6.81
0.000437
8.71
1.09
0.0544
17.5
7.41
0.000794
14.7
1.83
0.0916
22.5
7.90
0.00137
40.0
5.00
0.250
22.5
9.69
0.00998
150
0.00
0.000308
0.868
2.44
6.27
16.9
47.7
892
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
References
USEP A, 1986 and 19971)
Derived
ABB, 1995 and USEP A, 19971)
ABB, 1995 and USEP A, 1997b
US EPA, 1996
Assumption of waste pile design
Carsel andParrish, 1988
Carsel andParrish, 1988
Carsel andParrish, 1988
Carsel andParrish, 1988
Carsel andParrish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPPJ, 1985; USEP A, 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEP A STORE! database
USEP A STORE! database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
1 The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among the three soil types; each
soil type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-3-1
-------
Table C-4: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Land Application Unit Scenario
Input
Type
K
£
Unsaturated Zone
Saturated Zone
Input
No.
SSI
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS15
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
US6
US?
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
US13
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
AS5
AS6
AS?
ASS
AS9
AS10
ASH
AS12
AS13
AS14
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Operational Life (Duration of Leaching)
Base Depth Below Grade
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
VIoisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Eladial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Lognormal '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Johnson SB '
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
m
m
m/yr
m/yr
yr
m
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
m
m
unitless
g/cm3
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
m
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
m
m
m
degrees C
standard units
unitless
m
degrees
m
cnrVg
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles 2
0
20.2
4.49
0.00001
0.00001
10
40.5
6.36
0.0104
0.0130
25
4,050
63.6
0.0686
0.0704
50
40,500
201
0.110
0.110
75
182,000
427
0.212
0.201
90
648,000
805
0.326
0.326
100
80,900,000
8,990
0.745
0.745
40.0
0.00
0.00224
0.0926
1.04
0.0126
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00418
1.60
0.586
0.605
1.20
0.0498
0.410
2.13
0.0669
0.0346
1.60
2.01
0.929
1.26
0.0613
0.430
4.57
0.121
0.0578
1.65
chem
7.80
1.51
1.37
0.0749
0.450
8.53
0.208
0.102
1.65
33.8
2.59
1.51
0.0862
0.450
18.3
0.423
0.175
1.67
147
5.41
1.78
0.0942
0.450
45.7
1.00
0.291
1.67
2,510
20.8
2.55
0.115
0.450
610
1.00
1.96
1.67
cal-specific value
1.00
chem cal-specific value
0.00
0.000402
0.0501
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00143
0.105
1.29
3.96
94.6
0.00545
0.162
1.43
7.62
315
0.0195
0.235
1.56
19.5
2,190
0.0408
0.295
1.63
53.3
11,000
0.0778
0.334
1.70
144
31,500
0.212
0.427
1.80
914
6,310,000
1.00
0.000002
0.100
0.000556
2.34
0.00200
9.93
chem
0.108
0.0134
0.00500
7.50
3.21
0.0000149
1.02
0.128
0.00639
7.50
5.20
0.000130
2.99
0.374
0.0187
12.5
6.07
0.000229
0.00800
50.2
0.0223
316
0.0430
1,210
0.430
10,900
cal-specific value
6.70
0.838
0.0419
12.5
6.82
0.000421
10.7
1.34
0.0669
17.5
7.42
0.000781
16.1
2.02
0.101
17.5
7.89
0.00133
40.0
5.00
0.250
22.5
9.69
0.0120
150
0.00
0.0000963
1.03
2.83
7.95
21.7
60.1
882
chem cal-specific value
1.00
chem cal-specific value
0.00
References
USEPA, 1986 and 1997b
Derived
ABB, 1995 andUSEPA, 19971)
ABB, 1995 andUSEPA, 19971)
US EPA, 1996
Assumption of LAU Design
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPPJ, 1985; USEPA, 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada, 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPAs STORE! database
USEPA STORE! database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
1 The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among the three soil types; each soil type
has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 6,557 iterations.
C-4-1
-------
Table C-S: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Landfill, Single Liner Scenario
Input
Type
1
Unsaturated Zone
Saturated Zone
Input
No.
SSI
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS11
SS12
SS13
FS1
SS15
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
US6
US7
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
USB
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
AS5
AS6
AS7
ASS
AS9
AS10
ASH
AS12
AS13
AS14
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Duration of Leaching
Fraction of Landfill Occupied by Waste of Concern
Depth of Waste Disposal Facility
Density of Hazardous Waste
Ratio of Waste Concentration to Leachate
Concentration
Base Depth Below Grade
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Radial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Constant
Lognormal '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Johnson SB '
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
in
in
m/yr
m/yr
yr
unitless
in
g/cm3
L/kg
in
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
in
in
unitless
g/cm3
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
in
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
in
in
in
degrees C
standard units
unitless
in
degrees
in
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles2
0
40.5
6.36
0.00001
0.00001
81,100
10
567
23.8
0.0135
0.00944
228,000
25
2,480
49.8
0.0686
0.0253
376,000
50
12,100
110
0.130
0.0432
728,000
75
54,600
234
0.312
0.0445
1,370,000
90
149,000
386
0.446
0.0486
2,930,000
100
3,120,000
1,770
1.15
0.0526
1.63E+10
1.00
0.510
0.700
0.883
0.737
1.32
0.794
2.58
0.889
4.09
1.33
6.14
1.45
10.1
2.10
10000
0.00
0.00377
0.129
1.04
0.0106
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00358
1.60
0.598
0.595
1.20
0.0489
0.410
1.68
0.0570
0.0340
1.60
2.06
0.935
1.27
0.0611
0.430
3.96
0.107
0.0568
1.65
7.79
1.52
1.37
0.0746
0.450
6.10
0.154
0.101
1.65
35.0
2.72
1.53
0.0857
0.450
15.2
0.354
0.177
1.67
169
5.92
1.82
0.0937
0.450
36.6
0.825
0.288
1.67
2,450
21.8
2.50
0.115
0.450
610
1.00
1.69
1.67
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
0.000400
0.0501
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00151
0.107
1.30
4.03
141
0.00558
0.164
1.43
7.62
631
0.0192
0.236
1.56
12.2
1,890
0.0411
0.295
1.63
32.0
11,000
0.0765
0.334
1.70
91.4
31,500
0.211
0.426
1.80
914
4,290,000
1.00
0.000002
0.100
0.0009
2.97
0.002
14.5
0.00570
52.2
0.0153
297
0.0310
1,280
0.491
11,000
chemical-specific value
0.109
0.0136
0.005
7.50
3.21
0.0000164
0.916
0.114
0.00572
7.50
5.18
0.000131
2.71
0.338
0.0169
12.5
6.05
0.000234
6.15
0.769
0.0385
12.5
6.82
0.000434
9.72
1.22
0.0608
17.5
7.41
0.000810
14.4
1.80
0.0899
22.5
7.93
0.00139
40.0
4.99
0.250
22.5
9.70
0.00984
150
0.00
0.00321
0.944
2.49
6.27
16.1
46.3
897
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
References
USEPA, 1986 and 1997b
Derived
ABB, 1995 and USEPA 1997b
USEPA, 1999
USEPA, 2001
Policy for Tier 1
USEPA, 1986 and 1997b
Schanz and Salhotra, 1992
Policy for Tier 1
No data available
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPRI, 1985; USEPA, 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPA STORET database
USEPA STORET database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
1 The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among the three soil types; each soil
type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-5-1
-------
Table C-6: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Surface Impoundment, Single Liner Scenario
Input
Type
1
Unsaturated Zone
Saturated Zone
Input
No.
SS1
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS15
SS7
SS16
SS22
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
use
US7
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
US13
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
ASS
AS6
AS7
ASS
AS9
AS10
AS11
AS12
AS13
ASH
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Operational Life (Duration of Leaching)
Base Depth Below Grade
Waste Water Ponding Depth
Total Impoundment Operating Depth
Sediment Thickness (Thickness of Sludge)
Distance to Nearest Surface Water Body
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Radial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site- Based
Derived
Regional Site- Based
Regional Site- Based
Constant
DBGS
HZERO
DEPTH
DSLUDGE
DISSW
Lognormal 1
Johnson SB 1
Johnson SB 1
Johnson SB 1
Constant
Regional Site- Based
Derived
Johnson SB 1
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site- Based
Regional Site- Based
Constant
Regional Site- Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site- Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
m
m
m/yr
m/yr
yr
m
m
m
m
m
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
m
m
unitless
g/cm3
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
m
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
m
m
m
degrees C
standard units
unitless
m
degrees
m
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles 2
0
9.30
3.05
1.00E-05
3.78E-15
4.00
0.00
0.0100
10
192
13.8
0.00990
0.042
15.0
0.00
0.460
25
581
24.1
0.0465
0.0629
50.0
0.00
1.06
50
1,860
43.1
0.147
0.108
50.0
1.52
1.83
75
7,810
88.4
0.269
0.163
50.0
3.05
3.09
90
29,800
173
0.377
0.217
50.0
4.57
4.27
100
4,860,000
2,200
1.84
0.798
95.0
33.5
18.2
4.63
0.20
0.00
0.00224
0.0983
1.02
0.00997
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00254
1.60
90.0
0.347
0.524
1.18
0.0522
0.410
2.44
0.0737
0.0314
1.60
240
1.20
0.815
1.23
0.0669
0.430
3.70
0.101
0.0550
1.65
360
5.56
1.39
1.31
0.0809
0.430
7.62
0.188
0.0994
1.67
850
49.6
3.31
1.63
0.0904
0.430
15.2
0.354
0.180
1.67
1,800
308
7.97
1.92
0.0976
0.450
30.5
0.691
0.299
1.67
5,000
2,420
22.3
2.43
0.115
0.450
610
1.00
1.98
1.67
chemical-specific va ue
1.00
chemical-specific va ue
0.00
0.000400
0.0500
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00145
0.107
1.29
3.66
108
0.00540
0.162
1.43
7.32
315
0.0195
0.232
1.56
13.7
2,210
0.0415
0.294
1.63
30.0
6,940
0.0780
0.334
1.70
76.2
22,100
0.211
0.430
1.80
914
7,660,000
1.00
5.00E-07
0.100
0.000700
2.11
0.00200
9.36
0.00700
34.1
0.0150
193
0.0330
723
0.538
10,800
chemical-specific va ue
0.107
0.0134
0.00500
7.5
3.20
0.0000128
0.808
0.101
0.00505
7.5
5.20
0.000136
2.49
0.311
0.0156
12.5
6.07
0.000236
5.78
0.723
0.0361
17.5
6.82
0.000433
9.06
1.13
0.0566
17.5
7.43
0.000794
15.5
1.94
0.0969
17.5
7.91
0.00137
40.0
5.00
0.250
27.5
9.68
0.0103
150
0.00
0.000126
0.884
2.37
5.70
14.0
35.8
794
chemical-specific va ue
1.00
chemical-specific va ue
0.00
References
USEPA, 2001
Derived
ABB 1995 and USEPA, 1997b
Derived
USEPA, 2001
USEPA, 2001
USEPA, 2001
Derived
Assumption
USEPA, 2001
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPRI, 1985; USEPA, 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPA's STORET database
USEPA STORET database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
1 The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among the
three soil types; each soil type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-6-1
-------
Table C-7: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Waste Pile, Single Liner Scenario
Input
Type
I
Unsaturated Zone
Saturated Zone
Input
No.
SS1
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS15
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
use
US7
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
US13
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
ASS
AS6
AS7
ASS
AS9
AS10
AS11
AS12
AS13
ASH
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Duration of Leaching
Base Depth Below Grade
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Radial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site- Based
Derived
Regional Site- Based
Regional Site- Based
Constant
Lognormal 1
Johnson SB 1
Johnson SB 1
Johnson SB 1
Constant
Regional Site- Based
Derived
Johnson SB 1
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site- Based
Regional Site- Based
Constant
Regional Site- Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site- Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
m
m
m/yr
m/yr
yr
m
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
m
m
unitless
g/cm3
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
m
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
m
m
m
degrees C
standard units
unitless
m
degrees
m
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles 2
0
5.06
2.25
0.00001
0.00001
10
20.2
4.49
0.0508
0.0264
25
20.2
4.49
0.0787
0.0950
50
121
11.0
0.145
0.127
75
1,210
34.8
0.282
0.133
90
4,170
64.6
0.417
0.135
100
1,940,000
1,390
1.84
0.136
20.0
0.00
0.00347
0.120
1.02
0.0114
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00421
1.60
0.617
0.620
1.20
0.0487
0.410
1.83
0.0603
0.0339
1.60
2.09
0.942
1.26
0.0608
0.430
3.96
0.107
0.0566
1.65
8.26
1.54
1.38
0.0743
0.450
7.01
0.174
0.100
1.65
35.8
2.70
1.53
0.0855
0.450
15.2
0.354
0.175
1.67
163
5.76
1.82
0.0935
0.450
36.6
0.825
0.294
1.67
2,400
20.2
2.52
0.114
0.450
610
1.00
3.56
1.67
chem cal-specific va ue
1.00
chem cal-specific va ue
0.00
0.000401
0.0501
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00153
0.105
1.30
3.60
126
0.00547
0.161
1.43
7.32
315
0.0192
0.235
1.56
15.2
1,890
0.0408
0.298
1.63
33.2
11,000
0.0738
0.336
1.69
91.4
31,500
0.212
0.421
1.80
914
6,750,000
1.00
0.000002
0.101
0.0009
2.64
0.002
10.5
0.00570
45.7
0.0170
263
0.0330
1,240
0.301
10,900
chem cal-specific va ue
0.101
0.0126
0.00500
7.50
3.21
0.0000128
0.845
0.106
0.00528
7.50
5.19
0.000132
2.50
0.312
0.0156
12.5
6.06
0.000237
5.60
0.700
0.0350
12.5
6.80
0.000437
8.73
1.09
0.0546
17.5
7.41
0.000793
14.8
1.85
0.0925
22.5
7.90
0.00137
40.0
5.00
0.250
22.5
9.69
0.00998
150
0.00
0.000308
0.868
2.43
6.24
16.9
47.4
892
chem cal-specific va ue
1.00
chem cal-specific va ue
0.00
References
USEPA, 1986 and 1997b
Derived
ABB, 1995 and USEPA, 1997b
USEPA, 1999
USEPA, 1996
Assumption of waste pile design
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPRI, 1985; USEPA, 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPA STORET database
USEPA STORET database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
1 The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among
the three soil types; each soil type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-7-1
-------
Table C-8: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Landfill, Composite Liner Scenario
Input
Type
0)
I
Unsaturated Zone
u rated Zone
£
Input
No.
SS1
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS11
SS12
SS13
FS1
SS15
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
use
US7
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
US13
AS1
AS2
ASS
AS4
ASS
AS6
AS7
ASS
AS9
AS10
AS11
AS12
AS13
ASH
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Duration of Leaching
Fraction of Landfill Occupied by Waste of
Concern
Depth of Waste Disposal Facility
Density of Hazardous Waste
Ratio of Waste Concentration to Leachate
Concentration
Base Depth Below Grade
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Radial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Constant
Lognormal 1
Johnson SB ]
Johnson SB ]
Johnson SB 1
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Johnson SB 1
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
m
m
m/yr
m/yr
yr
unitless
m
g/cm3
L/kg
m
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
m
m
unitless
g/cm3
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
m
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
m
m
m
degrees C
standard un
unitless
m
degrees
m
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles 2
0
40.5
6.36
0.00001
0.00
0.00
10
445
21.1
0.0226
0.00
0.00
25
2,480
49.8
0.0780
0.00
0.00
50
12,100
110
0.143
0.00
0.00
75
54,600
234
0.326
0.0000730
301,000,000
90
134,000
365
0.450
0.000169
1.09E+10
100
3,120,000
1,770
1.15
0.000401
8.33E+12
1.00
0.510
0.700
0.879
0.738
1.31
0.794
2.51
0.888
4.09
1.33
6.41
1.46
10.1
2.10
10000
0.00
0.00463
0.130
1.01
0.0118
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00347
1.60
0.608
0.614
1.20
0.0490
0.410
1.68
0.0570
0.0337
1.60
2.06
0.930
1.27
0.0613
0.430
3.96
0.107
0.0566
1.65
8.35
1.54
1.38
0.0747
0.450
6.10
0.154
0.102
1.65
36.7
2.73
1.54
0.0857
0.450
15.2
0.354
0.179
1.67
180
6.15
1.83
0.0937
0.450
36.6
0.825
0.294
1.67
2,390
20.3
2.47
0.115
0.450
610
1.00
1.60
1.67
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
0.000401
0.0502
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00151
0.105
1.30
3.96
94.6
0.00538
0.163
1.43
7.62
315
0.0188
0.236
1.55
12.2
1,890
0.0413
0.296
1.63
30.5
11,000
0.0762
0.335
1.70
91.4
31,500
0.211
0.424
1.80
914
8,480,000
1.00
0.000002
0.100
0.001
2.51
0.002
10.5
0.00570
45.6
0.0180
250
0.0330
1,200
0.483
10,800
chemical-specific value
0.111
0.0139
0.00500
7.50
3.20
0.00000858
0.958
0.120
0.00599
7.50
5.20
0.000135
2.91
0.364
0.0182
12.5
6.06
0.000238
6.38
0.797
0.0399
12.5
6.79
0.000443
9.87
1.23
0.0617
17.5
7.39
0.000814
14.7
1.84
0.0921
22.5
7.89
0.00140
40.0
4.99
0.250
22.5
9.70
0.0159
150
0.00
0.000936
0.974
2.48
6.07
15.6
44.4
867
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
References
USEPA, 1986 and 1997b
Derived
ABB, 1995 and USEPA, 1997b
TetraTech, 2001
USEPA, 2001
Policy for Tier 1
USEPA, 1986 and 1997b
Schanz and Salhotra, 1992
Policy for Tier 1
No data available
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPRI, 1985; USEPA, 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPA STORET database
USEPA STORET database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among
the three soil types; each soil type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-8-1
-------
Table C-9: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Surface Impoundment, Composite Liner Scenario
Input
Type
1
saturated Zone
^
Saturated Zone
Input
No.
SSI
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS15
SS7
SS16
SS22
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
US6
US7
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
USB
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
AS5
AS6
AS7
ASS
AS9
AS10
ASH
AS12
AS13
AS14
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Duration of Leaching
Base Depth Below Grade
Waste Water Ponding Depth
Total Impoundment Operating Depth
Sediment Thickness
Distance to Nearest Surface Water Bod;
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Radial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
DBGS
HZERO
DEPTH
DSLUDGE
DISSW
Lognormal '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Johnson SB '
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
m
m
m/yr
m/yr
yr
m
m
m
m
m
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
m
m
unitless
g/cm3
cm3/g
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
cm
unitless
g/cm3
m
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
m
m
m
degrees C
standard units
unitless
m
degrees
m
cnrVg
unitless
1/yr
1/yr
Percentiles2
0
9.30
3.05
l.OOE-05
0.00
4.00
0.00
0.0100
10
206
14.4
0.00990
0.00
15.0
0.00
0.460
25
609
24.7
0.0465
0.00
50.0
0.00
1.07
50
2,020
45.0
0.168
0.0000488
50.0
1.52
1.83
75
8,760
93.6
0.271
0.000202
50.0
3.38
3.15
90
35,200
188
0.450
0.000498
50.0
4.57
4.27
100
4,860,000
2,200
1.84
0.00369
95.0
33.5
18.2
4.63
0.20
0.00
0.00437
0.109
1.02
0.00851
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00366
1.60
105
0.375
0.534
1.18
0.0521
0.410
1.83
0.0603
0.0319
1.60
240
1.28
0.817
1.23
0.0668
0.410
3.35
0.0937
0.0552
1.60
360
6.19
1.42
1.31
0.0809
0.430
6.10
0.154
0.0993
1.67
1,000
52.3
3.31
1.64
0.0902
0.430
15.2
0.354
0.180
1.67
2,000
305
8.06
1.93
0.0973
0.450
30.5
0.691
0.304
1.67
5,000
2,520
19.8
2.49
0.115
0.450
610
1.00
2.75
1.67
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
0.000401
0.0501
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00143
0.100
1.29
3.53
63.1
0.00538
0.160
1.43
6.10
284
0.0195
0.235
1.56
12.2
1,890
0.0407
0.296
1.63
24.4
5,990
0.0768
0.334
1.70
61.0
21,300
0.212
0.429
1.80
914
7,740,000
1.00
5.00E-07
0.100
0.000700
1.53
0.00200
7.44
0.00700
28.2
0.0151
183
0.0330
680
0.650
11,000
chemical-specific value
0.101
0.0126
0.00500
7.5
3.20
0.0000103
0.873
0.109
0.00546
7.5
5.22
0.000136
2.54
0.317
0.0159
12.5
6.08
0.000237
5.84
0.731
0.0365
17.5
6.80
0.000429
9.11
1.14
0.0569
17.5
7.40
0.000796
13.7
1.72
0.0859
22.5
7.89
0.00135
40.0
5.00
0.250
27.5
9.69
0.00823
150
0.00
0.000118
0.803
2.18
5.38
13.1
31.9
908
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
References
USEPA 2001
Derived
ABB 1995 and USEPA, 1997b
Derived
USEPA 2001
USEPA 2001
USEPA 2001
Derived
Assumption
USEPA 2001
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
Carsel and Fairish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPRI, 1985; USEPA 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPA STORET database
USEPA STORET database
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
1 The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among the three soil types; each soil
type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-9-1
-------
Table C-10: IWEM Tier 1 Input Parameters for Waste Pile, Composite Liner Scenario
Input
Type
s
Unsaturated Zone
Saturated Zone
Input
No.
SSI
SS2/3
SS5
SS6
SS10
SS15
US1
US2
US3
US4
US5
US6
US?
US8
US9
US10
US11
US12
US13
AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4
AS5
AS6
AS?
ASS
AS9
AS10
ASH
AS12
AS13
AS14
AS15
AS16
AS17
AS20
AS21
AS22
AS23
AS24
Parameter
Area
Length/Width
Recharge Rate
Infiltration Rate
Duration of Leaching
Base Depth Below Grade
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Moisture Retention Parameter (alpha)
Moisture Retention Parameter (beta)
Residual Water Content
Saturated Water Content
Thickness of Unsaturated Zone
Dispersivity
Percent Organic Matter
Bulk Density
Soil/Water Distribution Coefficient
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Chemical Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Average Particle Diameter
Aquifer Effective Porosity
Aquifer Bulk Density
Aquifer Saturated Thickness
Longitudinal Hydraulic Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
Hydraulic Gradient
Seepage Velocity
Retardation Factor
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Vertical Dispersivity
Temperature of Ambient Aquifer Water
Ambient Groundwater pH
Fraction of Organic Carbon
Radial Distance of Observation Well from
Downgradient Edge of Waste Unit
Angle Off-Center of Observation Well
Depth of Well Below Water Table
Leading Coefficient of Freundlich Adsorption
Isotherm
Freundlich Adsorption Isotherm Exponent
Hydrolysis Degradation Rate Coefficient
Biodegradation Rate Coefficient
Input
Distribution Type
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Lognormal '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Johnson SB '
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Johnson SB '
Constant
Derived
Constant
Derived
Constant
Empirical
Derived
Derived
Regional Site-Based
Regional Site-Based
Constant
Regional Site-Based
Derived
Derived
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Gelhar Empirical
Regional Site-Based
Empirical
Johnson SB
Constant
Constant
Uniform
Derived
Constant
Derived
Derived
Units
(output)
m
m
m/yr
m/yr
yr
m
m/yr
1/m
unitless
unitless
unitless
m
m
unitless
g/cm3
cm3/g
unitless
l/yr
1/yr
on
unitless
g/cm3
m
m/yr
unitless
unitless
m/yr
unitless
m
m
m
degrees C
standard units
unitless
m
degrees
m
cm3/g
unitless
l/yr
1/yr
Percentiles 2
0
5.06
2.25
0.00001
0.00
10
20.2
4.49
0.0495
0.00
25
20.2
4.49
0.0787
0.00
50
121
11.0
0.147
0.00
75
1,210
34.8
0.286
0.0000730
90
4,170
64.6
0.419
0.000167
100
2,020,000
1,420
1.68
0.000401
20.0
0.00
0.00684
0.100
1.02
0.0156
0.410
0.305
0.0267
0.00250
1.60
0.611
0.616
1.20
0.0492
0.410
1.68
0.0570
0.0336
1.60
2.04
0.939
1.26
0.0610
0.430
3.96
0.107
0.0570
1.65
8.26
1.53
1.37
0.0745
0.450
6.10
0.154
0.101
1.65
35.5
2.74
1.53
0.0857
0.450
15.2
0.354
0.176
1.67
159
6.00
1.82
0.0937
0.450
34.1
0.770
0.291
1.67
2,520
20.2
2.45
0.115
0.450
610
1.00
2.11
1.67
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
0.000402
0.0501
1.16
0.305
3.15
0.00149
0.106
1.29
3.73
94.6
0.00563
0.168
1.43
7.32
315
0.0200
0.238
1.56
15.2
1,890
0.0422
0.298
1.64
32.0
11,000
0.0781
0.335
1.70
91.4
31,500
0.211
0.423
1.80
914
4,440,000
1.00
0.000002
0.100
0.000903
2.08
0.00200
8.68
0.00570
42.2
0.0180
245
0.0330
1,210
0.390
10,900
chemical-specific value
0.101
0.0126
0.00500
7.50
3.21
0.0000116
0.864
0.108
0.00540
7.50
5.23
0.000133
2.58
0.322
0.0161
12.5
6.08
0.000236
5.60
0.701
0.0350
12.5
6.82
0.000435
8.72
1.09
0.0545
17.5
7.42
0.000809
15.2
1.90
0.0948
22.5
7.93
0.00142
40.0
5.00
.250
22.5
9.68
0.0116
150
0.00
0.00270
0.947
2.45
6.08
16.2 |46.0
914
chemical-specific value
1.00
chemical-specific value
0.00
References
USEPA, 1986 and 1997b
Derived
ABB, 1995 and USEPA, 19971)
Tetra Tech, 2001
US EPA, 1996
Assumption of waste pile design
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
Carsel and Parrish, 1988
API, 1989
Gelhar, 1986; EPPJ, 1985; USEPA, 1997a
Carsel and others, 1988
Carsel and others, 1988
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
Sahe, 1974
Davis, 1969; McWorter and Sunada 1977
Freeze and Cherry, 1979
API, 1989
API, 1989
Assumption
API, 1989
Derived
Derived
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
EPRI, 1985; Gelhar, 1986; Gelhar, 1992
Collins, 1925
USEPA STORET
USEPA STORET
Policy for Tier 1
Policy for Tier 1
API, 1989
Derived
Assumption
Derived
Policy for Tier 1
1 The actual distribution type depends upon the soil type; the distribution types given here corespond to the silty loam soil (the most common type). In the Tier 1 modeling runs, soil type is automatically varied among the three soil types; each soil
type has it's own values/distributions of values for the soil parameters. The values presented in this table include all three soil types.
2 Values were generated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
C-10-1
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix C
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C
ABB Environmental Services. 1995. Estimation of Leachate Rates from Industrial Waste
Management Facilities. August, 1995.
API. 1989. Hydrogeologic Database for Groundwater Modeling. API Publication No.
4476, American Petroleum Institute.
Carsel, R.F., and R.S. Parrish. 1988. Developing joint probability distributions of soil
water retention characteristics. Water Resources Research 29:755-770.
Carsel, R.F., R.S. Parrish, R.L. Jones, J.L. Hansen, andR.L. Lamb. 1988. Characterizing
the uncertainty of pesticide leaching in agricultural soils. Journal of Contaminant
Hydrology, 2: 111-124.
Collins, W.D. 1925. Temperature of water available for industrial use in the United
States. US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 520-F, pp.97-104. Presented
in: D.K. Todd, 1976. Groundwater Hydrology. J. Wiley & Sons.
Davis, S.N. 1969. Porosity and permeability of natural materials. In: Flow Through
Porous Media, R.J.M. de Wiest, Editor, Academic Press, NY.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1985. A review of Field Scale Physical Solute
Transport Processes in Saturated and Unsaturated Porous Media. EPRI EA-4190,
Project 2485-5, Palo Alto, California.
Freeze, R.A. and J. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gelhar, L.W. 1986. Personal Communication with Zubair Saleem.
Gelhar, L.W., C. Welty, K.R. Rehfeldt. 1992. A critical review of data on field-scale
dispersion in aquifers. Water Resource Research, 28(7), 1955-1974.
McWorter, D.B. and D.K. Sunada. 1977. Groundwater and Hydraulics, Water Resources
Publications, Fort Collins, CO.
Schanz, R. and A. Salhotra. 1992. Subtitle D Landfill Characteristics. Center for
Modeling and Risk Assessment, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Oakland, CA.
Shea, J.H. 1974. Deficiencies of clastic particles of certain sizes. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology, 44(4):985-1003, December.
C-ll
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix C
USEPA. 1986. Industrial Subtitle D Facility Study (Telephone Survey), USEPA,
October 20, 1986. Washington, DC, 20460.
USEPA. 1996. EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation
Products (EPACMTP) Background Document. USEPA Office of Solid Waste,
Washington, DC, 20460.
USEPA. 1997'a. EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation
Products (EPACMTP) Users Guide. USEPA Office of Solid Waste, Washington,
DC, 20460.
USEPA. 1997b. Analysis of EPA's Industrial Subtitle D Databases used in Groundwater
Pathway Analysis of the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR). Office of
Solid Waste, Washington, DC.
C-12
-------
APPENDIX D
INFILTRATION RATE DATA
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table D-l. Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Landfills (m/yr) D-l-1
Table D-2. Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Waste Piles (m/yr) D-2-1
Table D-3. Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Land Application
Units (m/yr) D-3-1
Table D-4. Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Clay Liner
Scenarios (m/yr) D-4-1
Table D-5. Flow rate data used to develop landfill and waste pile composite liner
infiltration rates (from TetraTech, 2001) D-5-1
Table D-6. Leak Density Data Used to Develop Surface Impound composite liner
infiltration rates (from TetraTech, 2001) D-6-1
Table D-7. Comparison of composite liner infiltration rates Calculated using
Bonaparte Equation and Infiltration Rates for composite-lined
landfill cells D-7-1
D-i
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure D-l. Infiltration Rate Comparison (Head = 0.3m, Hole Area = 6mm2) . . . D-7-1
D-ii
-------
Table D-l: Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Landfills (m/yr)
ID
19
98
82
95
62
44
99
7
2
67
75
35
43
41
18
86
93
10
42
74
52
55
51
38
36
3
53
29
32
54
88
23
16
100
28
1
6
27
4
25
77
59
101
73
66
78
85
96
11
20
87
90
12
69
50
24
City
Albuquerque
Annette
Astoria
Atlanta
Augusta
Bangor
Bethel
Bismarck
Boise
Boston
Bridgeport
Brownsville
Burlington
Caribou
Cedar City
Central Park
Charleston
Cheyenne
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbia
Columbus
Concord
Dallas
Denver
Des Moines
Dodge City
E. Lansing
E. St. Louis
Edison
El Paso
Ely
Fairbanks
Flagstaff
Fresno
Glasgow
Grand Island
Grand Junction
Great Falls
Greensboro
Hartford
Honolulu
Indianapolis
Ithaca
Jacksonville
Knoxville
Lake Charles
Lander
Las Vegas
Lexington
Little Rock
Los Angeles
Lynchburg
Madison
Medford
State
NM
AK
OR
GA
ME
ME
AK
ND
ID
MA
CT
TX
VT
ME
UT
NY
SC
WY
IL
OH
OH
MO
OH
NH
TX
CO
IA
KS
MI
IL
NJ
TX
NV
AK
AZ
CA
MT
NE
CO
MT
NC
CT
HI
IN
NY
FL
TN
LA
WY
NV
KY
AK
CA
VA
WI
OR
No Liner
SLT
O.OOE+00
1.68E+00
1.08E+00
3.42E-01
2.12E-01
1.47E-01
5.64E-02
2.39E-02
8.00E-04
2.33E-01
1.95E-01
5.49E-02
1.36E-01
1.08E-01
O.OOE+00
3.36E-01
2.61E-01
5.00E-04
7.98E-02
1.55E-01
7.80E-02
1.53E-01
7.65E-02
1.59E-01
5.99E-02
8.00E-04
1.14E-01
1.35E-02
1.09E-01
1.44E-01
3.12E-01
7.60E-03
O.OOE+00
1.04E-02
2.39E-02
3.07E-02
9.90E-03
4.42E-02
O.OOE+00
3.60E-03
3.26E-01
1.71E-01
5.23E-02
1.30E-01
1.68E-01
1.51E-01
4.11E-01
3.65E-01
3.30E-03
O.OOE+00
3.29E-01
3.53E-01
7.87E-02
3.08E-01
9.12E-02
2.07E-01
SNL
O.OOE+00
1.84E+00
1.15E+00
3.99E-01
2.70E-01
2.05E-01
7.21E-02
3.00E-02
9.40E-03
2.38E-01
2.46E-01
1.05E-01
1.78E-01
1.49E-01
8.00E-04
4.17E-01
3.29E-01
1.30E-03
1.14E-01
2.21E-01
1.21E-01
1.99E-01
1.16E-01
2.06E-01
1.07E-01
8.00E-04
1.64E-01
3.45E-02
1.45E-01
1.68E-01
3.91E-01
1.30E-02
O.OOE+00
2.34E-02
6.30E-02
3.68E-02
7.40E-03
6.27E-02
O.OOE+00
6.90E-03
3.90E-01
2.23E-01
9.45E-02
1.86E-01
2.14E-01
2.11E-01
4.46E-01
4.64E-01
5.30E-03
O.OOE+00
3.97E-01
4.34E-01
9.50E-02
3.61E-01
1.40E-01
2.31E-01
SCL
3.00E-04
1.46E+00
9.65E-01
2.82E-01
1.67E-01
1.23E-01
5.54E-02
1.96E-02
3.80E-03
1.54E-01
1.62E-01
3.84E-02
1.17E-01
8.86E-02
O.OOE+00
2.74E-01
2.12E-01
8.60E-03
6.20E-02
1.54E-01
8.23E-02
1.22E-01
6.63E-02
1.37E-01
5.31E-02
3.60E-03
1.16E-01
2.26E-02
1.10E-01
7.04E-02
2.49E-01
8.10E-03
3.00E-04
1.17E-02
2.26E-02
3.81E-02
9.90E-03
3.23E-02
3.00E-04
7.40E-03
2.71E-01
1.41E-01
3.66E-02
1.06E-01
1.39E-01
1.10E-01
3.54E-01
2.82E-01
9.40E-03
1.80E-03
2.70E-01
2.82E-01
6.99E-02
2.57E-01
6.86E-02
2.10E-01
Clay Liner
O.OOE+00
3.38E-02
5.26E-02
4.77E-02
4.45E-02
4.32E-02
2.95E-02
1.88E-02
4.61E-03
4.45E-02
4.44E-02
2.41E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
6.69E-05
4.86E-02
4.77E-02
2.38E-05
4.32E-02
4.44E-02
4.09E-02
4.09E-02
4.09E-02
4.32E-02
2.41E-02
1.83E-05
4.09E-02
9.44E-03
3.74E-02
4.09E-02
4.86E-02
1.03E-04
3.54E-05
9.40E-03
2.41E-02
4.61E-03
6.69E-05
1.96E-02
2.70E-05
1.02E-04
3.62E-02
4.45E-02
4.83E-03
4.44E-02
4.45E-02
3.62E-02
4.86E-02
4.92E-02
1.28E-04
6.89E-05
4.86E-02
4.77E-02
1.26E-03
4.44E-02
4.09E-02
4.32E-02
D-l-1
-------
Table D-l: Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Landfills (m/yr)
ID
97
30
47
65
89
83
92
70
80
oo
JJ
37
76
71
21
39
84
5
40
64
63
8
49
17
45
13
26
58
14
102
15
48
68
72
46
81
31
60
91
57
56
22
34
94
79
61
9
City
Miami
Midland
Montpelier
Nashua
Nashville
New Haven
New Orleans
New York City
Norfolk
North Omaha
Oklahoma City
Orlando
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Pittsburg
Plainfield
Pocatello
Portland
Portland
Providence
Pullman
Put-in-Bay
Rapid City
Rutland
Sacramento
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
San Diego
San Juan
Santa Maria
Sault St. Marie
Schenectady
Seabrook
Seattle
Shreveport
St. Cloud
Syracuse
Tallahassee
Tampa
Topeka
Tucson
Tulsa
W. Palm Beach
Watkinsville
Worchester
Yakima
State
FL
TX
VT
NH
TN
CT
LA
NY
VA
NE
OK
FL
PA
AZ
PA
MA
ID
OR
ME
RI
WA
OH
SD
VT
CA
UT
TX
CA
PR
CA
MI
NY
NJ
WA
LA
MN
NY
FL
FL
KS
AZ
OK
FL
GA
MA
WA
No Liner
SLT
1.45E-01
1.80E-02
1.06E-01
2.27E-01
4.67E-01
3.52E-01
5.89E-01
2.44E-01
3.12E-01
6.71E-02
6.12E-02
1.02E-01
2.01E-01
O.OOE+00
8.94E-02
1.90E-01
O.OOE+00
4.17E-01
2.29E-01
2.13E-01
6.90E-03
5.08E-02
5.00E-04
1.21E-01
1.02E-01
1.30E-02
1.10E-01
2.21E-02
1.27E-01
9.47E-02
1.65E-01
1.47E-01
1.81E-01
4.38E-01
2.30E-01
6.02E-02
2.55E-01
5.91E-01
6.58E-02
1.05E-01
O.OOE+00
6.86E-02
2.61E-01
2.89E-01
2.02E-01
O.OOE+00
SNL
2.20E-01
2.54E-02
1.48E-01
2.81E-01
5.40E-01
4.63E-01
7.45E-01
2.94E-01
O.OOE+00
7.95E-02
9.42E-02
1.70E-01
2.61E-01
3.00E-04
1.31E-01
2.54E-01
O.OOE+00
4.39E-01
2.84E-01
2.86E-01
1.32E-02
l.OOE-01
7.10E-03
1.60E-01
8.76E-02
2.69E-02
1.65E-01
3.40E-02
1.92E-01
1.15E-01
2.10E-01
1.93E-01
2.43E-01
4.58E-01
2.94E-01
8.31E-02
3.25E-01
7.31E-01
1.03E-01
1.48E-01
3.00E-04
1.01E-01
3.49E-01
3.56E-01
2.59E-01
2.30E-03
SCL
1.02E-01
1.35E-02
8.79E-02
1.94E-01
3.77E-01
2.86E-01
4.50E-01
1.97E-01
2.69E-01
5.36E-02
3.89E-02
8.05E-02
1.64E-01
3.00E-04
7.92E-02
1.52E-01
O.OOE+00
3.93E-01
1.87E-01
1.75E-01
8.40E-03
4.95E-02
3.30E-03
1.01E-01
9.45E-02
1.85E-02
8.20E-02
2.41E-02
9.45E-02
8.41E-02
1.44E-01
1.22E-01
1.43E-01
4.08E-01
1.84E-01
5.54E-02
2.12E-01
4.56E-01
4.75E-02
7.62E-02
5.00E-04
4.65E-02
1.78E-01
2.33E-01
1.70E-01
3.00E-04
Clay Liner
4.92E-02
9.44E-03
4.32E-02
4.45E-02
4.86E-02
5.26E-02
4.77E-02
4.44E-02
3.62E-02
2.91E-02
2.46E-02
3.62E-02
4.44E-02
1.69E-05
4.32E-02
5.26E-02
5.50E-04
4.32E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
2.27E-04
4.09E-02
6.40E-05
4.32E-02
1.26E-03
5.10E-04
2.53E-02
1.26E-03
1.93E-02
1.26E-03
4.32E-02
4.45E-02
4.44E-02
4.32E-02
3.62E-02
3.42E-02
4.45E-02
4.77E-02
2.53E-02
3.50E-02
2.23E-05
2.41E-02
4.77E-02
3.62E-02
4.45E-02
1.15E-04
Notes:
SLT = Silt Loam cover
SNL = Sandy Loam cover
SCL= Silty Clay Loam cover
D-l-2
-------
Table D-2: Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Waste Piles (m/yr)
ID
19
98
82
95
62
44
99
7
2
67
75
35
43
41
18
86
93
10
42
74
52
55
51
38
36
3
53
29
32
54
88
23
16
100
28
1
6
27
4
25
77
59
101
73
66
78
85
96
11
20
87
90
12
69
50
City
Albuquerque
Annette
Astoria
Atlanta
Augusta
Bangor
Bethel
Bismarck
Boise
Boston
Bridgeport
Brownsville
Burlington
Caribou
Cedar City
Central Park
Charleston
Cheyenne
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbia
Columbus
Concord
Dallas
Denver
Des Moines
Dodge City
E. Lansing
E. St. Louis
Edison
El Paso
Ely
Fairbanks
Flagstaff
Fresno
Glasgow
Grand Island
Grand Junction
Great Falls
Greensboro
Hartford
Honolulu
Indianapolis
Ithaca
Jacksonville
Knoxville
Lake Charles
Lander
Las Vegas
Lexington
Little Rock
Los Angeles
Lynchburg
Madison
State
NM
AK
OR
GA
ME
ME
AK
ND
ID
MA
CT
TX
VT
ME
UT
NY
SC
WY
IL
OH
OH
MO
OH
NH
TX
CO
IA
KS
MI
IL
NJ
TX
NV
AK
AZ
CA
MT
NE
CO
MT
NC
CT
HI
IN
NY
FL
TN
LA
WY
NV
KY
AK
CA
VA
WI
No Liner
Low
Permeability
Waste
2.54E-04
1.54E+00
1.21E+00
5.16E-01
3.14E-01
2.57E-01
5.02E-02
2.59E-02
2.54E-04
3.22E-01
3.69E-01
2.27E-01
2.13E-01
1.88E-01
2.54E-04
5.23E-01
4.83E-01
4.32E-03
1.68E-01
3.10E-01
1.82E-01
3.10E-01
1.72E-01
2.35E-01
2.58E-01
7.62E-04
2.51E-01
1.01E-01
1.36E-01
2.63E-01
4.90E-01
2.31E-02
2.54E-04
7.67E-03
4.04E-02
4.22E-02
3.66E-02
9.63E-02
2.54E-04
2.59E-02
4.84E-01
2.79E-01
5.01E-02
2.69E-01
2.61E-01
4.09E-01
5.42E-01
6.07E-01
2.03E-03
2.54E-04
4.52E-01
5.38E-01
1.33E-01
2.69E-01
2.02E-01
Medium
Permeability
Waste
2.54E-04
1.81E+00
1.21E+00
5.16E-01
3.14E-01
2.57E-01
7.25E-02
2.59E-02
2.54E-04
3.22E-01
3.69E-01
2.27E-01
2.13E-01
1.88E-01
2.54E-04
5.23E-01
4.83E-01
4.32E-03
1.68E-01
3.10E-01
1.82E-01
3.10E-01
1.72E-01
2.35E-01
2.58E-01
7.62E-04
2.51E-01
1.01E-01
1.36E-01
2.63E-01
4.90E-01
2.31E-02
2.54E-04
1.67E-02
4.04E-02
4.22E-02
3.66E-02
9.63E-02
2.54E-04
2.59E-02
4.84E-01
2.79E-01
1.08E-01
2.69E-01
2.61E-01
4.09E-01
5.42E-01
6.07E-01
2.03E-03
2.54E-04
4.52E-01
5.38E-01
1.33E-01
2.69E-01
2.02E-01
High
Permeability
Waste
2.54E-04
1.88E+00
1.21E+00
5.16E-01
3.14E-01
2.57E-01
1.23E-01
2.59E-02
2.54E-04
3.22E-01
3.69E-01
2.27E-01
2.13E-01
1.88E-01
2.54E-04
5.23E-01
4.83E-01
4.32E-03
1.68E-01
3.10E-01
1.82E-01
3.10E-01
1.72E-01
2.35E-01
2.58E-01
7.62E-04
2.51E-01
1.01E-01
1.36E-01
2.63E-01
4.90E-01
2.31E-02
2.54E-04
7.77E-02
4.04E-02
4.22E-02
3.66E-02
9.63E-02
2.54E-04
2.59E-02
4.84E-01
2.79E-01
1.98E-01
2.69E-01
2.61E-01
4.09E-01
5.42E-01
6.07E-01
2.03E-03
2.54E-04
4.52E-01
5.38E-01
1.33E-01
2.69E-01
2.02E-01
Clay Liner
Low
Permeability
Waste
1.60E-03
1.35E-01
1.32E-01
1.18E-01
1.19E-01
1.13E-01
3.52E-02
1.24E-02
1.36E-02
1.19E-01
1.06E-01
4.97E-03
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
4.82E-03
1.26E-01
1.18E-01
1.37E-03
1.13E-01
1.06E-01
6.88E-02
6.88E-02
6.88E-02
1.13E-01
4.97E-03
1.97E-03
6.88E-02
3.26E-03
4.81E-02
6.88E-02
1.26E-01
5.81E-03
5.89E-03
9.80E-03
1.05E-02
1.36E-02
5.35E-04
4.22E-02
4.59E-03
1.94E-03
8.04E-02
1.19E-01
3.23E-02
1.06E-01
1.19E-01
8.04E-02
1.26E-01
4.89E-02
4.19E-03
5.15E-03
1.26E-01
1.18E-01
O.OOE+00
1.06E-01
6.88E-02
Medium
Permeability
Waste
1.51E-02
1.36E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.29E-01
1.27E-01
3.64E-02
6.89E-02
4.34E-02
1.29E-01
1.34E-01
1.33E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
8.26E-04
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
2.92E-04
1.27E-01
1.34E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.27E-01
1.33E-01
1.28E-03
1.32E-01
1.06E-01
1.15E-01
1.32E-01
1.35E-01
2.63E-03
1.12E-03
1.18E-02
1.23E-01
4.34E-02
2.25E-04
1.35E-01
1.66E-03
4.66E-03
1.27E-01
1.29E-01
4.94E-02
1.34E-01
1.29E-01
1.27E-01
1.35E-01
5.58E-02
1.25E-03
1.79E-03
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
5.56E-02
1.34E-01
1.32E-01
High
Permeability
Waste
7.43E-03
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.28E-01
1.27E-01
6.60E-02
9.50E-02
6.06E-02
1.28E-01
1.33E-01
1.32E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
5.32E-03
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
7.07E-03
1.27E-01
1.33E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.27E-01
1.32E-01
3.66E-03
1.32E-01
1.19E-01
1.11E-01
1.32E-01
1.35E-01
6.74E-03
3.61E-03
4.07E-02
1.23E-01
6.06E-02
2.34E-02
1.34E-01
1.98E-03
3.34E-02
1.27E-01
1.28E-01
8.71E-02
1.33E-01
1.28E-01
1.27E-01
1.35E-01
9.27E-02
2.00E-02
7.97E-03
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
7.18E-02
1.33E-01
1.32E-01
D-2-1
-------
Table D-2: Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Waste Piles (m/yr)
ID
24
97
30
47
65
89
83
92
70
80
33
37
76
71
21
39
84
5
40
64
63
8
49
17
45
13
26
58
14
102
15
48
68
72
46
81
31
60
91
57
56
22
34
94
79
61
9
City
Medford
Miami
Midland
Montpelier
Nashua
Nashville
New Haven
New Orleans
New York City
Norfolk
North Omaha
Oklahoma City
Orlando
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Pittsburg
Plainfield
Pocatello
Portland
Portland
Providence
Pullman
Put-in-Bay
Rapid City
Rutland
Sacramento
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
San Diego
San Juan
Santa Maria
Sault St. Marie
Schenectady
Seabrook
Seattle
Shreveport
St. Cloud
Syracuse
Tallahassee
Tampa
Topeka
Tucson
Tulsa
W. Palm Beach
Watkinsville
Worchester
Yakima
State
OR
FL
TX
VT
NH
TN
CT
LA
NY
VA
NE
OK
FL
PA
AZ
PA
MA
ID
OR
ME
RI
WA
OH
SD
VT
CA
UT
TX
CA
PR
CA
MI
NY
NJ
WA
LA
MN
NY
FL
FL
KS
AZ
OK
FL
GA
MA
WA
No Liner
Low
Permeability
Waste
2.50E-01
4.23E-01
7.57E-02
1.76E-01
3.34E-01
6.14E-01
5.42E-01
8.49E-01
3.99E-01
4.54E-01
1.62E-01
2.42E-01
3.84E-01
3.53E-01
2.54E-04
1.72E-01
3.03E-01
2.54E-04
5.06E-01
3.25E-01
3.48E-01
2.54E-04
1.48E-01
1.35E-02
2.13E-01
1.23E-01
1.93E-02
2.95E-01
6.58E-02
1.50E-01
1.51E-01
2.37E-01
2.75E-01
3.41E-01
5.31E-01
4.46E-01
1.52E-01
4.10E-01
8.22E-01
2.72E-01
2.47E-01
2.54E-04
2.49E-01
5.64E-01
4.67E-01
3.31E-01
2.54E-04
Medium
Permeability
Waste
2.50E-01
4.23E-01
7.57E-02
1.76E-01
3.34E-01
6.14E-01
5.42E-01
8.49E-01
3.99E-01
4.54E-01
1.62E-01
2.42E-01
3.84E-01
3.53E-01
2.54E-04
1.72E-01
3.03E-01
2.54E-04
5.06E-01
3.25E-01
3.48E-01
2.54E-04
1.48E-01
1.35E-02
2.13E-01
1.23E-01
1.93E-02
2.95E-01
6.58E-02
2.88E-01
1.51E-01
2.37E-01
2.75E-01
3.41E-01
5.31E-01
4.46E-01
1.52E-01
4.10E-01
8.22E-01
2.72E-01
2.47E-01
2.54E-04
2.49E-01
5.64E-01
4.67E-01
3.31E-01
2.54E-04
High
Permeability
Waste
2.50E-01
4.23E-01
7.57E-02
1.76E-01
3.34E-01
6.14E-01
5.42E-01
8.49E-01
3.99E-01
4.54E-01
1.62E-01
2.42E-01
3.84E-01
3.53E-01
2.54E-04
1.72E-01
3.03E-01
2.54E-04
5.06E-01
3.25E-01
3.48E-01
2.54E-04
1.48E-01
1.35E-02
2.13E-01
1.23E-01
1.93E-02
2.95E-01
6.58E-02
4.44E-01
1.51E-01
2.37E-01
2.75E-01
3.41E-01
5.31E-01
4.46E-01
1.52E-01
4.10E-01
8.22E-01
2.72E-01
2.47E-01
2.54E-04
2.49E-01
5.64E-01
4.67E-01
3.31E-01
2.54E-04
Clay Liner
Low
Permeability
Waste
1.26E-01
4.89E-02
3.26E-03
1.13E-01
1.19E-01
1.26E-01
1.32E-01
1.18E-01
1.06E-01
8.04E-02
2.02E-02
7.47E-03
8.04E-02
1.06E-01
4.73E-03
1.13E-01
1.32E-01
5.86E-03
1.13E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
9.27E-03
6.88E-02
9.92E-04
1.13E-01
O.OOE+00
9.11E-03
2.00E-02
O.OOE+00
6.37E-02
O.OOE+00
1.13E-01
1.19E-01
1.06E-01
1.13E-01
8.04E-02
2.64E-02
1.19E-01
1.18E-01
2.00E-02
1.74E-02
6.41E-03
4.97E-03
1.18E-01
8.04E-02
1.19E-01
4.86E-03
Medium
Permeability
Waste
1.33E-01
5.58E-02
1.06E-01
1.27E-01
1.29E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.34E-01
1.27E-01
1.26E-01
1.31E-01
1.27E-01
1.34E-01
2.01E-03
1.27E-01
1.35E-01
1.50E-03
1.27E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.43E-02
1.32E-01
1.14E-03
1.27E-01
5.56E-02
1.05E-02
1.34E-01
5.56E-02
7.93E-02
5.56E-02
1.27E-01
1.29E-01
1.34E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.26E-01
1.29E-01
1.35E-01
1.34E-01
1.31E-01
7.53E-03
1.33E-01
1.35E-01
1.27E-01
1.29E-01
4.74E-03
High
Permeability
Waste
1.31E-01
9.27E-02
1.19E-01
1.27E-01
1.28E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.33E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.30E-01
1.27E-01
1.33E-01
7.62E-04
1.27E-01
1.35E-01
3.19E-02
1.27E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
3.44E-02
1.32E-01
1.92E-02
1.27E-01
7.18E-02
3.68E-02
1.33E-01
7.18E-02
1.11E-01
7.18E-02
1.27E-01
1.28E-01
1.33E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.26E-01
1.28E-01
1.35E-01
1.33E-01
1.30E-01
1.69E-03
1.32E-01
1.35E-01
1.27E-01
1.28E-01
2.84E-02
Notes:
Low, Medium, and High denote representative waste types with different hydraulic conductivities:
Low = Fine-grained waste (e.g., fly ash), Hydraulic conductivity is 5x10 cm/sec
Medium = Medium-grained waste (e.g., bottom ash), Hydraulic conductivity is 0.0041 cm/sec
High = Coarse-grained waste (e.g., slag), Hydraulic conductivity is 0.041 cm/sec
D-2-2
-------
Table D-3: Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Land Application Units (m/yr)
ID
19
98
82
95
62
44
99
7
2
67
75
35
43
41
18
86
93
10
42
74
52
55
51
38
36
3
53
29
32
54
88
23
16
100
28
1
6
27
4
25
77
59
101
73
66
78
85
96
11
20
87
90
12
69
50
24
City
Albuquerque
Annette
Astoria
Atlanta
Augusta
Bangor
Bethel
Bismarck
Boise
Boston
Bridgeport
Brownsville
Burlington
Caribou
Cedar City
Central Park
Charleston
Cheyenne
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbia
Columbus
Concord
Dallas
Denver
Des Moines
Dodge City
E. Lansing
E. St. Louis
Edison
El Paso
Ely
Fairbanks
Flagstaff
Fresno
Glasgow
Grand Island
Grand Junction
Great Falls
Greensboro
Hartford
Honolulu
Indianapolis
Ithaca
Jacksonville
Knoxville
Lake Charles
Lander
Las Vegas
Lexington
Little Rock
Los Angeles
Lynchburg
Madison
Medford
State
NM
AK
OR
GA
ME
ME
AK
ND
ID
MA
CT
TX
VT
ME
UT
NY
SC
WY
IL
OH
OH
MO
OH
NH
TX
CO
IA
KS
MI
IL
NJ
TX
NV
AK
AZ
CA
MT
NE
CO
MT
NC
CT
HI
IN
NY
FL
TN
LA
WY
NV
KY
AK
CA
VA
WI
OR
No Liner
SLT
O.OOE+00
1.80E+00
1.08E+00
3.42E-01
2.12E-01
1.47E-01
1.85E-01
2.39E-02
8.00E-04
2.33E-01
1.95E-01
5.49E-02
1.36E-01
1.08E-01
O.OOE+00
3.36E-01
2.61E-01
5.00E-04
7.98E-02
1.55E-01
7.80E-02
1.53E-01
7.65E-02
1.59E-01
5.99E-02
8.00E-04
1.14E-01
1.35E-02
1.09E-01
1.44E-01
3.12E-01
7.60E-03
O.OOE+00
1.46E-01
2.39E-02
3.07E-02
9.90E-03
4.42E-02
O.OOE+00
3.60E-03
3.26E-01
1.71E-01
5.41E-02
1.30E-01
1.68E-01
1.51E-01
4.11E-01
3.65E-01
3.30E-03
O.OOE+00
3.29E-01
3.53E-01
7.87E-02
3.08E-01
9.12E-02
2.07E-01
SNL
O.OOE+00
1.98E+00
1.15E+00
3.99E-01
2.70E-01
2.05E-01
1.98E-01
3.00E-02
9.40E-03
2.38E-01
2.46E-01
1.05E-01
1.78E-01
1.49E-01
8.00E-04
4.17E-01
3.29E-01
1.30E-03
1.14E-01
2.21E-01
1.21E-01
1.99E-01
1.16E-01
2.06E-01
1.07E-01
8.00E-04
1.64E-01
3.45E-02
1.45E-01
1.68E-01
3.91E-01
1.30E-02
O.OOE+00
1.48E-01
6.30E-02
3.68E-02
7.40E-03
6.27E-02
O.OOE+00
6.90E-03
3.90E-01
2.23E-01
9.83E-02
1.86E-01
2.14E-01
2.11E-01
4.46E-01
4.64E-01
5.30E-03
O.OOE+00
3.97E-01
4.34E-01
9.50E-02
3.61E-01
1.40E-01
2.31E-01
SCL
3.00E-04
1.52E+00
9.65E-01
2.82E-01
1.67E-01
1.23E-01
1.78E-01
1.96E-02
3.80E-03
1.54E-01
1.62E-01
3.84E-02
1.17E-01
8.86E-02
O.OOE+00
2.74E-01
2.12E-01
8.60E-03
6.20E-02
1.54E-01
8.23E-02
1.22E-01
6.63E-02
1.37E-01
5.31E-02
3.60E-03
1.16E-01
2.26E-02
1.10E-01
7.04E-02
2.49E-01
8.10E-03
3.00E-04
1.45E-01
2.26E-02
3.81E-02
9.90E-03
3.23E-02
3.00E-04
7.40E-03
2.71E-01
1.41E-01
3.63E-02
1.06E-01
1.39E-01
1.10E-01
3.54E-01
2.82E-01
9.40E-03
1.80E-03
2.70E-01
2.82E-01
6.99E-02
2.57E-01
6.86E-02
2.10E-01
D-3-1
-------
Table D-3: Tier 2 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Land Application Units (m/yr)
ID
97
30
47
65
89
83
92
70
80
33
37
76
71
21
39
84
5
40
64
63
8
49
17
45
13
26
58
14
102
15
48
68
72
46
81
31
60
91
57
56
22
34
94
79
61
9
City
Miami
Midland
Montpelier
Nashua
Nashville
New Haven
New Orleans
New York City
Norfolk
North Omaha
Oklahoma City
Orlando
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Pittsburg
Plainfield
Pocatello
Portland
Portland
Providence
Pullman
Put-in-Bay
Rapid City
Rutland
Sacramento
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
San Diego
San Juan
Santa Maria
Sault St. Marie
Schenectady
Seabrook
Seattle
Shreveport
St. Cloud
Syracuse
Tallahassee
Tampa
Topeka
Tucson
Tulsa
W. Palm Beach
Watkinsville
Worchester
Yakima
State
FL
TX
VT
NH
TN
CT
LA
NY
VA
NE
OK
FL
PA
AZ
PA
MA
ID
OR
ME
RI
WA
OH
SD
VT
CA
UT
TX
CA
PR
CA
MI
NY
NJ
WA
LA
MN
NY
FL
FL
KS
AZ
OK
FL
GA
MA
WA
No Liner
SLT
1.45E-01
1.80E-02
1.06E-01
2.27E-01
4.67E-01
3.52E-01
5.89E-01
2.44E-01
3.12E-01
6.71E-02
6.12E-02
1.02E-01
2.01E-01
O.OOE+00
8.94E-02
1.90E-01
O.OOE+00
4.17E-01
2.29E-01
2.13E-01
6.90E-03
5.08E-02
5.00E-04
1.21E-01
1.02E-01
1.30E-02
1.10E-01
2.21E-02
1.49E-01
9.47E-02
1.65E-01
1.47E-01
1.81E-01
4.38E-01
2.30E-01
6.02E-02
2.55E-01
5.91E-01
6.58E-02
1.05E-01
O.OOE+00
6.86E-02
2.61E-01
2.89E-01
2.02E-01
O.OOE+00
SNL
2.20E-01
2.54E-02
1.48E-01
2.81E-01
5.40E-01
4.63E-01
7.45E-01
2.94E-01
O.OOE+00
7.95E-02
9.42E-02
1.70E-01
2.61E-01
3.00E-04
1.31E-01
2.54E-01
O.OOE+00
4.39E-01
2.84E-01
2.86E-01
1.32E-02
l.OOE-01
7.10E-03
1.60E-01
8.76E-02
2.69E-02
1.65E-01
3.40E-02
2.16E-01
1.15E-01
2.10E-01
1.93E-01
2.43E-01
4.58E-01
2.94E-01
8.31E-02
3.25E-01
7.31E-01
1.03E-01
1.48E-01
3.00E-04
1.01E-01
3.49E-01
3.56E-01
2.59E-01
2.30E-03
SCL
1.02E-01
1.35E-02
8.79E-02
1.94E-01
3.77E-01
2.86E-01
4.50E-01
1.97E-01
2.69E-01
5.36E-02
3.89E-02
8.05E-02
1.64E-01
3.00E-04
7.92E-02
1.52E-01
O.OOE+00
3.93E-01
1.87E-01
1.75E-01
8.40E-03
4.95E-02
3.30E-03
1.01E-01
9.45E-02
1.85E-02
8.20E-02
2.41E-02
1.05E-01
8.41E-02
1.44E-01
1.22E-01
1.43E-01
4.08E-01
1.84E-01
5.54E-02
2.12E-01
4.56E-01
4.75E-02
7.62E-02
5.00E-04
4.65E-02
1.78E-01
2.33E-01
1.70E-01
3.00E-04
Notes:
SLT = Silt Loam soil
SNL = Sandy Loam soil
SCL = Silty Clay Loam soil
D-3-2
-------
Table D-4: Tier 1 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Clay Liner Scenarios (m/yr)
City
Boise 1}
Fresno
Bismarck
Denver
Grand Junction
Pocatello
Glasgow
Pullman
Yakima
Cheyenne
Lander
Rapid City
Los Angeles
Sacramento
San Diego
Santa Maria
Ely
Cedar City
Albuquerque
Las Vegas
Phoenix
Tucson
El Paso
Medford
Great Falls
Salt Lake City
Grand Island
Flagstaff
Dodge City
Midland
St. Cloud
E. Lansing
North Omaha
Dallas
Tulsa
Brownsville
Oklahoma City
Bangor
Concord
Pittsburg
Portland
Caribou
Chicago
Burlington
Rutland
Seattle
Montpelier
Sault St. Marie
Columbia
Put-in-Bay
Madison
Columbus
State
ID
CA
ND
CO
CO
ID
MT
WA
WA
WY
WY
SD
CA
CA
CA
CA
NV
UT
NM
NV
AZ
AZ
TX
OR
MT
UT
NE
AZ
KS
TX
MN
MI
NE
TX
OK
TX
OK
ME
NH
PA
OR
ME
IL
VT
VT
WA
VT
MI
MO
OH
WI
OH
Tier 1 Clay
Lined Landfill
Infiltration Rate
(m/yr)
4.61E-03
4.61E-03
1.88E-02
1.88E-02
1.88E-02
1.88E-02
1.88E-02
1.88E-02
1.88E-02
1.88E-02
1.88E-02
1.26E-03
1.26E-03
1.26E-03
1.26E-03
1.26E-03
1.26E-03
1.26E-03
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
1.96E-02
2.41E-02
9.44E-03
9.44E-03
3.42E-02
3.74E-02
2.91E-02
2.41E-02
2.41E-02
2.41E-02
2.46E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.32E-02
4.09E-02
4.09E-02
4.09E-02
4.09E-02
Tier 1 Clay Lined Waste Pile
Infiltration Rate (m/yr)
Low
Permeability
Waste
1.36E-02
1.36E-02
1.24E-02
1.24E-02
1.24E-02
1.24E-02
1.24E-02
1.24E-02
1.24E-02
1.24E-02
1.24E-02
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.60E-03
9.68E-02
9.68E-02
9.68E-02
9.68E-02
1.26E-01
1.26E-01
1.26E-01
4.22E-02
1.05E-02
3.26E-03
3.26E-03
2.64E-02
4.81E-02
2.02E-02
4.97E-03
4.97E-03
4.97E-03
7.47E-03
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
1.13E-01
6.88E-02
6.88E-02
6.88E-02
6.88E-02
Medium
Permeability
Waste
4.34E-02
4.34E-02
6.89E-02
6.89E-02
6.89E-02
6.89E-02
6.89E-02
6.89E-02
6.89E-02
6.89E-02
6.89E-02
5.56E-02
5.56E-02
5.56E-02
5.56E-02
5.56E-02
5.56E-02
5.56E-02
1.51E-02
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.35E-01
1.23E-01
1.06E-01
1.06E-01
1.26E-01
1.15E-01
1.26E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.31E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
High
Permeability
Waste
6.06E-02
6.06E-02
9.50E-02
9.50E-02
9.50E-02
9.50E-02
9.50E-02
9.50E-02
9.50E-02
9.50E-02
9.50E-02
7.18E-02
7.18E-02
7.18E-02
7.18E-02
7.18E-02
7.18E-02
7.18E-02
7.43E-03
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.31E-01
1.31E-01
1.31E-01
1.34E-01
1.23E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.26E-01
1.11E-01
1.27E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.30E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
D-4-1
-------
Table D-4: Tier 1 HELP-derived Infiltration Rates for Clay Liner Scenarios (m/yr)
City
Cleveland
Des Moines
E. St. Louis
Topeka
Tampa
San Antonio
Portland
Hartford
Syracuse
Worchester
Augusta
Providence
Nashua
Ithaca
Boston
Schenectady
New York City
Lynchburg
Philadelphia
Seabrook
Indianapolis
Cincinnati
Bridgeport
Jacksonville
Orlando
Greensboro
Watkinsville
Norfolk
Shreveport
Astoria
New Haven
Plainfield
Nashville
Knoxville
Central Park
Lexington
Edison
Atlanta
Little Rock
Tallahassee
New Orleans
Charleston
W. Palm Beach
Lake Charles
Miami
Annette
Bethel
Fairbanks
Honolulu
San Juan
State
OH
IA
IL
KS
FL
TX
ME
CT
NY
MA
ME
RI
NH
NY
MA
NY
NY
VA
PA
NJ
IN
OH
CT
FL
FL
NC
GA
VA
LA
OR
CT
MA
TN
TN
NY
KY
NJ
GA
AK
FL
LA
SC
FL
LA
FL
AK
AK
AK
HI
PR
Tier 1 Clay
Lined Landfill
Infiltration Rate
(m/yr)
4.09E-02
4.09E-02
4.09E-02
3.50E-02
2.53E-02
2.53E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.45E-02
4.44E-02
4.44E-02
4.44E-02
4.44E-02
4.44E-02
4.44E-02
4.44E-02
3.62E-02
3.62E-02
3.62E-02
3.62E-02
3.62E-02
3.62E-02
5.26E-02
5.26E-02
5.26E-02
4.86E-02
4.86E-02
4.86E-02
4.86E-02
4.86E-02
4.77E-02
4.77E-02
4.77E-02
4.77E-02
4.77E-02
4.77E-02
4.92E-02
4.92E-02
3.38E-02
2.95E-02
9.40E-03
4.83E-03
1.93E-02
Tier 1 Clay Lined Waste Pile
Infiltration Rate (m/yr)
Low
Permeability
Waste
6.88E-02
6.88E-02
6.88E-02
1.74E-02
2.00E-02
2.00E-02
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.19E-01
1.06E-01
1.06E-01
1.06E-01
1.06E-01
1.06E-01
1.06E-01
1.06E-01
8.04E-02
8.04E-02
8.04E-02
8.04E-02
8.04E-02
8.04E-02
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.26E-01
1.26E-01
1.26E-01
1.26E-01
1.26E-01
1.18E-01
1.18E-01
1.18E-01
1.18E-01
1.18E-01
1.18E-01
3.84E-03
3.84E-03
1.35E-01
3.52E-02
9.80E-03
3.23E-02
6.37E-02
Medium
Permeability
Waste
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.31E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.29E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.34E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
2.36E-02
2.36E-02
1.36E-01
3.64E-02
1.18E-02
4.94E-02
7.93E-02
High
Permeability
Waste
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.32E-01
1.30E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.28E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.33E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.27E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
1.35E-01
2.97E-02
2.97E-02
1.35E-01
6.60E-02
4.07E-02
8.71E-02
1.11E-01
1 City names in bold face are climate stations selected as representative of that region
D-4-2
-------
Table D-5: Flow rate data used to develop landfill and waste pile composite liner infiltration rates (from TetraTech, 2001)
Landfill
Cell ID1
G228
G232
G233
G234
G235
G236
G237
G238
G239
G240
G241
G242
G243
G244
G245
G246
G247
G248
G249
G250
G251
G252
G232
G233
G234
G235
G236
Cell Type
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
closed
closed
closed
closed
closed
Average M
(L/ha/d)
5.85
11
0
2
4
1
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
mthly LDS Flow
Rate
(m/y)
2.14E-04
4.02E-04
O.OOE+00
7.30E-05
1.46E-04
3.65E-05
7.30E-05
O.OOE+00
7.30E-05
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
7.30E-05
2.19E-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
7.30E-05
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
3.65E-05
O.OOE+00
Liner Type2
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
GM/GCL
Type of
Waste3
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
MSW
Site Parameters
Location
Mid- Atlantic
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Average
Annual
Rainfall
(mm)
NA
990
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
760
1090
1090
1090
990
1040
1040
1040
1040
Subsurface Soil
Type
NA
Silty Clay
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand
NA
NA
NA
Silty Clay
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Landfill Cell Construction/Operation Information
Cell Area
(ha)
51
4.7
2
2
1.7
1.7
2.8
3.9
2.6
3.8
3.3
3.9
3
4
3
2.8
2.8
4.5
3.8
4
2.4
2.8
4.7
2
2
1.7
1.7
GM Liner
Material4
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE
GM Liner
Thickness
(mm)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
GCL or CCL
Thickness
(mm)
NA
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
250
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Maximum
Height of
Waste
(in)
NA
NA
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
41
28
30
30
NA
24
24
24
24
End Construction
Date
1988
May-92
Jun-88
Jun-88
Aug-88
Aug-88
Sep-88
Dec-88
Jan-89
Jul-89
Dec-89
Feb-90
Feb-90
Oct-90
Jan-91
Apr-92
May-92
Jan-93
Sep-92
Dec-90
Jan-93
Jan-93
May-92
Jun-88
Jun-88
Aug-88
Aug-88
Waste Placement
Start Date
1989
May-92
Jul-88
Jul-88
Sep-88
Sep-88
Oct-88
Dec-88
Feb-89
Jul-89
Dec-89
Jul-90
Feb-90
Oct-90
Jan-91
Apr-92
May-92
Jan-93
Dec-92
Feb-91
Jan-93
Jan-93
May-92
Jul-88
Jul-88
Sep-88
Sep-88
Final Closure
Date
NA
Jul-94
Feb-91
Feb-91
Apr-93
Apr-93
Jul-94
Feb-91
Feb-91
Apr-93
Apr-93
Source of Data
Eith&Koerner(1997)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
EPA (1998)
Notes:
1. Cell ID as reported by Tetra Tech (2001)
2. GM = geomembrane; GCL = geosynthetic clay liner
3. MSW = municipal solid waste
4. HDPE = high density polyethylene
NA = not available
- = not applicable
Data Sources:
Eith, A. W., and G.R. Koerner, 1997. Assessment of HDPE geomembrane performance in municipal waste landfill double liner system after eight years of service. Geotextiles and geomembranes, Vol. 15, pp. 277 -
EPA, 1998. Assessment and Recommendations for Optimal Performance of Waste Containment Systems. Office of Research and Development, Cmcinatti, Ohio.
D-5-1
-------
Table D-6: Leak Density Data Used to Develop Surface Impound composite liner infiltration rates (from TetraTech, 2001)
Site ID1
LI
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L86
L103
L110
L114
L136
L144
L152
L159
L160
L176
L177
L178
L179
L180
L181
L182
Date
1995
1996
1994
1995
1997
1998
1995
1995
1997
1998
Apr-96
Oct-96
Jan-97
Jan-97
Oct-97
May-98
Aug-98
NA
NA
May-98
Sep-96
Apr-97
Sep-98
Sep-98
NA
NA
Area (m2)
18500
14926
13480
11652
8200
9284
67100
66150
11460
18135
9416
4980
11720
7000
13526
5608
3742
15000
10000
13500
15000
7500
5000
13200
48600
8000
Location
France
France
France
France
France
France
Canada
Canada
Canada
France
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
NA
NA
Waste Type
domestic
domestic
HW
HW
HW
HW
waste water
treatment
waste water
treatment
black liqueur
domestic
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
waste water
containment
HW
WMU type
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill
pond
pond
pond
landfill
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
pond
landfill
Type of GM
Liner2
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
PBGM
PBGM
PP
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HDPE/CCL
Thickness of
GM(mm)
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
1.14
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
2
Quality of
Material
Beneath GM
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Holes
0
4
1
1
0
0
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
Knife
Cuts/Tears
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
2
3
0
0
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
NA
NA
Seam or Weld
Defects
5
2
1
2
0
0
2
7
2
3
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
Total Leaks
5
6
3
5
0
1
5
9
6
6
0
0
3
4
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
21
10
Range of Hole
Size (mm)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30x50
NA
NA
NA
Leak Density
(leaks/ha)
2.7
4.02
2.23
4.29
0
1.08
0.75
1.36
5.24
3.31
0
0
2.6
5.7
0.7
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
1.3
0
0
4.3
12.5
Source
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
Rollinetal. (1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
McQuade and Needham
(1999)
Laine(1991)
Laine(1991)
Notes:
1. Cell ID as reported by Tetra Tech (2001)
2. HDPE = high density polyethylene; PBGM = pre-fabricated bituminous geomembrane; PP = polypropylene; CCL = compacted clay liner
NA = not available; - = not applicable
Data Sources:
Rollin, A.L., M. Marcotte, T. Jacqulein, andL. Chaput. 1999. Leak location in exposed geomembrane liners using an electrical leak detection technique. Geosynthetics '99, Vol. 2, pp. 615-626
McQuade, S.J., and A.D. Needham, 1999. Geomembrane liner defects - causes, frequency and avoidance. Geotechnical Engineering, Vol., 137. No. 4, pp. 203-213
Laine, D.L., 1991. Analysis of pinhole seam leaks located in geomembrane liners using the electrical leak location method. Proceedings, Geosynthetics '91, pp.239-253
D-6-1
-------
Table D-7: Comparison of composite liner infiltration rates
Calculated using Bonaparte Equation and Infiltration
Rates for composite-lined landfill cells
Percentile
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Calculated Infiltration
(m/yr)
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.05E-05
1.37E-05
2.03E-05
3.96E-05
6.01E-05
7.13E-05
1.87E-04
Observed Intiltration
(m/yr)
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
2.19E-05
7.30E-05
7.30E-05
1.73E-04
4.02E-04
Figure D-l: Infiltration Rate Comparison (Head =0.3m, Hole Area = 6mm )
S. 0.0002
-Calculated Infiltration
-Actual Infiltration value
40 50 60
Percentile
D-7-1
-------
APPENDIX E
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF REFERENCE GROUND-WATER
CONCENTRATION VALUES
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
E-l Shower Model E-l
E-l.l Shower Model E-l
E-l.2 Shower Model Uncertainties and Limitations E-7
E-l.3 References for Section E-l E-18
E-2 Constituent-specific Chemical and Physical Properties for the
Shower Model E-18
E-2.1 Data Collection Procedure E-18
E-2.2 Solubility (Sol) E-19
E-2.3 Henry's Law Constant (HLC) E-19
E-2.4 Diffusion Coefficient in Water (Dw) E-20
E-2.5 Diffusion Coefficient in Air (DJ E-21
E-2.6 References for Section E-2 E-27
E-3 Human Health Benchmarks used in the IWEM Tool E-28
E-3.1 Methodology and Data Sources E-28
E-3.1.1 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) E-28
E-3.1.2 Superfund Provisional Benchmarks E-29
E-3.1.3 Health Effects Summary Tables (HEAST) E-29
E-3.1.4 ATSDRMinimal RiskLevels E-29
E-3.1.5 CalEPA Cancer Potency Factors and Reference
Exposure Levels E-30
E-3.1.6 Other EPA Health Benchmarks E-30
E-3.2 Human Health Benchmark Values E-31
E-3.2.1 Benzene E-43
E-3.2.2 Vinyl Chloride E-43
E-3.2.3 Poly chlorinated Biphenyls E-43
E-3.2.4 Dioxin-like Compounds E-43
E-3.2.5 Superfund Technical Support Center
Provisional Benchmarks E-45
E-3.2.6 Benchmarks From Other EPA Sources E-46
E-3.2.7 Air Characteristic Study Provisional Benchmarks E-47
E-3.2.8 Surrogate Health Benchmarks E-47
E-3.2.9 Chloroform E-48
E-3.3 References for Section E E-49
E-i
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table E-l. Shower Model Input Parameters E-4
Table E-2. Constituent-specific Chemical and Physical Properties E-22
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values E-32
Table E-4. TEFs Used for Dioxin and Furan Congeners E-44
Table E-5. Provisional Human Health Benchmarks Developed by the
Superfund Technical Support Center E-45
Table E-6. Provisional Inhalation Benchmarks Developed in the Air
Characteristic Study E-47
E-ii
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF REFERENCE GROUND-WATER
CONCENTRATION VALUES
E-l Shower Model
E-l.l Shower Model
The shower model calculates the incremental change in the concentration of a
constituent in air that results from the transfer of constituent mass from the water phase
(the shower water) to the vapor phase (the air in the shower stall) over time. The model
then estimates the concentration of the constituent in a bathroom that results from air
exchange within the bathroom and between the bathroom and the rest of the house over
time. After the model calculates the predicted air-phase constituent concentration in the
shower stall and bathroom, we use those concentrations to estimate the average air-phase
constituent concentration to which an individual is exposed over the course of an entire
day. We use this average daily concentration to calculate inhalation HBNs.
The shower model is based on differential equations presented in McKone (1987)
and Little (1992a). We solved the differential equations using a mathematical technique
called "finite difference numerical integration," to produce the equations that we use in
our analysis, Equations E-l to E-l 1 in this Appendix. In reviewing the equations and
reading the following sections, it will help to keep in mind the following two concepts:
We calculate air-phase constituent concentrations for different "compartments"
The shower model is based on the understanding that there are two compartments
in the bathroom: 1) the shower stall and 2) the rest of the bathroom (outside of
the shower stall). We assume that an adult spends time: in the shower stall when
the shower is running; in the shower stall after the shower is turned off; and in the
rest of the bathroom after the shower is turned off (see Equations E-l and E-2).
We calculate air-phase constituent concentrations for different time steps. We
implement the shower model in time steps. That is, we estimate the air-phase
constituent concentration in each of the two compartments in 0.2-minute
increments or time steps. The air-phase constituent concentration at the
beginning of the 0.2-minute time step differs from the concentration at the end of
the 0.2-minute time step because of volatilization of constituent mass from the
shower water (which adds constituent mass) and the exchange of air between the
compartments in the bathroom and the rest of the house (which disperses the
mass). At the beginning of a time step, the air-phase concentration in each
E-l
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
bathroom compartment is equal to the air-phase concentration that was estimated
for the compartment at the end of the previous time step.
The following is our basic procedure for implementing the shower model:
Calculate a mass transfer coefficient for each constituent;
Estimate the air-phase constituent concentration in the shower stall for
sequential 0.2-minute time steps;
Estimate the air-phase constituent concentration in the bathroom (other
than in the shower stall) for sequential 0.2-minute time steps;
Use the air-phase constituent concentrations calculated for the shower
stall, and the air-phase constituent concentrations calculated for the
bathroom, to calculate the average constituent concentration to which an
adult is exposed during the course of a day.
This procedure is explained in greater detail below. Table E-2 provides the
values for the constituent-specific properties used in the model. Table E-l provides the
values we used for the parameters in the model.
Calculating a Mass Transfer Coefficient
The first step in estimating the concentration of a constituent in air is to quantify
the constituent's "resistance" to movement between the water phase and the air phase.
We quantify this resistance using the mass transfer coefficient presented in Equation E-4,
which incorporates variables calculated in Equations E-3 and E-5. The mass transfer
coefficient depends on properties specific to each constituent evaluated, as well as
physical properties of the water droplet. Specifically, the mass transfer coefficient
depends on:
The constituent's diffusivity in water (the molecular diffusion coefficient
for the constituent in water), which determines how readily the constituent
mass in the center of the water droplet will diffuse to the surface of the
water droplet. If a constituent's diffusivity in water is low, then as the
constituent is emitted from the surface of the water droplet, the rate at
which the surface of the droplet is "supplied" with constituent from the
center of the water droplet will be slow, resulting in less constituent being
emitted from the droplet. Diffusivity influences the concentration gradient
across the droplet.
E-2
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
The Henry's law constant for the constituent, which establishes how the
constituent will partition between the water phase and the air phase to
achieve equilibrium. Henry's law states that, at equilibrium, the amount
of a constituent dissolved in water is proportional to the amount of the
constituent in the air phase that is in contact with the water. This
proportion is constituent-specific (each constituent has a different Henry's
law constant). The Henry's law constant influences the magnitude of the
air-phase constituent concentrations more than any other constituent-
specific parameter.
The constituent's diffusivity in air (the molecular diffusion coefficient for
the constituent in air), which determines how readily the constituent will
migrate away from the droplet once it is released into the air surrounding
the droplet. Constituents with lower diffusivities in air will have
comparatively higher concentrations around the water droplet than in the
surrounding air. Therefore, because of Henry's law, less constituent
would need to come out of solution into the air phase in order to achieve
equilibrium.
The amount of time that the droplet is in contact with the air, which we
assume is equivalent to the time it takes for the droplet to fall to the floor
of the shower. We determine the time it takes the droplet to fall by
dividing distance that the droplet has to fall (which we assume is equal to
the height of the shower nozzle) by the velocity at which the water droplet
falls (which we assume is the terminal velocity of the droplet). For this
analysis, we set the nozzle height and the terminal velocity of the droplet
at fixed values, as presented in Table E-l.
The ratio of the water droplet's surface area to its volume. Because we
assume that the droplet is a sphere, its surface area to volume ratio is equal
to a value of 6 divided by the diameter of the droplet. For this analysis,
the diameter of the droplet, therefore its surface area to volume ratio, is a
fixed value (see Table E-l).
Table E-2 presents the constituent-specific diffusivities and Henry's law constants
that we used in our analysis.
-------
Table E-l. Shower Model Input Parameters
W
Input Parameter
Description
Value
Units
Reference
Comment
Bathroom Properties
Vb
Volume of the bathroom
10
m3
McKone, 1987
Exchange Rate
Qbh
Qsb
Volumetric exchange rate between the bathroom
and the house
Volumetric exchange rate between the shower
and the bathroom
300
100
L/min
L/min
derived value
derived value
Estimated from the volume and flow rate
in McKone (1987) such that the exchange
rate equals the volume divided by the
residence time (e.g., 10,OOOL/30 min).
Estimated from the volume and flow rate
in McKone (1987) such that the exchange
rate equals the volume divided by the
residence time (e.g., 2000L/20 min).
Exposure Time
ShowerStallTime
r_bathroom
ShowerTime
Time in shower stall after showering
Time spent in bathroom, not in shower
Shower time, 50th percentile
5
5
15
min
min
min
U.S. EPA, 1997c
U.S. EPA, 1997c
U.S. EPA, 1997c
Table 15-23. 50th percentile overall
Table 15-32. 50th percentile overall
Table 15-21. 50th percentile overall
Shower Properties
Vs
NozHeight
ShowerRate
DropVel
DropDiam
Volume of shower
Height of shower head
Rate of water flow from shower head
Terminal velocity of water drop
Diameter of shower water drop
2
1.8
10
400
0.098
m3
m
L/min
cm/s
cm
McKone, 1987
Little, 1992a
derived value
derived value
derived value
Selected based on the maximum height
reported in Table 1 of Little (1992a), a
summary of five studies.
Value obtained by averaging the flow rates
reported in five studies in Table 1 of
Little (1992a) (QL) = 10.08 L/min.
Selected value by correlating to existing
data.
Estimated as a function of terminal
velocity<=600cm/sec (Coburn, 1996).
Groundwater
Cin
Constituent concentration in incoming water
0.001
mg/L
NA
Unit concentration selected.
I
8
I
s.
b
o
TO
TO
I
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
Calculating the Air-Phase Constituent Concentration in the Shower
Calculating the air-phase constituent concentration in the shower at the end of
each time step involves:
1. Calculating the fraction of constituent that can be emitted into the air from each
water droplet (Equation E-7);
2. Translating the fraction of constituent that can be emitted from each water droplet
(from step 1) into the mass of constituent that is emitted from the entire volume of
water that is coming into the shower during each time step (Equation E-6); and
3. Determining the constituent concentration at the end of the time step by:
calculating the concentration added to the shower air during the time step
(dividing the constituent mass emitted from the water in step 2 by the volume of
the shower); adding this concentration to the concentration of the constituent that
was already in the shower air at the beginning of the time step; and subtracting
the concentration lost from the shower air due to the exchange of air with the rest
of the bathroom (Equation E-9).
An important element of this analysis is the difference between the time in the
shower stall that is spent showering (15 minutes, Table E.I) and the time in the shower
stall that occurs after showering (5 minutes, Table E.I). The difference in these two time
periods involves how we handle the value for mass of constituent emitted from the
shower water (step 2, above). When we switch the model over from the time period
where the shower nozzle is turned on (the time spent showering), to the time period
where the shower nozzle is turned off (the time spent in the shower stall after showering),
we set the mass emitted from the water to zero. This means that during the 5-minute
period when the individual is in the shower after the shower is turned off, the air-phase
concentration of the constituent is only a function of the concentration of the constituent
in the air at the beginning of the time step and the air exchange between the shower stall
and the rest of the bathroom. The following paragraphs describe steps 1 and 2 in more
detail.
The fraction of the constituent mass that potentially can be emitted from a droplet
at any given time during the droplet's fall through the air (Equation E-7) is a function of
the mass transfer coefficient (the constituent's resistance to movement from the water
phase to the air phase, described previously) and the "fraction of gas phase saturation" in
the shower (calculated using Equation E-8). Inherent in this calculation is an assumption
that the concentration of the constituent in the air is constant over the time it takes the
droplet to fall. The fraction of gas phase saturation is an expression of how close the air-
phase constituent concentration is to the maximum possible (equilibrium) air-phase
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
concentration. Stated another way, Henry's law dictates that for a certain constituent
concentration in water, we can predict the maximum concentration of constituent in the
air that is in contact with the water (assuming the air and water are in equilibrium).
Consequently, if there is already constituent in the air, then, to maintain equilibrium,
there is a limit to how much additional constituent can be emitted from the water to the
air (the less constituent already present in the air, the more constituent that theoretically
may be emitted). The fraction of gas phase saturation is an expression of how close the
air concentration is to that limit at the beginning of each time step. However, as
suggested at the beginning of this paragraph, even though Henry's law influences the
maximum fraction of mass that could be emitted from the droplet, the mass transfer
coefficient also influences how much of the constituent will "free itself from the water.
Factors such as the constituent's dispersivity (in water and air) and the surface area of the
droplet also influence the fraction of constituent mass that can be emitted from the
droplet.
In most cases, for each 0.2-minute time step we evaluate, the mass of a
constituent emitted from the shower water to the air is the product of: the concentration
of the constituent in the shower water; the volume of water emitted from the shower
during the time step; and the fraction of the constituent mass in the water that potentially
could be emitted from the water (discussed above). However, in certain cases (typically
rare), the mass transfer coefficient is of a magnitude that the concentration calculated in
this way exceeds the mass that possibly could be emitted when the water and the air
phases are at equilibrium. In this case, we "cap" the constituent mass that can be emitted
from the shower water during the time step. The cap is the maximum constituent mass
that could be emitted from the water at equilibrium (based on Henry's law) minus the
constituent mass already in the shower stall at the beginning of the time step
Calculating the Air-Phase Constituent Concentration in the Bathroom (other than in
the Shower Stall)
The air-phase constituent concentration in the bathroom (Equation E-10) is a
function of the air-phase constituent concentration calculated for the shower, and the
exchange of air 1) between the shower and the bathroom and 2) between the bathroom
and the rest of the house. Specifically, for each time step, the air-phase constituent
concentration in the bathroom is equal to: the air-phase constituent concentration in the
bathroom at the beginning of the time step, plus the constituent concentration added as a
result of the exchange of air with the shower, minus the constituent concentration lost as
a result of the exchange of air with the rest of the house. Table E-l presents the values
we used for the volumetric exchange rate between the shower and the bathroom; the
volumetric exchange rate between the bathroom and the house; and the volume of the
bathroom.
E-6
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
Calculating the Average Daily Constituent Concentration to which an Individual is
Exposed
To calculate the average concentration of a constituent to which an individual is
exposed on a daily basis (24 hours per day) (Equation E-l 1), we:
1. Calculate the average constituent concentration in the shower air across all time
steps and multiply this concentration by the amount of time an individual spends
in the shower stall (Equation E-2);
2. Calculate the average constituent concentration in the bathroom air (not including
the shower air) across all time steps and multiply this concentration by the
amount of time an individual spends in the bathroom (not including the time spent
in the shower stall);
3. Sum the values calculated in steps 1 and 2, and divide the sum by the length of a
day. This calculation carries with it an assumption that an individual only is
exposed to the constituent in the shower, and in the bathroom after showering
(that is, that the concentration of the constituent in the rest of the house is zero).
E-1.2 Shower Model Uncertainties and Limitations
The primary limitations and uncertainties of the shower model are as follows:
The model is constructed such that air-phase concentration of a constituent
in household air results solely from showering activity. Individuals are
exposed to emissions via inhalation for time spent in the shower while
showering, in the shower stall after showering, and in the bathroom after
showering. Other models calculate indoor air concentrations resulting
from emissions from household use of tap water and/or calculate
inhalation exposures for time spent in the remainder of the house.
However, McKone (1987) found that the risk from inhalation exposures in
the remainder of the house was considerably lower than the risk from
inhalation exposures in the bathroom and during showering. In addition,
there are few data available to estimate the input parameters needed to
calculate exposure concentrations from other household activities,
including variables such as house volume, air exchange rate between the
house and outside air, and exposure time in the house. Given the expected
lower risk due to exposure in the remainder of the house, and the lack of
available data to estimate house constituent concentrations, we focused on
showering as the greatest source of inhalation exposure and risk due to use
of contaminated water.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
The model currently only considers exposures to adults who shower, and
does not consider exposures to children who bathe in bathtubs. This
limitation of the model may be significant. A recent report by EPA's
National Center for Environmental Assessment states that: "Because of
the longer exposure times, chemical emissions during the use of bathtubs
may be as, or more, significant than during showers, in terms of human
inhalation. This is particularly important given that small children are
typically washed in bathtubs rather than showers and are generally more
sensitive to chemical exposure than are healthy adults" (U.S. EPA, 2000).
Our analysis does not consider an individual's dermal exposure to water
or an individual's incidental ingestion of water while showering.
The model only considers emissions that result from falling droplets of
water in the shower. The model does not include algorithms that account
for emissions from water films on shower walls or puddles on the floor of
the shower. Use of the model also assumes that a droplet falls directly
from the shower nozzle to the shower stall floor, and is not intercepted by
the body of the individual who is showering.
The input parameter values are a source of uncertainty for the shower
model. To select values for the shower properties (shower and bathroom
volume, nozzle height, and flow rate), we generally used central tendency
values that were reported in the literature. Although fixing shower model
input parameters as constant does not capture variability in the results, the
results still compare favorably to experimental data for numerous organic
compounds of varying volatility (Coburn, 1996). The values for droplet
properties (diameter and velocity) are also constants, and are based on
correlation to existing data. The largest uncertainty is likely in the
volumetric exchange rates used between the shower and bathroom and the
bathroom and the rest of house. We derived these values, 300 L/min for
the exchange rate between the bathroom and house, and 100 L/min for the
exchange rate between the shower and bathroom, from McKone (1987).
However, values reported in a five-study summary by Little (1992a)
ranged from 35 to 460 L/min for the exchange between the shower and
bathroom, and 38 to 480 L/min for the exchange between the bathroom
and the rest of the house. Such a large range of volumetric exchange rates
imparts uncertainty to the shower model's estimation of constituent
concentrations.
A constituent's solubility in water depends on a number of factors
including the temperature of the water and the other chemicals (for
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
example, other solvents) that are in the water. When the concentration of
a constituent in water exceeds the constituent's solubility in that water, we
expect that at least some of the constituent will exist in the water as a non-
aqueous (free) phase. Henry's law, a basic principle of the shower model,
only applies to constituents dissolved in water, it does not apply to non-
aqueous phase constituents (U.S. EPA, 1996). As a result, it would not be
appropriate to use the HBNs we developed for the inhalation pathway if
the shower water (which we assume is from a ground-water well)
contained non-aqueous phase constituent. More importantly, however,
EPACMTP, the ground-water fate and transport model that we use to
estimate constituent concentrations in the modeled ground water, cannot
be used to model non-aqueous phase liquids. Consequently, the IWEM
tool should not be used in cases where non-aqueous phase constituents are
present in leachate. In these situations, another tool must be used that is
capable of evaluating non-aqueous phase liquids.
E-9
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Equation E-l. Total time spent in shower and bathroom
BSResTime = ShowerTime + ShowerStall Time + T bathroom
Name
BSResTime
ShowerTime
ShowerStallTime
T bathroom
Description
Total time spent in shower and bathroom (min)
Duration of shower (min)
Time in shower stall after showering (min)
Time suent in bathroom not in shower (min)
Value
Calculated above
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
This equation calculates the total time that a receptor is exposed to vapors.
Equation E-2. Total time spent in shower stall
Shower Res Time = ShowerStallTime + ShowerTime
Name
ShowerResTime
ShowerStallTime
ShowerTime
Description
Total time spent in shower stall (min)
Time in shower stall after showering (min)
Duration of shower (min)
Value
Calculated above
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
This equation calculates the total time that a receptor is exposed to vapors in the shower stall.
E-10
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Equation E-3. Dimensionless Henry's law constant
Name
Kprime
HLCcoef
HLC
R
Term)
Hprime = HLCcoef x HLC
TTT C*~-\~f
7/LCcOe/ -
R x lemp
Description
Dimensionless Henry's law constant (dimensionless)
Coefficient to Henry's law constant Mol/(atm-m3)
Henry's law constant (atm-m3/Mol)
Ideal Gas constant (atm-m3/K-Mol)
Temnerature (K)
Value
Calculated above
Calculated above
Chemical-specific
0.00008206
298
This equation calculates the dimensionless form of Henry's law constant.
Equation E-4. Dimensionless overall mass transfer coefficient
Name
N
AVRatio
Kol
DropResTime
DropDiam
NozHeight
DropVel
100
N = Kol x AVRatio x DropResTime
6
A. v latino
DropDiam
^ ^. NozHeight x 100
DiopRcsTinic
DropVel
Description
Dimensionless overall mass transfer coefficient (dimensionless)
Area-to-volume ratio for a sphere (cmVcm3)
Overall mass transfer coefficient (cm/s)
Residence time for falling drops (s)
Drop diameter (cm)
Nozzle height (m)
Drop terminal velocity (cm/s)
Conversion factor (cm/m)
Value
Calculated above
Calculated above
Calculated in Equation E-5
Calculated above
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
Conversion factor
This equation calculates the dimensionless overall mass transfer coefficient. The above equation is based
on Little (1992a; Equation 5), which provides the equation as N = Kol x A/Q1 where A is the total surface
area for mass transfer and Ql is water flow in volume per time.
E-ll
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Equation E-5. Overall mass transfer coefficient
Name
Kol
beta
Dw
Da
Hprime
TSf~. 1 ft ' ' ' 1
KOI - p A t + !
\Dw Da x Hpnmej
Description
Overall mass transfer coefficient (cm/s)
Proportionality constant (cm-sA-l/3)
Diffusion coefficient in water (cnf/s)
Diffusion coefficient in air (cmVs)
Dimensionless Henry's law constant (dimensionless)
Value
Calculated above
216
Chemical-specific
Chemical-specific
Calculated in Equation E-3
This equation calculates the overall mass transfer coefficient. The above equation corresponds to Equation
17 in McKone (1987) and was modified to use the dimensionless Henry's law constant. McKone (1987)
noted that the proportionality constant, beta, was a dimensionless value. Little (1992b) indicated that beta
is not dimensionless. The correct units are noted above. The value for beta was derived using data for
benzene and verified for chemicals of varying volatility (Coburn, 1996).
E-12
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Equation E-6. Constituent mass emitted in the shower for a given time step
For Et > Emax,
Es = Emax
ForEt < Emax,
Es= Et
Where,
Et = Cin x ShowerRate x ts x fern
Emax = \yeq - ys, tj x Vs x 1 000
Name
Es
Emax
Et
yeq
ys, t
Vs
Cin
ShowerRate
ts
fern
Hprime
1000
Description
Constituent mass emitted in the shower for a given time step
(mg)
Maximum possible mass of constituent emitted from shower
during time step (mg)
Potential mass of constituent emitted from shower during
time step (mg)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in equilibrium between
water and air (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the shower at the
beginning of time step (mg/L)
Volume of shower (m3)
Liquid-phase constituent concentration in the incoming water
(mg/L)
Rate of flow from showerhead (L/min)
Time step (min)
Fraction of constituent emitted from a droplet
(dimensionless)
Dimensionless Henry's law constant (dimensionless)
Conversion factor (L/m3)
Value
Calculated above
Calculated above
Calculated above
Hprime x Cin
Calculated in Equation E-9 (As
ys, t+ts for previous time step)
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
0.2
Calculated in Equation E-7
Calculated in Equation E-3
Conversion factor
The above equations are used to determine the mass of constituent emitted for a given time step. The
equilibrium concentration in air (y_eq) is calculated from Equation 1 in Little (1992a). If the mass emitted
based on the mass transfer coefficient (Et) is greater than the amount emitted to reach equilibrium (Emax),
the mass is set to the amount that results in the air concentration at equilibrium.
E-13
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Equation E-7. Fraction of constituent emitted from a droplet
fern = (l- Fsat] x (;- e~N\
Name
fern
Fsat
N
Description
Fraction of constituent emitted from a droplet
(dimensionless)
Fraction of gas-phase saturation (dimensionless)
Dimensionless overall mass transfer coefficient
(dimensionless)
Value
Calculated above
Calculated in Equation E-8
Calculated in Equation E-4
This equation is used to calculate the fraction of a given chemical emitted from a droplet of water in the
shower. The equation is based on Equation 5 in Little (1992a). The above equation is obtained by
rearranging the equation in Little given that ys_max/m = Cin and Fsat = ys/ys_max = ys/(m * Cin).
Equation E-8. Fraction of gas-phase saturation in shower
Name
Fsat
yeq
ys, t
Hprime
Cin
Vs,t
77V -K/
1'Sdt
yeq
Description
Fraction of gas-phase saturation in shower (dimensionless)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in equilibrium between
water and air (mg/L)
Current gas-phase constituent concentration in air (mg/L)
Dimensionless Henry's law constant (dimensionless)
Constituent concentration in incoming water (mg/L)
Value
Calculated above
Hprime x Cin
Calculated in Equation E-9 (as
ys, t+ts for previous time step)
Calculated in Equation E-3
Provided in Table E-l
This equation is used to calculate the fraction of gas phase saturation in shower for each time step. The
equilibrium concentration in air (y_eq) is calculated from Equation 1 in Little (1992a).
E-14
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Equation E-9. Gas-phase constituent concentration in the shower at end of time step
Name
ys, t+ts
ys, t
yb, t
Es
Qsb
Vs
ts
1000
\Es - (Osb x i
ys, t - yb, t\ x ts\
x 1000
Description
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the
time step (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the
beginning of time step (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the
beginning of time step (mg/L)
shower at end of
shower at the
bathroom at the
Mass emitted in the shower for a given time step (mg)
Volumetric exchange rate between the shower and the
bathroom (L/min)
Volume of shower (m3)
Time step (min)
Conversion factor (L/m3)
Value
Calculated above
Calculated in Equation E- 10 (as
yb, t+ts for previous time step)
Calculated from last time step
Calculated in Equation E-6
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
0.2
Conversion factor
This equation is used to calculate the gas-phase constituent concentration in the shower at end of time step.
The equation is derived from Equation 9 in Little (1992a). Es is set to 0 when the shower is turned off (i.e.,
at the end of showering) to estimate the reduction in shower stall air concentrations after emissions cease.
E-15
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Equation E-10. Gas-phase constituent concentration in the bathroom at end of time step
yb,n
Name
yb, t+ts
yb, t
ys, t+ts
yh, t
Qsb
Qbh
Vb
ts
1000
\\Qsb X (ys,t + ts- yb,t\ - Qbh X \Vb,t- yh, t\\\
1 V/, / 1 ^' t?
Vb x 1000
Description
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the bathroom at end
of time step (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the bathroom at the
beginning of time step (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the shower at the end
of time step (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the house at the
beginning of time step (mg/L)
Volumetric exchange rate between the shower and the
bathroom (L/min)
Volumetric exchange rate between the bathroom and the
house (L/min)
Volume of bathroom (m3)
Time step (min)
Conversion factor (L/m3)
Value
Calculated above
Calculated from last time
step
Calculated in Equation E-9
Assumed deminimus, zero
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
Provided in Table E-l
0.2
Conversion factor
This equation is used to calculate the gas-phase constituent concentration in the bathroom at end of time
step. The equation is derived from Equation 10 in Little (1992a).
E-16
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Equation E-ll. Average daily concentration in indoor air
C air indot
Name
Cair_indoor
Cair_shower
Cair_bathroom
ShowerResTime
T_bathroom
ys, t
ys, t+ts
yb, t
yb, t+ts
ns
nb
1440
1000
\Cair shower x ShowerResTime} + \Catr bathroom x T bathroom]
1440
J] [(ys, /+ ts + ys, t ) 1 2J x 1000
C^air shower
ns
^ [(yb, t+ts + >*,/)/ 2J x 1000
Ca/r bathroom
nb
Description
Average daily concentration in indoor air (mg/m3)
Average concentration in shower (mg/m3)
Average concentration in bathroom (mg/m3)
Total time spent in shower stall (min)
Time spent in bathroom, not in shower (min)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the shower at the
beginning of time step (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the shower at the end
of time step (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the bathroom at the
beginning of time step (mg/L)
Gas-phase constituent concentration in the bathroom at the
end of time step (mg/L)
Number of time steps corresponding to time spent in the
shower (dimensionless)
Number of time steps corresponding to time spent in the
bathroom (dimensionless)
Minutes per day (min)
Conversion factor (L/m3)
Value
Calculated above
Calculated above
Calculated above
Calculated in Equation E-2
Provided in Table E-l
Calculated in Equation E-9 (as
ys, t+ts for previous time step)
Calculated in Equation E-9
Calculated in Equation E- 10 (as
yb, t+ts for previous time step)
Calculated in Equation E-10
Summed in model code
Summed in model code
Adjustment factor
Conversion factor
The above equations are used to calculate the time-weighted average daily indoor air concentration to
which a receptor is exposed. The equation assumes that receptors are only exposed to constituents in the
shower and bathroom.
E-17
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
E-1.3 References for Section E-l
Coburn, J., 1996. Memo to Dana Greenwood on Emission Flux Equations for
Showering, July 1.
Little, J.C., 1992a. Applying the two resistance theory to contaminant volatilization in
showers. Environmental Science and Technology 26(7):1341-1349.
Little, J.C., 1992b. Applying the two resistance theory to contaminant volatilization in
showers. Environmental Science and Technology 26(4); 836-837.
McKone, T.E., 1987. Human exposure to volatile organic compounds in household tap water:
The indoor inhalation pathway. Environmental Science and Technology 21:1194-1201.
U.S. EPA, 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document. EPA/540/R95/128.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. May.
U.S. EPA, 1997a. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1, General Factors.
EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 2000. Volatilization Rates from Water to Indoor Air, Phase II. EPA/600/R-00/096.
National Center for Environmental Assessment-Washington Office, Office of Research
and Development, Washington, DC. October.
E-2 Constituent-specific Chemical and Physical Properties for
the Shower Model
To calculate inhalation HBNs, the shower model requires input of several
chemical-specific properties, including solubility (Sol), Henry's law constant (HLC), and
diffusion coefficients in air (DJ and water (DJ. This attachment describes the data
sources and methodologies used to collect and develop these properties. Table E.2 lists
by constituent the chemical-specific properties used to calculate inhalation HBNs, along
with the data source for each value.
E-2.1 Data Collection Procedure
To select data values available from multiple sources, we created a hierarchy of
references based on the reliability and availability of data in such sources. Our first
choice for data collection and calculations was EPA reports and software. When we
could not find data or equations from EPA publications, we consulted highly recognized
sources, including chemical information databases on the Internet. These on-line sources
E-18
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document _ Appendix E
are compilations of data that provide the primary references for data values. The specific
hierarchy varied among properties as described in subsequent sections.
For dioxins, the preferred data source in all cases was the Exposure and Human
Health Reassessment of 2,3, 7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related
Compounds, Part 1, Vol. 3 (Dioxin Reassessment) (U.S. EPA, 2000). We used the
Mercury Study Report to Congress (U.S. EPA, 1997a) as the preferred source for
mercury properties. If values were unavailable from these sources, we followed the same
reference hierarchy that was used for other constituents.
All data entry for chemical and physical properties was checked by comparing
each entry against the original online or hardcopy reference. All property calculation
programs were checked using hand calculations to ensure that they were functioning
correctly.
E-2.2 Solubility (Sol)
For solubility (Sol) values, we looked for data by searching the following sources
in the following order:
1 . Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) (U.S. EPA, 1997b);
2. CHEMFATE Chemical Search (SRC, 1999);
3. Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) (U.S. NLM, 2001);
4. ChemFinder (CambridgeSoft Corporation, 2001).
For mercury, we obtained a solubility for elemental mercury from The Merck Index: An
Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals (Budavari, 1996).
E-2.3 Henry's Law Constant (HLC)
Collection of Henry's law constant (HLC) data proceeded by searching sources in
the following order:
1. SCDM;
2. CHEMFATE;
3. HSDB.
When we could not find data from these sources, we calculated HLC using
equation 15-8 from Lyman, Reehl, and Rosenblatt (1990):
Sol
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document _ Appendix E
where
HLC = Henry's law constant (atm-mVmolej
Pvp = vapor pressure (atm)
Sol = solubility (mol/m3).
E-2.4 Diffusion Coefficient in Water (Dw)
For all chemicals, we calculated the diffusion coefficient in water (Dw) by hand
because few empirical data are available. The preferred calculation was equation 17-6
from the WATER9 model (U.S. EPA, 2001):
298.16 A p
where
Dw = diffusion coefficient in water (cm2/s)
T = temperature (degrees C)
MW = molecular weight (g/g-mol)
p = density (g/cc).
When we did not know chemical density, we used equation 3.16 from Process
Coefficients and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and Heavy Metals in Surface
Waters (Process Coefficients) (U.S. EPA, 1987), which only requires molecular weight:
Dw = 0.00022 x
where
Dw = diffusion coefficient in water (cm2/s)
MW = molecular weight (g/mol).
E-20
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
E-2.5 Diffusion Coefficient in Air (DJ
All diffusion coefficients in air (Da) were calculated values because few empirical
data are available. Similar to Dw, we first consulted WATER9 and then used U.S. EPA
(1987). Equation 17-5 in WATER9 calculates diffusivity in air as follows:
D =
0.0029(r + 273.16)15 JO.034 + ! (l - 0.000015MFF2)
V MW\ I
0.333
+ 1.8
U.5/7
where
Da = diffusion coefficient in air (cm2/s)
T = temperature (degrees C)
MW = molecular weight (g/g-mol)
p = density (g/cc).
When density was not available, we used equation 3.17 from Process Coefficients
(U.S. EPA, 1987):
Da = 1.9 x MW'm
where
Da = diffusion coefficient in air (cm2/s)
MW = molecular weight (g/mol).
For dioxins and furans, we used an equation from the Dioxin Reassessment (U.S.
EPA, 2000) to estimate diffusion coefficients from diphenyl's diffusivity:
D
Db \MWa)
where
Da = diffusion coefficient of constituent in air (cm2/s)
Db = diffusion coefficient of diphenyl at 25 degrees C (0.068
cm2/s)
MWa = molecular weight of constituent (g/mole)
MWb = molecular weight of diphenyl (154 g/mole).
E-21
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Table E-2. Constituent-specific Chemical and Physical Properties
Constituent
Acetaldehyde (ethanal)
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid (propenoic acid)
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzyl chloride
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane (methyl bromide)
Butadiene, 1,3-
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon disulfide
Chlordane
Chloro- 1,3 -butadiene, 2-
(Chloroprene)
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)
Chloroform
CASRN
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
62-53-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-44-7
117-81-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
56-23-5
75-15-0
57-74-9
126-99-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
Da
(cm2/s)
(a)
0.128
1.06E-01
1.34E-01
1.12E-01
1.07E-01
1.03E-01
1.14E-01
2.28E-02
8.30E-02
5.09E-02b
8.95E-02
3.55E-02
2.55E-02
4.76E-02b
6.34E-02
1.73E-02
5.67E-02
4.01E-02
5.63E-02
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-01
5.71E-02
1.06E-01
2.15E-02
8.41E-02
7.21E-02
2.18E-02
3.66E-02
1.04E-01
7.70E-02
Dw
(cm2/s)
(a)
0
1.15E-05
1.41E-05
1.22E-05
1.26E-05
1.20E-05
1.23E-05
5.84E-06
1.01E-05
5.89E-06b
1.03E-05
7.59E-06
6.58E-06
5.51E-06b
8.81E-06
4.18E-06
8.71E-06
7.40E-06
1.07E-05
1.35E-05
1.03E-05
9.78E-06
1.30E-05
0
l.OOE-05
9.48E-06
5.48E-06
1.06E-05
1.16E-05
1.09E-05
HLC
(atm-
m3/mol)
(c)
7.89e-05
3.88e-05
3.46e-05
1.22e-04
l.OOe-09
1.17e-07
1.03e-04
1.70e-04
1.90e-06
3.35e-06
5.55e-03
3.88e-ll
1.13e-06
l.lle-04
4.15e-04
1.02e-07
1.80e-05
1.34e-04e
1.60e-03
6.24e-03
7.36e-02
3.04e-02
3.03e-02
4.86e-05
1.19e-02f
3.70e-03
7.24e-08f
7.83e-04
8.82e-03
3.67e-03
Sol
(mg/L)
(c)
l.OOe+06
l.OOe+06
l.OOe+06
2.13e+05
6.40e+05
l.OOe+06
7.40e+04
l.SOe-Ol
3.60e+04
9.40e-03
1.75e+03
5.00e+02
1.62e-03
1.50e-03
5.25e+02
3.40e-01
1.72e+04
1.31e+03
6.74e+03
1.52e+04
7.35e+02
7.93e+02
1.19e+03
5.60e-02
1.74e+03
4.72e+02
l.lle+01
2.60e+03
5.68e+03
7.92e+03
E-22
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Table E-2. Constituent-specific Chemical and Physical Properties (continued)
Constituent
Chloromethane (methyl chloride)
Chlorophenol, 2-
Chloropropene, 3- (allyl chloride)
Chrysene
Cresol, o-
Cresol,
Cresol, p-
Cresols (total)
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
DDT, p,p'-
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-
Dichloropropane, 1,2-
Dichloropropene, trans- 1,3-
Dichloropropene, 1,3- (isomer
mixture)
Dichloropropene, cis-1,3-
Dieldrin
Dimethyl formamide, N,N- (DMF)
Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, 7,12-
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4-
Dioxane, 1,4-
Diphenylhydrazine, 1,2-
Epichlorohydrin
CASRN
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
218-01-9
95-48-7
108-39-4
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
50-29-3
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
78-87-5
10061-02-6
542-75-6
10061-01-5
60-57-1
68-12-2
57-97-6
121-14-2
123-91-1
122-66-7
106-89-8
Da
(cm2/s)
(a)
0.124
0.0661
9.36E-02
2.61E-02
7.59E-02
0.0729
7.24E-02
7.37E-02
6.02E-02
7.59E-02
1.83E-02
0.0236
0.0321
0.0562
0.055
4.75E-02b
7.60E-02
8.36E-02
8.54E-02
8.63E-02
7.33E-02
7.63E-02
7.63E-02
7.65E-02
2.33E-02
9.72E-02
4.71E-02b
3.75E-02
8.74E-02
0.0343
0.0888
Dw
(cm2/s)
(a)
1.36E-05
0
1.08E-05
6.75E-06
9.86E-06
0
9.24E-06
9.48E-06
7.85E-06
9.35E-06
4.44E-06
6.02E-06
8.90E-06
8.92E-06
8.68E-06
5.50E-06b
1.08E-05
1.06E-05
1.09E-05
1.10E-05
9.73E-06
1.01E-05
1.01E-05
1.02E-05
6.01E-06
1.12E-05
5.45E-06b
7.90E-06
1.05E-05
7.25E-06
1.11E-05
HLC
(atm-
m3/mol)
(c)
8.82e-03
3.91e-04
1.10e-02
9.46e-05
1.20e-06
8.65e-07
7.92e-07
9.52e-07
1.16e+00
1.02e-04f
8.10e-06
1.47e-08
1.47e-04
1.90e-03
2.40e-03
4.00e-09
3.43e-01
5.62e-03
9.79e-04
2.61e-02
2.80e-03
l.SOe-031
1.77e-02
2.406-031
1.51e-05
7.396-081
3.11e-08
9.26e-08
4.80e-06
1.53e-06
3.04e-05
Sol
(mg/L)
(c)
5.33e+03
2.20e+04
3.37e+03
1.60e-03
2.60e+04
2.27e+04
2.15e+04
2.34e+04
6.13e+01
4.30e+04f
2.50e-02
2.49e-03
1.23e+03
1.56e+02
7.38e+01
3.11e+00
2.80e+02
5.06e+03
8.52e+03
2.25e+03
2.80e+03
2.72e+03
2.80e+03
2.72e+03
1.956-01
1.00e+06f
2.50e-02
2.70e+02
l.OOe+06
6.80e+01
6.59e+04
E-23
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Table E-2. Constituent-specific Chemical and Physical Properties (continued)
Constituent
Epoxybutane, 1,2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate, 2-
Ethoxyethanol , 2-
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide
( 1 ,2-dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene thiourea
Ethylene oxide
Formaldehyde
Furfural
HCH, gamma- (Lindane)
HCH, beta-
HCH, alpha-
Heptachlor epoxide
Heptachlor
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
(HxCDDs)
Hexachlorodibenzofurans (HxCDFs)
Hexachloroethane
Hexane
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxyethanol acetate, 2-
Methoxyethanol, 2-
Methyl methacrylate
CASRN
106-88-7
111-15-9
110-80-5
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
96-45-7
75-21-8
50-00-0
98-01-1
58-89-9
319-85-7
319-84-6
1024-57-3
76-44-8
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
34465-46-8
55684-94-1
67-72-1
110-54-3
193-39-5
78-59-1
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
110-49-6
109-86-4
80-62-6
Da
(cm2/s)
(a)
9.32E-02
0.057
8.19E-02
6.86E-02
4.31E-02
1.17E-01
8.69E-02
1.34E-01
1.67E-01
8.53E-02
2.74E-02
0.0277
2.75E-02
2.19E-02
2.23E-02
2.67E-02
2.90E-02
2.72E-02
4.27E-02J
4.36E-02J
3.21E-02
7.28E-02
4.48E-02
5.25E-02
7.15E-02
9.64E-02
1.58E-01
6.59E-02
0.0952
7.53E-02
Dw
(cm2/s)
(a)
1.05E-05
0
9.76E-06
8.48E-06
1.05E-05
1.36E-05
1.01E-05
1.46E-05
1.74E-05
1.07E-05
7.30E-06
7.40E-06
7.35E-06
5.58E-06
5.70E-06
7.03E-06
7.85E-06
7.22E-06
4.12E-06b
4.23E-06b
8.89E-06
8.12E-06
5.19E-06
7.53E-06
3.01E-05
1.06E-05
1.65E-05
8.71E-06
1.10E-05
9.25E-06
HLC
(atm-
m3/mol)
(c)
1.80e-04f
l.SOe-061
1.23e-07
7.88e-03
7.43e-04
6.00e-08
3.08e-10
1.48e-04
3.36e-07
4.00e-06
1.40e-05
7.43e-07
1.06e-05
9.50e-06
l.lOe-03
8.15e-03
1.32e-03
2.70e-02
1.10e-05d
1.10e-05d
3.89e-03
1.43e-02
1.60e-06
6.64e-06
7.10e-03k
2.47e-04
4.55e-06
3.11e-07e
8.10e-08f
3.37e-04
Sol
(mg/L)
(c)
9.50e+04f
2.296+051
l.OOe+06
1.69e+02
4.18e+03
l.OOe+06
6.20e+04
1.00e+06g
5.50e+05
1.10e+05
6.80e+00
2.40e-01
2.00e+00
2.00e-01
l.SOe-Ol
3.23e+00
5.00e-03
1.80e+00
4.40e-06d
1.30e-05d
S.OOe+Ol
1.24e+01
2.20e-05
1.20e+04
5.62e-02h
2.54e+04
l.OOe+06
l.OOe+061
1.00e+06g
1.50e+04
E-24
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Table E-2. Constituent-specific Chemical and Physical Properties (continued)
Constituent
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylcholanthrene, 3-
Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane, 2-
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
(PeCDDs)
Pentachlorodibenzofurans (PeCDFs)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Propylene oxide (1,2-epoxypropane)
Pyridine
Styrene
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-
(2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans (TCDFs)*
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
CASRN
1634-04-4
108-10-1
78-93-3
56-49-5
75-09-2
10595-95-6
62-75-9
100-75-4
86-30-6
55-18-5
924-16-3
930-55-2
621-64-7
91-20-3
98-95-3
79-46-9
36088-22-9
30402-15-4
87-86-5
108-95-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
75-56-9
110-86-1
100-42-5
1746-01-6
55722-27-5
79-34-5
630-20-6
127-18-4
Da
(cm2/s)
(a)
0.0755
0.0698
0.0917
2.41E-02
9.99E-02
8.41E-02
9.88E-02
6.99E-02
2.84E-02
7.38E-02
4.22E-02
8.00E-02
5.64E-02
6.05E-02
6.81E-02
8.47E-02
0.0447J
4.57E-02J
2.95E-02
8.34E-02
5.95E-02
2.33E-02
1.10E-01
9.31E-02
7.13E-02
4.70E-02J
4.82E-02J
4.89E-02
4.82E-02
5.05E-02
Dw
(cm2/s)
(a)
0
0
0
6.14E-06
1.25E-05
9.99E-06
1.15E-05
9.18E-06
7.19E-06
9.13E-06
6.83E-06
1.01E-05
7.76E-06
8.38E-06
9.45E-06
1.02E-05
4.38E-06b
4.51E-06b
8.01E-06
1.03E-05
9.75E-06
5.98E-06
1.21E-05
1.09E-05
8.81E-06
4.68E-06b
4.84E-06b
9.29E-06
9.10E-06
9.45E-06
HLC
(atm-
m3/mol)
(c)
5.87e-04f
1.38e-04
5.59e-05
9.40e-07
2.19e-03
1.406-061
1.20e-06
2.80e-07
5.00e-06
3.63e-06
3.16e-04
1.20e-08
2.25e-06
4.83e-04
2.40e-05
1.23e-04
2.60e-06d
5.00e-06d
2.44e-08
3.97e-07
1.63e-08
2.60e-03
1.23e-04f
8.88e-06
2.75e-03
3.29e-05d
1.40e-05d
3.45e-04
2.42e-03
1.84e-02
Sol
(mg/L)
(c)
5.13e+04f
1.90e+04
2.23e+05
3.23e-03
1.30e+04
1.97e+04
l.OOe+06
7.65e+04
3.51e+01
9.30e+04
1.27e+03
l.OOe+06
9.89e+03
S.lOe+Ol
2.09e+03
1.70e+04
1.18e-04d
2.40e-04d
1.95e+03
8.28e+04
6.20e+03
7.00e-02
4.05e+05f
l.OOe+06
3.10e+02
1.93e-05d
4.20e-04d
2.97e+03
1.10e+03
2.00e+02
E-25
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
Table E-2. Constituent-specific Chemical and Physical Properties (continued)
Constituent
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidine, o-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (bromoform)
Trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoro-ethane, 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 1 1)
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-
Trichloropropane, 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene, p-
Xylene, o-
Xylene, m-
Xylenes (total)
CASRN
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
79-00-5
71-55-6
79-01-6
75-69-4
88-06-2
96-18-4
121-44-8
108-05-4
75-01-4
106-42-3
95-47-6
108-38-3
1330-20-7
Da
(cm2/s)
(a)
0.078
7.72E-02b
0.0724
0.0216
3.58E-02
3.76E-02
3.96E-02
6.69E-02
6.48E-02
6.87E-02
6.55E-02
3.14E-02
5.75E-02
6.63E-02
8.51E-02
1.07E-01
6.84E-02
6.91E-02
6.85E-02
0.0687
Dw
(cm2/s)
(a)
0
8.94E-06b
0
0
1.04E-05
8.59E-06
8.40E-06
l.OOE-05
9.60E-06
1.02E-05
1.01E-05
8.09E-06
9.24E-06
7.84E-06
l.OOE-05
1.20E-05
8.45E-06
8.56E-06
8.47E-06
0
HLC
(atm-
m3/mol)
(c)
6.64e-03
7.92e-10
2.72e-06
6.00e-06
5.35e-04
4.81e-01
1.42e-03
9.13e-04
1.72e-02
1.03e-02
9.70e-02
7.79e-06
4.09e-04
1.38e-04f
5.11e-04
2.70e-02
7.66e-03
5.19e-03
7.34e-03
6.73e-03
Sol
(mg/L)
(c)
5.26e+02
3.37e+04
1.66e+04
7.40e-01
3.10e+03
1.70e+02
3.46e+01
4.42e+03
1.33e+03
1.10e+03
l.lOe+03
8.00e+02
1.75e+03
5.50e+04f
2.00e+04
2.76e+03
1.85e+02
1.78e+02
1.61e+02
1.75e+02
Da = air diffusivity; Dw = water diffusivity; HLC = Henry's law constant; Sol = aqueous solubility
CASRN = Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number
* Values used for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (CAS #51207-31-9).
Data Sources:
a Calculated based on WATER9 (U.S. EPA, 2001).
b Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1987.
c SCDM (U.S. EPA, 1997b).
d U.S. EPA, 2000.
e Calculated based on Lyman, Reehl, and Rosenblatt, 1990.
f CHEMFATE (SRC, 1999).
g ChemFinder.com (CambridgeSoft Corporation, 2001).
h The Merck Index (Budavari, 1996).
1 HSDB (U.S. NLM, 2001).
J Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 2000.
k U.S. EPA, 1997a.
E-26
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
E-2.6 References for Section E-2
Budavari, S. (ed), 1996. The Merck Index: An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and
Biologicals. 12th edition. Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck and Co.
CambridgeSoft Corporation, 2001. ChemFinder.com database and internet searching.
http://chemfmder.cambridgesoft.com. Accessed July 2001.
Lyman, W.J., W.F. Reehl, andD.H. Rosenblatt, 1990. Handbook of Chemical Property
Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds.
Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC), 1999. CHEMFATE Chemical Search,
Environmental Science Center, Syracuse, NY.
http://esc.syrres.com/efdb/Chemfate.htm. Accessed July 2001.
U.S. EPA, 1987. Process Coefficients and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and
Heavy Metals in Surface Waters. Office of Research and Development.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO).
U. S. EPA, 1997a. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Volume IV: An Assessment of
Exposure to Mercury in the United States. EPA-452/R-97-006. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development.
Washington, DC: GPO.
U.S. EPA, 1997b. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). SCDMWIN 1.0 (SCDM
Windows User's Version), Version 1. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington DC: GPO.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/scdm/index.htm. Accessed July 2001.
U.S. EPA, 2000. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds, Part 1, Vol. 3.
Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC: GPO.
U.S. EPA, 2001. WATER9. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/software/water/index.html.
Accessed July 2001.
U.S. NLM (U.S. National Library of Medicine), 2001. Hazardous Substances Data Bank
(HSDB). http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen/HSDB. Accessed July
2001.
E-27
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
E-3 Human Health Benchmarks used in the IWEM Tool
Human health benchmarks for chronic oral and inhalation exposures are an
important component of the IWEM 1 tool. The EPA uses reference doses (RfDs) and
reference concentrations (RfCs) to evaluate noncancer risk from oral and inhalation
exposures, respectively. Oral cancer slope factors (CSFs), inhalation unit risk factors
(UKFs), and inhalation CSFs are used to evaluate risk for carcinogens.
This section provides the toxicity benchmarks we used to develop the FffiNs that
we will use in developing Reference Ground-Water Concentrations for IWEM. Section
E-3.1 describes the data sources and general hierarchy used to collect these benchmarks.
Section E-3.2 provides the benchmarks along with discussions of individual human
health benchmarks extracted from a variety of sources.
E-3.1 Methodology and Data Sources
Several sources of health benchmarks are available. Human health benchmarks
were obtained from these sources in the following order of preference:
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
Superfund Technical Support Center Provisional Benchmarks
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST)
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) minimal risk
levels (MRLs)
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) chronic inhalation
reference exposure levels (RELs) and cancer potency factors.
EPA health assessment documents
Various other EPA health benchmark sources.
For dioxins and dibenzofurans, World Health Organization (WHO) toxicity equivalency
factors (TEFs) from Van den Berg et al. (1998) were applied to the oral and inhalation
CSF for 2,3,7,8-TCDD to obtain CSFs for all other dioxins and furans (see Section E-
3.2.4).
E-3.1.1 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
Benchmarks in IRIS are prepared and maintained by EPA, and values from IRIS
were used to develop HBNs for the IWEM tool whenever IRIS benchmarks were
available. IRIS is EPA's electronic database containing information on human health
effects (U.S. EPA, 2001a). Each chemical file contains descriptive and quantitative
information on potential health effects. Health benchmarks for chronic noncarcinogenic
health effects include RfDs and RfCs. Cancer classification, oral CSFs, and inhalation
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
URFs are included for carcinogenic effects. IRIS is the official repository of Agency-
wide consensus of human health risk information.
Inhalation CSFs are not available from IRIS, so they were calculated from
inhalation URFs (which are available from IRIS) using the following equation:
inh CSF = inh URF x 70 kg - 20 m3/d x 1000 ng/mg
In this equation, 70 kg represents average body weight; 20 m3/d represents average
inhalation rate; and 1000 |ig/mg is a units conversion factor (U.S. EPA, 1997). These
standard estimates of body weight and inhalation rate are used by EPA in the calculation
of the URF, and, therefore, the values were used to calculate inhalation CSFs.
E-3.1.2 Superfund Provisional Benchmarks
The Superfund Technical Support Center (EPA's National Center for
Environmental Assessment [NCEA]) derives provisional RfCs, RfDs, and CSFs for
certain chemicals. These provisional health benchmarks can be found in Risk
Assessment Issue Papers. Some of the provisional values have been externally peer
reviewed, and some (e.g., trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene) come from previously
published EPA Health Assessment Documents. These provisional values have not
undergone EPA's formal review process for finalizing benchmarks and do not represent
Agency-wide consensus information. Specific provisional values used in the IWEM tool
are described in Section E-3.2.5.
E-3.1.3 Health Effects Summary Tables (HEAST)
HEAST is a listing of provisional noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic health
toxicity values (RfDs, RfCs, URFs, and CSFs) derived by EPA (U.S. EPA, 1997).
Although the health toxicity values in HEAST have undergone review and have the
concurrence of individual EPA program offices, either they have not been reviewed as
extensively as those in IRIS or their data set is not complete enough to be listed in IRIS.
HEAST benchmarks have not been updated in several years and do not represent
Agency-wide consensus information.
E-3.1.4 ATSDR Minimal Risk Levels
The ATSDR MRLs are substance-specific health guidance levels for
noncarcinogenic endpoints (ATSDR, 2001). An MRL is an estimate of the daily human
exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse
noncancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs are based on
noncancer health effects only and are not based on a consideration of cancer effects.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
MRLs are derived for acute, intermediate, and chronic exposure durations for oral and
inhalation routes of exposure. Inhalation and oral MRLs are derived in a manner similar
to EPA's RfCs and RfDs, respectively (i.e., ATSDR uses the no-observed-adverse-effect-
level/uncertainty factor (NOAEL/UF) approach); however, MRLs are intended to serve
as screening levels and are exposure duration-specific. Also, ATSDR uses EPA's 1994
inhalation dosimetry methodology in the derivation of inhalation MRLs. A chronic
inhalation MRL for mixed xylenes was used as a surrogate for each of the xylene
isomers.
E-3.1.5 CalEPA Cancer Potency Factors and Reference Exposure Levels
CalEPA has developed cancer potency factors for chemicals regulated under
California's Hot Spots Air Toxics Program (CalEPA, 1999a). The cancer potency factors
are analogous to EPA's oral and inhalation CSFs. CalEPA has also developed chronic
inhalation RELs, analogous to EPA's RfC, for 120 substances (CalEPA, 1999b, 2000).
CalEPA used EPA's 1994 inhalation dosimetry methodology in the derivation of
inhalation RELs. The cancer potency factors and inhalation RELs have undergone
internal peer review by various California agencies and have been the subject of public
comment. A chronic inhalation REL for mixed cresols was used as a surrogate for each
of the cresol isomers.
E-3.1.6 Other EPA Health Benchmarks
EPA has also derived health benchmark values in other risk assessment
documents, such as Health Assessment Documents (HADs), Health Effect Assessments
(HEAs), Health and Environmental Effects Profiles (HEEPs), Health and Environmental
Effects Documents (HEEDs), Drinking Water Criteria Documents, and Ambient Water
Quality Criteria Documents. Evaluations of potential carcinogenicity of chemicals in
support of reportable quantity adjustments were published by EPA's Carcinogen
Assessment Group (CAG) and may include cancer potency factor estimates. Health
toxicity values identified in these EPA documents are usually dated and are not
recognized as Agency-wide consensus information or verified benchmarks, however, and
as a result they are used in the hierarchy only when values are not available from IRIS,
HEAST, Superfund provisional values, ATSDR, or CalEPA. Section E-3.2.6 describes
the specific values from these alternative EPA sources that were used in the IWEM tool.
E-30
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
E-3.2 Human Health Benchmark Values
The chronic human health benchmarks used to calculate the HBNs in the IWEM
tool are summarized in Table E-3, which provides the Chemical Abstract Service
Registry Number (CASRN), constituent name, RfD (mg/kg-d), RfC (mg/m3), oral CSF
(mg/kg-d"1), inhalation URF [(jig/m3)"1], inhalation CSF (mg/kg-d"1), and reference for
each benchmark. A key to the references cited and abbreviations used is provided at the
end of the table.
For a majority of the IWEM constituents, human health benchmarks were
available from IRIS (U.S. EPA, 2001a), Superfund Provisional Benchmarks, or HEAST
(U.S. EPA, 1997). Benchmarks also were obtained from ATSDR (2001) or CalEPA
(1999a, 1999b, 2000). This section describes benchmarks obtained from other sources,
along with the Superfund Provisional values and special uses (e.g., benzene, vinyl
chloride) of IRIS benchmarks.
E-31
-------
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values
W
oo
to
Constituent Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde (ethanal)
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid (propenoic acid)
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b jfluoranthene
Benzyl chloride
Benzyl alcohol
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
CASRN
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-44-7
100-51-6
7440-41-7
111-44-4
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
6.0E-02
l.OE-01
l.OE-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-04
5.0E-01
l.OE-03
3.0E-05
5.0E-03
3.0E-01
4.0E-04
3.0E-04
7.0E-02
3.0E-03
3.0E-01
2.0E-03
RfDRef
I
I
I
H
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
4.5E+0
5.4E-1
1.7E+01
5.7E-3
1.5E+00
1.2E+00
5.5E-02
2.3E+02
7.3E+00
1.2E+00
1.7E-01
1.1E+00
CSFo
Ref
I
I
I
I
I
C99a
I
I
I
C99a
I
I
RfC
(mg/m3)
9.0E-03
3.1E+01
6.0E-02
2.0E-05
l.OE-03
2.0E-03
l.OE-03
6.0E-02
RfC Ref
I
A
I
I
I
I
I
COO
URF
(per
Hg/m3)
2.2E-06
1.3E-03
6.8E-05
4.9E-03
1.6E-06
1.1E-04
7.8E-06
6.7E-02
1.1E-03
1.1E-04
4.9E-05
3.3E-04
URF Ref
I
I
I
I
C99a
C99a
I
I
C99a
C99a
C99a
I
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
7.7E-03
4.6E+00
2.4E-01
1.7E+01
5.6E-03
3.9E-01
2.7E-02
2.3E+02
3.9E+00
3.9E-01
1.7E-01
1.2E+00
CSFi Ref
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
I
calc
calc
calc
calc
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
-------
w
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane (methyl
bromide)
Butadiene, 1,3-
Butanol
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-
(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon disulfide
Chlordane
Chloro-l,3-butadiene, 2-
(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline, p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)
Chloroform
Chloromethane (methyl
chloride)
Chlorophenol, 2-
CASRN
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
56-23-5
75-15-0
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
4.0E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.4E-03
l.OE-01
2.0E-01
l.OE-03
5.0E-04
7.0E-04
l.OE-01
5.0E-04
2.0E-02
4.0E-03
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
l.OE-02
5.0E-03
RfDRef
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
7.0E-02
1.4E-02
6.2E-02
1.3E-01
3.5E-01
2.7E-01
8.4E-02
1.3E-02
CSFo
Ref
H
I
I
I
I
H
I
H
RfC
(mg/m3)
l.OE-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-02
7.0E-03
7.0E-01
7.0E-04
7.0E-03
6.0E-02
l.OE+01
l.OE-01
9.0E-02
1.4E-03
RfC Ref
C99b
I
COO
SF
I
I
H
SF
I
A
I
AC
URF
(per
|ig/m3)
l.OE-05
2.4E-06
1.8E-05
2.8E-04
1.5E-05
l.OE-04
7.8E-05
2.4E-05
1.8E-06
URF Ref
H
C99a
AC
I
I
I
H
AC
H
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
3.5E-02
8.4E-03
6.2E-02
9.8E-01
5.3E-02
3.5E-01
2.7E-01
8.4E-02
6.3E-03
CSFi Ref
calc
calc
AC
calc
calc
calc
calc
AC
calc
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
-------
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Chloropropene, 3- (allyl
chloride)
Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol, p-
Cresol, o-
Cresol, m-
Cresols (total)
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT, p,p'-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diallate
Dibenz{a,h}anthracene
Dibromo-3 -chloropropane,
1,2-
CASRN
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
106-44-5
95-48-7
108-39-4
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
84-74-2
117-84-0
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
1.5E+00
3.0E-03
2.0E-02
RfDRef
I
I
SF
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
1.2E-01
CSFo
Ref
C99a
RfC
(mg/m3)
l.OE-03
RfC Ref
I
URF
(per
|ig/m3)
6.0E-06
1.1E-05
URF Ref
C99a
C99a
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
2.1E-02
3.9E-02
CSFi Ref
calc
calc
(only a drinking water action level is available for this metal)
5.0E-03
5.0E-02
5.0E-02
5.0E-02
l.OE-01
1.7E-05
5.0E+00
5.0E-04
l.OE-01
2.0E-02
H
I
I
sun: (I)
I
solv
I
I
I
H
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
6.1E-02
7.3E+00
1.4E+0
I
I
I
H
TEF
H
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-05
2.0E-04
surr
(COO)
surr
(COO)
surr
(COO)
coo
I
solv
I
9.7E-05
1.2E-03
6.9E-07
I
C99a
H
3.4E-01
4.2E+00
2.4E-03
calc
calc
calc
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
W
-------
w
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon 12)
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-
Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-
Dichlorophenol, 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid,
2,4- (2,4-D)
Dichloropropane, 1,2-
Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-
Dichloropropene, cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene, 1,3- (mixture
of isomers)
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine, 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide, N,N-
(DMF)
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene,
7,12-
CASRN
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
107-06-2
75-34-3
75-35-4
156-60-5
156-59-2
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
10061-02-6
10061-01-5
542-75-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
9.0E-02
2.0E-01
l.OE-01
9.0E-03
2.0E-02
l.OE-02
3.0E-03
l.OE-02
9.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
5.0E-05
8.0E-01
2.0E-04
l.OE-01
RfDRef
I
I
H
I
I
H
I
I
A
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
2.4E-2
4.5E-01
9.1E-2
6.0E-1
6.8E-2
l.OE-1
l.OE-1
l.OE-01
1.6E+01
4.7E+03
1.4E-02
CSFo
Ref
H
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
H
H
RfC
(mg/m3)
2.0E-01
8.0E-01
2.0E-01
2.4E+00
5.0E-01
7.0E-02
4.0E-03
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
3.0E-02
RfC Ref
H
I
H
A
H
COO
I
surr (T)
surr (T)
I
I
URF
(per
|ig/m3)
1.1E-05
3.4E-04
2.6E-05
1.6E-06
5.0E-05
4.0E-06
4.0E-06
4.0E-06
4.6E-03
7.1E-02
URF Ref
C99a
C99a
I
C99a
I
surr (I)
surr (I)
I
I
C99a
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
3.9E-02
1.2E+00
9.1E-02
5.6E-03
1.8E-01
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
1.6E+01
2.5E+02
CSFi Ref
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
W
-------
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Dimethylbenzidine, 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol, 2,4-
Dinitrobenzene, 1,3-
Dinitrophenol, 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4-
Dioxane, 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine, 1,2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and
II,mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane, 1,2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate, 2-
Ethoxyethanol, 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-
dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
CASRN
119-93-7
105-67-9
99-65-0
51-28-5
606-20-2
121-14-2
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
111-15-9
110-80-5
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
75-21-8
106-93-4
107-21-1
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
2.0E-02
l.OE-04
2.0E-03
l.OE-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-02
4.0E-05
6.0E-03
3.0E-04
2.0E-03
3.0E-01
4.0E-01
9.0E-01
2.0E-01
9.0E-02
l.OE-01
2.0E+00
RfDRef
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
H
H
H
I
I
H
I
I
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
9.2E+00
6.8E-01
6.8E-01
1.1E-2
8.0E-1
9.9E-3
2.9E+02
l.OE+0
8.5E+1
CSFo
Ref
H
surr(I)
surr(I)
I
I
I
RQ
H
I
RfC
(mg/m3)
3.0E+00
l.OE-03
2.0E-02
3.0E-01
2.0E-01
l.OE+00
3.0E-02
2.0E-04
4.0E-01
RfC Ref
COO
I
I
coo
I
I
coo
H
COO
URF
(per
|ig/m3)
8.9E-05
7.7E-06
2.2E-04
1.2E-06
1.1E-06
l.OE-04
2.2E-04
URF Ref
C99a
C99a
I
I
SF
H
I
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
3.1E-01
2.7E-02
7.7E-01
4.2E-03
3.9E-03
3.5E-01
7.7E-01
CSFi Ref
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
-------
w
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH, beta-
HCH, gamma- (Lindane)
HCH, alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
(HxCDDs)
Hexachlorodibenzofurans
(HxCDFs)
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane, n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
Indeno{ l,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
CASRN
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
34465-46-8
55684-94-1
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
8.0E-05
4.0E-02
0.12
2.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-03
3.0E-04
8.0E-03
5.0E-04
1.3E-05
3.0E-04
8.0E-04
6.0E-03
l.OE-03
3.0E-04
1.1E+01
3.0E-03
3.0E-01
2.0E-01
5.0E-04
RfDRef
I
I
surr (I)
I
H
I
I
A
I
I
SF
I
I
I
I
SF
I
I
I
A
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
1.1E-01
1.8E+00
1.3E+00
6.3E+00
4.5E+00
9.1E+00
7.8E-2
1.6E+0
1.56E+04
1.56E+04
1.4E-02
1.2E+00
9.5E-04
CSFo
Ref
H
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
WHO98
WHO98
I
C99a
I
RfC
(mg/m3)
9.8E-03
5.0E-02
2.0E-04
2.0E-01
2.0E+00
RfC Ref
A
H
I
I
C99b
URF
(per
|ig/m3)
1.3E-05
1.3E-05
5.3E-04
3.1E-04
1.8E-03
1.3E-03
2.6E-03
2.2E-05
4.6E-04
3.3E+00
3.3E+00
4.0E-06
1.1E-04
URF Ref
C99a
I
I
C99a
I
I
I
I
I
WHO98
WHO98
I
C99a
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
4.6E-02
4.6E-02
1.9E+00
1.1E+00
6.3E+00
4.6E+00
9.1E+00
7.7E-02
1.6E+00
1.5E+04
1.5E+04
1.4E-02
3.9E-01
CSFi Ref
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
WHO98
WHO98
calc
calc
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
-------
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol, 2-
Methoxyethanol acetate, 2-
Methyl parathion
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl tert-butyl ether
(MTBE)
Methylcholanthrene, 3-
Methylene bromide
(dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride
(dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
CASRN
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
109-86-4
110-49-6
298-00-0
80-62-6
108-10-1
78-93-3
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439.98-7
924-16-3
621-64-7
55-18-5
62-75-9
86-30-6
10595-95-6
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
RfDRef
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
CSFo
Ref
RfC
(mg/m3)
RfC Ref
URF
(per
|ig/m3)
URF Ref
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
CSFi Ref
(only a drinking water action level is available for this metal)
4.7E-02
l.OE-04
l.OE-04
5.0E-01
5.0E-03
l.OE-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-04
1.4E+00
8.0E-02
6.0E-01
l.OE-02
6.0E-02
5.0E-03
8.00E-06
2.00E-02
I
swr(T)
I
I
I
H
H
I
I
H
I
H
I
I
SF
SF
7.5E-03
5.4E+00
7.0E+00
1.5E+02
5.1E+01
4.9E-03
2.2E+01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0E-04
7.0E-04
4.0E+00
2.0E-02
9.0E-02
7.0E-01
8.0E-02
l.OE+00
3.0E+00
3.0E+00
I
H
COO
I
COO
I
H
I
I
H
6.3E-03
4.7E-07
1.6E-03
2.0E-03
4.3E-02
1.4E-02
2.6E-06
6.3E-03
C99a
I
I
C99a
I
I
C99a
C99a
2.2E+01
1.6E-03
5.6E+00
7.0E+00
1.5E+02
4.9E+01
9.1E-03
3.7E+00
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
calc
C99a
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
W
OJ
oo
-------
w
OJ
vo
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane, 2-
Octamethyl
pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
(PeCDDs)
Pentachlorodibenzofurans
(PeCDFs)
Pentachloronitrobenzene
(PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine, 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Fob/chlorinated biphenyls
(Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide (1,2-
epoxypropane)
CASRN
100-75-4
930-55-2
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
36088-22-9
30402-15-4
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
5.0E-04
2.0E-03
6.0E-03
8.0E-04
3.0E-03
3.0E-02
6.0E-01
8.0E-05
6.0E-03
2.0E-04
2.0E+00
2.0E-05
7.5E-02
RfDRef
I
I
I
H
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
surr (I)
I
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
2.1E+00
1.56E+05
7.8E+04
2.6E-01
1.2E-01
4.0E-01
2.4E-01
CSFo
Ref
I
WHO98
WHO98
H
I
I
I
RfC
(mg/m3)
3.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
1.2E-01
3.0E-02
RfC Ref
I
H
I
COO
H
I
URF
(per
|ig/m3)
2.7E-03
6.1E-04
2.7E-03
3.3E+01
1.7E+01
5.1E-06
l.OE-04
3.7E-06
URF Ref
C99a
I
H
WHO98
WHO98
C99a
I
I
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
9.5E+00
2.1E+00
9.5E+00
1.5E+05
7.5E+04
1.8E-02
4.0E-01
1.3E-02
CSFi Ref
calc
calc
calc
WHO98
WHO98
calc
I
calc
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
-------
w
-k
o
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin,
2,3,7,8-(2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran,
2,3,7,8- (2,3,7,8-TCDF)
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate
(Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram (Thiuram)
Toluene
Toluenediamine, 2,4-
Toluidine, o-
Toluidine, p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated
camphenes)
CASRN
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
1746-01-6
51207-31-9
79-34-5
630-20-6
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
3.0E-04
2.0E-01
3.0E-04
6.0E-02
3.0E-02
l.OE-02
3.0E-02
5.0E-04
8.0E-05
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
RfDRef
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SF
I
I
I
I
surr (I)
I
I
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
1.8E-01
1.56E+05
1.56E+04
2.0E-01
2.6E-02
5.2E-02
3.2E+00
2.4E-01
1.9E-01
1.1E+00
CSFo
Ref
RQ
DA85
WHO98
I
I
HAD
H
H
H
I
RfC
(mg/m3)
7.0E-03
l.OE+00
3.0E-01
4.0E-01
RfC Ref
EPA86
I
A
I
URF
(per
|ig/m3)
3.3E+01
3.3E+00
5.8E-05
7.4E-06
5.8E-07
1.1E-03
6.9E-05
3.2E-04
URF Ref
H
WHO98
I
I
HAD
C99a
AC
I
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
1.5E+05
1.5E+04
2.0E-01
2.6E-02
2.0E-03
3.9E+00
2.4E-01
1.1E+00
CSFi Ref
H
WHO98
calc
calc
HAD
calc
AC
calc
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
W
-k
o
-------
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Tribromomethane
(bromoform)
Trichloro- 1,2,2-
trifluoroethane, 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-
trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon
11)
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic
acid, 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid,
2,4,5-
Trichloropropane, 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene, sym-
( 1 ,3 ,5-Trinitrobenzene)
Tris(2,3-
dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene, p-
CASRN
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
106-42-3
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
2.0E-02
3.0E+01
l.OE-02
2.8E-01
4.0E-03
3.0E-01
l.OE-01
8.0E-03
l.OE-02
6.0E-03
3.0E-02
7.0E-03
l.OE+00
3.0E-03
2.0E+00
RfDRef
I
I
I
SF
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
H
I
surr (H)
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
7.9E-03
5.7E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
7.0E+00
9.8E+00
7.2E-01
CSFo
Ref
I
I
HAD
I
H
RQ
I
RfC
(mg/m3)
3.0E+01
2.0E-01
2.2E+00
6.0E-01
7.0E-01
5.0E-03
7.0E-03
2.0E-01
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
RfC Ref
H
H
SF
COO
H
SF
I
I
I
surr (A)
URF
(per
|ig/m3)
1.1E-06
1.6E-05
1.7E-06
3.1E-06
4.4E-06
URF Ref
I
I
HAD
I
I
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
3.9E-03
5.6E-02
6.0E-03
1.1E-02
1.5E-02
CSFi Ref
calc
calc
HAD
calc
calc
r
"M.
8
I
I
I
W
-------
Table E-3. Human Health Benchmark Values (continued)
Constituent Name
Xylene, m-
Xylene, o-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CASRN
108-38-3
95-47-6
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
RfD
(mg/kg-d)
2.0E+00
2.0E+00
2.0E+00
3.0E-01
RfDRef
H
H
I
I
CSFo
(per
mg/kg-d)
CSFo
Ref
RfC
(mg/m3)
4.0E-01
4.0E-01
4.0E-01
RfC Ref
surr (A)
surr (A)
A
URF
(per
|ig/m3)
URF Ref
CSFi (per
mg/kg-d)
CSFi Ref
Key:
CASRN
CSFo
CSFi
a Sources:
A
AC
calc
C99a
C99b
COO
DA85
EPA86
HAD
Chemical Abstract Service registry number.
oral cancer slope factor.
inhalation cancer slope factor.
RfD
RfC
URF
ATSDR MRLs (ATSDR, 2001) H
developed for the Air Characteristic Study (U.S. EPA, 1999g) I
calculated RQ
SF
CaEPA cancer potency factor (CaEPA, 1999a) solv
CaEPA chronic REL (CalEPA, 1999b) surr
CaEPA chronic REL (CaEPA, 2000) TEF
Dioxin Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1985) WHO98
Pyridine Health Effects Profile (U.S. EPA, 1986b)
Health Assessment Document (U.S. EPA, 1986a, 1987)
reference dose.
reference concentration.
unit risk factor.
HEAST(U.S. EPA, 1997)
IRIS (U.S. EPA, 2001a)
reportable quantity adjustments (U.S. EPA, 1998d,e,f)
Superfund Risk Issue Paper (U.S. EPA, 1998a,b; 1999a,b,c,d,e,f; 2000,
2001b,c,d)
63 FR 64371-0402 (U.S. EPA, 1998c)
surrogate (source in parentheses; see section C.2.8)
toxicity equivalency factor (U.S. EPA, 1993)
World Health Organization (WHO) 1998 toxicity equivalency factor
scheme (Van den Berg et al., 1998)
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
E-3.2.1 Benzene
The cancer risk estimates for benzene are provided as ranges in IRIS. The oral
CSF for benzene is 1.5E-02 to 5.5E-02 (mg/kg/d)'1 and the inhalation URF is 2.2E-06 to
7.8E-06 (jig/m3)-1 (U.S. EPA, 2001a). For IWEM, the upper range estimates were used
(i.e., 5.5E-02 (mg/kg/d)'1 and 7.8E-06 (jig/m3)'1 for the oral CSF and inhalation URF,
respectively).
E-3.2.2 Vinyl Chloride
Based on use of the linearized multistage model, IRIS recommends an oral CSF
of 7.2E-1 per mg/kg-d for vinyl chloride to account for continuous lifetime exposure
during adulthood; this value was used in the IWEM tool.1 Based on use of the linearized
multistage model, an inhalation URF of 4.4E-6 per jig/m3 to account for continuous,
lifetime exposure during adulthood was recommended for vinyl chloride and was used
for IWEM; an inhalation CSF of 1.5E-2 per mg/kg-d was calculated from the URF.2
E-3.2.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls
There are two inhalation CSFs available from IRIS for polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs): 0.4 per mg/kg-d for evaporated congeners and 2.0 per mg/kg-d for dust or
aerosol (high risk and persistence). The inhalation CSF for evaporated congeners was
used for IWEM.
E-3.2.4 Dioxin-like Compounds
Certain polychlorinated dibenzodioxin, polychlorinated dibenzofuran, and
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners are said to have "dioxin-like" toxicity,
meaning that they are understood to have toxicity similar to that of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). Although EPA has not developed health
benchmarks for each specific compound with dioxin-like toxicity, these compounds have
been assigned individual "toxicity equivalency factors" (TEFs; Van den Berg et al.,
1998). TEFs are estimates of the toxicity of dioxin-like compounds relative to the
toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which is assigned a TEF of 1.0. TEF estimates are based on a
JA twofold increase of the oral CSF to 1.4 per mg/kg-d to account for continuous
lifetime exposure from birth was also recommended but was not used for IWEM.
2A twofold increase to 8.8E-6 per |ig/m3 for the inhalation URF, to account for
continuous lifetime exposure from birth, was also recommended but was not used for
IWEM.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
knowledge of a constituent's mechanism of action, available experimental data, and other
structure-activity information. We used the TEFs to calculate cancer slope factors for the
dioxin and furan congeners (and congener groups) in the IWEM tool.
The dioxin-like congeners (and groups of congeners) included in IWEM are as
follows:
2,3,7,8-TCDD,
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran(2,3,7,8-TCDF)
Pentachlorodibenzodioxins (PeCDDs)
Pentachlorodibenzofurans (PeCDFs)
Hexachlorodibenzodioxins (HxCDDs)
Hexachlorodibenzofurans (HxCDFs).
2,3,7,8-TCDF has a TEF of 0.1. The dioxin-like PeCDD congener is 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD,
which has a TEF of 1.0. The dioxin-like PeCDF congeners include 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF which have TEFs of 0.05 and 0.5, respectively. The dioxin-like
HxCDD congeners include 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD, and 1,2,3,6,7,8-
HxCDD, which have TEFs of 0.1. The dioxin-like HxCDF congeners include
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF, and 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF,
which also have TEFs of 0.1. Table E-4 shows the TEFs that we used to calculate CSFs
for the dioxin and furan congeners (and congener groups) for the purpose of developing
HBNs for the Tier 1 tool.
Table E-4. TEFs Used for Dioxin and Furan Congeners
Constituent Name
TEF
CSFo
(mkd)1
CSFo
Source
URF
(Hg/m3)1
URF
Source
CSFi
(mkd)1
CSFi Source
Dioxins
Pentachlorodibenzodioxins
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Hexachlorodibenzodioxins
1
1
0.1
1.56+05
1.56+5
1.56+4
WHO 1998
EPA, 1985
WHO 1998
3.3E+01
3.3E+01
3.3E+00
WHO 1998
EPA, 1997
WHO 1998
1.56+05
1.56+5
1.56+4
WHO 1998
EPA, 1985
WHO 1998
Furans
Hexachlorodibenzofurans
Pentachlorodibenzofurans
2,3,7,8-TCDF
0.1
0.5
0.1
1.56+4
7.8+4
1.56+4
WHO 1998
WHO 1998
WHO 1998
3.3E+00
1.7E+01
3.3E+00
WHO 1998
WHO 1998
WHO 1998
1.56+4
7.8+4
1.56+4
WHO 1998
WHO 1998
WHO 1998
WHO 98 = TEFs presented in Van den Berg et al. (1998)
EPA, 1997 = HEAST (U.S. EPA, 1997).
E-44
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
The human health benchmarks calculated using the TEFs for 1,2,3,4,7,8-
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and 1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran were surrogates for
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins (HxCDDs) and hexachlorodibenzofurans (HxCDFs),
respectively. The human health benchmarks for 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
and 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran were used to represent pentachlorodibenzodioxins
(PeCDDs) and pentachlorodibenzofurans (PeCDFs), respectively. The human health
benchmarks for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) and
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran were used to represent tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
(TCDDs) and tetrachlorodibenzofurans (TCDFs), respectively. When TEFs varied
within a class of dioxin-like compounds (i.e., pentachlorodibenzofurans), the TEF most
protective of human health was used.
E-3.2.5 Superfund Technical Support Center Provisional Benchmarks
Table E-5 lists the provisional human health benchmarks from the Superfund
Technical Support Center that were used for some of the IWEM constituents. A
provisional subchronic RfC of 2.0E-2 mg/m3 was developed by the Superfund Technical
Support Center (U.S. EPA, 1999a) for carbon tetrachloride; a provisional chronic RfC of
7.0E-3 mg/m3 was derived from this value by applying an uncertainty factor of 3 to
account for the use of a subchronic study.
Table E-5. Provisional Human Health Benchmarks Developed by the Superfund
Technical Support Center
CASRN
108-90-7
7440-48-4
100-41-4
87-68-3
110-54-3
62-75-9
86-30-6
79-34-5
71-55-6
71-55-6
96-18-4
Chemical Name
Chlorobenzene
Cobalt (and compounds)
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexane
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
(N-methyl-N-nitroso-
methanamine)
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Trichloropropane, 1,2,3-
Benchmark
Type
RfC
RfD
URF
RfD
RfD
RfD
RfD
RfD
RfD
RfC
RfC
Benchmark
Value
6.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-06
3.0E-04
1.1E+01
8.0E-06
2.0E-02
6.0E-02
2.8E-01
2.2E+00
5.0E-03
Units
mg/m3
mg/kg-d
(ng/mS)-1
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
mg/m3
mg/m3
Reference
U.S. EPA, 1998a
U.S. EPA, 2001b
U.S. EPA, 1999b
U.S. EPA, 1998b
U.S. EPA, 1999c
U.S. EPA, 2001c
U.S. EPA, 2001d
U.S. EPA, 2000
U.S. EPA, 1999d
U.S. EPA, 1999e
U.S. EPA, 1999f
E-45
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
E-3.2.6 Benchmarks From Other EPA Sources
For some IWEM constituents, human health benchmarks were not available from
IRIS, the Superfund Technical Support Center, HEAST, ATSDR, or CalEPA, but were
available from other EPA sources:
The provisional oral CSF of 5.2E-2 per mg/kg-d, provisional inhalation
URF of 5.8E-7 per i-ig/m3, and the provisional inhalation CSF of 2.0E-3
per mg/kg-d developed for tetrachloroethylene by EPA in a Health
Assessment Document (HAD) (U.S. EPA, 1986a) were used.
For trichloroethylene, provisional cancer benchmarks developed by EPA
in a HAD (U.S. EPA, 1987) were used and include the oral CSF of 1. 1E-2
per mg/kg-d, inhalation URF of 1.7E-6 per i-ig/m3, and inhalation CSF of
6.0E-3 per mg/kg-d.
A provisional RfD of 1.7E-5 mg/kg-d and a provisional RfC of 2.0E-5
mg/m3 were derived for cyclohexanol in the final listing rule for solvents
(63 FR 64371) and were used (U.S. EPA, 1998c).
An acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 2.0E-03 mg/kg-d from inhalation
(7.0E-3 mg/m3) was identified for pyridine (U.S. EPA, 1986b).
EPA calculated an oral cancer potency factor of 293 per mg/kg-d for ethyl
methanesulfonate in a reportable quantity adjustment evaluation (U.S.
EPA, 1998d).
EPA calculated an oral cancer potency factor of 0.18 per mg/kg-d for
safrole in a reportable quantity adjustment evaluation (U.S. EPA, 1998e).
EPA calculated an oral cancer potency factor of 9.8 per mg/kg-d for
tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate in a reportable quantity adjustment
evaluation (U.S. EPA, 1998f).
The cancer slope factor for dibenzo(a,h)anthracene was calculated using a
TEF approach developed for poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (U.S.
EPA, 1993). The TEF approach assigns dibenzo(a,h)anthracene a TEF of
1 relative to the toxicity of benzo(a)pyrene. The oral CSF for
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene is therefore the same as the IRIS (U.S. EPA,
2001a) value for benzo(a)pyrene: 7.3.E+00 (mg/kg-d)"1.
E-46
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document
Appendix E
E-3.2.7 Air Characteristic Study Provisional Benchmarks
Provisional inhalation health benchmarks were developed in the Air
Characteristic Study (U.S. EPA, 1999g) for several constituents lacking IRIS, HEAST,
alternative EPA, or ATSDR values. For 2-chlorophenol, a provisional RfC was
developed using route-to-route extrapolation of the oral RfD. Using route-to-route
extrapolations based on oral CSFs from IRIS and HEAST, the Air Characteristic Study
developed provisional inhalation URFs and inhalation CSFs for bromodichloromethane,
chlorodibromomethane, and o-Toluidine.
These provisional inhalation benchmark values are summarized in Table E-6
below. Additional details on the derivation of these inhalation benchmarks can be found
in the Revised Risk Assessment for the Air Characteristic Study (U.S. EPA, 1999g).
Table E-6. Provisional Inhalation Benchmarks Developed in the Air
Characteristic Study
CASRN
75-27-4
124-48-1
95-57-8
95-53-4
Chemical Name
Bromodichloromethane
(dichlorobromomethane)
Chlorodibromomethane
(dibromochloromethane)
2-Chlorophenol (o-)
o-Toluidine (2-methylaniline)
RfC
(mg/m3)
1.4E-03
RfC Target
Effect
Reproductive,
developmental
URF
(lig/m3)1
1.8E-05
2.4E-05
6.9E-05
CSFi
(mg/kg-d)1
6.2E-02
8.4E-02
2.4E-01
E-3.2.8 Surrogate Health Benchmarks
For several IWEM constituents, IRIS benchmarks for similar chemicals were used
as surrogate data. The rationale for these recommendations is as follows:
cis-l,3-Dichloropropylene and trans-l,3-dichloropropylene were based on
1,3-dichloropropene. The studies cited in the IRIS file for 1,3-
dichloropropene used a technical-grade chemical that contained about a
50/50 mixture of the cis- and trans-isomers. The RfD is 3E-02 mg/kg-d
and the RfC is 2E-02 mg/m3. The oral CSF for 1,3-dichloropropene is 0.1
(mg/kg-d)-1 and the inhalation URF is 4E-06 dig/m3)'1.
E-47
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
The IRIS oral CSF for the 2,4-/2,6-dinitrotoluene mixture (6.8E-01 per
mg/kg-d) was used as the oral CSFs for 2,4-dinitrotoluene and 2,6-
dinitrotoluene.
The RfDs for o- and m-cresol (both 5E-02 mg/kg/d) are cited on IRIS. The
provisional RfD for p-cresol (5E-03 mg/kg/d) is from HEAST. Cresol
mixtures contain all three cresol isomers. Based on the hierarchy
described above (i.e., IRIS is preferred over HEAST because IRIS is
EPA's official repository of Agency-wide consensus human health risk
information), the RfD for m-cresol (5E-02 mg/kg-d) was used as a
surrogate for cresol mixtures.
Fluoride was based on fluorine. The IRIS RfD for fluorine (0.12 mg/kg-d)
is based on soluble fluoride and related to the endpoint of skeletal
fluorisis.
The RfD for methyl mercury (1E-04 mg/kg-d) was used as a surrogate for
elemental mercury.
The RfD for Arochlor 1254 (2E-05 mg/kg-d) was used as a surrogate for
PCBs.
Thallium was based on thallium chloride. There are several thallium salts
that have RfDs in IRIS. The lowest value among the thallium salts (8E-05
mg/kg-d) is routinely used to represent thallium in risk assessments.
p-Xylene was based on total xylenes. An RfD of 2 mg/kg-d is listed for
total xylenes, m-xylene, and o-xylene in IRIS. Total xylenes contain a
mixture of all three isomers; therefore, the RfD likely is appropriate for p-
xylene.
E-3.2.9 Chloroform
EPA has classified chloroform as a Group B2, Probable Human Carcinogen,
based on an increased incidence of several tumor types in rats and mice (U.S. EPA,
200 la). However, based on an evaluation initiated by EPA's Office of Water (OW), the
Office of Solid Waste (OSW) now believes the weight of evidence for the carcinogenic
mode of action for chloroform does not support a mutagenic mode of action; therefore, a
nonlinear low-dose extrapolation is more appropriate for assessing risk from exposure to
chloroform. EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), the World Health Organization
(WHO), the Society of Toxicology, and EPA all strongly endorse the nonlinear approach
for assessing risks from chloroform.
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
Although OW conducted its evaluation of chloroform carcinogenicity for oral
exposure, a nonlinear approach for low-dose extrapolation would apply to inhalation
exposure to chloroform as well, because chloroform's mode of action is understood to be
the same for both ingestion and inhalation exposures. Specifically, tumorigenesis for
both ingestion and inhalation exposures is induced through cytotoxicity (cell death)
produced by the oxidative generation of highly reactive metabolites (phosgene and
hydrochloric acid), followed by regenerative cell proliferation (U.S. EPA, 1998g).
Chloroform-induced liver tumors in mice have only been seen after bolus corn oil dosing
and have not been observed following administration by other routes (i.e., drinking water
and inhalation). As explained in EPA OW's March 31, 1998, and December 16, 1998,
Federal Register notices pertaining to chloroform (U.S. EPA, 1998g and 1998h,
respectively), EPA now believes that "based on the current evidence for the mode of
action by which chloroform may cause tumorigenesis, ...a nonlinear approach is more
appropriate for extrapolating low-dose cancer risk rather than the low-dose linear
approach..."(U.S. EPA, 1998g). OW determined that, given chloroform's mode of
carcinogenic action, liver toxicity (a noncancer health effect) actually "is a more sensitive
effect of chloroform than the induction of tumors" and that protecting against liver
toxicity "should be protective against carcinogenicity given that the putative mode of
action understanding for chloroform involves cytotoxicity as a key event preceding tumor
development" (U.S. EPA, 1998g).
The recent evaluations conducted by OW concluded that protecting against
chloroform's noncancer health effects protects against excess cancer risk. EPA now
believes that the noncancer health effects resulting from inhalation of chloroform would
precede the development of cancer and would occur at lower doses than would tumor
development. Although EPA has not finalized a noncancer health benchmark for
inhalation exposure (i.e., an RfC), ATSDR has developed an inhalation MRL for
chloroform. Therefore, ATSDR's chronic inhalation MRL for chloroform (0.1 mg/m3)
was used in IWEM.
E-3.3 References for Section E-3
ATSDR, 2001. Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) for Hazardous Substances.
http://atsdrl.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/mrls.html
CalEPA, 1999a. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part 11.
Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Berkeley, CA. Available
online at http://www.oehha.org/scientific/hsca2.htm.
CalEPA, 1999b. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part III.
Technical Support Document for the Determination of Noncancer Chronic
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
Reference Exposure Levels. SRP Draft. Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment, Berkeley, CA. Available online at
http ://www. oehha. org/hotspots/RAGSII.html.
CalEPA, 2000. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part 111.
Technical Support Document for the Determination ofNoncancer Chronic
Reference Exposure Levels. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,
Berkeley, CA. Available online (in 3 sections) at
http://www.oehha.org/air/chroni c_rels/22RELS2k.html,
http://www.oehha.org/air/chroni c_rels/42kChREL.html,
http ://www. oehha. org/air/chronic_rels/Jan2001 ChREL.html.
U.S. EPA, 1985. Health Assessment Document for PolychlorinatedDibenzo-p-Dixons.
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, EPA/600/8-84/94F.
U.S. EPA, 1986a. Addendum to the Health Assessment Document for
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene). Updated Carcinogenicity Assessment
for Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene, PERC, PCE). External Review
Draft. EPA/600/8-82-005FA. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.
U.S. EPA, 1986b. Health andEnvironmental Effects Profile for Pyridine. EPA/600/x-
86-168. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA, 1987. Addendum to the Health Assessment Document for Trichloroethylene.
Updated Carcinogenicity Assessment for Trichloroethylene. External Review
Draft. EPA/600/8-82-006FA. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.
U.S. EPA, 1993. Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/R-93-
089.
U.S. EPA, 1994. Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and
Application of Inhalation Dosimetry. EPA/600/8-90-066F. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC.
E-50
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
U.S. EPA, 1997. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). EPA-540-R-97-
036. FY 1997 Update. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1998a. Risk Assessment Issue Paper for: Derivation of a Provisional Chronic
RfCfor Chlorobenzene (CASRN108-90-7). 98-020/09-18-98. National Center
for Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. EPA, 1998b. Risk Assessment Paper for: Evaluation of the Systemic Toxicity of
Hexachlorobutadiene (CASRN 87-68-3) Resulting from Oral Exposure. 98-
009/07-17-98. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Superfund
Technical Support Center, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA, 1998c. Hazardous waste management system; identification and listing of
hazardous waste; solvents; final rule. Federal Register 63 FR 64371-402.
U.S. EPA, 1998d. Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Ethyl Methanesulfonate
(62-50-0) in Support of Reportable Quantity Adjustments Pursuant to CERLCA
Section 102. Prepared by Carcinogen Assessment Group, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1998e. Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Safrole (94-59-7) in
Support of Reportable Quantity Adjustments Pursuant to CERLCA Section 102.
Prepared by Carcinogen Assessment Group, Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1998f. Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Tris(2,3-
dibromopropyl)phosphate (126-72-7) in Support of Reportable Quantity
Adjustments Pursuant to CERLCA Section 102. Prepared by Carcinogen
Assessment Group, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1998g. National primary drinking water regulations: disinfectants and
disinfection byproducts notice of data availability; Proposed Rule. Federal
Register 63 (61): 15673-15692. March 31.
U.S. EPA, 1998h. National primary drinking water regulations: disinfectants and
disinfection byproducts; final rule. Federal Register 63 (241): 69390-69476.
December 16.
E-51
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
U.S. EPA, 1999a. Risk Assessment Paper for: The Derivation of a Provisional
Subchronic RfCfor Carbon Tetrachloride (CASRN 56-23-5). 98-026/6-14-99.
National Center for Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support
Center, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA, 1999b. Risk Assessment Issue Paper for: Evaluating the Carcinogenicity of
Ethylbenzene (CASRN 100-41-4). 99-011/10-12-99. National Center for
Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. EPA, 1999c. Risk Assessment Paper for: An Updated Systemic Toxicity Evaluation
of n-Hexane (CASRN 110-54-3). 98-019/10-1-99. National Center for
Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. EPA, 1999d. Risk Assessment Issue Paper for: Derivation of Provisional Oral
Chronic RfD and Subchronic RfDsfor 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (CASRN 71-55-6).
98-025/8-4-99. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Superfund
Technical Support Center, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA, 1999e. Risk Assessment Issue Paper for: Derivation of Provisional Chronic
and Subchronic RfCsfor 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (CASRN 71-55-6). 98-025/8-4-
99. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical
Support Center, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA, 1999f. Risk Assessment Paper for: Derivation of the Systemic Toxicity of
1,2,3-Trichloropropane (CASRN96-18-4). 98-014/8-13-99. National Center for
Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. EPA, 1999g. Revised Risk Assessment for the Air Characteristic Study. EPA-530-
R-99-019a. Volume 2. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 2000. Risk Assessment Paper for: Derivation of a Provisional RfD for
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CASRN 79-34-5). 00-122/12-20-00. National Center
for Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. EPA, 200la. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington,
DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/
E-52
-------
IWEM Technical Background Document Appendix E
U.S. EPA, 2001b. Risk Assessment Paper for: Derivation of a Provisional RfD for
Cobalt and Compounds (CASRN 7440-48-4). 00-122/3-16-01. National Center
for Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. EPA, 200 Ic. Risk Assessment Paper for: Derivation of a Provisional RfD for N-
Nitrosodimethylamine (CASRN 62-75-9). 00-122/3-16-01. National Center for
Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. EPA, 200 Id. Risk Assessment Paper for: Derivation of a Provisional RfD for N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine (CASRN 86-30-6). 00-122/3-16-01. National Center for
Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
Van den Berg, M., L. Birnbaum, A.T.C. Bosveld, et al, 1998. Toxic equivalency factors
(TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for humans and wildlife. Environmental Health
Perspectives 106:775-792.
E-53
-------
APPENDIX F
TIER 1 LCTV TABLES
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table F-l. Landfill No-Liner LCTVs F-l-1
Table F-2. Landfill Single Clay Liner LCTVs F-2-1
Table F-3. Landfill Composite Liner LCTVs F-3-1
Table F-4. Surface Impoundment No-Liner LCTVs F-4-1
Table F-5. Surface Impoundment Single Clay Liner LCTVs F-5-1
Table F-6. Surface Impoundment Composite Liners LCTVs F-6-1
Table F-7. Waste Pile No-Liner LCTVs F-7-1
Table F-8. Waste Pile Single Clay Liner LCTVs F-8-1
Table F-9. Waste Pile Composite Liner LCTVs F-9-1
Table F-10. Land Application Unit LCTVs (No-Liner) F-10-1
F-i
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Table F-l: Landfill No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-ch loroethyljether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
Chloropropene 3- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
218-01-9
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
0.0171
0.0122
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
8.05E-04
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
0.021
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
3.00E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
1.90E-03
7.30E-03
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
2.6
2.2
2.3
1.3E+05
2.2
2.2
2.3
5.3
2.2
2.2
58
59
2.2
1.0E+30
6.8
2.2
1.0E+30
2.5
2.1E+07
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.4
2.8
160
2.2
2.2
2.2
5.8
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
5.3
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.014
0.11
4.3
0.011
0.012 c
0.026
1.0E+03b'c
0.2
0.015
0.011
0.014
0.030 "
0.22
0.19
0.18
0.31
0.25
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
2.6
2.2
2.3
1.3E+05
2.2
2.2
2.3
5.4
2.2
2.2
59
59
2.2
1.0E+30
6.8
2.2
1.0E+30
2.5
2.1E+07
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.4
2.8
160
2.2
2.2
2.2
5.8
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
5.4
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.3
5.4
5.4
1.0E+03b
0.013
27
9.4E-03 d
97 c
0.27
17C
0.023
0.016
3.8
0.2
16
19"
0.14
2.2
1.0E+03b'c
1.2
80"
5.4
13C
0.054
0.027
5.9
0.048
0.030 "
1.1
0.22
1.1
2.8
1.2
0.55
0.27
81
0.19
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.49
1.0E+03b
6.9
1.0E+03b
33
0.088
2.1
0.42
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.13
4.6
0.059
0.030"
0.049
0.44
66
0.74
0.57
0.022
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
2.6
2.2
2.3
1.4E+05
2.2
2.2
2.3
5.4
2.2
2.2
59
59
2.2
1.0E+30
6.8
2.2
1.0E+30
2.5
2.1E+07
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.4
2.8
160
2.2
2.2
2.2
5.8
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
5.4
LCTV based
on Ingestion
5.5E-05
4.1E-05"
0.77 c
0.037
1.9E-04
4.3E-04
3.9E-03
9.3E-07
7.8E-04
4.8E-03C
1.0E+03b'c
6.00E-04
3.10E-03
1.0E+03b'c
3.9E-03
2.1E-03
0.030"
2.1E-03
2.7E-03
0.016
4.3E-03C
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.091
13
2.3E-03
1.4C
4.9
0.097 c
3.6E-03
5.7
0.32 c
0.037 c
1.0E+03b'c
7.50E-03
0.013
1.0E+03b'c
2.0E-03
8.9E-05
2.2E-03
0.030 "
6.9
1.8E-03
0.013
1.0E+03"
0.039 c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-1-1
-------
Table F-l: Landfill No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a,h}anthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylenetrans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropenetrans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
CAS#
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
6.12E-01
9.79E-04
C
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
1.21E-04
Inhalation
NC
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.6
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
1.09E+03
C
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
2.00E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.8E+13
1.0E+30
8.0E+03
1.2E+10
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
3.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.5E+15
2.9
2.3
550
2.2
2.2
6.5E+12
2.2
2.2
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1E+06
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
3
5.5E-04
1.3
0.17
9.9E-03 '
7.0E-03 d
0.15
0.22
0.016
0.15
0.016
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.8E+13
1.0E+30
8.0E+03
1.2E+10
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
3.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.5E+15
2.9
2.3
550
2.2
2.2
6.6E+12
2.2
2.2
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.20E+06
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.1
2.7
2.7
0.27
2.7
5.5
9.2E-04
270
1.0E+03b'c
4.9
11
0.36"
0.26*
0.54
1.1
0.49
0.16
0.54
7
1.6
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
58
0.55"
5.4
1.1
6.7
5.4E-03
0.11
0.11
0.054
1.0E+03b'c
1.4
1.0E+03°'C
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
200 "
200"
200"
1.0E+03"
2.9
8.6E-04
8.0E-03
1.7
6.7
1.3
0.45"
0.32"
0.47
0.044
0.13
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.8E+13
1.0E+30
8.0E+03
1.2E+10
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
3.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.5E+15
2.9
2.3
550
2.2
2.2
6.6E+12
2.2
2.2
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.00E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.20E+06
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
13
1.0E+03b'c
1.9E-04
8.9E-03
4.8E-04
6.7E-04"
4.7E-04"
3.6E-04
4.5E-03
2.1E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
4.7E-08
0.015
2.3E-05
3. 1 E-04
3. 1 E-04
0.019
2.70E-04
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.22
2.9E-03
11 c
0.012"
1.5E-03
4.9E-04
6.4E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 "
0.4
0.044
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-1-2
-------
Table F-l: Landfill No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1 and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
CAS#
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
109-86-4
110-49-6
78-93-3
108-10-1
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.9
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
0.196
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
2.45E-02
4.90E-02
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
C
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
4.40E+02
5.10E+02
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
C
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.5
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
2.2
7.7E+04
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
7.4
2.2
3.9
1.0E+30
2.2
25
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
4.2E+06
7.4E+06
1.0E+30
3.9E+08
2.4
6.3
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.6E+07
2.2
3.1
2.2
2.2
1.3E+06
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.02 "
1.6
1.3E-03
8.7
0.26 c'd
0.25*
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
6.3E-03 c
1.0E+03b'c
0.037
5.8E-03
10"
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
7.7E+04
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
7.4
2.2
3.9
1.0E+30
2.2
25
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
4.3E+06
7.6E+06
1.0E+30
3.9E+08
2.4
6.3
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.6E+07
2.2
3.1
2.2
2.2
1.3E+06
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.33
0.020 a
1.0E+03"
22
16
160
11
8.5
5.4
110
4.3E-03
2.5 c
6.3
11
110
0.16
04 >'»''<>
0.56"
8.0E-03 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.018
0.12 c
1.0E+03b'c
0.055
0.023
600 c
0.16
16
11
0.028
2.5
7.2E-03
5.7E-03
27
10"
0.054
0.11
32
4.3
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
0.53
1.0E+03b
660
7.3
0.025
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
110
49
0.4"
3.0"
1.0E+03b'c
1.5
1.0E+03b
2.1E-03
0.015
1.0E+03b
970
1.0E+03b
73
2.7
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
7.7E+04
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
7.4
2.2
3.9
1.0E+30
2.2
25
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
4.3E+06
7.6E+06
1.0E+30
3.9E+08
2.4
6.3
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.8E+07
2.2
3.1
2.2
2.2
1.3E+06
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
2.9E-05
1.0E+03b
1.9E-03
1.2E-04
0.4"
120 c
8.0E-03a
1.0E+03b'c
3.0E-03
3.8E-04
1.0E+03b'c
0.30C
0.015
110C
0.23
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
0.024
2.1E-03
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
3.3
0.038
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.5E-03
2.3E-04
1.0E+03b'c
6.9 c
7.4E-03
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-1-3
-------
Table F-l: Landfill No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
CAS#
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
0.147
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1 .96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
0.734
1.47E+00
2.45E-01
0.734
1.22E-02
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
Inhalation
NC
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
3.60E+00
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50 E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
3.71 E-03 1.90E-03
4.83E-04
1.86E-03
9.40E-01
5.00E-04
2.10E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
4.6
8.1E+04
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
1.1E+09
6.1
3
4.4E+06
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.00E+30
1.00E+30
1.70E+05
2.3
2.2
2.9
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.2E+12
1.4E+04
3
17
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.011
2. 2 E-03
83 c
0.12
0.22
4.1E-04C
0.014*
0.014*
0.011
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
4.6
8.1E+04
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
1.2E+09
6.1
3
4.5E+06
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+05
2.3
2.2
2.9
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.2E+12
1.4E+04
3
17
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
84"
1.3c'd
0.54
3.3
0.28
1.1
1.1
0.027
4.30E-04
1.1
0.11
1.0E+03b'c
0.12
0.18
1.6
32
4.3E-03
0.32
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
82 c
4.2
2.2 c
0.054
0.3
0.37
0.016
11
0.017
3.4E-04 c
2.2
24
0.54
1.6
1.0E+03°'C
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
24
1.0E+03*
38
22
0.042
0.33
0.73
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.1
3.1
8
0.64*
0.70"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
4.6
8.1E+04
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
1.2E+09
6.1
3
4.5E+06
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+05
2.3
2.2
2.9
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.2E+12
1.4E+04
3
17
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.029
1.4E-06
4.2E-06
4.0E-05
3.0E-05
0.044
9.7E-06
1.0E-04
3.7E-09
2.8E-03C
9.2E-04
1.8E-03
40 c
8.9E-04
1.2 E-03
1.0E+03b'c
9.0E-06C
0.011
8.0E-03
4.10E-03
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.063
5.1E-05
9.5E-05
8.8E-04
4.4E-05
3.3E-03
1.2
9.9E-03
0.019
2
1.9E-07
0.27 c
100 "
23 c
0.038
1.0E+03b'c
3.1E-05C
5.7E-03
8.3E-03
0.047
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-1-4
-------
Table F-l: Landfill No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidine o-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1 ,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
rrichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
rrichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1 ,2-Trichloroethylene)
rrichlorofiuoromethane (Freon 11)
rrichlorophenol 2,4,5-
rrichlorophenol 2,4,6-
rrichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
rrichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
rrichloropropane 1,2,3-
rriethylamine
rrinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
rris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
0.0979
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
C
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
6.3E+03
2.3
2.2
2.3
98
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.2
21
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
5.8E-03
2.2
0.50 "
0.18
0.16
0.021 d
0.012
0.011
0.11
4.4E-03
22
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
6.3E+03
2.3
2.2
2.3
98
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.2
21
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
LCTV based
on Ingestion
5.8E-03
0.27
11
1.1
1.0E+03b'c
0.56
0.67"
0.24
16
5.4
0.43
0.54
0.39
1.6
0.5
54
0.16
110
110
110
110
16
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
2.9
210C
1.9
0.64"
0.64*
0.50a
4.7
0.09
0.24
2.7
0.20"
2.9
3.1
2.9
3.1
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
6.3E+03
2.3
2.2
2.3
98
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.2
21
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
LCTV based
on Ingestion
6.7E-05
8.9E-04
1 . 1 E-03
0.50a
0.028
4.9E-04"
4.9E-04"
0.019
0.019
3.7E-05
2.0E-04
3.0E-04
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
17
0.08
0.50 "
0.044
6.72E-04 '
6.7E-04 d
0.015
0.62
5.5E-03
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-1-5
-------
Table F-2: Landfill Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
ChloropropeneS- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
MCL
(mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
0.0171
0.0122
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
0.021
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
3.00E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
1.90E-03
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
6.4
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
8.8
6.1
6.6
1.6E+15
6.1
6.1
7.2
280
6.1
6.1
5.1E+06
6.2E+06
6.1
1.0E+30
79
6.1
1.0E+30
7.5
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
11
6.1
7.1
11.0
8.2E+07
6.1
6.1
6.1
36
6.9
6.1
6.3
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.040
0.33
13
0.030
1.0E+03b'c
0.13
1.0E+03b'c
0.60
0.043
0.033
0.055
0.030a
0.61
0.55
0.50
1.3
1.0
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
6.4
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
8.8
6.1
6.6
1.6E+15
6.1
6.1
7.2
280
6.1
6.1
5.1E+06
6.2E+06
6.1
1.0E+30
79
6.1
1.0E+30
7.5
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
11
6.1
7.1
11
8.4E+07
6.1
6.1
6.1
36
6.9
6.1
6.3
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
9.4 c
15
15
1.0E+03b
0.043
74
0.032 d
1.0E+03b'c
0.74
53 c
0.068
0.050
12
0.45
45
52 e
0.45
6.0
1.0E+03b'c
3.7
220"
15
52 c
0.15
0.083
17
0.2
0.030a
3.0
0.6
3.0
17C
3.4
1.5
0.74
260
0.75
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.3
1.0E+03b
19
1.0E+03b
91
0.25
5.7
0.50"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.37
13
0.23
0.030 "
0.13
1.2
180
2.1
1.6
0.059
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
6.4
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
8.8
6.1
6.6
1.6E+15
6.1
6.1
7.2
280
6.1
6.1
5.2E+06
6.4E+06
6.1
1.0E+30
79
6.1
1.0E+30
7.5
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
11
6.1
7.1
11
8.5E+07
6.1
6.1
6.1
36
6.9
6.1
6.3
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.9E-04
1.4E-04"
1.0E+03b'c
0.10
1.3E-03
0.023 c
0.011
2.6E-06
69 c
520 c
1.0E+03b'c
7.0E-03
8.4E-03
1.0E+03b'c
0.012
8.2E-03
0.030 "
0.013
7.9E-03
0.045
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.25
45
6.6E-03
1.0E+03b'c
13
5.1 c
0.010
16
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.087
0.036
1.0E+03b'c
6.0E-03
2.4E-04
8.4E-03
0.030a
43 c
5.2E-03
0.036
1.0E+03b
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-2-1
-------
Table F-2: Landfill Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a, hjanthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
CAS#
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
MCL
(mg/L)
Ingestion
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
C
8.05E-04
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
Inhalation
NC
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.6
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
1.09E+03
C
7.30E-03
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
280
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.9E+08
1.0E+30
9.8
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
7.8
7.6
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
14.0
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
11
6.8
1.1E+06
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
12
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
9.4
2.0E-03
3.7
0.46
0.027 '
0.019"
0.43
0.61
0.043
0.43
0.071
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
280
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.9E+08
1.0E+30
9.8
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
7.8
7.6
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
14.0
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
11
6.8
1.2E+06
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
12
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.1
7.4
7.4
0.74
7.4
15
2.5E-03
740
1.0E+03b'c
13
30
0.45"
0.32*
1.5
3.0
0.70"
0.45
1.5
31
4.5
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
220
1.5"
15
3.0
28 c
0.015
0.30
0.13a
0.15
1.0E+03b'c
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
200 "
200"
200"
1.0E+03"
8.0
2.4E-03
0.028
4.7
7.5 "
3.5
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
0.20
0.37
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
280
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.9E+08
1.0E+30
9.8
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
7.8
7.6
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
14.0
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
11
6.8
1.2E+06
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
12
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.23 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
6.7E-04
0.025
1.3E-03
1.8E-03"
1.3E-03"
9.8E-04
0.02
5.9E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.4E-07
0.042
6.4E-05
8.6E-04
8.6E-04
0.053
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
2.0 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.77
7.9E-03
0.30C
0.034"
4.8E-03
1 .3E-03
0.018
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.13a
1.1
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-2-2
-------
Table F-2: Landfill Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol 2-
CAS#
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
1 06-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
109-86-4
MCL
(mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
6.12E-01
9.79E-04
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.9
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
0.196
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
2.45E-02
C
1.21E-04
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
4.40E+02
C
2.00E-02
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.5
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.3
1.1E+22
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
6.1
55
6.1
17
1.0E+30
6.1
1.3E+03
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
11
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.8
570
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.3
31
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
7.0
6.6
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020"'
4.3
0.063
27
04 '.i
0.74*
8.0E-03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.13a'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.15
0.019
10"
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.3
1.1E+22
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
6.1
55
6.1
17
1.0E+30
6.1
1.3E+03
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
11
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.8
580
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.3
31
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
7.0
6.6
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.8
1.0E+03b'c
0.92 c
0.020 "
1.0E+03"
60
45
1.0E+03"
30
37
15
300
0.012
11 c
20
30
300
0.45
0.4 "'"
1.6"
8.0E-03'
1.0E+03b'c
0.065
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
0.15
0.22
1.0E+03b'c
0.45
45
30
0.086
8.0
0.20"
0.016
74
10"
0.15
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.5
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
20
1.2
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
310
130
0.4 "
8.8 "
1.0E+03b'c
4.0
1.0E+03"
9.4E-03
0.043
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.3
1.1E+22
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
6.1
55
6.1
17
1.0E+30
6.1
1.3E+03
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
11
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.8
580
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.3
31
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
7.0
6.6
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
LCTV based
on Ingestion
7.4E-04
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.4E-03
1.0E+03b
5.3E-03
3.3E-04
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.011
0.035 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.043
1.0E+03b'c
0.62
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.12
1.0E+03b
0.067
0.11
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
9.1
0.10
04a,b,c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03'
1.0E+03b'c
5.4E-03
0.021 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.021
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-2-3
-------
Table F-2: Landfill Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
CAS#
110-49-6
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1 634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1 336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
MCL
(mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-02
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
0.147
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
0.734
1.47E+00
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
Inhalation
NC
5.10E+02
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
3.60E+00
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
6.1
6.1
6.1
22
1.0E+30
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.6
1.0E+30
660
22
1.0E+30
10
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.1E+15
6.5
6.1
22
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
7.5
1.0E+30
1.2E+13
3.71E-03 1.90E-03 13
4.83E-04
5.00E-04|| 200
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.031
6.E-03
1.0E+03b'c
0.50
0.61
1.0E+03b'c
0.039*
0.039*
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
6.1
6.1
6.1
22
1.0E+30
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.6
1.0E+30
670
22
1.0E+30
10
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.1E+15
6.5
6.1
22
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
7.5
1.0E+30
1.2E+13
13
200
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.30
90
12
230"
3.5"
1.5
9.2
0.90
3.0
3.3
0.074
1.2E-03
3.0
0.32
1.0E+03b'c
13C
0.73 c
4.5
90
0.012
0.90
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
12
16C
0.15
1.0'
5.0"
0.045
30
0.055
1.0E+03b'c
9.4
300
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
200 "
7.3
120
1.0E+03*
100
62
0.12
0.91
2.0
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
3.0
5.0 "
22
0.64*
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
6.1
6.1
6.1
22
1.0E+30
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.6
1.0E+30
670
22
1.0E+30
10
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.4E+15
6.5
6.1
22
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
7.5
1.0E+30
1.2E+13
13
200
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.080
3.9E-06
1.2E-05
1.1E-04
8.4E-05
0.12
2.7E-05
2.8E-04
2.78E-08
1.0E+03b'c
3.7E-03
4.9E-03
1.0E+03b'c
2.4E-03
3.3E-03
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.047
0.068 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.17
1.4E-04
2.6E-04
2.4E-03
1.2E-04
9. 1 E-03
3.2
0.027
0.053
5.6
1.4E-06
1.0E+03b'c
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.10
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.024
0.053"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-2-4
-------
Table F-2: Landfill Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidineo-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
1 37-26-8
1 08-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
1 06-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL
(mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
2.45E-01
0.734
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
0.0979
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
1.86E-03
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
9.40E-01
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
C
2.10E-02
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.8E+08
6.5
6.1
6.6
2.0E+04
7.5
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
9.3
6.1
6.1
610
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.030
0.018
6.1
0.50a
0.52
0.46
0.059"
0.037
0.030
0.30
0.012
61
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.8E+08
6.5
6.1
6.6
2.0E+04
7.5
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
9.3
6.1
6.1
610
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.70 "
4.5
1.0E+03b'c
0.019
0.74
30
3.2
1.0E+03b'c
1.6
0.96"
0.73
45
15
1.0'
1.5
1.4
4.5
1.8
150
0.20"
300 c
300 c
300 c
300 c
51
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.70 "
7.9
580 c
5.5
0.96"
0.96*
0.50"
13
0.32
0.67
7.3
0.20 "
7.9
8.5
7.9
8.6
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
6.1
6.1
1.0E+30
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
1.8E+08
6.5
6.1
6.6
2.0E+04
7.5
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
9.3
6.1
6.1
610
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.011
1.8E-04
2.4E-03
3.1E-03
0.50 "
0.080
1.4E-03"
1.4E-03"
0.053
0.053
1.3E-04
6.1E-03
8.2E-04
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.13
46
0.22
0.50a
0.12
1.8E-03"
1.8E-03"
0.041
1.7
0.015
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-2-5
-------
Table F-3: Landfill Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
0.0171
0.0122
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
0.021
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
1.5E+04
1.6E+04
2.1E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
9.3E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+04
1.8E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.1E+04
1.0E+30
1.2E+07
1.0E+30
2.2E+04
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.3E+06
2.4E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.8E+04
3.4E+05
3.3E+04
1.0E+30
1.4E+06
1.5E+04
9.7E+04
1.5E+04
1.9E+04
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0E+03b
5.0s
100s
0.50s
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0a
0.50 '
0.030 "
100s
1.0E+03"'
6.0 "
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
2.1E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
9.3E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+04
1.9E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.1E+04
1.0E+30
1.2E+07
1.0E+30
2.2E+04
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.4E+06
2.4E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+04
3.4E+05
3.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.4E+06
1.6E+04
9.7E+04
1.5E+04
1.9E+04
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
740"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
5.0s
100s
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0s
1.0E+03"
0.50 "
0.030 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
6.0 '
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
740"
1.0E+03"'
0.50a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.50a
0.030a
410
100a'
1.0E+03"
6.0s
1.0E+03"'
190
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
2.1E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
9.3E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+04
1.9E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.1E+04
1.0E+30
1.2E+07
1.0E+30
2.2E+04
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.4E+06
2.4E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+04
3.4E+05
3.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.4E+06
1.6E+04
9.7E+04
1.5E+04
2.0E+04
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
170
1.0E+03b'c
270
5.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50a
7.8E-03
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
43
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.50a
0.030a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
110
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
620
1.0E+03"
750"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
190
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.88
0.50 '
0.030 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
90
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-3-1
-------
Table F-3: Landfill Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
ChloropropeneS- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a, hjanthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
CAS#
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
C
8.05E-04
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
Inhalation
NC
3.00E-03
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.6
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
C
1.90E-03
7.30E-03
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+04
1.9E+04
1.9E+04
2.3E+04
2.9E+05
1.7E+04
6.1E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.4E+04
9.0E+04
3.7E+05
2.3E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.0E+05
3.5E+05
1.8E+04
4.5E+07
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
8.8E+07
8.7E+06
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
1.5E+05
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0E+03"
5.0"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
7.5 "
0.45*
0.32"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
0.4
1.0E+03"
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+04
1.9E+04
1.9E+04
2.4E+04
3.0E+05
1.7E+04
6.2E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.5E+04
9.1E+04
3.7E+05
2.3E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.1E+05
3.5E+05
1.8E+04
4.6E+07
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
9.1E+07
9.0E+06
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
1.5E+05
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
5.0 "
1.0E+03"
200 "
200"
200"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
7.0
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32*
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
0.4
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
540
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
200 "
200"
200"
1.0E+03"
1.00E+03b'c
6.6
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
7.5 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.00E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+04
1.9E+04
1.9E+04
2.4E+04
3.0E+05
1.7E+04
6.2E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.5E+04
9.1E+04
3.8E+05
2.3E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.1E+05
3.5E+05
1.9E+04
5.0E+07
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
9.5E+07
9.4E+06
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
1.5E+05
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
7.5 "
82 c
0.45*
0.32"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
17
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
7.5 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32"
070 "
50
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-3-2
-------
Table F-3: Landfill Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Dinitrotoluene2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
CAS#
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
7439-92-1
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
6.12E-01
9.79E-04
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.9
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
0.196
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
C
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
1.21E-04
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
1.09E+03
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
C
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
2.00E-02
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.5
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
2.0E+04
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
6.1E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.0E+04
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
1.4E+04
1.4E+05
1.6E+04
3.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.5E+11
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.0E+05
1.0E+30
7.2E+04
1.4E+05
1.0E+30
1.5E+05
2.1E+04
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"'
1.0E+03"
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'e
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 a'c
1.00E+03b'c
5.0 a
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
2.0E+04
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
6.1E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.1E+04
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
1.4E+04
1.5E+05
1.6E+04
3.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.6E+11
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.0E+05
1.0E+30
7.3E+04
1.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.5E+05
2.2E+04
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.13 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.020 a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
32
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
04"
1.00E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.0E+04
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
6.1E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.1E+04
1.0E+30
1.5E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
1.4E+04
1.5E+05
1.6E+04
3.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.6E+11
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.0E+05
1.0E+30
7.3E+04
1.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.5E+05
2.2E+04
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.13a
35
140
7.4
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
14
19C
04a,b,c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.13 a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
890 c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-3-3
-------
Table F-3: Landfill Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
CAS#
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
109-86-4
110-49-6
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
2.45E-02
4.90E-02
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
0.147
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
Inhalation
NC
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
4.40E+02
5.10E+02
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
9.8E+05
1.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
2.0E+05
6.2E+05
1.1E+05
1.7E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
2.6E+04
1.7E+04
6.4E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
4.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.7E+04
1.6E+04
1.5E+05
1.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.5E+09
1.6E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.3E+07
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.20 a'c
10a,c
1.0E+03"
97
1.0E+03b'c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
9.8E+05
1.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
2.0E+05
6.3E+05
1.1E+05
1.8E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
2.6E+04
1.8E+04
6.5E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
4.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.8E+04
1.7E+04
1.5E+05
1.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.6E+09
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.3E+07
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b
0.20 af
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
10"
390
810
200 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03M
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
2.0 "
3.1
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
100 "
1.0E+03"
290
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
5.0 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.20"
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
200 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.00E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
2.0 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
5.0 "
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
9.8E+05
1.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
2.0E+05
6.3E+05
1 . 1 E+05
1.8E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
2.6E+04
1.8E+04
6.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
4.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.9E+04
1.7E+04
1.5E+05
1.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.7E+09
1.7E+04
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.4E+07
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
0.010
0.030
0.47
0.25
1.0E+03b'c
0.072
0.74
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
80
1.0E+03b'c
6.6
1.0E+03"'C
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.37
0.70
6.4
0.52
27
1.0E+03b'c
74
140
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
280
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-3-4
-------
Table F-3: Landfill Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidineo-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
0.734
1.47E+00
2.45E-01
0.734
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
0.0979
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
Inhalation
NC
3.60E+00
C
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
3.71 E-03 1.90E-03
4.83E-04
1.86E-03
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
9.40E-01
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
5.00E-04
2.10E-02
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
7.7E+05
5.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.5E+04
1.1E+07
1.0E+30
3.0E+09
2.9E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
2.0E+05
1.0E+30
3.1E+05
7.4E+04
6.8E+06
1.0E+30
1.4E+07
2.3E+04
2.3E+04
3.8E+10
2.7E+04
4.3E+05
2.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.8E+04
1.7E+05
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.0E+05
8.4E+04
1.1E+05
9.7E+04
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0'
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64*
0.64*
0.70"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96"
0.50"
1.0'
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
7.8E+05
5.5E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.5E+04
1.1E+07
1.0E+30
3.2E+09
2.9E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
2.1E+05
1.0E+30
3.1E+05
7.4E+04
6.8E+06
1.0E+30
1.4E+07
2.3E+04
2.3E+04
4.2E+10
2.7E+04
4.4E+05
2.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.8E+04
1.8E+05
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1.0E+05
8.4E+04
1.1E+05
9.8E+04
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0'
5.0 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96"
1.0E+03"
400 "
1.0'
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.64*
0.70 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96*
0.50a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
7.8E+05
5.5E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.5E+04
1.2E+07
1.0E+30
3.5E+09
2.9E+04
1.6E+04
1.7E+04
2.1E+05
1.0E+30
3.2E+05
7.5E+04
6.9E+06
1.0E+30
1.4E+07
2.3E+04
2.3E+04
4.2E+10
2.7E+04
4.4E+05
2.5E+05
1.0E+30
1.8E+04
1.8E+05
1.0E+30
1.6E+04
1.6E+04
1 . 1 E+05
8.5E+04
1 . 1 E+05
9.9E+04
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64"
0.64"
0.70 "
0.50
6.9
100
0.50a
1.0E+03"
0.96*
0.96"
0.50a
2.0 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.20 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64"
0.64"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
620
0.50 "
1.0E+03"
0.96*
0.96"
0.50 "
2.0"
0.20"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-3-5
-------
Table F-4: Surface Impoundment No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
ChloropropeneS- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
218-01-9
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
0.0171
0.0122
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
8.05E-04
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
0.021
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
3.00E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
1.90E-03
7.30E-03
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
2.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0E+30
1.3
1.3
1.3
380
1.3
1.3
3.6
36
1.3
1.3
110
110
1.3
1.0E+30
2.1
1.3
7.4E+10
1.3
190
1.3
1.3
4.0
1.3
1.3
1.5
130
1.3
1.3
1.3
4.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
9.7E+05
36
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
8.5E-03
0.080
2.7
6.4E-03
0.021 c
0.28
1.0E+03b'c
0.11
8.9E-03
8.3E-03
7.3E-03
0.030a
0.13
0.10
0.10
2.6
0.69
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0E+30
1.4
1.3
1.4
380
1.3
1.3
3.6
37
1.3
1.3
110
110
1.3
1.0E+30
2.2
1.4
7.5E+10
1.4
230
1.3
1.3
4.1
1.3
1.4
1.5
140
1.3
1.3
1.4
4.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
9.8E+05
37
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.2
3.2
3.2
1.0E+03b
6.9E-03
16
5.2E-03"
0.28 c
0.16
27 c
0.014
0.013
2.4
0.097
9.7
11"
0.53
1.3
1.0E+03b'c
0.68
7.7
3.2
20 c
0.033
0.021
3.4
0.025
0.030a
0.65
0.13
0.67
2.2
0.67
0.33
0.16
100
0.55
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.29
1.0E+03"
4.1
1.0E+03"
20
0.051
1.2
0.25
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
3.4
0.080
2.6
0.031
0.030 "
0.029
0.27
40
0.44
0.34
0.013
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0E+30
1.7
1.5
1.6
380
1.5
1.5
3.8
37
1.6
1.5
110
110
1.5
1.0E+30
2.6
1.6
7.5E+10
1.6
230
1.6
1.5
4.2
1.6
1.6
1.7
140
1.6
1.5
1.6
4.7
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
2.2E+06
37
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.5E-05
2.7E-05 d
2.1E-03
0.026
1.4E-04
2.9E-03
2.7E-03
6.4E-07
1.4E-03
8.6E-03 c
1.0E+03b'c
2.2E-04
2.2E-03
1.0E+03b'c
2.6E-03
1.3E-03
0.030 "
1.7E-03
1.8E-03
1.1E-02
0.029 c
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
6.2E-02
8.4E+00
1.6E-03
3.8E-03
3.3E+00
0.66C
2.5E-03
4.0
0.57 c
0.067 c
1.0E+03b'c
2.8E-03
9.3E-03
1.0E+03b'c
1.3E-03
6.2E-05
1.3E-03
0.030a
5.6
1.2E-03
9.0E-03
1.0E+03b
0.27 c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-4-1
-------
Table F-4: Surface Impoundment No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a, hjanthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
CAS#
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
1 08-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
1 56-59-2
1 56-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
1 22-66-7
298-04-4
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
6.12E-01
9.79E-04
C
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
1.21E-04
Inhalation
NC
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.6
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
1.09E+03
C
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
2.00E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.3
1.3
4.4E+08
3.2E+04
1.0E+30
38
4.8E+03
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
5.3E+06
5.3E+06
3.3E+04
1.5
3.1
10
1.3
1.3
3.1E+04
1.3
1.3
5.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0E+30
1.3
1.6
1.4
150
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
5.5
2.8E-04
0.88
0.11
5.6E-03"
4.0E-03"
0.088
0.13
8.9E-03
0.088
7.5E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.3
1.3
4.4E+08
3.2E+04
1.0E+30
38
4.9E+03
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.6
1.3
5.9E+06
5.9E+06
3.3E+04
1.5
3.1
11
1.3
1.3
3.1E+04
1.4
1.3
5.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0E+30
1.3
1.6
1.4
160
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.2
1.6
1.6
0.16
1.6
4.2
5.5E-04
160
1.0E+03b'c
3.3
6.6
0.22"
0.15*
0.33
0.65
0.29
0.10
0.3
3.4
1.0
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
40 c
30
0.054
3.2
0.66
12C
3.2E-03
0.065
0.065
0.032
1.0E+03b'c
1.0
0.15
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
200 "
200"
200"
1.0E+03"
2.2
5.1E-04
4.2E-03
1.1
4.4
0.78
0.45"
0.32"
0.28
0.022
0.081
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
940
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.5
4.4E+08
3.2E+04
1.0E+30
42
4.9E+03
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.9
1.5
1.3E+07
1.3E+07
3.3E+04
1.8
3.2
12
1.5
1.5
3.1E+04
1.6
1.6
5.2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0E+30
1.5
1.8
1.6
200
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
9.0 c
10"
0.066
0.064 c
1.2E-04
6.7E-03
3.9E-04
4.6E-04 '
3.2E-04 d
2.5E-04
2.6E-03
1.5E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.20 c
6.6E-08
0.010
1.6E-05
2.2E-04
2.2E-04
0.013
1.9E-04
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.14
2.2E-03
8.9 c
8.5E-03"
1.0E-03
3.4E-04
4.4E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
3.3 c
94 c
0.13a
0.27
0.032
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-4-2
-------
Table F-4: Surface Impoundment No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1 and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
CAS#
115-29-7
72-20-8
1 06-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
1 6984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
110-49-6
109-86-4
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.9
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
0.196
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
C
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
5.10E+02
4.40E+02
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
C
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.5
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
1.8
150
7.6E+04
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.1
1.3
1.6
1.0E+30
1.4
3.5
1.3
7.3E+03
1.3
7.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7
220
280
1.0E+30
3.3E+03
5.6
43
1.0E+30
4.9E+08
1.8E+03
1.9
17
1.4
1.3
550
1.3
1.3
3.4
1.3
1.3
1.1E+20
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020"'
1.0
1.7E-04
4.9
0.044
0.29*
8.0E-03a
0.66C
0.043C
1.0E+03b'c
0.078
2.5E-03
10a.c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.9
150
8.3E+04
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.2
1.3
1.7
1.0E+30
1.5
3.8
1.3
8.3E+03
1.3
7.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7
230
280
1.0E+30
3.3E+03
5.6
43
1.0E+30
4.9E+08
1.8E+03
1.9
17
1.4
1.3
550
1.3
1.3
3.4
1.4
1.3
1.8E+20
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.8
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.27
0.020"
1.0E+03"
13
9.7
49
6.5
3.8
3.6
65
2.6E-03
7.5 c
3.8
6.5
65
0.097
0.4 "'"
0.64"
8.0E-03'
1.1 c
0.041
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
0.047
0.13
390 c
0.097
9.7
6.5
0.041
1.6
3.3E-03
3.3E-03
16
1.0E+01 af
0.065
0.032
19
2.6
50"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
0.32
1.0E+03b
400
4.82
3.7E-03
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
67
29
0.4 "
3.5*
1.0E+03 b'c
0.95
710
9.4E-04
8.8E-03
1.0E+03b
670
580
44
1.6
9.8
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.1
150
8.8E+04
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.6
1.5
2.0
1.0E+30
1.6
4.3
1.5
8.6E+03
1.5
7.8
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.9
290
350
1.0E+30
3.4E+03
5.7
43
1.0E+30
5.0E+08
1.8E+03
2.2
17
1.6
1.5
550
1.5
1.6
3.5
1.6
1.5
1.8E+20
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.1
LCTV based
on Ingestion
860
1.0E+03 b
4.9E-06
0.81
1.3E-03
1.0E-04
0.021
5.3E-03
8.0E-03 "
0.036
7.1E-03
2.6E-03
3.1 c
1.1E-05C
0.015
0.044 c
0.16
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
0.018
3.6E-04
4.5
1.0E+03b
2.3
0.0
0.4 "
0.13
8.0E-03"
9.6E-01 c
3.5E-03
1.5E-03
71 c
2.6E-04C
7.1E-03
2.1E+01 c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-4-3
-------
Table F-4: Surface Impoundment No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
CAS#
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
1 08-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
1 29-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
0.147
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
0.734
1.47E+00
2.45E-01
0.734
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
3.71E-03
4.83E-04
1.86E-03
Inhalation
NC
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
3.60E+00
9.40E-01
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
1.90E-03
5.00E-04
2.10E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
68
1.3
4.9E+08
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
930
41
15
680
6.8
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
6.7E+19
1.0E+30
390
1.4
1.3
14
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
4.1
2.0E+04
2.7E+02
1.5
3.0
1.3
1.3
1.0E+30
1.4
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
6.3E-03
1.5E-03
0.20 c
0.063
0.14
8.1E-06C
8.2E-03"
8.2E-03"
6.4E-03
2.5E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
75
1.3
4.9E+08
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
960
41
15
680
6.8
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2E+20
1.0E+30
390
1.4
1.3
14
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
4.1
2.0E+04
2.7E+02
1.6
3.2
1.3
1.3
1.0E+30
1.4
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.46
0.32
2.0
0.16
0.74
0.77
0.016
2.6E-04
0.69
0.066
140 c
0.80
0.50
1.1
19
2.6E-03
0.19
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
0.19C
2.6
11 c
0.032
0.16
0.17
0.010
6.9
0.030
6.6E-06
1.1
4.7
0.33
0.98
1.0E+03b'c
2.6E-03
0.17
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
22
13
0.029
0.20
0.44
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.65
1.8
5.1
0.64*
0.70"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
83
1.5
5.0E+08
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.2E+03
41
15
680
7.0
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6E+20
1.0E+30
390
1.6
1.5
14
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
4.3
2.0E+04
2.7E+02
1.8
3.8
1.6
1.6
1.0E+30
1.6
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.020
9.8E-07
2.9E-06
2.8E-05
2.1E-05
0.032
6.7E-06
7.0E-05
1.8E-08
4.3E-07
2.6E-03
1.3E-03
0.095 c
6.1E-04
8.4E-04
1.3E-04
1.7E-07
6.7E-03
1.8E-03
2.9E-03
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.043
3.5E-05
6.5E-05
6. 1 E-04
3. 1 E-05
2.3E-03
0.84
6.8E-03
0.013
1.4
9.2E-07
4. 1 E-05
90
0.055
0.026
2.0E-03C
6.0E-07
3.4E-03
1.9E-03
0.033
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-4-4
-------
Table F-4: Surface Impoundment No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidineo-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
1 08-05-4
75-01-4
1 08-38-3
95-47-6
1 06-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
0.0979
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
C
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
42
1.3
1.4
2.6
5.9
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
3.5
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.3
0.13
0.10
0.18
0.012"
6.7E-03
6.4E-03
0.063
2.5E-03
15
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
42
1.4
1.5
2.6
6.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
3.5
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
LCTV based
on Ingestion
6.6
0.66
1.0E+03b'c
0.64
0.40"
0.14
9.8
3.5
0.26
0.32
0.21
1.0
2.6
32
0.10
74
72
74
73
13
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.8
140
2.2
0.38"
0.38*
0.50"
2.8
0.048
0.15
1.6
0.20 "
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.1
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
44
1.6
1.6
2.8
7.4
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.5
4.2
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
LCTV based
on Ingestion
4.6E-05
6.1E-04
7.7E-04
3.9E-03
0.019
3.4E-04 '
3.4E-04 d
0.014
0.014
2.3E-05
4.1E-05
2.0E-04
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
11
0.055
0.16
0.030
4.7E-04"
4.7E-04"
0.011
0.44
3.8E-03
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-4-5
-------
Table F-5: Surface Impoundment Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
ChloropropeneS- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
0.0171
0.0122
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
0.021
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
3.00E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
1.90E-03
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
17
3.9
3.9
4.0
3.9
1.0E+30
4.8
3.9
4.1
3.7E+08
3.9
3.9
42.4
910
4.1
3.9
2.6E+04
2.6E+04
3.9
1.0E+30
17
4.5
1.0E+30
4.6
1.5E+08
4.2
3.9
55
4.2
4.5
6.0
1.1E+05
4.1
3.9
4.8
87
4.4
3.9
4.1
3.9
4.1
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.026
0.26
7.3
0.020
5.2 c
4.5
1.0E+03b'c
0.37
0.029
0.029
0.030
0.030 *'
0.48
0.35
0.32
57
5.0 "
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
17
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.0E+30
4.8
4.0
4.2
3.7E+08
4.0
4.0
43
910
4.1
4.0
2.7E+04
2.6E+04
4.0
1.0E+30
17
4.5
1.0E+30
4.7
1.5E+08
4.3
4.0
55
4.2
4.5
6.1
1.1E+05
4.1
4.0
4.9
87
4.5
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.1
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
25 c
9.7
9.7
1.0E+03b
0.024
48
0.018"
1.0E+03b'c
0.48
310 c
0.047
0.048
7.0
0.29
29
34 e
8.7
4.4
1.0E+03b'c
2.3
140"
9.7
270 c
0.10
0.069
11
0.10
0.030 "
2.0
0.39
2.4
43 c
2.2
1.0
0.50
450
5.0 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.87
1.0E+03b
12
1.0E+03b
59
0.16
3.7
0.50a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.26
8.5
0.13
0.030a
0.090
1.0
120
1.3
1.0
0.040
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
17
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
1.0E+30
5.6
4.5
4.8
3.7E+08
4.5
4.5
43
910
4.7
4.5
2.7E+04
2.6E+04
4.5
1.0E+30
21
5.0
1.0E+30
5.3
2.6E+08
4.8
4.5
55
4.7
5.1
6.8
1.1E+05
4.6
4.5
5.3
87
5.1
4.5
4.7
4.5
4.7
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.2E-04
9.0E-05"
1.0E+03b'c
7.6E-02
1.1E-03
0.073 c
8.2E-03
1.9E-06
0.35C
2.1 c
1.0E+03b'c
1 .9E-03
6.9E-03
1.0E+03b'c
8.2E-03
5.0E-03
0.030a
3.1E-02
5.8E-03
3.3E-02
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.18
29
4.8E-03
1.0E+03b'c
9.9
16C
7.5E-03
12
140 c
17C
1.0E+03b'c
0.023
0.030
1.0E+03b'c
4.2E-03
1.9E-04
5.2E-03
0.030 "
100 c
3.8E-03
0.027
1.0E+03"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-5-1
-------
Table F-5: Surface Impoundment Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a, hjanthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
CAS#
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
1 08-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
1 08-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
1 56-59-2
1 56-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
6.12E-01
C
8.05E-04
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
Inhalation
NC
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.6
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
1.09E+03
C
7.30E-03
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
910
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.3
9.8
3.9
4.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+05
1.0E+30
5.5
6.7
6.6
8.7
4.3
4.5
4.4
4.0
3.9
4.1
4.6
3.9
6.5
3.9
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.1
33
2.8E+03
3.9
3.9
1.0E+30
4.7
4.4
75
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
1.0E+30
3.9
8.4
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
61
1.1E-03
4.0
0.49
0.018*
0.012"
0.28
0.39
0.028
0.27
0.033
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
910
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.3
9.8
4.0
4.1
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+05
1.0E+30
5.5
6.8
6.6
8.7
4.3
4.6
4.5
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.7
4.0
6.6
4.0
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.2
33
2.9E+03
4.0
4.0
1.0E+30
4.8
4.4
75
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.0E+30
4.0
8.5
LCTV based
on Ingestion
8.0
5.0
5.0
0.50
5.2
24
1.6E-03
500
1.0E+03b'c
15
21
0.45"
0.32*
1.0
1.9
0.70"
0.34
1.0
14
2.9
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
120
0.98"
9.7
2.2
180 c
9.7E-03
0.19
0.13 "
0.10
1.0E+03b'c
5.2
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
200 "
200"
200"
1.0E+03"
13
1.5E-03
0.016
5.2
7.5 "
2.5
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
0.092
0.24
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
910
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.8
10
4.5
4.6
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.9E+05
1.0E+30
6.4
7.2
7.0
9.1
4.9
5.3
5.2
4.6
4.5
4.7
5.1
4.5
7.6
4.5
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.0
34
3.7E+03
4.5
4.5
1.0E+30
5.2
4.9
75
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
1.0E+30
4.5
8.8
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.73 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
310C
1.0E+03b'c
4.4E-04
2.8E-02
2.0E-03
1.4E-03"
9.6E-04"
7.5E-04
0.011
4.3E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
6.9E-07
3. 1 E-02
5.5E-05
6.4E-04
6.4E-04
4.0E-02
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
6.6 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.50
9. 1 E-03
45 c
0.025 d
3.3E-03
1.0E-03
0.013
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 "
0.81
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-5-2
-------
Table F-5: Surface Impoundment Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methoxyethanol 2-
CAS#
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
1 43-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
110-49-6
109-86-4
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
9.79E-04
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.9
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
0.196
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
C
1.21E-04
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
5.10E+02
4.40E+02
C
2.00E-02
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.5
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
5.5
4.0E+07
12
6.5E+06
1.0E+30
3.9
3.9
3.9
18
3.9
7.7
1.0E+30
6.3
79
3.9
1.0E+30
3.9
110
3.9
3.9
3.9
10
5.8E+07
1.2E+08
1.0E+30
4.2E+15
76
1.2E+03
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.2E+14
14
270
6.1
3.9
2.3E+10
3.9
4.1
38
4.1
3.9
1.0E+30
3.9
3.9
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020 "
4.4
4.0E-03
14
0.4 a'd
2.9*
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.13a'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.78
6.9E-03
10a.c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
5.5
4.0E+07
12
6.6E+06
1.0E+30
4.0
4.0
4.0
18
4.0
7.9
1.0E+30
6.4
82
4.0
1.0E+30
4.0
110
4.0
4.0
4.0
10
5.8E+07
1.2E+08
1.0E+30
4.2E+15
76
1.2E+03
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.2E+14
14
270
6.1
4.0
2.3E+10
4.0
4.2
38
4.2
4.0
1.0E+30
4.0
4.0
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.8C
0.020 a
1.0E+03b
39
29
400
19
17
16
190
7.8E-03
110C
11
19
190
0.29
0.4 ''"
6.4 c'd
8.0E-03 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.50"
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
0.34
2.0
1.0E+03b'c
0.29
29
20
0.46
4.9
9.4E-03
0.010
48
10"
0.19
0.10
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
1.0
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
21
0.080
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
200
87
0.4"
35"
1.0E+03b'c
4.0
1.0E+03"
2.7E-03
0.027
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
5.9
4.6E+07
12
6.6E+06
1.0E+30
4.5
4.5
4.5
22
4.5
9.1
1.0E+30
6.8
100
4.5
1.0E+30
4.5
110
4.5
4.5
4.5
11
6.4E+07
1.3E+08
1.0E+30
4.2E+15
76
1.2E+03
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.2E+14
14
270
6.5
4.5
2.3E+10
4.5
4.7
38
4.8
4.5
1.0E+30
4.5
4.5
LCTV based
on Ingestion
7.2E-04
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1 . 1 E-04
1.0E+03"
4.0E-03
5.6E-04
04a,b,c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03a
1.0E+03b'c
0.095
0.073 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.097
1.0E+03b'c
0.477
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.12
1.0E+03b
0.074
8.4E-03
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
6.8
0.18
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.047
0.043 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.046
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-5-3
-------
Table F-5: Surface Impoundment Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
CAS#
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
1 08-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
0.147
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
0.734
1.47E+00
2.45E-01
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
3.71 E-03
4.83E-04
1.86E-03
Inhalation
NC
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
3.60E+00
9.40E-01
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50 E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
1.90E-03
5.00E-04
2.10E-02
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
3.9
3.9
9.3
7.7E+06
3.9
1.0E+30
3.9
4.0
7.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.2
3.9
5.6
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.2
1.7E+14
1.1E+03
230
3.9E+11
95
6.6
3.9
3.9
3.9
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.5E+08
5.1
3.9
220
3.9
4.4
4.1
5.6
50
1.0E+30
2.9E+07
7.3
46
4.3
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020
6.6E-03
1.0E+03b'c
0.17
0.56
0.86 c
0.027 '
0.027 '
0.022
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
4.0
4.0
9.4
7.9E+06
4.0
1.0E+30
4.0
4.1
7.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.3
4.0
5.6
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.2
1.7E+14
1.1E+03
230
3.9E+11
96
6.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.5E+08
5.1
4.0
220
4.0
4.4
4.1
5.6
51
1.0E+30
2.9E+07
7.3
46
4.4
LCTV based
on Ingestion
58
7.8
150"
2.3d
1.0
6.0
0.44
3.4
2.5
0.048
7.8E-04
2.7
0.21
1.0E+03b'c
21 c
7.0 c
4.9
58
7. 8 E-03
0.58
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
9.4
160 c
0.10
0.43
0.61
0.030
27
0.37
0.71 c
5.4
68
0.70"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
130
4.8
50
1.0E+03"
67
41
0.13
0.59
1.3
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.9
5.0 "
20
0.64*
0.70 a
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
4.5
4.5
11
9.0E+06
4.5
1.0E+30
4.5
4.6
7.3
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.8
4.5
6.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.8
1.8E+14
1 . 1 E+03
230
3.9E+11
96
7.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.6E+08
5.6
4.5
220
4.5
5.0
4.7
6.0
51
1.0E+30
2.9E+07
8.0
54
4.9
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.059
2.9E-06
8.5E-06
8.5E-05
6.2E-05
0.12
2.0E-05
2.1E-04
2.9E-07
240 c
0.036
5.7E-03
1.0E+03b'c
1.8E-03
2. 7 E-03
1.0E+03b'c
0.019 c
0.030
0.026
9.1 E-03
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.13
1.0E-04
1.9E-04
1.8E-03
9.5E-05
6.8E-03
3.1
0.020
0.039
4.1
1.5E-05
1.0E+03b'c
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.077
1.0E+03b'c
0.064 c
0.015
0.027
0.10
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-5-4
-------
Table F-5: Surface Impoundment Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidineo-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
1 08-05-4
75-01-4
1 08-38-3
95-47-6
1 06-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
0.734
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
0.0979
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
C
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
4.4
1.0E+30
5.5
4.6
3.9
3.9
3.9
1.7E+05
4.4
6.2
26
390
4.6
4.2
4.3
5.9
4.4
4.0
3.9
5.0
3.9
3.9
83
3.9
3.9
6.8
6.4
7.1
6.7
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
6.6E-03
4.6
0.50 "
0.35
1.8
0.039 d
0.023
0.021
0.20
7.8E-03
67
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
4.4
1.0E+30
5.5
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.7E+05
4.4
6.2
26
400
4.6
4.3
4.3
5.9
4.4
4.1
4.0
5.1
4.0
4.0
84
4.0
4.0
6.8
6.5
7.1
6.8
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.3
1.0E+03b'c
7.4E-03
0.67
23
2.1
1.0E+03b'c
6.4
0.96"
0.45
32
14
0.80
1.0
0.75
2.9
41
97
0.20"
340 c
320 c
350 c
330 c
68
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
6.0
590 c
22
0.96"
0.96*
0.50a
9.0
0.17
0.44
4.8
0.20 "
8.9
9.0
9.2
9.5
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
4.9
1.0E+30
5.9
5.1
4.5
4.5
4.5
1.7E+05
4.9
6.6
26
490
5.3
4.8
4.8
6.3
4.9
4.6
4.5
5.9
4.5
4.5
89
4.5
4.5
7.2
6.9
7.4
7.2
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.4E-04
1.8E-03
2.3E-03
0.50a
0.060
1.0E-03"
1.0E-03"
0.042
0.043
8. 1 E-05
8.8E-04
6.0E-04
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
34
0.16
0.50 "
0.094
1.4E-03"
1.4E-03"
0.033
1.4
0.011
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-5-5
-------
Table F-6: Surface Impoundment Composite Liners LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-ch loroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ch loroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
0.0171
0.0122
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
0.021
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
2.8E+05
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
2.9E+08
2.7E+05
9.2E+05
1.0E+30
2.6E+05
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.4E+05
2.9E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.3E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.4E+05
1.0E+30
2.5E+06
1.0E+30
3.9E+05
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
3.8E+05
1.7E+06
9.1E+11
1.0E+30
3.4E+05
2.8E+05
6.6E+05
1.0E+30
1.5E+06
2.7E+05
5.5E+05
2.8E+05
3.5E+05
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0E+03b
5.0s
100s
0.50s
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0a
0.50 '
0.030 "
100s
1.0E+03"
6.0 '
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
2.8E+05
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
2.9E+08
2.7E+05
9.3E+05
1.0E+30
2.6E+05
2.8E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.5E+05
2.9E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.3E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.5E+05
1.0E+30
2.6E+06
1.0E+30
3.94E+05
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
3.8E+05
1.7E+06
9.4E+11
1.0E+30
3.5E+05
2.8E+05
6.7E+05
1.0E+30
1.5E+06
2.8E+05
5.5E+05
2.9E+05
3.5E+05
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
740"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
5.0 s
100s
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0s
1.0E+03"
0.50 "
0.030 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
6.0 "
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
740"
1.0E+03"
0.50a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.50a
0.030a
1.0E+03"
100s
1.0E+03"
6.0 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
2.9E+05
2.8E+05
3.0E+05
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
3.2E+08
2.8E+05
9.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.6E+05
2.8E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.6E+05
3.0E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.3E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
5.6E+05
1.0E+30
2.6E+06
1.0E+30
4.1E+05
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
3.8E+05
1.8E+06
9.4E+11
1.0E+30
3.6E+05
2.8E+05
6.9E+05
1.0E+30
1.5E+06
2.9E+05
5.7E+05
3.0E+05
3.7E+05
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
170
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
5.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.501 "
0.13
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
780
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.50a
0.030a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
750"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
16.4
0.50 '
0.030 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-6-1
-------
Table F-6: Surface Impoundment Composite Liners LCTVs
Common Name
Chloropropene 3- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a,h}anthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylenetrans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropenetrans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
CAS#
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
C
8.05E-04
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
Inhalation
NC
3.00E-03
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.6
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
C
1.90E-03
7.30E-03
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.3E+05
3.4E+05
3.3E+05
4.1E+05
4.0E+06
2.8E+05
3.3E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.2E+08
1.7E+06
1.6E+06
3.6E+06
4.3E+05
6.4E+07
3.8E+07
3.0E+05
2.8E+05
3.4E+05
8.7E+05
2.3E+05
1.0E+30
3.0E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.1E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.6E+05
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+06
5.6E+05
1.0E+30
2.4E+05
2.2E+05
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0E+03"
5.0"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
7.5 "
0.45*
0.32"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
10a
1.0E+03"
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.3E+05
3.4E+05
3.3E+05
4.1E+05
4.0E+06
2.8E+05
3.3E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.2E+08
1.7E+06
1.6E+06
3.7E+06
4.4E+05
6.4E+07
3.9E+07
3.0E+05
2.8E+05
3.4E+05
8.7E+05
2.3E+05
1.0E+30
3.0E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.1E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+06
5.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.5E+05
2.2E+05
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
5.0 "
1.0E+03"
200 "
200"
200"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
120
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32*
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
10:00 AM
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
610
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
200 "
200"
200"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
110.37
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
7.5 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.6E+05
3.6E+05
3.6E+05
4.2E+05
4.1E+06
3.0E+05
3.3E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.3E+08
1.7E+06
1.6E+06
3.8E+06
4.4E+05
6.7E+07
4.0E+07
3.0E+05
2.8E+05
3.6E+05
8.7E+05
2.3E+05
1.0E+30
3.1E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.1E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.8E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+06
5.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.5E+05
2.2E+05
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
7.5 "
810C
0.45*
0.32"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
300
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
11
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
7.5 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
900
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-6-2
-------
Table F-6: Surface Impoundment Composite Liners LCTVs
Common Name
Dinitrotoluene 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and 1 1, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
CAS#
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
7439-92-1
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
6.12E-01
9.79E-04
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.9
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
0.196
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
C
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
1.21E-04
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
1.09E+03
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
C
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
2.00E-02
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.5
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
3.2E+05
2.6E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.4E+09
1.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.4E+06
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
2.2E+05
2.7E+05
4.5E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.7E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.4E+06
1.0E+30
1.3E+06
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
3.5E+05
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.02 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'e
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 a'c
1.0E+03b'c
5.0 a
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
3.3E+05
2.6E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.5E+09
1.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.78E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.4E+06
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
2.2E+05
2.8E+05
4.7E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.7E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.4E+06
1.0E+30
1.3E+06
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
3.5E+05
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.13 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.020 a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
540
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.4"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
3.4E+05
2.6E+05
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
2.7E+09
1.1E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.9E+05
2.7E+05
2.8E+05
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.5E+06
1.0E+30
2.9E+05
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
1.0E+30
3.0E+05
2.2E+05
2.9E+05
4.7E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.8E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.5E+06
1.0E+30
1.4E+06
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
2.2E+05
3.7E+05
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.13a
36
1.0E+03b
130 c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
240
250 c
04a,b,c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.13 a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-6-3
-------
Table F-6: Surface Impoundment Composite Liners LCTVs
Common Name
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
CAS#
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
110-49-6
109-86-4
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
0.147
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
Inhalation
NC
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
5.10E+02
4.40E+02
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
9.2E+05
2.8E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.8E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
6.8E+10
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
1.0E+30
2.4E+05
6.8E+05
1.8E+06
3.0E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
4.0E+05
2.7E+05
1.1E+06
2.8E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
7.0E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.6E+06
2.9E+05
2.2E+05
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.4E+06
3.0E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
6.2E+05
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.20 a'c
10a,c
1.0E+03"
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
9.2E+05
2.8E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.9E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
7.0E+10
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
1.0E+30
2.4E+05
6.8E+05
1.8E+06
3.0E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
4.1E+05
2.7E+05
1.1E+06
2.8E+05
2.7E+05
2.7E+05
7.0E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.6E+06
2.9E+05
2.2E+05
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.4E+06
3.1E+05
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
6.3E+05
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b
0.20 af
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
10"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
200 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03M
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
2.0 "
53
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
100 "
1.0E+03"
430
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
5.0 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.20"
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
200 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
2.0 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
5.0 "
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
9.7E+05
2.9E+05
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
2.9E+05
2.8E+05
2.8E+05
7.5E+10
1.0E+30
2.9E+05
1.0E+30
2.4E+05
7.0E+05
1.9E+06
3.2E+05
2.8E+05
2.8E+05
2.9E+05
4.2E+05
2.9E+05
1 . 1 E+06
2.9E+05
2.8E+05
2.8E+05
7.0E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+06
3.0E+05
2.2E+05
2.2E+05
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.4E+06
3.1E+05
1.0E+30
2.9E+05
6.3E+05
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
0.18
0.54
7.5
3.9
1.0E+03b'c
1.3
13
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
100 a
1.0E+03b'c
120
340
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
6.463
12.04
110
8.4
430
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-6-4
-------
Table F-6: Surface Impoundment Composite Liners LCTVs
Common Name
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
rhiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidine o-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1 ,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1 ,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
0.734
1.47E+00
2.45E-01
0.734
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
0.0979
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
3.71 E-03
4.83E-04
1.86 E-03
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
3.60E+00
9.40E-01
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
C
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
1.90E-03
5.00E-04
2.10E-02
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
3.4E+05
1.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.5E+05
5.9E+05
1.0E+30
3.6E+06
5.5E+05
2.6E+05
2.8E+05
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
9.3E+05
1.3E+06
3.2E+07
1.0E+30
3.0E+06
4.0E+05
4.1E+05
7.3E+06
4.6E+05
3.1E+05
2.6E+05
1.3E+09
2.9E+05
2.3E+05
1.0E+30
2.6E+05
2.8E+05
1.7E+06
1.5E+06
1.9E+06
1.6E+06
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0'
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64*
0.64*
0.70"
380
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96"
0.50"
1.0'
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
3.5E+05
1.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.00E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.5E+05
6.0E+05
1.0E+30
3.6E+06
5.6E+05
2.7E+05
2.9E+05
2.5E+05
1.0E+30
9.5E+05
1.3E+06
3.2E+07
1.0E+30
3.0E+06
4.1E+05
4.1E+05
7.3E+06
4.6E+05
3.1E+05
2.6E+05
1.3E+09
2.9E+05
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
2.7E+05
2.8E+05
1.7E+06
1.5E+06
1.9E+06
1.6E+06
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0'
5.0 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
570
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96"
1.0E+03b
400 "
1.0a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.64*
0.70 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96"
0.50a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
3.5E+05
1 . 1 E+06
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.5E+05
6.0E+05
1.0E+30
3.6E+06
5.7E+05
2.8E+05
3.0E+05
2.5E+05
1.0E+30
9.9E+05
1.4E+06
3.3E+07
1.0E+30
3.1 E+06
4.2E+05
4.3E+05
7.3E+06
4.9E+05
3.1E+05
2.6E+05
1.5E+09
3.0E+05
2.4E+05
1.0E+30
2.8E+05
3.0E+05
1.8E+06
1.6E+06
1.9E+06
1.7E+06
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64"
0.64"
0.70 "
8.4
120
120
0.50a
1.0E+03"
0.96*
0.96"
0.50a
2.0 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.20 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64"
0.64"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.50 "
1.0E+03"
0.96*
0.96"
0.50 "
2.0"
0.20"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-6-5
-------
Table F-7: Waste Pile No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
ChloropropeneS- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.00E-01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
1.71E-02
1.22E-02
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
3.67E+01
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
2.10E-02
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
3.00E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
1.90E-03
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
65
10
10
10
10
1.0E+30
12
10
11
1.1E+07
10
10
170
3.3E+03
11
10
4.6E+04
4.6E+04
10
1.0E+30
33
12
1.0E+30
12
8.6E+06
11
10
210
11
12
15
1.1E+05
11
10
14
330
12
10
11
10
11
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.087
1.0
24
0.055
9.1 c
8.1
1.0E+03b'c
0.95
0.078
0.10
0.077
0.030 "
1.4
0.94
0.86
67
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
66
11
11
11
11
1.0E+30
12
11
12
1.1E+07
11
11
170
3.3E+03
12
11
4.6E+04
4.6E+04
11
1.0E+30
35
13
1.0E+30
12
8.9E+06
12
11
210
12
12
16
1.1E+05
11
11
14
330
12
11
11
11
12
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
97 c
27
27
1.0E+03"
0.061
130
0.045 d
1.0E+03b'c
1.3
1.0E+03b'c
0.16
0.2
24
0.81
81
95 e
16
12
1.0E+03b'c
6.1
400"
27
1.0E+03b'c
0.29
0.26
30
0.27
0.030 "
5.6
1.1
6.9
160 c
6
2.8
1.4
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
2.4
1.0E+03b
34
1.0E+03b
170
0.44
10
0.50a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.71
23
0.33
0.030a
0.25
2.8
330
3.7
2.9
0.11
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
70
15
15
15
15
1.0E+30
17
15
16
1.1E+07
15
15
174
3.3E+03
16
15
4.6E+04
4.6E+04
15
1.0E+30
49
17
1.0E+30
17
2.7E+07
16
15
210
16
17
21
1.1E+05
16
15
19
340
17
15
16
15
16
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.7E-04
2.8E-04"
63 c
0.26
5.5E-04
0.26 c
0.03
6.3E-06
0.61 c
3.7 c
1.0E+03b'c
4.3E-03
0.024
1.0E+03b'c
0.027
0.016
0.030a
0.12
0.020
0.11
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.62
88
0.016
110C
33
59 c
0.025
39
250 c
29 c
1.0E+03b'c
0.054
0.10
1.0E+03b'c
0.014
6.5E-04
0.016
0.030 "
400 c
0.013
0.089
1.0E+03"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-7-1
-------
Table F-7: Waste Pile No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDTp.p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a, hjanthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
CAS#
18540-29-9
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
1 08-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.00E-01
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
7.34E-02
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
C
8.05E-04
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
Inhalation
NC
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.60E+00
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
1.09E+03
C
7.30E-03
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
3.3E+03
11
11
11
12
35
10
11
1.0E+30
6.7E+17
1.0E+30
1.5E+05
1.8E+12
13
22
21
30
12
12
11
11
10
11
13
10
15
10
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.5E+13
15
130
3.1E+03
10
10
6.0E+16
13
12
290
10
10
10
10
1.0E+30
10
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
5.0"
150
2.7E-03
13
1.6
0.046 '
0.033 d
0.76
1.0
0.076
0.72
0.075
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
3.3E+03
11
11
11
12
35
11
12
1.0E+30
6.7E+17
1.0E+30
1.5E+05
1.8E+12
14
22
21
31
12
12
12
11
11
11
13
11
16
11
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.5E+13
15
130
3.4E+03
11
11
6.1E+16
14
12
290
11
11
11
11
1.0E+30
11
LCTV based
on Ingestion
5.0 "
27
14
14
1.4
15
85 c
4.60E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
48
59
0.45"
0.32*
2.8
5.4
0.70"
1
2.7
35
8.1
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
300
2.7"
27
6.1
700 c
0.027
0.54
0.13 "
0.27
1.0E+03b'c
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
200 "
200"
200"
1.0E+03"
45
0.0043
0.040
17
7.5 "
7.0
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
0.022
0.67
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
3.3E+03
16
16
16
17
39
15
16
1.0E+30
6.7E+17
1.0E+30
1.5E+05
1.8E+12
19
27
26
35
17
17
16
16
15
16
18
15
22
15
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.5E+13
22
137
4.7E+03
15
15
6.1E+16
18
17
290
15
15
15
15
1.0E+30
15
LCTV based
on Ingestion
2.6 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
240 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.3E-03
0.10
7.5E-03
4.6E-03"
3.2E-03"
2.5E-03
0.031
0.015
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
2.8E-06
0.10
1.9E-04
2.1E-03
2.1E-03
0.13
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
24 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.5
0.034
170 c
0.085 d
0.010
3.5E-03
0.044
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 "
2.72
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-7-2
-------
Table F-7: Waste Pile No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
CAS#
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
1 43-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
1 26-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
110-49-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
6.12E-01
9.79E-04
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.90E+00
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
1.96E-01
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
4.90E-02
C
1.21E-04
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
5.10E+02
C
2.00E-02
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.50E+00
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
29
16
2.8E+06
45
2.4E+06
1.0E+30
10
10
10
43
10
20
1.0E+30
20
150
10
1.2E+12
10
450
10
10
10
37
5.9E+06
9.2E+06
1.0E+30
4.2E+09
310
4.3E+03
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.6E+09
51
1.1E+03
19
10
9.9E+07
10
11
150
11
10
1.0E+30
10
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020 "
14
7.4E-03
38
0.4 ''"
11 '
8.0E-03 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 a'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.9
0.020
10a.c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
29
17
2.8E+06
45
2.4E+06
1.0E+30
11
11
11
45
11
21
1.0E+30
20
150
11
1.4E+12
11
450
11
11
11
37
6.0E+06
9.4E+06
1.0E+30
4.3E+09
310
4.3E+03
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.7E+09
51
1.1E+03
19
11
1.0E+08
11
12
150
12
11
1.0E+30
11
LCTV based
on Ingestion
18
1.0E+03b'c
6.6 c
0.020 "
1.0E+03"
110
81
990
54
47
49
540
0.022
440 c
32
54
540
0.81
0.4 a'd
25c'd
8.0E-03 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 "
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.3
8.2
1.0E+03b'c
0.81
81
56
1.8
17
0.027
0.028
130
10"
0.54
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
2.6
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
66
0.15
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
560
240
0.4"
140*
1.0E+03b'c
13C
1.0E+03b
0.0084
0.075
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
33
21
4.7E+06
49
2.4E+06
1.0E+30
15
15
15
64
15
30
1.0E+30
25
220
15
3.4E+12
15
450
15
15
15
41
8.6E+06
1.3E+07
1.0E+30
4.3E+09
310
4.3E+03
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.7E+09
55
1.1E+03
24
15
1.0E+08
15
16
160
16
15
1.0E+30
15
LCTV based
on Ingestion
2.5E-03
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
2.5E-04
1.0E+03b
0.013
2.2E-03
0.4"
210C
8.0E-03a
1.0E+03b'c
0.38
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
29 c
0.38
1.0E+03b'c
1.6
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.42
1.0E+03b
0.27
0.019
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
23
0.69 c
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.19
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
670 c
0.18
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-7-3
-------
Table F-7: Waste Pile No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
CAS#
109-86-4
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
1 08-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
2.45E-02
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
1.47E-01
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
7.34E-01
1.47E+00
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
3.71 E-03
4.83E-04
Inhalation
NC
4.40E+02
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
3.60E+00
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50 E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
1.90E-03
5.00E-04
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
10
10
10
26
2.0E+05
10
1.0E+30
10
10
22
10
10
10
10
11
10
17
10
10
10
11
2.1E+08
3.9E+03
940
3.2E+08
390
21
10
10
10
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.4E+07
14
10
910
10
12
11
17
200
2.3E+15
2.0E+06
19
120
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.052
0.021
1.0E+03b'c
0.46
1.7
0.059 c
0.073 '
0.073 '
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
11
11
11
26
2.1E+05
11
1.0E+30
11
11
23
11
11
11
11
12
11
17
11
11
11
12
2.1E+08
3.9E+03
940
3.3E+08
390
21
11
11
11
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.4E+07
15
11
910
11
13
12
17
200
2.3E+15
2.0E+06
20
130
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.27
160
22
420"
6.2"
2.7
16
1.2
11
9.9
0.13
2. 2 E-03
8.3
0.57
1.0E+03b'c
76 c
29 c
16
160
0.022
1.6
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
27
670 c
0.27
1.0'
2
0.085
83
1.5C
0.049 c
14
190
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
200"
13
140
1.0E+03"
190
110
0.43
1.7
3.6
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
5.4
5.0 "
61
0.64*
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
15
15
15
36
3.1E+05
15
1.0E+30
15
15
27
15
15
15
15
16
15
21
15
15
15
16
3.4E+08
3.9E+03
940
3.3E+08
390
26
15
15
15
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.4E+07
19
15
910
15
17
16
21
210
2.3E+15
2.0E+06
26
180
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.20
9.7E-06
2.9E-05
2.9E-04
2.1E-04
0.42
6.6E-05
6.9E-04
1.2E-06
0.21 c
0.14
0.021
1.0E+03b'c
6. 1 E-03
9. 1 E-03
1.0E+03b'c
1.3E-03C
0.095
0.085
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.43
3.5E-04
6.5E-04
6.0E-03
3.3E-04
0.023
11
0.068
0.13
14
5.9E-05
20 c
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.26
1.0E+03b'c
4.4E-03 c
0.048
0.088
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-7-4
-------
Table F-7: Waste Pile No-Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidineo-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
1 08-05-4
75-01-4
1 08-38-3
95-47-6
1 06-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
2.45E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
9.79E-02
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
1.86E-03
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
9.40E-01
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
C
2.10E-02
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
12
12
1.0E+30
16
13
10
10
10
1.6E+05
12
19
100
610
12
11
12
18
12
11
10
12
10
10
200
10
10
22
20
23
21
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.059
0.019
13
0.50 "
0.94
7.1
0.11 d
0.060
0.057
0.54
0.021
210C
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
12
13
1.0E+30
17
13
11
11
11
1.6E+05
12
20
100
640
12
12
12
18
12
11
11
13
11
11
210
11
11
22
21
23
22
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.70"
9.2
1.0E+03b'c
0.021
2
64
5.9
1.0E+03b'c
25.2
0.96"
0.96"
88
45
1.0'
2.7
1.9
8.1
57
270
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
180
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.70 "
17
1.0E+03b'c
86 c
0.96"
0.96*
0.50a
25
0.44
1.2
13
0.20 "
29
29
30
30
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
17
17
1.0E+30
21
18
15
15
15
1.7E+05
17
24
110
920
17
16
16
23
17
16
15
18
15
15
260
15
15
27
25
28
27
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.031
4.6E-04
6. 1 E-03
7.7E-03
0.50a
0.20
3.5E-03"
3.5E-03"
0.14
0.15
2.5E-04
2.5E-03
2.0E-03
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.35
110
0.54
0.50 "
0.32
4.8E-03 '
4.8E-03 d
0.11
2.0 "
0.038
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-7-5
-------
Table F-8: Waste Pile Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
ChloropropeneS- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
1.71E-02
1.22E-02
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
2.10E-02
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
3.00E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
1.90E-03
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
210
24
24
24
24
1.0E+30
29
24
25
2.6E+11
24
24
560
2.2E+04
26
24
1.5E+06
1.5E+06
24
1.0E+30
120
32
1.0E+30
29
7.9E+09
28
24
760
27
29
42
9.2E+06
26
24
37
1.6E+03
29
24
26
24
26
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.16
2.0
48
0.13
290 c
21
1.0E+03b'c
2.3
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.030a
3.7
2.3
2.0
160
5.0 "
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
210
24
24
25
24
1.0E+30
30
24
26
2.6E+11
24
24
560
2.2E+04
27
24
1.5E+06
1.5E+06
24
1.0E+30
130
33
1.0E+30
30
8.0E+09
28
24
760
28
29
43
9.5E+06
26
24
37
1.6E+03
29
24
26
24
27
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
300 c
60
60
1.0E+03b
0.15
300
0.11 d
1.0E+03b'c
3
1.0E+03b'c
0.34
0.38
50
1.8
180
210"
52
32
1.0E+03b'c
15
880"
60
1.0E+03b'c
0.68
0.67
72
0.50a
0.030a
13
2.4
18
760 c
14
6.0"
3.3
1.0E+03"
5.0 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
5.3
1.0E+03"
76
1.0E+03b
360
0.98
23
0.50"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.7
56
0.50 "
0.030 "
0.58
7.4
730
6.0 "
6.3
0.26
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
210
33
33
34
33
1.0E+30
41
33
36
2.6E+11
33
33
560
2.2E+04
35
33
1.5E+06
1.5E+06
33
1.0E+30
180
42
1.0E+30
40
1.7E+10
37
33
760
36
40
57
9.5E+06
35
33
47
1.6E+03
40
33
35
33
35
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
8.9E-04
6.6E-04 d
1.0E+03b'c
0.56
0.012
1.7 c
0.06
1.4E-05
19C
120 c
1.0E+03b'c
0.016
0.058
1.0E+03b'c
0.063
0.043
0.030 "
0.56
0.046
0.25
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.4
210
0.036
1.0E+03b'c
73
390 c
0.056
87
1.0E+03b'c
950 c
1.0E+03b'c
0.20
0.25
1.0E+03b'c
0.032
1.5E-03
0.044
1.0E+03b'c
0.030
0.20
1.0E+03b
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-8-1
-------
Table F-8: Waste Pile Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT, p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a, hjanthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
CAS#
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
1 56-59-2
1 56-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
6.12E-01
C
8.05E-04
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
Inhalation
NC
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.60E+00
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
1.09E+03
C
7.30E-03
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
2.2E+04
26
26
26
29
110
24
26
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.1E+07
1.0E+30
35
64
61
92
29
28
27
25
24
26
34
24
40
24
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
40
430
5.0E+04
24
24
1.0E+30
35
31
1.0E+03
24
24
24
24
1.0E+30
24
87
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
370
7.1E-03
38
4.6
0.11 '
0.075"
1.8
2.4
0.18
1.7
0.20
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
2.2E+04
26
26
26
29
110
24
26
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.1E+07
1.0E+30
36
64
61
93
30
29
28
26
24
27
35
24
41
24
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
41
430
5.3E+04
24
24
1.0E+30
36
31
1.0E+03
24
24
24
24
1.0E+30
24
89
LCTV based
on Ingestion
73
32
32
3.2
36
260 c
0.01
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
140
150
0.45"
0.32*
6.3
12
0.70"
2.6
6
91
18
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
800
6.0"
60
15
1.0E+03b'c
0.06
1.2
0.13a
0.6
1.0E+03b'c
54 c
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
200 "
200"
200"
1.0E+03"
140 c
9.5E-03
0.11
49
7.5 "
17
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
0.58
1.5
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.2E+04
35
35
35
38
120
33
35
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.1E+07
1.0E+30
50
73
70
100
38
40
38
35
33
35
44
33
58
33
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
55
430
7.6E+04
33
33
1.0E+30
46
39
1.0E+03
33
33
33
33
1.0E+30
33
95
LCTV based
on Ingestion
17C
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.4E-03
0.28
0.022
0.010*
7.1E-03"
5.7E-03
0.083
0.032
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
8.9E-06
0.23
4.8E-04
4.7E-03
4.7E-03
0.29
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
160 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.9
0.091
500 c
0.19"
0.024
7.8E-03
0.10
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.13a
6.0
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-8-2
-------
Table F-8: Waste Pile Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
CAS#
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
1 06-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
1 43-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
110-49-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
9.79E-04
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.90E+00
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
1.96E-01
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
4.90E-02
C
1.21E-04
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
5.10E+02
C
2.00E-02
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.50E+00
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
45
1.6E+09
138
5.5E+08
1.0E+30
24
24
24
150
24
58
1.0E+30
57
900
24
1.0E+30
24
1.5E+03
24
24
24
110
6.0E+09
1.3E+10
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.1E+03
3.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
160
4.6E+03
53
24
1.7E+14
24
27
490
25
24
1.0E+30
24
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020 "
39.6
0.045
72
0.4 "'"
38'
8.0E-03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.13a'c
1.0E+03b'c
5.0 "
0.039
10a.c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
45
1.6E+09
139
5.6E+08
1.0E+30
24
24
24
150
24
60
1.0E+30
57
930
24
1.0E+30
24
1.5E+03
24
24
24
110
6.1E+09
1.4E+10
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.1E+03
3.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
160
4.6E+03
53
24
1.7E+14
24
27
490
26
24
1.0E+30
24
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
20 c
0.020"
1.0E+03"
240
180
1.0E+03"
120
130
140
1.0E+03b
0.048
1.0E+03b'c
66
120
1.0E+03b
1.8
04 '.i
83c'd
8.0E-03'
1.0E+03b'c
0.50a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 "
34
1.0E+03b'c
1.8
180
130
6
37
0.058
0.063
300
10"
1.2
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
5.8
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
190 c
0.91
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
530
0.4 "
450 "
1.0E+03b'c
35 c
1.0E+03"
0.019
0.17
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
56
2.4E+09
150
5.6E+08
1.0E+30
33
33
33
214
33
82
1.0E+30
66
1.4E+03
33
1.0E+30
33
1.5E+03
33
33
33
120
8.1E+09
1.9E+10
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.1E+03
3.4E+04
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
170
4.6E+03
63
33
1.7E+14
33
36
500
36
33
1.0E+30
33
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.007
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.6E-03
1.0E+03b
0.029
6.5E-03
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.50"
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.2
1.0E+03b'c
3.6
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.1
1.0E+03b
0.72
0.11
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
50
2.1 c
04a,b,c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03'
1.0E+03b'c
0.50a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.55
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-8-3
-------
Table F-8: Waste Pile Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
CAS#
109-86-4
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
1 0595-95-6
1 00-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
1 08-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
1 29-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
2.45E-02
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
1.47E-01
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
7.34E-01
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
3.71E-03
Inhalation
NC
4.40E+02
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
3.60E+00
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
1.90E-03
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
24
24
24
73
2.7E+07
24
1.0E+30
24
25
66
24
24
24
24
28
24
46
24
24
24
26
6.6E+17
2.9E+04
3.8E+03
3.6E+17
1.3E+03
61
24
24
24
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.3E+11
39
24
3.6E+03
24
31
26
47
670
1.0E+30
8.9E+09
58
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.12
0.061
1.0E+03b'c
0.87
4.7
270 c
0.18"
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
24
24
24
75
2.8E+07
24
1.0E+30
24
25
67
24
24
24
24
29
24
47
24
24
24
27
7.0E+17
2.9E+04
3.8E+03
3.6E+17
1.3E+03
62
24
24
24
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.3E+11
40
24
3.6E+03
24
32
27
47
670
1.0E+30
9.0E+09
59
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.6
200"
48
930 M
9.2"
6
37
2.8
33 c
22
0.3
4.80E-03
23
1.3
1.0E+03b'c
560 c
97 c
46
360
0.048
3.6
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
73 c
1.0E+03b'c
0.6
1.0'
3.8
0.2
230
4.9 c
220 c
43
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
200 "
29
400
1.0E+03"
410
250
1.3
2.0 "
8.0
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
11.9
5.0 "
170
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
33
33
33
110
4.5E+07
33
1.0E+30
33
34
76
33
33
33
33
37
33
57
33
33
33
37
9.4E+17
2.9E+04
3.8E+03
3.6E+17
1.3E+03
71
33
33
33
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.4E+11
51
33
3.6E+03
33
40
36
57
670
1.0E+30
9.0E+09
72
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.44
2.2E-05
6.3E-05
6.7E-04
4.6E-04
1.1
1.5E-04
1.5E-03
4.7E-06
1.0E+03b'c
0.49
0.057
1.0E+03b'c
0.013
0.022
1.0E+03b'c
5.8 c
0.27
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0
7.7E-04
1.4E-03
0.013
7.4E-04
0.050
30
0.15
0.29
31
2.4E-04C
1.0E+03b'c
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.57
1.0E+03b'c
20 c
0.14
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-8-4
-------
Table F-8: Waste Pile Single Clay Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidineo-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
1 08-05-4
75-01-4
1 08-38-3
95-47-6
1 06-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
9.79E-02
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
4.83E-04
1.86E-03
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
9.40E-01
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
C
5.00E-04
2.10E-02
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
Compacted Clay Liner
Peak
DAF
510
30
31
1.0E+30
45
33
24
24
24
9.5E+06
29
54
340
5.8E+03
29
28
29
50
30
26
24
32
24
24
1.2E+03
24
24
65
58
67
64
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.18*
0.15
0.035
33
0.50a
2.3
24
0.25"
0.14
0.14
1.0'
0.048
640 c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
520
30
32
1.0E+30
45
34
24
24
24
9.7E+06
29
55
340
6.0E+03
30
29
29
51
31
26
24
32
24
24
1.2E+03
24
24
65
59
68
64
LCTV based
on Ingestion
770
0.70"
23
1.0E+03b'c
0.046
5.5
170
14
1.0E+03b'c
83 c
0.96"
0.96"
210
120
1.0'
6
4.8
18
170
600
0.2 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
430
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.64*
0.70 "
44
1.0E+03b'c
280 c
0.96"
0.96*
0.50 "
61
1.1
2.7
29
0.20 "
84
83
88
89
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
710
39
40
1.0E+30
56
43
33
33
33
9.7E+06
39
64
340
8.7E+03
40
37
38
61
40
35
33
44
33
33
1.4E+03
33
33
74
68
77
73
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.34
0.072
1.0E-03
0.013
0.017
0.50 "
0.47
7.8E-03 '
7.8E-03 d
0.33
0.35
6.1E-04
0.014
4.5E-03
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.32"
0.70 "
250
1.2
0.50a
0.74
0.11 '
0.011 d
0.25
2.0 "
0.084
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-8-5
-------
Table F-9: Waste Pile Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
1.71E-02
1.22E-02
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.00E+01
2.10E-02
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
1.0E+30
7.3E+07
6.9E+07
7.4E+07
4.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.1E+07
5.9E+08
1.0E+30
4.7E+08
7.3E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.2E+07
8.3E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.2E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+08
1.0E+30
2.3E+09
1.0E+30
1.1E+08
3.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.8E+09
1.2E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.2E+07
6.0E+08
1.9E+08
1.0E+30
9.5E+08
7.5E+07
2.2E+08
7.2E+07
9.6E+07
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0E+03b
5.0s
100s
0.50s
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0a
0.50 '
0.030 "
100s
1.0E+03"'
6.0 "
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
7.3E+07
7.1E+07
7.7E+07
4.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.2E+07
6.0E+08
1.0E+30
4.8E+08
7.4E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.4E+07
8.3E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.2E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+08
1.0E+30
2.3E+09
1.0E+30
1.1E+08
3.1E+08
1.0E+30
1.8E+09
1.2E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.3E+07
6.0E+08
2.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+09
7.6E+07
2.2E+08
7.3E+07
9.8E+07
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
740 b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
5.0s
100s
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0s
1.0E+03"
0.50 "
0.030 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
6.0 '
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
740"
1.0E+03"
0.50a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.50a
0.030a
1.0E+03"
100 '
1.0E+03"
6.0s
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
7.9E+07
7.6E+07
8.1E+07
4.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.4E+07
6.2E+08
1.0E+30
4.8E+08
7.8E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.7E+07
8.7E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.2E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.8E+08
1.0E+30
2.3E+09
1.0E+30
1.2E+08
3.1E+08
1.0E+30
1.8E+09
1.2E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.6E+07
6.0E+08
2.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+09
7.8E+07
2.3E+08
7.7E+07
9.9E+07
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
750"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
5.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50a
36
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.50a
0.030a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
750"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 '
0.030 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-9-1
-------
Table F-9: Waste Pile Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
ChloropropeneS- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a, hjanthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene trans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
CAS#
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
108-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
C
8.05E-04
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
Inhalation
NC
3.00E-03
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.60E+00
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
C
1.90E-03
7.30E-03
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.1E+07
9.1E+07
9.1E+07
1.2E+08
1.2E+09
7.7E+07
8.7E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.5E+08
4.3E+08
1.3E+09
1.2E+08
3.4E+14
3.0E+21
7.3E+08
5.8E+08
8.5E+07
1.3E+11
3.1E+08
1.0E+30
8.3E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.7E+08
7.2E+07
1.0E+30
8.9E+11
9.2E+09
1.0E+30
4.0E+08
2.9E+08
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0E+03"
5.0"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
7.5 "
0.45*
0.32"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
10a
1.0E+03"
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.1E+07
9.2E+07
9.1E+07
1.2E+08
1.2E+09
7.8E+07
8.8E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.6E+08
4.3E+08
1.4E+09
1.2E+08
3.5E+14
3.0E+21
7.4E+08
5.8E+08
8.7E+07
1.3E+11
3.1E+08
1.0E+30
8.5E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.9E+08
7.2E+07
1.0E+30
9.1E+11
9.4E+09
1.0E+30
4.0E+08
2.9E+08
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
5.0 "
1.0E+03"
200 "
200"
200"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32*
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
10a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
200 "
200"
200"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
7.5 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
9.6E+07
9.6E+07
9.6E+07
1.2E+08
1.3E+09
8.3E+07
8.8E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.7E+08
4.5E+08
1.4E+09
1.3E+08
4.2E+14
3.0E+21
7.4E+08
5.8E+08
9.3E+07
1.3E+11
3.1E+08
1.0E+30
8.8E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.9E+08
7.7E+07
1.0E+30
9.3E+11
9.4E+09
1.0E+30
4.0E+08
2.9E+08
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
7.5 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.45*
0.32"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
7.5 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.45"
0.32"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-9-2
-------
Table F-9: Waste Pile Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Dinitrotoluene2,4-
Dinitrotoluene2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
CAS#
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
7439-92-1
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
6.12E-01
9.79E-04
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.90E+00
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
1.96E-01
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
C
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
1.21E-04
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
1.09E+03
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
1.00E+01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
C
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
2.00E-02
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.50E+00
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
8.9E+07
4.4E+08
1.0E+30
7.2E+07
1.0E+30
3.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.3E+07
7.3E+07
7.8E+07
1.0E+30
3.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.0E+08
1.0E+30
7.3E+07
1.0E+30
7.5E+07
1.0E+30
7.4E+07
2.9E+08
7.5E+07
1.4E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.1E+09
1.0E+30
3.8E+08
2.9E+08
1.0E+30
3.0E+08
1.0E+08
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'e
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 a'c
1.0E+03b'c
5.0 a
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
9.1E+07
4.5E+08
1.0E+30
7.2E+07
1.0E+30
3.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.3E+07
7.4E+07
8.0E+07
1.0E+30
3.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.0E+08
1.0E+30
7.3E+07
1.0E+30
7.5E+07
1.0E+30
7.4E+07
2.9E+08
7.6E+07
1.4E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.1E+09
1.0E+30
3.9E+08
2.9E+08
1.0E+30
3.0E+08
1.1E+08
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.13 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.020 a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
04"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
9.5E+07
4.5E+08
1.0E+30
7.6E+07
1.0E+30
3.1E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.8E+07
7.7E+07
8.2E+07
1.0E+30
3.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.2E+08
1.0E+30
7.9E+07
1.0E+30
7.8E+07
1.0E+30
7.8E+07
2.9E+08
8.0E+07
1.5E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.1E+09
1.0E+30
4.0E+08
2.9E+08
1.0E+30
3.0E+08
1 . 1 E+08
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.13a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
04a,b,c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.13 a
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 a
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
3.0 a
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-9-3
-------
Table F-9: Waste Pile Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
CAS#
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
110-49-6
109-86-4
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
1.47E+01
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
1.47E-01
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71E-04
8.05E-04
2.41E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
Inhalation
NC
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
5.10E+02
4.40E+02
3.30E+01
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
6.2E+08
7.3E+07
1.0E+30
7.1E+07
7.4E+07
7.1E+07
7.9E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.6E+07
1.0E+30
3.8E+08
3.7E+08
5.1E+08
8.1E+07
7.4E+07
7.4E+07
7.3E+07
1.2E+08
8.0E+07
3.2E+08
7.4E+07
7.3E+07
7.1E+07
3.1E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.6E+08
7.9E+07
2.9E+08
2.9E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.4E+07
1.0E+30
7.5E+07
1.6E+10
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.20 "
10"
1.0E+03"
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
6.2E+08
7.5E+07
1.0E+30
7.2E+07
7.6E+07
7.2E+07
8.1E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.7E+07
1.0E+30
3.8E+08
3.7E+08
5.1E+08
8.4E+07
7.6E+07
7.5E+07
7.5E+07
1.2E+08
8.0E+07
3.2E+08
7.5E+07
7.3E+07
7.2E+07
3.1E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.6E+08
8.0E+07
3.0E+08
2.9E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.5E+07
1.0E+30
7.5E+07
1.6E+10
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b
0.20 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
10"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
200 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03M
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
2.0 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
100 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
5.0 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.20"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
200 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
2.0 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
5.0 "
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
6.4E+08
7.8E+07
1.0E+30
7.4E+07
8.0E+07
7.6E+07
8.3E+07
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.0E+07
1.0E+30
3.8E+08
3.9E+08
5.2E+08
8.7E+07
8.0E+07
7.8E+07
7.8E+07
1.3E+08
8.2E+07
3.3E+08
7.7E+07
7.7E+07
7.6E+07
3.1E+09
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
4.8E+08
8.4E+07
3.0E+08
2.9E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
8.9E+07
1.0E+30
8.0E+07
1.6E+10
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03"
50
150
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
340
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
100 a
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"'C
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-9-4
-------
Table F-9: Waste Pile Composite Liner LCTVs
Common Name
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidineo-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
7.34E-01
1.47E+00
2.45E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
9.79E-02
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
3.71 E-03
4.83E-04
1.86E-03
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
3.60E+00
9.40E-01
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
C
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
1.90E-03
5.00E-04
2.10E-02
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
Composite Liner
Peak
DAF
1.1E+09
3.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.3E+08
1.3E+10
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+08
7.1E+07
8.3E+07
3.9E+08
1.0E+30
4.4E+08
3.7E+08
1.6E+10
1.0E+30
3.3E+09
1.1E+08
1.1E+08
1.0E+30
1.4E+08
7.5E+08
4.7E+08
1.0E+30
8.2E+07
3.5E+08
1.0E+30
7.4E+07
7.6E+07
4.6E+08
4.1E+08
5.0E+08
4.8E+08
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
1.0'
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64*
0.64*
0.70"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.50 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96"
0.50"
1.0'
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.2E+09
3.0E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.3E+08
1.3E+10
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+08
7.3E+07
8.3E+07
3.9E+08
1.0E+30
4.4E+08
3.8E+08
1.6E+10
1.0E+30
3.3E+09
1.1E+08
1.1E+08
1.0E+30
1.4E+08
7.5E+08
4.7E+08
1.0E+30
8.5E+07
3.5E+08
1.0E+30
7.5E+07
7.8E+07
4.7E+08
4.1E+08
5.2E+08
4.8E+08
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0'
5.0 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.70 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96"
1.0E+03"
400 "
1.0'
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.64*
0.70 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.96"
0.96*
0.50a
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.20 "
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.2E+09
3.1E+08
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.3E+08
1.3E+10
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.7E+08
7.5E+07
8.6E+07
3.9E+08
1.0E+30
4.7E+08
3.8E+08
1.6E+10
1.0E+30
3.5E+09
1.2E+08
1.2E+08
1.0E+30
1.5E+08
7.5E+08
4.7E+08
1.0E+30
8.8E+07
3.5E+08
1.0E+30
7.8E+07
8.1E+07
4.8E+08
4.2E+08
5.2E+08
4.9E+08
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64"
0.64"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.50a
1.0E+03b
0.96*
0.96"
0.50a
2.0 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
0.20 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.64"
0.64"
0.70 "
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
0.50 "
1.0E+03"
0.96*
0.96"
0.50 "
2.0"
0.20"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-9-5
-------
Table F-10: Land Application Unit LCTVs (No-Liner)
Common Name
Acenaphthene
Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]
Acetone (2-propanone)
Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide)
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid [propenoic acid]
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aniline (benzeneamine)
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benz{a}anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo{a}pyrene
Benzo{b}fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ch loroisopropyljether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Butadiene 1, 3-
Butanol n-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol,2-sec-(Dinoseb)
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloro-1 ,3-butadiene 2-(Chloroprene)
Chloroaniline p-
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenol 2-
Chloropropene 3- (Allyl Chloride)
Chromium (III) (Chromic Ion)
Chromium (VI)
CAS#
83-32-9
75-07-0
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-18-6
62-53-3
120-12-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
92-87-5
50-32-8
205-99-2
100-51-6
100-44-7
7440-41-7
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
7440-43-9
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
126-99-8
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
124-48-1
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
107-05-1
16065-83-1
18540-29-9
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.00E-04
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.47E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
4.90E-03
1.22E+01
2.45E-02
7.34E-04
1.22E-01
7.34E+00
9.79E-03
7.34E-03
1.71E+00
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E-02
9.79E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
3.43E-02
2.45E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E-02
1.22E-02
2.45E+00
1.71E-02
1.22E-02
4.90E-01
9.79E-02
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
2.45E-01
1.22E-01
3.67E+01
7.34E-02
C
2.15E-05
1.79E-04
5.68E-06
1.69E-02
6.44E-05
8.05E-05
1.76E-03
4.20E-07
1.32E-05
8.05E-05
5.68E-04
8.78E-05
1.38E-03
6.90E-03
1.56E-03
7.43E-04
2.76E-04
3.58E-04
1.15E-03
7.43E-03
Inhalation
NC
2.20E-01
1.50E+03
3.10E+00
3.30E-04
1.50E+01
3.80E-02
9.30E-01
1.90E-01
1.80E+02
1.50E-02
6.00E-02
1.90E+00
2.10E-02
2.80E-02
2.20E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E+01
3.30E-01
2.60E-01
9.70E-03
3.00E-03
C
4.10E-02
5.10E+00
1.00E-03
1.00E-05
2.20E+00
1.80E-02
1.60E-03
2.60E+00
5.40E-03
6.30E-04
5.20E-04
1.10E-03
5.90E-03
2.80E+01
8.00E-04
4.00E-05
7.60E-04
1.50E-03
1.20E+00
7.50E-04
5.90E-03
1.90E-03
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
8.5
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.0E+30
2.2
1.9
2.0
7.6E+07
1.9
1.9
21
370
2.0
1.9
9.2E+03
9.5E+03
1.9
1.0E+30
6.8
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
6.9E+07
2.0
1.9
26
2.0
2.1
2.8
3.5E+04
2.0
1.9
2.4
39
2.1
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.0E+30
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.013
0.13
3.5
9.9E-03
1.8C
5.0
1.0E+03b'c
0.17
0.014
0.015
0.014
0.030 "
0.24
0.17
0.16
43
5.0 "
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
8.5
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.0E+30
2.2
1.9
2.0
7.7E+07
1.9
1.9
22
370
2.0
1.9
9.3E+03
9.5E+03
1.9
1.0E+30
7.0
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
6.9E+07
2.1
1.9
26
2.0
2.2
2.8
3.6E+04
2.0
1.9
2.4
39
2.2
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
13C
4.7
4.7
1.0E+03b
0.011
23
8.2E-03 d
1.0E+03b'c
0.23
160 c
0.024
0.026
3.6
0.14
14
16"
9.8
2.2
1.0E+03b'c
1.1
69"
4.7
130 c
0.049
0.038
5.3
0.048
0.030 "
0.98
0.19
1.2
19C
1.1
0.49
0.24
260
5.0 "
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.42
1.0E+03b
6.0
1.0E+03b
29
0.076
1.8
0.38
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03"
0.12
4.1
0.059
0.030"
0.044
0.48
57
0.66
0.50
0.019
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
8.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
2.6
2.2
2.3
7.8E+07
2.2
2.2
22
370
2.3
2.2
9.3E+03
9.5E+03
2.2
1.0E+30
8.2
2.5
1.0E+30
2.5
1.2E+08
2.3
2.2
27
2.3
2.5
3.2
3.6E+04
2.3
2.2
2.7
40
2.5
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.3
1.0E+30
LCTV based
on Ingestion
5.6E-05
4.2E-05"
440 c
0.037
5.6E-04
0.030C
4.0E-03
9.2E-07
0.12C
0.77 c
1.0E+03b'c
7.2E-04
3.4E-03
1.0E+03b'c
3.9E-03
2.4E-03
0.030"
0.014
2.8E-03
0.016
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.090
13
2.3E-03
780 c
4.8
6.7 c
3.7E-03
5.7
50 c
6.0 c
1.0E+03b'c
9.0E-03
0.015
1.0E+03b'c
2.0E-03
9.3E-05
2.4E-03
0.030 "
48 c
1.9E-03
0.013
1.0E+03"
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-10-1
-------
Table F-10: Land Application Unit LCTVs (No-Liner)
Common Name
Chrysene
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol m-
Cresol o-
Cresol p-
Cresols
Cumene
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
ODD
DDE
DDT p,p'-
Diallate
Dibenz{a,h}anthracene
Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene 1,4-
Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'-
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
Dichloroethane 1,1-
Dichloroethane 1,2-
Dichloroethylene cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylenetrans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene 1,1-
Dichlorophenol 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-(2,4-D)
Dichloropropane 1,2-
Dichloropropene 1,3-(mixture of isomers)
Dichloropropene cis-1,3-
Dichloropropenetrans-1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dimethoate
Dimethoxybenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethyl formamide N,N- [DMF]
Dimethylbenz{a}anthracene 7,12-
Dimethylbenzidine 3,3'-
Dimethylphenol 2,4-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dinitrobenzene 1,3-
Dinitrophenol 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene 2,6-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioxane 1,4-
Diphenylamine
CAS#
218-01-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
1 08-39-4
95-48-7
106-44-5
1319-77-3
98-82-8
108-93-0
108-94-1
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
53-70-3
96-12-8
95-50-1
106-46-7
91-94-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
156-59-2
156-60-5
75-35-4
120-83-2
94-75-7
78-87-5
542-75-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
60-57-1
84-66-2
56-53-1
60-51-5
119-90-4
68-12-2
57-97-6
119-93-7
105-67-9
84-74-2
99-65-0
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-84-0
123-91-1
122-39-4
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
1.30E+00
2.00E-04
6.00E-01
7.50E-02
5.00E-03
7.00E-02
1.00E-01
7.00E-03
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
4.90E-01
1.22E+00
1.22E+00
1.22E-01
1.22E+00
2.45E+00
4.16E-04
1.22E+02
1.22E-02
2.20E+00
4.90E+00
2.45E+00
2.45E-01
4.90E-01
2.20E-01
7.34E-02
2.45E-01
2.20E+00
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
7.34E-01
1.22E-03
1.96E+01
4.90E-03
2.45E+00
4.90E-01
2.45E+00
2.45E-03
4.90E-02
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
4.90E-01
6.12E-01
C
8.05E-04
4.02E-04
2.84E-04
2.84E-04
1.58E-03
1.32E-05
6.90E-05
4.02E-03
2.15E-04
1.06E-03
1.61E-04
1.42E-03
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
9.66E-04
6.04E-06
2.05E-08
6.90E-03
1.05E-05
1.42E-04
1.42E-04
8.78E-03
Inhalation
NC
1.20E+03
8.80E+02
1.30E+03
1.10E+03
1.30E+00
3.90E-04
2.90E-03
7.70E-01
3.00E+00
5.80E-01
1.60E+00
1.00E+01
2.10E-01
1.40E-02
6.10E-02
7.00E-02
7.50E-02
7.10E+02
1.09E+03
C
7.30E-03
8.80E-03
3.80E-01
7.90E-02
1.30E-03
4.90E+00
7.40E-03
6.30E-04
2.20E-04
2.90E-03
3.30E-03
3.50E-03
1.00E-04
3.00E-03
8.12E-01
1.80E-01
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
370
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
5.0
1.9
2.0
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.8E+04
1.0E+30
2.5
3.4
3.3
4.4
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.3
1.9
3.0
1.9
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.7
17
1.3E+03
1.9
1.9
1.0E+30
2.3
2.1
36
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.0E+30
1.9
4.3
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
61
4.9E-04
2.0
0.25
8.5E-03 '
6.0E-03 d
0.14
0.19
0.014
0.13
0.015
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
370
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
5.0
1.9
2.0
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
6.9E+04
1.0E+30
2.5
3.4
3.3
4.4
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.3
1.9
3.0
1.9
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.7
17
1.3E+03
1.9
1.9
1.0E+30
2.3
2.1
36
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.0E+30
1.9
4.3
LCTV based
on Ingestion
5
2.4
2.4
0.24
2.5
12
8.0E-04
240
1.0E+03b'c
7.4
10
0.32"
0.22*
0.48
0.94
0.44
0.17
0.47
6.6
1.4
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
53
0.47"
4.7
1.1
88 c
4.7E-03
0.094
0.094
0.047
1.0E+03b'c
2.6
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
200 "
200"
200"
1.0E+03"
6.5
7.5E-04
7.2E-03
2.6
7.5 "
1.2
0.45"
0.32"
0.42
0.042
0.12
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
370
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
5.2
2.2
2.3
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
7.1E+04
1.0E+30
2.8
3.7
3.6
4.7
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.6
2.2
3.4
2.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
3.1
17
1.6E+03
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
2.6
2.4
36
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
4.5
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.30C
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
110C
1.0E+03b'c
2.0E-04
0.014
1.0E-03
6.6E-04"
4.7E-04"
3.7E-04
4.8E-03
2.1E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
3.5E-07
0.015
2.7E-05
3. 1 E-04
3. 1 E-04
0.019
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
2.7 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.22
4.6E-03
23 c
0.012"
1.5E-03
5.0E-04
6.4E-03
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03"
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 "
0.39
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-10-2
-------
Table F-10: Land Application Unit LCTVs (No-Liner)
Common Name
Diphenylhydrazine 1, 2-
Disulfoton
Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and 1 1, mixture)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Epoxybutane, 1, 2-
Ethoxyethanol 2-
Ethoxyethanol acetate 2-
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural
HCH beta-
HCH (Lindane) gamma-
HCH alpha-
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans [HxCDFs]
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [HxCDDs]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorophene
Hexane n-
Hydrogen Sulfide
lndeno{1 ,2,3-cd}pyrene
Isobutyl alcohol
Isophorone
Kepone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methoxyethanol acetate 2-
Methoxyethanol 2-
Methyl ethyl ketone
CAS#
122-66-7
298-04-4
115-29-7
72-20-8
106-89-8
106-88-7
110-80-5
111-15-9
141-78-6
60-29-7
97-63-2
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
107-21-1
75-21-8
96-45-7
206-44-0
16984-48-8
50-00-0
64-18-6
98-01-1
319-85-7
58-89-9
319-84-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
87-68-3
118-74-1
77-47-4
55684-94-1
34465-46-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
110-54-3
7783-06-4
193-39-5
78-83-1
78-59-1
143-50-0
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
126-98-7
67-56-1
72-43-5
110-49-6
109-86-4
78-93-3
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
7.00E-01
5.00E-05
4.00E+00
2.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-03
5.00E-02
1.50E-02
2.00E-03
4.00E-02
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
9.79E-04
1.47E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E-02
9.79E+00
7.34E+00
2.20E+01
4.90E+00
2.20E+00
2.45E+00
4.90E+01
1.96E-03
9.79E-01
2.90E+00
4.90E+00
4.90E+01
7.34E-02
7.34E-03
1.96E-01
1.22E-02
3.18E-04
7.34E-03
1.96E-02
1.47E-01
2.45E-02
7.34E-03
2.69E+02
7.34E-02
7.34E+00
4.90E+00
1.22E-02
1.15E+00
2.45E-03
2.45E-03
1.22E+01
1.22E-01
4.90E-02
2.45E-02
1.47E+01
C
1.21E-04
9.75E-03
3.30E-07
1.14E-06
9.47E-05
8.78E-04
5.36E-05
7.43E-05
1.53E-05
2.15E-05
1.06E-05
1.24E-03
6.04E-05
6.19E-09
6.19E-09
6.90E-03
8.05E-05
1.02E-01
Inhalation
NC
6.00E-02
2.40E-01
2.90E+03
3.00E+02
3.30E+00
9.80E-04
1.20E+04
4.10E-01
5.10E+01
2.20E+01
6.90E-04
6.60E-01
5.33E+02
7.00E-04
6.50E-03
1.54E+03
5.10E+02
4.40E+02
3.30E+01
C
2.00E-02
1.90E-01
1.10E-02
8.40E-05
5.20E-04
1.60E+03
1.50E+00
1.70E-02
1.60E-03
3.60E-04
1.50E-05
2.80E-04
6.10E-04
3.60E-05
1.44E-07
1.43E-07
3.30E-03
3.80E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
2.7
1.3E+07
6.1
2.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.9
1.9
1.9
6.7
1.9
3.4
1.0E+30
3.1
31
1.9
1.0E+30
1.9
55
1.9
1.9
1.9
5.2
2.1E+07
4.1E+07
1.0E+30
2.8E+15
39
500
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.0E+14
6.9
130
3.0
1.9
3.0E+09
1.9
2.0
19
2.0
1.9
1.0E+30
1.9
1.9
1.9
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
0.020 "
2.2
1.5E-03
6.2
0.4 a'd
1.5*
8.0E-03 a
1.0E+03b'c
0.13 a'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.25
3.3E-03
10a.c
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
2.7
1.3E+07
6.1
2.0E+06
1.0E+30
1.9
1.9
1.9
6.8
1.9
3.4
1.0E+30
3.2
32
1.9
1.0E+30
1.9
55
1.9
1.9
1.9
5.3
2.1E+07
4.1E+07
1.0E+30
2.8E+15
39
500
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.0E+14
6.9
130
3.0
1.9
3.1E+09
1.9
2.0
19
2.0
1.9
1.0E+30
1.9
1.9
1.9
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
0.90 c
0.020 a
1.0E+03b
19
14
150
9.4
7.6
7.7
94
3.7E-03
54 c
5.2
9.4
94
0.14
0.4 ''"
3.3 c'd
8.0E-03 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.29
0.13"
1.0E+03b'c
0.17
0.95
820 c
0.14
14
9.8
0.23
2.4
4.4E-03
4.9E-03
23
1.0E+01 a'c
0.094
0.047
28
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b
0.46
1.0E+03b
570
10
0.031
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
97
42
04"
18"
1.0E+03b'c
2.0
1.0E+03"
1.3E-03
0.013
1.0E+03"
970
840
63
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
3.0
1.5E+07
6.4
2.0E+06
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
8.0
2.2
4.0
1.0E+30
3.4
38
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
55
2.2
2.2
2.2
5.5
2.3E+07
4.4E+07
1.0E+30
2.8E+15
39
500
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
2.0E+14
7.2
130
3.3
2.2
3.1E+09
2.2
2.3
19
2.3
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
2.2
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.6E-04
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
4.4E-05
1.0E+03b
1.9E-03
2.9E-04
04a,b,c
680 c
8.0E-03a
1.0E+03b'c
0.049
0.030C
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.050
1.0E+03b'c
0.23
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
0.060
1.0E+03b
0.038
3.2E-03
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
3.3
0.093
0.4 a'b'c
1.0E+03b'c
8.0E-03 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.024
0.018 c
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b'c
0.024
1.0E+03b'c
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-10-3
-------
Table F-10: Land Application Unit LCTVs (No-Liner)
Common Name
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl parathion
Methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]
Methylcholanthrene 3-
Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane 2-
Nitrosodiethylamine N-
Nitrosodimethylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-butylamine N-
Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-
Nitrosodiphenylamine N-
Nitrosomethylethylamine N-
Nitrosopiperidine N-
Nitrosopyrrolidine N-
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
Parathion (ethyl)
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorodibenzofurans [PeCDFs]
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins [PeCDDs]
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Phenylenediamine 1,3-
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
Pronamide
Propylene oxide [1,2-Epoxypropane]
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Selenium
Silver
Strychnine and salts
Styrene
Tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,4,6-
CAS#
108-10-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
1 634-04-4
56-49-5
74-95-3
75-09-2
7439-98-7
91-20-3
7440-02-0
98-95-3
79-46-9
55-18-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
621-64-7
86-30-6
10595-95-6
100-75-4
930-55-2
152-16-9
56-38-2
608-93-5
30402-15-4
36088-22-9
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
62-38-4
108-45-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
1336-36-3
23950-58-5
75-56-9
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
57-24-9
100-42-5
95-94-3
51207-31-9
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
5.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
5.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-08
5.00E-03
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.96E+00
3.43E+01
6.12E-03
2.45E-01
1.47E+00
1.22E-01
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
1.22E-02
1.96E-04
4.90E-01
4.90E-02
1.47E-01
1.96E-02
7.34E-02
7.34E-01
1.47E+01
1.96E-03
1.47E-01
4.90E-03
4.90E+01
4.90E-04
1.84E+00
7.34E-01
2.45E-02
1.22E-01
1.22E-01
7.34E-03
4.90E+00
7.34E-03
2.45E-08
0.734
1.47E+00
2.45E-01
7.34E-01
C
1.29E-02
6.44E-07
1.89E-06
1.79E-05
1.38E-05
1.97E-02
4.39E-06
4.60E-05
1.24E-09
6.19E-10
3.71 E-04
8.05E-04
2. 41 E-04
4.02E-04
5.36E-04
6.19E-09
6.44E-10
3.71 E-03
4.83E-04
1.86 E-03
Inhalation
NC
1.20E+00
5.30E+00
1.70E+01
1.00E+01
1.90E-02
1.50E-01
3.30E-01
9.00E+02
1.30E+04
4.90E-01
1.40E+00
3.60E+00
9.40E-01
C
1.20E-03
2.80E-02
2.30E-05
4.30E-05
4.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.50 E-03
5.20E-01
4.50E-03
8.70E-03
9.20E-01
6.29E-08
6.00E-08
5.40E+01
1.40E-04
1.70E-02
1.00E-07
2.20E-09
1.90E-03
5.00E-04
2.10E-02
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
1.9
4.0
3.6E+05
1.9
1.0E+30
1.9
1.9
3.5
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
3.1E+12
440
110
3.0E+10
48
3.3
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.1E+08
2.5
1.9
110
1.9
2.2
2.0
2.8
25
1.0E+30
6.6E+06
3.3
18
2.1
2.1
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
9.7E-03
3.3E-03
1.0E+03b'c
0.078
0.28
0.20 c
0.013*
0.013*
0.011
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.9
4.1
3.7E+05
1.9
1.0E+30
1.9
2.0
3.5
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.9
2.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
3.1E+12
440
110
3.1E+10
48
3.3
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1.1E+08
2.5
1.9
110
1.9
2.2
2.0
2.8
26
1.0E+30
6.6E+06
3.3
18
2.1
2.2
LCTV based
on Ingestion
3.7
73d
1.1"
0.47
2.9
0.22
1.7
1.2
0.023
3.7E-04
1.4
0.098
1.0E+03b'c
8.6 c
3.6 c
2.4
28
3.7E-03
0.28
1.0E+03b'c
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b'c
4.6
79 c
0.047
0.21
0.26
0.015
14
0.19
0.16 c
2.5
26
0.52
1.6
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
2.3
22
1.0E+03*
33
20
0.066
0.29
0.63
1.0E+03b
1.0E+03b
0.94
2.7
10.0
0.64*
0.70"
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
2.2
4.7
3.8E+05
2.2
1.0E+30
2.2
2.2
3.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.2
3.0
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
3.4E+12
440
110
3.1E+10
48
3.6
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0E+30
1.0E+30
1 . 1 E+08
2.8
2.2
110
2.2
2.4
2.3
3.0
26
1.0E+30
6.7E+06
3.7
21
2.4
2.4
LCTV based
on Ingestion
0.029
1.4E-06
4. 1 E-06
4.2E-05
3.0E-05
0.060
9.6E-06
1.0E-04
1.5E-07
20 c
0.018
2.9E-03
1.0E+03b'c
8.8E-04
1.3E-03
1.0E+03b'c
4.3E-03C
0.014
1 .OE-02
4.5E-03
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
1.0E+03b'c
0.063
5.0E-05
9.4E-05
8.8E-04
4.7E-05
3.3E-03
1.6
9.9E-03
0.019
2.0
7.1 E-06
1.0E+03b'c
100 "
1.0E+03b'c
0.037
1.0E+03b'c
0.015 c
7.1 E-03
0.010
0.050
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-10-4
-------
Table F-10: Land Application Unit LCTVs (No-Liner)
Common Name
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotep)
Thallium
Thiram [Thiuram]
Toluene
Toluenediamine 2,4-
Toluidine o-
Toluidine p-
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphenes)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Trichloro-1 ,2,2-trifluoro- ethane 1,1,2-
Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 1,1,2-
Trichloroethylene (1,1 ,2-Trichloroethylene)
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex)
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-
Trichloropropane 1,2,3-
Triethylamine
Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene) sym-
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene m-
Xylene o-
Xylene p-
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
CAS#
3689-24-5
7440-28-0
137-26-8
108-88-3
95-80-7
95-53-4
106-49-0
8001-35-2
75-25-2
76-13-1
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
93-76-5
96-18-4
121-44-8
99-35-4
126-72-7
7440-62-2
108-05-4
75-01-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
1330-20-7
7440-66-6
MCL (mg/L)
Ingestion
2.00E-03
1.00E+00
3.00E-03
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-01
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-03
1.00E+01
HBN (mg/L)
Ingestion
NC
1.22E-02
1.96E-03
1.22E-01
4.90E+00
4.90E-01
7.34E+02
2.45E-01
6.85E+00
9.79E-02
7.34E+00
2.45E+00
1.96E-01
2.45E-01
1.47E-01
7.34E-01
1.71E-01
2.45E+01
7.34E-02
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
4.90E+01
7.34E+00
C
3.02E-05
4.02E-04
5.08E-04
8.78E-05
1.22E-02
1.69E-03
8.78E-03
8.78E-03
1.38E-05
9.89E-06
1.34E-04
Inhalation
NC
1.30E+00
9.50E+01
8.30E-01
6.90E+00
1.90E+00
2.10E+00
3.40E-02
1.10E-01
1.20E+00
2.90E-01
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
1.30E+00
1.40E+00
C
7.50E+00
3.60E-02
3.60E-03
1.90E-02
1.10E-03
6.80E-03
2.80E-01
2.50E-03
No Liner/ln-Situ Soil
Peak
DAF
1.0E+30
2.7
2.2
1.9
1.9
1.9
6.7E+04
2.1
3.1
13
150
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.9
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.3
1.9
1.9
29
1.9
1.9
3.4
3.2
3.5
3.4
LCTV
based on
MCL
(mg/L)
3.2E-03
2.2
0.50 "
0.17
0.93
0.019"
0.011
0.010
0.098
3.8E-03
34
Non-Carcinogenic Effect (NC)
7-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
2.7
2.3
1.9
1.9
1.9
6.7E+04
2.1
3.1
13
150
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.9
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.4
1.9
1.9
29
1.9
1.9
3.4
3.2
3.5
3.4
LCTV based
on Ingestion
1.0E+03b'c
3.7E-03
0.33
11
1
1.0E+03b'c
3.3
0.61 d
0.21
15
7.2
0.39
0.47
0.35
1.4
34
47
0.14
170 c
160
170
170
45
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
2.9
290 c
11
0.58"
0.58*
0.50a
4.4
0.080
0.21
2.3
0.20"
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
Carcinogenic Effect (C)
30-yr Avg
DAF
1.0E+30
3.0
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
6.8E+04
2.4
3.3
14
170
2.5
2.3
2.4
3.2
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.2
31
2.2
2.2
3.7
3.5
3.8
3.7
LCTV based
on Ingestion
6.6E-05
8.8E-04
1 . 1 E-03
0.50a
0.030
5.1E-04"
5.1E-04"
0.021
0.021
3.7E-05
3. 1 E-04
2.9E-04
LCTV based
on
Inhalation
16
0.079
0.50 "
0.046
6.9E-04 '
6.9E-04 d
0.016
0.68
5.5E-03
KEY:
a- TC Rule cap
b- 1,000 mg/L. cap
c- Exceeds solubility
d - Capped by daughter LCTV
e - Constituent has no RGC; LCTVfrom daughter
F-10-5
------- |