OSWER DIRECTIVE 9502.00-6D
               INTERIM FINAL

RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION (RFI) GUIDANCE

              VOLUME III OF IV
     AIR AND SURFACE WATER RELEASES
             EPA 530/SW-89-031
                  MAY 1989
         WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
            OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
                                  ABSTRACT
     On November 8,  1984,  Congress enacted  the  Hazardous and  Solid  Waste
Amendments (HSWA)  to RCRA. Among the most significant provisions of HSWA are
§3004(u), which  requires corrective  action for releases of hazardous  waste or
constituents from  solid waste management units at  hazardous waste treatment,
storage  and  disposal  facilities seeking final RCRA permits;  and §3004(v),  which
compels corrective action for releases  that  have  migrated  beyond  the facility
propety  boundary.  EPA will  be  promulgating  rules  to  implement  the corrective
action  provisions  of HSWA,  including  requirements for release  investigations  and
corrective measures.

     This document,  which  is presented in four volumes, provides  guidance to
regulatory agency personnel on overseeing owners or  operators  of hazardous waste
management facilities  in the conduct of the  second phase of the RCRA Corrective
Action Program, the RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI).  Guidance  is  provided for the
development and  performance of  an investigation by  the facility owner or operator
based  on determinations made  by the  regulatory agency as expressed  in the
schedule of a permit or  in  an enforcement order  issued  under §3008(h), §7003,
and/or  53013.  The purpose of the RFI is  to obtain information  to fully  characterize
the nature,  extent and rate of  migration of releases  of  hazardous  waste or
constituents  and  to   interpret this  information  to  determine whether  interim
corrective measures and/or a Corrective Measures Study may be necessary.

-------
                                  DISCLAIMER
     This document  is intended to assist Regional  and State personnel in exercising
the discretion conferred  by regulation in developing  requirements  for the  conduct
of RCRA Facility Investigations (RFIs) pursuant to 40 CFR 264. Conformance with this
guidance is expected to  result in the  development of RFIs that meet the regulatory
standard  of  adequately  detecting and  characterizing the nature  and extent  of
releases.  However,  EPA will  not necessarily limit acceptable RFIs to  those that
comport with the guidance set forth herein.  This document is  not a  regulation (i.e.,
it does not establish a standard  of conduct  which  has the force of law) and should
not be used as such. Regional and State personnel must exercise their discretion in
using this guidance  document as well as other relevant information  in determining
whether an RFI  meets the  regulatory standard.

     Mention  of company or  product  names  in this  document  should  not  be
considered as an endorsement by the  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

-------
               RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION (RFI) GUIDANCE
                             VOLUME III
                   AIR AND SURFACE WATER RELEASES
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION                                                        PAGE
ABSTRACT                                                           i
DISCLAIMER                                                         ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                 iii
TABLES                                                            xi
FIGURES                                                          xiii
LIST OF ACRONYMS                                                 xiv

-------
                      VOLUME III CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION
12.0 AIR                                                                12'1
   12.1  OVERVIEW                                                      12'1
   12.2 APPROACH  FOR CHARACTERIZING RELEASES TO AIR                12'2
       12.2.1    General Approach                                          12'2
         12.2.1.1 Initial Phase                                           12'13
            12.2.1.1.1    Collect and Review  Preliminary                    12-13
                        Information
            12.2.1.1.2 Conduct Screening Assessment                    12~14
         12.2.1.2 Subsequent Phases                                     12'15
            12.2.1 .2.1    Conduct  Emission  Monitoring                     12-16
            12.2.1  .2.2  Confirmatory  Air Monitoring                      12'17
   12.3 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CONTAMINANT                      12'20
         SOURCE AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
       12.3.1    Waste  Characterization                                    12~21
         12.3.1.1 Presence of Constituents                                12'21
         12.3.1.2  Physical/Chemical Properties                            12~21
       12.3.2    Unit  Characterization                                     12'27
         12.3.2.1 Type of Unit                                          12'27
         12.3.2.2 Size of Unit                                           12-33
         12.3.2.3  Control  Devices                                        12'34
         12.3.2.4  Operational  Schedules                                 12~35
         12.3.2.5  Temperature  of  Operation                             12-35
       12.3.3    Characterization of  the  Environmental  Setting              12-36
         12.3.3.1   Climate                                               12'36
         12.3.3.2  Soil  Conditions                                        12'38
         12.3.3.3  Terrain                                               12'38
         12.3.3.4 Receptors                                            12'39
       12.3.4    Review of Existing Information                            12-39
                                      IV

-------
                      VOLUME III CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION                                                                PAGE
      12.3.5    Determination  of "Reasonable  Worst Case"                 12-41
               Exposure  Period
   12.4 AIR EMISSION MODELING                                        12-43
      12.4.1    Modeling  Applications                                    12-43
      12.4.2    Model  Selection                                          12-44
         12.4.2.1  Organic Emissions                                      12-44
         12.4.2.2  Particulate  Emissions                                   12-46
      12.4.3    General  Modeling  Considerations                          12-47
   12.5 DISPERSION MODELING                                         12-48
      12.5.1    Modeling  Applications                                    12-48
      12.5.2    Model  Selection                                       12-50
         12.5.2.1  Suitability  of  Models                                   12-51
         12.5.2.2  Classes of Models                                      12-52
         12.5.2.3  Levels of Sophistication of Models                       12-53
         12.5.2.4  Preferred  Models                                      12-54
      12.5.3    General  Modeling  Considerations                          12-56
   12.6 DESIGN OF  A MONITORING PROGRAM TO                         12-58
         CHARACTERIZE  RELEASES
      12.6.1    Objectives  of  the Monitoring Program                      12-58
      12.6.2    Monitoring  Constituents and Sampling                     12-59
               Considerations
      12.6.3    Meteorological  Monitoring                                12-60
         12.6.3.1  Meteorological  Monitoring  Parameters                  12-60
         12.6.3.2  Meteorological  Monitor Siting                          12-62
      12.6.4    Monitoring Schedule                                      12-64
         12.6.4.1   Screening Sampling                                    12-64
         12.6.4.2  Emission  Monitoring                                   12-65
         12.6.4.3  Air  Monitoring                                         12-68
         12.6.4.4  Subsequent  Monitoring                                12-69

-------
                      VOLUME III CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION                                                                PAGE
      12.6.5    Monitoring  Approach                                     12-69
         12.6.5.1  Source Emissions Monitoring                            12-71
         12.6.5.2  Air Monitoring                                        12-72
      12.6.6    Monitoring  Locations                                     12-73
         12.6.6.1  Upwind/Downwind  Monitoring  Location                12-73
         12.6.6.2  Stack/Vent  Emission Monitoring                         12-77
         12.6.6.3  Isolation  Flux Chambers                                12-77
   12.7 DATA PRESENTATION                                           12-78
      12.7.1    Waste and  Unit Characterization                           12-78
      12.7.2    Environmental   Setting   Characterization                    12-79
      12.7.3    Characterization of the  Release                            12-80
   12.8 FIELD METHODS                                                12-85
      12.8.1    Meteorological Monitoring                                12-86
      12.8.2    Air Monitoring                                           12-86
         12.8.2.1  Screening   Methods                                     12-89
         12.8.2.2  Quantitative Methods                                  12-93
            12.8.2.2.1    Monitoring  Organic  Compounds  in             12-93
                        Air
               12.8.2 .2.1.1 Vapor-Phase Organics                         12-94
               12.8.2 .2.1.2 Particulate Organics                          12-111
            12.8.2.2.2   Monitoring  Inorganic Compounds in             12-113
                        Air
               12.8.2 .2.2.1 Particulate Metals                            12-113
               12.8.2 .2.2.2 Vapor-Phase Metals                          12-114
               12.8.2 .2.2.3 Monitoring Acids and Other                  12-120
                           Compounds in Air
      12.8.3    Stack/Vent  Emission  Sampling                            12-121
         12.8.3.1 Vapor  Phase and Particulate Associated                 12-122
                  Organics
                                     VI

-------
                    VOLUME III CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION                                                           PAGE
        12.8.3.2  Metals                                           12-127
   12.9 SITE REMEDIATION                                         12-129
   12.10 CHECKLIST                                                12-131
   12.11  REFERENCES                                              12-133
                                  VII

-------
                     VOLUME III CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION                                                              PAGE
13.0 SURFACE WATER                                                 13-1
   13.1  OVERVIEW                                                    13-1
   13.2 APPROACH FOR CHARACTERIZING RELEASES TO                   13-2
        SURFACE  WATER
      13.2.1    General  Approach                                        13-2
      13.2.2   Inter-media  Transport                                    13-8
   13.3 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CONTAMINANT                     13-8
        SOURCE AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
      13.3.1    Waste Characterization                                   13-8
      13.3.2   Unit  Characterization                                    13-17
         13.3.2.1  Unit  Characteristics                                   13-17
         13.3.2.2  Frequency of Release                                 13-18
         13.3.2.3  Form of Release                                      13-19
      13.3.3   Characterization of the Environmental  Setting              13-19
         13.3.3.1  Characterization  of  Surface Waters                     13-20
            13.3.3.1.1    Streams and  Rivers                              13-20
            13.3.3.1.2   Lakes and Impoundments                       13-22
            13.3.3.1.3  Wetlands                                      13-24
            13.3.3.1.4 Marine  Environments                     13-25
         13.3.3.2  Climatic and Geographic Conditions                    13-26
      13.3.4   Sources  of Existing Information                           13-27
   13.4 DESIGN OF A MONITORING PROGRAM TO                       13-28
        CHARACTERIZE  RELEASES
      13.4.1    Objectives of the  Monitoring  Program                     13-29
         13.4.1.1    Phased Characterization                               13-30
         13.4.1.2   Development of Conceptual Model                     13-31
         13.4.1.3   Contaminant Concentration vs                         13-31
                  Contaminant Loading
         13.4.1.4   Contaminant Dispersion Concepts                      13-33
                                   VIM

-------
                      VOLUME III CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION                                                               PAGE
         13.4.1.5 Conservative  vs  Non-Conservative Species               13-36
      13.4.2    Monitoring  Constituents and  Indicator                    13-36
               Parameters
         13.4.2.1  Hazardous  Constituents                               13-36
         13.4.2.2  Indicator  Parameters                                  13-37
      13.4.3    Selection of Monitoring  Locations                         13-42
      13.4.4    Monitoring  Schedule                                     13-44
      13.4.5    Hydrologic   Monitoring                                   13-46
      13.4.6    The Role of Biomonitoring                                13-46
         13.4.6.1  Community  Ecology  Studies                            13-47
         13.4.6.2 Evaluation of Food Chain/Sensitive Species              13-48
                  Impacts
      13.4.6.3 Bioassay                                              13-49
   13.5 DATA MANAGEMENT AND PRESENTATION                       13-50
      13.5.1    Waste  and Unit Characterization                          13-50
      13.5.2    Environmental   Setting  Characterization                    13-51
      13.5.3    Characterization of the  Release                           13-51
   13.6  FIELD AND OTHER METHODS                                    13-53
      13.6.1    Surface Water  Hydrology                                 13-53
      13.6.2    Sampling of Surface  Water, Runoff, Sediment              13-55
               and Biota
         13.6.2.1  Surface  Water                                         13-55
            13.6.2.1.1    Streams  and Rivers                              13-55
            13.6.2.1.2  Lakes  and Impoundments                        13-56
            13.6.2.1.3 Additional  Information                          13-57
         13.6.2.2  Runoff  Sampling                                      13-58
         13.6.2.3  Sediment                                             13-59
         13.6.2.4  Biota                                                13-62
                                     IX

-------
                    VOLUME III CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION                                                             PAGE
      13.6.3   Characterization  of the Condition of  the                   13-63
              Aquatic  Community
      13.6.4   Bioassay Methods                                      13-66
   13.7 SITE REMEDIATION                                           13'67
   13.8 CHECKLIST                                                  13-68
   13.9 REFERENCES                                                 13'71

APPENDICES
Appendix G:   Draft Air Release Screening Assessment
              Methodology
Appendix H:   Soil Loss Calculation

-------
                             TABLES (Volume III)
NUMBER                                                              PAGE
   12-1      Example Strategy for Characterizing Releases to Air           12-3
   12-2      Release Characterization Tasks for Air                        12-5
   12-3      Parameters and Measures  for Use in Evaluating Potential      12-22
            Releases of Hazardous Waste Constituents to Air
   12-4      Physical Parameters of Volatile Hazardous Constituents        12-25
   12-5      Physical Parameters of PCB Mixtures                         12-26
   12-6      Summary of Typical Unit Source Type and Air Release Type     12-28
  12-7      Typical Pathways for Area Emission Sources                   12-49
   12-8      Preferred Models for  Selected Applications in Simple          12-55
            Terrain
   12-9      Recommended Siting Criteria  to Avoid  Terrain Effects         12-63
   12-10    Applicable  Air Sampling Strategies by Source  Type            12-70
   12-11     Typical Commercially Available Screening Techniques         12-90
            for Organics in Air
   12-12    Summary of Selected Onsite Organic Screening                12-92
            Methodologies
   12-13A   Summary  of Candidate  Methodologies  for Quantification of   12-95
            Vapor Phase Organics
   12-13B   List of Compound Classes Referenced in Table 12-15A         12-97
   12-14    Sampling and Analysis Techniques Applicable to Vapor        12-98
            Phase Organics
   12-15    Compounds Monitored Using  EMSL-RTP Tenax  Sampling      12-102
            Protocols
   12-16    Summary Listing  of Organic Compounds Suggested for        12-106
            Collection With a Low Volume Polyurethane  Foam Sampler
            and Subsequent Analysis With an Electron Capture Detector
            (GC/ECD)
                                      XI

-------
                       TABLES (Volume III - Continued)

NUMBER                                                             PAGE


   12-17    Summary Listing  of Additional Organic Compounds           12-107
            Suggested for Collection  With a Low Volume  Polyurethane
            Foam Sampler

   12-18    Sampling and Analysis Methods for Volatile Mercury          12-115

   12-19    Sampling and Analysis of Vapor State Trace Metals            12-118
            (Except Mercury)

   12-20    Sampling Methods for Toxic and Hazardous Organic          12-123
            Materials From Point Sources

   12-21     RCRA Appendix VIII Hazardous  Metals and Metal             12-128
            Compounds

   13-1      Example Strategy for Characterizing Releases to              13-3
            Surface Water

   13-2      Release Characterization  Tasks for Surface Water             13-7

   13-3      Important Waste  and  Constituent  Properties Affecting        13-9
            Fate and Transport in  a Surface Water Environment

   13-4      General  Significance of Properties and  Environmental         13-16
            Processes or Classes of Organic Chemicals Under
            Environmental  Conditions
                                     XII

-------
                              FIGURES (Volume III)
NUMBER                                                               PAGE
   12-1      Release Characterization Strategy for Air - Overview           12-6
   12-2     Conduct Screening Assessments - Overview                   12-7
   12-3     Conduct Emission  Monitoring - Overview                     12-8
   12-4     Conduct  Confirmatory  Air  Monitoring                        12-9
   12-5     Evaluation  of Modeling/Monitoring  Results                   12-10
   12-6     Example Air Monitoring  Network                            12-74
   12-7     Example of Downwind  Exposures at Air Monitoring Stations   12-84
   13-1      Qualitative  Relationship  Between Various  Partitioning        13-11
            Parameters
   13-2     Typical Lake Cross  Section                                   13-23
                                      XIII

-------
                             LIST OF ACRONYMS
AA
Al
ASCS
ASTM
BCF
BOO
CAG
CPF
CBI
CEC
CERCLA

CFR
CIR
CM
CMI
CMS
COD
COLIWASA
DNPH
DO
DOT
ECD
EM
EP
EPA
FEMA
FID
Foe
FWS
GC
GC/MS
GPR
HEA
HEEP
HPLC
HSWA
HWM
ICP
ID
Kd
Koc
Kow
LEL
MCL
MM5
MS/MS
NFIP
NIOSH
NPDES
OSHA
Atomic Absorption
Soil Adsorption  Isotherm Test
Agricultural  Stabilization  and Conservation  Service
American Society for Testing and Materials
Bioconcentration Factor
Biological Oxygen Demand
EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group
Carcinogen  Potency Factor
Confidential  Business Information
Cation Exchange Capacity
Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,  Compensation, and
Lability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Color Infrared
Corrective Measures
Corrective Measures Implementation
Corrective Measures Study
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Composite Liquid Waste Sampler
Dinitrophenyl Hydrazine
Dissolved Oxygen
Department  of  Transportation
Electron Capture Detector
Electromagnetic
Extraction Procedure
Environmental   Protection Agency
Federal  Emergency  Management Agency
Flame  lonization Detector
Fraction organic carbon in soil
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Gas Chromatography
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy
Ground  Penetrating  Radar
Health  and Environmental Assessment
Health  and Environmental Effects Profile
High Pressure  Liquid Chromatography
Hazardous and  Solid Waste  Amendments (to RCRA)
Hazardous  Waste  Management
Inductively Coupled (Argon)  Plasma
Infrared Detector
Soil/Water  Partition  Coefficient
Organic Carbon Absorption  Coefficient
Octanol/Water  Partition  Coefficient
Lower Explosive Limit
Maximum  Contaminant  Level
Modified  Method  5
Mass Spectroscopy/Mass Spectroscopy
National Flood  Insurance Program
National Institute for  Occupational Safety  and Health
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Occupational  Safety  and Health  Administration
                                     XIV

-------
                       LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)
OVA          -    Organic Vapor  Analyzer
PID           -    Photo  lonization  Detector
pKa           -    Acid Dissociation  Constant
ppb           -    parts per  billion
ppm          -    parts per  million
PUF           -    Polyurethane Foam
Pvc           -    Polyvinyl  Chloride
QA/QC        -    Quality  Assurance/Quality  Control
RCRA         -    Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA           -    RCRA Facility Assessment
RfD           -    Reference Dose
RFI            -    RCRA Facility Investigation
RMCL         -    Recommended  Maximum Contaminant  Level
RSD           -    Risk Specific Dose
SASS          -    Source Assessment Sampling  System
SCBA          -    Self Contained  Breathing Apparatus
SCS           -    Soil Conservation Service
SOP           -    Standard  Operating Procedure
SWMU        -    Solid Waste  Management  Unit
TCLP          -    Toxicity Characteristic  Leaching  Procedure
TEGD          -    Technical  Enforcement Guidance Document (EPA, 1986)
TOC          -    Total Organic Carbon
TOT           -    Time of travel
TOX          -    Total Organic Halogen
USGS          -    United States Geologic Survey
USLE          -    Universal  Soil Loss Equation
UV           -    Ultraviolet
VOST          -    Volatile  Organic Sampling  Train
VSP           -    Verticle Seismic Profiling
WQC          -    Water Quality  Criteria
                                     xv

-------
                                   SECTION 12

                                       AIR

12.1        Overview

     The objective  of an investigation  of  a release to air  is to  characterize  the
nature,  extent,  and  rate of  migration of the  release of  hazardous  waste  or
constituents  to  that  medium.    This  is  done  by characterizing  long-term  air
concentrations  (commensurate  with the long-term exposures which  are the  basis for
the health and  environmental  criteria presented  in  Section 8)  associated  with  unit
releases of hazardous  wastes or constituents to air. This  section provides:

     •     An  example  strategy for  characterizing releases  to air, which includes
           characterization  of the source  and  the  environmental setting of  the
           release, and  conducting  a monitoring and/or modeling program which
           will characterize the  release itself;

     •     Formats for data  organization  and presentation;

     •     Modeling  and field  methods which may be used in the  investigation;  and

     •     A  checklist  of  information  that  may   be  needed   for  release
           characterization.

     The exact  type  and  amount  of  information  required  for  sufficient  release
characterization  will  be site-specific and  should be  determined through interactions
between the  regulatory  agency  and  the  facility  owner  or operator during the RFI
process. This guidance does  not define the specific data needed  in all  instances;  it
identifies  possible information  necessary  to perform release   characterizations and
methods for obtaining  this information. The RFI  Checklist, presented  at the end of
this  section,  provides a  tool  for planning and  tracking information  for  release
characterization. This list is not  a  list of requirements for all  releases to air. Some
release investigations will involve the  collection of only a subset of the  items listed,
while  other releases may involve the  collection  of additional data.
                                       12-1

-------
     Case studies 25 and 26 in Volume IV (Case Study  Examples) illustrate several of
the air investigation concepts discussed in this section.

12.2      Approach for Characterizing Releases to Air

12.2.1     General  Approach

     The  intent of the air  release investigation  is to determine  actual  or potential
effects  at the facility property boundary.  This  differs from the other  media
discussed in this  Guidance.   During the  health  and  environmental  assessment
process for the air medium  (see  Section  8),  the  decision as  to  whether  interim
corrective  measures or a  Corrective Measures Study will be necessary is based on
actual or  potential  effects at the facility property boundary.

     Characterization  of  releases  from  waste management  units to air may be
approached in a  tiered  or phased  fashion  as described in  Section 3. The key
elements  to this  approach  are  shown in Table 12-1.  Tasks  for implementing  the
release  characterization strategy for releases  to  air  are summarized in  Table 12-2.
An  overview of the release characterization strategy for air is illustrated in  Figures
12-1 through 12-5.

Two major elements can  be derived from  this  strategy:

     •    Collection  and review  of  data to be used  for characterization  of the
          source of the air release  and the environmental setting  for this  source.
          Source  characterization will  include  obtaining  information on  the unit
          operating conditions and configuration, and  may entail a  sampling and
          analytical effort  to characterize  the waste  material  in  the  unit  or the
          incoming waste  streams.   This  effort will  lead to  development of a
          conceptual  model of the release that provides  a working  hypothesis  of
          the  release mechanism,  transport pathway/mechanism,  and  exposure
          route (if  any), which can be used to guide the investigation.

     •    Development  and  implementation  of   modeling  and/or  monitoring
          procedures  to be used  for characterization  of  the  release (e.g.,  from a
                                      12-2

-------
                                 TABLE 12-1

         EXAMPLE STRATEGY FOR CHARACTERIZING RELEASES TO AIR*


                                INITIAL PHASE

1.    Collect  and review existing information on:

          Waste
          Unit
          Environmental  setting (e.g.,  climate,  topography)
          Contaminant releases,  including  inter-media transport
          Receptors  at and beyond  the facility  property boundary

2.    Identify  additional information necessary  to  fully  characterize  release:

          Waste
          Unit
          Environmental  setting (e.g.,  climate,  topography)
          Contaminant releases,  including  inter-media transport
          Receptors  at and beyond  the facility  property boundary

3.    Conduct screening assessments:

          Formulate  conceptual model  of  release
          Determine  monitoring/modeling  program objectives
          Obtain source  characterization data  needed  for modeling  input
          Select release  constituent  surrogates
          Calculate emission estimates based on  emission rate screening
          modeling  results
          Calculate  concentration  estimates based on  dispersion  screening
          modeling  results
          Compare results  to health  based criteria
          Conduct screening  monitoring at source (as warranted)
          Perform  sensitivity  analysis  of  modeling input/output
          Obtain additional waste/unit  data as needed, for refined modeling
          Consider conduct of  more refined emission/dispersion  modeling

4.    Collect,  evaluate and report results:

          Account  for unit/waste  temporal  and  spatial  variability and modeling
          input/output uncertainties
          Determine  completeness and adequacy of screening assessment
          results
          Evaluate  potential  for  inter-media  contaminant  transfer
          Summarize and present results  in appropriate format
          Determine  if monitoring  program objectives were  met
          Compare  screening results to health and environmental criteria and
          identify and respond  to emergency situations and identify priority
          situations  that may warrant interim corrective measures - Notify
          regulatory  agency
          Determine  whether the  conduct of subsequent release characterization
          phases are necessary to  obtain more refined concentration estimates
                                     12-3

-------
                           TABLE 12-1 (continued)

         EXAMPLE STRATEGY FOR CHARACTERIZING RELEASES TO AIR*


                      SUBSEQUENT PHASES (if necessary)

1.    Conduct  emission monitoring and dispersion modeling  if  necessary:

          Conduct  onsite  meteorological  monitoring if  representative data are
          not available for dispersion modeling input
          Conduct  emission rate monitoring
          Conduct  dispersion modeling  using  emission  rate  monitoring data as
          input
          Evaluate  results and  determine  need for confirmatory air monitoring

2.    Conduct  confirmatory  air monitoring if necessary:

          Develop  monitoring  procedures
          Conduct  initial monitoring
          Conduct  additional monitoring if additional information is  necessary
          to characterize the release

3.    Collect, evaluate and  report results:

          Account for  source  and  meteorological  data  variability  during
          modeling  and  monitoring  program
          Evaluate  long-term representativeness of air monitoring  data
          Apply dispersion  models  as appropriate  to aid in data  evaluation and
          to provide  concentration  estimates at the facility property boundary
          Compare monitoring results to  health and  environmental criteria and
          identify  and  respond  to emergency  situations  and  identify  priority
          situations  that  may  warrant interim corrective measures -  Notify
          regulatory  agency
          Determine  completeness  and adequacy of collected data
          Summarize and  present  data  in appropriate format
          Determine  if  modeling  and  monitoring  locations,  constituents,  and
          frequency were  adequate to characterize release (nature, extent, and
          rate)
          Determine  if monitoring/modeling program  objectives were   met
          Identify additional  information  needs,  if necessary
          Determine  need to expand modeling and  monitoring program
          Evaluate  potential role of  inter-media transport
     The potential  for inter-media  transport of  contamination  should  be
     evaluated  continually  throughout  the  investigation.
                                    12-4

-------
                                               TABLE 12-2
                           RELEASE CHARACTERIZATION TASKS FOR AIR
       Investigatory  Tasks
  Investigatory   Techniques
    Data  Presentation
     Formats/Outputs
Y.  Waste/Unit Characterization

        Identification of waste
        constituents  and properties
        Prioritization  of air emission
        constituents

        Identification  of unit
        characteristics  which  may
        promote an air release	
  See Section 3, 7 and Volume I,
  Appendix B List 2; Section 12.3,
  Section 12.4, Appendix F

  Waste sampling and
  characterization

  See Section 7, Section 12.3,
  Section 12.4, Appendix F
 Listing of potential  release
 constituents
 Listing of tar et air emission
 constituents  for  monitoring

 Description  of the unit
    Environmental  Setting
    Characterization

        Definition of  climate
        Definition of site-specific
        meteorological  conditions
        Definition of soil conditions
        to characterize emission
        potential  for  particulate
        emissions and for certain
        units (e.g., landfills  and land
        treatment)  for gaseous
        emissions

        Definition of site-specific
        terrain
        Identification  of  potential
        air-pathway  receptors
  Climate summaries for regional
  National Weather Service
  stations  may  require onsite
  meteorological  monitoring
  survey)

Onsite  meteorological
  monitoring concurrent with air
  monitoring

  See Section 9
  See Section 79 and Appendix A
  (Volume 1) of RFI and recent
  aerial photographs and U.S.
  Geologoical Survey maps

  Census data, area surveys, recent
  aerial photographs and U.S.
  Geological Survey topographic
  maps	
Wind roses and statistical
tabulations for parameters of
interest
Wind roses and tabulations for
parameters of interest
Soil physical properties (e.g.,
porosity, organic matter
content)
Topographic map of site area
Map with  identification  of
nearby  populations and
buildings
T.  Release Characterization

        Emission rate  modeling


        Dispersion modeling
        Emission rate  monitoring
       Air  monitoring
  Air emission models as discussed
  in Section 12.4

  Atmospheric  dispersion models
  as discussed in Section 12.5
  Direct  emission  source tests for
  point sources, isolation flux
  chamber for area sources or
  onsite  air monitoring  (Section
  12.8)

  Upwind/downwind  air
  monitoring  for"  release
  mapping
Unit-specific  and constituent-
specific emission rates

Air  concentration estimates  at
facility  property boundary
(tabular summaries or graphical
presentations which may include
release concentration isopleths)

Listing of emission rate
monitoring  results
Air, concentration estimates at
facility property boundary
(tabular summaries or graphical
presentations which may include
release concentration isopleths)
                                                   12-5

-------
                       FIGURE 12-1
RELEASE CHARACTERIZATION STRATEGY FOR AIR-OVERVIEW
Collect and Review
Preliminary Information
Waste/Unit
Characteristics
Historical
Air Monitoring/Modeling
Data
Environmental
Characteristics
          Develop Conceptual Model of Release
                        Evalute
                     Hazard Index/
                      RFI Decision
                        Points
             Conduct Screening Assessments
             (Emphasis on Emission Modeling)
                         Evalute
                      Hazard Index/
                       RFI Decision
                         Points
              Conduct Emission Monitoring
                         Evalute
                      Hazard Index/
                       RFI Decision
                         Points
              Confirmatory Air Monitoring
                         Evalute
                       Hazard Index/
                       RFI Decision
                         Points
                 1
  Information Sufficient
    to Characterize Air
   Release as Significant
      Information Sufficient
        to Characterize Air
      Release as Insignificant
   Corrective Measures
  Study/Interim Corrective
         Measure
12-6
        No Further Action
            Required
                                                                INITIAL
                                                                PHASE
                                     SUBSEQUENT


                                        PHASES

-------
                                           FIGURE 12-2
                       CONDUCT SCREENING ASSESSMENTS - OVERVIEW

                                          Collect and Review
                                       Preliminary Information
                                                 \
       Consider Refined
      Emission/Dispersion
          Modeling
          Conduct Screening Modeling

•  Obtain source characterization data
•  Select release constituent surrogates
•  Calculate emission estimates based on emission
   modeling results
•  Calculate concentration estimates based on
   dispersion modeling results
•  Compare results to health based criteria
       Obtain Additional
        Waste/Unit Data
                                                                         Conduct Preliminary
                                                                         Monitoring at Source
                                                                            (discretionary)
                                   Conduct Model Sensitivity Analysis, Evaluate Input
                                   Data and Model Accuracy to Determine Uncertainty
                                                     Factor (Uf)
                                        No
                      (Optional steps)
                 Screening
                 Assessment
                   Results
                   dequate
                                                    Evaluate
                                                  Hazard Index/
                                                   RFI Decision
                                                     Points
 Corrective Measure Study/
Interim Corrective Measures
         Conduct Emission Monitoring
              (See Figure 12-3)
  No Further
Action Required
                                               12-7

-------
                                          FIGURE 12-3
                        CONDUCT EMISSION MONITORING - OVERVIEW

                                      Screening Assessments
                                        Representative
                                        Meteorological
                                        Data Available
                       No
                                                ves
                                                                           Conduct
                                                                        Meteorological
                                                                          Monitoring
                                       Conduct Emissions
                                        Rate Monitoring
)
i
Direct Emissions
Source Testing
for Point Sources

                                         Isolation Flux
                                          Chamber
                                       for Area Sources
                       I
                            Onsite
                              Air
                          Monitoring
                                          Conduct
                                     Dispersion Modeling
Corrective Measures Study/
Interim Corrective Measures
                                          Evaluate
                                        Hazard Index/
                                         RFI Decision
                                           Points
Conduct Confirmatory
   Air Monitoring
  (See Figure 12-4)
  No Further
Action Required
                                              12-8

-------
                                           FIGURE 12-4
                         CONDUCT CONFIRMATORY AIR MONITORING

                                    Emission Monitoring Results
Screening
Air Samples
•^^

Develop Monitoring
Procedures
1


Candidate Air Emission
Constituents (see
Appendix B, List 2)
                                         Select Monitoring
                                       Approach/Procedures
                                               *
                                             Monitor
                                            Placement*
                                               f
                                     Conduct Initial Monitoring
1
Air
Monitoring

t
Meteorological
Monitoring
                                      t
                                               I
                                   Collect and Evaluate Results
                                              I
                                           Site
                                      Meteorological
                                      Characterization"
                                         Dispersion
                                         Modeling

*
Waste/Unit
Characterization
Data Summaries

Summarize Data/
Perform Dispersion
Modeling**
t
*
Air/Meteorological
Monitoring Data
Summaries
i

concc
recep
beyor
prop<
neces
t
Modeling Data
Summaries
A
                               *• As close to source as
                                  possible to increase
                                  potential for release
                                  detection and
                                  quantification
                                • At actual receptors at or
                                  beyond the facility
                                  property boundary to
                                  support health and
                                  environmental
                                  assessment (if practical)


                               ** To Estimate
                                  concentrations at actual
                                  receptor  locations at or
                                  beyond the facility
                                  property boundary (as
                                 Additional Monitoring (if necessary)
             f
Corrective Measures Study/Interim
      Corrective Measures
  Evaluate
Hazard Index/
 RFI Decision
   Points
                                No Further Action
                                    Required
                                               12-9

-------
                                FIGURE 12-5
             EVALUATION OF MODELING/MONITORING RESULTS

                       Modeling/Monitoring Results
                                   i
                                 Compute
                               Hazard Index
                                    (HI)
                                   ±
                                Determine
                           Modeling/Monitoring
                            Uncertainty Factors
                                 (tUF)*
                                 Evaluate
                                 Hazard
                                Index/RF!
                                 Decision
                                  Poin
         Information is
          sufficient to
          characterize
           release as
          significant
  Information is
  not sufficient
       to
  characterize
   the release
      Corrective Measures
         Study/Interim
      Corrective Measures
Additional Release
 Characterization
   Assessments
    Necessary
                                                   HK1/UF
                                                           ****
Information is
 sufficient to
 characterize
the release as
 insignificant
      Nd
    Further
    Action
   Required
   Uncertainty  Factor assumed  to  be J>1.0

       H^>1  Generally  used for evaulation of confirmatory air monitoring
       results.

       This  alternative is generally not used to evaluate confirmatory air
       monitoring  results. However,  additional  air monitoring  may be
       warranted  if monitoring objectives  were  not  acheived.  Confirmatory  air
       monitoring  will  generally be  conducted  during  worst-case  long-term
       emission/dispersion conditions. Therefore,  this facilitates the use  of
       more rigorous  evaluation criteria for this final  air release
       characterization step  prior to RFI decision  making.
* * * *
       Hl< 1 Criterion generally used  for evaluation of confirmatory air
       monitoring  results.
                                   12-10

-------
          unit  or contaminated soil).  Utilizing a phased  approach, the air  release is
          characterized  in  terms  of  the  types  and  amounts  of  hazardous
          constituents being  emitted,  leading to  a  determination of  actual  or
          potential  exposure  at  the facility  property boundary.  This  may involve
          emission  modeling  (to estimate unit-specific  emission  rates),  air
          monitoring  (to  determine  concentrations  at  the  facility  property
          boundary),  emission monitoring (monitoring  at the source to  determine
          emission rates),  and dispersion modeling  (to  estimate concentrations  at
          the  facility  property  boundary).    A phased approach utilizing  both
          modeling  and  monitoring may  not always   be  necessary  to achieve
          adequate  release charterization.

     As  indicated  in  Section 1 of  this Guidance (See Volume  I), standards for the
control and  monitoring  of air emissions at hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal  (TSD) facilities are being  developed by  the  Agency  pursuant  to HSWA
Section  3004(n).   These  standards will   address specific methodologies  and
regulatory requirements for the  identification and  control of air releases at TSD
facilities.    The  Guidance provided herein is intended  to provide interim
methodologies  and procedures for  the  identification and delineation of  significant
air releases. In  particular, the Guidance addresses those releases which may pose an
existing  and  significant hazard to  human health  and  the environment,  and  thus,
should be addressed  without delay, i.e., prior to the issuance  of the  Section 3004(n)
regulations.

     The RFI release characterization strategy for air  includes  several decision points
during the  characterization  process to  evaluate the adequacy of  available
information and to  determine  an appropriate  course of action  from the following
alternatives (as illustrated in Figures 12-1  through 12-5).

•    Information is sufficient  to  characterize the  air release as significant and  a
     Corrective Measures Study/Interim  Corrective  Measures is warranted.

•    Information is  sufficient to  characterize the  air release as insignificant,
     therefore,  no further air assessments are required.
                                     12-11

-------
•     Information  is  not sufficient  to  characterize the  air release,  therefore further
      release characterization is  warranted.

      Criteria for  decisionmaking  involves  consideration  of  the  uncertainty
associated  with  release  characterization results  (modeling/monitoring),  which  is
facilitated by use of a  Hazard Index as illustrated  in Figure 12-5. The  Hazard Index is
defined as the ratio of exposure concentration  levels  or estimates,  to specific health
criteria for an  individual  constituent  or a mixture of constituents with  similar
potential  health  impacts.  Further  guidance  on  the  computation and application  of
the Hazard Index is provided in Section 8.

      The uncertainty associated  with  concentration estimates based  on air pathway
modeling  and  monitoring  results is  factored  into the  decision  making  effort
through  use of  uncertainty analyses.   A primary component  of  the  uncertainty
analysis is the accuracy of the modeling  and/or monitoring  approach  utilized for the
release  characterization.  Model-specific  and monitoring  method-specific accuracies
should  be used  as available for the  uncertainty analysis.  The  quality  of  the  input
data  to  models  is another important  component of the uncertainty analysis  that
should  be accounted  for.   Generally,  conduct  of a  model  sensitivity analysis  (i.e.,
varying the values  of  input parameters based on their uncertainty range to  evaluate
the effect  on model  output), will provide a  quantitative  basis to characterize  input
data  quality. This step  is  particularly  important for  some  unit-specific  models.  For
example,  the  spatial  variability of  wastes at a landfill  and the  uncertainty  of other
input  parameters (e.g., soil  porosity) can significantly affect the overall uncertainty
associated with  emission modeling results.

      As concentration measurements or  estimates at the facility property   boundary
become available,  both within  and  at  the conclusion  of  discrete  investigation
phases, they should  be  reported  to the  regulatory agency as directed.  The
regulatory agency will  compare  the  concentrations  with  applicable  health  and
environmental criteria  to determine the  need  for (1)  interim corrective measures;
and/or  (2) a  Corrective  Measures Study.  In  addition,  the regulatory  agency  will
evaluate the data  with  respect  to adequacy  and completeness to  determine  the
need  for any  additional  characterization efforts.  The  health  and  environmental
criteria  and a general discussion of how the regulatory  agency will apply  them are
                                      12-12

-------
provided in  Section 8. A flow diagram illustrating  RFI  Decision  Points is  provided in
Section 3  (See  Figure  3-2).

     Notwithstanding  the  above process,  the  owner  or operator  has a  continuing
responsibility to identify and  respond to emergency situations and to define priority
situations  that  may  warrant  interim corrective measures.  For  these  situations, the
owner  or operator is  advised  to  follow the RCRA Contingency Plan requirements
under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart D and Part 265, Subpart D.

     The strategy  for characterizing releases to air consists of an initial phase and, if
necessary,  subsequent phases,  as  illustrated  in Table  12-1 and  Figure  12-1.
Additional   phases  may  not be  needed  depending   on the  site-specific
modeling/monitoring data  available, and the nature and magnitude  of the  release.
A  summary  discussion  of the initial  phase is presented in  Section 12.2.1.1  and the
subsequent phases in Section 12.2.1.2.

12.2.1.1 Initial  Phase

     The  initial  phase  of the  release characterization strategy  for air involves the
collection  and  review  of  preliminary information  and  the  conduct of a  screening
assessment.

12.2.1 .1.1  Collect  and  Review Preliminary Information

     The  first step  is to  collect,  review  and  evaluate  available  waste,  unit,
environmental  setting and  release  (monitoring  and modeling)  data.  The air
pathway data collection effort  should  be  coordinated,  as  appropriate,  with similar
efforts  for other media investigations.

     Evaluation  of these  data  may, at this  point,  clearly  indicate  that a  Corrective
Measures Study and/or interim  corrective  measures  are  necessary  or that no further
action  is  required.  For example, the  source  may involve  a large, active  storage
surface  impoundment containing  volatile  constituents  located  adjacent  to
residential  housing.    Therefore,  action  instead  of further studies may be
appropriate.   Another case  may  involve  a  unit  in an  isolated location,  where an
acceptable  modeling/monitoring  data  base  may  be  available which  definitively
                                     12-13

-------
indicates that the air  release  can be  considered  insignificant  and therefore' further
studies  are  not  warranted.  In  most cases, however, further  release characterization
will be necessary.

     A  conceptual model (as discussed in Volume I  - Summary Section  and Section
3.2) of  the  release  should  then be developed based on available information. This
model  (not  a computer or  numerical  simulation model)  should provide a  working
hypothesis of the release mechanism, transport pathway/mechanism,  and exposure
route (if any).  The  model  should be  testable/verifiable  and flexible enough  to  be
modified as new data become  available.  For example,  transport  pathway and
exposure modes for a  contaminated  surface  area  may  involve air emissions due to
volatilization,  wind erosion  and mechanical disturbances.  These  air emissions  are
expected  to result  in  inhalation  exposure for offsite   receptors.  In addition,  the
deposition  of air  emissions on soil,  water bodies  and  crops, and  infiltration and
runoff from the  onsite source,  may contribute  to overall exposures.

12.2.1  .1.2 Conduct Screening Assessment

     Following   review  of  existing information  and  development of the  conceptual
model, a screening assessment should be  conducted to  characterize  the air release
(see Figure 12-2). The  initial screening should be based  on conservative (i.e., worst-
case assumptions).  A  screening  assessment based on  more realistic  assumptions
should be  conducted if  initial air  concentration predictions exceed health criteria.

     The  Draft  Final Air Release Screening  Assessment Methodology, presented in
Appendix G,  describes the screening assessment in detail. It consists of emission rate
and dispersion  models  and involves the following steps:

     •    Obtain  source characterization  input  data
     •    Select release (target)  constituents which may be  present in the  waste
          and  have health  criteria for the air  pathway (see Section 8.0)
     •    Calculate  emission estimates
     •    Calculate  concentration  estimates  at  facility  property boundary
     •    Compare  results to  health  based criteria
                                      12-14

-------
      In order  to  assure adequate  source characterization input data, it  may  be
necessary  to collect  additional waste/unit  data. This  may  involve field sampling of
the waste  to identify  waste constituents and  determine  concentration levels. At this
early  RFI  stage, it may be more  effective and conclusive to sample the  wastes  (with
relatively   higher  concentration  levels)  instead  of  the  release.    In  general,  if
obtaining  source-specific data  is not  practical,  conservative  source  assumptions
should be used.

      Preliminary  monitoring at the  source may  also be conducted to aid in the
evaluation  of the screening/modeling  results.  Preliminary monitoring  may  involve
the use of screening  or  quantitative  methods,  and is discussed  in Section 12.6. The
preliminary monitoring  period  will generally  be  limited to a  few  days. Although
preliminary monitoring  results  may identify  release constituents  that  were  not
expected   based  on  modeling,  or  vice versa,  the  limitations  of  modeling  and
monitoring should be  considered when  comparing  these data  and  determining
appropriate followup  activities.

     A  sensitivity  analysis should also  be conducted to evaluate  model input  data
quality.  The  results  of the sensitivity  analysis  as  well  as  consideration of model
accuracy should  be  used  to  compute  the  UF  for  the  screening  assessment.  The
results  of  the  screening assessment should  then be compared to  the  health  and
environmental  assessment  criteria  (as  previously  discussed)  to  determine
appropriate  followup  actions.   Collection  of additional  waste/unit data  and/or
considering the application of more refined  emission/dispersion  models are  also
possible options if initial  results from the screening assessment are inconclusive.

12.2.1.2 Subsequent Phases

     Subsequent  phases of the  release characterization strategy for  air  may  be
necessary  if  screening assessment results  are not conclusive to characterize the  air
release, and should  involve the  conduct  of  emission monitoring  and  confirmatory
air monitoring as indicated in Figure 12-1. These are discussed below.
                                      12-15

-------
12.2.1.2.1  Conduct Emission  Monitoring

     Source  monitoring should  be used  in conjunction  with dispersion  modeling to
further  characterize  the  release,  as  indicated  in  Figure 12.3.  Direct emission
sampling should be used for  point sources such  as vents and stacks.  An isolation
flux  chamber may be  used  for area  source emission  measurements. Onsite air
monitoring  (particularly  near  the  emission  source)  is an  alternative approach for
characterizing area source  emissions  if direct emission  monitoring is not practical
(e.g., considering  equipment  availability). Guidance  for  the conduct  of  these  field
programs is presented in Section 12.6 and 12.8.

     The development  of emission  monitoring procedures  should address selection
of target air  emission constituents.  One  acceptable  approach is  to monitor  for all
potential Appendix VIII air emission  constituents (see Appendix B,  List 3) applicable
to the  unit or release of concern.  An alternative approach is to use unit  and  waste-
specific information to  identify constituents that  are expected to  be present,  thus
reducing  the  number  of  target  constituents  (see Section  3.6).    The  target
constituents selected  should be  limited to those which may be present in the waste
and  have health criteria  for the air pathway (see Section 8).

     Representative  meteorological data  as well as emission  monitoring  results
should   be  available  as  input data  for  dispersion modeling.  Therefore,  it may be
necessary to conduct  an  onsite  meteorological  monitoring  survey.     The
meteorological  monitoring  survey should be conducted, at a minimum, for a  period
sufficient to   identify and  define  wind  and stability  patterns  for the season
associated with  worst-case,  long-term  source emission/dispersion  conditions.
However,  it may  also be desirable  to  obtain sufficient data to characterize  annual
dispersion conditions  at the site. The  season associated with the  highest long-term
air concentration  is determined  by  evaluating  seasonal  emission/dispersion
modeling  results  based on  available  meteorological  data (e.g.,  National  Weather
Service data). This  modeling application accounts  for  the  complex relationships
between  meteorological  conditions  and  emissions  potential  and  dispersion
potential.  For  example, high average wind  speeds  may increase  the  long-term
emission potential  of  organics at a  surface impoundment, but  worst case long-term
dispersion conditions  would  be associated with low  average wind speed conditions.
Seasonal  temperature conditions would  also affect the  emission potential.
                                      12-16

-------
Therefore,  it would  be necessary to compare seasonal  air concentration  results  to
identify the season with worst case long term  exposure conditions. This  season
would  be the  candidate  period to  collect  several  months of onsite meteorological
data to  support  more  refined modeling  analyses  (e.g.,  dispersion  modeling using
emission  rate  monitoring  data as  input).  Guidance  on  selection  of the  emission
monitoring  period  within this  worst  case  season is presented in Section 12.6.4.2.
Guidance on  the  conduct  of  a meteorological  monitoring program  is  provided  in
Sections 12.6.3 and 12.8.1.

     Dispersion models are used  to estimate  constituent  concentrations based  on
source  and meteorological  monitoring  input  data.  Guidance  on  the selection  and
application  of dispersion models is presented in  Section 12.5 and in Guidance  on  Air
Quality Models (U.S. EPA, July 1986) and Procedures for  Conducting Air Pathway
Analyses for Superfund Applications (U.S.  EPA,  December 1988). The results of the
dispersion  modeling assessment should  then  be compared  to  the  health and
environmental  assessment   criteria  (as previously   discussed)  to  determine
appropriate followup actions.

12,2.1  .2.2  Confirmatory  Air  Monitoring

     Confirmatory air monitoring  (as outlined in  Figure   12-4),  may  also  be
appropriate to  provide additional  release  characterization information for RFI
decision  making.  Air  monitoring data will  provide a basis for release mapping and
for  evaluation  and  confirmation  of modeling  estimates.  The  conduct of  an  air
monitoring  program  should include  the following components:

     •     Develop monitoring procedures
     •    Conduct  initial  monitoring
     •    Collect  and evaluate results
     •    Conduct additional  air monitoring (if  necessary)

     The  development  of  monitoring procedures  should  address  selection  of target
air  emission constituents.  One acceptable  approach  is  to monitor for all potential
Appendix VIII air emission constituents (See  Appendix B,  List 3)  applicable to the
unit or release  of  concern. An  alternative approach  is  to  use  unit and waste-specific
information  to  identify constituents  that  are expected  to  be  present, thus reducing
                                      12-17

-------
the  number of  target  monitoring constituents (See Section  3.6).  The  target
constituents selected should be  limited to those which may be present in  the waste
and  have health criteria for the air pathway (see Section 8.0).

     The development of monitoring  procedures should  also  include  selection  of
appropriate  field  and  analytical methods for conducting the  air  monitoring
program.  Candidate  methods  and  criteria for monitoring program design  (e.g.,
relevant  to  sampling  schedule  and  monitor  placement) should be  limited  to
standard published protocols (such as those available from  EPA,  NIOSH, and ASTM).
The  selection of appropriate  methods  will  be dependent on  site  and  unit-specific
conditions, and is discussed further in  Section 12.8.

     A   limited  screening-type  sampling  program  may  be appropriate  for
determining  the design  of the  air monitoring  program.  The  objective  of  this
screening sampling will  be to  verify  a suspected  release, if  appropriate,  and  to
further  assist  in identifying  and quantifying  release  constituents  of  concern.
Screening sampling at  each unit for a multiple-unit facility,  for example,  can be used
to prioritize  release sources. The emphasis  during this screening will  generally be
on obtaining  air samples  near the source, or collecting a  limited  number  of source
emission samples. The availability of  air monitoring data on units with  a limited set
of air emission  constituents may  preclude the need  for screening  sampling  during
the  investigation.

     An initial  air monitoring  program should  be  conducted,  as necessary,  to
characterize  the magnitude and  distribution  of air  concentration  levels for the
target constituents  selected.  Initial monitoring should  be  conducted for  a  period
sufficient  to  characterize  air  concentrations at  the  facility  property  boundary, as
input to  the  health and environmental  assessment (e.g.,  a 90-day   period may be
appropriate for a flat  terrain site with  minimal  variability  of dispersion  and source
conditions).

     The basic approach  for  the  initial air  monitoring will  consist  of collection  of
ambient  air samples for  four  target  zones:  the first zone located upwind of the
source  to define  background   concentration  levels; the  second zone located
downwind at the  unit  boundary;  the  third zone located  downwind at the facility
property  boundary for  input into the  health  and environmental  assessment; and  a
                                      12-18

-------
12.3 Characterization of the Contaminant Source andthe Environmental Setting

     Release  investigations  can  be conducted  in  an  efficient,  effective  and
representative  manner if  certain information  is  obtained prior  to  implementation
of the  effort.  This  information  consists  of  both waste/unit characterization  and
characterization  of  the  environmental setting.  Review of information  from existing
sources can  be used to identify data gaps  and to initiate data collection activities  to
fill these  data  gaps.   Waste/unit  characterization  and  characterization  of the
environmental setting are discussed  below:

          Waste and  unit specific  information:   Data  on the specific  constituents
          present in the unit that are likely to  be released to the  air can be used  to
          design sampling efforts and  identify  candidate  constituents to  be
          monitored. This  information  can be obtained from  either review of the
          existing  information  on the  waste  or  from  new  sampling  and analysis.
          The manner  in which the  wastes are treated, stored or disposed may have
          a  bearing on the  magnitude of air emissions  from  a unit.  In  many cases,
          this  information  may be  obtained from facility  records,  contact with the
          manufacturer of any control devices, or, in  some cases, from  the facility's
          RCRA permit application.

          Environmental  setting information:  Environmental setting  information,
          particularly   climatological  data,  is essential  in  characterizing  an  air
          release.  Climatologica parameters such as wind  speed  and  temperature
          will  have a  significant impact on  the  distribution of  a  release  and  in
          determining whether  a  particular constituent  will  be released.
          Climatological and meteorological information for  the  area  in which the
          facility is located can  be obtained  either  through an  onsite monitoring
          effort  or  from  the  National Climatic Data  Center (Asheville, NC).  The
          climatoiogical data should be  evaluated considering  site  topography and
          other local influences that can affect the data representatives.

     Information  pertaining to  the  waste,  unit,  and  environmental  setting can  be
found  in  many readily  available   sources.     General   information  concerning
waste/unit characterization  is discussed  in Section 7.  Air  specific information  is
provided  in  the following  discussions.  .
                                      12-20

-------
12.3.1           Waste Characterization

     Several waste  characteristics  contribute to  the potential  for  a waste
constituent to be released via  the  air pathway. These  characteristics,  in conjunction
with  the  type of unit and its operation, will determine whether  a release will be  via
volatilization  of the constituent  or as  particulate entrainment.    Major  factors
include  the types and  number  of  hazardous constituents present,   the
concentrations of these constituents in  the waste(s),  and  the chemical  and physical
characteristics of the waste and  its  constituents.  All of these factors should  be
considered in the context of the  specific unit operation  involved. It is important  to
recognize  that  the  constituents of concern  in  a particulate  release  may  involve
constituents  that  are either sorbed  onto the  particulate,  or constituents  which
actually comprise  the particulate.

12.3.1.1         Presence of Constituents

     The composition of  the wastes managed in  the unit of concern will influence
the nature of a release to air. Previous studies  may  indicate  that  the constituents
are  present  in  the unit  or that  there  is a  potential  for  the presence  of these
constituents.   In  determining  the nature  of a release, it  may be  necessary  to
determine  the specific waste constituents in  the  unit if  this has not  already  been
done. Guidance on  selecting monitoring constituents  is presented  in Section 3 (and
Appendix B); waste  characterization guidance  is presented in  Section 7.

12.3.1.2         Physical/Chemical  Properties

     The physical  and  chemical  properties  of the waste constituents  will affect
whether they will be  released,  and if released, what  form the release  will  take (i.e.,
vapor,  particulate,  or particulate-associated). These parameters are  identified  in
Table  12-3 as  a  function  of  emission  and  waste  type. Important parameters  to
consider  when assessing  the volatilization of  a constituent include the  following:

     •     Water  solubility.   The  solubility in  water  indicates  the maximum
           concentration  at which  a  constituent  can dissolve  in  water at a given
           temperature.    This  value  can  help the  investigator estimate  the
                                      12-21

-------
                                        TABLE 12-3
           PARAMETERS AND MEASURES FOR USE IN EVALUATING POTENTIAL
                RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS TO AIR
   Emission and Waste Type
A. Vapor Phase Emissions

    -  Dilute  Aqueous
       Solution

    -  Cone.  Aqueous
       Solution2'
       Immiscible  Liquid


    - Solid




 B. Participate Emissions

    - Solid
     Units of Concern^
Surface  Impoundments,
Tanks,  Containers

Tanks, Containers, Surface
impoundments
Containers, Tanks
Landfills, Waste Piles, Land
Treatment
     Useful Parameters
       and Measures
Solubility, Vapor Pressure,
Partial  Pressure3'

Solubility, Vapor Pressure,
Partial Pressure, Raoults
Law

Vapor Pressure,  Partial
Pressure

Vapor Pressure,  Partial
Pressure,  Octanol/Water
Partition  Coefficient,
Porosity
Landfills, Waste Piles, Land   Particle Size  Distribution,
Treatment               •     Unit Operations,
                              Management  Methods
!/  Incinerators are not specifically listed on this table because of the unique issues concerning air emissions
   from these units. Although incinerators can burn many forms of waste, the potential for release from
   these units is primarily a function of incinerator operating conditions and emission controls, rather than
   waste characteristics.

2/  Although the  octanol/water partition coefficient of a constituent is  usually not an important
   characteristic  in these waste streams, there are conditions where it can be critical. Specifically, in waste
   containing  high concentrations  of  organic  particulates, constituents with high  octanol/water  partition
   coefficients will  adsorb to the particulates. They will become part of the sludge or sediment matrix,
   rather than volatilizing from the unit.

3/  Applicable  to  mixtures of volatile components.
                                           12-22

-------
     distribution Of  a constituent  between the dissolved  aqueous phase  in  the
     unit and  the  undissolved  solid or immiscible liquid phase.  Considered in
     combination  with the constituent's  vapor pressure, volubility  can provide
     a relative assessment of  the  potential  for  volatilization of a constituent
     from  an  aqueous  environment.

•    Vapor  pressure. This property is a measure of the pressure of vapor in
     equilibrium  with a  pure  liquid.   It is best used in a  relative  sense;
     constituents  with high vapor  pressures are  more  likely  to be  released
     than those with  low  vapor  pressures, depending on other factors such as
     relative volubility and concentration (e. g.,  at high  concentrations releases
     can occur even though a constituent's vapor pressure is relatively low).

•    Octanol/water  partition  coefficient     The  octanol/water  partition
     coefficient indicates  the  tendency  of an  organic  constituent to sorb to
     organic  components  of soil  or  waste  matrices.  Constituents  with  high
     octanol/water  partition  coefficients tend  to adsorb  readily  to organic
     carbon,  rather  than volatilizing  to  the  atmosphere.  This  is particularly
     important in  landfills and land  treatment  units, where  high organic
     carbon  content  in  soils  or cover  material  can  significantly  reduce  the
     release  potential  of  volatile constituents.

•    Partial   pressure.  For constituents in  a  mixture,   particularly  in a solid
     matrix,  the  partial  pressure of a  constituent will be more significant  than
     pure  vapor pressure.  A  partial  pressure measures  the  pressure  which
     each component of  a mixture  of liquid  or solid substances will exert in
     order to enter the  gaseous phase.  The rate  of volatilization of an organic
     chemical  when  either dissolved  in  water or  present in  a  solid  mixture is
     characterized  by  the partial  pressure of  that chemical.  In  general,  the
     greater  the partial  pressure, the  greater the  potential  for release,  partial
     pressure  values are  unique for  any given chemical in any  given mixture
     and may be  difficult to  obtain.  However when waste characterization
     data  are available,  partial pressure  can be estimated  using  methods
     commonly found in  engineering and environmental science handbooks.
                                 12-23

-------
                      TABLE 12-4
PHYSICAL PARAMETERS OF VOLATILE HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
Hazardous constituent
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Allylchioride
Benzene
Benzyl chloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloroprene
Cresols
Cumene (isopropyl benzene)
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
Dioxin
Epichlorohydrin
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene oxide
Formaldehyde
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hydrogen cyanide
Hydrogen flouride
Hydrogen sulfide
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Maleic anhydride
Methyl acetate
N-Dimethylnitrosamine
Naphthlene
Nitrobenzene
Nitrosomorpholine
Phenol
Phosgene
Phthalic anhydride
Propylene oxide
1 ,1 ,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinylchloride
Vinylidenechloride
Xylenes
Molecular
weight
44
56
53
76.5
78
126.6
154
112
119
88.5
108
120
147
99
85
178
92.5
106
44
30
261
27
20
34
273
98
74
81
123


94
98
148

168
166
92
133
131
62.5
97
106
Vapor pressure
at 25°C (mm Hg)
915
244
114
340
95
1.21
109
12
192
215
0.4
4.6
1.4
62
360
7.6E-7
13
10
1,095
3,500
0.15
726
900
15,200
0.03
0.3
170
3.4
0.23
0.3
5.3
0.34
1,300
0.03
400
9
15
30
123
90
2,600
500
8.5
Volubility
at25°C(mg/1)
1.00E +06
4.00E +05
7.90E +04

1.78E +03
1.00
8.00E +02
5.00E +02
8.00E +03

2.00E +04
50.0
49.00
8.69E +03
2.00E +04
3.17E-04
6.00E +04
152
1.35E +05
3.00E +05





1.63E +05
3.19E+05


1.90E +03

9.30E +04

6.17E+03

2.90E +03
200
534
720
1.10E +03
6.00E +03

1.00
Henry's Law
constant
(atmVmol)
9.50E-05
4.07E-05
8.80E-05
340E-01
5.50E-03

2.00E-02
2.00E-03
3.00E-03

4.60E-07
2.00E-04

1.00E-04
2.00E-03
1.20E-03
3.08E-05
7.00E-03








1.00E-04


1.30E-05

1.02E-05

9.00E-07

2.00E-04

5.00E-03
2.15E-02
8.92E-03
1.90E-01

4.04E-04
                        12-25

-------
                      TABLE 12-5
        PHYSICAL PARAMETERS OF PCB MIXTURES*
Arochlor
(PCB)
1242
1248
1254
1260
Vapor pressure
at 25°C (atm)
2.19E-07
1.02E-07
1.85E-08
5.17E-09
Volubility
at 25°C (mg/1)
2400
520
120
30
Henry's Law
constant
(atm-mVmol)
238E-08
1.02E-08
1.40E-08
6.46E-08
All values  estimated  based  on  calculations.
                         12-26

-------
formation.  For example, the presence of ash materials and similar wastes would be
a case in which particulate emissions would be of concern.

12.3.2          Unit Characterization

      Different types of units  may  have differing release  potentials. The particular
type  of  unit,  its  configuration,  and  its  operating  conditions will  have a  great  effect
on  the nature, extent, and rate of the release. These practices or parameters should
be  determined and reasonable  worst-case operating practices  or conditions should
also  be identified prior to  initial sampling.

12.3.2.1         Type of Unit

      The  type of  unit will affect  its release potential  and  the types  of  releases
expected.  For the  purpose  of  this  guidance,  units have  been divided into  three
general types with  regard  to investigating releases to air.  These  are:

      •    Area  sources  having  solid  surfaces,  including  land  treatment facilities,
           surfaces  of landfills, and waste piles;

      •    Point  sources,   including vents,  (e.g.,  breathing  vents from  tanks)  and
           ventilation outlets  from  enclosed units (e.g.,  container handling facilities
           or stacks); and

      •    Area sources having liquid surfaces, including  surface  impound  merits and
           open-top tanks.

      The following  discussion provides  examples  for each  of these unit types and
illustrates the kind  of data that should  be collected  prior to establishing  a sampling
plan.  Table 12-6  indicates types of releases most likely to be observed from each of
these  example unit  types.  It should also be recognized  that  releases to air can be
continuous or intermittent  in  nature.

      Waste  piles - Waste piles  are primary sources of particulate releases due to
entrainment into  the air of solid  particles from  the  pile.  Waste piles  are generally
comprised  of dry  materials  which may  be  released  into the air by wind or
                                       12-27

-------
                              TABLE 12-6
     SUMMARY OF TYPICAL UNIT SOURCE TYPE AND AIR RELEASE TYPE
Typical
Unit Type
Waste Piles
Land Treatment
Units
Landfills
Drum Handling
Facilities
Tanks
Surface
Impoundments
Incinerators*
Source Type
Area Sources
with Liquid
Surface




X
X

Area Sources
with Solid
Surface
X
X
X




Point Sources


X
X
X

X
Potential Phase
of Release
Vapor
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Particulate
X
X
X
X


X
Includes units (e.g.,  garbage incinerators) not covered by 40 CFR Part 264,
 Subpart 0 which pertains to  hazardous waste incinerators.
                                12-28

-------
operational  activities. The major  air contaminants  of  concern from  waste piles will
be  those compounds that are part of  or have been adsorbed  onto  the  particulates.
Additionally,  volatilization  of  some constituents  may  occur.  Important  unit  factors
include the waste  pile  dimensions (e.g., length, width, height, diameter  and  shape),
and the  waste management practices  (e.g., the frequency and manner in  which the
wastes are applied to  the pile  and whether any  dust  suppression procedures are
employed). The  pile  dimensions determine  the  surface  area  available for  wind
erosion.  Disturbances to the pile can break down the surface crust and thus increase
the  potential  for  particulate  emissions.  Dust suppression  activities,  however,  can
help to reduce particulate emissions.

     Land treatment units - Liquid or sludge wastes may be applied to tracts of soil
in various ways such as surface spreading of  sludges, liquid spraying on  the surface,
and subsurface  liquid  injection.   These methods  may  also involve  cultivation or
tilling of the soil.  Vapor  phase and  particulate  contaminant releases are  influenced
by  the various application techniques.  Particulate  or  volatile emission  releases are
most likely  to  occur during  initial application  or during  tilling, because  tilling keeps
the soil unconsolidated  and loose, and  increases the air to waste surface  area.

     Important unit factors in assessing  an  air  release  from a  land treatment  unit
include:

     •    Waste   application  method  - Liquid  spraying applications tend  to
           minimize particulate  releases while increasing  potential  volatile releases.
           Subsurface  applications generally  reduce  the   potential for  particulate
           and volatile releases.

     •    Moisture content  of  the waste - Wastes with high  moisture  content will
           be less likely  to  be released as particulates;  however, a potential  vapor
           phase release  may become  more likely.

     •    Soil characteristics - Certain constituents, such as hydrophobic organics,
          will  be  more likely to  be  bound  to highly  organic soils than  non-organic
           soils. Therefore, releases of these types of constituents are  most likely to
           be associated  with particulate emissions.
                                      12-29

-------
      Landfills ~ Landfills can  result in  particulate  and vapor  phase  releases. This
process  generally  involves placement of  waste  in  subsurface  disposal  cells and
subsequent  covering  of  the  waste  with  uncontaminated  soil.  Landfill  characteristics
that  can  affect  contaminant release  include:

      •     Porosity and  moisture content of the  soil or clay covering  can  influence
          the  rate at which vapor  phase releases move through  the soil towards the
          surface.  Finer soils  with  lower  porosities  will generally slow  movement of
          vapors through the  unit.  The  frequency of applying  soil  cover  to  the
          open  working face  of  a landfill  will  also affect  the time  of  waste
          exposure  to  the air.

      •    Co-disposal  of hazardous  and  municipal wastes will  often  increase  the
          potential  for  vapor  phase  releases,  because biodegradation  of municipal
          wastes results  in the  formation  of methane  gas  as well as  other  volatile
          organics.  Methane  gas  may act as  a driving force  for release of other
          volatile hazardous  components  that may  be in  the unit (See  Section  11  -
          Subsurface  Gas.)

      •    Landfill gas vents,  if present, can  act  as sources  of vapor phase emissions
          of  contaminated landfill  gases.

      •    Leachate  collection  systems  can  be  sites of  increased  vapor  phase
          emissions  due  to  the concentrated  nature of  the  leachate collected.
          Open  trenches are  more  likely  to  be  emission sources than underground
          collection  sumps due  to  the increased  exposure  to the atmosphere.

      •    Waste mixing  or consolidation areas  where  bulk wastes  are mixed  with
          soil or  other  materials  (e.g.,  fly   ash) prior  to   landfilling  can  be
          contributors  to both particulate  and  vapor phase air releases.  Practices
          such  as  spreading  materials on  the  ground  to  release  moisture prior  to
          landfilling will  also  increase  exposure to the  atmosphere.

      Drum  handling facilities-Emissions from  drum or  container  handling  areas can
result from  several  types  of  basic  operations.   Frequently,  emissions  from   these
operations are  vented to  the  air through  ducts  or ventilation systems.  Air  sampling
                                       12-30

-------
to assess emissions  from these  operations  may include sampling  of the control
device  outlets,  the workplace  atmosphere at each operation,  or the ambient air
downwind  of the unit. Factors which  effect emissions include:

     •     Filling operations can  be  a major  source of either  vapor or particulate
           emissions due to agitation  of  the materials during  the  filling  process.
           Spillage which occurs during loading  may also contribute  to  emissions.
           Organic waste components  with high  volatility will readily vaporize into
           the  air.  Similarly, particulate matter can  be  atmospherically  entrained by
           agitation and  wind action. The emission  potential of filling  operations
           will  be affected by exposure to  ambient air.  Generally,  fugitive emissions
           from an enclosed building will   be less than  emissions  created  during
           loading  in an  open structure.

     •     Cleaning operations  can  have  a  high  potential  for emissions. These
           emissions may be enhanced by the use of solvents or steam  cleaning
           equipment.  The waste collection   systems  at these operations usually
           provide  for surface runoff  to open or  below ground sumps,  which can
           also contribute to air emissions.

     •     Volatilization of waste components  can  also  occur  at  storage units.  Since
           it  is  common  practice to segregate incompatible wastes during  storage,
           the  potential for air releases  may  differ within  a storage unit  depending
           on  the  nature  of the  wastes stored in  any particular area.  The  most
           common source of air emission  releases from drum  storage areas is spills
           from  drums  ruptured  during  shipping and handling.

     •     For  offsite  facilities,  storage areas frequently are  located  where  drums
           are  sampled during the  waste  testing/acceptance  process. This process
           involves drum  opening  for sampling and could also include  spillage of
           waste materials on the ground or floor.

     Important release information  includes emission  rates,  and  data to  estimate
release  rise (e.g.,  vent height and diameter  as well as vent exit  temperature and
velocity).  Information  pertaining  to building dimension/orientation  of  the unit and
nearby  structures is needed  to assess the  potential  for aerodynamic behavior  of the
                                      12-31

-------
stack/vent  release.  These input  data would  be  needed  if atmospheric dispersion
modeling was necessary.

     Tanks-Tanks can  emit volatile waste components  under various circumstances.
A  major determinant  of any  air  emission will be the  type of tank being studied.
Closed  or fixed  roof storage tanks  will most likely  exhibit less potential for air
emissions than open  topped  tanks.  Some tanks  are equipped  with vapor  recovery
systems  that  are designed  to  reduce  emissions. Important process  variables for
understanding  air  emissions  from  tanks  can  be classified  as descriptive  and
operational  variables:

     •    Descriptive variables include type, age,  location, and configuration  of the
          tank.

     •    Operational  variables  include aeration,  agitation, filling  techniques,
          surface area,  throughput,  operating pressure  and temperature, sludge
          removal  technique  and frequency, cleaning technique  and  frequency,
          waste  retention and vent pipe dimensions and flow rate.

     Important  release  information includes  emission   rates,  and data  to  estimate
plume  rise  (e.g., height  and diameter  as  well  as exit temperature and  velocity).
Information  pertaining  to building dimensions/orientation  of the unit  and nearby
structures  is needed  to  assess  the potential  for aerodynamic  behavior of the
stack/vent release.  These input  data would  be  needed  if atmospheric dispersion
modeling was necessary.

     Surface impoundments-Surface  impoundments are similar in  many  ways to
tanks in the manner in  which air emissions may be created. Surface impoundments
are generally larger, at  least  in terms of exposed  surface areas,  and are generally
open  to  the atmosphere.  The process  variables important for  the  evaluation of
releases to air from surface impoundments can also be classified as descriptive and
operational.

     •    Descriptive parameters  include  dimensions,  including  length, width,  and
          depth,  berm design,  construction  and liner  materials  used,  and the
          location of  the  unit on  the  site.
                                     12-32

-------
     •     Operational  parameters  include  freeboard,  filling  techniques  (in
           particular,  splash versus  submerged inlet),  depth of liquid and sludge
           layers,  presence of multiple  liquid  layers,  operating  temperature, sludge
           removal techniques and frequency, cleaning technique  and frequency,
           presence   of aerators  or mixers,  biological  activity  factors  for
           biotreatment, and  the  presence  of baffles,  oil layers,  or  other control
           measures on the liquid  surface. (These factors are relevant to some  tanks
           aswell.)

     Some surface  impoundments are  equipped with leak  collection  systems that
collect leaking liquids,  usually  into a sump. Air  emissions can also occur from these
sumps.  Sump  operational characteristics and  dimensions  should  be  documented
and,  if  leaks  occur,  the volume  of material  entering  the  sump should  be
documented.  (These factors are relevant to some tanks as well.)

     Incinerators  -  Stack emissions  from  incinerators  (i.e., incinerator units  not
addressed  by RCRA in Part 264,  Subpart 0, e.g.,  municipal  refuse  incinerators) can
contain  both particulate and  volatile constituents. The high temperatures of the
incineration process can also cause volatilization of low vapor pressure organics and
metals.  Additional  volatile releases  can  occur from  malfunctioning valves during
incinerator  charging. The  potential  for air  emissions from these  units  is primarily a
function  of incinerator  operating  conditions and emission  controls.  Important  unit
release  information includes emission  rates,  and data  to  estimate plume  rise  (e.g.,
height  and diameter as well as exit temperature and  velocity),  as  well as  building
dimensions/orientation of the  unit  and  nearby  structures. This information is
needed  to  assess the  aerodynamic behavior of the stack/vent release  and for  input
to atmospheric  dispersion models.

12.3.2.2        Size of Unit

     The  size  of the  unit(s)  of  concern  will have  an  important  impact  on the
potential magnitude  of  a  release  to  air.  The  release  of hazardous constituents to
the air from  an area source is often directly proportional to the  surface area of the
unit, whether this surface area is  a liquid  (e.g., in a tank) or a solid  surface  (e.  g., a
land treatment  unit). The scope  of the air  investigation  may be a function of the
                                      12-33

-------
size of the  unit.  Generally,  more sampling  locations will  be required as  the  unit
increases in  size, due primarily to increased  surface area. Also, as  the total amount
of waste  material  present  in  a particular  unit increases, it will  represent  a  larger
potential reservoir or source of constituents which  may be released.

     Scaling factors,  such as surface area to  volume ratios should also  be  evaluated.
One large  waste pile, for instance, can  exhibit  a  lower ratio of surface area to total
volume than the sum of two smaller  piles in which the total volume  equals that of
the larger pile. Other units  such as tanks may exhibit a  similar economy  of surface
area, based on the compact geometry of the  unit.

     Because releases to air  generally  occur  at  the waste/atmosphere  interface,
surface area is  generally  a  more  important  factor than  total  waste volume.
Consequently,  operations that increase the atmosphere/waste  interface, such  as
agitation or  aeration, splash  filling,  dumping  or  filling  operations,  and  spreading
operations  will tend to increase the emission  rate. Total  emissions,  however, will  be
a  function  of the  total  mass of  the  waste  constituent(s)  and  the  duration of  the
release.

     For  point  sources,  the  process  or waste  throughput rate will  be  the most
important  unit information  needed  to evaluate the  potential for  air  emissions  (i.  e.,
stack/vent releases).

12.3.2.3         Control Devices

     The  presence of air pollution  control  devices  on  units  can have a  major
influence on  the  nature  and extent of releases. Control  devices  can include wet or
dry  scrubbers,  electrostatic  precipitators,  baghouses,  filter  systems,  wetting
practices for solid  materials,  oil layers on  surface  impoundments, charcoal  or resin
absorption  systems,  vapor flares, and  vapor  recovery   systems.   Many  of  these
controls systems  can be  installed on many of  the unit types  discussed in this  section.
Due to the variety of types of devices  and the range of operational differences, an in
depth  discussion  of individual control  devices is not  presented here.   Additional
information on  control technologies for  hazardous  air  pollutants  is  available in  the
following  references:
                                      12-34

-------
      U.S. EPA.   1986.   Handbook -  Control  Technologies  for  Hazardous Air
      Pollutants.  EPA/625/6-86/014.  Office of Research  and Development.  Research
     Triangle Park,  N.C. 27711.

      U.S.  EPA.  1986.   Evaluation  of  Control  Technologies  for  Hazardous Air
      Pollutants:  Volume  1  - Technical Report.  EPA/600/7-86/009a. NTIS PB 86-
      167020.  Volume 2  -  Appendices.  EPA/600/7-86/009b. NTIS  PB 86-167038.
      Office of Research and  Development.  Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.

      If a  control  device  is present  on   the  unit  of concern, descriptive and
operational characteristics  of  the  unit/control  device  combination  should be
reviewed and documented.  In many cases,  performance testing of these devices has
been conducted  after  their  installation on  the  unit(s).  Information from  this testing
may help to quantify  releases to air from the unit(s); however, this  testing  may not
have been performed  under a "reasonable  worst-case"  situation.  The  conditions
under  which the  testing was performed should  be documented.

12.3.2.4        Operational  Schedules

     Another characteristic which can affect the magnitude of a release to air from
a unit is the  unit's  operational schedule, if the  unit is operational on a part time or
batch  basis,  the  emission  or release  rate  should  be measured during  both
operational and  non-operational  periods. In contrast  to  batch operations,  emission
or release  rates  from  continuous waste  management operations  may  be measured
at any time.

12.3.2.5        Temperature  of  Operation

     Phase changes of liquids and  solids to gases is directly related  to  temperature.
Therefore,  vapor  phase releases to  air are  directly proportional  to  process
temperature.    Thus,  it  is  important  to  document  operational  temperature  (i.e.,
waste  temperature)  and  fluctuations to enhance  the understanding  of releases  to
air from  units.  Particular attention should be paid to this parameter in the  review of
existing data  or information  regarding  the  operation of the  unit.
                                     12-35

-------
     The  release  rate  of volatile  components also  generally  increases  with
temperature.   Frequently, the  same effect  is observed,  for particulate,  because
entrainment is  enhanced  as materials are  dried.  Thus, the  evaporation of  any water
from solids, which generally increases as  temperature increases, will  likely increase
the emissions  of  many particulate in the waste  streams. Evaporation  of water may
also serve  to  concentrate wastes, leading to conditions  more conducive  to  vapor
phase  releases to  air.  It should  also  be noted  that the  destruction efficiency of
incinerators  is also a  function  of  temperature  (i.  e.,  higher temperatures  are
generally  associated with greater destruction efficiency).

12.3.3          Characterization  of the  Environmental Setting

     Environmental factors can  influence  not only the rate of a release  to  air but
also the  potential for  exposure.  Significant  environmental  factors  include  climate,
soil conditions, terrain and location of receptors. These factors are discussed below.

12.3.3.1        Climate

     Wind,  atmospheric  stability and temperature conditions  affect emission rates
from area sources as well as atmospheric dispersion conditions for both  area and
point sources.  Historical summaries of climatic factors  can provide a basis  to  assess
the long-term  potential for air  emissions and  to  characterize  long-term ambient
concentration  patterns  for  the area.  Short-term  measurements of  these  conditions
during  air  monitoring  will provide the  meteorological  data  needed  to interpret  the
concurrent air  quality data.  Meteorological  monitoring  procedures are  discussed in
Section 12.8.  Available climatic  information, on  an annual and monthly  or  seasonal
basis,  should  be  collected for  the following parameters:

     •    Wind direction  and  roses  (which  affects atmospheric  transport,  and  can
           be used to determine the  direction and dispersion of release migration);

     •     Mean  wind speeds  (which affects the  potential for  dilution  of releases to
          air);

     •    Atmospheric stability  distributions (which affects  dispersion conditions);
                                       12-36

-------
     •    Temperature  means  and  extremes  (which  affects  the  potential  for
          volatilization,  release rise and wind  erosion);

     •    Precipitation  means  (which affects the potential  for  wind erosion  of
          particulate);

     •    Atmospheric  pressure  means (which  affects the  potential  for  air
          emissions  from  landfills);  and

     •    Humidity means (which  can affect  the  air collection  efficiencies  of some
          absorbents - see Section  12.8).

     The  primary source of climate information for the United States is the National
Climatic Data Center (Asheville, NC).  The National Climatic  Data Center can provide
climate  summaries  for the National Weather  Service station  nearest to the site  of
interest.  Standard references  for climatic  information  include  the  following:

     National  Climatic Data Center. Local  Climatological  Data - Annual Summaries
     with  Comparative Data, published annually.  Asheville,  NC  28801.

     National  Climatic Data  Center.  Climates of the States.  1973.  Asheville,  NC
     28801.

     National  Climatic  Data Center.  Weather Atlas of  the  United  States.  1968.
     Asheville,  NC 28801.

     The  Climatological  data  should be  evaluated considering the effects  of
topography and  other local influences  that  can affect data  representativeness.

     A  meteorological  monitoring  survey  may be conducted  prior to ambient  air
monitoring to  establish  the  local  wind  flow patterns  and  for  determining  the
number and  locations of  sampling stations.   The  survey  results will be  used  to
characterize local  prevailing winds  and  diurnal wind flow  patterns (e. g.,  daytime
upslope winds,  nighttime downslope winds, sea breeze conditions) at  the  site.  The
survey  should  be conducted  for a  one-month period  and  possibly  longer  to
adequately  characterize  anticipated wind  patterns  during  the  air  monitoring
                                     12-37

-------
 reprogram.     Inland,  flat  terrain conditions  may  not necessitate  an  onsite
 meteorological monitoring survey  if  representative data are  available from  previous
 onsite studies or from National Weather Service  stations.

      The  meteorological monitoring  data  collected  during  the  initial  monitoring
 phase can  serve as a  basis  for the placement  of air sampling  stations  during  any
 subsequent  monitoring  phases.

 12.3.3.2         Soil  Conditions

      Soil conditions  (e.g.,  soil porosity) can affect air emissions from landfills  and
 the  particulate  wind  erosion  potential  for contaminated surface  soils.    Soil
 conditions pertinent  to  characterizing  the potential for  air emissions  include  the
 following:

      •    Soil porosity  (which affects the  rate of potential gaseous emissions);

      •    Particle size distribution (which affects the  potential  for  particulate
           emissions  from contaminated  soils); and

      •    Contaminant  concentrations in soil (i. e., potential to  act  as air emission
           sources).

      Soil characterization information  is presented  in Section 9.

 12.3.3.3         Terrain

      Terrain  features can  significantly  influence  the  atmospheric transport of air
 emissions.    Terrain  heights  relative  to  release heights  will  affect  groundlevel
 concentration.  Terrain obstacles  such  as  hills and  mountains  can  divert  regional
winds. Likewise,  valleys  can channel wind  flows  and also limit horizontal  dispersion.
 In addition,  complex  terrain  can  result in  the  development  of  local  diurnal wind
 circulations  and  affect wind speed,  atmospheric  turbulence  and  stability  conditions.
Topographic  maps of the facility  and adjacent areas are needed  to  assess local and
 regional  terrain.  Guidance  on the appropriate format  and  sources  of  topographic
 and other maps is presented in Section 7 and Appendix  A.
                                      12-38

-------
 12.3.3.4         Receptors

      Information  concerning the  locations  of nearby  buildings and  the population
distribution in the vicinity  of the site  are  needed to identify  potential  air-pathway
receptors.  This  receptor information  provides  a  basis for  determining the  need for
interim  corrective measures.  Both  environmental  and  human  receptor  information
is needed  to assess  potential air-pathway exposures.  Such information may include:

     •     A  site boundary  map;

     •     Location of nearest  buildings and residences for each of the sixteen  22.5
           degree sectors  which corresponds  to major  compass points  (e.g., north,
           north-northwest);

     •     Location  of buildings  and  residences  that  correspond  to  the area  of
           maximum  offsite ground  level  concentrations  based  on  preliminary
           modeling  estimates  (these locations may not necessarily be near the site
           boundary  for elevated releases);  and

     •     Identification  of nearby sensitive  receptors  (e.g., nursing homes,
           hospitals,  schools, critical  habitat of endangered or threatened species).

     The  above  information  should  be  considered  in  the   planning of an air
monitoring program.  Additional  guidance  on receptor  information is  provided  in
Section 2.

12.3.4          Review of  Existing  Information

     The review of  existing air modeling/monitoring  data  entails  both  summarizing
the reported  air contaminant  concentrations   as  well  as  evaluating  the  quality  of
these data. Air data  can   be  of many varieties and of varying utility  to the RFI
process.  Modeling data should  be evaluated based on the applicability of the model
used, model  accuracy, as  well  as  the quality and  representativeness of the input
data.
                                      12-39

-------
     One of the most basic parameters to review in any type  of air  monitoring data
should  be the validity  of  the  sampling locations  used  during the collection of the
monitoring data. The results  of  previous investigations should be  assessed with
respect to the upwind-downwind pattern  around  the  unit  to  determine  the
likelihood that the sampling devices would have measured releases from the unit of
concern.   For relatively simple  sites  (e.g.,  flat  terrain,  constant  wind  speed and
direction),  this  determination should  be  fairly straight-forward;  however,  for
complex sites  (e. g., complex terrain, variable winds, multiple sources,  etc.), assessing
the appropriateness  of  past sampling locations  should consider such factors  as
potential interferences that may not have been  addressed by the sampling scheme.

     The most  useful monitoring  data are compound-specific  results which can  be
associated with  the unit being investigated, or, for point sources (such as vent stacks
or ventilation system outlets), direct measurements of  the  exhaust  prior  to  its
release  into the atmosphere.   Because the hazardous  properties and  health and
environmental  criteria are  compound-specific,  general  compound  category or class
data (e.g., hydrocarbon  results)  are less meaningful.  Any  existing  air  data  should
also be described and documented as  to the  sampling  and analysis methods utilized,
the associated detection limits, precision  and  accuracy,  and  the  results  of QA/QC
analyses conducted. Results reported  as non-detected  (i. e.,  not providing numerical
detection limits)  are likely to be of  no value.

     In  addition, available upwind and downwind air  data should be  evaluated  to
determine if the  contamination  is  due  to releases  from the unit.  If background data
are available for the  unit  of concern,  the  data will be of much greater use in  the
planning of additional air  monitoring   tasks.  Upwind  data (to  characterize  ambient
air  background  levels) are important for  evaluating  if downwind contamination can
be  attributed  to the  unit  of  concern.   If  background data are not available,  the
existing  downwind  air concentration  data  will  be  of less  value in characterizing a
release;  however, the lack of background data does  not negate  the  utility  of  the
available  monitoring  data.

     Data  may   also be  available  from  air  monitoring  studies that did  not  focus
directly  on releases from a unit of concern.  Many  facilities conduct onsite  health
and  safety  programs, including routine  monitoring  of air quality for purposes  of
evaluating  worker  exposure.   This  type of data may  include personnel hygiene
                                      12-40

-------
monitoring results  from personal sampling  systems  worn  by employees as  they
perform  their jobs, general area monitoring  of  zones  at which hazardous
operations  are conducted, or  actual unit-emission  monitoring.  The  detection limits
of these  methods  (generally  in  parts  per million)  are frequently  higher  than  are
needed for RFI  purposes.  However, this type of industrial  hygiene  monitoring is
frequently compound-specific,  and can  be useful in qualitatively  evaluating  the  air
emissions from particular sources.

     Indoor air monitoring, generally  only applicable to units that  are enclosed  in a
building (e.g.,  drum  handling  areas  or  tanks),  often includes flow  monitoring of the
ventilation  system.  Monitoring of hoods and  ductwork systems may have been
conducted  to determine exchange  time and air  circulation rates.   These  flow
determinations  could  prove  to be useful in  the  evaluation  of air  emission
measurements during the RFI.

     Another  important aspect  of the  existing data  review  is  to  document any
changes  in composition  of the waste managed in the  unit  of  concern since  the  air
data were  collected. Also, changes  in  operating conditions  or system configuration
for  waste generation and/or  unit functions could  have major  effects on the nature
or extent  of releases to air.   If such operational  or waste  changes have  occurred,
they should be summarized  and reviewed to determine their  role  in the  evaluation
of existing data.  This  summary  and  review  will not negate the need to  take  new
samples  to characterize releases from  the  unit. However, such information can  be
useful  in the  planning  of the  new air monitoring activities.

12.3.5          Determination  of "Reasonable  Worst-Case"  Exposure  Period

     A "reasonable  worst-case"  exposure period  over a 90  day  period should  be
identified if  an  air monitoring  program is to  be conducted.  Determination  of
reasonable worst-case  exposure conditions will  aid  in  planning the air monitoring
program  and  is  dependent on seasonal variations in  emission  rates and  dispersion
conditions.

     The  selection of the "reasonable  worst-case"  90-day  exposure  period for the
conduct of air monitoring should account for the following factors:.
                                      12-41

-------
     •     For vapor  phase  releases,  wind speed and temperature  are the  key
           factors affecting releases  from the  unit.  In general,  the higher  the
           temperature and windspeed, the  greater the  rate  of  volatilization of
           constituents of  concern  from  the  waste.   This process  is  tempered,
           however,  by the fact that  at  higher windspeeds, dispersion of the release
           is  generally  greater,  resulting  in  lower downwind concentrations at
           potential  exposure  points.

     •     For particulate releases, wind speed is the key meteorological factor. The
           amount of  local precipitation  contributing  to  the degree  of moisture of
           the waste may  also be important. In general,  the higher the windspeed,
           and the drier the waste,  the  greater will be the potential for  particulate
           release. As with  vapor  phase releases, higher wind speeds may also lead
           to  greater  dispersion  of the  release,  resulting  in lower  downwind
           concentrations.

     •     For point  source  releases,   increased  wind   speeds  and  unstable
           atmospheric conditions  (e. g., during  cloudless days)  enhance  dispersion
           but  also  tend  to reduce  plume  height  and  can lead to relatively  high
           groundlevel  concentrations.

     •     Constituent  concentrations at  any downwind  sector will also be directly
           affected by  the  wind direction and  frequency.

     Air emission release  rate models  and atmospheric  dispersion  models can be
used  to identify  reasonable worst-case  exposure  conditions (i.e., to  quantitatively
account  for the  above factors).  For  this  application,  it  is  recommended that  the
modeling  effort  be limited  to  a screening/sensitivity  exercise with the  objective of
obtaining "relative" results  for a variety  of  source  and  meteorological scenarios. By
comparing  results in a relative fashion, only those input meteorological parameters
of greatest significance  (e.g.,  temperature,  wind speed  and stability)  need to be
considered.

     In general,  the summer season will be the "reasonable worst-case" exposure
period  at most sites because  of  relatively  high temperatures and  low windspeeds.
Spring  and fail are also candidate  monitoring seasons that should be evaluated on a
                                      12-42

-------
site-specific basis. Winter is  generally not a prime season for air monitoring due to
lower temperatures and  higher wind  speeds.

12.4       Air Emission  Modeling

12.4.1           Modeling  Applications

     Air emission models can be used to estimate constituent-specific emission rates
based  on  waste/unit input  data  for  many  types of waste management units.  (An
emission rate is  defined as the source  release rate  for the air  pathway in  terms of
mass per unit of time.)

     An important application  of  emission models  in  the  RFI  release
characterization  strategy for  air is  the conduct of screening assessments.  For  this
application,  available  waste/unit  input  data for emission models,  in  conjunction
with dispersion modeling results,  are used to estimate concentrations at locations of
interest.  These results can  then  be  evaluated to determine  if  adequate  information
is available for RFI decision  making  or if monitoring  is needed  to further reduce the
uncertainty associated with  characterizing the  release. Depending on the degree of
uncertainty in the estimated concentrations  relative  to the differences  between  the
estimated  concentrations and  the  health based levels,  modeling results  may be
sufficient  to  characterize  the  release  as  significant   (i.e.,  implementation  of
corrective action  would  be appropriate) or as insignificant  (i. e., no further  action is
warranted).

     Emission rate models can also  be used to identify potential major air  emission
sources  at a facility  (especially multiple-unit  facilities). For this type of application,
modeling  results  are  used  to  compare routine  long-term emissions from various
units to  prioritize  the need for release  characterization at each unit. For  example,
modeling  results  may indicate  that  90  percent  of  the  volatile organic compound
emissions  at  a  facility  are  attributable  to surface impoundment units  and only 10
percent to  other  sources. Therefore,  emphasis should  be  on characterizing  releases
from the surface  impoundments.

     Emission modeling is  not available for all air-related phenomenon  associated
with waste  management.   For example,  anaerobic  biological activity  in surface
                                      12-43

-------
impoundments may,  in  certain  instances, contribute  to  air  pollution  by emitting
constituents  not  contained in the waste placed  in the  impoundment  and which
available models  do  not  adequately  address,  in  such  instances,  source testing  or
monitoring  may be  necessary;  based on such  monitoring,  emission rates  can be
developed.

12.4.2          Model Selection

     The information  gathered  during  the initial  stage  of  the  air  investigation
should  be  used  to  select appropriate  models  and to estimate  unit-specific  and
constituent-specific  emission  rates.  A  thorough  understanding  of the available
models  is needed before  selecting a model for an  atypical  emission source. When
gathering information  on  any emission  source,  it  would  be useful to obtain  a
perspective  of the  potential variability  of  the  waste  and  unit  input  data.  A
sensitivity analysis of this  variability relevant to emission rate  estimates  would  help
determine the level of  confidence  associated with  the emission  modeling  results.

     Air emission models  can  be classified into two categories;  models which can be
used  to estimate volatile organic releases,  and  models  which  can be  used to
estimate particulate emissions. These  are  discussed below.

12.4.2.1         Organic Emissions

     Comprehensive  guidance on  the application of air emission models  for volatile
organic  releases from various  units is presented in  the following references:

     U.S. EPA. December 1987. Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and  Disposal
     Facilities (TSDF) - Air Emission Models. EPA-450/3-87-026. Office of Air Quality
     Planning and Standards.  Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

     U.S. EPA.  December 1988  Draft.  Procedures for  Conducting Air Pathway
     Analyses  for Superfund  Applications.   Office  of Air Quality  Planning  and
     Standards. Research  Triangle Park, NC 27711.
                                     12-44

-------
     These  references provide modeling guidance  for the following  units:

     •    Surface  impoundments
               Storage  impoundments
               Disposal  impoundments
               Mechanically  aerated  impoundments
               Diffused  air systems
               Oil film surfaces

     I     Land treatment
               Waste application
               Oil film surfaces
               Tilling

     I     Landfills
               Closed landfills
               Fixation  pits
               Open  landfills

     I     Waste  piles

     I     Transfer, storage  and handling operations
               Container  loading
               Container  storage
               Container  cleaning
               Stationary  tank loading
               Stationary  tank storage
               Spills
               Fugitive  emissions
               Vacuum  truck loading

Emission factors for various  evaporation loss sources (e.g.,  storage  and handling of
organic liquids) are provided  in the following reference:
                                      12-45

-------
     U.S.  EPA. 1985. (Fourth edition and  subsequent supplements) Compilation  of
     Air Pollutant  Emission  Factors. EPA AP-42. NTIS PB  86-124906.  Office of Air
     Quality Planning and Standards.  Research Triangle Park, NC  27711.

     An emission  factor  is generally defined as an average  value which relates the
quantity of a pollutant released  to  the  atmosphere with  the  activity associated  with
the release of  the  pollutant.   However, for estimation  of  organic releases from
storage tanks,  the emission factors  are  presented  in  terms of empirical formulae
which  can  relate emissions  to such variables as  tank diameter, liquid  temperature,
etc.

     Selection  of  an  appropriate air emission model will  be  based  primarily  on
selection of a  model  which is  appropriate for  the  unit  of  concern, has technical
credibility  and  is  practical  to use.   Some  of the models presented in  Hazardous
Waste  Treatment, Storage and Disposal  Facilities (TSDF) - Air Emission  Models (U.S.
EPA,   December 1987),  are  available on  a diskette for  use on  a microcomputer.
Computer-compatible air  emission  models  (referred to as  CHEMDAT6  models)  are
available for the following sources.

     •     Nonaerated  impoundments
     •     Open tanks
     •    Aerated  impoundments
     •     Land treatment
     •     Landfills

These  models  are  prime  candidates for  RFI  air release characterization applications.

12.4.2.2        Particulate Emissions

     Guidance  on the  selection  and application  of  air  emission  models  for
particulate  releases is  presented in  the  following references:

     U.S.  EPA. February  1985.   Rapid  Assessment of Exposure to Particulate
     Emissions from  Surface  Contamination Sites.  EPA/600-18-85/002.  Office  of
     Health and Environmental Research. Washington, D.C.  20460.
                                     12-46

-------
     U.S.  EPA. 1985. (Fourth edition and  subsequent supplements) Compilation of
     Air Pollutant  Emission  Factors. EPA, AP-42.  Office of Air Quality Planning and
     Standards. Research Triangle Park,  NC 27711.

     U.S.  EPA. 1978.  Fugitive Emissions from  Integrated Iron and Steel  Plants.  EPA
     600/2-78-050. Washington, D.C. 20460.

     U.S.  EPA.  December  1988  Draft. Procedures  for  Conducting Air  Pathway
     Analysis  for  Superfund  Applications.  Office  of Air Quality Planning  and
     Standards. Research Triangle Park,  NC 27711.

     These  references  provide  modeling  guidance  for  the  following  particulate
sources and  associated operations and activities (e.g.,  vehicular traffic):

     •     Wastepiles
     •     Flat, open surfaces

     The  air emission models for  both  types of sources should account  for  both
wind erosion  potential as well  as releases due to mechanical  disturbances.

     The   U.S.  EPA-Office  of  Air  Quality Planning   and  Standards   is  currently
developing guidance  regarding  particulate  emissions  from  hazardous  waste
transfer, storage and disposal facilities.

12.4.3           General  Modeling  Considerations

     Organics  in  surface  impoundments,  land  treatment  facilities,  landfills,  and
wastepiles,  can  depart  through  a  variety of pathways,  including  volatilization,
biological  decomposition, adsorption, photochemical  reaction, and hydrolysis. To
allow reasonable estimates  of organic disappearance,   it is  necessary to determine
which pathways predominate  for a  given   chemical,   type  of  unit, and  set of
meteorological  conditions.

     Source  variability will  significantly influence the relative  importance  of  the
pathways.  For highly variable  sources  it  may be possible  to exclude  insignificantly
small pathways from consideration. The  relative magnitude of  these pathways  then
                                      12-47

-------
can  be  computed  by applying the  methodology  to  a model facility to  determine
relative differences among various compounds. A summary  of typical pathways for
air emission sources is presented in Table 12-7.

      It is also necessary to consider the variation of waste composition as  a function
of time  as  well  as other  potential variations in  source  conditions.  These variable
conditions  may  necessitate multiple  modeling scenarios to adequately characterize
representative  waste/unit  conditions.

12.5       Dispersion  Modeling

12.5.1           Modeling  Applications

     Atmospheric dispersion  models  can be used  to estimate  constituent-specific
concentrations  at  locations  of  interest  based on input  emission   rate  and
meteorological  input  data.   The  major RFI dispersion  modeling  applications for
characterizing releases to air can be summarized as follows:

     •   Screening assessments:   Dispersion  models can  be used to estimate
          concentrations  at  locations of interest using  input emission  rate data
           based on air emission modeling.

     •    Emission  monitoring:    Dispersion models can be  used  to estimate
          concentrations  at  locations of interest using  input emission  rate data
           based on emission  rate monitoring.

     •   Confirmatory  air  monitoring:  Dispersion  modeling can be used to assist
           in designing an air  monitoring program (i. e.,  to  determine  appropriate
           monitoring locations  and monitoring period) as  well as  for interpretation
          and extrapolation  of monitoring  results.

     Atmospheric dispersion  models  can be used  for monitoring   program  design
applications to identify  areas of high concentration  relative  to the  facility property
boundary or actual  receptor  locations. High  concentration areas which  correspond
to actual receptors are  priority Locations  for air monitoring stations.
                                      12-48

-------
                                TABLE 12-7

            TYPICAL PATHWAYS FOR AREA  EMISSION SOURCESa
Pathway
Volatilization
Biodegradation
Photodecomposition
Hydrolysis
Oxidation/reduction
Adsorption
Hydroxyl radical reaction
Migration
Runoffb
Surface
Impoundments


s
s
N
N
N
N
N
Land
Treatment
I
I
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Landfill
I
s
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
I   =  Important
S  =  Secondary
N  =  Negligible  or not applicable

a Individual  chemicals in a given site type may  have dominant pathways
   different from the ones shown here.

b Water  migration  and  runoff are considered  to  have negligible  effects on
   ground and surface  water in  a  properly  sited, operated,  and maintained
   RCRA-permitted  hazardous waste treatment,  storage, and  disposal facility.
                                   12-49

-------
     Dispersion models  (with input  emission  rates based on emission models)  can
also be  used  to  provide seasonal  air concentration  "patterns"  based on available
representative  historical  meteorological data  (either  onsite  or  offsite).  Comparison
of seasonal air concentration patterns  can be used to identify the  "reasonable worst
case" period for monitoring. Air concentration  patterns  based  on  modeling  results
can similarly be used to  evaluate the representativeness of the actual data collection
period.    Representativeness is determined  by  comparing the  air concentration
patterns for  the actual  air  monitoring  period  with  historic  seasonal  air
concentration patterns.

     The objective  of the  modeling  applications  discussed  above involves  the
estimation of  long-term  (i.e.,   several  months to  years)  concentration  patterns.
These  long-term patterns do not  have  the  variability  associated with  short-term
(i.e., hours to days, such as a 24-hour event) emission rate and dispersion  conditions,
and  are  more  conducive to data  extrapolation applications.   For example,  near
source  and  fenceline air monitoring  results  can be used to  back calculate an
emission rate for the source.  This estimated emission  rate can be used as dispersion
modeling  input to  estimate  offsite air  concentrations  for the same  downwind sector
and exposure period as  for the  air monitoring period.

12.5.2           Model Selection

     Guidance on the selection  and application of dispersion models is  provided in
the following  references:

     U.S. EPA. July 1986. Guidelines on Air  Quality  Models (Revised). EPA-450/12-
     78-027R.  NTIS  PB86-245248.  Office  of Air Quality Planning and  Standards.
     Research Triangle Part, NC  27711.

     U.S.  EPA.  December  1988  Draft.  Procedures for Conducting Air Pathway
     Analyses  for  Superfund Applications.  Office  of  Air  Quality  Planning  and
     Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

     The following information  is based primarily on guidance  provided in  these
references.
                                      12-50

-------
 12.5.2.1  Suitability  of Models

     The extent to which a specific air quality model is suitable for the evaluation of
source  impact  depends upon several factors.  These include:  (1) the  meteorological
and  topographic  complexities of  the  area;   (2)  the  level of  detail  and  accuracy
needed  for the analysis; (3) the  technical  competence of those undertaking such
simulation  modeling; (4)  the  resources  available; and  (5) the  detail and accuracy of
the data  base,  i.e., emissions inventory,  meteorological data,  and air quality data,
Appropriate data  should  be available before any attempt is  made to apply  a  model.
A  model  that requires detailed, precise,  input data should  not be  used when such
data are unavailable.  However,  assuming  the data are adequate,  the greater  the
detail with which a model considers the spatial and temporal variations in  emissions
and  meteorological conditions,  the  greater  the ability to evaluate the  source  impact
and  to  distinguish the  effects of various control strategies.

     Air quality  models have been applied  with  the   most accuracy  or  the least
degree  of uncertainty  to simulations of long  term  averages in areas  with  relatively
simple  topography.   Areas subject to  major  topographic influences experience
meteorological  complexities that  are extremely  difficult to simulate.  Although
models are available  for such  circumstances, they are frequently  site-specific and
resource intensive.    In  the absence of a  model  capable of simulating  such
complexities, only a preliminary  approximation  may be feasible  until  such time as
better models and data bases become available.

     Models are  highly  specialized tools.  Competent  and experienced  personnel
are an  essential  prerequisite to the successful application of simulation models. The
need for specialists  is critical when the more  sophisticated  models are used  or  the
area being  investigated  has complicated  meteorological or topographic features. A
model  applied  improperly,  or with  inappropriately chosen  data, can  lead to serious
misjudgments  regarding the  source  impact  or  the  effectiveness  of a control
strategy.

     The resource demands generated  by use of air quality  models  vary  widely
depending  on  the specific  application.   The resources  required depend on  the
nature  of the model and  its  complexity, the detail  of the data  base, the difficulty of
                                      12-51

-------
the  application,  and the  amount  and  level  of  expertise  required.  The costs of
manpower  and  computational  facilities  may also  be  important  factors  in  the
selection  and  use of a  model  for a  specific analysis.   However,  it  should  be
recognized  that under  some  sets  of  physical  circumstances  and  accuracy
requirements,  no  present  model may  be  appropriate.  Thus,  consideration of these
factors should not lead to selection  of an  inappropriate model.

12.5.2.2         Classes of Models

     Dispersion  models can  be categorized  into four  generic  classes:  Gaussian,
numerical,  statistical  or empirical,   and  physical.  Within these classes,  especially
Gaussian and  numerical models,  a  large  number  of  individual  "computational
algorithms"  may  exist,  each with its own  specific applications.  While each  of the
algorithms may have the same generic basis, e.g.,  Gaussian, it is accepted  practice to
refer to  them individually as  models.    In many cases the only  real  difference
between  models within the different classes  is the  degree  of detail  considered in
the input or output data.

     Gaussian  models are  the most  widely  used  techniques  for  estimating  the
impact of nonreactive  pollutants. Numerical models may be  more appropriate  than
Gaussian  models for area source urban applications  that involve reactive  pollutants,
but they  require much more extensive input data bases and  resources  and therefore
are  not  as widely  applied.   Statistical  or  empirical  techniques  are   frequently
employed  in  situations where  incomplete  scientific  understanding  of  the physical
and  chemical  processes  or  lack of the  required data  bases make  the  use  of a
Gaussian  or numerical model  impractical.

     Physical  modeling, the fourth  generic type,  involves the use of wind tunnel or
other fluid modeling  facilities. This class  of modeling  is a complex  process requiring
a  high level of technical   expertise, as well as  access to the necessary facilities.
Nevertheless,  physical  modeling may be useful for complex flow situations, such  as
building,  terrain  or stack  down-wash conditions,  plume  impact on elevated terrain,
diffusion  in  an urban environment,   or diffusion in  complex terrain.  It  is  particularly
applicable to such situations for a source  or group of sources in a geographic  area
limited  to a  few  square  kilometers. The  publication  "Guideline  for  Fluid  Modeling
                                     12-52

-------
of Atmospheric Diffusion"  provides  information on fluid modeling  applications  and
the limitations of that method (U.S. EPA, 1981).

12.5.2.3         Levels of Sophistication  of Models

      In  addition  to the  various classes  of models, there  are  two  levels  of
sophistication.   The first level  consists  of  general,  relatively simple  estimation
techniques that provide conservative estimates of  the  air quality  impact of a  specific
source,  or source  category.  These are screening techniques or screening  models.
The  purpose of such techniques  is to eliminate the need  for further  more  detailed
modeling  for those  sources that clearly  can  be characterized and  evaluated based
on simple screening  assessments.

     The  second  level  consists  of those  analytical  techniques that  provide  more
detailed treatment of  physical  and  chemical  atmospheric  processes,  require  more
detailed  and precise input data,  and  provide  more  specialized  concentration
estimates. As a result they provide a more refined and,  at least  theoretically,  a more
accurate  estimate  of source  impact  and  the effectiveness  of control  strategies.
These are referred to as  refined models.

     The  use of screening techniques followed by a more refined analysis is always
desirable,  however, there are  situations  where the screening  techniques  are
practically  and technically  the  only viable  option  for  estimating source  impact.  In
such  cases,  an  attempt  should be made to acquire or improve  the necessary data
bases and to develop appropriate analytical  techniques.

12.5.2.4        Preferred Models

     Guidance on EPA  preferred models  for  screening  and refined  applications  is
provided  in  the following  references:

      U.S. EPA. July 1986.  Guidelines on Air  Quality Models (Revised). EPA-450/2-78-
     027R.  NTIS  P886-245248. Office of Air  Quality Planning  and  Standards.
     Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.
                                      12-53

-------
     U.S. EPA.  October 1977. Guidelines for  Air Quality Maintenance  Planning and
     Analysis. Vol.  10 (Revised):  Procedures for Evaluating  Air Quality  Impact of
     New  Stationary  Sources.  EPA-450/4-77-001.  NTIS  PB274-087.  Office of Air
     Quality Planning  and Standards.  Research Triangle Park,  N.C. 27711.

     U.S.  EPA.  December  1988 Draft.  Procedures  for Conducting  Air  Pathway
     Analyses  for  Superfund  Applications.   Office  of  Air  Quality  Planning  and
     Standards.  Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

     Appropriate dispersion  models  commensurate  with the above  guidance and
suitable for  mainframe computer use  are included  in the UNAMAP series  available
from NTIS. Versions of the  UNAMAP models  suitable  for use on a microcomputer
are also available from commercial sources.

     Alternative  screening approaches based on  hand calculations are available for
point sources located  in flat terrain based on the following guidance:

     Turner,  D.B.  1969.  Workbook  of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.  Public
     Health Service. Cincinnati,  OH.

     U.S.  EPA.  March  1988 Draft. A Workbook of Screening  Techniques for
     Assessing  Impacts of Toxic Air  Pollutants. Office of Air Quality Planning and
     Standards.  Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

     Preferred  models for selected  applications  in  simple terrain are identified  in
Table  12-8.   Appropriate dispersion  models  for complex terrain  applications
generally need  to be  determined on a  case-by-case basis. Acceptable models  may
not be available for many complex terrain applications.

     The use  of the  Industrial Source Complex (ISC)  Model  is  recommended as a
prime  candidate  for RFI  atmospheric dispersion modeling  applications.  Applicable
ISC source  types include stack area  and volume sources. Concentration  estimates
can be based on times of  as shot-t as one hour and as long as one year. The model
can be used for both flat and  rolling terrain.  The  ISC model can  also account for
atmospheric deposition (i.e.,  inter-media  transport to soil). The ISC Model (See  EPA
                                     12-54

-------
                                    TABLE 12-8

      PREFERRED MODELS FOR SELECTED APPLICATIONS IN SIMPLE TERRAIN
Short Term (1-24 hours)
Single Source
Multiple Source
Complicated Sources**
Buoyant Industrial Line Sources
Long Term (monthly, seasonal or annual)
Single Source
Multiple Source
Complicated Sources**
Buoyant Industrial Line Sources
Land Use
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural/Urban
Rural

Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural/Urban
Rural
Model*
CRSTER
RAM
MPTER
RAM
ISC*
BLP

CRSTER
RAM
MPTER
COM 2.0 or RAM***
ISC*
BLP
• The long-term version of ISC (i.e.,  ISCLT) is recommended as the preferred dispersion model for
   RFI applications.

** Complicated sources are sources  with special problems such as aerodynamic downwash,
   particle deposition, volume and area sources, etc.

***lf only a few sources in an urban area are to be modeled, RAM should be used.
                                       12-55

-------
450/4-86-005a and b)  is included in the UNAMAP series available  through the NTIS
(U.S. EPA, June 1986).

     Additional guidance on dispersion  model  selection  and application is available
from EPA  Regional Office and State  modeling representatives as  well  as from  the
EPA Model  Clearinghouse.

     If other than  preferred  models are selected  for  use, early discussions with  the
regulatory  agency  is  encouraged.   Agreement on  the  data  base  to  be  used,
modeling techniques to  be applied  and the overall technical  approach, prior to  the
actual  analyses, helps avoid misunderstandings concerning the final results and may
reduce  the  later  need  for additional  analyses.  The  preparation (and  submittal  to
the appropriate  regulatory  agency)  of a  written  modeling  protocol  is recommended
for all  RFI  atmospheric dispersion modeling applications.

12.5.3           General Modeling  Considerations

     Dispersion  modeling results  are  limited  by the  amount,  quality  and
representativeness  of the  input data.  In addition  to  meteorological  and  source data
modeling input,  the following  are also  important modeling  factors:

     •    Location  of  facility  property boundary
     •    Dispersion  coefficients
     •    Stability   categories
     •    Plume rise
     •    Chemical transformation
     •    Gravitational  settling  and deposition
     •    Urban/rural   classification

     In designing  a computational  network for modeling,  the emphasis should  be
placed  on  location  with respect to  the  facility property  boundary.  The selection  of
sites  should  be  a case-by-case  determination  taking  into  consideration the
topography,  the  climatology,  monitor sites, and should be  based  on the  results  of
the initial screening procedure,  Additional locations  may  be needed  in the high
concentration location  if greater resolution is  indicated by terrain or source factors.
                                      12-56

-------
     Gaussian  models  used  in  most  applications  should  employ dispersion
coefficients  consistent with those  contained  in  the  preferred  models available  in
UNAMAP.  Factors  such  as  averaging  time,  urban/rural  surroundings,  and  type  of
source (point vs.  line) may dictate the selection of specific coefficients.

     The Pasquill  approach  to  classifying  stability  is  generally  required  in  all
preferred  models.  The  Pasquill  method, as modified  by Turner, was developed  for
use with commonly observed  meteorological  data from  the National  Weather
Service (NWS) and  is based on cloud cover,  insolation  and wind speed.

     Procedures  to determine  Pasquill stability  categories  from other than  NWS
data are  presented in  Guidelines  on  Air Quality Models (Revised)  (U.S. EPA, July
1986).  Any  other  method to  determine   Pasquill  stability  categories should  be
justified on a case-by-case basis.

     The plume rise methods  incorporated in the EPA  preferred  models are
recommended for use in all  modeling  applications.  No  provisions  in these  models
are made for fumigation  or multi-stack  plume  rise enhancement or the handling  of
such special plumes as flares; these problems should be considered on a  case-by-case
basis.

     Where aerodynamic downwash occurs due  to the adverse  influence of nearby
structures, the algorithms included  in the ISC model should be used.

     Use of  models incorporating  complex chemical mechanisms should  be
considered only  on a case-by-case basis with proper demonstration  of applicability.
These  are generally  regional  models not designed for the  evaluation  of  individual
sources but used primarily for region-wide  evaluations.

     An "infinite  half-life" should  be  used  for estimates of total suspended
particulate  concentrations when Gaussian  models  containing only  exponential
decay  terms  for treating settling  and  deposition are used. Gravitational settling and
deposition may be  directly included in  a model  if either is a  significant factor.  At
least one preferred  model (ISC)  contains settling and deposition algorithms and  is
recommended for  use  when  particulate  matter sources  can   be  quantified and
settling  and  deposition are problems.
                                     12-57

-------
     The  selection  of  either  rural  or urban  dispersion  coefficients in  a specific
application should  follow one of the  procedures presented  in  Guidelines on  Air
Quality  Models  (Revised)  (U.S.  EPA,  July  1986).  These  include a  land use
classification  procedure  or a  population based  procedure  to determine whether  the
character of an area is  primarily urban  or rural.

12.6       Design of a Monitoring Program to  Characterize Releases

     Monitoring  procedures  should  be  developed  based  on  the  information
previously  described,  including determination of  reasonable  worst-case  scenarios  as
discussed  above. This section  discusses the recommended monitoring  approaches.

     Primary elements  in designing  a  monitoring system  include:

     •     Establishing  monitoring  objectives;

     •     Determining  monitoring  constituents  of  concern;

     •     Monitoring  schedule;

     •     Monitoring approach;  and

     •     Monitoring  locations.

     Each of these elements should  be  addressed  to meet the objectives  of  the
initial monitoring phase,  and  any  subsequent monitoring that  may  be  necessary.
These elements  are  described  in  detail  below.

12.6.1           Objectives of the Monitoring Program

     The  primary  goal  of the  air investigation  is to  determine  concentrations  at  the
facility   property  boundary as input  to the health  and  environmental  assessment
process. As  discussed  previously,  the monitoring  program  may  be  conducted in  a
phased  approach,  using the results of initial  monitoring  and/or  modeling  to
determine  the need  for and  scope of  subsequent  monitoring.
                                      12-58

-------
     Principal  components of  both  the  initial  and  subsequent  monitoring  phases
are:

     •     Identification  or verification  of  constituents;

     •     Characterization of long-term air constituent  concentrations (based  on a
           "reasonable worst  case"  exposure period)  at:
                the  unit boundary  to  maximize  the  potential  for  release detection
                the  facility property boundary
                actual  offsite  receptor locations  (for determining the  need  for
                interim  corrective  measures)
                areas upwind  of  the  release  source  (to  characterize  background
                concentrations);  and

     •     Collection  of  meteorological  data  during  the  monitoring  period  to  aid  in
           evaluating the  air  monitoring data.

     Atmospheric   dispersion  modeling  may  also   be  used to  estimate
concentrations,  if monitoring is  not practical,  as  discussed  previously.

     Subsequent  monitoring  may  be  necessary if  initial  monitoring and  modeling
data  were  not  sufficient  to  characterize  long-term  ambient  constituent
concentrations.

12.6.2           Monitoring Constituents and Sampling Considerations

     Sampling  and  analysis  may  be  conducted  for  all  appropriate Appendix VIII
constituents that have an  air  pathway potential  (See Section 3 and  Appendix B).  An
alternative  approach  is   to  use  unit  and  waste-specific  information  to identify
constituents that are  not expected  to  be present and  thus, reduce  the  list of target
monitoring  constituents.  For  example,  the industry  specific monitoring constituent
lists presented  in Appendix  B,  List  4  can be  used  to identify  appropriate  air
monitoring  constituents for many applications (especially for units that serve only a
limited  number of industrial  categories).  The target  constituents  selected  should  be
                                      12-59

-------
limited to those which may be  present  in the waste  and have  health criteria  for the
air pathway  (see Section  8).

      Results  from screening  assessment, emission monitoring,  and/or  screening
sampling  phase (as defined  later  in Section  12.6.4.1) may also be used as a basis  for
selection  of  monitoring  constituents.    These  results may  confirm/identify
appropriate  monitoring constituents for  the unit  of concern.

12.6.3          Meteorological  Monitoring

      Monitoring   of  onsite  meteorological  conditions should  be performed  in
concert with  other  emission   rate  and  air monitoring  activities.  Meteorological
monitoring  results  can serve as  input for dispersion  models,  can be  used to  assure
that  the air monitoring  effort  is  conducted  during  the appropriate meteorological
conditions  (e.g., "reasonable  worst case"  period  for  initial  monitoring), and  to aid
in  the interpretation  of  air  monitoring  data.

12.6.3.1         Meteorological  Monitoring  Parameters

      The  following  meteorological  parameters  should  be  routinely monitored
while  collecting  ambient  air samples:

      •     Horizontal  wind  speed and direction;

      •     Ambient  temperature;

      •     Atmospheric  stability   (e.g.,  based  on the  standard  deviation  of horizontal
           wind direction  or  alternative  standard methodologies);

      •     Precipitation  measurements  if  representative National  Weather  Service
           data are  not  available; and

      •     Atmospheric  pressure (e.g.,  for landfill  sites  or  contaminated  soils) if
           representative  National Weather Service data are  not available.
                                       12-60

-------
      It is recommended that horizontal wind speed  and direction,  and  air
temperature  be  determined  onsite  with  continuous  recording  equipment.
Estimates from  offsite monitors are  not  likely to be  representative for all  of  the
conditions at  the  site.   Input  parameters  for dispersion  models,  if appropriate,
should be reviewed  prior  to conducting  the meteorological  data  collection phase  to
ensure that all necessary parameters are included.

      Field  equipment  used  to  collect  meteorological  data  can  range  in
sophistication  from small,  portable,  battery-operated  units with  wind  speed  and
direction  sensors,  to  large,  permanently mounted, multiple sensor units  at  varying
heights. Individual  sensors can  collect data  on horizontal wind speed and direction,
three-dimensional  wind  speed,  air temperature,  humidity,  dew  point, and mixing
height. From  such  data, variables for  dispersion models  such  as wind variability and
atmospheric  stability  can  be  determined. Additional guidance   on  meteorological
measurements can be obtained from:

      U.S. EPA.    June  1987.   On-Site  Meteorological  Program  Guidance  for
      Regulatory Modeling Applications. EPA-450/4-87-013.  Office  of  Air  Quality
      Planning and  Standards. Research  Triangle Park,  N.C.  27711.

      U.S. EPA.  February  1983.   Quality  Assurance  handbook  for Air Pollution
      Measurements  Systems:  Volume  IV.  Meteorological  Measurements.  EPA-
      600/4-82-060.  Office  of Research  and Development.  Research  Triangle  Park,
      N.C. 27711.

      U.S. EPA. July 1986. Guidelines  on Air Quality Models  (Revised). EPA-405/2-78-
      027R.  NTIS  PB 86-245248.  Office of Air  Quality Planning and  Standards.
      Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.

Appropriate performance  specifications for monitoring equipment  are given in the
following  document:

      U.S. EPA.  November  1980.  Ambient  Monitoring Guidelines for Prevention  of
      Significant  Deterioration (PSD).  EPA-450/4-80/012.  NTIS  PB  81-153231. Office
      of Air Quality  Planning and  Standards. Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.
                                     12-61

-------
12.6.3.2         Meteorological  Monitor Siting

     Careful  placement  of meteorological  monitoring  equipment (e.g., sensors)  is
important  in gathering  relevant  data.   The  objective  of  monitoring  tower
placement  is to position  sensors to  obtain measurements representative of the
conditions  that  determine  atmospheric  dispersion in the  area of  interest.   The
convention  for  placement  of  meteorological monitoring equipment  is:

     •    At or above a  height of 10 meters above ground;  and

     •    At  a  horizontal  distance  of 10  times  the  obstruction height  from  any
          upwind  obstructions.

In addition,  the  recommendations  given in  Table  12-9 should  be followed to avoid
effects of terrain on  meteorological monitors.

     Depending  on  the  complexity  of  the terrain  in  the  area  of interest  and the
parameters  being measured,  more  than one  tower  location  may  be necessary.
Complex  terrain  can  greatly influence  the transport and  diffusion  of  a contaminant
release to air so that one tower may not able  to  account  for  these  influences.  The
monitoring  station  height  may also vary  depending on source characteristics  and
logistics.  Heights should  be selected  to  minimize  near-ground effects that are not
representative of conditions in the atmospheric layer into which a  constituent of
concern  is  being released.

     A tower designed specifically to  mount meteorological  instruments  should  be
used. Instruments should  be  mounted  on  booms  projecting  horizontally  out  from
the tower at a  minimum  distance  of twice  the tower  diameter. Sound engineering
practice should be  used  to assure tower  integrity during all  meteorologic
conditions.

     Further  guidance  on siting  meteorological  instruments  and  stations  is
available  in  the  following  publications:
                                      12-62

-------
                     TABLE 12-9



RECOMMENDED SITING CRITERIA TO AVOID TERRAIN EFFECTS
Distance from Tower
(meters)
0-1 5
15-30
30-100
100-300
Maximum Acceptable
or Vegetation
(meters)
Construction
Height
0.3
0.5- 1.0
3
10
                       12-63

-------
      U.S.  EPA.  November 1980. Ambient  Monitoring  Guidelines for  Prevention  of
      Significant  Deterioration (PSD). EPA-450/4-80-012. NTIS PB 81-153231.  Office
      of Air Quality Planning and Standards.  Research Triangle Park,  N.C. 27711.

      U.S. EPA.    June  1987.    On-Site Meteorological  Program  Guidance  for
      Regulatory  Modeling  Applications.  EPA-450/4-87-013. Office of  Air Quality
      Planning and Standards.  Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.

      U.S.  EPA.  February  1983.  Quality  Assurance  Handbook for  Air  Pollution
      Measurement  Systems:   Volume IV.   Meteorological  Measurements.  EPA-
      600/4-82-060.  Office  of  Research and  Development.  Research Triangle Park,
      N.C. 27711.

12.6.4          Monitoring  Schedule

      Establishment  of a  monitoring  schedule  is  an important consideration  in
developing a  monitoring  plan.  When  appropriate,  air monitoring should coincide
with  monitoring of other  media (e.g., subsurface  gas, soils, and  surface water)  that
have  the  potential  for air emissions.  As with all  other aspects  of the  monitoring
program,  the objectives  of monitoring should  be  considered   in  establishing  a
schedule.   As indicated  previously,  monitoring  generally  consists  of  screening
sampling,  emission  monitoring,  and  air  monitoring.  The  monitoring schedule
during each of these phases is discussed below.

12.6.4.1        Screening  Sampling

     A limited screening  sampling  effort may be  necessary  to focus  the design  of
additional  monitoring  phases.  Therefore,  screening  samples may  be  warranted
during the screening assessment or  prior  to initiating  emission  monitoring  or  air
monitoring studies. This screening phase can  also be used to  supplement modeling
and emission  monitoring  results  as  available, to verify the  existence  of a  release  to
air, and to prioritize the major  release sources at the facility.

     Screening sampling should  be used to characterize air emissions (e.g., by using
total  hydrocarbon  measurements  as  an  indicator),  and to  confirm/identify  the
presence  of candidate constituents.  Screening samples should generally  consist  of
                                     12-64

-------
source  emissions  measurements  or  ambient  air samples collected at or  in  close
proximity to the  source.   This  approach  will provide  the best  opportunity  for
detection of air  emission  constituents. (A discussion  of  available  screening  methods
is presented in  Section  12.8.) An alternative screening  approach involves collection
of a  limited  number of air  samples  to  facilitate the analysis of a wide range  of
constituents (e.g.,  collection  via Tenax adsorption tubes or whole air sampling with
analysis by GC/MS -see Section 12.8).

     The screening  study  should  generally involve collection  of a limited  number of
grab  or time-integrated samples  (several minutes to 24  hours)  for a limited time
period  (e.g.,  one  to five  days).     Sampling should  be  conducted  during
emission/dispersion  conditions that are  expected to  result  in  relatively  high
concentrations,  as  discussed previously.  Screening  results  should be  interpreted
considering the representativeness  of  the  waste and unit  operations during the
sampling, and the detection  capabilities  of the  screening  methodology  used.

12.6.4.2         Emission  Monitoring

      Emission   rate  monitoring  may be necessary to  characterize  a  release if
screening assessment results are not  conclusive. This approach involves stack or vent
emission  monitoring  for point sources.   Point  source  monitoring  is not  dependent
on  meteorological  conditions.  However, emission  rate  monitoring for  both  point
and  area sources should  be conducted during typical  or "reasonable  worst case"
emission  rate conditions.   Therefore,  emission  monitoring  should be  conducted
when source conditions (e.g., unit operations and waste  concentrations) as well  as
meteorological conditions  are conducive  to  "reasonable worst case" emission rate
conditions.  Emission  rate monitoring for area  sources  should  not be  conducted
during or immediately following precipitation or  if hourly  average wind speeds are
greater  than  15  miles  per hour.  It should also  be noted  that soil  or cover  material  (if
present) should be allowed  to  dry  prior to  continuing  monitoring operations,  as
volatilization decreases  under  saturated soil conditions.    In  these cases, the
monitoring should  be  interrupted and   resumed  as soon  as  possible after the
unfavorable  conditions  pass.  Similarly, operational  interruptions  such  as unit
shutdown should also  be factored  into the source sampling schedule.
                                      12-65

-------
     Point source  emission sampling  generally  requires only  a  few  hours  of
sampling  and occurs during a more limited time  (e.g., one to three days).  Guidance
on point-source sampling  schedules is  presented in  the following:

     U.S. EPA. November 1985. Practical Guide - Trial Burns  for Hazardous Waste
     incinerators.   NTIS  PB  86-190246. Office of  Research  and  Development.
     Cincinnati, OH 45268.

     U.S. EPA. Code of  Federal  Regulations. 40  CFR  Part 60:  Appendix A:
     Reference Methods.  Office of the Federal Register.  Washington, D.C.

     U.S. EPA.   1978.  Stack  Sampling Technical  Information.  A Collection  of
     Monographs and Papers, Volumes  l-lll.  EPA-450/2-78-042a,b,c. NTIS PB  80-
     161672, 80-161680,  80-161698.  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
     Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

     U.S. EPA.  February  1985.  Modified Method 5 Train and Source Assessment
     Sampling System Operators Manual.  EPA-600/8-85-003.  NTIS PB  85-169878.
     Office of Research and  Development. Research Triangle Park,  NC 27711.

     U.S. EPA.  March 1984.  Protocol for the Collection and  Analysis of Volatile
     POHCs Using VOST. EPA-600/8-84-007. NTIS PB 84-170042. Office of Research
     and Development. Research Triangle Park, NC  27711.

     U.S. EPA.  February  1984.  Sampling and Analysis Methods for  Hazardous
     Waste Combustion.  EPA-600/8-84-002.  NTIS PB 84-155845. Washington, D.C.
     20460.

     U.S. EPA. 1981. Source  Sampling  and  Analysis of  Gaseous  Pollutants.  EPA-
     APTI Course  Manual  468.  Air Pollution Control Institute.  Research Triangle
     Park, NC 27711.

     U.S. EPA. 1979. Source Sampling for Particulate Pollutants. EPA-APTI Course
     Manual 450. NTIS PB 80-188840, 80-182439,  80-174360,  Air  Pollution Control
     Institute. Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
                                    12-66

-------
      U.S. EPA. 1986. Test Methods for  Evaluating Solid  Waste.  3rd Edition.  Office
      of Solid  Waste.  EPA/SW-846. GPO No.  955-001  -00000-1.- Washington, D.C.
      20460.

      Emission  rate  monitoring should be  conducted during a  1 to 3  day  period
representative of "reasonable worst  case"  source emission conditions.  The  worst
case  short-term  emission  rate  conditions should  be  determined  by  parametric
analyses (i.e., by  modeling  a wide  range of  source  operational  conditions and
associated waste  concentrations  as  well  as  meteorological  conditions  for
parameters  such as wind speed and  temperature).  Historical  meteorological data
representative of the site  should  be reviewed  to determine  the season and time of
day associated with worst case emission  conditions. These results should  be used to
select and  schedule  (along  with meteorological  forecasts for  local conditions and
expected  source operational and  waste  concentration) the  emission  monitoring
period.

      Emission  rate  monitoring results based  on  measurements during  worst-case
conditions  should be  initially used as  dispersion modeling  input. If these  initial
results exceed  health criteria then the emission  monitoring results should be scaled
to represent long term (i.e., annual) conditions. The scaling factor should be  based
on  the  ratio of emission  rate  modeling results  (using  meteorological  conditions
during the  monitoring period as input)  compared to  modeling  results based on
typical (annual)  meteorological  conditions.

      Guidance  on  area   source emission  rate monitoring  is  provided in the
following:

      U.S. EPA.  1986. Measurement of Gaseous Emission Rates from Land  Surfaces
      Using  an Emission Isolation Flux Chamber:  User's Guide.  EPA/600/8-86/008.
      NTIS  PB86-223161. Environmental  Monitoring  Systems Laboratory. Las Vegas,
      NV 89114.

      U.S.  EPA.  December  1988 Draft. Procedures for Conducting  Air  Pathway
     Analyses  for  Superfund Applications.   Office  of  Air  Quality  Planning and
     Standards.  Research  Triangle Park, NC 27711.
                                     12-67

-------
 12.6.4.3         Air  Monitoring

     The primary objective  of  confirmatory monitoring  is  to  characterize long-term
 exposures that may  be associated with air emissions  from  the unit under reasonable
worst-case  conditions.   A  schedule  should  be  proposed  that will  provide an
 adequate degree of confidence that those  compounds that  may be released  will be
detected  (i.e.,  by  sampling  during the  season  associated with  the highest air
concentrations  as  determined based on  modeling).  Laboratory  analytical  costs
typically  range from  $200  to over $1,000  per air monitoring station for one  24-hour
 integrated sample  (the actual cost depends  on the  number  and type of target
constituents).  Recent  advances  in applied technology  have  facilitated the   use  of
field gas  chromatography  (GCS)  to automatically obtain analytical results for many
organics (i. e., offsite  laboratory   analyses may not be  necessary  for  some air
 monitoring programs). The cost for this equipment typically range from $20,000  to
over $50,000  and one GC  can  generally service multiple sampling stations.

     An  example  sampling schedule  (e.g.,  for flat  terrain  sites  with  minimal
variability of  dispersion  and source  conditions)  for meeting this  objective  is  given
below:

     •     Meteorological  monitoring -90  days  continuous monitoring.

     •     Initial air  monitoring (Alternative 1)  -90 days:
                Analysis of 24-hour  time  integrated  samples  for  target constituents
      \
                every day  during the 90-day period (total of 90 samples)

     •    Additional  monitoring -  as necessary to  supplement  initial  air monitoring
           results in order  to adequately characterize  the release.

     The 90-day monitoring program will  facilitate  collecting  samples  over  a wide
range of emission and dispersion  conditions.  The 90-day period  should be selected,
as  previously  discussed, to  coincide with  the expected  season of  highest ambient
concentrations.  Meteorological  monitoring  should  be  continuous  and concurrent
with this 90-day period  to adequately characterize dispersion conditions at the site
and to  provide  meteorological  data to  support interpretation  of the  air-quality.
monitoring data.
                                      12-68

-------
     The collection  of a  time-integrated  sample  based  on  continuous  monitoring
for  several days can  result  in technical difficulties  (e.g.,  poor collection  efficiencies
for  volatile  constituents  or large sample  volumes).  The application  of  five-day
composite samples  at  each station,  or intermittent  sampling  during  the five days,
results  in continuous  monitoring  coverage  during  the  90-day period and facilitates
the  characterization  of  long-term  exposure  levels.

     Although  there are  some  limitations associated with  composite/intermittent
sampling  (e.g.,  the  potential  for sample  degradation), the  24-hour samples
collected every  sixth day will provide  a second data set  for  characterizing ambient
concentrations.  Although  the results  of the  two data sets should  not  be  directly
combined  (because  of  the  different  sampling  periods)  they  provide  a
comprehensive  technical basis  by which to evaluate  long-term exposure  conditions.

12.6.4.4         Subsequent Monitoring

     Subsequent monitoring may  be  necessary if  initial  monitoring  data were not
sufficient to estimate  "reasonable  worst case"  long-term  concentrations  (e.g., data
recovery was not sufficient or  additional monitoring stations are needed).

     The same schedule specified for the initial monitoring phase  is  also applicable
to subsequent  monitoring.  However,  when evaluating  the  results  of  subsequent
monitoring  and  comparing  them  to previously  collected  data, potential  differences
in emission/dispersion conditions  and  other data representativeness  factors should
be accounted for.

12.6.5           Monitoring   Approach

     The RFI  air  release  characterization  strategy may  involve source emission
monitoring  and/or  air  monitoring.  The  strategy which defines  the process  for
selection  and  application of these  alternative monitoring approaches  has been
discussed previously. A summary  of applicable air monitoring strategies related to
source type is presented in Table  12-10.
                                      12-69

-------
 12.6.5.1        Source  Emissions Monitoring

     Monitoring at the source to measure  a rate of emission  for the constituents of
concern  may,  in  many cases,  offer a  practical  approach  to characterizing  air
emissions.  Using  this technique, the emission rate is then input  into a mathematical
dispersion  model  for  estimation  of downwind  concentrations.    Monitoring
interferences from sources close to the  unit  are eliminated because the source is
isolated from  the  ambient  atmosphere for  monitoring  purposes. Source  monitoring
techniques  are also advantageous  because  they  do  not  require the level of
sensitivity  required  by air  monitors. Concentrations  of  airborne  constituents at the
source are generally  higher  than  at  downwind locations  due to  the  lack of
dispersion of the  constituent  over a wide area.  The concentrations expected in the
air  (generally  part-per-billion  levels)  may be at  or  near the  limit  of  detectability of
the methods used.  Methods  for source emissions monitoring for various constituent
classes are discussed in Section 12.8.

     Area  sources  (such  as  landfills,  land treatment  units,  and surface
impoundments) can  be  monitored using  the isolation flux chamber approach.  This
method involves isolating a small area of contamination  under a flux chamber,  and
passing a  known amount  of  a zero  hydrocarbon carrier gas  through the chamber,
thereby picking up  any  organic emissions  in  the effluent gas stream from  the  flux
chamber. Samples of this effluent stream are collected  in inert sampling containers,
usually stainless  steel canisters under vacuum,  and removed to the laboratory for
subsequent  analysis.  The  analytical results of the  identified analytes  can be
converted  through a series of calculations to direct emission rates from the source.
These  emission  rates  can  be  used to  evaluate downwind  concentrations by
application  of  dispersion models.  Multiple  emission tests should  be conducted to
account for temporal and  spatial variability of source  conditions.  More  information
on  use of  the isolation flux  chamber and  test  design  is provided in the following
references:

     U.S.  EPA. 1986. Measurement of Gaseous  Emission Rates  from  Land Surfaces
     Using  an Emission Isolation Flux Chamber: User's Guide.  EPA/600/8-86/008.
     NTIS  PB 86-223161. Washington,  D.C.  20460.
                                     12-71

-------
     U.S.  EPA.  December  1988  Draft.  Procedures  for  Conducting Air  Pathway
     Analyses  for  Superfund  Applications.   Office  of Air Quality Planning,  and
     Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

     Some area source units may not  be amenable  to  the source  sampling
approach,  however.  A  unit in which  the source cannot be isolated and  viable
measurements  taken  of  the parameters  of concern  is one  example. This includes
active  areas of  landfills and  land-treatment areas, as  well  as aerated surface
impoundments.  Also, area sources in which particulate  emissions  are of concern
cannot be  measured  using an  isolation  flux chamber due to  technical  limitations  in
the technique.   For these  applications,  only  an   upwind/downwind  monitoring
approach should be used.

12.6.5.2        Air Monitoring

     Use of an upwind/downwind  network  of monitors or sample collection devices
is the  primary  air  monitoring  approach recommended to determine  release  and
background concentrations  of  the constituents of concern.   Upwind/downwind air
monitoring  networks provide  concentrations of the  constituents of  concern at the
point of  monitoring, whether at the  unit  boundary, facility property  boundary,  or  at
a  receptor  point.  The  upwind/downwind approach involves the placement  of
monitors  or sample collection devices at various points around the  unit  of concern.
Each  air sample  collected is classified as  upwind  or downwind  based  on the wind
conditions  for  the  sampling  period.  Downwind  concentrations  are compared  to
those  measured at  upwind points  to determine the  relative  contribution of the unit
to air  concentrations of toxic compounds.   This  is generally accomplished by
subtracting  the upwind  concentration  (which  represents background  conditions)
from the  concurrent  downwind concentrations.  Applicable  field  methods for air
monitoring are discussed  in Section 12.8 as well as in  Procedures for Conducting Air
Pathway  Analyses for  Superfund  Applications (U.S.  EPA, December 1988).
Downwind  air concentrations at the  facility can be  extrapolated  to  other  locations
by  using  dispersion  modeling  results.   This  is  accomplished by  obtaining  initial
modeling results  based  on meteorological  conditions  for  the  monitoring  period  and
an  arbitrary emission rate.  These  initial  dispersion modeling  results  along  with
monitoring  results at the  site perimeter are used to back calculate an emission  rate
such that modeling  results can  be  adjusted to be equivalent to monitoring  results  at
                                     12-72

-------
the  onsite  monitoring  station.   This  estimated emission rate is  then used as
dispersion  modeling input  to  predict offsite concentrations.

12.6.6           Monitoring  Locations

     As  with  other factors  associated  with  air  monitoring, siting of the  monitors
should reflect the  primary  objective  of  characterizing  concentrations  at  the  facility
property  boundary.    This section  discusses monitoring locations  for both
upwind/downwind  approaches  and source monitoring  techniques.

12.6.6.1         Upwind/Downwind  Monitoring  Locations

     The  air  monitoring  network design should  provide adequate coverage to
characterize  both  upwind  (background)  and downwind concentrations.  Therefore,
four air  monitoring zones  are generally  necessary  for  initial  monitoring. Multiple
monitoring  stations per zone  will  frequently be required to adequately characterize
the release.  An  upwind zone  is  used  to define background concentration  levels.
Downwind zones  at  the  unit  boundary, at the facility  property boundary  and
beyond the facility property boundary, if  appropriate,  are  used  to  define  potential
offsite  exposure.

     The  location of air monitoring stations should be based on local wind patterns.
Air monitoring stations  should  be  placed  at strategic locations, as illustrated  in  the
following  example (see  Figure 12-6).

     •     Upwind  (based  on the  expected prevailing  wind flow during  the 90-day
           monitoring period) of the unit'  and near the  facility  property boundary to
          characterize  background air concentration  levels. There should be  no air
          emission source  between  the upwind monitoring station  and  the  unit
           boundary.

     •     Downwind (based on the expected  prevailing  wind flow during the  90-
          day  monitoring  period)  at  the unit  boundary  plus stations at adjacent
          sectors  also at  the unit  boundary  (the  separation  distance  of  air
           monitoring  stations  at  the  unit  boundary  should  be 30°  or 50 feet,
          whichever is greater).
                                      12-73

-------
        FIGURE 12-6. EXAMPLE AIR MONITORING NETWORK
           Expected Maximum
           Long Term
           Concentration Area
Actual Offsite
Receptor (with
expected maximum
release impact)
Facility Property
Boundary
    Prevailing Wind
    Direction
                                             X
                                              I
                                             /
                                                     Downwind
                                                     Stations
                                                  Unit Boundary
                               X  Upwind Station

-------
     •     Downwind (based  on the  expected prevailing wind  flow  during  the  90-
           day monitoring  period)  at the facility  property  boundary (this  station
           may not be  required if the site perimeter is within  100 meters of the unit
           boundary).

     •     Downwind  (at  the  area  expected  to have  the  highest  average
           concentration levels  during  the  90-day  monitoring period) at the facility
           property  boundary,  if  appropriate.

     •     Downwind at actual  offsite receptor locations (if  appropriate).

     •     Additional  locations  at complex terrain  and coastal sites  associated with
           pronounced  secondary air flow paths  (e.g.,  downwind of the  unit near
           the facility  property  boundary for both  primary  daytime  and  nighttime
           flow paths).

     The above Locations should be selected prior to initial monitoring based on the
onsite  meteorological  survey  and  on  evaluation  of available representative  offsite
meteorological  data.  This analysis  should  provide  an  estimate  of  expected  wind
conditions during  the  90-day initial  monitoring  period.  If sufficient  representative
data  are  available,  dispersion modeling  can  be used to  identify the  area of
maximum  long term concentration  levels at  the  facility property  boundary  and,  if
appropriate, at actual  offsite  receptors. If not, the facility property  boundary  sector
nearest to the unit of concern should be selected for initial monitoring.

     The network design  defined  above  will  provide  an  adequate  basis  to  define
long-term concentrations  based  on continuous monitoring during the  90-day initial
monitoring period.  The monitoring  stations  at the unit boundary  should   increase
the potential  for release  detection. The facility  property boundary  air monitoring
stations  should provide data (with  the aid  of  dispersion modeling, if appropriate) to
perform  health  and  environmental  assessment,  and   if  appropriate, characterize
offsite  concentrations.

     Air  monitoring  at offsite  receptors (if  deemed to  be appropriate)   may  be
impractical  in many cases,  because analytical  detection limits may  not be  low
                                      12-75

-------
enough at offsite  receptor  locations  to  measure the release. Also, a  90-day offsite
monitoring  program  can  be  problematic.   Factors such  as vandalism, erroneous
readings due to public  tampering with  the  equipment,  public relations problems  in
setting up the equipment, and  legal access problems may preclude the use of offsite
air monitoring  stations.   For  these cases,  dispersion models  may be  used  to
extrapolate  monitoring  data  collected at  the  facility to  actual  offsite receptor
locations.    This is  accomplished by  obtaining  initial  modeling results  based  on
meteorological  conditions for  the monitoring  period  and an arbitrary  emission rate.
These initial dispersion  modeling  results along  with monitoring results  at  the site
perimeter are used to  back calculate an emission rate such  that modeling results can
be adjusted  to  be equivalent  to  monitoring  results  at the  onsite monitoring  station.
This estimated emission rate  is  then used as  dispersion modeling  input  to  predict
offsite concentrations for the same downwind sector and exposure period as for this
monitoring  period.

      If additional  monitoring  is  required,  a similar network  design  to that
illustrated   in  Figure  12-6 will  generally  be  appropriate.    Evaluation  of the
meteorological  monitoring data  collected during the  initial  phase should  provide  an
improved  basis to identify  local  prevailing and  diurnal  wind flow paths. Also, the
site  meteorological  data will  provide  dispersion modeling input.  These modeling
results should  provide  dilution  patterns that  can  be  used to  identify  areas with
expected  relatively high  concentration  levels.   However, these  results  should
account  for seasonal  meteorological  differences  between initial and  additional
monitoring  periods.

     Wind-directionally  controlled  air monitoring stations can also be used at sites
with highly  variable wind directions.  These wind-directionally  controlled  stations
should be  collocated  with  the fixed monitoring stations.   This  approach facilitates
determination of the unit source  contribution to  total constituent levels in the local
area.  These automated  stations will only sample for a  user-defined  range  of wind
directions  (e.g.,  downwind stations  would only  sample if winds were  blowing from
the source  towards  the station). Interpretation of  results from  wind-directionally
controlled air monitoring stations  should account for the  lower sampling volumes
(and  therefore, the  possibility  that  not enough sample  would  be  collected  for
analysis) generally associated with this approach.
                                      12-76

-------
     The  inlet exposure height of the air monitors should be 2 to 15  meters to  be
representative of potential  inhalation  exposure but not unduly biased  by  road dust
and  natural wind  erosion  phenomena.  Further  guidance  on  air monitoring  network
design  and  station  exposure  criteria  (e.g.,  sampling  height  and  proximity  to
structures and air  emission sources) is provided in the following reference:

     U.S.  EPA. September  1984.  Network  Design and  Site  Exposure  Criteria  for
     Selected  Non-criteria Air Pollutants.  EPA-450/4-84-022.  Office  of  Air  Quality
     Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, N.C.

     The  above referenced document recommends the use  of dispersion  models to
identify  potential relatively  high concentration  areas as a basis for network design.
This topic is also discussed in the following document:

     U.S. EPA. July  1986.  Guidelines on  Air Quality Models (Revised).  EPA-450/2-78-
     027R. NTIS PB  86-245248. Office  of  Air  Quality Planning  and Standards.
     Research Triangle  Park,  NC 27711.

     Uniformity  among  the  sampling  sites  should  be  achieved to  the greatest
degree  possible.  Descriptions should  be  prepared for all  sampling  sites.  The
description should  include  the  type  of ground surface, and the direction,  distance,
and  approximate height with  respect to  the  source of the  release.  Location  should
also be  described on a facility map.

12.6.6.2      Stack/Vent Emission  Monitoring

     Point source  measurements should be taken  in the  vent.  Both  the  VOST and
Modified Method 5 methodologies  describe the exact placement in the stack for the
sampler inlet.  (See  Section  12.8.3).  If  warranted, an  upwind/downwind  monitoring
network can be  used to supplement the release  rate data.

12.6.6.3         Isolation Flux Chambers

     Monitor  placement  using flux chambers (discussed  earlier)  is  similar  to
conducting a  characterization  of any  area  source.  Section  3 of  this guidance
discusses  establishment of a  grid network  for sampling.  Such  a  grid  should  be
                                     12-77

-------
established for an area source,  with sampling points established within the grids, as
appropriate.   It  is suggested that  a minimum  of six  points  be  chosen  for  each
monitoring  effort.  Once  these  areas  are  sampled, the results can be temporally and
spatially  averaged to provide an overall compound specific emission  rate for the
plot. Additional  guidance  on monitoring  locations  for isolation flux  chambers  is
presented in  Section 3.6 and  in  the  following references:

     U.S. EPA. 1986. Measurement  of Gaseous  Emission Rates from Land Surfaces
     Using an Emission Isolation Flux Chamber: User's Guide. EPA/600/8-86/008.
     NTIS  PB86-223161.  Environmental  Monitoring  Systems Laboratory. Las Vegas,
     NV89114.

     U.S.  EPA.  December 1988 Draft.  Procedures for  Conducting  Air  Pathway
     Analyses for  Superfund Applications.  Office of Air  Quality Planning  and
     Standards. Research Triangle Park,  NC 27711.

12.7 Data  Presentation

     As  discussed in Section  5, progress reports will be required  by the  regulatory
agency  at  periodic  intervals  during  the investigation.   The  following   data
presentation formats  are suggested for the various phases of the air investigation in
order to  adequately  characterize concentrations  at actual offsite receptors.

12.7.1          Waste and  Unit Characterization

     Waste and unit characteristics should be presented as:

     •    Tables of waste constituents and concentrations;

     •    Tables of relevant  physical/chemical  properties  for potential  air  emission
          constituents;

     •    Tables and narratives  describing  unit  dimensions and  special  operating
          conditions  and operating schedules   concurrent with the air monitoring
          program;
                                     12-78

-------
     •    Narrative description of  unit operations; and

     •    Identification  of  "reasonable  worst  case"  emission  conditions  that
          occurred during the monitoring period.

12.7.2          Environmental  Setting  Characterization

     Environmental characteristics should be presented as follows:

     •    Climate (historical  summaries from available onsite and offsite  sources):

               Annual and monthly or seasonal wind roses;

               Annual and monthly or  seasonal  tabular summaries of mean wind
               speeds and atmospheric  stability  distributions;  and

               Annual and monthly or seasonal  tabular summaries of temperature
               and  precipitation.

     •    Meteorological   survey  results:

               Hourly  listing  of  all  meteorological  parameters  for  the  entire
               monitoring period;

               Daytime wind rose  (at  coastal  or complex terrain sites);

               Nighttime  wind  rose (at coastal or complex terrain sites);

               Summary  wind  rose for all hours;

               Summary  of  dispersion  conditions for  the  monitoring  period (joint
               frequency distributions  of wind direction versus wind  speed
               category and  stability class frequencies);  and

               Tabular summaries of  means and  extremes  for temperature  and
               other  meteorological  parameters.
                                     12-79

-------
     •     Definition of  soil  conditions  (if  appropriate):

                Narrative  of soil  characteristics  (e.g., temperature,  porosity  and
                organic  matter  content); and

                Characterization of soil contamination conditions  (e.g.,  in land
                treatment  units,  etc.).

     •     Definition of site-specific terrain and  nearby  receptors:

                Topographic map  of  the site  area with identification of the  units,
                meteorological  and  air monitoring stations,  and  facility  property
                boundary;

                Topographic map of 10-kilometer  radius from site  (U.S.  Geological
                Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle sheets are acceptable); and

                Maps  which indicate  location  of nearest  residence for  each  of
                sixteen  22.5 degree  sectors which correspond to  major compass
                points  (e.g.,  north,  north-northwest,  etc.),  nearest  population
                centers and  sensitive receptors (e.  g.,  schools, hospitals and nursing
                homes).

           Maps showing  the topography of the  area, location  of the unit(s)  of
           concern,  and the  location  of meteorological  monitoring  equipment.

           A  narrative  description of the  meteorological conditions  during  the  air
           sampling periods, including  qualitative  descriptions  of  weather events
           and  precipitation  which  are   needed for data interpretation.

12.7.3           Characterization  of the  Release

     Characteristics of the release should be  presented as follows:

     •     Screening sampling:
                                      12-80

-------
     Identification  of sampling  and  analytical  methodology;

     Map which  identifies sampling  locations;

     Listing  of  measured  concentrations  indicating  collection  time
     period  and  locations;

     Prioritization of  units  as  air release  sources  which  warrant
     monitoring based on  screening  results;

     Discussion of QA/QC results; and

     Listing  and  discussion  of  meteorological data  during the  sampling
     period.

Initial  and  additional  monitoring  results:

     Identification of monitoring  constituents;

     Discussion  of  sampling  and  analytical methodology  as  well  as
     equipment  and  specifications;

     Identification  of monitoring  zones as defined in Section  12.6.6.1;

     Map which  identifies monitoring  locations  relative to  units;

     Discussion of QA/QC results;

     Listing  of concentrations  measured  by station and  monitoring
     period   indicating   concentrations  of  all constituents  for  which
     monitoring was  conducted.  Listings  should indicate  detection limits
     if a constituent  is not detected;

     Summary  tables of concentration  measured  indicating maximum
     and mean concentration values for each monitoring  station;
                           12-81

-------
Discussion of  meteorological  station  locations  selection,  sensor
height,  local   terrain,   nearby obstructions   and  equipment
specifications;

Listing  of all  meteorological parameters  concurrent with the  air
sampling  periods;

Daytime  wind  rose (only for coastal or complex terrain areas);

Nighttime wind rose  (only  for coastal  or complex  terrain areas);

Summary wind rose  based on all wind direction observations for the
sampling  period;

Summary of dispersion  conditions for the  sampling period (joint
frequency distributions  of wind  direction  versus  wind  speed
category and stability  class  frequencies  based  on  guidance
presented in Guidelines on Air Quality Models (Revised).  (U.S. EPA,
July 1986));

Tabular  summaries  of means  and extremes for temperature and
other meteorological parameters;

A  narrative  discussion of  sampling  results,  indicating   problems
encountered,  relationship of the  sampling  activity to  unit  operating
conditions and  meteorological  conditions,  sampling  periods and
times,  background  levels and  identification  of  other air  emission
sources   and   interferences   which   may    complicate   data
interpretation;

Presentation and  discussion of models used (if any),  modeling input
data  and  modeling  output data  (e.g.,  dilution or  dispersion patterns
based  on modeling  results);  and
                      12-82

-------
                Concentrations  based  on  monitoring  and/or  modeling  for  actual
                offsite  receptor  locations.

      Interpretation  of  air  monitoring results  should  also account for additional
factors  such as  complex terrain, variable  winds,  multiple contaminant  sources and
intermittent  or  irregular  releases. The key to data  interpretation  for these  cases is
to evaluate  monitoring  results  as a function  of wind direction.

     Terrain  factors  can  alter wind  flow trajectories  especially  during  stable
nighttime  conditions.   Therefore,  straightline  wind  trajectories may  not occur
during these conditions if there is  intervening terrain between the  source  and  the
air  monitoring  station.   For these  cases  wind flows will be  directed  around large
obstacles (such  as hills) or  channeled (for flows  within  valleys).  Therefore,  it is
necessary  to  determine the representativeness of the data  from the meteorological
stations  as  a  function of wind  direction, wind speed and  stability conditions.  Based
on  this  assessment,   and   results  from  the  meteorological  survey,  upwind  and
downwind sectors (i.e.,  a range  of wind direction as measured  at the meteorological
station) should  be defined for  each  air monitoring station  to  aid  in  data
interpretation,   Figure  12-7 illustrates an example which  classifies a range of wind
directions  during  which  the air monitoring stations will  be  downwind of  an air
emission source.  Therefore, concentrations  measured during upwind  conditions can
be  used to characterize  background conditions  and  concentrations  measured
during downwind  conditions can  be  used  to evaluate  the air-quality impact  of  the
release.

     Complex  terrain  sites  and coastal  sites  frequently  have  very  pronounced
diurnal   wind  patterns.  Therefore,  as previously  discussed,  the air  monitoring
network  at these  sites  may  involve  coverage for multiple wind  direction sectors and
use  of  wind-directionally controlled  air  samplers.  This  monitoring approach  is  also
appropriate  for  sites with highly variable  wind conditions.  Comparing  results from
two  collocated  air monitoring stations (i.e.,  one station  which samples  continuously
and  a second  station  at the same  location which is wind-directionally controlled on
an  automated  basis),  facilitates determination  of  source contributions to  ambient
air  concentrations.
                                      12-83

-------
                       FIGURE 12-7
EXAMPLE OF DOWNWIND EXPOSURES AT AIR MONITORING STATIONS
                                         UNIT SOURCE
    MONITORING STATIONS
    DOWNWIND SECTOR
                         12-84

-------
     Comparison  of results from  collocated  (continuous versus wind-directionally
controlled)  air monitoring stations can  also  be used  to  assist in  data  interpretation
at sites  with  multiple  air emission  sources  or  with  intermittent/irregular releases.
For  some  situations, the consistent appearance of certain air emission constituents
can  be used  to "fingerprint"  the source.  Therefore,  the  air  monitoring results can
be  classified  based on  these  "fingerprint"  patterns. These  results can  then be
summarized as two  separate  data  sets to  assess background  versus  source
contributions to  ambient  concentrations.

     The  use  of  collocated  (continuous  and  wind-directionally   controlled) air
monitoring  stations is a  preferred  approach to data  interpretation  for  complex
terrain, variable  wind,  multiple source  and intermittent release sites. An alternative
data interpretation  approach involves reviewing the  hourly meteorological  data for
each air  sampling  period.   Based on this  review, the results from  each sampling
period (generally  a 24-hour period) for each station  are  classified  in terms  of
downwind  frequency. The  downwind  frequency is defined as the number of  hours
winds were blowing from  the  source  towards  the air monitoring  station  divided by
the  total  number of hours in  the  sampling period.  These data can then be processed
(by   plotting scattergrams)  to determine the  relationship   of downwind  frequency  to
measured  concentrations.

     Data  interpretation should  also  take into account the potential for  deposition,
degradation and transformation  of the  monitoring constituents. These  mechanisms
can  affect  ambient concentrations as well as  air  sample  chemistry (during storage).
Therefore,  standard technical  references on  chemical  properties,  as  well  as the
monitoring  guidance  previously cited, should  be  consulted  to  determine the
importance of degradation  and transformation for  the   monitoring  constituents  of
concern.

12.8       Field  Methods

     This  section  describes field methods  which can   be  used during initial  or
subsequent monitoring  phases. Methods are classified according to source type and
area. Guidance on meteorological  monitoring methods  is  also provided  in this
section.
                                      12-85

-------
12.8.1          Meteorological  Monitoring

     Meteorological  monitoring  generally  should  employ a  10-meter tower
equipped  with  wind direction,  wind speed,  temperature  and  atmospheric stability
instrumentation. Wind direction and  wind speed  monitors  should  exhibit  a starting
threshold of less than 0.5 meters per second (mis). Wind  speed monitors  should  be
accurate above the starting threshold to within 0.25 m/sat  speeds less than or equal
to 5 m/s. At higher speeds the error  should not exceed 5 percent of the wind speed.
Wind direction  monitor errors  should not exceed  5  degrees.  Errors in temperature
should not exceed  0.5°C  during normal operating  conditions.

     The meteorological station  should  be  installed  at  a  location  which  is
representative of  overall  site  terrain and  wind  conditions. Multiple  meteorological
station locations may be  required at coastal and complex terrain sites.

     Additional guidance  on  equipment  performance  specifications,  station
location,  sensor exposure  criteria,  and  field  methods  for meteorological  monitoring
are  provided in the following references:

     U.S.  EPA. February  1983.   Quality  Assurance  Handbook  for  Air  Pollution
     Measurement Systems: Volume IV. Meteorological  Measurement. EPA-600-4-
     82-060. Office of  Research  and  Development.  Research  Triangle  Park,  NC
     27711.

     U.S. EPA. November  1980. Ambient Monitoring  Guidelines  for Prevention  of
     Significant Deterioration (PSD). EPA-450/4-80-012. NTIS  PB  81-153231. Office
     of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle  Park, NC 27711.

     U.S. EPA. July 1986.  Guidelines on Air Quality  Models (Revised).  EP-450/2-78-
     027R.  NTIS  PB  86-245248. Office of Air Quality  Planning and Standards.
     Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

12.8.2          Air Monitoring

     Selection  of  methods for  monitoring  air  contaminants  should  consider a
number of factors, including the compounds to be detected, the purpose  of  the
                                     12-86

-------
method  (e.  g., screening or quantification),  the  detection  limits,  and sampling rates
and  duration  required for the  investigation.

     Organic and inorganic  constituents  require different  analytical  methods.
Within  these  two  groups, different methods may also be  required depending  on  the
constituent and  its physical/chemical  properties.  Another condition  that affects  the
choice  of monitoring technique  is  whether the  compound is  primarily  in the gaseous
phase or is found  adsorbed  to  solid  particles  or aerosols.

     Screening for  the presence  of air constituents  involves  techniques  and
equipment  that  are  rapid,  portable,  and can  provide  "real-time"  monitoring data.
Air contamination  screening will  generally be  used to confirm  the  presence of a
release,  or  to  establish  the extent  of contamination during  the  screening  phase of
the  investigation.  Quantification of individual  components  is not as  important
during   screening  as  during  initial   and additional  air  monitoring,  however  the
technique  must  have  sufficient specificity to differentiate  hazardous  constituents  of
concern  from potential  interferences,  even  when the  latter are present  in  higher
concentrations. Detection  limits  for  screening devices  are often   higher than  for
quantitative  methods.

     Laboratory analytical  techniques must provide  positive  identification   of  the
components,  and   accurate and  precise  measurement  of concentrations.   This
generally  means  that  preconcentration  and/or storage  of  air samples will  be
required.   Therefore,  methods  chosen  for  quantification usually involve  a  longer
analytical time-period,  more sophisticated  equipment, and more  rigorous   quality
assurance procedures.

     The  following  list of references provides guidance  on  air  monitoring
methodologies:

     U.S.  EPA. June 1983.   Technical  Assistance Document  for  Sampling  and
     Analysis  of Toxic Organic Compounds in  Ambient  Air.  EPA-600/4-83-027. NTIS
     PB 83-239020.  Office  of  Research  and Development.  Research Triangle Park,
     NC 27711.
                                      12-87

-------
 U. S. EPA. April 1984.  Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic
 Organic Compounds in Ambient Air.  EPA-600/4-84-041.  Office  of  Research
 and Development. Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

 NIOSH. February 1984. NIOSH Manual  of  Analytical Methods. NTIS  PB 85-
 179018. National  Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.  Cincinnati, OH.

 U.S. EPA.  September  1983. Characterization of  Hazardous Waste  Sites -  A
 Methods Manual:  Volume  II. Available Sampling  Methods.  EPA-600/4-83-040.
 NTIS PB 84-126929. Office of Solid  Waste. Washington, D.C. 20460.

 U.S. EPA.  September  1983. Characterization of  Hazardous Waste  Sites -  A
 Methods Manual:  Volume  III,  Available  Laboratory  Analytical  Methods.  EPA-
 600/4-83-040.  NTIS PB 84-126929.  Office  of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
 20460.

 U.S. EPA.  1986.  Test  Methods for  Evaluating  Solid Waste. 3rd  Edition. EPA
 SW-846. GPO No 955-001-00000-1. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
 20460.

 ASTM.    1982.   Toxic Materials  in  the  Atmosphere.   ASTM,  STP 786.
 Philadelphia, PA.

 ASTM.   1980.  Sampling  and Analysis of Toxic  Organics in the  Atmosphere.
 ASTM,  STP721. Philadelphia, PA.

 ASTM.   1974.  Instrumentation  for  Monitoring Air  Quality.  ASTM, STP 555.
 Philadelphia, PA.

APHA.  1977.  Methods  of Air Sampling and  Analysis. American Public  Health
 Association.  Cincinnati,  OH.

ACGIH.  1983. Air Sampling  Instruments for  Evaluation of Atmospheric
 Contaminants. American  Conference of  Governmental  Industrial  Hygienists.
Washington,  D.C.
                               12-88

-------
     U.S.  EPA.  December  1988 Draft.  Procedures for Conducting  Air  Pathway
     Analyses  for  Superfund  Applications.   Office  of  Air  Quality  Planning  and
     Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

12.8.2.1         Screening  Methods

     Screening  techniques  for  vapor-phase constituents  fall  into  two  main
categories.  (1)  organic and non-organic  compound-specific indicators,  and  (2)
general  organic detectors.   Table 12-11  presents a  summary  of  commercially
available screening  methods  for these  compounds.

     Indicator  tubes  and  other  calorimetric methods-indicator tubes,  also  known
as gas  detector or  Draeger tubes, are  small glass tubes  filled  with a reagent-coated
material  which  changes color when  exposed to a particular chemical. Air  is pulled
through  the  tube with a  low-volume  pump.  Tubes are available for  40 organic
gases,  and for  8 hour  or 15  minute exposure periods. Indicator tubes were  designed
for use  in occupational settings,  where high levels of  relatively  pure gases  are likely
to occur.  Therefore, they  have only  limited usefulness for  ambient  air sampling,
where  part-per-billion  levels  are  often  of concern.  However, because  they  are
covenient to use and available for a wide  range of compounds, detector tubes  may
be useful in some screening/sampling situations.

     Other  calorimetric methods,  such  as  continuous  flow and  tape monitor
techniques,  were  developed  to  provide real-time monitoring  capability with
indicator  methods.  The  disadvantages of these  systems are similar to  those of
indicator tubes.

     Instrument  detection  screening  methods-More  commonly used for volatile
organic surveys, portable  instrument  detection  methods  include flame  ionization
detectors  (FID), photoionization  detectors (PID),  electron capture  detectors  (ECD),
and  infrared detectors (ID). Also  in  use are detectors that respond  to specific
chemical  classes  such  as  sulfur- and  nitrogen-containing  organics.    These
instruments  are  used to  indicate  levels of total organic vapors and for identification
of "hot  zones"  downwind of  the release source(s). They can  be used as  real-time
non-specific monitors or,  by  adding  a  gas  chromatography,  can  provide
concentration estimates and  tentative  identification  of  pollutants.
                                     12-89

-------
                                      TABLE 12-11
TYPICAL COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SCREENING TECHNIQUES FOR ORGANICS IN AIR (FROM RIGGIN, 1983)
Technique
Gas Detection Tubes
Continuous Flow
Calorimeter
Calorimetric Tape Monitor
Infrared Analysis
FID (Total Hydrocarbon
Analyzer)
GC/FID (portable)
PID and GC/PID (portable)
GC/ECD (portable)
GC/FPD (portable)
Chemiluminescent
Nitrogen Detector
Manufacturers
Draeger
Matheson
Kitagawa
CEA Instruments,
Inc.
KHDA Scientific
Foxboro/Wilkes
Beckman
HSA, Inc.
AID, Inc.
Foxboro/Century
AID, Inc.
HNU, Inc.
AID, Inc.
Photovac, Inc.
AID, Inc.
AID, Inc.
Antek, Inc.
Compounds Detected
Various organics and
inorganics
Acrylonitrile,
formaldehyde,
phosgene, and various
organics
Toluene, diisocyanate,
dinitro toluene,
phosgene, and various
inorganics
Most organics
Most organics
Same as above except
that polar compounds
may not elute from the
column.
Most organic
compounds can be
detected with the
exception of methane
Halogenated and nitro-
substituted compounds
Sulfur or phosphorus-
containing compounds
Nitrogen-containing
compounds
Approximate
Detection Limit
0.1 to 1 ppmv
0.05 to 0.5 ppmv
0.05-0.5 ppmv
1-10 ppmv
0.5 ppmv
0.5 ppmv
0.1 to 100 ppbv
0.1 to 100 ppbv
10-100 ppbv
0.1 ppmv (as N)
Comments
Sensitivity and selectivity highly dependent on
component of interest.
Sensitivity and selectivity similar to detector
tubes.
Same as above.
Some inorganic gases (H2O, CO) will be detected
and therefore are potential interferences.
Responds uniformly to most organic compounds
on a carbon basis.
Qualitative as well as quantitative information
obtained.
Selectivity can be adjusted by selection of lamp
energy. Aromatics most readily detected.
Response varies widely from compound to
compound.
Both inorganic and organic sulfur or phosphorus
compounds will be detected.
Inorganic nitrogen compounds will interfere.

-------
     Of the available  detectors, those that are the most applicable to an RFI are the
FID  and  PID.  Table  12-12 summarizes  four instruments (two FID and  two  PID
versions) which are adequate for the  purposes of the screening phase.

     Flame lonization Detectors-The Century OVA  100 series  and AID Model  550
utilize  a  FID  to  determine the presence  of vapor  phase  organics. The detector
responds  to the total  of all organics  present in the air at any given moment.  Flame
ionization  detectors  will  respond to most organics,  but  are most sensitive to
hydrocarbons  (i.e., those  chemicals which  contain  only carbon  and  hydrogen
molecules  such as benzene and  propane).   FIDs  are  somewhat less  sensitive to
compounds containing chlorine,  nitrogen,  oxygen,  and  sulfur  molecules.   The
response  is calibrated against  a reference gas,  usually methane.  FID  response  is
often termed  "total  hydrocarbons";  however,  this is misleading  because particulate
hydrocarbons  are  not detected. FID  detection without  gas  chromatography  is not
useful  for quantification  of individual  compounds,  but  provides a  useful tool for
general  assessment purposes.  Detection limits using a FID detector alone  are about
1  ppm. Addition  of a gas chromatography  (GC) lowers the  detection limit to  ppb
levels,  but increases the analysis time significantly.

     Photoionization  Detectors-Portable  photoionization  detectors  such as  the
HNU Model  PI-101  and  the  Photovac  10A10  operate by  applying  UV ionizing
radiation to the  contaminant molecules. Some selectivity over the  types of organic
compounds  detected  can  be obtained  by varying energy  of  the ionizing  beam. In
the screening  mode this  feature can  be  used to distinguish  between aliphatic and
aromatic  hydrocarbons  and to  exclude  background gases from  the instrument's
response.  The HNU and Photovac can be used either in the survey  mode (PID only),
or with GC.  Sensitivity with  PID  alone is about 1 ppm, but can go down to as low as
0.1 ppb when a GC is used.

     PI and  Fl  detectors  used  in  the GC mode can be  used for semiquantitative
analysis of compounds  in ambient air.   However,  in  areas where  numerous
contaminants  are  present,  identification  of  peaks  in  a complex  matrix  may be
tentative at best.
                                     12-91

-------
                                   TABLE 12-12

       SUMMARY OF SELECTED ONSITE ORGANIC SCREENING METHODOLOGIES
      Instrument
      or detector
   Measurable
   parameters
 Low range
of detection
Comments
Century Series 100 or
AID Model 550 (survey
mode)
Volatile  organic
species
  Low ppm      Uses Flame lonization
               Detector (FID)
HNU Model PI-101
Volatile  organic
species
 Low ppm      Photo-ionization  (Pi)
               detector-provides
               especially  good
               sensitivity  to low
               molecular weight
               aromatic compounds
               (i.e.,  benzene,  toluene)
Century  Systems         Volatile organic
OVA-128 (GC mode)     species
                      Low ppm      Uses GC column for
                                    possible specific
                                    compound
                                    identification
Photo Vac 10A10
Volatile  organic
species
 Low ppm      Uses PI  detector.
               Especially sensitive to
               aromatic  species.  May
               be used for compound
               identification  if
               interferences are not
               present
                                      12-92

-------
     Another method which  can be  used as a  survey  technique  is  mobile  mass
spectrometry. Ambient air  is  drawn through a  probe directly  into the  instrument,
which is  usually mounted in a van.  Particularly in the MS/MS configuration  this is a
powerful  technique which  can  provide  positive  identification  and  semiquantitative
measurement  of  an extremely  wide range of organic and inorganic gaseous
contaminants.

12.8.2.2        Quantitative  Methods

     Laboratory analysis  of  hazardous  constituents in  air includes  the following
standard  steps:

     •    Preconcentration of organics  (as necessary  to  achieve detection  limit
          goals);

     •    Transfer to a  gas  chromatography  or  HPLC (High  Pressure Liquid
          Chromatography);  and

     •    Quantification and/or  identification with a  detector.

     Broad-spectrum methods applicable  to most common air  contaminants are
discussed below.

12.8.2.2.1 Monitoring  Organic Compounds  in Air

     Due to the large number of organic compounds that maybe present  in air, and
their wide  range in chemical  and physical  properties,  no  single monitoring
technique is applicable to all  organic air contaminants.  Numerous techniques  have
been developed,  and continue to be developed,  to  monitor for specific  compound
classes, individual chemicals,  or to address  a wide range of hazardous  contaminants.
This last  approach may  be the most efficient approach to monitoring at units where
a wide range of chemicals are likely to be present. Therefore, methods that apply to
a broad range of compounds  are recommended. In cases, where specific compounds
of concern are  not  adequately  measured  by broad-spectrum  methods, compound-
specific techniques are described or referenced.
                                     12-93

-------
12.8.2.2.1.1      Vapor-Phase Organics

       The majority of hazardous constituents of concern can  be classified as gaseous
  or  (vapor-phase) organics.   These  constituents  include  most  petroleum-related
  hydrocarbons,  organic solvents, and  many  pesticides, and  other semivolatile organic
  compounds.   Methods to  monitor these compounds generally  include  on-site
  analysis  (making use  of onsite  concentration  techniques, where necessary),  or
  require storage in a tightly sealed non-reactive container.

       Techniques for volatile and  semivolatile organics measurement include:

       •    Adsorption of the sample on  a  solid  sorbent with  subsequent  resorption
            (thermal  or chemical),  followed  by gas chromatographic analysis using a
            variety of detectors.

       •    Collection of whole  air (grab)  samples in an  evacuated flask or in  Tedlar
            or Teflon  bags, with direct injection of the sample  into a GC  using  high
            sensitivity and/or  constituent-specific detectors. This  analysis may or  may
            not be preceded by a  preconcentration step.

       •    Cryogenic trapping  of  samples  in the field with  subsequent instrumental
            analysis.

       •    Bubbling  ambient  air through  a liquid-filled   impinger,  containing  a
            chemical  that will absorb  or react with  specific  compounds  to  form more
            stable products for GC  analysis.

       •    Direct introduction of the air into a MS/MS or other detector.

       Tables 12-13 (A and B),  12-14, and  12-15 summarize sampling  and analytical
  techniques that are  applicable  to  a wide  range of vapor phase organics,  have been
  widely tested and  validated in the  literature,  and  make  use  of  equipment that  is
  readily available. A discussion of general  types of techniques is given below.
                                       12-94

-------
TABLE  12-13A.  SUMMARY  OF  CANDIDATE  METHODOLOGIES  FOR  QUANTIFICATION  OF  VAPOR  PHASE  ORGANICS
  Collection Technique
    Analytical
    Technique
Applicability
 (See Table 12.15B)
    Positive Aspects
             Negative Aspects
   Sorption onto Tenax-
   GC or carbon molecular
   sieve packed cartridges
   using  low-volume
   pump
Thermal
Resorption  into
GC or GC/MS
                  adequate QA/QC data
                  base
                  widely used on
                  investigations  around
                  uncontrolled waste sites
                  wide  range  of
                  applicability
                  u/m3 detection limits
                practical  for field use
                           .  possibility of  contamination
                           •   artifact  formation problems
                           • rigorous  cleanup  needed
                           •   no possibility of  multiple analysis
                           .  low  breakthrough  volumes for some
                              compounds
1.  Sorption onto charcoal
   packed cartridges using
   low-volume  pump
Resorption with
solvent-analysis
by GC or GC/MS
              • large data  base for
                 various compounds
              •  wide use  in industrial
                 applications
              .  practical  for field use
                           . problems with  irreversible adsorption of
                              some compounds
                           • high  (mg/m3) detection  limits
                           •  artifact  formation  problems
                           . high  humidity  reduces retention
                              efficiency
   Sorption  onto
   polyurethane  foam
   (PDF) using low-volume
   or high-volume  pump
Solvent extraction
of PUF; analysis by
GUMS
                 wide  range  of
                 applicability
                 easy to preclean and
                 extract
                 very low blanks
                 excellent collection  and
                 retention  efficiencies
                 reusable up to 10 times
                           .  possibility of  contamination
                           • losses of more volatile compounds  may
                              occur during storage
V. Sorption on passive
   dosimeters using Tenax
   or charcoal as
   adsorbing  medium
Analysis by
chemical or
thermal
resorption
following by  GC
or GC/MS
    lor
  samplers are small,
  portable, require  no
  pumps
  makes use of analytical
  procedures  of known
  precision and accuracy
  for a broad  range of
  compounds
pg/m3detection  limits
.  problems associated  with  sampling  using
    sorbents
•   uncertainty in volume of air sampled
    makes  concentration  calculations difficult
•   requires minimum external air flow rate

-------
                                                        TABLE 12-13A (Continued)
          Collection Technique
                               Analytical
                               Technique
                    Applicability
                     (see Table 12-16B)
       Positive Aspects
              Negative Aspects
        v. Cryogenic trapping of
           analytes in the field
                            Resorption
                            GC
            into
•   applicable to a wide
    range of compounds
•   artifact  formation
    minimized
• low  blanks
    requires field use of liquid nitrogen or
    oxygen
    sample is totally used in one analysis- no
    reanalysis  possible
    samplers easily clogged with water vapor
    no large data base on precision or
    recoveries
        VI. Whole air sample taken
           in glass or stainless steel
           bottles
                           Cryogenic
                           trapping  or direct
                           injection  into GC
                           or GC/MS (onsite
                           or  laboratory
                           analysis)
                                  •   useful for grab sampling
                                  • large  data base
                                  •   excellent long-term
                                      storage
                                  • wide    applicability
                                  •   allows multiple analyses
                              • difficult to  obtain  integrated samples
                              • low  sensitivity  if  preconcentration  is  not
                                  used
NJ
vb
VII. Whole air sample taken
   in TedlarKBag
Cryogenic
trapping  or  direct
injection  into GC
or GC/MS (onsite
or laboratory)
• grab  or  integrated
    sampling
• wide  applicability
•   allows multiple analyses
• long-term   stability  uncertain
• low sensitivity if  preconcentration is not
    used
•   adequate cleaning of containers between
    samples may be difficult
        IX.  Dinitrophenyl -
           hydrazine  Liquid
           Impinger sampling
           using  a  Low-Volume
           Pump
                            HPLC/UV  analysis
                         IV
• specific  to  aldehydes  and
    ketones
• good  stability  for
    derivatized  compounds
• low  detection   limits
•   fragile  equipment
•   sensitivity  limited  by reagent impurities
• problems  with  solvent  evaporation  when
    long-term  sampling  is performed
        X. Direct  introduction by
           probe
                           Mobile MS/MS
                      I,II, III, IV
•   immediate  results
• field   identification  of air
    contaminants
•   allows "real-time"
    monitoring
• widest  applicability   of
    any analytical  method
• high  instrument  cost
•   requires highly  trained operators
• grab  samples  only
•   no large data base on precision or
    accuracy

-------
TABLE 12-13B. LIST OF COMPOUND CLASSES REFERENCED IN TABLE 12-13A
    Category
                 Types of Compound
                  Volatile,  nonpolar  organics (e.g., aromatic
                  hydrocarbons, chlorinated  hydrocarbons)  having  boiling
                  points in the  range of 80 to 200°C.
                  Highly volatile,  nonpolar organics  (e.g., vinyl chloride,
                  vinylidene chloride, benzene,  toluene)  having  boiling
                  points in the range of -15 to + 120°C.
                  Semivolatile organic chemicals (e.g.,  organochlorine
                  pesticides and  PCBs).
       IV
Aldehydes and ketones.
                                 12-97

-------
TABLE 12-14. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES APPLICABLE TO
           VAPOR PHASE ORGANICS
Compound
Name
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aniline
Arsenic and compounds
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phalate
Bromomethane
Whole
Air
X
X
X
X

X

X
iCadmium and compounds
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloroaniline (p)
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloromethane (methyl chloride)
Chlorophenol
Chloroprene (Neoprene)
Chromium and compounds
Copper cyanide
X
X
X
NP
X
X
X

X


Tenax
Cartridge
TO-1
X




X




B


X
B
B

X


Carbon MS
Cartridge
TO-2


X


X

NP

NP
X



X
NP

NP


Cryogenic
Trapping
TO-3


X
X

X

X

X
X
X
NP
X
X


X


Hi-Vol
PUF
TO-4











X



NP




Liquid
Impinger
TO- 5




















NIOSH
Method
Number



2002
7900

5020
2520
7048
1600
1003


1003
1003


1002
7024
7029
Comments/Others




Solid, use Std. Hi-Vol



Solid, use Std. Hi-Vol



No validated Method



Needs XAD-2 Backup

Solid, use Std. Hi-Vol
Solid, use Std. Hi-Vol.

-------
TABLE 12-14 (continued)
Compound
Name
Cresol (o)
Cresol (p)
Cyanide
Dichloro-2-butene (1 ,4)
Dichloro benzene (1,2)
Dichloro benzene (1,4)
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloroethane (1,1) [ethylidine
chloride]
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4)
Dichloropropane (1,2)
Dichioropropene (1,3)
Diethyl phthalate
Dinotrotoluene (2,4)
Dioxane (1,4)
Diphenylhydrazine (1,2)
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dichloride
Fluorides
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobutadiene
Whole
Air


X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X

X
X


X
Tenax
Cartridge
TO-1



X
X
X
NP
X

X
NP


X

B
B



Carbon MS
Cartridge
TO-2






NP
NP












Cryogenic
Trapping
TO-3



X
X
X

X

X
X


X

X
X



Hi-Vol
PUF
TO-4








NP











Liquid
Impinger
TO-5




















NIOSH
Method
Number
2001
2001
7904

1003
1003

1003
5001
1013



1602

1008
1003
7902


Comments/Others
Syn: methyl phenol
Syn: methyl phenol




NIOSH 1012 should
work

Syn: 2,4-D
Method 1003 may be
used

No method identified
Yellow crystals, use Hi-
Vol

No method identified
Syn: 1 ,2-dibromoethane
Syn: 1 ,2-dichloroethane
Std. Hi-Vol for
particulate fraction
Waxy solid, use Std. Hi-
Vol


-------
TABLE 12-14. (continued)
Compound
Name
Hexachloroethane
Isobutanol
Lead and compounds
Mercury and compounds
Methacrylonitrile
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Nickel and compounds
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenol
Parathion
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentachlorophenol
Perchloroethylene
Phenol
Phorate
Pyridine
Resorcinol
Styrene
Whole
Air




X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
Tenax
Cartridge
TO-1
NP
NP



X
NP
B


X
NP

NP
X
NP
X
X



NP
i 	 ^ 	 1
Carbon MS
Cartridge
TO-2




NP


X













	
Cryogenic
Trapping
TO-3
X
X


X

X
X


X
X

X
X

X
X
X


X
1 	 ^ 	 1
Hi-Vol
PUF
TO-4








X



NP









Liquid
Impinger
TO-5






















NIOSH
Method
Number
1003
1401
7802
7300

2500

1005
5515
7300
2005

5012




3502



1501
Comments/Others
Syn: perchloroethane
Syn: isobutyl alcohol
Mostly particulate, use
Hi-Vol
Mostly particulate, use
Hi-Vol

Syn: 2-butanone

Syn: dichloromethane
Method TO-4 needs
XAD-2
Mostly particulate, use
Hi-Vol






Syn.
Tetrachloroethylene




Syn Polystyrene

-------
                                                       TABLE   12-14.  (continued)
Compound
Name
TCDD (2,3,7,8)
Toluene
Toxaphene
Trichlorobenzene
Trichloroethane ( 1, 1,1)
Trichloroethylene
Trichloropropane (1,2,3)
Vanadium pentoxide
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Vinylidene chloride (1,1
dichloroethylene)
Xylene (m, o, p)
Zinc oxide
Whole
Air

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

Tenax
Cartridge
TO-1

X

NP
B
X
X




X

Carbon MS
Cartridge
TO-2

X


X
X



X
X


Cryogenic
Trapping
TO-3

X

NP
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

Hi-Vol
PUF
TO-4
X

NP










Liquid
Impinger
TO-5













NIOSH
Method
Number

1501


1003




1007

1501
7530 and
7502
Comments/Others


Syn: Chlorinated
camphene

Syn: Methyl Chloroform


Mostly particulate, use
Hi-Vol

Syn: 1,1-dichloroethene

Syn: dimethylbenzene
Solid, use Std. Hi-Vol
1. Blank spaces  indicate that the method is inappropriate for that compound
2. B    = small  breakthrough volume  for adsorbent
3. NP  = not  proven  for this adsorbent, but may  work
4. x    = acceptable media for collection

-------
                       TABLE 12-15
        COMPOUNDS MONITORED USING EMSL-RTP
              TENAX SAMPLING  PROTOCOLS
2-Chloropropane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Bromoethane
l-Chloropropane
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Tetrahydrofuran
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon  tetrachloride
Dibromomethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Trichloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2,3-Dichlorobutane
Bromotrichloromethane
Toluene
1,3-Dichloropropane
1,2-Dibromomethane
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dibromopropane
Nitrobenzene
Acetophenone
Benzonitrite
Isopropylbenzene
p-lsopropyltoluene
1 -Bromo-3-chloropropane
Ethylbenzene
Bromoform
Ethenylbenzene
o-Xylene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Bromobenzene
Benzaldehyde
Pentachloroethane
4-Chlorostyrene
3-Chloro-1-propene
1,4-Dichlorobutane
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,1-Dichloroethane
2-Chlorobutane
2-Chloroethyl  vinyl  ether
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
p-Dioxane
Epichlorobutane
1,3-Dichlorobutane
p-Dichlorobenzene
cis-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
n-Butyl  benzene
3,4-Dichloro-1-butene
1,3,5-Trimethyl  benzene
                         12-102

-------
     Sorbent  techniques-A very  common  technique  used to  sample vapor-phase
organics involves sorption onto  a  solid  medium.   Methods of this  type usually
employ  a low- or  high-volume  pump  to pull  air through  a glass  tube  containing  the
sorbent  material.   Organic  compounds  are  trapped  (removed from the  air)  by
chemical attraction to the  surface of the  adsorbent material.  After a  predetermined
volume  of air  has  been pulled  through the trap, the tube is capped and returned to
the  laboratory  for analysis.  Adsorbed organics  are  then thermally  or  chemically
desorbed from the  trap prior to GC or GC/MS analysis.

     Thermal  resorption  is accomplished  by rapidly heating  the sorbent  tube  while
a  stream of  inert gas flushes desorbed organics directly  onto  the  GC  column.
Generally a secondary trap (either another sorbent or a cryogenically  cooled loop) is
used to hold the organics until injection into  the GC column, but this step precludes
multiple analyses of the sample.

     Chemical  resorption involves  flushing  the sorbent tube with an  organic
solvent,  and analysis of the desorbed  organics by GC or GC/MS. Since only a portion
of the  solvent  is injected into the  GC,  sensitivity  is lower  than  with  thermal
adsorption.    However,  reanalysis  of samples  is possible.  The most  common
application  of  chemical  resorption is for  analysis  of workplace air samples,  where
relatively high  concentrations of organics  are expected.

     The primary advantages of sorbent techniques are their ease of  use  and ability
to sample  large volumes of air.  Sorbent  cartridges are commercially  available  for
many applications, and  can easily   be adapted  to portable  monitoring  pumps or
personal samplers.  A wide variety of sorbent materials are available, and  sorbent
traps can be used singly  or  in  series for maximum retention  of airborne  pollutants.
Sorbent  methods  are especially  applicable  to integrated or long-term  sampling,
because large volumes  of  air  can   be passed through  the  sampling tube before
breakthrough  occurs.

     In  choosing  a sorbent  method, the  advantages  and  limitations of specific
methods should be  considered along with  general  limitations  of sorbents.  Some
important considerations are discussed below.
                                     12-103

-------
•    Sorbents can  be easily  contaminated  during  manufacturing,  shipping  or
     storage.    Extensive  preparation  (cleaning)  procedures are  generally
     needed to insure that the  sorbent  is free from  interfering  compounds
     prior  to  sampling.   Tenax,  for  example,  is  often  contaminated  with
     benzene  and  toluene  from  the manufacturing  process,  requiring
     extensive  solvent extraction and  thermal  conditioning  before it  is  used.
     Once  prepared,  sampling  cartridges  must be protected  from
     contamination  before  and  after sampling.

•    No single adsorbent exists that will retain all vapor phase organics. The
     efficiency  of retention of a  compound  on a  sorbent  depends  on the
     chemical  properties  of  both  compound  and sorbent. Generally,  a  sorbent
     that  works well  for nonpolar  organics  such as  benzene  will perform
     poorly with polar organics  such  as  methanol, and  vice  versa.  Highly
     volatile compounds  such  as vinyl chloride will  not  be  retained on weakly
     adsorbing  materials  such  as Tenax, while  less volatile compounds will be
     irreversibly  retained  on strong absorbents such as charcoal. The  optimal
     approach  involves  use of a  sorbent  that will  retain a  wide  range  of
     compounds  with  good  efficiency,  supplemented by  techniques
     specifically  directed  towards "problem" compounds.

•    Tenax-GC  is a  synthetic polymeric resin which  is  highly  effective for
     volatile nonpolar  organics such  as aliphatic and  aromatic  hydrocarbons,
     and chlorinated organic solvents. Table 12-15  lists compounds  that have
     been  successfully" monitored  using a Tenax sorption  protocol. Tenax has
     the important advantage  that it does not  retain water. Large amounts  of
     water vapor condensing  on a  sorbent reduces  collection efficiency and
     interferes  with  GC  and  GC/MS analysis.   Another  advantage  of this
     material is  the ease of thermal or  chemical resorption.

     The  major limitation  of  Tenax is  that  certain  highly  volatile or  polar
     compounds  are poorly  retained  (e.g., vinyl  chloride,  methanol).
     Formation of  artifacts  (i.e.,   degradation   products  from  the  air
     contaminant sample collected  due to  hydrolysis,  oxidation, photolysis  or
     other  processes)  on Tenax has also been noted,  especially the oxidation
                               12-104

-------
     of amines to form  nitrosamines,  yielding false  positive  results for the
     latter compounds.

     Carbon  sorbents  include activated carbon, carbon molecular sieves,  and
     carbonaceous polymeric  resins.  The major advantage of  these materials
     is their  strong  affinity  for volatile organics, making them  useful for
     highly  volatile compounds  such as  vinyl chloride.  The strength of their
     sorptive  properties  is  also  the  major  disadvantage  of  carbon sorbents
     because  some organic compounds  may become  irreversibly adsorbed on
     the carbon.  Thermal  resorption  of  compounds with  boiling  points  above
     approximately 80°C  is not feasible  due to the high  temperature (400°c)
     required.   Carbon  absorbents will retain  some water, and therefore may
     not be useful in high humidity  conditions.

     In addition  to the Tenax and  carbon  tube  sampling methods  shown
     above, passive sorption devices for ambient  monitoring can   be  used.
     These  passive samplers consist of a  portion of Tenax  or  carbon held
     within a  stainless  steel  mesh  holder.  Organics  diffuse into  the sampler
     and  are   retained  on the  sorbent material.   The  sampling  device is
     designed to fit  within  a specially  constructed  oven  for thermal
     resorption.    Results from these  passive samplers were  reported  to
     compare  favorably with pump-based sorbent  techniques.  Because of the
     difficulty of determining  the volume of air sampled  via passive  sampling,
     these devices would  appear  to  be  mainly applicable for  screening
     purposes.

•    Polyurethane  foam  (PDF) has been  used extensively and effectively for
     collection of semivolatile  organics  from ambient  air.   Semivolatiles
     include PCBs and  pesticides. Such compounds are often of concern  even
     at very  low  concentrations. A  significant advantage  of PUF  is  its  ability
     to perform at high flow rates, typically  in excess  of 500 liters per minute
     (l/m). This minimizes  sampling times.

     PUF has been shown to be effective  for collection  of a wide range of
     semivolatile  compounds.  Tables 12-16  and  12-17  list compounds that
     have been successfully quantified  in  ambient air with PUF.  Compounds
                                12-105

-------
     TABLE 12-16.
SUMMARY LISTING OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS SUGGESTED FOR COLLECTION WITH A LOW
VOLUME POLYURETHANE  FOAM SAMPLER AND SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS WITH
AN ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTOR (GC/ECD)a
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Aroclor 1221c
Aroclor 1232d
Aroclor 1242a
Aroclor 1016c
Aroclor 1248d
Aroclor 1254a
Aroclor 1260a
Chlorinated Pesticides

ct-chlordanea
Y-chlordanea
Chlordane (technical)a
M i rexa
a -BHCa
6-BHCd
-BHC (Lindane)a
-BHCd
p,p'-DDDd
p,p1-DDEa
                   p, p'-DDTa
                   Endosulfan la
                   Heptachlord
                   Aldrina
                   Polychlorinated Napthalenes (PCNs)

                   Halowax 1001c
                   Halowax 1013c
                   Chlorinated Benzene

                   1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene a
                   1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene d
                   1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene d
                   1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene a
                   1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene d
                   1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene d
                   Pentachlorobenzene a
                   Hexachlorobenzene a
                   Pentachloronitrobenzene a
Chlorinated Phenols

2,3-Dichlorophenolb
2,4-Dichlorophenolb
2,5-Dichlorophenolb
2,6-Dichlorophenolb
3,4-Dichlorophenolb
3,5-Dichlorophenolb
2,3,4-Trichlorophenol d
2,3,5-Trichlorophenol d
2,3,6-Trichlorophenol d
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol a
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol d
3,4,5-Trichlorophenol d
2,3,4,5-Tetrachlorophenold
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenold
2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenold
Pentachlorophenol a
   Method validation data for all components, unless otherwise noted, are available in the literature. This includes collection efficiency
   data and/or retention efficiency data, method recovery data, and in some cases, storage stability data on selected isomers from this
   compound class.

   Method validation data not presently available in the literature for either a low or high volume sampling procedure. Dichlorophenols,
   however, are amenable to the same analytical protocols suggested for the higher molecular weight clorophenol isomers (trichloro,
   tetrachloro, and pentachloro). Users are cautioned that sample collection efficiencies may not be as high for dichlorophenols as for the
   higher molecular weight chlorophenols. Collection/retention efficiency data should be generated  for each specific program.

   Validation data employing low volume sampling  conditions not presently available in literature.  Component has, however,  been
   evaluated using high volume PDF sampler.

   Actual validation data for isomer(s) employing low volume PDF sampler not available in literature. Behavior under low volume sample
   conditions should be similar to other structural isomers listed. Component is amenable to analytical scheme employing GC/ECD.

-------
TABLE 12-17.
SUMMARY  LISTING  OF  ADDITIONAL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS SUGGESTED  FOR COLLECTION WITH A
LOW VOLUME POLYURETHANE FOAM SAMPLER
 Polvnuclear  Aromatic  Hydrocarbons*
                        Herbicide Esters
Urea Pesticides
 Napthalene
 Biphenyl
 Fluorene
 Dibenzothiophene
 Phenanthrene
 Anthracene
 Carbazole
 2-Methylanthracene
 l-Methylphenanthrene
 Fluoranthene
 Pyrene
 Benzo(a)fluorene
 Benzo(b)fluorene
 Benzo(a)anthracene
 Chrysene/triphenylene
 Benzo(b)fluoranthene
 Benzo(e)pyrene
 Benzo(a)pyrene
 Perylene
 o-Phenylenepyrene
 Dibenzo(ac)/(ah)anthracene
 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
 Coronene
                         2,4-D Esters, isopropylc
                         2,4-D Esters, butylc
                         2,4-D Esters, isobutylc
                         2,4-D Esters, isooctylc

                         Organophosphorous Pesticides

                         Mevinphos"
                         Dichlorvosc
                         Ronnelc
                         Chlorpyriposc
                         Diazinonc
                         Methyl  parathionc
                         Ethyl parathionc

                         Carbamate Pesticides

                         Propoxurc
                         Carbofuranc
                         Bendiocarbc
                         Mexacarbatec
                         CarbaryP
Monuronc
Diuronc
Linuronc
Terbuthiuronc
Fluometuronc
Chlorotoluronc

Triazine Pesticides

Simazinec
Atrazinec
Propazinec

Pyrethrin  Pesticides

Pyrethrin  lc
Pyrethrin  IT
Allethrinc
d-trans-Allethrin c
Dicrotophosc
Resmethrinc
Fenvaleratec
"These components have  been reported  in the literature using  polyurethane foam  samplers. Users  are  cautioned that  this  listing is
    provided solely  as  a working reference.  Method  validation  studies including  collection efficiencies,  retention  efficiencies,  etc.,
    employing the sampling procedures cited in this document have not been  conducted. Procedures other than  those  noted  in  this
    document may be more applicable in routine  use.

"Validation data employing low  volume  sampling  conditions not presently available  in  literature. Component, however, has been
    evaluated using high volume PUF sampler.
    sample evaluation data for these compound classes using a low volume PUF sampler contained in the literature.

-------
          that have  shown  poor retention or  storage  behavior  with  PDF  include
          hexachlorocyclohexane,  dimethyl  and  diethylphthalates,  mono-  and
          dichlorophenols,  and trichloro-  and  tetrachlorobenzenes.    These
          compounds have  higher  vapor pressures,  and  may  be  collected  more
          effectively with Tenax or with resin sorbents  such as XAD-2.

          PDF  is  easy to  handle,  pre-treat,  and extract.  Blanks  with very low
          contaminant concentrations  can be obtained,  as long  as precautions are
          taken  against  contamination  after  pretreatment.  Samples  have  been
          shown to remain stable on PDF during  holding times of up to 30  days.
          PDF  concentration  methods  have  shown  excellent  collection efficiency
          and recovery of sorbed compounds from  the  material.

          Most PDF  methods specify the use of a  filter  ahead of the PDF cartridge,
          to  retain  particulate.  The filter  prevents plugging  of the  PDF  which
          would  reduce air  flow  through  the sorbent.  Some methods  recommend
          extracting the filter separately  to obtain  a value for particulate organics.
          However,  because  most  semivolatile compounds  have  sufficient  vapor
          pressure to volatilize from  the  filter  during the  collection period,
          particulate  measurements  may  not be representative  of true  particulate
          concentrations.    Therefore,   results  from  the  PDF  analyses  may
          overestimate gaseous  concentrations of  semi-volatile compounds  due to
          volatilization of  semi-volatiles originally  collected  on  the  sampler inlet
          filter and subsequently collected by the PDF cartridge.

     •    Cryogenic  methods  for capturing and collecting  volatile organics  involve
          pulling air  through a stainless steel  or nickle U-tube  immersed in  liquid
          oxygen or  liquid  argon. After sampling,  the tube is sealed, stored in  a
          coolant,  and returned to  the laboratory for  analysis.    The trap is
          connected  to a GC,  rapidly heated,  and  flushed into a  GC  or  GC/MS for
          analysis.

     The  major  advantage  of cryogenic concentration is that all  vapor phase
organics, except  the  most volatile,  are  concentrated.  This is  a  distinct  advantage
over sorbent  concentration,  which  is especially selective for  particular chemical
                                     12-108

-------
classes.  Contamination problems  are minimal  with  cryogenic  methods  because  a
collection  media is  not required.

     Several  disadvantages  limit  the current usefulness  of  cryogenic methods,
including:

     •    Samplers rapidly  become plugged  with  ice  in high  humidity conditions.
          This limits the volume of air that can  be sampled.

     •    The entire sample is analyzed at once, enhancing sensitivity  but  making
          multiple analyses of a sample impossible.

     •    The necessity  of  handling  and transporting cryogenic liquids  makes this
          method cumbersome for  many sampling applications.

     •    There  is  a  possibility  of  chemical reactions  between  compounds in the
          cryogenic trap.

     Whole  air sampling-Air  may  be collected  without  preconcentration  for  later
use in direct GC analysis or for other treatment.  Samples may be collected in  glass or
stainless steel  containers, or in inert flexible containers  such as  Tedler  bags.  Rigid
containers are generally  used for  collection of  grab samples,  while  flexible
containers or  rigid  containers may   be  used to obtain integrated samples.  Using  a
flexible container  to  collect whole air samples  requires the use  of a sampling pump
with  flow rate controls.  Sampling  with  rigid  containers  is  performed either  by
evacuating the container and allowing ambient  air to enter,  or  by having both inlet
and  outlet valves   remain  open  while  pumping  air through   the  container  until
equilibrium is  achieved.

     Whole  air sampling is generally simple  and efficient. Multiple  analyses are
possible  on samples,  allowing for  good  quality control. This method  also  has the
ability to be used for widely  differing analyses  on  a single sample. The method has
been widely used, and a substantial data base has been  developed.

     Problems may occur using this  method  due to decomposition  of  compounds
during  storage and  loss  of some   organics by adsorption  to  the container walls.
                                     12-109

-------
Sample stability  is generally much greater  in stainless steel containers than in glass
or plastic. Whole-air sampling is  limited to relatively small volumes  of air  (generally
up  to 20  liters due  to the impracticality  of handling  larger sample  collection
containers),  and has higher detection limits than some sorbent techniques.

      Impinger  collection  --  Impinger collection  involves  passing  the air stream
through an  organic solvent. Organics in  the  air are dissolved  in the solvent, which
can then be analyzed by GC/MS. Large volumes of air sampled cause the collection
solvent to evaporate. In addition,  collection efficiency  is  dependent  on flow rate  of
the gas, and  on  the  gas-liquid  partition  coefficients  of  the  individual compounds.
However,  there  are  certain specialized applications of impinger sampling  that have
been  found to  be preferable to  alternate collection  techniques  (e.g.,  sampling  for
aldehydes and ketones).

      Certain  compounds  of interest are highly  unstable or  reactive,  and will
decompose during  collection or storage.   To  concentrate and  analyze  these
compounds,  they  must  be chemically  altered (derivatized)  to  more  stable  forms.
Another common reason  for derivatization  is  to  improve  the chromatographic
behavior  of  certain classes of compounds (e.g., phenols). Addition  of the
derivatization  reagent to impinger solvent  is  a convenient way  to  accomplish the
necessary reaction.

     A widely used method  for analysis  of aldehydes  and  ketones is  a DNPH
(dinitrophenylhydrazine)  impinger  technique.   Easily  oxidized  aldehydes and
ketones react with  DNPH  to form  more  stable hydrazone derivatives, which are
analyzed by  high  performance liquid chromatography  (HPLC)  with  a UV detector.
This method is  applicable  to  formaldehyde as well  as less volatile aldehydes and
ketones.

      Direct  analysis -  A method not  requiring preconcentration or separation of  air
components  is highly desirable,  because  it avoids component degradation or loss
during storage.   Air is drawn through  an  inert tube  or  probe directly  into the
instrument detector.  Several  portable  instruments exist  that can  provide  direct  air
analysis,  including  infrared  spectrophotometers,  mobile  MS  instruments, and
portable  FID  detectors.  Some  of these   instruments  have been discussed  in the
section on screening methods.
                                     12-110

-------
     Mobile mass spectrometry  has been  used to  compare  upwind and downwind
concentrations  of organic pollutants at hazardous waste  management facilities.
The  advantage of the  multiple  mass  spectrometer  configuration (MS/MS  or  triple
MS)  over a single MS  system is  that multiple systems can  identify compounds  in
complex  mixtures  without  pre-separation  by gas  chromatography.    Major
limitations of MS/MS methods  are  low sensitivity and high  instrument cost.

     In summary, of the  methods  described  in this subsection,  the majority  of
vapor-phase organics can  be  monitored  by  use of the following sampling  methods:

     •    Concentration on Tenax or  carbon absorbents, followed  by chemical  or
          thermal resorption onto GC or GC/MS.

     •    Sorption on  polyurethane  foam  (PDF) cartridges, followed by  solvent
          extraction.

     •    Cryogenic trapping in  the  field.

     •    Whole-air  sampling.

12.8.2 .2.1.2     Particulate  Organics

     Certain  hazardous  organic  compounds of  concern  in ambient air  are  primarily
associated with airborne particles, rather  than in the  vapor phase. Such compounds
include  dioxins,   organochlorine  pesticides,  and   polyaromatic  hydrocarbons.
Therefore,  to  measure  these compounds  accurately,  it  is  necessary to  monitor
particulate emissions from  units of  concern.

     Measurement of particulate organics  is  complicated because  even relatively
nonvolatile  organics  exhibit some  vapor pressure,  and will  volatilize  to a  certain
extent during sampling.   The  partitioning  of  a  compound between  solid and
gaseous  phases is highly dependent  on the sampling conditions (e.g., sampling flow
rate, temperature). Particulate sampling methods generally  include a gas phase
collection device  after the  particulate  collector to trap  those  organics  that  become
desorbed during  sampling.
                                    12-111

-------
     The  most common methods used  for  collection of particles  from ambient  air
are:

     •     Filtration

               Cellulose Fiber
               Glass or Quartz Fiber
               Teflon  Coated Glass Fiber
               Membranes

     •     Centrifugal Collection  (e.g.,  cyclones)

     •     Impaction

     •     Electrostatic  Precipitation

     The  standard  sampling method for particulate  is filtration.  Teflon-coated
glass  membranes  generally give  the  best  retention without  problems with
separating the particulates sampled from the  filter.  Problems, however,  may  be
caused by  resorption  of organics from  the filter,  by  chemical transformation  of
organics  collected on  the  filter,  and  with  chemical  transformation  of organics due
to reaction with atmospheric gases  such  as  oxides  of  nitrogen and  ozone.  These
problems  are magnified by the large volumes of air  that must be sampled to obtain
sufficient  particulate  material to  meet  analytical  requirements. For  example,  to
obtain  50 milligrams of particulate from  a  typical air sample, 1000  cubic meters  of
air must  be sampled, involving about 20 hours of sampling time with a  high-volume
sampling  pump.

     Despite the  drawbacks  mentioned above,  filtration  is currently  the  simplest
and  most  thoroughly tested  method  of  collecting particulates  for  organic analysis.
Other methods, such as electrostatic precipitation, make  use of electrical charge  or
mechanical acceleration  of  the  particles.   The effect of these  procedures  on
compound  stability is poorly  understood.
                                     12-112

-------
12.8.2.2.2  Monitoring Inorganic  Compounds  in  Ambient Air

12.8.2 .2.2.1     Particulate Metals

     Metals in ambient  air can occur  as particulate or can  be adsorbed  on other
particulate  material.  Metals associated with  particulate  releases are effectively
collected by use  of filter media allowing  for the collection  of adequate samples for
analysis of a number of particulate contaminants.

     Collection  on filter  media-Sampling  methods  for  particulate  metals are
generally  based on capture  of  the particulate  on filter media.  For the most  part,
glass fiber filters are used; however, organic and membrane filters  such as cellulose
ester and  Teflon  can  also be  used.  These  membrane  filters  demonstrate greater
uniformity of pore  size  and,  in many cases,  lower contamination  levels  of trace
metals than are found  in  glass fiber  filters.  Analytical procedures  described  in the
following reference  can  be utilized  to analyze particulate  samples.

     U.S.  EPA. 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste.  3rd  Edition.  EPA
     SW-846.  GPO No. 955-001-00000-1. Office  of Solid Waste. Washington,  D.C.
     20460.

     Hi-Vol collection  devices-The  basic ambient air  sampler is  the  high volume
sampler which  can  collect a 2000 cubic meter sample over a 24-hour period and
capture particulates on an 8 x 10 inch filter (glass  fiber) as described in 40 CFR Part
50.  It  has a  nominal  cut point of 100um for the maximum diameter particle size
captured.  A recent  modification involves the  addition  of a  cyclone  ahead  of the
filter to  separate  respirable  and  non-respirable  particulate  matter. Health criteria
for  particulate  air contaminants  are  based on respirable particulate  matter.

     Personnel samplers-Another particulate  sampling  method  involves the use  of
personnel  samplers according  to NIOSH  methods (NIOSH,  1984).  The  NIOSH
methods  are  intended  to measure worker  exposure  to  particulate metals for
comparison to OSHA standards. A 500-liter air  volume is sampled  at approximately
2  liters per minute.  This method is  most  efficient when  less than 2 mg total
particulate  weight  are  captured. Capture  of  more  than 2 mg may lead to sample
                                     12-113

-------
 losses during handling  of the sample. The preferred filter medium is cellulose ester
 (47  mm  diameter) which will dissolve during the standard  acid digestion.

     The NIOSH  method,  however,  is  not recommended for the  RFI  for  several
 reasons. The NIOSH analytical methods (and good QA/QC practices) require  several
 aliquots of the sample to be prepared for  best analytical results. The 47  mm  filter is
 too  small for aliquoting; therefore, use of the NIOSH  method would  require  the
 simultaneous operation of  several sampling  systems. More importantly, the  500
 liter sample  volume generally  does not provide sufficient particulate matter  for  the
 analytical methods to detect trace ambient levels  of  metals.  The  method  is best
 suited  for industrial  hygiene applications.

     Dichotomous  Samplers - Dichotomous samplers  (virtual impactors) have been
 developed  for  particle  sizing with  various limit  outpoints  for use in  EPA  ambient
 monitoring  programs. These samplers  collect  two particulate fractions  on separate
 37  mm  diameter  filters from  a total air  volume of about  20 cubic meters. The
 standard sampling period is 24 hours.  Teflon  filters  are generally recommended by
 sampler  manufacturers  because  they  exhibit negligible  particle penetration  and
 result in  a low pressure drop during  the sampling period.  However,  glass fiber  and
 cellulose filters are also acceptable.

     The need  for  multiple extractions would require multiple  sampling  trains.  If
 the two  filters  are  combined to form  one  aliquot  and extracted together,  they  will
 provide sufficient sensitivity  for some but  not all  analytical  procedures  and defeat
 the purpose  of fractioning  the sample.   The  use  of  the  dichotomous  sampler is,
 therefore,  limited.

 12.8.2 .2.2.2     Vapor Phase Metals

     Most  metallic elements and  compounds  have very low volatilizes  at ambient
temperatures.  Those  that are relatively volatile,  however,  require  a  different
sampling method than  used for collection  of  particulate forms,  although analytical
techniques  may  be similar.   For the  purpose  of  ambient  monitoring,  vapor-phase
 metals are defined as all elements or  compounds that are  not effectively  captured
 by  standard  filter  sampling  procedures.  Available  methods for  the measurement of
vapor  phase  metals  are presented  in  Tables 12-18  and 12-19. These available
                                     12-114

-------
                             TABLE  12-18.  SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS FOR VOLATILE MERCURY
     Method/Reference
   Species measured
       Procedures  summary
  Advantages
     Disadvantages
    "NIOSH P&CAM 6000
Participate, organic and
elemental  mercury
Sampling train consists of
membrane  filter to capture
particulate  Hg, followed  by
Carbosieve B to trap organic Hg,
and then silver coated Chromosorb
P (CP) to collect elemental Hg.
Each section is analyzed separately
by thermal  resorption into a
flameless AA. Filters are  acid
digested, reduced  to Hg and
amalgamated on Ag CP prior to the
AA analysis step.
Standard method
Permits
measurement of all
three types of
mercury
Method selective to
mercury
Requires use of complex
resorption  unit
CI2interferes with sampling
Separation of organic and
metallic mercury  is uncertain
at 0.001 Hg/total  Hg
Requires preparation of
special sorbents
     NIOSH SCP-S342
Organic mercury
Filter to separate particulate;
adsorb organic Hg on Carbosieve
B; thermally desorb  into flameless
AA unit
ISJ
Standard method
Option to P&CAM
175 if organic
mercury is only
concern
Range is 20-80
|jg/m3 with a 3 liter
sample  volume
Requires complex thermal
resorption  unit
     PA Method 101
Particulate and
vaporous mercury
Collection in acidified 0.1 N HCI
impinger solution; analysis by NAA
or optionally by cold vapor AA
Standard method
Detection limit of 1
ug/m3
Fairly stable reagent
Same reagent has
been used for
volatile Pb (Ref. 572)
NAA expensive and not
routinely  available
Ice interferes with cold vapor
AA method at low
concentrations of Hg
Instability of collected Hg
compounds in solution has
been  reported
    Canadian EPS
    Standard Method
Particulate and
vaporous mercury
Collection in impinger solution  of
10% H2S04/2% KMn04; analysis by
cold vapor AA
Standard method
Collection efficiency
>90%
KMn04and  AA
compatible
AA costs
= $30/sample
Reagent gives low
blank levels
KMn04 reagent must be
prepared within 12 hours of
use
Short sample holding time
Reagent  can  be easily
expended  in oxidizing  and
organic  matrices

-------
TABLE 12-18.   (continued)
Method/Reference
environment Canada
3M Badge
MSA Method
Hopcalite Method
Species measured
Vaporous mercury or
particulate mercury
Elemental Hg vapor
Elemental and organic
mercury
Elemental and organic
mercury
Procedures summary
Vaporous mercury is collected by
amalgamation on silver.
Particulate is collected on
microquartz filters. Both are
analyzed by thermal resorption
and/or pyrolysis with re-
amalgamation; then thermal
resorption for determination by
UV absorption at 253.7
Passive device-diffusion of Hg
through membrane,
amalgamation on gold, analysis of
badges performed by 3M
Adsorb mercury on iodine
impregnated charcoal; place in
tantalum boat and volatilize
Adsorb on hopcalite; dissolve
sorbent and mercury in HNO3 +
HCI; analyze by cold vapor AA
Advantages
Standard method
for ambient air
Used in range of 4-
22 mg/m3
Claimed to be
"inexpensive"
Very simple and
mercury specific
method
Requires no analysis
to be performed by
users
Gives 8-hour time
weighted average
and concentrations
of up to 20 |jg/nf
Simple equipment
requirements
Range of 50-200
|jg/m3tested
Simple equipment
requirement
Evaluated in range
of 50-200 |jg/nf
Disadvantages
Complex
desorption/amalgamation
unit
CI2 interferes with sampling
efficiency
High H2S and SO2also
interfere
Temperature variations affect
diffusion rates and must be
corrected for
Large coefficient of variation
Quality of results are very
much operator dependent
Only works well at 200 |jg/nf
Does not provide for analysis
of particulate mercury
Insufficient performance data
in available literature

-------
                                                     TABLE 12-18 (continued)
 Method/Reference
   Species measured
       Procedures  summary
      Advantages
      Disadvantages
*Silver
amalgamation and
APHA
Vaporous  elemental
mercury
Amalgamation  on silver wool or
silver gauge; thermal  resorption
with analysis by flameless AA or UV
absorption
  Substantial
    information  on the
    method;
    interferences
    provided in  the
    references
    Ag wool-24  hour
    sample can be used
    with 15 ng-10 pg/nf
    levels
    Ag gauge £ 2 hour
    sample can  give
    concentrations of 5
    ng-100 |jg/nf
Collection  efficiency for
organic mercury is in question
Oxidants  could  interfere with
sampling  procedure  unless
removed  before reaching
silver
Impinger/Dithizone
Organic, particulate and
vaporous mercury
Collect in  impinger solution  of 0.1
NiCI and 0.5 m HCI; analyze by the
dithizone  calorimetric method
    Efficient capture of
    all three types of
    volatile  mercury
Dithizone  method suffers
from high  blanks,
interference  from SO2and
interference from several
other metals
Mercury compounds collected
in HCI are unstable
Jerome instrument
Corp., Model 411,
old  Film  Hg Vapor
Analyzer
Elemental mercury
Onsite  monitor-amalgamation  of
Hg on gold, measure concentration
by change in gold foil resistance
- Selective for
    mercury
    Direct reading
    eliminates  sample
    transport and
    analysis
    Concentration
    range from |jg/nf
    to  mg/m3
Monitor costs $3500-$4000
May suffer interference from
oxidants as noted for 3M
badges
  Recommended  methods

-------
             TABLE 12-19.  SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF VAPOR STATE TRACE METALS (EXCEPT MERCURY)
Element
Antimony
Arsenic


"lead

Reference(s)
NIOSH S243
NIOSH P&CAM
6001
NIOSH S229
NIOSH 7900

NIOSH S383 and
S384

Species
measured
Stibine (SbH3)
Arsine (AsH3)
Arsine (AsH3)
As2O3and
others
Tetraethyl lead
and tetramethyl
lead
Alkyl lead
compounds
Procedures summary
Adsorb on mercuric chloride
impregnated silica gel; extract with
concentration HCI; oxidize Sb(111)
to Sb(V) with eerie sulfate;
calorimetric analysis by Rhodamine
Adsorb on charcoal; desorb with
HNO3; analyze by furnace AA
Same as P&CAM 265 except that
HNO3resorption is performed with
10 ml rather than 1 ml
Absorb in dilute NaOH solution;
analytical procedure not specified
but it may be suitable to use arsine
generation or furnace AA
Adsorb on XAD-2; desorb with
pentane; analysis by GC
Collect in HCI/NiCI impinger
solution; analyze by dithizone
calorimetric method when 8-hour
sampling period or by AA for 24
hour sample
Advantages
Standard method
Standard method
Standard method
Working range 0.09-
0.1 mg/m3
Only method
proposed for AS2O3
in available
literature
Relatively simple
Standard method
Permits separation
of the various alkyl
lead compounds
Range 0.045-0.20
ng/nf(as Pb)
Can alter GC
conditions to
remove
interferences with
analysis
- Near 100%
collection efficiency
Dithizone detection
limit - 10 |jg/nf
AA detection limit -
0.2-10 |jg/nf
Disadvantages
Range only 0.1-1.0 ng/m3
using a 20-liter sample
Analytical interferences
by Pb(lll), Tl(l), and Sb(ll)
Possible breakthrough at
high concentrations
Possible breakthrough at
high concentrations
Earlier version of P&CAM
265
No supporting data
available
Compound identification
only by GC retention
times; must verify
Very little information in
literature
Dithizone method may
have same problems
noted elsewhere for
other elements
00

-------
TABLE 21-19.  (continued)
Element

Nickel

Selenium
Reference(s)

N 10SH P&CM
344
Ref. 120, 142

Species
measured
Alkyl lead
compounds
Nickel
tetracarbonyl
(Ni(CO)4)
Nickel
tetracarbonyl
(Ni(CO)4)
Se02, H2Se03
Procedures summary
Adsorb on activated carbon; digest
with HN03+ HCI04; analyze by
dithizone method
Adsorb on charcoal; desorb with
dilute HN03; analyze by furnace AA
Absorb in 3% HCI impinger solution;
analyze by calorimetric method in
which color development in
chloroform phase is measured
Collect in impinger with aqueous
solution of Na2SO3, Na2S, or NaOH,
analyze by NAA, AA, GC,
colorimetry, fluorimetry, ring oven
techniques, or catalytic methods
Advantages
Good collection
efficiency
Low detection limits
possible
Standard method
AA specific for .
Nickel
Range 2-60 |jg/nf
Detection limit -
0.001 ppm
Only method
suggested in
literature for
volatile Se
Disadvantages
No data available
Dithizone method may
have interferences as
noted above
Sorbent capacity limits
upper concentration
Not a standard method
Interference may occur
from other Nickel
compounds, Cu, Pb, Cr,
Se and V
No data to support this
method

-------
methods  are  generally developed for industrial  hygiene applications  by NIOSH.

     The  methods for measuring vapor-phase  metals  presented  in Tables 12-18 and
12-19  have  undergone  limited  testing for precision  and accuracy  and have  had
matrix  interferences  documented.  Therefore,  they  should be  used  in  lieu of any
methods  which have  no  supporting  data.

     Several  methods are  suitable  for quantification of vapor-phase  mercury.  If
elemental  mercury is to be  measured,  the  silver  amalgamation  technique  with
thermal  resorption  and flameless AA  (atomic  absorption) analysis  is  recommended.
This technique is  presented  in  American  Public  Health  Association  (APHA) Method
317, which can  achieve  nanogram per cubic meter detection  limits. If  organic and/or
particulate  mercury are  also  to  be  determined,  NIOSH methods (NIOSH, 1984)  are
recommended. These  methods can  measure  all three  airborne  mercury  species,  but
require a  complex two  stage  thermal resorption  apparatus.

12.8.2.2.2.3      Monitoring Acids and  Other Compounds in Air

     Monitoring for acids  and  other  inorganic/non-metal   compounds  (e.g.,
hydrogen  sulfide)  in  the ambient  air  will generally  require application of  industrial
hygiene  technologies. Applicable methods have been compiled  in  the following
references:

     NIOSH.   February 1984.  NIOSH  Manual  of  Analytical  Methods. NTIS PB 85-
     179108.  National Institute  for  Occupational Safety and  Health.  Cincinnati,  OH.

     ASTM.   1981.    Toxic  Materials in  the  Atmosphere.    ASTM, STP  786.
     Philadelphia,  PA.

     APHA. 1977. Methods  of  Air  Sampling and  Analysis.  American  Public Health
     Association.

     ACGIH.   1983.    Air Sampling  Instruments  for  Evaluation of Atmospheric
     Contamination.  American  Conference of  Governmental  industrial   Hygienists.
     Cincinnati,  OH.
                                     12-120

-------
12.8.3     Stack/Vent Emission Sampling

     EPA  methods  for source-sampling  and  analysis  are  documented  in the
following  reference:

     Code of Federal  Regulations.   40 CFR  Part 60, Appendix  A:    Reference
     Methods. Office of the Federal Register, Washington, D.C.

     Additional  guidance is available in the following references:

     U.S.  EPA.   1978. Stack Sampling  Technical Information, A Collection  of
     Monographs and Papers. Volumes l-lll. EPA-450/2-78-042 a, b,  c. NTIS  PB 80-
     161672, 80-1616680,  80-161698.  Office of  Air Quality Planning and  Standards
     Research Triangle  Park, NC 27711.

     U.S.  EPA.  February 1985. Modified  Method 5  Train and  Source  Assessment
     Sampling System  Operators  Manual. EPA-600/8-85-003.   NTIS PB 85-169878.
     Office of Research and Development. Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

     U.S.  EPA  March  1984.  Protocol for  the  Collection  and Analysis  of Volatile
     POHC's Using VOST. EPA-600/8 -84-007. NTIS PB 84-177799. Office of Research
     and Development.  Research Triangle  Park, NC 27711.

     U.S.  EPA.  February  1984.  Sampling  and  Analysis Methods  for  Hazardous
     Waste  Combustion. EPA-600/8 -84-002. NTIS PB 84-155845. Washington,  D.C.
     20460.

     U.S.  EPA.  November 1985.  Practical Guide - Trial  Burns for Hazardous Waste
     Incinerators.   NTIS PB  86-190246.  Office  of Research and  Development.
     Cincinnati,  OH  45268.

     U.S.  EPA.  1981. Source  Sampling and Analysis of Gaseous  Pollutants. EPA-
     APTI  Course  Manual  468.  Air Pollution Control  Institute.  Research Triangle
     Park, NC 27711.
                                   12-121

-------
      U.S. EPA. 1979. Source Sampling for Particulate Pollutants. EPA-APTI Course
      Manual 450. NTIS  PB 80-188840, 80-174360, 80-182439. Air  Pollution Control
      Institute. Research Triangle Park,  NC  27711.

      U.S. EPA.  1986.   Test  Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste.  3rd  Edition.
      EPA/SW-846. GPO  No.  955-001-00000-1.  Office  of  Solid Waste.  Washington,
      D.C. 20460.

 12.8.3.1   Vapor-Phase and Particulate Associated Organics

      Generally,  point source vapor-phase  samples are obtained from  the  process
vents and effluent streams either  by a grab sample  technique or by an  integrated
sampling train.  Careful planning  is necessary to insure that sampling and analytical
techniques  provide  accurate  quantitative and  qualitative  data  for  measurement of
vapor-phase organics. Considerations such  as  need for real-time (continuous) versus
instantaneous  or short-term  data,  compatibility with  other compounds/parameters
to be measured, and  the need for  onsite versus offsite analysis may  all be important
in the selection process.

      Monitoring  for  complex  organic  compounds  generally  requires  detailed
methods  and  procedures  for  the  collection,  recovery,  identification,  and
quantification  of these  compounds.   The  selection  of  appropriate sampling and
analytical  methods depends on  a number of important  considerations,  including
source type  and the compounds/parameters of interest.  Table  12-20 lists  several
sampling methods for various  applications  and compound  classess (applicable  to
combustion  sources).   The  first  three methods  listed  are fixed-volume,  grab-
sampling methods. Grab sampling is  generally  the  simplest  technique  to  obtain
organ  emission samples.

     Sample collection by the bag and canister sampling  methods  can be used to
collect time-integrated samples. These  methods  also  allow for a choice of sample
volumes due to a range of available  bag  sized (6,  12, and 20 liter capacities  are
typical).  Bags  of various  materials  are  available,  including relatively  inert and
noncontaminating materials such as Teflon,  Tedlar,  and Mylar. All sample collection
bag  types may  have some sample loss due  to  adsorption  of the contaminants
collected to  container walls. The bag  sample  is collected by  inserting the bag into
                                     12-122

-------
       TABLE 12-20. SAMPLING  METHODS FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS ORGANIC MATERIALS FROM POINT SOURCES
Sampling
Method
Syringe
Flow-through
bottle
Evacuated
canister
Tedlar bag
EPA Method 3)





EPA method 25






-vosr






Description
Instantaneous grab
Instantaneous grab

Integrated grab

Integrated grab






Two stage integrated grab train
consisting of cold trap followed
by evacuated S.S. tank.




Water-cooled sample gas,
including condensate, is passed
through dual in-series sorbent
traps. Tenax GC in first tube
followed by Tenax GC backed-up
by charcoal in second tube.

Applicable
Source Type
Non-combustion
(storage tanks
spray booths
paint bake
ovens, etc.)
Low moisture
content
combustion
emissions
(boilers,
incinerators,
etc.).
Non-combustion
and low
moisture
content
combustion
emissions as
above.
Combustion
emissions
(boilers,
hazardous
waste
incinerators,
etc.).
Applicable
Compound Type
Volatiles, Ci-
Cio

Volatiles, Ci-
Cio

Volatiles, Cl-
C10
Volatiles, Ci-
Cio


Volatiles and
semi-volatiles,
C1-C16




Volatiles and
semi volatiles,
Ci"Ci6, Ci"Cio




Applicable
Analytical
Method(s)
GC-FID'

GC-MSbor

GC-PIDC







Oxidation/
reduction
followed by
GC/FID.



GC-MS
GC-ECD
GC-PID




Sampling Method
Limitations
Sample size and therefore detectable
concentration are limited by container
size; >1 ppm.

Bag samples are subject to absorptive
losses of sample components.






Sample size is limited by tank volume.
C02and H20 can produce significant
interferences. System is
complex/cumbersome.



Sample size is limited to 20 liters per
pair of sorbent tubes. Sorbent tubes
are susceptible to contamination
from organics in ambient air during
installation and removal from train.


NJ
OJ

-------
                                                       TABLE 12-20 (continued)
Sampling
Method
Modified
Method 5
High Volume
Modified
Method 5
SASS Train
Description
Water-cooled sample gas, with
condensate is passed through
single sorbent trap. Sorbent type
dependent on compound(s) of
interest.8
Sample gas is passed through
condensers where moisture is
removed before passing through
two sorbent traps, primary
followed by back-up. Flow rates
of up to 5 cpm are achievable.
Sorbent type dependent on
compounds of interest.8
Sample gas passes through a cold
trap followed by an XAD-2
sorbent trap. Train is all stainless
steel construction.
Applicable
Source Type
Combustion
emission as for
VOST.
Combustion
emissions.
Combustion
emissions
(boilers,
hazardous
waste
incinerators).
Applicable
Compound Type
Semi - volatiles,
PCB's, other
halogenated
organics, C,-clb,
C1-1-C110
Semi-volatiles,
PCBS, other
halogenated
organics, C7-C16,
C1-C10
Semi-volatiles,
and other, non-
halogenated
organics, C7-C-16
Applicable
Analytical
Method(s)
GC-ECD,
GC-HECD,
GC-MS
GC-ECD,
GC-HECD,
GC-MS
GC-ECD,
GC-HECD,
GC-MS
Sampling Method
Limitations
Single trap system does not provide
check for breakthrough. Flow rate
limited to approximately 1 cpm.
High flow rate results in high
sampling train pressure drop
requiring large pump capacity.
System is complex, large and
cumbersome. Recovery of organics
from cold trap can be difficult. S.S.
construction makes train components
highly susceptible to corrosion from
acidic gases especially HCI.
NJ
 I

ISJ
    a  GC-FID - gas  chromatography  with  flame  ionization  detector.
    b  GC-MS -    gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.
    c  GC-PID -    gas  chromatography-photoionization  detector.
    d  VOST  .    volatile  organic sampling  train.
       Sorbents include Florisil, XAD-2 resin, and Tenax-GC among the most commonly used.
    Source: Hazardous Waste Management, Vol. 35, No. 1, January 1985

-------
an  airtight, rigid  container  (lung)  and  evacuating  the container.  The  sample is
drawn into  the  bag because reduced  pressure  in the  container provides adequate
suction  to  fill  the bag. This  procedure is  presented  in  detail  in  40 CFR  Part  60,
Appendix A (Method  3).

      Evacuated  canisters are  conventionally constructed  of  high  grade  polished
stainless steel.  There are many  versions  available  ranging from units  with  torque
limiting  needle valves,  purge free  assemblies, internal electropolished surfaces and
versions utilizing  stainless  steel  beakers with custom  designed  tops  and  fittings.
Also,  different  container  materials may  react differently with the sample.
Therefore,  sample  storage time  or sample  recovery  studies to determine  or  verify
inertness of the sampling canister should  be considered.

      Canisters are generally used  to  collect samples  by slowly opening the sample
valve, allowing the vacuum to draw in the sample gas.  In  less than a  minute,  the
container should equilibrate  with  the ambient atmospheric pressure.  At that  time,
the sample  valve  is closed to retain the  sample.  To  collect composite samples over
longer intervals,  small  calibrated orifices  can  be inserted  before  the inlet  valve to
extend  the  time required for  equilibration of pressure  once  the  sample  valve is
opened.

     The sample collection procedure for EPA Method  5 (U.S. EPA, 1981) is similar in
principle to  that for the evacuated canister.  The train consists of a polished  stainless
steel canister with a cold  condensate trap in series and prior to  the canister to collect
a  higher boiling point organic fraction.  This two fraction  apparatus  provides  for
separate collection  of two  concentration  ranges  of volatile  organic  compounds
based on boiling point.

     The following four  sampling  methods  utilize sample  concentration  techniques
using one or more sorbent traps. The advantages of these methods  is an enhanced
limit  of  detection for many  toxic and  hazardous  organic  compounds.  These
techniques  are preferred  due to  their lower detection limit.  The Modified Method 5
(MM5) sampling train (U.S. EPA, 1981) is  used to sample gaseous effluents for vapor-
phase organic  compounds that  exhibit vapor pressures of  less than 2  mm Hg  (at
20°C). This system is a  modification of the conventional EPA  Method  5 particulate
sampling train.  The modified system consists of  a probe,  a high efficiency  glass or
                                     12-125

-------
quartz fiber filter,  a sorbent module, impingers,  and related  control hardware. The
sample gas is passed  through  a single sorbent trap, containing  XAD-2. The MM5
train is limited due to the single sorbent trap design that does not provide a backup
for breakthrough.  This  is especially  important when large volumes of sample  are
collected.

     To minimize the  potential for breakthrough,  the  MM5  train  can be  modified
to provide  a  backup trap.   However,  this dual  trap  modification increases  the
pressure drop across the train, reducing the  range  of flow rates possible  for sample
collection. To  overcome this pressure drop and  maintain the desired  flow  rate,  the
high-volume MM5 train utilizesa  much  larger capacity pump.

     The Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) train is another comprehensive
sampling train, consisting of a probe that connects to three cyclones and a filter in a
heated  oven module, a gas treatment section,  and a series  of impingers to provide
large collection capacities  for  particulate  matter,  semivolatiles,  and other  lower
volatility  organics.  The  materials of construction  are all stainless  steel making  the
system  very heavy and cumbersome.  The stainless steel construction is also very
susceptible  to  corrosion.   This  system can,  however,  be used to collect and
concentrate large  sample  volumes, providing  for  a much  lower detection  limit.
Because of the sorbents used (generally XAD-2), its use is limited to the same class of
lower volatility organics and metals as the  MM5 train.

     The Volatile  Organic Sampling Train  (VOST)  has  proven to  be a reliable and
accurate method for collection  of  the broad range  of organic compounds. By  using
a dual sorbent and dual in-series trap design, the VOST train can supplement  either
the  MM5 or  SASS  methods allowing for collection  of  more  volatile species.
However,  VOST has several  limitations, including a  maximum sample flow rate  of
1.0  liter/minute, and  a total sample volume of  20 liters  per trap  pair.  Therefore,
frequent  changes  of  the  trap  pairs  are required for test periods  that exceed 20
minutes. The  frequent  change  of traps makes  the samples more susceptible  to
contamination.

     Any of the  point  source monitoring  techniques described above can be
adapted  for use with the isolation flux chamber  techniques  described  previously.
For  point sources where particulate emissions are  of concern, the Modified  Method
                                     12-126

-------
5 or SASS  train  (originally designed to measure  particle emissions from combustion
effluents)  are also applicable and  proven technologies.

     Analytical  methodologies for the techniques  discussed  above will vary with the
technique  used. While certain  techniques  will  offer advantages  over  others  in the
measurement  of specific  contaminants, the  investigator is  advised to  utilize
standard methodologies whenever  possible in  performing the RFI. For example, use
of the  VOST and/or the  MM5 train,  and their associated analytical methodologies  is
recommended  for  point  source  monitoring  of  the  applicable  compounds.
Descriptions for both of these  methods  are  included  in the 3rd  Edition  of "Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste" (EPA  SW-846), 1986 (GPO No. 955-001-00000-
1).   Although  these  methods are  designed  for the evaluation  of incinerator
efficiencies, they  are  essentially  point-source monitoring  methods  which can  be
adapted to most point sources.

12.8.3.2  Metals

     Although  the  emission of metallic contaminants  is primarily associated with
particulate  emission  from area sources  caused by  the transfer  of material  to  and
from different  locations,  wind erosion, or general maintenance  and traffic activities
at the  unit, point  source emission of particulate or  vapor-phase metals can exist.
Metallic constituents may exist in  the atmosphere as solid  particulate matter,  as
dissolved or suspended constituents of liquid droplets (mists), and as vapors.

     Metals specified as hazardous  constituents in  40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VIII
are generally  noted as  the element and  compounds  "not  otherwise specified
(NOS)", as  shown in Table  12-21,  indicating that measurement of the total  content
of that element in  the sample is required.

     Vapor  phase metals--For  the  purpose of point-source  monitoring, vapor-phase
metals  will be defined  as all  elements or compounds  thereof,   that are  not
quantitatively  captured  by   standard  filter sampling  procedures.  These include
volatile forms of metals such as elemental  and alkyl mercury, arsine, antimony, alkyl
lead compounds,  and nickel carybonyl.
                                     12-127

-------
                 Table 12-21.
  RCRA APPENDIX VIM HAZARDOUS METALS AND
             METAL COMPOUNDS
      Antimony and compounds NOSa
      Arsenic and compounds NOS"
      Barium and compounds NOS"
      Beryllium  and  compounds  NOS
      Cadmium  and  compounds  NOS
      Chromium and compounds NOS
      Lead and compounds  NOS
      Mercury  and  compounds NOSb
      Nickel and compounds NOSb
      Selenium  and  compounds  NOSb
      Silver and compounds NOSb
      Thallium  and  compounds NOSb
"NOS  =  not otherwise  specified.
'Additional  specific compound(s) listed  for this
 element.
                   12-128

-------
     The  sampling of point sources for vapor phase metals has not been a common
or  frequent activity  for  the investigation  of air releases  from  solid  waste
management  units.    If  a point source  of vapor-phase  metals  is  identified,  the
sampling  approach  should  identify the  best available monitoring  techniques,
considering  that many have  been  developed  which  are  specific  to  single species
rather than  multiple  species of many different metal  elements.   The  primary
references  for identifying  available  techniques  include  National  Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, 1984)  methods,  EPA  methods such as those
presented in SW-846  and in  the  Federal  Register  under the  National  Emissions
Standards for  Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), and American  Public  Health
Association  (APHA,  1977)  methods.   The basic  monitoring techniques include
collection  on sorbents  and in impinger solutions. The particular  sorbent or impinger
solution utilized should  be  selected based  on the  specific metal species  under
investigation.

     Particulate Metals-Point-source releases  to air  could  also require  investigation
of particulate metals.  Source sampling particulate procedures such as the Modified
Method 5 or SASS  methods previously  discussed  are  appropriate for  this activity.
EPA Modified  Method  5  is the recommended approach.  Modification  of  this basic
technique involving  the collection  of particulate  material  on  a filter with
subsequent analysis  of the collected particulate materal  on a filter for the metals of
concern,  could  include  higher  or  lower  flow  rates and the  use  of  alternate filter
media. Such  modificaitons may be proposed when standard techniques  prove to be
inadequate.  Several  important particulate  metal  sampling  methods are  available in
the NIOSH methods manuals  (NIOSH, 1984); however, these methods were designed
for ambient  or indoor applications  and may  require  modification  if used  on point
sources.

12.9 Site  Remediation

     Although the RFI Guidance is  not  intended  to  provide  detailed  guidance  on
site remediation,  it should be recognized that certain data collection activities  that
may be necessary for a Corrective Measures Study may be collected during the RFI.
EPA has  developed  a practical guide for assessing  and  remediating contaminated
sites that  directs users toward  technical  support,  potential data  requirements  and
                                     12-129

-------
technologies that may be applicable to EPA programs such as  RCRA and CERCLA.
The reference for this guide  is provided below.

     U.S. EPA.  1988. Practical Guide for Assessing! and  Remediating Contaminated
     Sites.   Office of Solid  Waste and  Emergency Response.  Washington,  D.C.
     20460.

     The guide  is designed to address releases to  ground  water as well  as soil,
surface water and air.  A short description of the guide is  provided in  Section 1.2
(Overall  RCRA  Corrective  Action  Process), under  the  discussion of Corrective
Measures Study.
                                    12-130

-------
12.10      Checklist

                                RFI CHECKLIST-AIR
Site Name/Location
Type  of Unit
1.     Does  waste  characterization  include the  following information?    (Y/N)

           •    Physical form of the waste                           	
           •    Identification  of waste  components                  	
           •    Concentrations  of constituents of concern            	
           •    Chemical  and physical  properties of  constituents
                of concern
2.     Does  unit  characterization  include  the  following  information?      (Y/N)

           •    Type  of unit                                         	
           •    Types and efficiencies-of  control devices             	
           •    Operational  schedules                               	
           •    Operating  logs                                      	
           •    Dimensions of the  unit                              	
           •    Quantities of waste managed                        	
           •    Locations and spatial distribution/
                variation  of waste in the  unit                        	
           •    Past  odor complaints from  neighbors                	
           •    Existing  air monitoring  data                         	
           •    Flow  rates from  vents
3.     Does  environmental setting  characterization  include
           the  following  information?                                   (Y/N)

           •    Definition of regional  climate                        	
           •    Definition of site-specific meteorological  conditions 	
           •    Definition of soil  conditions
                                      12-131

-------
           •    Definition  of site-specific terrain                      	
           •    Identification of potential  release  receptors          	

4.     Have the following data on the initial phase  of the release
           characterization  been  collected?                              (Y/N)

           •    Conceptual  model of release developed              	
           •    Concentrations of released constituent  at  unit,
                facility property boundary and, if appropriate,
                at nearby offsite receptors (based on
                screening assessment or  available
                modeling/monitoring data)                           	
          •    Screening  monitoring data  (as warranted)            	
          •    Additional waste/unit data  (as warranted)            	

5.     Have the following data on the subsequent phase(s) of the
           release characterization been  collected?                      (Y/N)

           •    Identification of "reasonable  worst  case"
                conditions                                           	
           •    Meteorological conditions  during monitoring         	
           •    Release  source conditions  during  monitoring         	
           •    Basis for  selection of monitoring  constituents         	
           •    Concentrations of  released constituents at  unit,
                facility property boundary and, if appropriate,
                at nearby offsite receptors (based on
                monitoring  or  modeling  and   representative
                of reasonable  "worst case" conditions)                	
                                      12-132

-------
 12.11      References

 ACGIH.  1983. Air Sampling Instruments for Evaluation of Atmospheric
      Contamination.  American  Conference  of  Governmental  Industrial  Hygienists.
      Washington,  D.C.

 APHA. 1977. Methods  of Air Sampling and Analysis.  American Public Health
      Association.  Cincinnati,  OH.

 ASTM. 1982. Toxic Materials in the Atmosphere  ASTM, STP 786. Philadelphia, PA.

 ASTM. 1981. Toxic Materials in the Atmosphere.  ASTM, STP 786. Philadelphia, PA.

 ASTM. 1980. Sampling and Analysis of Toxic Organics in  the Atmosphere, ASTM,
      STP721  Philadelphia,  PA.

 ASTM. 1974. Instrumentation for Monitoring  Air  Quality. ASTM.  STP 555.
      Philadelphia,  PA.

 National  Climatic Data Center.  Climates of the United States. Asheville, NC 28801.

 National  Climatic Data  Center. Local Climatological  Data - Annual Summaries with
      Comparative  Data, published  annually.  Asheville, NC 28801.

 National  Climatic Data  Center. Weather Atlas of the United States. Asheville,
      NC 28801.

 National  Institute for Occupational  Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1985. NIOSH
      Manual of Analytical Methods. NTIS PB 85-179018.

Turner, D.B. 1969. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. Public  Health
     Service. Cincinnati, OH.

 U.S. EPA. December 1988 Draft. Procedures for  Conducting Air Pathway Analyses
     for  Superfund Applications.   Office  of Air Quality  Planning and  Standards.
     Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
                                    12-133

-------
U.S. EPA. March 1988 Draft.  A Workbook of Screening Techniques for Assessing
     Impacts of Toxic Air Pollutants. Office of Air  Quality Planning  and Standards.
     Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

U.S. EPA. June  1987. On-Site Meteorological Program Guidance for  Regulatory
     Modeling Applications.  EPA-450/4-87  -013. Office  of Air Quality Planning and
     Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

U.S. EPA. December 1987. Hazardous Waste Treatment  Storage and  Disposal
     Facilities (TSDF) Air Emission  Models. EPA-450/3-87-026. Office of Air Quality
     Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

U.S. EPA.  1986.  Evaluation  of Control Technologiesfor  Hazardous  Air Pollutants:
     Volume  1 - Technical Report. EPA/600/7 -86/009a.  NTIS PB 86-167020. Volume
     2- Appendices.  EPA/600/7 - 86/009b. NTIS PB 86-167038. Office of Research and
     Development.  Research Triangle Park,  NC 27711.

U.S.  EPA. September 1986.  Handbook - Control Technoloaiesfor Hazardous Air
     Pollutants. EPA/625/6-86/014.  Office  of Research  and  Development.  Research
     Triangle Park,  NC 27711.

U.S. EPA. February  1986. Measurement of Gaseous Emission Rates from  Land
     Surfaces Using  an  Emission  Isolation Flux Chamber:   User's  Guide. 1986.
     EPA/600/8-86/008.  NTIS PB  86-223161.  Environmental  Monitoring  Systems
     Laboratory. Las Vegas,  NV 89114.

U.S. EPA. 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. 3rd Edition. EPA SW-846.
     GPO No. 955-001-00000-1. Washington, D.C. 20460.

U.S. EPA, July 1986. Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised) EPA-450/2  -78-027R.
     NTIS PB 86-245248. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,  Research
     Triangle Park,  NC 27711.

U.S. EPA. June 1986. Industrial Source Complex (ISC) Model User's Guide-Second
                                    12-134

-------
     Edition.   EPA-450/4-86-005a  and  b.   Office  of  Air  Quality  Planning and
     Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

U.S. EPA.  November 1985. Practical  Guide - Trial Burns for Hazardous Waste
     Incinerators. NTIS PB 86-190246.  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
     Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

U.S. EPA. February 1985. Rapid Assessment of Exposure to Particulate Emissions
     from Surface  Contamination Sites.  EPA/600/8-85/002. NTIS PB 85-192219.
     Office of Health  and Environmental  Assessment. Washington,  D.C. 20460.

U.S. EPA. February 1985 (Fourth Edition and subsequent  supplements). Modified
     Method  5 Train  and Source Assessment Sampling System Operators Manual.
     EPA/600/8-85/003. NTIS  PB 85-169878. Office  of Research and  Development.
     Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

U.S. EPA. 1985.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission  Factors. EPA AP-42. NTIS PB
     86-124906.  Office  of  Air  Quality  Planning  and Standards. Research  Triangle
     Park, NC 27711.

U.S. EPA. 1984.  Evaluation and Selection of Models for Estimating Air Emissons
     from Hazardous  Waste Treatment, Storage,  and Disposal Facilities. EPA-450/3-
     84-020.  NTIS  PB  85-156115.  Office of Air  Quality  Planning  and Standards.
     Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

U.S. EPA. September  1984. Network Design and Site  Exposure Criteria for Selected
     Noncriteria  Air  Pollutants.  EPA-450/4-84-022.  Office  of Air  Quality  Planning
     and Standards. Research Triangle Park,  NC 27711.

U.S. EPA. June 1984.  Evaluation of Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste
     Treatment,  Storage  and Disposal  Facilities.  EPA  600/2-85/057. NTIS PB 85-
     203792.  Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati,  OH  45268.

U.S. EPA. April 1984. Compendium  of Methods for the Determination of Toxic
     Organic  Compounds in Ambient  Air. EPA-600/4-84-041.   Office  of Research
     and Development. Research Triangle  Park,  NC 27711.
                                    12-135

-------
U.S. EPA. March 1984.  Protocol for the Collection and Analysis of Volatile POHCs
     Using VOST.  EPA-600/8-84-007. NTIS  PB 84-170042. Office of Research and
     Development.  Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

U.S. EPA. February 1984. Sampling and Analysis Methods for Hazardous Waste
     Combustion. EPA-600/8 -84-002. NTIS PB 84-155845. Washington, D.C. 20460.

U.S. EPA. September 1983. Characterization of Hazardous Waste Sites - A Methods
     Manual:  Volume II. Available Sampling  Methods.  EPA-600/4-83-040. NTIS  PB
     83-014799. Office  of Solid Waste.  Washington, D.C. 20460.

U.S. EPA. July 1983.  Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits.
     NTIS PB 84-100577. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C. 20460.

U.S. EPA. June  1983. Technical Assistance Document for Sampling and Analysis of
     Toxic  Organic Compounds in  Ambient  Air.  EPA-600/4-83-027.  NTIS  PB 83-
     239020.  Office of  Research  and  Development.  Research Triangle  Park, NC
     27711.

U.S. EPA. February 1983. Quality Assurance  Handbook  for Air Pollution
     Measurement Systems:  Volume  IV, Meteorological Measurement.   February
     1983. EPA-600-4-82-060.  Office  of Research and Development.   Research
     Triangle Park,  NC 27711.

U.S. EPA. November 1980. Ambient Monitoring Guidelines  for Prevention of
     Significant  Deterioration (PSD).  EPA-450/4-80-012. NTIS  PB 81-153231. Office
     of Air Quality Planning and  Standards. Research Triangle Park,  NC  27711.

U.S. EPA. 1978. Stack  Sampling Technical  Information.  A Collection of Monographs
     and Papers. Volumes  Mil.  EPA-450/2 -78-042  a,b,c.  NTIS PB 80-161672, 80-
     161680,80-161698.

U.S. EPA. October  1977. Guidelines  for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and
                                   12-136

-------
      Analysis. Volume  10  (Revised):  Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality  Impact of
      New Stationary Sources.  EPA-450/4-77-001. NTIS PB 274087/661. Office of Air
      Quality Planning and  Standards.  Research Triangle Park,  NC 27711.

 U.S. EPA. Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR Part 60: Appendix A: Reference
      Methods. Office of Federal  Register.  Washington, D.C.

 U.S. EPA. November 1981. Source Sampling and Analysis of Gaseous Pollutants.
      EPA-APTI  Course  Manual 468. Air Pollution  Control Institute.  Research
      Triangle Park, NC  27711.

U.S.  EPA. 1979. Source  Sampling  for Particulate Pollutants.  EPA-APTI Course
      Manual  450.  NTIS PB 80-182439,  80-174360.  Air  Pollution Control  Institute.
      Research Triangle  Park, NC  27711.
                                     12-137

-------
                                  SECTION 13

                               SURFACE WATER

 13.1  Overview

     The objective  of an  investigation of  a  release  to  surface  water  is  to
 characterize the  nature, extent,  and rate of migration of the release to this medium.
 This section provides the following:

      •    An  example strategy for characterizing  releases  to  the  surface  water
          system (e.g., water column, bottom  sediments,  and biota), which  includes
          characterization  of  the  source  and  the environmental  setting of  the
          release, and conducting  a  monitoring  program  that will characterize  the
          release;

     •    A  discussion of  waste  and  unit source characteristics and operative
          release mechanisms;

     •    A  strategy for  the  design  and  conduct  of  monitoring  programs
          considering specific  requirements of  different  wastes,  release
          characteristics, and receiving water  bodies;

     •    Formats for data  organization  and  presentation;

     •    Appropriate field  and  other  methods that  may  be  used  in the
          investigation; and

     •    A  checklist of  information  that  may  be needed  for  release
          characterization.

     The  exact  type  and  amount of information  required  for sufficient  release
 characterization will  be facility  and  site-specific and  should  be  determined  through
 interactions  between the  regulatory  agency  and  the facility  owner  or  operator
during the RFI process. This  guidance does  not define the  specific data needed in  all
                                     13-1

-------
 instances; however,  it  identifies the information  that  is  likely  to  be needed  to
 perform  release  characterizations and identifies  methods for  obtaining  this
 information. The RFI  Checklist, presented at  the  end of this section,  provides a tool
 for planning  and  tracking  information  collection for  release  characterization.  This
 list is not a list of requirements for all releases to surface water. Some releases will
 involve  the collection of only a subset of the items listed, while  others  will involve
 the collection  of additional  data.

     Case Study Numbers 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 in Volume IV (Case Study Examples)
 illustrate various aspects of surface  water investigations which  are  described below.

 13.2 Approach for Characterizing Releases to Surface Water

 13.2.1          General Approach

     A  conceptual  model  of the release should  be formulated using all  available
 information on  the waste,  unit  characteristics,  environmental  setting,  and  any
 existing  monitoring  data.  This  model  (not a computer  or  numerical  simulation
 model)  should  provide  a working hypothesis of the  release  mechanism,  transport
 pathway/mechanism,  and  exposure  route (if  any).  The  model  should  be
testable/verifiable  and  flexible  enough to  be modified  as  new  data  become
available.  For  surface  water  investigations, this  model  should  account for the
 release  mechanism (e.g.,  overtopping of an impoundment),  the nature of the source
area (e.g., point or  non-point), waste type  and degradability,  climatic factors  (e.g.,
 history  of  floods),  hydrologic  factors (e.g.,   stream  flow  conditions),  and  fate  and
transport factors (e.g.,  ability   for a  contaminant  to  accumulate  in  stream bottom
sediments). The conceptual  model should also address the potential  for the transfer
of contaminants  in  surface   water to other  environmental  media  (e.  g.,  soil
contamination as  a  result of flooding  of  a  contaminated  creek  on  the facility
property).

     An  example  strategy  for characterization  of  releases to surface waters  is
summarized in  Table  13-1.  These steps outline  a phased approach,  beginning  with
evaluation  of  existing  data and proceeding to design  and  implementation  of  a
monitoring  program,  revised over time,  as  necessary,  based on  findings of the
previous phase. Each of these steps is discussed briefly below.
                                      13-2

-------
                                  TABLE 13-1

    EXAMPLE STRATEGY FOR CHARACTERIZING RELEASES TO SURFACE WATER*


                                 INITIAL  PHASE

1.    Collect and  review existing  information on:

          Waste
          Unit
          Environmental  setting
          Contaminant  releases,   including  inter-media  transport

2.    Identify  any  additional  information  necessary  to fully characterize release:

          Waste
          Unit
          Environmental  setting
          Contaminant releases,  including  inter-media transport

3.    Develop  monitoring  procedures:

          Formulate conceptual  model of release
          Determine  monitoring  program  objectives
          Select  monitoring constituents and  indicator  parameters
          Select  monitoring  locations
          Determine  monitoring  frequency
          Incorporate hydrologic  monitoring as necessary
          Determine  role  of biomonitoring  and sediment  monitoring

4.    Conduct initial monitoring:

          Collect samples under initial  monitoring phase procedures and complete
          field analyses
          Analyze samples for selected parameters and  constituents

5.    Collect,  evaluate,  and report  results:

          Compare  analytical and  other  monitoring procedure results  to  health
          and environmental criteria  and identify  and  respond  to emergency
          situations  and   identify priority situations  that  may warrant  interim
          corrective measures -  Notify regulatory agency
          Summarize and  present  data in appropriate format
          Determine if  monitoring  program objectives  were  met
          Determine  if monitoring locations,  constituents and frequency  were
          adequate to characterize release  (nature, extent, and  rate)
          Report results to  regulatory agency
                                      13-3

-------
                             TABLE 13-1 (continued)

    EXAMPLE STRATEGY FOR CHARACTERIZING RELEASES TO SURFACE WATER*



                       SUBSEQUENT PHASES (If necessary)

1.   Identify additional  information  necessary to  characterize release:

          Identify additional  information  needs
          Determine  need to  include or expand  hydrologic,  and sediment and  bio-
          monitoring
          Evaluate potential role  of inter-media  transport

2.   Expand initial monitoring  as necessary:

          Relocate, decrease, or increase number  of monitoring locations
          Add  or delete constituents and parameters of concern
          Increase or decrease monitoring frequency
          Delete, expand, or  include  hydrologic, sediment  or bio-monitoring

3.   Conduct  subsequent monitoring phases:

          Collect samples under revised monitoring procedures and complete field
          analyses
          Analyze samples  for selected parameters and constituents

4.   Collectrevaluate  and report  results/identify additional  information necessary
     to characterize release:

          Compare  analytical  and  other monitoring  procedure  results  to  health
          and  environmental  criteria  and  identify  and  respond  to emergency
          situations  and  identify   priority  situations  that may warrant interim
          corrective measures - Notify regulatory agency
          Determine  if monitoring  program objectives were met
          Determine  if  monitoring  locations, constituents,  and frequency  were
          adequate to characterize release (nature, extent,  and rate)
          Identify additional information  needs
          Determine  need  to  include  or  expand  hydrologic, sediment,  or  bio-
          monitoring
          Evaluate potential role  of inter-media  transport
          Report results to  regulatory agency
     Surface water system  is subject to inter-media transport.  Monitoring program
     should incorporate the necessary  procedures to  characterize the relationship,
     if  any,  with ground water, sediment deposition, fugitive  dust and  other
     potential  release  migration  pathways.
                                      13-4

-------
      The first step in the general approach is the collection and review of available
 information  on  the  contaminant  source  and the  environmental  setting.  Some
 information  on the contaminant  source  will be available from  several  reports and
 other documents. The RCRA  permit,  compliance order, or RFA  report will provide a
 summary of information regarding actual  or suspected  releases from  the  various
 units.  The facility  owner  or  operator should  be familiar  with this  information  as a
 basis  for  further  characterization of the  release(s)  in  the RFI.  In  addition,  a
 thorough  understanding  of  the  environmental setting is  essential to an  adequate
 determination of the  nature  and  extent of releases to surface waters. Monitoring
 data  should  also  be reviewed  focusing on the quality of the  data. If the quality
 is determined to  be acceptable,  then  the  data may  be used  in  the design  of
 the  monitoring  program.  Guidance on obtaining  and  evaluating  the necessary
 information  on the contaminant  source  and  the  environmental setting  is given  in
 Section 13.3.

      During  the  initial  investigation   particular  attention  should  be given  to
 sampling run-off from contaminated areas,  leachate seeps and other  similar sources
 of surface water contamination,  as these are  the primary  overland release pathways
 for surface water.  Releases to surface water via ground-water discharge should be
 addressed  as part  of the  ground-water  investigation,  which should  be  coordinated
 with surface  water  investigations,  for greater efficiency.

      Based on the collection and  review of  existing information,  the design of the
 monitoring  program  is  the next major  step  in  the  general  approach.   The
 monitoring  program  should  include  clear  objectives,  monitoring  constituents  and
 indicator parameters,  monitoring  locations, frequency  of  monitoring,   and
 provisions for hydrologic  monitoring,  in  addition to  conventional water  quality and
 hydrologic monitoring,  sediment  monitoring  and  biomonitoring  may also  have  a
 role in the surface water evaluation for a given RFI. Guidance on the design of the
 monitoring program is given in Section 13.4.

     Implementation  of the  monitoring program is  the  next  major step  in the
 general strategy for characterizing releases  to surface water.  The program  may be
 implemented  in a  phased  manner that  allows  for modifications to  the  program  in
subsequent  phases.   For example,  initial  monitoring results  may  indicate  that
                                      13-5

-------
downstream monitoring locations have  been placed  either  too  close  to  or  too  far
from  the  contaminant source to accurately define  the complete  extent  of
downstream contamination.   In this case, the  program  should be modified  to
relocate monitoring stations  for subsequent monitoring phases. Similarly,  initial
monitoring  may indicate that  biomonitoring of  aquatic  organisms is  needed  in the
next phase. Guidance on  methods that can be used in  the implementation of the
program is given in Section 13.6.

     Finally, the results of  the characterization of releases to surface waters must  be
evaluated and  presented in conformance  with the requirements  of the  RFI. Section
13.5 provides  guidance on data presentation.   Table 13-2  summarizes techniques
and data-presentation  methods for the key  characterization  tasks.

     As monitoring  data  become available, both within  and at  the  conclusion  of
discrete  investigation phases,  they should be repot-ted  to the regulatory agency  as
directed. The  regulatory  agency will  compare  the  monitoring  data  to  applicable
health  and  environmental  criteria to  determine  the  need for (1) interim  corrective
measures;  and/or  (2) a  Corrective  Measures  Study.  In  addition, the  regulatory
agency  will evaluate the   monitoring  data  with respect  to  adequacy  and
completeness  to determine  the need  for  any  additional  monitoring  efforts. The
health  and  environmental  criteria and a  general  discussion of  how  the regulatory
agency  will  apply  them are supplied in  Section 8.  A flow  diagram illustrating RFI
decision points  is provided in Section 3 (See Figure 3-2).

     Notwithstanding the above process,  the owner or operator has  a  continuing
responsibility to identify and respond  to emergency  situations and to define  priority
situations that  may warrant interim  corrective measures. For these  situations,  the
owner  or operator  is directed  to follow the RCRA  Contingency Plan  requirements
under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart D and Part 265, Subpart D.
                                      13-6

-------
                                        TABLE 13-2
                 RELEASE CHARACTERIZATION  TASKS FOR SURFACE WATER
      Investigatory Tasks
   Investigatory  Techniques
      Data  Presentation
       Formats/Outputs
 1. Waste/Unit
   Characterization

   - Waste Composition  and
      Analysis

   - Unit or Facility
      Operations
   - Release  Mechanisms
- See  Section 13.3.1
  Review  waste handling  and
   disposal  practices and
   schedules

  Review  environmental
   control  strategies

  See  Section  13.3.1,  Review
   operational   information
- Data  Tables
  Schematic  diagrams of flow
   paths,  narrative
  Site-specific  diagrams,
   maps,  narrative
2.  Environmental  Setting
   Characterization

   -  Geographic  Description
   - Classification of Surface
      Water and  Receptors

   - Define  Hydrologic
      Factors
- Review topographic,  soil
   and  geologic  setting
   information

- See  Section 13.3.3.1
- See  Section 13.3.3.1
- Maps,  Tables,  Narrative
  Maps, Cross  Sections,
  Narrative
- Tables,  Graphs,  Map
3. Release  Characterization

   -  Delineate  Areal Extent
      of Contamination
     Define  Distribution
      Between  Sediment,
      Biota  and  Water
      Column

     Determine  Rate of
      Migration

     Describe Seasonal
      Effects
- Sampling  and Analysis
- Sampling  and Analysis
-  Flow Monitoring
  Repetitive  Monitoring
- Tables  of  Results,  Contour
   Maps,  Maps of Sampling
   Locations

- Graphs  and Tables
-  Graphs  and Tables
-  Graphs  and Tables
                                           13-7

-------
 13.2.2          Inter-media Transport

      Surface  waters  are subject  to  inter-media transport,  both as  a receptor of
 contamination  and as a  migration  pathway.  For  example, surface waters  are
 generally  engaged  in  a  continual  dynamic  relationship with  ground water.  Ground
 water may discharge to a surface water body that may, in turn, recharge an aquifer.
 Hence,  contamination  may be transported from  ground water to  surface water and
 from  surface  water to ground  water.  Release  of  contaminants from a receiving
 water  body  to  soil can  also  occur  through  deposition  of the contaminants  in
 floodplain  sediments.   These  sediments may  be exposed  to  wind  erosion and
 become distributed  through  fugitive dust. Sediments may be  exposed  to  air during
 periods of  low flow   of water  in  streams  and lakes  and  when  sediments  are
 deposited  by  overland flow during  rainfall-runoff  events.  Contaminants  may  also
 enter the  air from  surface water through volatilization.

 13.3      Characterization of the Contaminant Source and Environmental Setting

     The  initial step in developing an  effective monitoring program  for a release to
 surface  waters is to investigate the unit(s) that is the subject of the RFI,  the waste
within the  unit(s), the constituents within the  waste,  the  operative  release
 mechanisms and migration  pathways to surface water bodies,  and the  surface water
 receptors.    From  this  information,  a conceptual  model  of the release  can be
developed for use in designing  a monitoring program  to characterize the release.

 13.3.1          Waste  Characterization

     Knowledge of  the general  types  of wastes  involved  is an important
consideration  in  the  development  of an effective monitoring  program.  The
chemical and  physical  properties of  a waste and the  waste constituents  are  major
factors in  determining  the likelihood that a substance  will be  released.  These waste
properties  may also be  important initially in selecting  monitoring constituents and
indicator  parameters.  Furthermore, once the wastes  are  released,  these propeties
play  a  major  role  in  controlling  the constituent's migration   through  the
environment  and its fate.  Table 13-3  lists  some  of the  significant  properties in
evaluating  environmental  fate and transport  in a  surface  water system.  Without
data on the wastes, the investigator  may have  to  implement a  sampling program
                                     13-8

-------
                                   TABLE  13-3

               IMPORTANT WASTE AND CONSTITUENT PROPERTIES
     AFFECTING FATE AND TRANSPORT IN  A SURFACE WATER ENVIRONMENT

Bulk waste properties  affecting  mobility3
     •     Physical state (solid, liquid, gas) of waste
     •     Chemical nature (e.g.,  aqueous vs non-aqueous) of waste
     •     Density  (liquid)
     •     Viscosity  (liquid)
     •     Interracial tension (with water  and minerals)  (liquid)

Properties  to assess mobility of constituents
     •     Volubility
     •     Vapor pressure
     •     Henry's law constant (or vapor pressure and water volubility)
     •     Bioconcentration factor
     •     Soil  adsorption coefficient
     •     Diffusion  coefficient  (in air and water)
     •     Acid dissociation constant
     •     Octanol-water  partition  coefficient
     •     Activity coefficient
     •     Mass transfer  coefficients (and/or rate  constants)  for intermedia transfer
     •     Boiling  point
     •     Melting  point

Properties  to assess persistence
     •     Rate  of  biodegradation (aerobic  and anaerobic)
     •     Rate of hydrolysis
     •     Rate  of oxidation or reduction
     •     Rate of photolysis
a    These waste properties will be important when it  is known or suspected that
     the waste itself has migrated into the environment (e.g.,  due to a  spill).
b    These properties are  important  in assessing  the mobility  of  constituents
     present in  low concentrations in the environment.
c    For these  properties, it is generally important to know (1) the  effect:  of key
     parameters  on the rate constants  (e.g.,  temperature,  concentration,  pH) and
     (2) the identity of the reaction  products.

Sources of values for these and other parameters include Mabey, Smith, and  Podall,
(1982),  and Callahan,  et al. (1979).  Parameter estimation methods are described  by
Lyman,  Riehl, and Rosenblatt, (1982), and  Neely and Blau (1985).
                                      13-9

-------
involving many  constituents  to ensure  that  all  potential constituents  have been
addressed.   General  guidance  on  defining  physical  and  chemical  properties  and
identifying  possible  monitoring constituents and  indicator  parameters  is provided
in Sections 3 and 7.

     Below  are brief synopses of  several of the key  release,  mobility,  and  fate
parameters summarized  in  Table  13-3.   Figure  13-1  shows the  qualitative
relationship  between various  environmental  partitioning parameters.  Neely  and
Blau  (1985)  provide  a description of  environmental partitioning  effects of
constituents  and  application  of partition  coefficients.

     •    Physical State:
          Solid wastes would appear to be less susceptible to release  and migration
          than liquids. However, processes such as  dissolution (i.e.,  as a result of
          leaching  or  runoff),  and  physical transport of  waste particulate  can act
          as significant  release mechanisms.

     •    Water  Volubility:
          Volubility  is  an important factor affecting a  constituent's release  and
          subsequent migration and  fate in the  surface  water  environment.  Highly
          soluble contaminants (e.g.,  methanol at 4.4 x 106 mg/L at 77°F) are easily
          and  quickly  distributed within  the hydrologic cycle.  These  contaminants
          tend  to  have relatively  low adsorption coefficients  for  soils and
          sediments and relatively  low bioconcentration factors  in aquatic life. An
          example of a  less soluble constituent is tetrachloroethylene at 100 mg/L
          at 77T.

    •     Henry's Law Constant:
          Henry's Law  Constant indicates  the relative tendency of a  constituent to
         volatilize  from aqueous solution  to  the atmosphere based  on  the
         competition   between  its vapor  pressure  and  water  volubility.
         Contaminants  with low  Henry's  Law  Constant values (e.g.,  methanol,
          1.10 x 10"6atm-m3/mole  at  77°F) will tend to  favor the aqueous  phase
                                     13-10

-------
Co
                          Kow
                                                               BCF
          Kow
                                                                                                Koc
                                             Kow
                                                                               BCF
                    ^concentration factor



                          ^ent adsorption coefficient

-------
      and volatilize to the atmosphere  more slowly than constituents with high
      values (e.g.,  carbon tetrachloride, 2.3 x 10"2atm-m3/mole at 770 F). This
      parameter is important  in  determining the  potential  for  inter-media
      transport to the air media.

 •    Octanol/Water  Partition  Coefficient  (Kow):
      The  octanol/water partition  coefficient (Kow) is defined as the ratio of an
      organic  constituent's concentration  in  the octanol  phase (organic)  to  its
      concentration  in  the  aqueous  phase  in  a  two-phase  octanol/water
      system. Values of  Kow carry  no units.  Kowcan  be  used to predict  the
      magnitude of an  organic constituent's tendency to  partition  between
      the aqueous and  organic  phases  of a two phase system  such as surface
      water and aquatic organisms. The higher the value of Kow, the greater
      the  tendency of  an organic constituent  to  adsorb  to  soil  or  waste
      matrices containing appreciable  organic carbon  or  to  accumulate  in
      biota. Generally,  constituents with  Kowvalues greater than  or equal  to
      2.3 are  considered potentially bioaccumulative (Veith, et al.,  1980).

•     Soil-Water Partition  Coefficient (Kd):
      The  mobility  of contaminants  in soil depends  not only  on  properties
      related to the  physical  structure  of the soil,  but  also on  the extent  to
      which the  soil material will retain, or  adsorb, the hazardous constituents.
      The extent to  which a  constituent is adsorbed depends  on chemical
      properties of the  constituent and  of the  soil.  Therefore,  the sorptive
      capacity must be  determined with reference to a particular constituent
      and soil pair. The soil-water partition coefficient  (Kd) is generally used to
      quantify soil  sorption.   Kdis  the  ratio of the  adsorbed  contaminant
      concentration  to the dissolved  concentration,  at  equilibrium.

•     Bioconcentration Factor (BCF):
      The  bioconcentration factor is   the  ratio  of  the  concentration of the
      constituent in an organism or whole body (e.g., a  fish) or specific tissue
      (e.g.,   fat)  to  the  concentration  in  water.  Ranges of  BCFs for various
      constituents  and organisms are  reported in the  literature  (Callahan,  et
      al., 1979)  and  these values can be used to  predict the  potential  for
                                 13-12

-------
      bioaccumulation,  and  therefore  to  determine whether  sampling of the
      biota may be  necessary.  Another  source of BCFs  for  constituents  is
      contained  in  EPA's  Ambient Water  Quality  Criteria (for priority
      pollutants). BCFs can also be predicted by structure-activity relationships.
      Constituents  exhibiting a  BCF  greater  than  1,0  are  potentially
      bioaccumulative.  Generally, constituents  exhibiting a BCF  greater than
      100 cause the greatest concern.

•     The Organic Carbon Adsorption  Coefficient (Koc):
      The extent to  which an organic constituent partitions between the solid
      and solution  phases of a saturated or unsaturated  soil, or between runoff
      water  and  sediment,  is  determined  by the physical  and  chemical
      properties of  both  the  constituent and  the soil (or sediment).  The
      tendency  of  a constituent to be adsorbed to soil is  dependent  on its
      properties and  on the  organic carbon content  of the soil or sediment. Koc
      is the ratio  of the  amount  of  constituent adsorbed  per  unit  weight  of
      organic carbon  in  the  soil  or  sediment  to  the  concentration of the
      constituent  in  aqueous solution  at  equilibrium. Koccan  be  used to
      determine  the  partitioning of a  constituent between  the water column
      and the sediment.  When constituents have a high  Koc, they have  a
     tendency  to  partition to the  soil or sediment. In  such  cases, sediment
      sampling would be  appropriate.

•     Other  Equilibrium  Constants:
      Equilibrium constants are important  predictors of a compound's chemical
     state in solution. In  general,  a constituent which is dissociated  (ionized)
      in solution  will  be more  soluble and therefore more likely  to be  released
     to the  environment and  more likely  to  migrate in a surface water body.
      Many inorganic constituents, such as heavy metals and mineral acids,  can
     occur as different  ionized species depending on pH. Organic  acids,  such
     as  the phenolic compounds,  exhibit similar behavior.  R  should also  be
     noted  that ionic metallic species present  in  the  release may have  a
     tendency  to  bind to particulate  matter,  if present in a  surface  water
     body, and  settle out to the  sediment  over time and  distance. Metallic
     species also  generally exhibit bioaccumulative properties.  When metallic
                                13-13

-------
     species are present  in a  release,  both  sediment  and biota  sampling would
     be  appropriate.

•    Biodegradation:
     Biodegradation results  from  the  enzyme-catalyzed  transformation  of
     organic  constituents,  primarily  from microorganisms.  The ultimate  fate
     of a  constituent introduced  into  a  surface water  or  other environmental
     system  (e.g.,  soil),  could  be a  constituent or  compound  other than the
     species  originally  released.  Biodegradation  potential  should  therefore
     be  considered  in  designing monitoring  programs. Section  9.3  (Soils)
     presents  additional  information  on  biodegradation.

t    Photolysis:
     Photodegradation  or photolysis  of constituents dissolved  in  aquatic
     systems  can also occur.  Similar to  biodegradation, photolysis  may cause
     the ultimate fate  of a  constituent  introduced  into a  surface  water  or
     other  environmental  system  (e.  g.,  soil)  to  be different from  the
     constituent originally released.   Hence,  photodegradation  potential
     should also be  considered  in  designing  sampling  and  analysis  programs.

•    Chemical Degradation (Hydrolysis  and Oxidation/Reduction):
     Similar  to photodegradation  and  biodegradation,   chemical degradation,
     primarily  through  hydrolysis and  oxidation/reduction (REDOX) reactions,
     can also  act to change  constituent  species once  they  are introduced  to
     the  environment. Hydrolysis  of organic compounds  usually results in the
     introduction of a hydroxyl  group  (-OH)  into  a chemical  structure.
     Hydrated  metal   ions,  particularly  those with  a  valence  of  3 or more,  tend
     to form  ions in aqueous  solution,  thereby enhancing species  solubility.
     Mabey  and Mill (1978) provide  a  critical  review of the  hydrolysis  of
     organic  compounds  in water under environmental  conditions.  Stumm
     and Morgan (1982) discuss the  hydrolysis of  metals in aqueous systems.
     Oxidation  may occur  as  a result of  oxidants  being  formed  during
     photochemical  processes   in natural waters.  Similarly,  in  some  surface
     water  environments  (primarily  those with  low  oxygen  levels)  reduction
     of constituents  may take place.
                                 13-14

-------
     Degradation, whether  biological,  physical or chemical,  is often reported  m the
literature as a half-life, which is usually measured in days. It is usually expressed as
the time it takes for one half  of a  given  quantity of  a compound  to be  degraded.
Long half-lives (e.g.,  greater than a  month or a year)  are characteristic of persistent
constituents.  It should  be  noted that actual half-life  can vary significantly  over
reported values  based  on  site-specific conditions. For example,  the  absence of
certain  microorganisms at a site,  or the number of microorganisms, can  influence
the  rate  of biodegradation,  and  therefore, half-life.  Other  conditions (e.  g.,
temperature) may also affect degradation and change  the  half-life. As  such,  half-
life values should be used only  as general indications of a chemical's persistence.

     In addition to the above,  reactions  between constituents present in  a release
may also  occur.   The  owner or operator  should  be  aware  of  potential
transformation  processes,  based   on  the  constituents' physical, chemical  and
biological  properties,  and account for such transformations  in the  design of
monitoring  procedures and  in the selection of analytical methods.

     Table 13-4 provides an application  of the concepts discussed above in assessing
the behavior of waste material with respect to  release, migration, and  fate. The
table gives  general  qualitative  descriptors of the  significance of some of  the more
important  properties and environmental processes for the major classes of organic
compounds  likely to be encountered.

     Table 13-4 can be used to illustrate  several  important relationships.

     •    Generally, water  volubility  varies  inversely  with   sorption,
          bioconcentration,  and to  a lesser extent, volatilization.

     •    Oxidation is  a  significant  fate  process for  some  classes of  constituents
          which can  volatilize from  the aqueous  phase.

     •     Variations in properties and environmental processes  occur within classes
          as indicated by the pesticides, monocyclic aromatics,  polycyclic aromatics,
          and  the  nitrosamines and other nitrogen-containing  compounds.
                                     13-15

-------
                                                               TABLE 13-4
                                 GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PROPERTIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES FOR
                                    CLASSES OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Chemical Class
Pesticides
Organochlorines
Organophosphates
Carbamates
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Halogenated Aliphatics
Halogenated Ethers
Monocyclic Aromatics
Toluene
Phenol
Phthalate Esters
Polycyclic Aromatics
Naphthalene
Benzo(K)Fluoranthene
Nitrosamines and other Nitrogen -
Containing Compounds
Benzedine
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
Solubility

Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
High

Moderate
High
Low

Moderate
Low

Moderate-High
High
Sorption

High
Moderate
Moderate
High
Low
Low

Moderate
Low
High

High
High

High
Low
Bioconcentration

High
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Low

Low
Low
High

Low
Low

Low
Low
Volatilization

High
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Low

High
Low-Moderate
Low

Moderate
Low

Low
Low
Photolysis

Moderate
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Low

Low
Moderate
Low

High"
High"

High
High
Oxidation

Low
High
Moderate
Low
High*
High*

High*
Moderate
Low

Low
Low

High
Low
Hydrolyses

Low
Moderate-High
Moderate
Low
Low
High

Low
Low
Low

Low
Low

Low
Low
u>
               Atmospheric oxidation (volatile organic chemicals).
               Dissolved portion only.
         Table entries are qualitative  only and based on a typical chemical within the class. Variations are observed within each class.

-------
      Characterizing  the environmental processes and  properties of  inorganic waste
 constituents takes a similar approach to  that shown  on  Table 13-4 for organics.
 However, characterizing the metals on a class-by-class basis is not advisable because
 of the complex nature of each metal and the many  species in which the metals
 generally occur.  The  interaction  of each metal  species  with  the surface water
 environment is generally  a function of  many parameters including pH,  REDOX
 potential,  and  ionic  strength. See Stumm  and  Morgan (1982)  for  additional
 discussions on this subject.  Generally, however, when metal species are present in a
 release,  it is advisable to  monitor the sediment and biota, in  addition to the water
 column.  This  is  due  to likely deposition  of  metals as particulate  matter,  and to
 potential  bioaccumulation.

 13.3.2          Unit Characterization

      The  relationship between  unit  characteristics  and  migration  pathways
 provides the  framework  in  this  section for a  general discussion  of release
 mechanisms from units of concern to surface waters.

 13.3.2.1         Unit Characteristics

      Information on  design  and operating  characteristics of a unit can be  helpful in
 characterizing  a release.  Unsound unit  design and operating  practices can  allow
waste to migrate from  a  unit and  possibly  mix  with runoff.  Examples  include
 surface   impoundments  with insufficient   freeboard,   allowing for  periodic
 overtopping; leaking  tanks  or containers;  or land-based units above shallow,  low-
 permeability materials  which,  if not properly  designed and operated, can fill  with
water  and spill over.   In  addition,  precipitation  failing on exposed wastes  can
dissolve  and thereby  mobilize hazardous  constituents. For example, at uncapped
active or  inactive waste piles and  landfills, precipitation and  leachate are  likely to
 mix at the toe of the  active face  or  the  low  point  of the  trench floor. Runoff  may
then flow into surface  water through  drainage  pathways.
                                     13-17

-------
 13.3.2.2         Frequency of Release

      Releases  to  surface  waters  may be intermittent, continuous,  or  a  past
 occurrence.  It is  important  to  consider the anticipated frequency of a  release  to
 establish  an effective monitoring  program.

      Most direct releases to surface waters are intermittent. Intermittent  discharges
 may  be periodic, but may occur more  often  in  a non-periodic manner, for example,
 in response  to  rainfall  runoff. Other common factors affecting intermittent  releases
 include fluctuations in water  levels  and flow rates, seasonal conditions  (e.g.,  snow
 melt), factors  affecting  mass stability  (e.  g.,  waste  pile  mass  migration),  basin
 configuration,  quantity/quality  of vegetation,  engineering  control   practices,
 integrity of the unit, and process activities.

      Erosion  of  contaminated  materials from  a unit  (e.g.,  a landfill)  is generally
 intermittent,  and  is  generally  associated  with  rainfall-runoff  events. Similarly,
 breaches  in  a  dike  are generally  short-term  occurrences when they  are quickly
 corrected following  discovery.   Leaks,  while  still  predominantly  intermittent  in
 nature,  may  occur over  longer spans of time and  are  dependent on  the rate  of
 release and the quantity  of material  available.

      Direct placement of wastes within surface  waters (e.g., due to movement  of an
 unstable waste pile)  has the potential  to continuously  contribute  waste constituents
 until  the wastes  have  been  removed  or the waste constituents  exhausted. Direct
 placement is usually  easily documented  by physical presence  of  wastes within the
surface water body.

     The frequency of sample collection should be considered in  the design of the
monitoring  program.   For   example,   intermittent releases  not associated  with
precipitation  runoff  may require  more  frequent  or  even  continuous  sample
collection  to  obtain  representative  data  on  the receiving water  body.  Continuous
monitoring  is  generally  feasible only  for the  limited  number of constituents  and
indicator parameters  for  which  reliable automatic sampling/recording  equipment  is
available.  Intermittent  releases  that are associated with precipitation  runoff  may
require event  sample collection.  With event  sampling,  water level or flow-activated
automatic  sampling/recording  equipment can be used. For continuous releases, less
                                      13-18

-------
frequent sample collection  is generally  adequate  to  obtain representative data  on
the receiving water  body.

      Previous  intermittent releases  may be  identified  through  the  analysis of
bottom sediments, and whole body or tissue analyses of relatively sessile and  long-
lived  macroinvertebrates (e.g., clams),  or other species, such as fish. These analyses
may  identify constituents that may have  adsorbed onto  particulate and  settled to
the sediment,  as well  as bioaccumulative contaminants.  In  addition,  intermittent
releases  may  be  detected through  the  use  of  in  situ  bioassays.  Using  these
procedures,  the test specie(s) is held  within the  effluent  or stream  flow and
periodically  checked for survival  and condition.

13.3.2.3        Form of Release

      Releases to surface waters may be  generally categorized  as  point sources or
non-point sources.  Point sources  are  those that enter  the  receiving water  at a
definable  location, such as piped  discharges. Non-point source discharges  are  ail
other discharges, and generally cover large areas.

      In general, most  unit releases to  surface  waters  are likely to  be of a  point
source  nature.  Most spills, leaks, seeps,  overtopping  episodes,  and breaches occur
within  an  area which can be  easily defined. Even  erosion  of contaminated soil and
subsequent  deposition to surface water can  usually be identified in terms  of  point
of introduction  to  the surface  water body, through the  use  of information  on
drainage  patterns,  for  example.  However,  the  potential  for  both point  and  non-
point  sources  should  be  recognized,  as  monitoring  programs  designed  to
characterize these types  of  releases  can be different.  For example, the generally
larger  and sometimes  unknown areal  extent of non-point  source  discharges may
require an  increase in the  number  of  monitoring  locations  from  that  routinely
required for point source discharges.  The number of monitoring locations must  be
carefully chosen  to ensure representative  monitoring results.

13.3.3           Characterization  of the Environmental Setting

     The  environmental setting  includes the surface  water bodies and the physical
and biological  environment. This section  provides a  general  classification  scheme
for surface waters and discusses collection of hydrologic data that may be important
in  their characterization.  Collection  of specific  geographical  and  climatological
                                      13-19

-------
data  are  also  discussed.  Characterization  of the  biotic  environment is treated in
Section 13.4.

      Note that individual  states have developed  water quality  standards for surface
waters  pursuant to the Clean  Water Act.  These  standards  identify the designated
uses  (e.  g.,  drinking,  recreation, etc.)  of a  surface water and a maximum
contaminant level  to  support the  use.  If applicable,  the  owner or operator  should
report such  standards.

13.3.3.1        Characterization of Surface Waters

      Surface waters  can  be classified  into one of the following categories.  These
are obviously not pure classifications; intergrades are common.

      •    Streams and rivers;

      •    Lakes  and impoundments;

      •    Wetlands;  and

      •    Marine   environments.

13.3.3.1.1       Streams and Rivers

      Streams and rivers are conduits of surface water flow having defined beds  and
banks.  The physical  characteristics of streams  and  rivers  greatly  influence  their
reaction  to contaminant  releases and  natural  purification  (i.  e.,  assimilative
capacity).  An  understanding  of the nature  of  these influences is important to
effective  planning  and  execution   of  a  monitoring program.    Important
characteristics  include depth,  velocity, turbulence,  slope, changes in direction  and in
cross sections, and the nature of the bottom.

     The  effects  of some  of these  factors are  so interrelated  that it is difficult to
assign greater or lesser importance  to  them.  For  example, slope  and roughness of
the  channel  influence  depth and velocity of flow,  which together  control
turbulence.   Turbulence, in   turn, affects rates  of contaminant  dispersion,
                                     13-20

-------
 reaeration,  sedimentation,  and  rates of  natural  purification.   The  nature  of
 contaminant  dispersion is especially critical  in  the  location  of monitoring stations.
 All these factors may  be  of greater  or lesser importance for  specific sites. It should
 also be  noted that these factors may differ at the same site depending on when the
 release  occurred. For example, differences  between winter  and summer flow may
 greatly  influence the  nature of contaminant  dispersion.

     Of further  relevance  to  a surface water investigation  are the  distinctions
 between  ephemeral, intermittent,  and perennial  streams,  defined as follows:

     •     Ephemeral  streams  are those that flow  only in response to precipitation
           in the immediate watershed  or in response to snow melt. The  channel
           bottom of an ephemeral stream is always above the  local water table.

     •     Intermittent  streams are those that usually drain  watersheds  of at least
           one  square mile  and/or receive some of their  flow from baseflow
           recharge from  ground  water  during at least  part of  the  year,  but do not
           flow  continually.

     •     Perennial  streams flow throughout the year in  response to  ground water
           discharge  and/or surface  water runoff.

     The distinction between  ephemeral,  intermittent  and  perennial streams will
also influence the selection  of monitoring  frequency,  monitoring  locations and
possibly  other  monitoring program  design factors.   For example,  the frequency of
monitoring for ephemeral  streams, and  to  a lesser  extent intermittent streams, will
depend  on rainfall runoff.  For  perennial-stream  monitoring,  the  role  of  rainfall
runoff  in  monitoring  frequency may  be of  less importance under similar  release
situations.

     The location of  ephemeral  and intermittent streams  may  not be apparent to
the owner or  operator during  periods  of  little or no  precipitation.  Generally,
intermittent  and ephemeral  streams may  be   associated with  topographic
depressions  in  which  surface water runoff  is  conveyed to  receiving  waters.  In
addition  to topography,  a high density of vegetation  in  such areas  may  be an
indicator of the  presence  of ephemeral or intermittent drainage.
                                     13-21

-------
      Perennial streams and rivers are continually engaged in a dynamic relationship
with  ground water,  either  receiving ground-water  discharge  (gaining  stream)  or
recharging the ground  water  (losing  stream)  over any given stream  reach. These
characteristics should be considered  in the  evaluation of  contaminant  transport and
fate.

      The Ecology of  Running Waters (Hynes  1970)  and  Introduction  to Hydrology
(Viessman et al., 1977) may be reviewed  for basic discussions of surface water
hydrology.

13.3.3.1.2       Lakes and  Impoundments

      Lakes are  typically  considered  natural,  while  impoundments  may  be man-
made. The source for lakes  and  impoundments may be  either surface  water or
ground water, or both.  Impoundments may  be either  incised into the ground
surface or may  be created via  the placement  of a  dam  or embankment.  As with
streams and rivers, the physical  characteristics of lakes and impoundments influence
the transport  and fate of  contaminant  releases  and therefore  the design of  the
monitoring program.  The  physical  characteristics  that should be  evaluated  include
dimensions (e.g., length,  width,  shoreline,  and  depth),  temperature distribution,
and  flow  pathways.

      Especially  in the case of larger lakes and impoundments,  flow paths are not
clearcut  from inlet to  outlet.  Not  only  is the horizontal component of flow  in
question, but as  depth of the water body increases in  the open water zone, chemical
and  more commonly  physical  (i.  e., temperature)  phenomena  create  a vertical
stratification or zonation. Figure  13-2  provides a typical lake cross section,  showing
the various zones of a stratified lake.

      Because of stratification,  deeper water  bodies can be  considered to be
comprised  of  three lakes. The upper lake,  or epilimnion, is characterized by good
light penetration,  higher levels of dissolved oxygen,  greater overall mixing  due to
wave  action, and elevated  biological activity. The  lower lake, or  hypolimnion,  is the
opposite  of  the  epilimnion.  Lying between  these  is  what has  been  termed  the
                                     13-22

-------
   •5&S5A. •*>•"*, -•?-?£••  i     "-O>^  -
                    FIGURE  13-2. TYPICAL LAKE CROSS  SECTION
(Source: Adapted from Cole, 1975).
                                    13-23

-------
 middle  lake or mesolimnion, characterized by a  rapid decrease  in temperature with
 depth. Were it not for the phenomenon  of  lake  over-turn, or mixing,  contaminants
 with specific gravities greater than water  might  be confined  to  the  lowermost lake
 strata, where  they  might remain for some time.  Due  to the potential importance of
 lake mixing to  contaminant transport, it is discussed below.

     Temperatures  within  the  epilimnion  are  relatively  uniform because  of  the
 mixing  that occurs there.  Water is most  dense  at 4° Centigrade (C); above and
 below 4°C its density decreases.  In temperate climates, lake mixing is a  seasonal
 occurrence. As the  surface of  the  epilimnion  cools rapidly in  the  fall, it  becomes
 denser  than the underlying strata.  At some point,  the  underlying strata can no
 longer support the  denser water and  an  "overturn"  occurs, resulting  in lake mixing.
 A similar phenomenon occurs in the spring as the surface waters warm to 4°C and
 once again become  denser than the underlying waters.

     Because  of  the influence  of stratification   on  the transport of  contaminants
 within  a lake  or  reservoir,  the location of monitoring  points will largely depend on
 temperature  stratification.  The monitoring  points  on water  bodies that are  not
 stratified will  be more  strongly  influenced  by  horizontal flowpaths,  shoreline
 configuration and other  factors. The presence  of temperature  stratification can be
 determined  by  establishing temperature-depth profiles of the water  body.

     More information on lakes and  impoundments may  be  found  in  the  following
 references:

     A  Treatise on  Limnology. Volumes I and II (Hutchinson, 1957, 1967) or

     Textbook  of Limnology  (Cole, 1975)

 13.3.3.1.3      Wetlands

     Wetlands  are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at  a frequency and duration  sufficient to support,  and  that  under normal
circumstances do support,  a  prevalence  of  vegetation typically  adapted for life  in
saturated  soil  conditions. Wetlands  include,  but are not limited to,  swamps,
marshes, bogs,  and similar areas.
                                     13-24

-------
      Wetlands are generally recognized as one of the most productive and sensitive
 of  biological habitats, often associated with critical,  habitat for State  or Federally
 listed special-status  species of  plants  or wildlife.  Wetlands also may  play  a
 significant  role  in  basin  hydrology,  moderating peak surface  water  flows  and
 providing recharge  to the  ground water  system.  The  definition of the  extent  and
 sensitivity  of wetlands that  may  be affected  by a  release  is  essential  to  release
 characterization.

      High organic  content,  fine-grained  sediments,  slow  surface  water  movement
 and lush vegetative growth  and biological activity contribute to a  high potential for
 wetlands to concentrate contaminants from  releases. This  is especially  true for
 bioaccumulative  contaminants,  such  as  heavy metals.  The pH/Eh   conditions
 encountered in  many wetlands  are relatively  unique  and can have a  significant
 effect on a contaminant's  toxicity,  fate, etc. Seasonal die-off of the vegetation  and
 flooding  conditions within  the basin  may result  in the wetlands serving as  a
 significant  secondary source of contaminants to  downstream  surface  water
 receptors.

 13.3.3.1.4       Marine  Environments

      For the  purpose of  this  guidance,  marine  environments are  restricted to
 estuaries,  intermediate  between  freshwater and saline,  and  ocean environments.
 Industrial development near the  mouths  of rivers and  near  bays  outletting  directly
 into the  ocean  is  relatively  widespread,  and the estuarine environment  may be  a
 common receptor of releases from industrial facilities.

      Estuaries  are influenced by both  fresh water and  the open ocean.  They have
 been functionally  defined as tidal  habitats  that are  partially  enclosed  by land but
 have some access to the open sea, if only sporadically, and in  which ocean water is
 partially  diluted  by  fresh water. Estuaries  may also  experience  conditions  where
salinities  are temporarily driven above  the ocean levels due to evaporative  losses.
 Because of the protection  afforded by encircling land  areas,  estuaries are  termed
 "low-energy" environments,  indicating  that wave energy  and associated erosive
and mixing processes are reduced.
                                      13-25

-------
     The physical characteristics  of an  estuary  that will influence the design of a
monitoring program  are similar to those  considered  for lakes  and impoundments
(i.e., length,  width, shoreline, depth,  and  flow  pathways).  However, the  increased
probability  for  chemical  stratification  due  to varying salinities  may  be  most
pronounced  in  areas  where  freshwater streams  and  rivers discharge  into  the
estuary.  The  monitoring  program  design should also consider tidal influences on
stratification and contaminant  dispersion.

     In  addition,  estuaries,  or  some  portions of  estuaries, can be  areas  of
intergrained  sediment  deposition.   These  sediments  may contain a  significant
organic fraction, which  enhances  the  opportunity for  metal/organic adsorption, and
subsequent  bioaccumulation. Hence,  biomonitoring within an estuary may also be
appropriate. The ionic strength of contaminants  may  also have an important  effect
on their  toxicity, fate, etc.,  in the marine environment.

13.3.3.2         Climatic and Geographic Conditions

     A  release to  the  surface water  system  will  be  influenced  by  local
climatological/meteorological and geographic  conditions. The  release  may  be
associated only  with specific seasonal  conditions like spring thaws  or meteorological
events such as  storms.  If the release is  intermittent, the environmental  conditions at
the time  of the release may help identify  the cause of  and evaluate the  extent of the
release.  If the release is continuous, seasonal variations should also be evaluated.

     The local  climatic  conditions  should be reviewed  to determine:

     •    The  annual  precipitation distribution  (monthly  averages);

     •    Monthly  temperature variations;

     •    Diurnal  temperature range (daytime/nighttime difference);

     •    Storm frequency and severity;

     •    Wind  direction and speed; and
                                     13-26

-------
      •     Snowfall and  snowpack ranges (if applicable),

      This  information will  be  useful  in  developing a  sampling  schedule  and  in
selecting  sampling methods.  From these  data, it  should  be possible to anticipate
the  range of climatic conditions  at  the site.  These  conditions  may  be far more
complex than simple cold/hot  or  wet/dry seasons.  Some  areas have  two or more
"wet  seasons",  one characterized  by prolonged showers, another  by brief intense
storms,  and perhaps a third as a  result of snowmelt. Cold/hot seasons may overlap
these wet/dry seasons to  create  several climatologically  identifiable seasons. Each
season may  affect  the  release  differently  and  may  require  a  separate
characterization. The unique  climatological seasons that  influence  the site  should
be identified. Typical winter,  spring, summer and fall seasonal descriptions may not
be appropriate or representative of the factors influencing the  release.  Sources of
climatological data are given in Section  12 (Air).

      In addition  to the climatological/meteorological factors,  local  geographic
conditions  will  influence the design of the  sampling program.  Topographic
conditions  and soil structure may make  some areas  prone to  flash floods and  stream
velocities   that  are potentially damaging  to  sampling equipment.  In other areas
(e.g.,  the  coastal dune areas  of the southeastern  states),  virtually no runoff occurs.
Soil porosity and vegetation are  such  that  all  precipitation  either enters the ground
water or is lost to evapotranspiration. (See Section 9 (Soil) for more information).

     A  description of the geographic  setting will aid in developing  a sampling
program that is  responsive  to  the  particular conditions  at  the facility.  When
combined  with  a  detailed  understanding of the climatological/meteorological
conditions  in the area, a workable  monitoring  framework can  be created.

13.3.4     Sources of Existing Information

     Considerable  information  may already be  available to assist in  characterizing a
release. Existing  information  should  be reviewed  to avoid  duplication  of previous
efforts and to aid  in focusing the  RFI. Any information  relating to releases from the
unit, and  to  hydrogeological,  meteorological,  and  environmental factors  that could
influence   the  persistence,  transport  or  location of contaminants  should  be
reviewed.  This information  may  aid in:
                                     13-27

-------
     •     Delineating the boundaries of the  sampling area;

     •     Choosing sampling and analytical  techniques; and

     •     Identifying information  needs for later phases  of the  investigation.

Information may  be obtained  from  readily available sources  of geological and
meteorological  data, waste characteristics,  and  facility operations records.  (See also
Sections 2,3,7  and Appendix A).

13.4       Design of a Monitoring Program to Characterize Releases

     Following  characterization  of  the  contaminant source  and  environmental
setting,  a  monitoring  program  is  developed. This  section outlines  and  describes
factors that should be considered in  design of an effective surface water monitoring
program. The  characterization of contaminant releases may  take  place  in  multiple
phases. While  the factors  discussed in this section should be  carefully considered in
program  design,  each  of these  generic  approaches may  require modification for
specific situations.

     The  primary considerations in designing a  surface  water monitoring program
are:

     •     Establishing  the objectives of the  monitoring  program;

     •     Determining  the constituents of concern;

     •     Establishing  the hydrologic  characteristics  of the receiving water and
           characteristics  of the sediment  and biota, if appropriate;

     •     Selecting  constituents  and/or indicators for  monitoring;

     •     Selecting  monitoring  locations and monitoring  frequency;  and
                                      13-28

-------
      •    Determining  the need  for  sediment  monitoring and,  hydrologic and
           biomonitoring.

 13.4.1          Objectives of the Monitoring Program

      The principal  objectives of a monitoring program are to:

      •    Identify  the characteristics of releases (e.g.,  continuous vs  intermittent);

      •    Identify  the fate of  constituents;

      •    Identify the  nature,  rate,  and  extent of  the release  and  actual  or
           potential effects on water quality and  biota;  and

      •    Identify  the  effect of  temporal variation on  constituent  fate  and identify
           impacts  on water quality  and biota.

      Periodic monitoring  of the surface water system  is  often the  only  effective
 means of  identifying  the occurrence of releases  and their  specific effects. Releases
 can  be continuous or  intermittent,  point source, or  non-point source. The concept
 of monitoring is  the  same,  regardless  of the  frequency or-form  of  the release. A
 series of  measurements, taken over time,  better approximate the actual release to
 surface waters than a one-time grab sample.

      The  functional difference between monitoring the various types of discharges
 is the point  of measurement. Point source discharges  may be monitored  at and/or
 near  the discharge point  to surface waters.  The  fate and potential  effects of non-
 point  source discharges should be inferred  through measurement of the presence of
 constituents  of concern  or suitable indicators  of water quality  within the  receiving
water  body.

     The   monitoring  program  should also  establish  the  background   condition
against which to  measure  variations in  a continuous release or the occurrence of  an
 intermittent  release. Such  information  will enable the facility owner or operator to
compile data that will establish trends in releases from  a given  unit(s) as well as to
 identify releases from other sources.
                                      13-29

-------
      Monitoring  programs  should  characterize  contaminant releases as  a function
of time.  Climatologic factors such  as frequency of intense rainfall,  added  effects  of
snowmelt,  temperature  extremes,   and  mixing  in  lakes  and estuaries should  be
evaluated  and quantified as causative agents for intermittent contaminant release.

      Important concepts to  consider  in  designing the  monitoring  program  for
surface water to help meet the above-stated objectives are described  below.

13.4.1.1         Phased  Characterization

     The initial phase of a  surface water release  characterization program may be
directed  toward verification of the  occurrence  of  a release identified as  suspected
by  the regulatory  agency.  It  may also serve as  the  first  step for characterizing
surface water systems and releases to those systems in cases where a release has
already been verified.

     The initial characterization will typically be  a  short-duration  activity,  done  in
concert with evaluation  of other media that may either  transport  contaminants  to
surface waters, or may  themselves be affected by discharges  from  surface waters
(i.e.,  inter-media  transport).  It  may  be  particularly  difficult to  define intermittent
discharges in  the  initial characterization effort,  especially if  the  contaminants from
these releases are  transient in  the surface water body.

     If the  waste characterization is  adequate,  the initial  characterization  phase
may rely  upon monitoring  constituents  and  suitable indicator parameters  to  aid  in
defining the  nature, rate,  and  extent of a  release.  Subsequent  phases  of  release
characterization will  normally  take  the  form  of  an  expanded  environmental
monitoring  program and hydrologic evaluation,  sensitive  to  seasonal  variations  in
contaminant  release and loading to the  receiving water bodies, as well  as to natural
variation  in hydrologic characteristics  (e.g.,  flow velocity  and volume, stream cross
section).
                                      13-30

-------
 13.4.1.2         Development  of  Conceptual Model

      To effectively design a monitoring  program,  it  is  important  to  develop a
 conceptual model or understanding of the fate of constituents of the  release in the
 receiving  water body. This conceptual  understanding  will  assist in  answering the
 following  questions.

      •    What portion of the receiving water body will  be affected by the release
          and what  conditions  (e. g.,  low  flow,  immediate stormwater  runoff)
          represent reasonable worst case conditions under which  sampling  should
          occur?

      •    What  should the  relative  concentrations of contaminants  be  at  specific
          receptor points  within the  water body  (e.g.,  public water  supply intakes
          downstream of a site)?

      •    How does the  release of  concern relate to  background  contamination in
          the receiving water body as a result of other discharges?

      •    How  might  the  monitoring  program  be  optimized,  based on
          contaminant  dispersion and relative  concentrations within  the receiving
          water  body?

      The  fate of waste constituents entering surface waters is highly  dependent on
the hydrologic characteristics of the  various classifications of  water bodies,  (i.e.,
streams and  rivers, lakes  and impoundments, wetlands,  and estuaries, as discussed
earlier). Because  of  their  complexity, methods for characterization of contaminant
fate in wetlands and estuaries is  not  presented in  detail  in this guidance.  The reader
is referred to  Mills  (1985)  for further detail  on  characterizing  contaminant fate in
wetlands and  estuaries.

 13.4.1.3        Contaminant Concentration  vs Contaminant Loading

      Concentration  and loading are different  means  of  expressing contaminant
levels in a release or receiving water body. The concept is important  in the selection
of constituents  for  monitoring.  Both  concentration and  loading  should be
                                     13-31

-------
evaluated  with respect  to  the release  and  the  receiving  waters.   Basing  an
evaluation  solely on concentration may obscure the actual events.  In addition,  it is
essential to quantify  individual sources of contaminants and the relationships
between  media, as well  as the loading found  in  the receiving  water body,  to
effectively define the  nature  and extent of the contaminant release.

     Contaminant  concentrations  in  receiving  waters  have  specific  value  in
interpreting the  level  of health or  environmental  effects  anticipated  from  the
release.  Contaminant  loading provides a common  denominator for comparison  of
contaminant inputs between monitoring  points.  In addition, especially  in  the case
of contaminants that are persistent in sediments  (e. g., heavy metals), loadings are a
convenient means  of  expressing ongoing contributions from  a  specific discharge.
The distinction between  concentration  and loading  is  best drawn  through  the
following  example.

     A sample collected from a stream  just upgradient of a  site boundary (Station
A)  has a concentration  of 50  micrograms per liter  (ug/1)  of  chromium. A  second
sample  collected  just  downstream  of the site (Station  B)  has a  chromium
concentration of 45 ug/1. From  these data it appears that the site  is not releasing
additional chromium  to the stream.  If,  however,  the stream  flow is increasing
between these two sampling locations, a different interpretation  is  apparent. If the
stream  flow at the upstream location is 1,000 gallons per minute  (gpm) and the
downstream location is 1,300 gpm,  the actual loading  of chromium to the  stream  at
the two locations is as follows:

Station A
Chromium  =  (50.0  ug/l)(1,000  gal/min)(10-9kg/ug)(60  min/hr)(3.785  I/gal  =   0.0114
kg/hr

Station B
Chromium  = (45.0 ug/1 )(1,300   gal/min)(10-9kg/ug)(60 min/hr)(3.785  I/gal)  =  0.0133
kg/hr

     It is  now  apparent that somewhere between the  two sampling stations is a
source(s)  contributing  0.0019 kg/hr  of chromium.  If  all  of the flow  difference (i.e.,
                                     13-32

-------
 300 gpm) is from  a single  source,  then this  source would  have  a  chromium
 concentration of 27.9 ug/l:

 Chromium  = [(0.0019 kg/hr)(109ug/kg)(1hr/60min)(1  min/300  gal)(1  gal/3.785  I)] =
 27.9 ug/l

     If, however,  90 percent  of this flow difference (i.e., 270  gpm)  was  due to
 ground-water discharge  with  a  chromium  concentration  below detectable limits
 and the remaining 10 percent (i.e., 30 gpm) was the result of a direct discharge from
 the facility, this discharge could have a chromium concentration of 279 ug/1.

 13.4.1.4        Contaminant Dispersion Concepts

     Contaminant dispersion concepts  and models of constituent fate can be  used
 to  define  constituents  to  be  monitored  and  the location  and frequency of
 monitoring. Dispersion may  occur in streams, stratified  lakes  or reservoirs,  and in
 estuaries.  Dispersion may be continuous, seasonal, daily, or a combination of these.

     The  discussion  below  is  based  on  information  contained in  the  Draft
 Superfund  Exposure Assessment Manual  (EPA,  1987) relative to simplified  models
 useful  in surface  water fate analyses. The reader is directed to that document  for a
 more  in-depth discussion of models. The  equations presented below are based on
the mixing  zone  concept originally developed  for  EPA's  National Pollutant
 Discharge  Elimination System  (NPDES)  under  the  Clean Water Act.  To avoid
confusion over regulatory application  of these concepts in the NPDES program,  and
the approach presented below (basically to aid in  the development  of  a  monitoring
program),  the following discussion refers to use of the "Dispersion Zone".

     The  following equation  provides  an  approximate  estimate   of  the
concentration  of  a  substance  downstream  from  a point source  release,  after
dilution in  the water body:

                  CUQU+ CWQW
     C  ,=       	
                    Q „ +  €L
                                    13-33

-------
where:
     Cr    =   downstream  concentration  of  substance  following  complete
               dispersion  (mass/volume)
     Cu    =   upstream  concentration of substance  before  effluent  release  point
               (mass/volume)
     Cw   =   concentration of substance in effluent  (mass/volume)
     QW   =   effluent flow rate (volume/time)
     Qu   =   upstream  flow  rate before effluent release  point (volume/time)

     The  following  equation may be used to estimate instream  concentrations after
dilution in  situations  where  waste  constituents are  introduced  via inter-media
transfer or from a non-point source, or where the  release rate is known in terms of
mass per unit time, rather  than per unit effluent volume:

                 T+  M
                    Q
where:
     Tr   =    inter-media transfer rate (mass/time)
     MU   =    upstream mass discharge rate (mass/time)
     Qt   =    stream  flow  rate  after  inter-media  transfer or non-point  source
               release  (volume/time)

     The above two equations  assume  the following:

     •    Dispersion  is instantaneous and complete;

     •    The  waste  constituent is conserved (i.e., all decay or  removal  processes
          are disregarded);  and

     •    Stream flow and rate of contaminant  release  to the stream are constant
          (i.e.,  steady-state conditions).
                                     13-34

-------
      For a  certain  area downstream  of  the  point of release,  the assumption  of
 complete dispersion-may not be  valid.  Under certain situations, the dispersion zone
 can extend  downstream  for  a considerable  distance, and  concentrations can  be
 considerably higher within the  dispersion  zone  than those  estimated by the
 equation. The length of this zone can  be approximated by the following equation:

                  0.4
      DZ   =     	
where:
      DZ   =    dispersion  zone length  (length units)
      w    =    width of the water body (length units)
      u     =    stream  velocity (length/time)
      d     =    stream  depth (length units)
      s     =    slope (gradient) of the  stream channel (length/length)
      9     =    acceleration due to gravity (32 ft/sec2)

      Within  the dispersion  zone,  contaminant concentrations will  show  spatial
variation.  Near the release  point the contaminant will  be restricted (for a  discharge
along one  shoreline)  to  the  nearshore  area and (depending  on  the  way the
discharge is introduced and its  density) can  be  vertically confined.  As  the  water
moves  downstream, the  contaminant  will  disperse within  surrounding  ambient
water and  the plume  will  widen  and deepen.    Concentrations  will   generally
decrease  along the plume centerline and  the concentration gradients  away from
the centerline will decrease. Eventually, as  described  above, the contaminant will
become  fully  dispersed within  the stream;   downstream  from  this  point
concentration  will  be constant  throughout  the  stream cross-section,  assuming that
the stream flow rate remains constant.

      It  is important to  understand  this  concentration variability within the
dispersion zone if measurements are  to be made  near the release.  Relatively
straightforward  analytical expressions (See Neely,  1982) are  available to calculate
the spatial variation  of  concentration as a function of such  parameters  as  stream
width,  depth,  velocity,  and  dispersion  coefficients.   Dispersion  coefficients
characterize  the dispersion  between  the  stream  water and contaminated  influx;
                                     13-35

-------
 they can, in  turn,  be estimated from stream characteristics such as depth, gradient,
 and path (i.e., straight or bends).

     The above  considerations  are for  instream  concentrations  resulting  from  the
 releases  of  concern.   If  total  instream  concentrations  are  required,  the
 concentrations  determined from  background  water  samples  should  also  be
 considered.  In addition,  if introduction  of the  contaminant occurs over a fixed
 stream reach, as might be  the case with a non-point discharge, it should be assumed
 that the  dispersion zone begins  at the furthest downstream  point within this reach.

 13.4.1.5        Conservative vs Non-Conservative Species

     The expressions presented  thus  far have assumed that the  contaminant(s) of
 concern  is conservative (i.e., that the  mass  loading of the  contaminant  is affected
 only by  the  mechanical  process of  dilution).   For contaminants  that are non-
 conservative, the  above  equations  would  provide  a conservative estimate  of
 contaminant  loading at  the  point of  interest within  the  receiving water body.

     In  cases where  the concentration  after  dilution  of  a  non-conservative
 substance  is still  expected  to be above a level  of concern,  it  may  be  useful to
 estimate  the  distance downstream  where the concentration  will remain  above  this
 level  and  at selected  points in between.   The  reader is  referred  to  the Draft
 Superfund  Exposure  Assessment Manual  (EPA,  1987), for  details  regarding  this
 estimation  procedure  and  to specific State  Water Quality  Standards  for
 determination of  acceptable  instream  concentrations.

 13.4.2          Monitoring Constituents  and Indicator Parameters

 13.4.2.1         Hazardous Constituents

     The  facility  owner or operator  should  propose  a list  of constituents and
 indicator parameters,  if appropriate,  to  be  included  in the Surface  Water
 investigation.  This  list should  be based  on  a  site-specific understanding  of  the
 composition of the release source(s)  and  the  operative release  mechanisms, as well
 as the physical and  chemical characteristics of the  various classes of contaminants.
These  factors, as well  as potential  release  mechanisms and migration  pathways,
                                     13-36

-------
 have been discussed in Sections 13.3 and 13.4.1. Also refer to Sections 3 and 7 of this
 guidance, and to the lists of constituents provided in Appendix B.

 13.4.2.2         Indicator Parameters

      Indicator parameters  (e.g.,  chemical  and  biochemical  oxygen  demand,  pH,
 total suspended  solids, etc.) may also play a useful role  in release characterization.
 Though  indicators  can  provide  useful  data for release  verification and
 characterization,   specific  hazardous constituent  concentrations  should  always  be
 monitored. Furthermore,  many highly  toxic constituents  may not be  detected  by
 indicators because they do not represent a significant amount of the  measurement.

      Following are  brief  synopses of some common indicator parameters and field
 tests that can be used in investigations of  surface water contamination.  The  use of
 biomonitoring as an indicator of contamination is discussed in  Section 13.4.5.

 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand  (COD)--BOD  is
 an  estimate of the amount of oxygen required  for the  biochemical  degradation of
 organic material  (carbonaceous demand) and the oxygen used to oxidize inorganic
 material such as sulfides and ferrous iron.  It may also  measure the oxygen used to
 oxidize  reduced  forms of  nitrogen  (nitrogenous demand) unless their oxidation  is
 prevented by an inhibitor. Because the complete stabilization of a BOD sample may
 require  an extended period, 5 days has  been accepted  as the standard incubation
 period.  While BOD  measures only biodegradable  organics,  non-biodegradable
 materials  can exert a demand  on the  available  oxygen  in  an aquatic environment.
 COD measures  the total  oxygen demand produced  by biological  and  chemical
 oxidation of waste constituents. Availability  of results for  the  COD in approximately
 4 hours, versus  5 days for the BOD,  may  be an important advantage of its  use in
 characterizing releases of a transient nature.

     COD  values are essentially equivalent to  BOD when the oxidizable materials
 present consist exclusively of organic matter. COD values exceed  BOD values when
 non-biodegradable  materials that are susceptible  to  oxidation  are  present. The
 reverse is not often the case;  however, refinery wastes provide a  notable exception.
There are some  organic compounds, such as pulp and paper mill cellulose, that are
 non-biodegradable,  yet oxidizable.  Nitrogenous  compounds,  which may  place  a
                                     13-37

-------
significant drain on available oxygen  in aquatic  environments, are not measured  in
the  COD  test. In addition,  chlorides  interfere  with  the  COD test,  leading  to
overestimates  of the  actual  COD.    BOD/COD  ratios,  as  an  indicator  of
biodegradability, are discussed in  Section 9 (Soil). BOO and COD  may be useful
indicator parameters if the  release is  due primarily to  degradable  organic wastes.

Total Organic Carbon (TOC)--Total organic carbon is valuable as a rapid estimator of
organic contamination in  a  receiving water. TOC, however,  is not specific to a given
contaminant or even to specific classes of organics. In addition, TOC  measurements
have little use if the release is primarily due to inorganic wastes.

Dissolved Oxygen  (DO) -Measurements of DO may be readily made in the  field with
an  electronic DO  meter, which has  virtually  replaced  laboratory titrations.
Especially  in  lake environments,  it is valuable to know the DO  profile with depth.
The bottoms  of  lakes are often  associated with anoxic  conditions (absence  of
oxygen)  because of the lack of mixing with  the  surface and reduced or non-existent
photosynthesis.   Influx of  a contaminant load  with  a  high  oxygen  demand can
further exacerbate oxygen  deficiencies  under such conditions. In addition,  low  DO
levels  favor  reduction,  rather than   oxidation reactions,  thus altering products  of
chemical  degradation  of contaminants.  DO levels less than 3 mg/liter (ppm)  are
considered stressful to most aquatic vertebrates  (e.g.,  fish and amphibians).

pH-pH  is probably one of the most common field  measurements made of surface
waters.  It is  defined as  the inverse log of the  hydrogen  ion concentration of an
aqueous medium. pH is generally  measured  in the  field  with  analog  or digital
electronic pH meters.

     As  an  indicator of water pollution,  pH is important for two reasons:

     •    The  range  within which most  aquatic life  forms  are  tolerant is  usually
          quite narrow.  Thus,  this  factor  has  significant  implications in  terms of
          impact to  aquatic communities; and

     •    The  pH of a  solution may be a  determining factor in moderating other
          constituent   reactions.
                                     13-38

-------
Temperature-Along  with  pH,  temperature is  a fundamental  parameter that  should
always be recorded in the field  when  a water sample is collected.  Temperature is
most often measured  by  electronic meters that can  simultaneously record  pH and/or
specific conductance. Temperature is a significant parameter  because:

     •    Most aquatic species are sensitive to elevated  temperatures;

     •    Elevated  temperatures  can bean indication of a contaminant plume;

     •    Most chemical  reactions are temperature-dependent;  and

     •   Temperature defines strata in thermally-stratified  lakes.

Alkalinity-Alkalinity is  the capacity of water to resist  a depression  in  pH.  It  is,
therefore, a  measure  of  the  ability of the  water to accept hydrogen  ions  without
resulting  in  creation of  an acid  medium.  Most natural waters  have substantial
buffering  capacity (a resistance to any  alteration in pH, toward  either the  alkaline
or  acid   side)  through   dissolution  of  carbonate-bearing  minerals, creating a
carbonate/bicarbonate  buffer  system.

     Alkalinity is usually  expressed in calcium  carbonate  (CaC03) equivalents and is
the sum  of alkalinities provided by the  carbonate,  bicarbonate,  and hydroxide ions
present in solution.  Alkalinities in  the natural  environment usually  range from  45 to
200 milligrams  per liter  (mg/l).  Some  limestone  streams  have extremely  high
buffering  capacities,  while other  natural  streams  are  very  lightly  buffered and  are
extremely sensitive to acid (or alkaline) loadings.

Hardness-The  sum  of  carbonate and  bicarbonate  alkali  nities  is  also  termed
carbonate  hardness.   Hardness  is generally  considered a  measure  of the  total
concentration  of calcium  and  magnesium  ions  present  in  solution, expressed  as
CaC03equivalents.

     Calcium and magnesium  ions  play a role in plant  and  animal  uptake  of
contaminants; knowledge  of  the  hardness of a  surface  water  is necessary for
evaluation of the site-specific  bioaccumulative  potential of certain contaminants
(e.g., heavy metals).
                                     13-39

-------
Total Solids-Analytically,  the  total solids  (TS)  content of a water  is that  remaining
after evaporation  at 103-115°C  or  180°C,  depending on the  method. The  residue
remaining represents a  sum of the suspended, colloidal,  and  dissolved solids.
Hazardous constituents with high vapor pressures (i.e.,  volatiles, semi-volatiles)  will
not  remain after evaporation,  and will not contribute to  the TS determination.

Suspended Solids-Suspended solids are  those materials that will not pass a glass-
fiber filter. Suspended  solids contain both organic and  inorganic compounds.  For
the  purpose  of comparison to water  samples,  the average  domestic wastewater
contains about 200 ppm (mg/l) of suspended solids.

Volatile Suspended Solids-Volatile suspended  solids are the volatile  organic portion
of the  suspended solids.  Volatile suspended  solids are  the  components  of
suspended solids  that volatilize  at  a temperature of 600°C.  The  residue or ash is
termed  fixed suspended  solids and  is a  measure  of  the  inorganic fraction (i.  e.,
mineral  content).  The  only  inorganic  salt  that  will degrade  below  600° C is
magnesium  carbonate.

Total Dissolved Solids-Total  dissolved  solids  context  is obtained  by subtracting
suspended solids from total solids. Its significance lies  in the fact  that it cannot be
removed from  a surface water or effluent  stream  through physical  means or simple
chemical processes, such as coagulation.

Salinity  -The  major salts  contributing to salinity are  sodium  chloride (NaCI)  and
sulfates of magnesium  and  calcium  (MgS04,  CaS04).  The following  represents  an
example of classification of saline waters on the basis of salt content.
          Type of Water       Total Dissolved Solids (As Salts)
          brackish             1,000 to 35,000 mg/l
          seawater            35,000 mg/l
          brine                >35,000  mg/l

Specific  Conductance-Conductivity measures  the  capacity to  conduct current.  Its
counterpart is, of course,  resistance,  measured in  ohms.  The unit of conductivity has
been defined as the mho. Specific conductance is conductivity/unit  length.  The most
common units  for specific conductance are  mho/cm. Specific conductance  can  be
                                     13-40

-------
      The nature  and concentrations  of naturally-occurring  ions in  surface  waters
 are a function of  the geologic setting  of the  area, and  may be temporarily affected
 by stormwater runoff, which may cause  resuspension of streambed sediments.

      In  reference to their  inertness  with  respect to  constituent  and  biological
 degradation,  ionic species are  termed  "conservative." The fact  that their mass is not
 altered (i.e.,  is conserved) in  surface waters permits them  to be  used in  simple
 dilution  modeling.

 13.4.3          Selection of Monitoring Locations

      The selection  of  monitoring locations  should be  addressed,  prior to  sample
 acquisition  because it  may  affect  the  selection of  monitoring  equipment and
 because  monitoring locations  will  affect the representativeness of  samples taken
 during the monitoring  program. Samples must  be taken at locations representative
 of the water body  or positions in the  water body with specific physical or chemical
 characteristics.   As discussed in Section  13.4.1.2  (Development  of Conceptual
 Model),  one of  the  most  important  preliminary  steps  in   defining  monitoring
 locations  in a  surface water monitoring program  is developing  a conceptual  model
 of the manner in  which the release is  distributed within the  receiving  water body.
This  is dependent on  the physical  and  chemical characteristics of the  receiving
water, the point  source or non-point  source  nature  of  the discharge,  and  the
 characteristics of the constituents themselves.

     As  a practical example,  if  a  release  contains contaminants  whose specific
gravities  exceed that of water,  it may behave almost as  a separate phase within the
receiving  water body,  traveling along  the  bottom  of the  water body. As another
example,  certain contaminants may be found  in  comparatively low  concentrations
in sediments or within  the water  column, yet may accumulate  in aquatic  biota via
bioaccumulation.   In this case  monitoring of the  biota would be  advised.  If the
facility owner or operator is unaware of these phenomena, it  would  be possible for
the monitoring  program to show no evidence of  contamination.

      In general,  it will  be desirable  to locate  monitoring stations  in  three areas
relative to the discharge in question:
                                      13-42

-------
 Background  monitoring  stations:

 Background monitoring should be performed  in  an area known not
 to be  influenced by  the  release of concern  (e.  g., upstream  of  a
 release).

 Monitoring stations at the release point(s)  or  area:

 If the  release is a point source or area source, periodic monitoring
 should be  performed at  monitoring  stations  near the discharge
 origin  to  determine the  range  of  contaminant concentrations. The
 contaminant  stream  (e.g.,  leachate  seep, runoff)  should  also be
 subjected  to  monitoring.

 Monitoring of  the  receiving  water body  within  the  area  of
 influence:

 One means of evaluating the water quality effects of a  discharge  is
 to monitor the discharge point and model  its  dispersion (e.g., using
 dispersion  zone concepts discussed previously) within the  receiving
 water  body. The results of this modeling may be used to determine
 appropriate  sampling locations.  Actual  sampling  of the area
 thought to be influenced  by  the release  is  required. The  "area of
 influence"  may  be defined as  that portion  of the receiving water
 within  which the  discharge  would show  a  measurable effect. As
 described previously,  the area to be sampled  is generally defined in
 a phased fashion, based on a growing  base of  monitoring data. It  is
 usually  prudent to  start  with  a  conservatively large area  and
 continually  refine its  boundaries.  This  is particularly  true  where
 sensitive  receptors  (e. g., public  water  supply  intakes,  sensitive
wetlands,  recreation  areas) lie  downstream  of the  release.  In
 addition, in order to  determine  the full extent  of the release  (and
 its  effects),  samples should  be  taken   at  locations  beyond  the
 perceived area of influence.
                      13-43

-------
     The majority  of the effort of the monitoring program will take  place  within
the  area of influence, as  defined  above. Many  factors are involved in selecting
monitoring stations within this  area, the most  critical being:

     •    The  homogeneity  of the  water body in terms of temperature,  flow,
          salinity, and other physical and  chemical characteristics;

     •    The  representativeness  of the monitoring point,  in  terms of  both
          contaminant characteristics  and use factors;

     •    The presence of areas of pronounced  water  quality degradation; and

     •    Defensible monitoring design, including  the choice  of the  monitoring
          scheme  (random, stratified  random, systematic, etc.),  the  experimental
          design, and adequate sample  size determination.

     Estuarine  areas are  particularly difficult  in terms  of selecting  monitoring
locations that  will  allow  an  adequate evaluation  of  constituent  distribution,
because  detailed knowledge  of the   hydrologic  characteristics of the  estuary  is
required to  accurately locate   representative  monitoring  points.  Freshwater  - salt
water  stratification  is a  particularly  important  consideration.  If  stratification  is
known to occur or is suspected, sampling  should  be  conducted at a  range of depths
within the estuary as well  as at surface locations.

     The selection  of sampling  locations  is described in  much greater detail in EPA
(1973,  1982).

13.4.4           Monitoring  Schedule

     The monitoring  schedule  or  frequency  should be a  function  of the type  of
release (i.e., intermittent vs continuous),  variability in water quality of the receiving
water body  (possibly  as a result of other  sources), stream flow conditions, and other
factors  causing the  release  (e.g.,  meteorological  or process design factors).
Therefore, frequency  of monitoring  should be  determined  by the  facility owner  or
operator on a  site-specific basis.   Sampling points  with  common monitoring
                                      13-44

-------
objectives should be sampled as close  to simultaneously  as possible, regardless  of
the  monitoring frequency established.

     Factors  important  in  determining the  required  frequency  of  monitoring
include:

     •         The homogeneity of the receiving  water in terms  of  factors  that
               may affect  the  fate  of constituents. The most  important of these
               are flow and seasonal  or diurnal stratification.

     •         The characteristics of the releases.  Releases may  be continuous  or
               event-associated.

     As  an  example, continuous,  point source releases of  low variability subject  to
few, if  any,  additional  releases  may  require relatively  infrequent monitoring. On
the other hand,  releases  known  to be  related to recurrent  causes, such as rainfall
and runoff,  may  require  monitoring associated  with  the  event.  Such monitoring  is
termed  "event"  sampling.   To  evaluate the  threshold  event  required to trigger
sampling, as well  as the  required  duration  of the monitoring following the  event, it
is necessary that  the role of the  event in creating a release from the unit be  well
understood.  In what is probably  a very  common example, if stormwater runoff  is
the event of concern, a hydrography  for various storm return intervals and durations
should be estimated for the point  or area of interest and the  magnitude  and
duration  of its effects evaluated.

     Continuous  monitoring can  be accomplished  through  in  situ probes  that
provide  frequent  input  to field  data  storage  units.   However,  continuous
monitoring is  feasible  only  for the  limited  number of constituents  and indicator
parameters for which reliable automatic sampling/recording  equipment is available.

     In estuaries,  samples are generally required through a  tidal cycle. Two sets  of
samples  are taken from  an area  on a  given day, one at  ebb or flood slack water and
another  at three  hours  earlier or later  at half tide  interval.  Sampling is scheduled
such  that the mid-sampling time  of  each run  coincides with  the calculated
occurrence of  the  tidal  condition.
                                     13-45

-------
     Where  investigating discharges of contaminated ground  water to streams  or
 rivers,  it is important  to sample  during low flow conditions (e. g., using State critical
 low  flow  designations)  to better  assess the  possible  effects of the  release(s)  of
 concern.

 13.4.5           Hydrologic Monitoring

     The  monitoring program  should  also  include  provisions  for hydrologic
 monitoring.  Specifically,  the  program should  provide for collection  of data  on the
 hydrologic condition of the surface water body at the time of sampling.

     For  example,  some indication  of the stage and discharge  of  a stream being
 monitored  needs to  be  recorded at the time and  location each  water sample  is
 collected.  Similarly, for  sampling that  occurs during storms, a  record of rainfall
 intensity  over the duration  of the storm  needs  to be obtained. Without  this
 complementary  hydrologic  data, misinterpretation  of the  water  quality  data  in
 terms of contaminant  sources and the extent of contamination is  possible.

     The techniques for  hydrologic  monitoring   that  could  be   included  in  a
 monitoring program range in  complexity from  use of simple qualitative  descriptions
 of streamflow to permanent  installation of continuously-recording  stream  gages.
 The  techniques appropriate  in a given case will depend on the characteristics of the
 unit  and  of  the  surface  waters  being investigated.  Guidance  on hydrologic
 monitoring techniques can be  found  in the references cited in Section 13.6.1.

 13.4.6          The Role of Biomonitoring

     The  effects of  contaminants  may be  reflected in the  population  density,
species composition  and diversity,  physiological condition, and  metabolic  rates  of
aquatic  organisms  and  communities.  Biomonitoring  techniques  can  provide  an
effective  complement  to detailed   chemical analyses  for identifying chemical
contamination  of water bodies. They may be especially useful in  those cases where
 releases involve constituents with  a  high  propensity  to bioaccumulate. This  includes
most metal species  and organics with a high  bioconcentration factor  (e.g., >  10)  or a
 high octanol/water  partition  coefficient   (e.g;>2.3).These  properties were
discussed  in Section 13.3.
                                     13-46

-------
      Biomonitoring techniques may include:

      •          Community ecology studies;
      •          Evaluation of food chain/sensitive species impacts; and
      •          Bioassays.

      These techniques are discussed below.

 13.4.6.1         Community Ecology Studies

      Indicator  species  are useful  for evaluating  the  well-being  of  an  aquatic
 community that  may be  stressed by the release of  contaminants. For example,  the
 condition  of the benthic  macroinvertebrate community  is  commonly used as  an
 indicator of the  presence  of contaminants. The objective of studying the naturally-
 occurring  biological community is to  determine community  structure that  would  be
 expected, in an  undisturbed  habitat.  If significant  changes  occur,  perturbations in
 the community ecology  may be linked to the  disturbance associated with release of
 contaminants to  the water body.

      EPA is engaged  in research to  develop rapid  bioassessment techniques  using
 benthic macroinvertebrates.  Although  protocols are being  considered,  in  general
 these techniques suffer from  lack of  data on undisturbed aquatic communities and
 associated  water quality  information.  For some  areas (e.g., fisheries),  however,
 indices to  community health  based on  benthic  invertebrate  communities  are
 available (Hilsenhoff 1982,  Cummins and Wilgbach,  1985).

      Because species  diversity is a commonly-used  indicator of the  overall health of
 a  community, depressed  community   diversity may  be  considered  an  indicator of
 contamination.   For example, if a release to surface waters  has a high chemical
 oxygen  demand  (COD)  and, therefore, depresses  oxygen levels in the  receiving
water body,  the  number of different  species of organisms that can colonize  the
water body  may be reduced.   In this case the oxygen-sensitive species  (e.g.,  the
 mayfly), is  lost from the community and is replaced by  more  tolerant species. The
 number of  tolerant species is  small,   but  the  number  of  individuals within  these
species that can colonize  the  oxygen-deficient waters may be quite large. Therefore,
                                     13-47

-------
the overall  species  diversity could be  low, even  though the numbers of organisms
may be high.

      Evaluations  of community  ecology should  however,  be  sensitive  to  the  role
that  habitat variability  may  play  in  altering community structure.  Diversity  of
habitat may be  altered  by natural  physical  conditions (e.g.,  a  rapid  increase  in
stream gradient), substrate characteristics (e. g., silty versus rocky  substrate), and so
forth.  It may also be difficult to directly link contaminant levels with the presence  or
absence of aquatic  organisms, unless there is a secondary impact that is more  self-
evident, such  as high oxygen demand,  turbidity, or salinity.

13.4.6.2         Evaluation of Food Chain Sensitive/Species  Impacts

      At this level of biomonitoring, the  emphasis  is actually on the threat to specific
fish or wildlife  species, or man,  as a result of bioaccumulation of constituents from
the release being carried  through  the  food web.  Bioaccumulative contaminants are
not rapidly  eliminated by biological processes and  accumulate in certain organs  or
body  tissues.   Their effect may  not  be  felt  by  individual organisms that initially
consume  the  contaminated substrate or take  up  the contaminants from  the water.
However,  organisms at  higher trophic  levels  consume  the organisms of the lower
trophic levels.   Consequently,  contaminants may become bioaccumulated  in
organisms and biomagnified through the food web.

      Examination  of the  potential  for bioaccumulation  and  biomagnification  of
contaminants  requires at  least a  cursory  characterization of  the  community  to
define its  trophic structure,  that is, which  organisms occupy which relative  positions
within  the community.  Based  on  this  definition,  organisms  representative of the
various trophic levels may  be collected, sacrificed,  and analyzed to determine the
levels  of the contaminants of interest present.

      If a  specific trophic  level is  of concern,  it  may be  possible to short-cut the
process by selectively  collecting  and  analyzing  organisms from  that level for the
contaminants of concern. This may be the case, for instance, if  certain organisms
are  taken  by man either commercially  or through recreational fishing, for
consumption. It may also be necessary to focus on  the  prey of special-status fish  or
wildlife (e.  g., eagles and other birds  of  prey)  to establish  their potential  for
                                      13-48

-------
 exposure.   This type of  biomonitoring  may  be  especially useful  if constituents
 released  have  a  relatively high  potential  to  bioaccumulate.  A  discussion  of
 indicators  that  are generally  predictive of constituents  which  have  a significant
 potential for bioaccumulation was presented in Section  13.3.

      In addition, in the  selection  of organisms it is important to consider the ability
 of a  given  organism to  accumulate a  class of contaminants and  the residential vs
 migratory  nature  of  the organisms.    For  example,  bullfrogs  are  superior  for
 accumulating metals  but poor  for  organics;  spawning  (thus migratory) salmon
 would be  much less  useful for  characterizing a release  from a  local facility than
 would resident  fish.

 13.4.6.3         Bioassay

      Bioassay  may be  defined  as  the  study of specially selected  representative
 species  to determine  their response to  the  release  of  concern,  or to specific
 constituents  of  the release.  The organisms are "monitored" for  a  period of time
 established by the  bioassay method. The objective of bioassay testing  is to establish
 a  concentration-response  relationship  between  the  contaminants  of concern  and
 representative  biota that can  be  used to  evaluate  the  effects of the  release.
 Bioassay testing may  involve the  use of indigenous organisms (U.S.  EPA,  1973)  or
 organisms  available commercially for this  purpose.  Bioassays have  an  advantage
 over strict  constituent analyses of surface waters and  effluents  in that they  measure
the total effect  of  all  constituents within the  release on  aquatic  organisms (within
the limits  of  the test).  Such results,  therefore,  are  not  as tightly constrained  by
assumptions  of  contaminant interactions.   Discussions of  bioassay procedures are
 provided by Peltier  and Weber (1985) and Horning and Weber (1985).

     The  criterion  commonly  used  to establish  the  endpoint for  a bioassay  is
mortality of the test  organisms,  although other factors such  as depressed growth
rate,  reproductive  success,  behavior alteration,  and  flesh  tainting (in  fish and
shellfish) can  be used.  Results are  commonly reported  as the  LC50  (i.e.,  the lethal
concentration  that resulted in 50  percent mortality of the  test  organisms within the
time frame of the test) or  the EC50 (i.e., the effective concentration that resulted  in
50 percent  of the test organisms  having an effect other than death within  the time
frame of the test).
                                      13-49

-------
     One potential use  of bioassays during the RFI  is to predict  the  effect of a
release on sensitive species residing in the affected surface water(s). Bioassay may
be  especially  useful if the  release is intermittent. In this case,  samples of the waste
may be  taken from the unit  of  concern  and  used to conduct bioassay tests. The
bioassay may be conducted using the waste at 100 percent strength, and in diluted
form, to  obtain a  concentration  response  relationship. The results of  this testing
may then be used to  predict the effects of a release on the  surface water biota.

     Bioassays can  serve  as important complements to the  overall  monitoring
program.  In considering  the role and  design of bioassays  in a monitoring  program,
the facility owner or operator should be aware of  the  advantages and limitations of
toxicity testing. The study design  must account for factors such as species sensitivity
and frequency of monitoring  which  may be different from the  considerations  that
feed into chemical  monitoring  programs.  Toxicity  testing techniques are an  integral
part of the  Clean Water Act  program to control the discharge of toxic substances.
Many issues associated  with toxicity testing  have been addressed in this context in
the Technical  Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control  (Brandes et
al, 1985).

13.5 Data Management and Presentation

     The owner or operator will be  required  to report on the progress  of the  RFI at
appropriate  intervals  during the  investigation.  The data  should   be reported in a
clear and concise manner, and interpretations should be supported by the data. The
following  data  presentation methods are suggested  for the various phases  of  the
surface water investigation. Further  information on the various procedures  is given
in Section 5.  Section 5 also  provides  guidance  on various  reports  that  may  be
required.

13.5.1          Waste and Unit Characterization

     Waste  and unit characteristics should be presented as:

     •         Tables of  waste constituents,  concentrations,  effluent flow and
               mass loadings;
                                      13-50

-------
     •          Tables of  relevant physical and chemical  properties  of  potential
                contaminants (e.g., solubility);

     •          Narrative description  of  unit operations;

     •          Surface map  and  plan  drawings  of facility,  unit(s),  and  surface
                waters; and

     •          Identification  of "reasonable worst  case"  contaminant  release  to
                surface waters.

13.5.2           Environmental  Setting Characterization

     The environment of the waste unit(s) and  surface waters should  be described
in terms  of  physical  and  biological  environments  in the vicinity.  This  description
should  include:

     •          A map of  the  area portraying  the  location  of  the waste unit  in
                relation  to  potential receiving waters;

     •          A map  or  narrative classification of surface waters  (e.g.,  type  of
                surface water,  uses of the surface water, and State classification, if
                any);

     •          A description   of  the climatological setting  as  it may affect the
                surface hydrology or release of  contaminants; and

     •          A narrative  description  of the  hydrologic  conditions during
                sampling  periods.

13.5.3           Characterization of the Release

     The complex  nature of  the data  involving multiple monitoring  events,
monitoring locations,  matrices  (water,  sediment,   biota),  and  analytes  lends itself to
graphic  presentation.  The  most basic presentation is a site map or series of maps
                                      13-51

-------
that locate  the  monitoring  stations for each  monitoring  event. These  maps  may
also  be adapted to include isopleths for  specific analytes;  however,  since  the
isopleths imply  a  continuity within  their borders, they  may  not be  appropriate
unless they  are  based  on  an  adequate  number  of  monitoring  points  and
representative data.  The contours should be  based on unit intervals whose accuracy
ranges do  not  overlap,  in  most  situations,  two separate  reporting formats  are
appropriate.  First,  the data should  be included as  tables.  These  tables  should
generally  be used to present the analytical  results for  a given sample.  Each table
could  include samples  from  several  locations for  a given  matrix,  or could include
samples from each location for all sample matrices.  Data from these tables can  then
be  summarized for comparison purposes using graphs.

      Graphs are most  useful for displaying  spatial  and temporal variations. Spatial
variability  for a given analyte can be displayed using  bar  graphs where  the vertical
axis  represents  concentration   and  the  horizontal axis  represents downstream
distance from the discharge. The results from each monitoring station can then  be
presented as a concentration bar. Stacked bar graphs can be used to display these
data from each  matrix  at a  given location or for  more  than one analyte from each
sample.

      Similarly, these  types of  graphs can  be  used to demonstrate temporal
variability if the horizontal  axis represents  time rather  than distance.   In  this
configuration,  each  graph  will present  the  results of  one analyte  from  a single
monitoring  location. Stacked bars can then display multiple analytes or locations.
Line  graphs, like isopleths,  should be used  cautiously  because the  line implies  a
continuity, either  spatial or temporal, that may  not  be  accurately  supported  by the
data.

     Scatter plots are useful for  displaying correlations  between variables. They  can
be  used  to  support the validity  of  indicator  parameters by  plotting the indicator
results against the results for a specific constituent.

     Graphs are  used to display trends and correlations. They should not be used to
replace data tables,  but rather to  enhance the meaning of the data.
                                     13-52

-------
13.6 Field and Other Methods

     The purpose of this section is to provide an  overview of methods that can be
used to characterize the nature, rate,  and extent of contaminant releases to surface
water.  Detailed  descriptions  of specific methods can  be found in the  indicated
references.

     The methods presented  in this section relate to four specific areas, as follows:

     •         Surface Water  Hydrology;

     •         Sampling  and  Constituent  Analysis  of  Surface  Water,  Sediments,
               and  Biota;

     •         Characterization of the  Condition of  the Aquatic  Community; and

     •         Bioassay Methods.

13.6.1          Surface Water Hydrology

     The  physical  attributes of the potentially  affected water body  should be
characterized to effectively develop a monitoring  program and to interpret results.
Depending  on the characteristics of the release and the environmental setting, any
or all  of the following hydrologic measurements may  need to be  undertaken.

     •    Overland  flow:
               Hydraulic  measurement;
               Rainfall/runoff  measurement;
               Infiltration measurement;  and
               Drainage basin  characterization  (including  topographic
               characteristics,  soils and geology,  and land use).

     •    Open  channel flow:
               Measurement of stage (gaging activities);
               Measurement of width, depth, and cross-sectional area;
               Measurement of velocity;
                                     13-53

-------
               Measurement of channel discharge;
               Measurement of channel  discharge at controls  (e.g.,  dams  and
               weirs);  and
               Definition of flow pathways -  solute dispersion studies.

     •    Closed conduit  flow:
               Measurement of discharge.

     •    Lakes and impoundments:
               Morphometric  mapping;
               Bathymetric mapping;
               Temperature  distributions;  and
               Flow pathways.

     The following references provide descriptions of the  measurements described
above.

     National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric Administration. Rainfall Atlas of the U.S.

     Viessman, et al.,  1977. Introduction to Hydrology.

     USGS.  1977.  National Handbook of  Recommended  Methods  for Water-Data
     Acquisition  Chapter  1  (Surface Water)  and Chapter 7  (Physical  Basin
     Characteristics for Hydrologic Analyses).

     U.S  Department  of  Interior.  1981.'  Water  Measurement Manual.  Bureau  of
     Reclamation. GPO No.  024-003-00158-9. Washington, D.C.

     Chow.  1964. Open Channel Hydraulics.  McGraw-Hill.  New York, N.Y.

     In  addition, the following monographs in the Techniques of  Water Resources
Investigations series of the USGS (USGS-WSP-1822,  1982)  give the reader  more
detailed information  on techniques for  measuring  discharge  and  other
characteristics  of various water bodies and  hydrologic conditions:
                                    13-54

-------
      Benson and Dalrymple.  1967. General Field  and Office Procedures for Indirect
      Discharge  Measurement.

      Bodhaine,  1968.  Measurement of Peak Discharge  at  Culverts  by  Indirect
      Methods. USGS-TWI-03-AS.

      Buchanan and Somers.  1968. Stage Measurements at Gaging Stations.

      Carter and  Davidian. 1968. General Procedure for Gaging  Streams.  USGS-TWI-
      03-AL.

 13.6.2         Sampling of Surface Water, Runoff, Sediment, and Biota

 13.6.2.1        Surface Water

      The means of collecting water samples is a  function of the classification of the
water body, as discussed in  Section 13.3.3.1.  The following discussion treats lakes
and  impoundments  separately  from streams  and  rivers  although,  as indicated
below,  the  actual sampling  methods are similar in  some cases.  Wetlands  are
considered an intergrade  between these waters.  Stormwater  and  snowmelt  runoff
is also  treated as a  separate  category (Section  13.6.2.2).  Although  estuaries also
represent somewhat  of an intergrade, estuary sampling  methods are  similar to
those for large rivers and lakes.

 13.6.2.1.1      Streams and Rivers

     These waters  represent  a  continuum  from   ephemeral to  intermittent  to
perennial. Streams and  rivers may  exhibit some of the same characteristics as lakes
and  impoundments.  The degree to which they are similar is normally a function of
channel configuration  (e.g., depth,  cross sectional area and  discharge rate).  Larger
rivers are probably more  similar to most lakes and  impoundments,  with  respect to
sampling  methods, than to free-flowing headwater  streams.  In  general,  however,
streams  and rivers exhibit a greater  degree  of mixing due  to  their free-flowing
characteristics than   can be achieved  in  lakes  and  impoundments.  Mixing  and
dilution  of inflow can  be slow to fast,  depending  on  the point of discharge to  the
stream or river and the  flow conditions.
                                     13-55

-------
      Stream  and river  sampling  methods  do  not  differ  appreciably  from those
 outlined  in  the following section  (Lakes  and  Impoundments).  However,  the
 selection  of  monitoring stations must consider  additional  factors  created by
 differential flow velocities within  the stream  cross section.  Strong  currents  and
 turbulence as  a result of channel configuration may affect  the  amount  of  mixing
 and the distribution of contaminants in the stream. The reader may wish to  refer to
 the references provided  in Section 13.3.1  for a  discussion  of the manner in which
 differential velocities are  handled  in  stream  gaging  studies to obtain  representative
 discharge measurements.

 13.6.2.1.2       Lakes and Impoundments

      These waters are,  by definition, areas  where flow  velocity is reduced,  limiting
 the circulation of waters  from  sources such as discharging streams or ground water.
 They often  include a  shoreline  wetland  where  water circulation is  slow,  dilution  of
 inflowing  contaminants is minimal,  and sediments and plant  life  become  significant
 factors  in sampling strategies. The deeper zones of open  water may  be vertically
 stratified and  subject to periodic  turnover,  especially  in  temperate  climates.
 Sampling programs should be designed  to obtain depth-specific information  as  well
 as to-characterize seasonal variations.

      Access to  necessary monitoring  stations may be impeded  by both  water depth
 and  lush emergent or floating  aquatic vegetation,  requiring  the  use of  a  floating
 sampling  platform  or other means to appropriately place  the  sampling apparatus, [t
 is common to  employ rigid  extensions  of monitoring equipment  to  collect  surface
 samples at distances  of  up to 30  or  40  feet from the shoreline. However, a boat is
 usually  the preferred  alternative  for distances  over about  six  feet.  A  peristaltic
 pump may also be used  to withdraw water samples, and has the added advantage
 of being able to extract samples  to a depth  of 20  to 30 feet below the surface.

      Many sampling devices  are  available in  several materials.  Samples for trace
 metals should not  be collected in metal  bottles, and  samples for organics should not
 be  collected in plastic  bottles.  Teflon  or  Teflon-coated  sampling  equipment,
 including bottles, is generally  acceptable for  both types of constituents.  EPA  (1982)
and EPA (1986) provide  an analysis  of the advantages and disadvantages of many
                                     13-56

-------
sampling bottles for specific  sampling situations. Detailed descriptions  of the use of
dippers/transfer devices,  pond samplers,  peristaltic pumps,  and  Kemmerer bottles
are provided by EPA (1984).

     Depth-specific  samples in  lake  environments  are usually  collected  with
equipment  such as Kemmerer bottles (commonly  constructed  of  brass), Van Dorn
samplers (typically  of polyvinyl chloride or PVC construction), or Nansen tubes. The
depth-specific sample closure mechanism on these devices is tripped by dropping a
weight (messenger) down the  line. Kemmerer bottles and Nansen tubes may also
be  outfitted with a thermometer  that records  the  temperature of the  water at  the
time of  collection.

13.6.2.1.3       Additional Information

     Additional information  regarding specific  surface  water sampling  methods
may be found  in the following  general references:

     U.S. EPA. 1986. Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes. EPA/SW-846. GPO  No.
     955-001-00000-1. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C. 20460.

     U.S.  EPA.  1984. Characterization  of  Hazardous  Waste  Sites - A  Methods
     Manual: Volume II.  Available Sampling Methods. EPA-600/4-84-076. NTIS PB-
     168771. Washington,  D.C. 20460.

     U.S.  EPA.  1986. Handbook of Stream  Sampling  for Wasteload Allocation
     Applications.  EPA/625/6-83/013.

     U.S. EPA.  1982. Handbook for Sampling and Sample Preservation  of Water and
     Wastewater. NTIS PB 83-124503.

     USGS. 1977.  National  Handbook of  Recommended Methods  for Water-Data
     Acquisition.
                                    13-57

-------
 13.6.2.2        Runoff Sampling

      Runoff  resulting from precipitation  or  snowmelt  creates an  intermittent
 release situation  that  requires  special  treatment  for  effective sampling.  The
 contaminant  release  mechanism  in runoff situations may  be overflow of ponds
 containing contaminants or erosion of  contaminated soils. Based  on an  evaluation
 of  the  waste  characteristics and  the  environmental  setting, the  facility owner or
 operator  can  determine whether waste  constituents will be  susceptible  to  this
 release mechanism and migration  pathway.

      Once  it  has been determined that erosion of contaminated soils is of concern,
 the quantity of soil transported to any  point of  interest, such as the receiving water
 body,  can be determined  through  application of  an appropriate modification of the
 Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). The  USLE was  initially developed by the U.S.
 Department  of  Agriculture,  Agricultural  Stabilization  and  Conservation  Service
 (ASCS) to assist  in the prediction  of soil  loss  from  agricultural areas.  The initial
 formula is reproduced  below:

                                  A  = RKLSCP

 where:

     A     =    Estimated  annual average  soil loss (tons/acre)
      R     =    Rainfall  intensity  factor
      K    =    Soil erodibility factor
      L     =    Slope-length  factor
     S     =    Slope-gradient factor
     C     =    Cropping  management factor*
     P     =    Erosion  control  practice factor*

     *C and P factors can be assumed to equal  unity in  the equation if no specific
 crop  or  erosion  management  practices are currently being employed.  Otherwise,
these factors  can  be significantly less than  unity, depending  on crop or erosion
 control  practices.
                                      13-58

-------
      Section 2.6 (Soil Contamination) of the Draft Superfund  Exposure Assessment
 Manual (EPA,  1987) provides a discussion of the application of a modified  USLE  to
 characterization of releases through soil erosion.  This  discussion is  summarized  in
 Appendix H (Soil Loss Calculation).

      If the potential for a significant contaminant release exists, based  on analysis
 of the  hydrologic situation and waste  site characteristics, event  samples should be
 taken  during  high runoff  periods.   In situations where high runoff  is  predictable,
 such as  spring  runoff or  the  summer thundershower  season,  automatic samplers
 may  be set to sample  during these periods.   Perhaps the most  effective  way  to
 ensure sampling during significant  events is to have  personnel  available to collect
 samples  at  intervals  throughout  and following the storm. Flow  data  should be
 collected  coincident  with  sample  collection to  permit calculation  of contaminant
 loading  in  the runoff at  various  flows  during the period. Automated  sampling
 equipment  is  available that will collect  individual  samples and  composite them
 either over  time or  with flow amount,   with  the  latter  being preferred.   Flow-
 proportional samplers  are  usually installed with  a  flow-measuring device,  such as a
 weir with  a continuous head  recorder.  Such  devices are readily  available from
 commercial manufacturers and  can be  rented  or leased.  Many facilities  with an
 NPDES discharge permit routinely use this equipment  in compliance  monitoring.

     Automated samplers are discussed in Section 8 of Handbook for Sampling  and
 Sample Preservation of Water and Wastewater (EPA, 1982) (NTIS  PB 83-124503); this
 publication also  includes other  references  to automated samplers  and  a  table  of
 devices available from various manufacturers.

 13.6.2.3         Sediment

     Sediment  is  traditionally  defined as  the deposited material  underlying  a body
 of water.  Sediment  is  formed  as waterborne  solids (particulate) settle out  of the
water column and build up as bottom deposits.

     Sedimentation is greatest in areas where the stream velocity  decreases, such as
 behind dams and flow control structures,  and at the inner edge  of bends in  stream
channels. Sediments also build up where  smaller, fast-flowing  streams  and runoff
discharge  into larger streams and lakes. These areas can be important investigative
                                     13-59

-------
 areas. Some sections of a  streambed may be virtually without sediments. In  some
 streams  or some areas of streams, water velocity may be too fast for sediments to
 deposit and actually  may scour the bottom, transporting material  and depositing it
 further downstream.  The stream  bed in such an area will  be primarily rocks and
 debris.

      In  some situations,  such  as low-flow  conditions,  the  overlying  water
 temporarily recedes,  exposing sediments  to  the  air.  Runoff  channels, small lakes,
 and small  streams and rivers may on  occasion dry completely. In  these  cases,
 samples  can  be collected using the same procedures described in the Soils section
 (Section  9) of this document,

      For this discussion, the definition of  sediment will be expanded to include any
 material  that  may be overlain by water at any time during the year.  This definition
 then  includes what  may  otherwise  be considered  submerged  soils  and  sludges.
 Submerged soils  are  found  in wetlands and  marshes.  They  may  be located on  the
 margins  of lakes, ponds,  and streams,  or may  be  isolated features  resulting from
 collected runoff,  or may appear  in areas  where  the ground-water table exists at or
 very near the land surface. In any  instance they  are  important investigative areas.

     Sludges are included for discussion here  because many  RCRA facilities use
 impoundments for treatment  or storage  and  these  impoundments  generally  have a
 sludge layer  on  the  bottom.  Sampling  these  sludges involves  much the  same
 equipment and techniques as would be used  for  sediments.

     There are essentially two ways to collect sediment samples, either by coring or
with grab/dredges. Corers are metal tubes with  sharpened lower edges. The corer
 is forced vertically into the sediment.  Sediments are held  in the  core tube by friction
 as  the corer is  carefully withdrawn; they  can  then  be transferred  to a  sample
 container. There  are  many types and modifications of corers available. Some units
are  designed  to be forced into the sediments by  hand or hydraulic pressure;  others
are  outfitted with  weights and fins and  are  designed to  free fall  through  the  water
column and are driven into the sediment by their fall-force.

     Corers sample a greater thickness  of sediments than do grab/dredges and can
 provide  a profile  of the sediment  layers.  However,  they sample a relatively  small
                                     13-60

-------
 surface area.   Most corers are less than four  inches  in  diameter  and are more
 commonly two inches in diameter.

      Grab/dredges are  basically clamshell-type scoops that sample a larger surface
 area  but offer less depth of penetration. Typical grab/dredge designs  are the Ponar,
 Eckman,   and Peterson  versions;  each has  a  somewhat  different  operating
 mechanism and slightly different advantages.  Some use spring force to close the
jaws while others are counter-levered like ice tongs.

      In sediment  sampling, vertical profiling  is  not normally required  because
deposition  of  hazardous material is often  a recent activity  in terms of sedimentary
 processes. Grab/dredges  that sample  a greater surface area  may be  more
appropriate than  corers.   Similarly,  shallow sludge  layers  contained  in  surface
 impoundments should be  sampled  with  grab/dredges  because  corer  penetration
could damage the  impoundment liner,  if present. Thicker sludge  layers  which may
be present in  surface impoundments, maybe sampled  using coring equipment  if it is
important  to  obtain vertical  profile  information.

      Submerged  soils are  generally easier to sample  with  a  corer, than  with a
grab/dredge  because  vegetation  and  roots can  prevent  the  grab/dredges  from
sealing  completely. Under  these conditions, most  of the sample  may wash out of
the device as  it is  recovered. Corers  can often be forced through the vegetation  and
roots  to provide a sample. In  shallow water,  which may overlie submerged soils,
sampling  personnel can wade  through the  water (using  proper equipment  and
precautions)  and  choose  sample locations in  the small,  clear areas between
vegetative stems and roots.

     A  wide variety of sampling  devices  are available for collection of sediment
samples. Each has advantages and disadvantages in a given situation, and a variety
of manufacturers   produce  different versions of  the same  device.  As  with  water
sampling,  it is important to  remember that  metal samplers should not  be  used  when
collecting  samples for trace metal  analysis,  and sampling devices with  plastic
components should not be  used when collecting samples for analysis of organics.

     The  following references  describe the availability  and field use of sediment
samplers:
                                     13-61

-------
      U.S.  EPA. 1982. Handbook  for Sampling  and Sample Preservation  of  Water
      and  Wastewater.   Environmental  Monitoring  and  Support  Laboratory,
      EPA-600/4-82-029. NTIS  PB 83-124503.

      U.S.  EPA. 1985. Methods Manual for Bottom Sediment Sample Collection. NTIS
      PB 86-107414.

      USGS. 1977, update June 1983. National Handbook of Recommended Methods
      for Water-Data  Acquisition.

      U.S.  EPA. 1984. Characterization  of  Hazardous  Waste  Sites  - A Methods
      Manual:  Volume II.  Available  Sampling Methods. EPA-600/4-84-076. NTIS PB
      85-168771.

 13.6.2.4         Biota

      Collection  of biota  for  constituent  analysis (whole body  or tissue) may  be
 necessary  to  evaluate exposure of aquatic organisms or man  to bioaccumulative
 contaminants.  For the most  part, collection should be restricted to  representative
 fish  species and sessile macroinvertebrates, such  as  mollusks.  Mollusks are filter-
 feeders;  bioaccumulative contaminants  in the water column will  be  extracted and
 concentrated in their tissues. Fish species  may be selected  on the  basis of their
 commercial or  recreational  value,  and  their  resultant probability  of being  consumed
 by man or  by special status-species of fish or wildlife.

     The literature on  sampling  aquatic organisms is extensive. Most sampling
 methods include capture  techniques  that be collected using sampling  bottles  (as for
water samples) or nets of  appropriate mesh sizes. Periphyton  may be most  easily
collected by scraping off the  substrate to which  the organisms  are attached.  Other
techniques  using artificial  substrates  are available if a quantitative  approach is
 required. Aquatic  macroinvertebrates  may  be  collected using  a wide  variety  of
 methods, depending  on the area being sampled; collection by hand or using forceps
may be  efficient.  Grab sampling, sieving  devices, artificial  substrates  and drift nets
may also be used effectively.  EPA  (1973) provides a discussion of these techniques,
as well as  a method  comparison  and description of data  analysis  techniques.
                                     13-62

-------
      Fish collection techniques may be  characterized generally as follows (USGS,
 1977):

      •              Entangling  gear:
                          Gill nets and trammel nets.
      •              Entrapping  gear:
                          Hoop  nets,  basket traps, trap  nets, and  fyke and wing
                          nets.
      •              Encircling gear:
                          Haul seine, purse seine, bay seine, and Danish seine.
      •              Electroshocking gear:
                          Boat shockers, backpack shockers, and electric seines.

 Selection of sampling equipment  is  dependent  on  the  characteristics of the  water
 body, such as size and conditions, the size of the fish to  be collected, and the overall
 objectives  of the study.  Fisheries Techniques  (Nielsen and  Johnson,  1983) and
 Guidelines  for Sampling Fish in  Inland  Waters (Backiel and  Welcomme,  1980)
 provide  basic descriptions  of sampling  methods  and  data interpretation  from
 fisheries studies.

 13.6.3         Characterization of the Condition of the Aquatic Community

      Evaluation of the  condition  of aquatic communities  may  proceed from two
 directions. The first consists of examining  the  structure of the lower trophic levels as
 an  indication of the overall health of the aquatic  ecosystem.  With respect to RFI
 studies, a healthy water  body  would be one whose  trophic  structure indicates that  it
 is not  impacted by  contaminants.   The  second approach focuses on a particular
group or species,  possibly because  of  its commercial or recreational  importance  or
 because a substantial historic data base already exists.

     The first approach  emphasizes  the  base of the aquatic  food chain, and may
involve studies  of plankton  (microscopic flora  and fauna),   periphyton (including
bacteria, yeast,  molds,  algae, and  protozoa),  macrophyton   (aquatic plants),  and
benthic  macroinvertebrates (e.g.,  insects,  annelid worms,   mollusks,  flatworms,
roundworms,  and  crustaceans). These  lower levels  of the aquatic community are
                                     13-63

-------
 studied to determine whether they exhibit any evidence of stress.  If the  community
 appears to have been disturbed, the objective is to characterize the source(s) of the
 stress  and,  specifically, to focus  on  the  degree to which  the  release of waste
 constituents  has caused  the  disturbance or  possibly  exacerbated an  existing
 problem.  An example of the latter would  be the further depletion  of already  low
 dissolved oxygen levels in  the  hypolimnion  of a lake or  impoundment through  the
 introduction of waste with a high COD and  specific gravity.

      The sampling  methods  referenced  in  Section  13.6.2.4 may be adapted  (by
 using  them  in  a quantitative sampling  scheme) to  collect  the data necessary  to
 characterize  aquatic communities. Hynes (1970) and Hutchinson  (1967)  provide an
 overview  of the ecological  structure of aquatic communities.

      Benthic macroinvertebrates are   commonly  used  in studies of  aquatic
 communities. These organisms  usually occupy a position near the  base of  the food
 chain. Just  as  importantly,  however,  their  range within  the aquatic  environment is
 restricted, so that their community  structure may  be  referenced  to a particular
 stream  reach or portion of lake substrate. By comparison, fish are generally mobile
 within  the aquatic  environment,  and  evidence  of stress or  contaminant load  may
 not be  amenable to interpretation with reference to specific releases.

     The presence or absence of particular benthic  macroinvertebrate  species,
 sometimes referred to as "indicator species,  " may provide evidence of a response to
 environmental stress.  Several  references are available in this  regard.  For  more
 information, the  reader may consult Selected Bibliography  on  the Toxicology of  the
 Benthic Invertebrates and Periphyton (EPA. 1984).

     A  "species  diversity  index" provides a quantitative measure  of the degree of
stress  within  the aquatic  community,  and  is an example  of a common basis for
 interpretation  of the results  of studies  of aquatic  biological communities.   The
following  equation  (the Sannon-Wiener  Index)  demonstrates the  concept of the
diversity index:
            s
     H  =*  Z (Pi)(log2Pi)
                                     13-64

-------
 where:
      H    =    species diversity index
      s     =    number of species
      Pi    =    proportion of total  sample belonging to the i th species

 Measures of species diversity are most useful for comparison of streams with similar
 hydrologic characteristics or for  the analysis  of  trends over  time  within a  single
 stream.   Additional  detail  regarding  the  application  of other  measures  of
 community structure may be found in the  following references:

      U.S.  EPA.  1973.  Biological Field and  Laboratory Methods for  Measuring the
      Quality  of Surface Water and Effluents.

      USGS.  1977, Update May,  1983.  National Handbook of Recommended
      Methods of Water-Data Acquisition.

      Curns, J. Jr., and K.L. Dickson,  eds. 1973. ASTM STP 528: Biological Methods
      for the  Assessment  of Water  Quality.   American  Society  for Testing and
      Materials. STP528. Philadelphia, PA.

      The second approach to  evaluating the condition of  an aquatic community is
through  selective  sampling  of  specific  organisms,  most  commonly  fish,  and
evaluation of standard "condition  factors" (e.g.,  length,  weight,  girth).  In  many
cases,  receiving water bodies are  recreational  fisheries, monitored  by state  or
federal agencies. In such  cases,  it  is common to  find some historical record of the
condition  of  the  fish  population,  and it may  be  possible  to  correlate  operational
records at the waste  management facility  with alterations  in the status of the fish
population.

      Sampling of fish  populations to evaluate condition factors employs the  same
methodologies referenced  in  Section  13.6.2.4. Because of the intensity of the effort
usually  associated with  obtaining a  representative sample  of fish, it  is common  to
coordinate tissue  sampling for constituent analysis  with fishery surveys.
                                     13-65

-------
 13.6.4          Bioassay Methods

      The purpose of a bioassay, as discussed is more detail infection 13.4.6 .3, is to
 predict  the response  of aquatic  organisms  to  specific  changes  within  the
 environment. In the  RFI  context, a bioassay  may be used to predict the potential
 adverse environmental effects of releases  to  surface  water. Thus,  bioassay  is  not
 generally  considered to be an  environmental characterization  or  monitoring
 technique.  As indicated  below,  bioassay  may  be required  for Federal water quality
 programs  or state programs,  especially  where  stream classification (e.  g., warm-
 water fishery, cold-water fishery) is involved.

      Bioassays  may be  conducted  on  any  aquatic organism  including  algae,
 periphyton,  macroinvertebrates,  or  fish.  Bioassay  includes  two  main  techniques,
 acute toxicity tests  and  chronic toxicity  tests. Each of these may  be done  in a
 laboratory  setting  or  using a  mobile field laboratory. Following  is a brief  discussion
 of acute and chronic bioassay tests.

 Acute Toxicity Tests-Acute toxicity tests are used in the NPDES  permit  program to
 identify  effluents containing toxic wastes discharged in  toxic amounts. The data are
 used to predict  potential acute and chronic toxicity in the  receiving  water, based  on
 the LC50 and appropriate dilution, and  application of persistence  factors. Two types
 of tests are used; static and  flow-through. The selection of the test  type will depend
 on  the  objectives  of  the  test, the available  resources, the requirements of the test
 organisms,  and  effluent  characteristics.  Special  environmental  requirements of
 some organisms may preclude static testing.

      It  should  be noted  that a  negative  result  from an  acute  toxicity test  with a
 given effluent sample does not preclude the presence of chronic toxicity,  nor  does it
 negate  the  possibility  that  the effluent  may  be  acutely  toxic  under different
 conditions,  such as variations in  temperature or  contaminant loadings.

     There  are  many sources of information  relative  to the performance of acute
 bioassays.  Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents  to Freshwater and
 Marine  Organisms (Pettier and  Weber,  1985) provides a  comprehensive  treatment
of the subject.
                                      13-66

-------
Chronic Toxicitv  Tests-Chronic toxicity  tests may include measurement  of  effluent
effects on growth and  reproductive success.  These tests usually  require long  periods
of time, depending on the  life cycles of the test organisms. Chronic bioassays are
generally  relatively sophisticated  procedures  and are  more  intensive in terms  of
manpower, time and expense  than  are  acute  toxicity tests.  The inherent  complexity
of these tests  dictate  careful planning with  the  regulatory agency  prior to  initiation
of the work.  Methods for  Measuring the Chronic  Toxicitv  of Effluents  to  Aquatic
Organisms (Horning and  Weber,  1985) is  a companion volume  to the methods
document noted above, and contains  method references for chronic toxicity tests.  A
discussion of bioassay procedures is also provided in Protocol for Bioassessment  of
Hazardous Waste Sites, NTIS PB 83-241737. (Tetra Tech, 1983).

     Chronic toxicity tests are also  used in  the  NPDES permit program to  identify
and  control  effluents containing toxic wastes in toxic amounts.

13.7 Site Remediation

     Although  the  RFI Guidance  is not intended  to provide  detailed  guidance  on
site  remediation,  it should  be recognized that certain  data  collection  activities  that
may be necessary for a Corrective Measures Study may be collected during the RFI.
EPA has  developed a practical guide for assessing and  remediating contaminated
sites that directs  users  toward technical  support,  potential  data requirements  and
technologies that may  be applicable to EPA  programs  such  as RCRA  and CERCLA.
The  reference  for this  guide  is provided  below.

     U.S.  EPA. 1988.  Practical Guide for  Assessing  and Remediating Contaminated
     Sites.  Office  of  Solid  Waste  and  Emergency Response.  Washington,  D.C.
     20460.

     The  guide is  designed to address  releases to ground water  as  well  as soil,
surface  water  and  air. A short description of  the guide is provided  in Section 1.2
(Overall  RCRA Corrective Action  Process),  under the  discussion of  Corrective
Measures Study.
                                      13-67

-------
 13.8 Checklist

                          RFI CHECKLIST- SURFACE WATER
 Site  Name/Location
 Type of Unit
 1.    Does  waste  characterization  include the  following  information?       ,Y/|\h
      •    Constituents of concern
      •    Concentrations  of constituents
      •    Mass of the constituent
      •    Physical state of waste (e.g., solid, liquid, gas)
      •   Water  volubility
      •    Henry's Law Constant
      •   Octanol/Water  Partition  Coefficient  (Kow)
      •   Bioconcentration Factor (BCF)
      •   Adsorption  Coefficient  (Koc)
      •   Physical,  biological, and  chemical  degradation
2.    Does  unit characterization  include  the following  information?
     •    Age of unit
     •    Type of  unit
     •    Operating  practices
     •    Quantities  of waste managed
     •    Presence of cover
     •    Dimensions of  unit
     •    Presence of natural or engineered barriers
     •    Release  frequency
     •    Release  volume and rate
     •    Non-point or point  source release
     •    Intermittent   or  continuous  release
                                     13-68

-------
                  RFI CHECKLIST-SURFACE WATER (Continued)
3.    Does environmental setting  information  include  the  following?       (YIN)

     •    Areal extent of drainage basin                                	
     •    Location and interconnection of all streams, lakes             	
          and  other surface water features
     •    Flow identification as  ephemeral,  intermittent or  perennial    	
     •    Channel alignment, gradient and discharge rate               	
     •    Flood and  channel control structures                          	
     •    Source  of  lake and  impoundment  water                      	
     •    Lake and impoundment depths and surface area               	
     •    Vertical  temperature stratification of lakes and  impoundments	
     •    Wetland  presence and role  in basin  hydrology                 	
     •    NPDES and other discharges                                 	
     •    USGS gaging  stations or other existing  flow monitoring systems	
     •    Surface water quality characteristics                           	
     •    Average monthly and  annual precipitation values             	
     •    Average monthly  temperature                               	
     •    Average monthly  evaporation  potential  estimates             	
     •    Storm frequency and  severity                                	
     •    Snowfall and snow pack ranges                              	
4.    Have the following data on the initial phase of the release
     characterization  been  collected?                                    (YIN)
     •    Monitoring   locations                                        	
     •    Monitoring  constituents and  indicator parameters             	
     •    Monitoring frequency                                       	
     •    Monitoring  equipment and  procedures                       	
     •    Concentrations  of constituents  and locations                  	
          at which they were detected
     •    Background  monitoring results                               	
                                     13-69

-------
                  RFI Checklist - SURFACE WATER (Continued)
                                                                        (YIN)
     •    Hydrologic and biomonitoring  results                         	
     •    Inter-media  transfer data                                     	
     •    Analyses  of rate  and extent of contamination                  	

5.    Have the following data on the subsequent phase(s) of the release
     characterization  been  collected?                                    (Y/N)
     •    New  or  relocated  monitoring locations                        	
     •    Constituents and  indicators added  or deleted  for monitoring   	
     •    Modifications  to  monitoring frequency, equipment            	
          or procedures
     •    Concentrations of  constituents and  locations at which          	
          they  were detected
     •    Background monitoring  results                                	
     •    Hydrologic and biomonitoring  results                         	
     •    Inter-media  transfer data                                     	
     •    Analyses  of rate  and extent of contamination                  	
                                     13-70

-------
13.9 References

American Public Health Association,  (APHA).  1985.  Standard  Methods  for  the
     Examination of Water  and Wastewater. 16th Edition.  American Public Health
     Association, Washington,  D.C.

Backiel, T., and  R. Welcomme.  1980. Guidelines for Sampling  Fish in  Inland  Waters.
     EIFAC Technical Paper No.  33.   Food  and Agriculture  Organization   of  the
     United Nations, Rome,  Italy.

Benson,  M. A., and T. Dalrymple.   1967.  General  Field  and  Office  Procedures for
     Indirect  Discharge  Measurement.  -    Techniques  of  Water  Resources
     Investigations series. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Bodhaine,  G.  L. 1968.  Measurement  of  Peak  Discharge  at Culverts by  Indirect
     Methods. Techniques of Water  Resources Investigations Series. U.S. Geological
     Survey,.  Reston, VA.

Brandes, R., B. Newton,  M. Owens,  and E.  Sutherland. 1985. The Technical  Support
     Document  for Water Quality-Based  Toxics  Control. EPA-440/4-85-032. Office
     of Water Enforcement and Permits. Washington,  D.C. 20460.

Buchanan,  T.J.,  and W.  P. Somers.  1968.  Stage  Measurement at Gaging Stations.
     Techniques of Water Resources Investigations Series.  U.S. Geological  Survey,
     Reston, VA.

Cairns, J. Jr., and K. L. Dickson, eds. 1973.  Biological Methods for the Assessment of
     Water Quality (STP 528).  American Society  for Testing  and  Materials,
     Philadelphia, PA.

Callahan, M., M. Slimak, N. Gabel, I. May, et al. 1979. Water-Related  Environmental
     Fate  of  129  Priority  Pollutants.  Volumes I &  II.    EPA  440/4-79-029a/b.
     Monitoring  and Data  Support  Division.  NTIS 029A/80-204373  and  029B/80-
     204381 .Washington, D.C. 20460.
                                    13-71

-------
Carter, R. W.,  and J.  Davidian.   1968.  General Procedure  for Gaging Streams.
     Techniques of Water Resources  Investigations  Series.  U.S.  Geological  Survey,
     Reston, VA.

Chow,  V. T.  1964.  Open-Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill. New York, NY.

Cole, G.  A. 1975.  Textbook of Limnology. The C. V.  Mosby Company, St. Louis, MO.

Cowardin, L.  M.,  V.  Carter,  F.  C.  Golet, and  E. T. LaRoe. 1979.  Classification of
     Wetlands  and Deepwater Habitats of  the  United  States.  U.S.  Fish  & Wildlife
     Service. NTIS PB 80-168784. Washington,  D.C.

Cummins, K.  W.  and  N. A. Wilgbach.   1985.   Field  Procedures  for  Analysis  of
     Functional Feeding  Groups of Stream Macroinvertebrates.  Contribution  1611.
     Appalachian   Environmental  Laboratory, University of Maryland.

Hilsenhoff, W.  L.  1982. Using a  Biotic index to Evaluate  Water Quality in Streams.
     Technical  Bulletin  No.  132.  Department of  Natural Resources.  Madison,  Wl.

Horning,  W., and  C.  1. Weber. 1985.  Methods  for Measuring the  Chronic Toxicity of
     Effluents  to Aquatic Organisms.   U.S. EPA, Office of  Research  and
     Development. Cincinnati, OH.

Hutchinson, G.  E.  1957.  A Treatise on Limnology:  Volume  1.  Geography. Physics
     and Chemistry.  John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY.

Hutchinson, G.  E.  1967. A Treatise  on Limnology:  Volume  II,  Introduction to Lake
     Biology and  Limnoplankton.  John Wiley & Sons, Inc.  New York, NY.

Hynes, H. B. N. 1970. The Ecology of  Running  Waters.  University of Toronto  Press.
     Toronto, Ontario.

Lyman, W. J., W.  F.  Riehl, and  D.  H.   Rosenbaltt.   1982.  Handbook  of  Chemical
     Property Estimation  Methods.  McGraw-Hill.  New  York, NY.
                                    13-72

-------
 Mabey, W.,  and T.  Mill. 1978.  "Critical Review of Hydrolysis of Organic Compounds
     in Water Under Environmental Conditions.  "   Journal  of  Environmental
     Chemistry. Vol. 7, No. 2.

 Mabey, W. R., J. H. Smith, R.  T.  Podall, et al. 1982. Aquatic Fate Process Data for
     Organic Priority Pollutants. EPA 440/4-81-014.  Washington,  D.C. 20460.

 Mills, W. B., 1985. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and
     Conventional  Pollutants in  Surface  and  Ground  Water:  Parts  land  2.  EPA
     600/6-85-002, a, b. NTIS PB 83-153122 and NTIS PB 83-153130.  U.S. EPA, Office
     of Research and Development. Athens, GA.

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Rainfall Atlas  of the U.S.

 Neely, W. B.  1982.   "The  Definition  and Use of Mixing  Zones".  Environmental
     Science and Technology 16(9):520A-521A.

 Neely, W. G.,  and G. E.  Blau, eds. 1985.  Environmental Exposure  from Chemicals,
     Volume 1. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.

 Nielsen, L. A., and  D. L. Johnson, eds.  1983. Fisheries Techniques. The American
     Fisheries Society. Blacksburg, VA, 468 pp.

 Peltier, W. H., and  C.I. Weber. 1985. Methods for  Measuring the Acute  Toxicity of
     Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. EPA 600/4-85/013. NTIS PB 85-
     205383.  U.S.EPA,  Environmental Monitoring  and Support  Laboratory,  Office
     of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH.

 Stumm, W. and J.  J.  Morgan.  1982. Aquatic Chemistry. 2nd  Edition.  Wiley
     Interscience. New York, NY.

Tetra Tech. 1983. Protocol for  Bioassessment  of Hazardous  Waste Sites.  U.S.  EPA.
     NTIS PB 83-241737. Washington,  D.C. 20460.

 U.S. Department  Of  Interior.  1981.  Water  Measurement  Manual.   Bureau of
     Reclamation. GPO No.  024-003-00158-9.  Washington, D.C.
                                    13-73

-------
 U.S. EPA. 1973.  Biological  Field and Laboratory Methods for  Measuring the Quality
     of Surface  Water and  Effluents.  EPA-67014-73-001. Office of Research  and
     Development. Washington, D.C.  20460.

 U.S. EPA.  1982.  Handbook for Sampling  and Sample  Preservation of Water  and
     Wastewater. Environmental  Monitoring  and  Support  Laboratory.  EPA-600/4-
     82-029. NTIS PB 83-124503. Washington, D.C.

 U.S. EPA. 1984.  Characterization of Hazardous  Waste Sites - A Wetlands Manual-
     Volume  II  - Available Sampling  Methods.   EPA-600/4-84-076. NTIS  PB 85-
     168771. Washington, D.C. 20460.

 U.S. EPA.  1984.  Selected  Bibliography  on  the  Toxicology of the  Benthic
     invertebrates and Periphyton.   Environmental  Monitoring  and  Support
     Laboratory.  NTIS PB 84-130459.

 U.S. EPA. 1985.   Methods  Manual for  Bottom Sediment Sample Collection. NTIS
     PB86-107414. Washington, D.C. 20460.

 U.S. EPA.  1987. Draft Superfund Exposure  Assessment Manual.  Office of
     Emergency  and Remedial  Response. Washington, D.C.  20460.

 U.S.  EPA.  1986.  Test  Methods for Evaluating Solid  Waste. EPA/SW-846. GPO
     No.955-001-00000-1. Office of Solid Waste. Washington,  D.C. 20460.

 U.S. EPA.  1986. Handbook  of  Stream  Sampling  for  Wasteload  Allocation
     Applications. EPA/625/6-83/01 3.

 USGS.  1977.  National Handbook of Recommended Methods for Water-Data
     Acquisition.  U.S. Geological  Survey. Office of Water Data Coordination.  U.S.
     Government Printing Office.  Washington,  D.C.

Veith,  G.,  Macey,  Petrocelli  and Carroll.   1980.  An  Evaluation  of  Using
     Partition.   Coefficients  and Water  Volubility to  Estimate  Biological
                                   13-74

-------
     Concentration Factors for Organic Chemicals in  Fish. Proceedings, ASTM  3rd
     Symposium on Aquatic Toxicity. ASTM STP 707.

Viessman, W., Jr., W. Knapp. G. L.  Lewis, and T. E. Harbaugh. 1977. Introduction  to
     Hydrology.  2nd Edition. Harper and Row, Publishers,  New York, NY,
                                 13-75

-------
                  APPENDIX G





AIR RELEASE SCREENING ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

-------
         DRAFT FINAL
          (Revised)
      AIR  RELEASE
SCREENING  ASSESSMENT
    METHODOLOGY
        MAY 1989

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
   Section                            Title
      1.0      Introduction
     2.0      Screening  Methodology
                2.1  Overview
                2.2  Step 1-  Source Characterization  Information
                2.3  Step  2- Release Constituent Surrogates
                2.4  Step  3- Emission Estimates
                2.5  Step  4- Concentration Estimates
                2.6  Step  5- Health Criteria Comparisons
     3.0      Example Applications
                3.1  Case Study A
                3.2  Case  Study B
     4.0      References
                                                          Page
                                                           1-1
                                                           2-1
                                                           2-2
                                                           2-5
                                                           2-7'
                                                           2-9
                                                          2-14
                                                          2-17
                                                           3-1
                                                           3-1
                                                           3-6
                                                          4-1
Appendix  A
Appendix  B
Appendix  C
Appendix  D
Appendix  E

Appendix  F

Appendix  G
Appendix  H
Appendix  I

Appendix J
Appendix  K
Appendix  L
Appendix  M
Appendix  N
 Background  Information
 Release  Constituent  Surrogate Data
 Emission Rate Estimates - Disposal Impoundments
 Emission Rate Estimates - Storage Impoundments
 Emission Rate Estimates - Oil Films on Storage
 Impoundments
 Emission Rate Estimates - Mechanically Aerated
 Impoundments
 Emission Rate Estimates - Diffused Air Systems
 Emission Rate Estimates - Land  Treatment  (after tilling)
 Emission Rate Estimates - Oil Film Surfaces on Land
Treatment  Units
 Emission Rate Estimates - Closed Landfills
 Emission Rate Estimates - Open Landfills
 Emission Rate Estimates - Wastepiles
 Emission Rate Estimates - Fixed Roof Tanks
 Emission Rate Estimates - Floating Roof Tanks

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued]
   Section                            Title
Appendix 0  Emission  Rate  Estimates - Variable Vapor Space Tanks
Appendix P    Emission Rate Estimates - Particles from Storage Piles
Appendix Q  Emission  Rate  Estimates - Particles from Exposed,  Flat,
              Contaminated Areas
Appendix  R Dispersion Estimates
Appendix S    Emission Rate Estimation Worksheets

-------
                             LIST OF FIGURES
Number                                                             Pages
  2-1      Screening  Methodology Overview                          2-3
  2-2      Step  1-  Obtain Source Characterization  Information          2-6
  2-3      Step 2- Select  Release Constituents and Surrogates           2-8
  2-4      Step 3- Calculate Emission Estimates                       2-10
  2-5      Step 3- Calculate  Emission  Estimates  (Alternative            2-11
           Approach)
  2-6      Step 4- Calculate  Concentration  Estimates                  2-15
  2-7      Step 4-  Calculate Concentration  Estimates (Alternative      2-16
           Approach)
  2-8      Step 5- Compare Results to Health-Based  Criteria            2-18
                             LIST OF  EXHIBITS
Number
  2-1       Ratio of Scaling  Estimates to CHEMDAT6 Emission Rate
           Modeling  Results
  3-1       Table S-2 Emission Rate Estimation Worksheet - Storage
           Impoundment
  3-2      Table R-1  Concentration Estimation  Worksheet - Unit
           Category:  Storage Impoundment
  3-3      Table S-8 Emission Rate Estimation Worksheet -  Closed
           Landfills
  3-4      Table S-8 Emission Rate Estimation Worksheet -  Closed
           Landfill
  3-5      Table R-1  Concentration Estimation  Worksheet - Unit
           Category:  Closed  Landfill
  3-6      Table R-1  Concentration Estimation  Worksheet - Unit
           Category:  Closed  Landfill
2-20
 3-2

 3-5

 3-8

 3-9

 3-10

 3-11
                                   IV

-------
1.0        INTRODUCTION

A  screening  method  has been developed  for evaluating  which  waste  management
units  have air  releases warranting  further  investigation  under a  RCRA Facility
Investigation  (RFI).  This  method  can  be used as an  intermediate step  between the
general  qualitative determination  of the  RCRA Facility Assessment  (RFA)  regarding
identification  of air  emissions  that warrant  an RFI, and the actual performance of a
complicated and costly RFI. Specifically,  this screening methodology  provides a  basis
for identifying air releases with the potential  to  have resulted  in off-site  exposures
that meet or  exceed health-based criteria in the RFI  Guidance.

This screening  methodology has  been developed  as a technical aid for routine use
by EPA  Regional  and   State  staff who  may  not  be  familiar with  air release
assessments. However, it should  also be considered a resource available to prioritize
waste  management units which may  warrant  the conduct  of  an  RFI for  the  air
media.   Alternative  resources  (e.  g.,  available  air  monitoring  data,  more
sophisticated modeling  analyses, judgmental factors) may also provide  important
input to the RFI decision-making  process.

The screening methodology  itself is explained in  Section 2  and example applications
of it  are  presented  in  Section 3. A  discussion  of background  information that
addresses  the technical  basis  for the  air release  screening methodology  is presented
in  Appendix A.
                                       1-1

-------
2.0       SCREENING METHODOLOGY

This section presents the  air release screening assessment  methodology.  This
methodology  can  be  used  as  a  transition between  the  general  qualitative
determination made  in the RFA regarding air emissions  that warrant an RFI, and the
actual performance of an RFI.

The primary  (recommended)  screening  approach  involves  the application  of
available  emission  rate  models and  dispersion  models.  An alternative approach
involves the use of  technical aids based on scaling modeling results for a limited set
of source scenarios.

The screening   methodology  for  releases  of organics  is based on  using  the
CHEMDAT6 air  emission models, available  from  EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS), (U.S.  EPA,  December 1987). Specifically, the following  unit
categories are directly addressed in this section:

     •    Disposal   impoundments
     •    Storage  impoundments
     •    Oil Films  on  Storage Impoundments
     •    Mechanically  Aerated Impoundments
     •    Diffused Air Systems
     •    Land  treatment (emissions  after tilling)
     •    Oil Film Surfaces on  Land Treatment Units
     •    Closed landfills
     •    Open landfills
     •    Wastepiles

The alternative approach  presented  in  this  section  involves  scaling the emission rate
results  from  numerous source scenarios that have  been modeled  using CHEMDAT6.
These  scaling computations can become  tedious if numerous source scenarios  are
evaluated.  In addition,  the  direct  use  of CHEMDAT6 models  will  provide  more
representative  unit-specific  emission   estimates.     Therefore,  it  is  strongly
recommended that EPA  Regional and  State agency staff develop  a capability to use
CHEMDAT6 directly  to model  unit-specific and facility-specific  scenarios.
                                     2-1

-------
CHEMDAT6 has  been  developed for use  on  a  microcomputer  using LOTUS
spreadsheet software;  therefore, these  models can  easily  be used  by staff familiar
with LOTUS applications.  However, the basic strategy  described in this  section  to
estimate ambient concentrations can still be  successfully  used  even without  using
LOTUS.

The screening  methodology  for organic emissions  from storage tanks is based on
emission factors in  EPA's AP-42, "Compilation  of  Air  Pollutant Emission Factors"
(U.S.  EPA, September 1985). The  following categories of tanks are addressed:

     •    Fixed roof tanks
     •    Floating  roof  tanks
     •    Variable  vapor space tanks.

Open tanks  should  be assessed using the  methodology  for storage impoundments.

The screening  methodology  for  particulate  matter  releases  from wind  erosion  of
storage piles and batch dumping and loader activity on the  pile is based on emission
factors in  EPA's AP-42 (U.S.  EPA, September 1985). The  screening  methodology for
particulate  matter  releases  from wind  erosion of flat,   exposed,  contaminated
surface areas  is based on  emission  factors in EPA's "Fugitive  Emissions from
Integrated  Iron  and Steel  Plants" (U.S.  EPA,  March  1978).  The  EPA-OAQPS  is
currently  developing  guidance   regarding  particulate emissions   for  treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities.

2.1        Overview

The air release screening  assessment  methodology  involves applying emission rate
and dispersion  results to  estimate long-term ambient concentrations at receptor
locations for comparison  to health-based  criteria.  The methodology  consists of five
steps as follows (see  Figure  2-1):

     •    Step  1  - Obtain  Source Characterization  Information: This  information
          (e.g.,  unit  size,  operational  schedule)  is  needed to  define the  emission
          potential  of the  specific  unit.
                                      2-2

-------
             FIGURE 2-1

SCREENING METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW


               RFA
          Obtain Source
         Characterization
           information
        Select Release
       Constituents and
          Surrogates
       .  Calculate
             Estimates
 Calculate Concentration
       Estimates
  Compare Results to
 Health-Based Cr?te°a
 n  .  . '"Put to

    S0r
               a
        2-3

-------
     •     Step 2-  Select  Release  Constituents  and  Surrogates:    The primary
           approach  involves using  the  actual  physical/chemical  properties for all
           unit-specific constituents  for  emission modeling  purposes.    The
           alternative (scaling) screening approach  uses  a limited set of constituents
           or  surrogates to  represent a wide  range of potential  release constituents.
           This  surrogate approach  significantly  simplifies  the  screening  assessment
           process.

     •     Step 3-  Calculate Emission Estimates: The primary  approach involves  the
           use of emission  rate models based on  unit-specific source conditions.
           Modeling  results  of emission  rates for a wide range  of source  conditions
           are also presented  in  Appendices  C  through  Q.  As  an alternative
           approach, these  modeling results  can  be interpolated  to  estimate  an
           emission  rate specific to the  unit.

     •     Step 4-  Calculate  Concentration Estimates: Emission rates from  Step 3
           are used  to  calculate  concentration estimates  at  receptor locations of
           interest.   The primary  approach  involves  the  application  of  dispersion
           models  based  on  site-specific meteorological  conditions.    As  an
           alternative approach,  dispersion  conditions are  accounted  for  by use of
           modeling   results available  in   Appendix  R  for  typical  annual
           meteorological  conditions.

     •     Step 5  -  Compare  Concentration  Results to  Health-Based  Criteria:
           Concentration results  from Step  4  can  be  compared  to constituent-
           specific health-based criteria provided in  the RFI  Guidance.

For  some  applications,  Step 4  (Calculate Concentration Estimates) will not warrant
the use of emission models  because it can be assumed that  all the  volatile wastes
handled will  eventually be emitted to  the   air.  This assumption is  generally
appropriate for highly  volatile organic compounds  placed  in  a disposal  unit like a
surface  impoundment.  In these cases, the air  emission rate can be  assumed to  be
equivalent to  the disposal rate,  so that an emission  rate  model may not be required.
This assumption is  valid because  of the  long-term  residence time  of wastes in the
disposal units. In  open units like  surface  impoundments,  a substantial  portion  of
the  volatile constituents will frequently  be  released  to  the  atmosphere within
                                      2-4

-------
several  days.   However,  for  more  complex  situations (e.g., storage  or  treatment
units where  total volatilization  of the constituents  is  not  expected),  air emission
models  can be used to obtain a  more refined long-term release rate.

Results from  the air  release  screening assessment,  using  the  above  steps,  will
provide  input to decisions on the  need for an RFI for the air  media. They can also be
used to prioritize air emission sources at a facility  (i.e., by identification of the  major
onsite air  emission  sources)  as  well as to  prioritize  the  total  release potential at
candidate  facilities.

2.2        Step 1- Source Characterization Information

Implementation of the  air release  screening assessment methodology  involves
collecting  source  characterization  information,  as illustrated in  Figure  2-2.
Specifically, this  involves completion of Column 2 of unit-specific  Emission  Rate
Estimation  Worksheets  (included  in  Appendix S)  as  specified  in  Figure 2-2.
Parameters in  Column 2  of  the worksheet represent  standard  input  used by  the
CHEMDAT6 air emission  models  or  input to  the  AP-42 emission  equations. Source
characterization  information  should  be available  from  the RFA  but it  may  be
necessary  to  request  additional  information from the  facility owner or operator  on
an ad hoc basis.

Additional  worksheets  should  be  completed for each  unit  to be evaluated.  Similar
units  can  be grouped  together and  considered as  one area  source  to simplify  the
assessment process. For example, several contiguous  landfills of similar  design  could
be evaluated efficiently as one  (combined) source.

Completeness  and  quality  of  the  source characterization  information  are  very
important and,  as previously  stated,  directly affect  the usefulness  of the  screening
assessment results.   Certain  source characterization  parameters are considered
critical inputs  to  the  screening  assessment.   These critical  input parameters  are
needed  to  define the total mass  of constituents in  the waste input to the unit  being
evaluated   or the  potential  for  release  of  particles less  than  10 microns. These
parameters have  been  identified  in  the  unit-specific  worksheet (Tables  S-1 through
S-13 for VO sources and Tables S-14 and 15 for particulate sources).
                                       2-5

-------
                                  FIGURE 2-2
         STEP 1 - OBTAIN SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION INFORMATION
                                     RFA
Complete  Column 2  of  Unit-Specific  Emission  Rate  Estimation  Worksheet:
    Disposal  impoundment  -  Table  S-1
    Storage  impoundment/open  tank-
    Table S-2
    Oil film  on  storage  impoundment  -
    Table S-3
    Mechanically aerated impoundment  -
    Table S-4
    Diffused  air system  - Table S-5
    Land treatment (emissions after
    tilling - Table S-6
    Oil film  surface on land  treatment
    unit - Table S-7
 Closed  landfill - Table S-8
 Open landfill - Table S-9
 Wastepile - Table  S-10
 Fixed roof tank - Table S-11
 Floating  roof tank  - Table S-12
 Variable vapor space  tank  -
 Table S-13
 Storage  pile  (particulates)  -
 Table S-14
 Exposed, flat, contaminated  area
 (particulates)  Table  S-15
   Complete  Column  2 of additional worksheets for each  unit to be  evaluated
                (similar units can  be grouped as one  area  source).
Select  typical  and/or  reasonable  worst-case values specified  in Appendices  C-M  if
values  or input parameters  are  not  available.
   Disposal  impoundment -  Table  C-1
   Storage  impoundment/open  tank-
   Table D-1
   Oil  film on  storage  impoundment -
   Table E-1
   Mechanically  aerated  impoundment -
   Table F-1
   Diffused air system - Table  G-1
   Land treatment  (emissions after
   tilling) - Table H-1
   Oil film surface  on  land treatment
   unit-Table  l-l
Closed landfill  -  Table  J-1
Open landfill  -  Table  K-1
Wastepile  - Table  L-1
Fixed roof tank - Table M-1
Floating roof  tank  - Table  N-1
Variable vapor  space  tank -
   Table  O-1
Storage  pile  (particulates)-
Table P-1
Exposed,  flat,  contaminated area
(particulates)-  Table  Q-1
                                       T
                                     Step 2-

                         Select Release Constituents and
                                   Surrogates
                                      2-6

-------
 Unit-specific  values for some of the  source characterization  parameters may  be
 difficult  to determine.   For  example, air porosity  values of the fixed waste  are
 needed  for evaluating emissions  from  open  landfills,  closed  landfills,  and
 wastepiles, and  total porosity values  of  the  fixed  waste are  needed  to  evaluate
 emissions from  open   landfills  and  wastepiles.   However,  unit-specific data  are
 typically  not  available  for these  parameters.    If  unit-specific values for input
 parameters are not available,  typical  and/or reasonable  worst-case values should  be
 selected  from  the  range of values  specified in Appendices  C through  Q.

 Selection  of source  scenario  input data should  be  based on  realistic  physical and
 chemical  limitations.  For example,  the waste  concentration value for a constituent
 should not  exceed  the  constituent-specific  volubility in  water.

 2.3        Step 2- Release Constituent Surrogates

 The primary approach  involves  using  the  actual  physical/chemical properties  for  ail
 unit-specific  constituents  for  emission  modeling  purposes.   The.   alternative
 screening approach (scaling) uses a  limited set of constituents  or surrogates.

 A  limited  set  of  surrogates is used  to  represent  the constituents of concern  in this
 alternative  screening  method  to  represent  a   wide   range  of  potential  release
 constituents. This significantly  simplifies the screening assessment process since  the
 list of potential air release constituents included  in the RFI  Guidance  is extensive.
 Selection  of  appropriate source  release constituent  surrogates  is  illustrated  in
 Figure 2-3. Table  B-3  presents the  appropriate surrogate  to  be  used  for each
 constituent of  concern. This step is not used in screening  for particle emissions from
 storage piles and exposed areas.

Table  B-3 of  Appendix  B,  presents  the appropriate  surrogate  to be  used for each
 constituent of  concern. Two subsets  of  surrogates are presented in Appendix B. The
first subset  is applicable to emissions  that  can be estimated  based on  Henry's Law
 Constant  (i.e.,  applicable for low  concentrations,  less than  10  percent, of wastes  in
 aqueous   solution).  Surrogates  based  on Henry's  Law  Constant  are  appropriate  for
 units  like  storage and disposal impoundments.  Henry's  Law Constant  surrogates are
 presented in Table  B-1.
                                       2-7

-------
        STEP 2- SELECT RELEAsf'SoWrffiENTS AND SURROGATES

                    Source Characterization  information
           Impoundments
         (Organic Releases)
 Surrogate  subset
 based on Henry's
 Law Constant (see
    Table B-1)
       Select
    appropriate"
     surrogate
       subset.
Particulate Releases
   Other Units
(Organic Releases)
                             Surrogate  subset
                             based on Raoult's
                            Law (see Table B-2)
   Primary Approach
Use all constituents to
   evaluate  unit.
      Select
   appropriate
 constituents to
    represent
     release.
                               Step 3-

                              Calculate
                          Emission Estimates
  Alternative Approach
                    Limit evaluations to release
                   constituent(s)  that represent
                      reasonable worst-case
                           conditions.
                                               Identify  surrogates  which
                                                 correspond  to  release
                                                     constituents
                                                     (Table B-3),
                               2-8

-------
The second subset is applicable to emissions that can be estimated based on Raoult's
Law. Raoult's  Law predicts  the  behavior of most  concentrated mixtures of water
and organic solvents  (i.e.,  solution with  over 10  percent  solute).  Surrogates  based
on  Raoult's  Law  are  appropriate  for  units like  landfills, wastepiles,  land  treatment
units and storage  tanks.  Raoult's Law surrogates are listed  in Table B-2.

It  is  also  necessary  to  select surrogates from the  appropriate  subset (i.e.{from the
Henry's Law Constant or  Raoult's Law subset selected) to  represent release
constituents of  interest. The  primary  approach  is  to  use all  surrogates  from the
appropriate subset  to evaluate  the   unit.    This  approach  will  provide  a
comprehensive  data base  for  the  screening assessment. An  alternative approach  is
to  select  release  constituent(s)  /surrogate(s)  that represent  reasonable worst-case
conditions.  Release constituents  having  the  most  restrictive  health-based  criteria
and those  having high  volatility  are  frequently  associated with these  reasonable
worst-case  (long-term) release  conditions.

2.4        Step  3- Emission  Estimates

Two approaches for calculating emission  estimates are identified  in Figure  2-4.  The
primary  approach  involves  the calculation  of  unit-specific  emission rates  based  on
available  models (e.g., CHEMDAT6,  et cetera).  This approach  is recommended  for
most applications.

The alternative  approach involves the calculation  of emissions  by  applying  scaling
factors  to  emission  modeling  results presented  in Appendices  C through  Q  for  a
limited  set of  source scenarios.    This  approach  is  appropriate  when  a  rapid
preliminary  estimate is needed and  modeling  resources  are not available.  However,
the  primary approach  will  provide  more  representative unit-specific   emission
estimates.

Specific  instructions for  implementing  the  alternative  emission  estimation  approach
are presented in Figure 2-5.

Emission  rate modeling  results for a wide range  of source scenario  conditions are
presented  in  Appendices  C through   Q  to  facilitate   implementation of  the
alternative  emission estimation  approach.  These  available   modeling  results can  be
                                       2-9

-------
     Appendix A







Background Information

-------
                                  FIGURE 2-5
      STEP 3- CALCULATE EMISSION ESTIMATES (ALTERNATIVE APPROACH)

         Source Characterization Information/Constituent Surrogates

     	        i
 Obtain Emission Rate Estimation Worksheets (as selected in  Step  1):
    Disposal impoundment - Table  S -1
    Storage impoundment/open  tank  -
    Tabje>2  '
    Oil  film-on   storage  impoundment  -
    Table S-3
    Mechanically aerated  impoundment  -
    Table S-4
    Diffused air system - Table S-5         *
    Land treatment - Table S-6
    Oil film  surface  on  land  treatment t
    unit  -Table S-7
                                        Closed landfill - Table S-8
                                        Open landfill - Table S-9
                                        Open landfill - Table S - 9
                                        Fixed roof tank -Table S -11
                                        Floating roof tank -Table S -12
                                        Variable vapor space tank -
                                        Tables-13
                                        Storage  pile (particulates)-
                                        Table S -1 4
                                        Exposed,  flat,  contaminated area
                                        (particujates) - Table S -15
                                    T
 Select the source scenario for each modeling parameter (identified in Col. 1 of
 worksheets)  that  best  represents unit-specir conditions  from available cases
 (appropriate  alternative case numbers are Identified in  Col.  3  of  the worksheet
 and)'case specifications are presented in Appendices C-Q):

 • Disposal-impoundment  - Table C-1
    Storage   impoundment/open   tank-
   Table D-1
   Oil film  on  storage  impoundment -
   Table E-1
                  aerated  impoundment -
Mechanically „
T a D re T -1
   Dffused-air  system -  Table  G-1
    Land treatment  -Table  H-1
    Oil  film surface  on  land treatment
    unit -Table I-2
Closed landfill - Table J -1
0 en landfill -Table K-1
Wastepile - Table L-1
Fixed roof tank - Table M-1
Floating  roof tank -Table  N-1
Variable vapor  space tank - Table 0-1
   Table O-1   '
Storage  pile (particulates) -
Table P-1
Exposed, flat contamianted
area (particulates) Table Q-1
Compute parameter-specific  scaling factors by completing  Cols. 4-11 (12 for
Raoult's  Law surrogates) of the  worksheet or Col. 4 for particulate worksheets
based  on modeling  results presented in Appendicess C-Q  (computational
instructions  are  presented with  each worksheet):
• Disposal-impoundment -  Table  C-2
• Storage  impoundment/open  tank-
   Table. t>-2
• Oil film on  storage  impoundment  -
   Table  E-2
•  Mechanically aerated  impoundment  -
   Table  F-2
•  Diffused air system - Table G-2
• Land treatment - Table H-2
• Oil film  surface on  land treatment
   unit -Table I-2
                                       Closed landfill  - Table J-2
                                       Open landfill -Table K-2
                                       Open landfilF- Table" K-2
                                       Fixed roof  tank -Table M-2
                                       Floating roof tank  - Table N-2
                                       Variable vapor space tank -
                                       Table 0-2
                                       Storage pile (particulates)  -
                                       Table P-2
                                       Exposed,  flat,   contaminated area
                                       (particluates) .Table Q-2
        Complete  unit-specific emission,  rate,  which  accounts for unit-
        specific scaling factors (last line item on each worksheet based
        on instructions  presented  with  each worksheet).	
                                   T
                                  Step 4-

                     Calculate  Concentration  Estimates
                                    2-11

-------
 interpolated to  estimate  a unit-specific  emission  rate. The process  for  calculating
 emission  rate  estimates for  application  to  a  specific  unit (i.  e.,  unit-specific
 application) is summarized in  Figure 2-5.

 Calculating  emission  rate estimates  is accomplished  by completing  an  Emission Rate
 Estimation Worksheet, included in Appendix S. A  separate worksheet is provided  in
 Appendix S for  each unit  category.  Column 2 (unit-specific  values for  each modeling
 parameter)  of the worksheet should already have  been completed during Step 1.

 The alternative  emission  estimation  approach  presented in Figure  2-5 also involves
 scaling  the emission rate  modeling  results  available  in Appendices C  through  Q  to
 represent  unit-specific  conditions.   This is  accomplished  by  first  computing
 individual parameter-specific  factors and then  combining  the results  to  calculate  a
 unit-specific emission rate for  each surrogate of  interest.  Therefore, it  is necessary
 to  select the  appropriate  source scenario that  best represents unit-specific
 conditions for each modeling  parameter (identified in Column  1  of the  worksheet).
 Column  3 of  the worksheet identifies  the  appropriate  candidate scenario cases  for
 each  parameter.  The source  scenario case  specifications (i.e., values of the modeling
 parameters  for each  case) are  presented in Table  C  -1 (disposal impoundment),  D-1
 (storage  impoundment),  E-1  (oil  film on storage  impoundment),  F-1  (mechanically
 aerated  impoundment),  G-1  (diffused air system),  H-1  (land treatment), 1-1  (oil  film
 surface  on land treatment  unit),  J-1   (closed  landfill),  K-1   (open  landfill),  L-1
 (wastepile),  M-1   (fixed roof tank),  N-1 (floating  roof tank),  0-1  (variable  vapor  space
 tank), P-1 (storage  piles), and  Q-1 (exposed, flat, contaminated  areas).

 It is also recommended  that  a second scenario case  be selected for each parameter
 in  order to bracket source  conditions.  The  selection  of a second scenario  is
 appropriate  if  unit-specific source conditions are  different than those  presented   in
 the  source scenario case specifications (Appendices C-Q).

 Parameter-specific  scaling factors are  computed  by following  instructions  in each
worksheet and by completing  Columns 4-11 (12).   (Column 12 is needed for Raoult's
 Law surrogates.) Information  needed to   complete  Columns  4-11  (12)  is available  in
 Appendices  C  through  Q.    Information  needed  to complete  worksheets  for
 particulate  emissions  are  available  in Appendices  P  and  Q.  Instructions  for
                                      2-12

-------
computing unit-specific emission  rotes based on  applying scaling  factors are
included in each worksheet.

The last set of three  source scenario cases  for unit-category modeling  results
presented in Appendices C through Q represents the following:

     •    Reasonable best-case emission rate for unit category (for a typical source
          surface area or tank size)

     •    Typical emission  rate for unit category (for a typical source surface area
          or tank size)

     •    Reasonable worst-case emission rate  for unit category (for a typical
          source surface area or tank size)

Frequently these cases can  be used to rapidly estimate typical and extreme emission
rates. However, they should not be considered  as absolute values. These scenarios
generally  represent the range of source  conditions identified in the Hazardous
Waste  Treatment. Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDR Air Emission Models (U.S.
EPA, December 1987).  But  frequently  this  information  was  incomplete, and
subjective estimates were postulated instead. Therefore, the emission rates for
best, typical and worst case source scenarios should only be used as a preliminary
basis to compare and prioritize sources.

At times one of the source scenario cases presented  in the Appendices may be
representative of the modeling parameters for the unit scenario being evaluated.
For these situations,  it is  not necessary  to implement all  of the intermediate
computational steps otherwise needed to complete the worksheet.  Instead, the
modeling  results presented in  Appendices C through Q can be used to directly
represent unit-specific emission rates. However, it may be necessary to scale these
results  to  account for  the  unit-specific  surface  area and waste  constituent
concentrations. (Scaling can be accomplished by the approach specified in each
worksheet).
                                   2-13

-------
2.5        Step 4- Concentration Estimates

Emission rate values  from Step  3 are  used  as input to calculate  concentration
estimates at  receptor locations  of  interest.  Dispersion  conditions are  accounted for
by  use of available  modeling  results for  typical  annual meteorological conditions. A
summary  of this  process  is included in Figure 2-6. Dispersion models can  be applied
to directly estimate  concentration.  This  primary  approach  is recommended  for most
applications.    The EPA-industrial  Source Complex (ISC)  model  is  generally
appropriate  for a  wide  range of sources  in flat or rolling  terrain. Alternative models
are identified in the  Guideline On Air Quality Models (Revised) (U.S. EPA, July 1988).

An  alternative approach  to  obtain  concentration estimates (for flat  terrain sites)
involves  the application of dispersion factors presented  in  Appendix R.  A
Concentration  Estimation  Worksheet  (Table  R-1)  is  used as  the  basis  for
concentration  calculations. This  approach is  appropriate  when  a rapid  preliminary
estimate is  needed  and modeling  resources are  not available. However, the primary
approach  will  provide  more  representative  site-specific  concentration   estimates.

Specific  instructions  for implementing  the  alternative  concentration  estimation
approach  are  presented in Figure 2-7.

Concentrations  should  be  estimated  at locations  corresponding  to receptors  of
concern  (pursuant to RFI Guidance).  Receptor  information may also be  available
from the  RFA. Column  2  of the worksheet  should be  completed to define  distances
to receptors as a function of direction.

Ambient  concentrations  are influenced  by atmospheric  dispersion   conditions  in
addition  to  emission rates.  Atmospheric  dispersion conditions  for  ground-level non-
buoyant  releases  (as is  the  case  for  surface impoundment, landfill,  land  treatment
unit, and wastepile applications)  can  be  accounted for by  the  use  of dispersion
factors. Appropriate  dispersion  factors based on  Figure   R-1  should be  used  to
complete  Column 3  of the worksheet. The dispersion factors  presented  in  Figure  R-1
include individual  plots  for a range of unit-surface-area sizes.  Instruction  regarding
the  use  of  these  plots  to determine unit-  and receptor-specific dispersion factors  is
included  with  Figure R-1.
                                      2-14

-------
                           FIGURE 2-7
         STEP 4 - CALCULATE CONCENTRATION ESTIMATES
                    (ALTERNATIVE  APPROACH)
                             Emission Estimates
                           Obtain  Concentration
                           Estimation  Worksheet
                               (Table  R-1).
RFA  Receptor
Information
Define  receptor locations of interest
(complete  Col. 2 of worksheet to
define distances of receptors as a
function of direction).
                     Determine dispersion factor (Chi/Q)
                     values for appropriate  source area
                     and receptor downwind  distance
                     based on Figure R-1 (complete Col. 3
                     of worksheet).
                     Assume annual downwind frequency
                     of  100% for each receptor (complete
                     Col. 4 of worksheet).
                     Calculate long-term ambient
                     concentrations based on  Equation 1
                     of worksheet (complete Cols. 5-13).
                                     Ir

                                   Step 5-

                              Compare  Results to
                             Health-Based  Criteria
                             2-16

-------
The  dispersion factors  presented  in  Figure  R-1  are based on  the  assumption that
winds are flowing  in  one direction  (i.e.,  toward  the  receptor of interest) 100 percent
of the time on  an annual  basis.  This conservative  assumption of a wind  direction
frequency of 100% for each receptor of interest should be used if Figure R-1  is used.
as the basis to estimate dispersion conditions for Column 4 of the worksheets.

The  information  entered into Column  3  and  4  of the worksheet,  plus the  emission
rate  results calculated  during  Step  3,  provides the  required  input  to  calculate
ambient  concentrations.  Specifically, Equation 1  presented  in  the worksheet  should
be used to obtain ambient concentrations for each surrogate  and receptor  location.
Equation  1  of Table  R-1  includes a  safety factor of  10  which is applied to all
concentration estimates based on  the  scaling approach.  This factor accounts for the
inherent  uncertainty  involved  in the  scaling approach.  This safety factor  is
applicable to all concentration  estimates  based on  emission rates  obtained  via the
scaling approach. These results  should be entered into Columns 5 through 13 of the
worksheet.

2.6        Step 5 - Health Criteria  Comparisons

Concentration results  from  Step 4  can  be  compared  to  constituent-specific
health-based criteria provided in  the  RFI  Guidance (see  Figure 2-8).  To facilitate this
comparison,  it is  recommended  that the  appropriate  reference  toxic  and
carcinogenic  criteria  be entered  in the  space  allocated  in the  Concentration
Estimation   Worksheet.

Interpretation of the  ambient  concentration  estimates should  also  account  for the
uncertainties associated  with the following components of the assessment:

     •    Inaccuracies  in  input  source  characterization  data will  directly affect
          concentration  results.

     •    Emission  rate models  have  not  been  extensively verified.  However,
          OAQPS states,  "In  general,  considering the uncertainty of field  emission
          measurements,  agreement  between  measured and predicted emissions
          generally agree within an  order of magnitude."  (U.S.  EPA,  April  1987).
          These verifications  have been for short-term  emission  conditions.  Model
                                      2-17

-------
          performance is expected  to  be better for  long-term  emission  rate
          estimation (as used for this screening assessment).

     •    inaccuracies associated with use of the alternative emission estimation
          approach presented in Figure 2-5.

               Source conditions for the unit of interest may not be the same as
               those  for the  source scenarios presented  in Appendices  C-Q.
               Therefore, scenarios should be selected to bracket the unit-specific
               conditions in  order to obtain a range of emission rate estimates.

               The use of scaling  factors for each source parameter may yield
               somewhat different emission rate values compared to those based
               on direct use of a model with unit-specific inputs. These differences
               are attributed to the interrelationships of source parameters which
               may not be linear. A comparison of direct modeling results versus
               scaling estimates is presented in Exhibit 2-1.

     •    Atmospheric dispersion models for long-term  applications (as used for
          this screening assessment) typically are accurate within a factor of ± 2 to
          3 for flat terrain (inaccuracy can be a factor of 10 in complex terrain.

Therefore, "safety factors"  commensurate  with these  uncertainties should be
applied to concentration estimates for health criteria comparisons.

The calculations of emission rate and concentration estimates  obtained have been
for a 1-year period. Some units, such as closed landfills, will have different average
emission rates for longer exposure periods for certain constituents. The air pathway
health-based criteria included in the RFI Guidance are based on a 70-year exposure
period. Appendices C through Q each contain a set of scenario cases for 1-, 5-, 10-,
and 70-year exposures for information purposes. However, only inactive units are
expected to have an average 70-year emission rate that is  significantly different
from the l-year rate. All of the emission results presented in Appendices C through
Q are assumed to be active with the exception  of closed landfills (Appendix J). Air
concentrations  for each one-year period within the reference 70 year exposure
period should be less  than those associated with constituent-specific health criteria.
                                    2-19

-------
                                                     EXHIBIT  2-1
                                          RATIO OF SCALING ESTIMATES TO CHEMDAT6
                                          EMISSION  RATE MODELING RESULTS (FIGURE 2-5)
Unit Type
Disposal Impoundment
Storage Impoundment
Oil Film on Storage
Impoundment
Mechanically Aerated
impoundment
Diffused Air System
Land Treatment (after
tilling)
Oil Film Surface on Land
Treatment Unit
Closed Landfill
Open Landfill
Wastepile
Fixed Roof Tank
Floating Roof Tank
Variable Vapor Space
Tank
Storage Pile
(Particulates)
Contaminated Area
(Particulates)
Reasonable Best Case/Worst Case Emission Rate Scenarios
Henry's Law Surrogates: MHLB
Raoult's Law Surrogates: HVHB
Particle Case: Particle
0.81
1.00
1.10
1.51
1.10
1.06
1.00
0.84
1.00
1.00
L20
0.91
0.92
1.31
1.20
1.01
1.29
1.02
0.99
1.00
*
*
1.00
0.92
0.88
1.00
0.98
0.98
HHLB
HVMB
0.81
1.00
1.00
1.43
1.10
1.05
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.06
0.98
0.92
1.28
1.18
1.01
1.16
1.19
0.98
1.02
*
*
1.00
1.00
—
--
LHMB
HVLB
0.86
1.04
1.10
1.50
1.10
1.04
1.00
0.76
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.92
1.25
1.16
1.00
1.23
1.05
0.98
1.00
*
*
1.00
0.96
—
—
MHMB
MVHB
0.81
1.00
1.00
1.52
1.10
4.10
1.00
0.91
1.00
0.99
3.67
0.74
3.93
1.09
1.14
1.01
0.94
0.73
0.99
1.00
0.82
0.53
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.00

—
HHMB
MVMB
0.81
1.00
1.10
1.43
1.08
3.25
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
2.83
0.75
5.68
1.06
1.11
1.01
1.23
0.90
0.98
1.00
0.81
0.53
0.96
1.01
1.00
0.91
—
—
LHHB
MVLB
0.68
1.03
0.97
0.79
1.10
4.12
1.00
0.81
1.00
0.99
1.27
0.91
3.98
1.09
1.14
1.02
0.91
0.70
0.99
1.01
0.82
0.50
0.98
1.00
1.00
0.95
--
~
MHHB
LVMB
0.81
1.00
1.00
1.51
1.24
1.25
1.00
0.93
1.01
1.00
5.28
1.40
1.08
0.77
1.18
1.02
0.40
0.72
1.25
0.79
0.90
0.89
0.95
1.01
1.00
1.00
-
—
HHHB
VHVHB
0.81
1.00
1.00
1.43
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.06
0.99
0.92
1.00
1.18
0.99
0.98
0.94
1.02
1.00
*
*
1.00
0.92
~
-
VHVLB
--
~
1.10
1.00
—
—
1.00
1.00
0.92
1.03
1.20
1.00
0.98
0.94
1.02
1.00
*
*
• 1.00
1.02
--
--
*This type of tank is not typically used for materials with this high vapor pressure.

-------
3.0    EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS

Two  case  studies  have  been  selected  to demonstrate  the  application  of  the
alternative  (scaling)  air assessment screening  methodology  based on  the  technical
aids  presented in Appendices B  through  S. The  first example involves  a storage
impoundment  and  the  second a closed landfill.

3.1     Case Study A

Case Study A involves a storage  impoundment  located close to  a small  community.
The closest resident  lives 0.2  mile south of the unit. The impoundment has a surface
area  of 1 acre, a  depth of 0.9 meter, and a typical storage time cycle of 1.2 days.
Wind  data from  the  nearest  National Weather Service station  indicate  that
northerly winds occur  10 percent of the time  annually. Waste records for the  unit
indicate  the frequent  appearance  of  carbon tetrachloride.  Limited waste  analyses
indicate that a 1,000-ppm  concentration  of this  constituent in the impoundment is  a
reasonable  assumption.  The object  of this example screening assessment is to
estimate  the  ambient concentrations at  the  nearest residence. Following is  a
summary  of this  example  application.

Step  1-  Obtain  Source  Characterization Information

The appropriate Emission  Rate Estimation Worksheet for this  case study is Table  S-2
for  storage impoundment  units.  The  unit  information  provided  above  is  sufficient
to complete Column  2 for Lines  1-4  of the worksheet  (see  Exhibit 3-1) pursuant to
Instruction A of the Worksheet (Table S-2).

Step 2- Select Release Constituent  Surrogates

Based on Figure  2-3,  it  is apparent that the  Henry's Law  Constant surrogate  subset
(Table B-1)  is appropriate  for a storage impoundment  unit.  Evaluation  of Table  B-3
indicates that  the following surrogate  inapplicable to Case  Study  A:
                                      3-1

-------
                                                      EXHIBIT 3-1
                                                       TABLE S-2
                         EMISSION RATE ESTIMATION WORKSHEET - STORAGE IMPOUNDMENT EXAMPLE
Line col 1
Modeling
Parameters
1 Area*
2 Depth*
3 Retention time*
4 Constituent
concentration*

Col 2
Instruction A:
Input Unit-
Specific
Values
1 acres
0.9m
12 days
1000 ppm
Col 3
Instruction B:
Select a Representative
Case from Appendix D -
Table D-1 (underline
selected case)
1,2,3,or4
5,6,7or8
INSTRUCTION D:
Complete Lines 5-6 and 8
Account for Area
[unit-specific area/(Case 18 area = 0.4 acres)
6 Account for Unit-Specific Concentration
[unit-specific conc./(Case 18 cone. = 1,000 ppm)]
7 Typical Surrogate-Specific Emission Rate
(Case 18), 106g/yr
8 Calculate Unit-Specific Emission Rate, I06g/yr
(multiply lines #2x #3x #5x #6x #7)
Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 Col 8 Col 9 Col 10 Col 11
Instruction C:
Determine Surrogate-Specific Scaling Factors"
HVHB HVMB HVLB MVHB MVMB MVLB LVMB VHVHB
0.57
4.1
--
SURROGATE-SPECIFIC VALUES
2.5
1.0
34.0 39.24 3.25 38.10 38.40 1.97 38.74 39.24
229.0
* Critical input values
** Scaling Factor determined for Lines 2 and 3 from Appendix D - Emission Rate Estimate from Table D-2 divided by Typical Emission Rate
   defined in Case 18 (see line 7).

-------
           Constituent
Surrogate No.
Surrogate
           Carbon  tetrachloride
                               HHLB
 Step 3- Calculate Emission Estimates
This  step  involves  implementing Instructions B-D of the Worksheet  (Table  S-2).
Instruction  B  involves selection of representative  cases from  Table  D-1 which  best
match actual  unit  values in Column  2.  A review of Table  D-1  indicates that Case 1
(based on a depth of 0.9 meter) best estimates the depth of the example case (also a
depth of 0.9  meters has been  specified for Case  Study A). Table  D-1  also  indicates
that Case 5 (based on a retention cycle  of 1 day) best represents the example case (a
retention cycle of 1.2 days has  been  specified for Case  Study A).

Implementation  of Instruction  C  involves determination  of surrogate-specific
scaling  factors.  For this example this  involved completion of  Column  5 for lines 2
and 3 of the  Worksheet (Table S-2). Emission rates for Cases  1 and  5,  and  a typical
emission rate  (Case  18) were obtained from Table  D-2  as follows:
Case
Case 1
Case 5
Case 18
Emission Rate (I 06g/yO
Carbon Tetrachloride
22.5
161.5
39.2
Column  5 of the  worksheet  (for  carbon tetrachloride) was  completed  via  the
following  computations (Case  18 represents a typical emission  rate for the source
category of storage  impoundment):
     *Line 2:
    Case  1 Emission Rate (from Table D-2)
    Case  18 Emission Rate (from Line 7 of the Worksheet)
                           22.5
                                   = 0.57
                           39.2
                                       3-3

-------
      *l_ine 3:
     Case 5 Emission Rate (from Table D-2)                         161.5
     Case  18 Emission  Rate (from Line 7  of the Worksheet) =    39 2
                                                                          = 4.1
 Implementation  of Instruction  D  of  the Worksheet (Table S-2)  involves completion
 of Lines 5-6 and 8 as follows:

      *Line  5:
     Unit-Specific Area  (from Column 2  of the Worksheet)         1.0
     Case  18 Area  (this value is identified  in  the  Worksheet     n.4
     instructions for Line 5)
      *Line 6:
     Unit-Specific  Concentration                                  1,000
                                                                          = 2.
    Case 18  Concentration                                       -I
                                                                          =  1.0
      *Line 8:
      Emission Rate   = Line 2 x Line 3 x Line 5 x Line 6 x Line?
                      = 0.57x4.1 x 2. 5x1. Ox 39.2
                      = 229. Ox  106g/yr
                      = 229.0  Mg/y

 Step 4-  Calculate Concentration Estimates

This  step involves use of the  Concentration  Estimation Worksheet  (Table  R-l).
Application of  the  Worksheet  involves  implementation  of Instructions  A-D  included
in Table R-1. The  example Concentration Estimation  Worksheet for  Case Study  A is
presented in Exhibit  3-2.  Implementation  of  Instruction A  involves  input of  the
distance of the receptor from the  downwind  unit  boundary for sectors  of interest.
Notice that the receptor distance  of 0.2 mile (Column 2)  corresponds with the south
(downwind) sector.  This is  because the  frequency  of northerly  winds obtained  from
the National  Weather  Service  (as  stated  at the  beginning of 3.1) represents  the
                                       3-4

-------
                                                                             EXHIBIT 3-2
                                                                              TABLE R-1
                                     CONCENTRATION ESTIMATION WORKSHEET - UNIT CATEGORY: CLOSED LANDFILL EXAMPLE
Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4
Downwind
Sector
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
ssw
sw
wsw
w
WNW
NW
Instruction A:
Input
Distance
to
Receptors* *
(miles)








0.2







Instruction B:
Determine
Dispersion
Factor
(Figure R-1)







Instruction C:
Assume
Annual
Downwind
Frequency
of 100%
(percent)







ColS Col6 Col 7 Col 8 Col 9 Col 10 Col 11 Col 12 Col 13
Instruction D:
Compute Long-Term Concentration Estimates (ug/m3) Based on Equation 1 *
(select and circle appropriate surrogate subset, Henry's Law Constant or Raoult's Law or particle case)
MHLB
HVHB HHLB LHMB MHMB HHMB LHHB MHHB HHHB -- = Henry's Law Constant Surrogate
„, or or or or or or
particle HVMB HVLB MVHB MVMB MVLB LVMB VHVHB VHVLB = Raoult's Law Surrogate
case








6.4 x 10*





100





4600







Health Criteria (ug/m3) Toxic Criteria NA
Based on RFI Guidance Carcinogenic Criteria 0.03***
Ul
l/l
      *    Equation 1 Long-Term Concentration Est. (ug/m3) = Col 3 x Col 4 x (unit/surrogate-specific Emission Rates, Mg/yr, based on Appendix S Worksheets) x (Conversion Factor = 3.17 x 102) x
          (Safety Factor = 10)
          Distance from downward unit boundary
      *** Criterion for carbon tetrachloride
      NA Not available
      Mg/yr =  106g/yr

-------
direction  "from which the wind is flowing. "  This is  standard meteorological
terminology. Therefore, northerly winds affect receptors south of the unit.

Implementation of  Instruction B involves determination of  the  appropriate
dispersion factor for the downwind  distance selected. The  dispersion factor
obtained from Figure R-l for this example is 6.4 x 10-6sec/m3 (entered in Column 3
of the Concentration Estimation Worksheet). This value is applicable to a receptor
0.2 mile downwind from a l-acre area source.

Implementation of Instruction C involves entering the downwind frequency for the
sector  of  interest in  Column  4 of the Worksheet. The downwind frequency
(conservatively assumed to be 100 percent  if Table R-l dispersion factors are used)
for a receptor located south of the unit is entered in Column 4 of the Worksheet.

implementation of Instruction D involves computation of air concentrations based
on Equation 1 of the  Worksheet (Table R-1). The concentration estimate for carbon
tetrachloride was calculated using Equation 1 of the Worksheet as follows:

   • Worksheet estimate:

     Concentration  (|jg/m3) = Col. 3x Col. 4x Emission Rate x(unit conversion =
                             3.17x  1O2) (Safety factor = 1 0)
                          =  (6.4x  1O6)X (100)x(229.0)x(3.17xl02)x(10)
                          = 4600 Mg/m 3
Step 5- Compare Results to Health Criteria

Available  health-based criteria  from the RFI Guidance were entered into  the
Concentration Estimation  Worksheet (see Exhibit 3-2). These results indicate that
carbon tetrachloride concentrations at the nearest receptor significantly exceed the
carcinogenic health-based criteria.  Based on the expected carbon tetrachloride
concentrations, this unit is a prime candidate for unit-specific emission rate and
dispersion  modeling to confirm the need for an RFI for the air media.
                                    3-6

-------
3.2    Case Study B

Case Study B involves a closed landfill of 7 acres with a waste-bed thickness of 25
feet and a cap thickness of 6 feet.  Benzene  is believed to  be a primary constituent
of the waste (approximately  10  percent).  The closest  resident lives 1  mile east of the
unit.  The prevailing winds (which  occur  20 percent  of the  time  annually,  based  on
available facility data) are from  the  west (i.e., these winds  will  affect  the downwind
sector east of the unit). Following is a  summary of the screening assessment  for
Case Study B.

Step 1-  Obtain Source Characterization  Information

The appropriate Emission Rate  Estimation Worksheet for  Case Study B is Table S-8
for closed  landfill units:  The  unit  information  provided is sufficient to complete
Column 2  of  the worksheet, with one  exception (see Exhibit 3-3): the  air porosity of
the  fixed waste is not known.  Therefore, typical  conditions [i.e., 25  percent  as
represented by Cases 14 and 22 (see Table J-1) will be assumed for this  assessment].

Step  2- Select Release Constituent Surrogates

Based on Figure 2-3, it is apparent that the  Raoult's Law surrogate subset (Table B-2)
is appropriate  for  a  closed  landfill unit.   Evaluation  of  Table B-3 indicates that the
following surrogate is applied to Case Study B:

    Constituent          Surrogate  No.            Surrogate Code
    Benzene                     1                      HVHB

Step  3- Calculate  Emission Estimates

The calculational  inputs  for the  Emission  Rate  Estimations Worksheets for  Case
Study B are  presented  in Exhibit  3-3 and  3-4.  Scenario Case  1 (Exhibit 3-3) and
Scenario Case 2 (Exhibit 3-4) were selected to  bracket the actual waste-bed thickness
for the example unit. Scenario Case 1 is associated with a waste-bed  thickness of 15-
feet and Case 2 with  a 30-foot bed  thickness.  The actual waste-bed thickness is  25
feet.  The resulting benzene emission  rate  estimates range  from  46.4 x  106g/yr to
83.4 x 106g/yr.
                                        3-7

-------
                                                              EXHIBIT 3-4
                                                               TABLE S-8
                                   EMISSION RATE ESTIMATION WORKSHEET - CLOSED LANDFILL EXAMPLE
  Line
            Col 1
                           Col  2
                      Col 3
                          Col 4    Col 5     Col6    Col 7    Col 8    Col9    CoMO   Col11    Col 12
                        Instruction A:
          Modeling
         Parameters
 Input Unit-
   Specific
   Values
      Instruction B:
Select a Representative
Case from Appendix F -
Table F-1 (underline
selected case)
                                                                       Instruction C:
                                                       Determine Surrogate-Specific Scaling  Factors*
                                                                HVHB  HVMB  HVLB    MVHB  MVMB  MVLB    LVMB  VHVHB VHVL8
  1   Area*

  2  Waste-bed
      thickness*

  3  Cap thickness

  4  Constituent
      content of waste*

  5  Air  porosity
      (fixed waste)
7acres

25. ft


6ft

10. percent


25 percent
        1,2,3 or4


       5, 6, 7 or8

     9^10, 11 or 12


            15or16
1 .8


0.95

:LO
                        INSTRUCTION  D:
                     Complete Lines 6 and 8

      Account for Area
  6 [unit-specific  area/(Case 22  area =  3.5 acres)]

  7   Typical Surrogate-Specific Emission Rate
      (Case 22), 106g/yr

  8   Calculate Unit-Specific Emission  Rate, 106g/yr
      (multiply lines#2 x #3 x #4x #5 x #6 x #7)
                                                              SURROGATE-SPECIFIC  VALUES
                                          2-0    _     _

                                         24.4     22.4     47.0     0.445    0.398    0.808  1.55E-     119      264
                                                                                            05
                                          83.4
* Critical input values
** Scaling Factor determined for Lines 2-5 from Appendix J - Emission Rate Estimate from Table J-2 divided by Typical Emission Rate defined in Case
   22 (see line 7).

-------
Step  4-  Calculate  Concentration  Estimates

The  example Concentration Estimation  Worksheets for  Case  Study  Bare presented
in Exhibits 3-5 (Scenario Case  1) and 3-6 (Scenario Case  2). The  resulting  benzene
concentration  at  the nearest receptor is estimated to  range from  69  ug/m3 to  124
ug/m3.

 Step 5-  Compare Results to Health Criteria

A  review of results presented  in  Exhibits 3-5 and 3-6  indicates that the estimated
benzene concentrations  of 69  ug/m3to 124  ug/m3are  approximately  1000 times the
carcinogenic criterion of  0.1  ug/m3.  A  toxic criterion is not  available for  benzene.
Based on the results presented in Exhibits 3-5 and 3-6, this unit is a  prime candidate
for an air release  RFI.
                                       3-10

-------
EXHIBIT 3-5
TABLE R-1
CONCENTRATION ESTIMATION WORKSHEET - UNIT CATEGORY: CLOSED LANDFILL EXAMPLE (Scenario Case 1)
CoM Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 Col 8 Col 9 Col 10 Col 11 Col 12 Col 13
Downwind
Sector
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
ssw
sw
wsw
w
WNW
NW
NNW
Instruction A:
Distance
to
Receptors**
(miles)




1.0












Instruction B:
Determine
Dispersion
Factor
(Figure R-1)




4.7x10-6











Instruction C:
Assume
Annual
Downwind
Frequency
of 100%
(percent)




100











Instruction D:
Compute Long-Term Concentration Estimates (iig/m?) Based on Equation 1 *
(select and circle appropriate surrogate subset, Henry's Law Constant or Raoult's Law or particle case)
MHLB
HVHB HrHLB 0HMB £HMB HrHMB 0HHB JJHHB HfHHB — = Henry's Law Constant Surrogate
particle HVMB HVLB MVHB MVMB MVLB LVMB VHVHB VHVLB = Raoult's Law Surrogate
case




69











Health Criteria (ug/nf) Toxic Criteria N A
Based on RFI Guidance Carcinogenic Criteria Q.1***
     Equation 1 Long-Term Concentration Est. (hig/nf) = Col 3 x Col 4 x (unit/surrogate-specific Emission Rates, Mg/yr, based on Appendix S Worksheets) x (Conversion Factor = 3.17x 10) x
     (Safety Factor = 10)
** Distance from downward unit boundary
*** Criterion for benzene
NA Not available
Mg/yr  =  106g/yr

-------
                                                EXHIBIT 3-6
                                                 TABLE R-1
CONCENTRATION ESTIMATION WORKSHEET - UNIT CATEGORY: CLOSED LANDFILL EXAMPLE (Scenario Case 2)
Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4
Downwind
Sector
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
ssw
sw
wsw
w
WNW
NW
NNW
Instruction A:
Input
Distance
to
Receptors**
(miles)




1.0











Instruction B:
Determine
Dispersion
Factor
(Figure R-1)




4.7x106











Instruct! on C:
Assume
Annual
Downwind
Frequency
of 100%
(percent)




100











Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 Col 8 Col 9 CoMO Col 1 1 Col 12 Col 13
Instruction D:
Compute Long-Term Concentration Estimates (ug/m3) Based on Equation 1 *
(select and circle appropriate surrogate subset, Henry's Law Constant or Raoult's Law or particle case)
MHLB
HV/HR HHLB LHMB MHMB HHMB LHHB MHHB HHHB "" = Henry's Law Constant Surrogate
", Or or or Of or or or or
particle HVMB HV/LB MVHB MVMB MVLB LVMB VHVHB VHVLB = Raoult's Law Surrogate
cass




124











Health Criteria (ng/m3) Toxic Criteria NA
Based on RFI Guidance Carcinogenic Criteria 01***
*   Equation 1 Long Term Concentration Est
    (Safety Factor = 10)
* *  Distance from downward unit boundary
*** Criterion for benzene
NA Not available
Mg/yr   =   106g/yr
                     = Col 3 x Col 4 x (unit/surrogate specific Emission R.HO5, Mij/yr, baser! on Appendix 5 Worksheets) x (Conversion Factor = 3.17x10'') x

-------
 4.0  REFERENCES

 U.S. EPA,  September 1985 (and subsequent supplements):  Compilation of Air
 Pollutant Emission  Factors, Vol.  I, Washington, DC 20460.

 U.S. EPA, June 1974. Development  of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust Sources,
 Research Triangle  Park NC, 27711.

 U.S. EPA, March 1978.  Fugitive Emissions from Integrated Iron and Steel Plants,  EPA
 600/2-78-050, Washington, D.C.

 U.S. EPA, July 1988. Guidelines on Air Quality Models (Revised). EPA-450/2 -78-027R,.
 Office  of Air Quality Planning  and  Standards,  Research Triangle  Park,  NC 27711.

 U.S. EPA. December 1987.  Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and  Disposal
 Facilities (TSDF)  Air Emission Models. Office of Air Quality  Planning and Standards.
 Research Triangle Park,  NC 27711 (CHEMDAT6).

 U.S. EPA, 1989. RCRA Facility Investigation (RFh Guidance.  Office of Solid Waste,
Washington, D.C. 20460.

Turner, D.B. 1969. Workbook  of  Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.  Public Health
Service, Cincinnati, OH.
                                    4-1

-------
A.O       BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The  air release  screening assessment methodology has  been developed based  on
use  of  available air emissions  models applicable  to facilities  for treatment,  storage,
and  disposal of  hazardous  waste,  and  on  results of  atmospheric dispersion
modeling.  The emission  models were used to  calculate  emission  rates for  a wide
range of source scenarios. (An emission  rate is defined as the source  release  rate for
the air  pathway  in terms of mass  per  unit of time.)  These  modeling  results have
been summarized in this  document so that they  can be easily  used  by Environmental
Protection Agency  (EPA)  Regional and State Agency staff to estimate emission rates
for facility-specific  and  unit-specific  applications.  These  source-specific  emission
rates can be used in conjunction with dispersion  modeling  results,  representative  of
typical  annual  conditions,  to estimate  long-term  ambient  concentrations  at
locations of interest. (Ambient  concentrations are  defined as  the  concentrations  of
the released constituent downwind  from  the  source.  ) The emission rate and
atmospheric  dispersion  modeling  approaches  used to  develop  the  screening
methodology are discussed in the subsections that follow.

A.1       Emission Rate Models

The  air release  screening  assessment  methodology  has been based  primarily  on
application  of  air emission  models  (available on a  diskette  for  use  on  a
microcomputer)  developed by  EPA's Office  of  Air Quality  Planning  and Standards
(OAQPS) to estimate organic releases for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal  facilities  (TSDFs) (U.S.  EPA,  December 1987). Computer-compatible  air
emission  models  (referred to as CHEMDAT6 models) are available for the following
sources:

     •     Surface  impoundments,  which for modeling purposes include quiescent
          impoundments,  aerated impoundments,  and  open  -top tanks
               Disposal  impoundments
               Storage   impoundments
               Oil  films  on  storage  impoundments
              Aerated  impoundments
                                     A-1

-------
     •    Land  treatment
               Soil emissions subsequent to waste tilling
               Oil film surfaces
     •    Closed  landfills
     •    Open  landfills
     •    Waste piles

Since the results  presented  in this  document  are  based  on  the December 1987
version  of CHEMDAT6,  subsequent  modifications  to  any  of  these models  may
require revisions to this screening  methodology

The  available  models  for CHEMDAT6 provide a basis  to  estimate emissions for
numerous unit  categories (e.g., surface  impoundments,  landfills)  as previously
listed. Therefore, the CHEMDAT6 models  will be  applicable  to a  wide  range of air
release screening assessments.   CHEMDAT6  (December 1987 versions)  does not,
however, include models for the following sources:

     •    Land  treatment -  waste application
     •    Fixation  pits
     •    Container loading
     •    Container storage
     •    Container  cleaning
     •    Stationary tank loading
     •    Stationary tank storage
     •    Fugitive  emissions
     •    Vacuum  truck loading

However,  guidance  for  estimating  organic  emissions  from these  sources is available
from OAQPS (U.S. EPA, December 1987).

In addition  to  the CHEMDAT6  model,   emission  equations  from  EPA's  AP-42,
"Compilation of Air Pollutant  Emission  Factors" and  "Fugitive  Emissions from
Integrated Iron  and Steel  Plants"  have been  used for  estimating  organic emissions
from storage tanks and particulate matter  emissions that  are  less than 10 microns in
diameter  from  storage  piles and  exposed  areas which result from  wind erosion and
activities  on  storage piles.
                                     A-2

-------
A.2        Source Scenarios

A wide range  of source scenarios were  evaluated as  a basis  for developing the  air
release  assessment methodology.  This involved identification of a  limited set of
surrogates  to  represent the  numerous individual potential air release  constituents
of concern. This also involved evaluating of the sensitivity of the input parameters
used by the CHEMDAT6 air  emission  models and the  AP-42  emission  equation input
parameters.

A.2.1      Release  Constituent Surrogates

A limited set  of surrogates  was  required  to  simplify  the air release  assessment
methodology since  the list  of potential  air release  constituents included  in  the RFI
Guidance (U.S. EPA,  1988) is extensive.  The  set of  surrogates  selected  for this
application  was  the same list developed  by  OAQPS  for assessment of  organic
emissions from  TSDFs (see Appendix B).

Two  subsets  of surrogates   are  presented in  Appendix B.  The first subset  is
applicable to air emission  modeling  applications  based  on the use  of  the  Henry's
Law Constant  (Table B-1)  and the second subset is based on  use of Raoult's Law
(Table B-2). Raoult's Law accurately  predicts the behavior of most concentrated
mixtures of water  and organic solvents  (i.  e., solutions  over 10 percent  solute).
According to Raoult's Law,  the rate of  volatilization of each chemical  in  a mixture is
proportional to the  product  of  its  concentration in  the mixture  and its vapor
pressure.   Therefore, Raoult's Law  can  be  used  to characterize potential  for
volatilization.  This is especially useful  when the  unit  of  concern entails container
storage, tank storage, or  treatment of concentrated  waste  streams.

The  Henry's  Law Constant  is the  ratio  of the vapor  pressure of a constituent to  its
aqueous  volubility (at equilibrium).  This  constant can  be  used to assess the  relative
ease with which the  compound may vaporize from the aqueous solution  and will be
most useful when  the unit  being  assessed is a surface impoundment  or tank
containing  dilute wastewaters. The potential for significant vaporization increases
as the value for the Henry's Law Constant increases; when  it is greater than  10E-3,
rapid  volatilization will generally  occur.
                                      A-3

-------
The surrogates  presented in Appendix  B span the range  from  very  high volatility  to
 low volatility  (frequently  classified as  semi-volatiles).  Biodegradation  potential  has
also  been  accounted for  in the surrogate  specifications.  Therefore, a  cross-
reference of constituents  has also been provided  in  Appendix B  (Table B-3). This
listing provides the  basis  for  the  identification  of the  appropriate  surrogate for
individual air release constituents of interest.  Instructions for use  of Appendix  B
data are provided in Section 2.

A.2.2     Sensitivity  Analyses

Sensitivity analyses  of the  input parameters used  by the CHEMDAT6  air  emission
models emission rate relative to output were  evaluated to determine  the feasibility
of  developing  a  source  characterization index.   The  object  of  the  source
characterization index  was to  define  a simple relationship  between  the  primary
source description  parameters and the  emission rate of the release.  This evaluation
was accomplished  by  modeling  a series of source  scenario  cases for each  unit
category (i.  e.,  categories  such as surface impoundments and landfills). Each of these
source scenario cases represents long-term (i. e., annual) emission conditions. A base
case  representative of typical  source  conditions was  defined for each  unit category.
These typical  conditions  were  specified based on  TSDF survey results and on
guidance presented  in the  OAQPS air emissions  modeling  report  (U.S.  EPA,
December 1987). This  base case provided  a standard for comparison to results of
parametric  analyses.  The  parametric  analyses  consisted of varying (one at  a time)
the  input  values  for the  most sensitive modeling  parameters.  These  input
parameter  values  were varied  over a  range  of  expected  source  conditions.  In
addition  to   the  parametric  analyses   and the typical  (base-case) scenario,  a
reasonable   best-case (minimum  emission rate)   and a reasonable worst-case
(maximum emission  rate)  source  scenario were  also modeled. The  most  sensitive
modeling  parameters  and  their  associated  range  of  values  were  determined by
considering  model  sensitivity results and TSDF source survey  information presented
in the  OAQPS  air  emission  modeling  report (U.S. EPA, December  1987), as well as
other judgmental factors.  A  similar sensitivity analysis was performed  for the three
tank types.
                                      A-4

-------
A  summary of the  air emissions modeling  parameters,  input  values, and modeling
results (emission  rates) is  presented  in Appendices C through Q. Evaluation  of these
results  indicates  that  emission rates are  highly  dependent on  numerous  sensitive
source  parameters.  Therefore, these  complex relationships are  not  conducive  to
development of a source  characterization index  (i.e.,  defining a  simple  relationship
between the  primary  source description parameters  and  the  emission rate of the
release).  However,  the modeling results  presented  in  Appendices C  through  Q
provide data which  can be  interpolated to  estimate unit-specific  emission  rates  with
minimal  guidance.  The methodology for application  of  these data  is discussed  in
Section  2.

A.3       Atmospheric Dispersion Conditions

Atmospheric dispersion conditions affect the  downwind   dilution  of  emissions  from
a source. Available  EPA dispersion  models  can be used  to  account  for site  specific
meteorological and  source  conditions.  For  this  screening assessment,  modeling
results  are  presented  which represent typical  dispersion  conditions  (neutral  stability
and  10-mph winds) in  the  United States.

Dispersion  modeling results to  be used for  the screening assessment (assuming flat
terrain)  are  presented  in Appendix R (Figure R-1)  and are applicable to ground-level
sources with non-buoyant  releases  (this assumption  is  valid  for  surface
impoundments,  land  treatment  units,  landfills,  waste piles,  tanks, and exposed
areas).  These results are presented  in  terms of dispersion factors.  Dispersion factors
can  be  considered as the  ratio of the  ambient concentration to the source emission
rate.   Therefore,  dispersion  factors facilitate the  calculation  of  ambient
concentrations if emission  rate  estimates are available.

The  dispersion factors presented  in  Figure  R-1 were  developed  from  similar
dispersion graphs  presented  in a  standard technical reference (Turner,  1969). These
dispersion factors  are  applicable to  long-term  (e.g.,  annual)  conditions. It  has been
assumed that  dispersion factors (and, thus also ambient concentrations) decrease as
a function  of  downwind distance  but are uniform  in the  crosswind  direction within
a 22.5 degree sector (22.5 degree sectors correspond with major compass directions
such as N, NNW, NW, etc.).  The  dispersion factors presented  in  Figure R-1  also
account  for the initial  plume  size,  which corresponds  to the surface area of  the
                                       A-5

-------
resource (Turner, 1969).  Results presented in  Figure R-1 are expected to be similar to
results from the EPA-approved  Industrial Source  Complex  dispersion model.
                                      A-6

-------
    Appendix B


Release Constituent
  Surrogate Data

-------
                                   TABLE B-1
              SURROGATE PROPERTIES - HENRY'S LAW CONSTANT SUBSET
Code
MHLB
HHLB
LHMB
MHMB
HHMB
LHHB
MHHB
HHHB
No.
6
3
8,9
5
2
7
4
1
Characteristics
medium Henry's Law, low biodegradation
high Henry's Law, low biodegradation
low Henry's Law, medium biodegradation
medium Henry's Law, medium biodegradation
high Henry's Law, medium biodegradation
low Henry's Law, high biodegradation
medium Henry's Law, high biodegradation
high Henry's Law, high biodegradation
Henry's Law*
Constant 298°K
2.22E-05
3.00E-02
1.58E-07
4.08E-05
1.18E-03
1.58E-07
6.80E-05
5.38E-03
*Key: low Henry's Law Constant < 1 .OE-05 atm-m3/g mol
     medium Henry's Law Constant 1 .OE-05 -1 .OE-3
     high Henry's Law Constant > 1 .OE-03

-------
                                                      TABLE B-2
                                    SURROGATE PROPERTIES - RAOULT'S LAW SUBSET
oo
Code
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7,8,9
10, 11
12
Characteristics
high volatility, high biodegradation
high volatility, medium biodegradation
high volatility, low biodegradation
medium volatility, high biodegradation
medium volatility, medium biodegradation
medium volatility, low biodegradation
low volatility, medium biodegradation
very high volatility, high biodegradation
very high volatility, low biodegradation
Vapor Pressure
(25°C)
206
182
256
2.62
2.02
2.91
0.0001
1890
2030
               *Key: low volatility, <1.0E-05atm
                     medium volatility, 1.0E-05 - 1.0E-3
                     high volatility, 1.0E-03- 1.0
                     very high volatility, >1.0

-------
                TABLE B-3
LISTING OF CONSTITUENT-SPECIFIC SURROGATES
Constituent
Acrylamide
Acrylonitrile
Aldicarb
Aldrin
Aniline
Arsenic
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bromodichloromethane
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
1 -Chloro-2, 3-
epoxy propane
(Epichlorohydrin)
Chloroform
Chromium (hexavalent)
DDT
Dibenz(a,h) anthracene
1,2-Dibromo-3-
Chloropropane (DBCP)
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
(Methylene chloride)
CAS
No.
79-06-1
107-13-1
116-06-3
309-00-2
62-53-3
7440-38-2
56-55-3
71-43-2
50-32-8
7440-41-7
111-44-4
75-27-4
7440-43-9
56-23-5
57-74-9
106-89-8
67-66-3
7440-47-3
50-29-3
53-70-3
96-12-8
106-93-4
107-06-2
75-35-4
75-09-2
Henry's Law
Constant
Surrogate Code
7
4
8
3
8
0
9
1
9
0
5
3
0
3
6
6
3
0
3
9
6
3
3
3
1
Raoult's Law
Surrogate Code
4
1
9
7
5
0
7
1
8
0
5
7
0
3
7
3
3
0
7
7
6
3
3
3
1
                  B-3

-------
                      TABLE B-3
LISTING OF CONSTITUENT-SPECIFIC SURROGATES (Continued)
Constituent
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
1,4-Dioxane
1 ,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Endosulfan
Ethylene oxide
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hydrazine
Isobutyl alcohol
Lindane (gamma-
Hexachlorocyclohexane)
3-Methyl-cholanthrene
4,4-Methylene-bis-(2-
chloroaniline)
Methyl parathion
Nickel
Nickel (refinery dust)
Nickel subsulfide
2-Nitropropane
N-Nitroso-N-methyl urea
N-Nitroso-pyrrolidine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
CAS
No.
120-83-2
51-28-5
121-14-2
123-91-1
122-66-7
115-29-7
75-21-8
76-44-8
118-74-1
87-68-3
67-72-1
302-01-2
78-83-1
58-89-9
56-49-5
101-14-4
298-00-0
1440-02-0
7440-02-0
12035-72-2
79-46-9
684-93-5
930-55-2
608-93-5
87-86-5
Henry's Law
Constant
Surrogate Code
8
9
9
6
9
9
4
3
6
3
9
9
7
9
6
3
6
0
0
0
6
5
2
3
9
Raoult's Law
Surrogate Code
5
3
6
3
7
7
10
7
7
6
6
3
4
7
7
6
6
0
0
0
3
9
2
6
7
                        B-4

-------
                      TABLE B-3
LISTING OF CONSTITUENT-SPECIFIC SURROGATES (Continued)
Constituent
Perchloroethylene
(Tetrachloroethylene)
Styrene
1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorobenzene
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Tetraethyl lead
Thiourea
Toxaphene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
CAS
No.
127-18-4
100-42-5
95-94-3
79-34-5
58-90-2
78-00-2
62-56-6
8001 -35-2
79-00-5
79-01-6
95-95-4
88-06-2
Henry's Law
Constant
Surrogate Code
3
3
3
6
9
3
6
3
6
3
6
6
Raoult's Law
Surrogate Code
3
6
6
6
6
6
3
6
3
3
6
6
                        B-5

-------
     Appendix C


Emission Rate Estimates
Disposal Impoundments
 (Quiescent Surfaces)

-------
                                                                               TABLE C-1
                                   EMISSION RATE MODELING SOURCE SCENARIO CASE SPECIFICATIONS - DISPOSAL IMPOUNDMENT
Modeling
Parameters
Area (acres)
Depth (m)
Turnovers (per yr)
Constituent
concentration (ppm)
Air temperature (°C)
Wind speed (mph)
Calculational period (yrs)
CASE NUMBERS
I
2.2
0.9
2
1000
25
10
1
2
2.2
1.8
2
1000
25
10
1
3
2.2
3.6
2
1000
25
10
1
4
2.2
5.0
2
1000
25
10
I
5
2.2
1.8
0.5
1000
25
10
1
6
2.2
1.8
1
1000
25
10
I
7
2.2
1.8
9
L
1000
25
10
I
8
2.2
1.8
3
1000
25
10
I
9
2.2
1.8
2
10
25
10
I
10
2.2
1.8
2
1000
25
10
1
11
2.2
1.8
9
L
2000
2b
10
I
12
2.2
1.8
9
4000
2b
10
I
13
2.2
1.8
2
1000
25
10
1
14
2.2
1.8
9
L
1000
25
10
5
15
2.2
1.8
9
L
1000
25
10
10
16
2.2
1.8
2
1000
25
10
70
17**
2.2
0.9
I
10
2b
10
I
18***
2.2
1.8
2
1000
25
10
1
19****
2.2
3.6
3
4000
25
10
1
n
                    Input assumptions:
                    - Active biomass = 0.0 g/l
                    - Biomass solids in = 0.0 mVsec
               **    - Submerged air flow = 0.0 mYsec
                    Reasonable Best Case (minimum)  Emissions (assuming typical source area)
               * * * Typical Emission Conditions (assuming typical source area)
               * * * * Reasonable Worst Case (maximum) Emissions (assuming typical source area)
               Note: If actual input values vary significantly from the above scenarios it is recommended that CHEMDAt6 be used to calculate emission estimates directly.

-------
                      TABLE C-2
EMISSION RATE ESTIMATES (106 g/yr) - DISPOSAL IMPOUNDMENT
Henry's Law Constant Surrogate
MHLB
HHLB
LHMB
MHMB
HHMB
LHHB
Mh'HB
HHHB
Henry's Law Constant Surrogate
MHLB
HHLB
LHMB
MHMB
HHMA
LHHB
MHHB
HHHB
Henry's Law Constant Surrogate
MHLB
HHLB
LHMB
MHMB
HHMB
LHHB
MHHB
HHHB
(Casel)
162
162
11.0
162
162
80
162
162
(Case 9)
03
0.3
0.1
03
0.3
0.1
03
03
(Case 17)
01
01
01
0.1
0.1
0.1
01
O.I
(Case 2)
32.4
324
14.1
324
324
9.4
324
32.4
(Case 10)
32.4
324
14.1
32.4
32.4
94
324
324
(Case 16)
324
324
14.1
324
324
94
324
32 4
(CaVe 3)
648
64.8
16.1
648
64.8
10.1
64.8
64.8
(Case 1 1)
648
64.8
28.2
64.8
648
18.7
648
646
(Case 19)
3884
3888
675
3888
388.8
41 6
3888
3888
(Case 4)
899
900
167
90.0
90.0
104
900
900
(Case 12)
1296
1296
564
1296
129.6
375
1296
1296









(Case 5)
81
8.1
73
81
8.1
6.0
81
81
1 Year
(Case 13)
324
324
14.1
324
32.4
9.4
324
324









(Case 6)
162
162
110
162
162
80
162
162
5 Years
(Case 14)
324
324
14.1
324
324
94
324
324









(Case 7)
32.4
324
14 1
32.4
324
94
324
324
10 Years
(Case 15)
324
324
14.1
32.4
324
94
324
324









(Case 8)
486
486
154
486
486
9.9
486
486
70 Years
(Case 16)
324
324
14 1
324
324
94
324
324










-------
          Appendix D
     Emission Rate Estimates
Storage Impoundments/Open Tanks
       (Quiescent Surfaces)

-------
                                                               TABLE D-1
                   EMISSION RATE MODELING SOURCE SCENARIO  CASE SPECIFICATIONS - STORAGE IMPOUNDMENT
Modeling
Parameters
Area (acres)
Depth (m)
Retention time (days)
Constituent
concentration (ppm)
Air temperature (°C)
Wind speed (mph)
Calculational period (yrs)
CASE NUMBERS
I
0.4
0.9
20
1000
25
10
I
2
0.4
1.8
20
1000
25
10
I
3
0.4
3.6
20
1000
25
10
I
4
0.4
5.0
20
1000
25
10
I
5
0.4
1.8
I
1000
25
10
I
6
0.4
1.8
20
1000
25
10
1
7
0.4
1.8
50
1000
25
10
I
8
0.4
1.8
550
1000
25
10
I
9
0.4
1.8
20
10
25
10
I
10
0.4
1.8
20
1000
25
10
I
11
0.4
1.8
20
2000
25
10
I
12
0.4
1.8
20
4000
25
10
I
13
0.4
1.8
20
1000
25
10
I
14
0.4
1.8
20
1000
25
10
5
15
0.4
1.8
20
1000
25
10
10
16
0.4
1.8
20
1000
25
10
70
17**
0.4
0.9
550
10
25
10
I
18***
0.4
1.8
20
1000
25
10
1
1 9****
0.4
5.0
I
4000
25
10
1
     Input assumptions:
     - Active biomass = 0.0 g/l
**   - Biomass solids in = 0.0 mVsec
***  Reasonable Best Case (minimum) Emissions (assuming typical source area)
**** Typical Emission Conditions (assuming typical source area)
     Reasonable Worst Case (maximum) Emissions (assuming typical source area)
Note: If actual input values vary significantly from the above scenarios it is recommended that CHEMDAT6 be used to calculate emission estimates directly

-------
          Appendix E
     Emission Rate Estimates
Oil Films on Storage Impoundments

-------
                                                                         TABLE E-1
                       EMISSION RATE MODELING SOURCE SCENARIO  CASE SPECIFICATIONS - OIL FILM ON STORAGE IMPOUNDMENT
Modeling
Parameters
Area (acres)
Depth of oil film (m)
Retention time (days)
constituent
concentration in oil
(ppm)
Air temperature (°C)
Wind speed (mph)
Calculation! period (yrs)
CASE NUMBERS
I
0.4
7.2E-04
20
200
25
10
I
2
0.4
7.2E-03
20
200
25
10
I
3
0.4
7.2E-02
20
200
25
10
I
4
0.4
7.2E-01
20
200
25
10
I
5
0.4
7.2E-02
1
200
25
10
I
6
0.4
7.2E-02
20
200
25
10
I
7
0.4
7.2E-02
50
200
25
10
I
8
0.4
7.2E-02
365
200
25
10
I
9
0.4
7.2E-02
20
100
25
10
I
10
0.4
7.2E-02
20
200
25
10
I
11
0.4
7.2E-02
20
1000
25
10
1
12
0.4
7.2E-02
20
5000
25
10
I
13
0.4
7.2E-02
20
200
25
10
I
14
0.4
7.2E-02
20
200
25
10
5
15
0.4
7.2E-02
20
200
25
10
10
16
0.4
7.2E-02
20
200
25
10
70
17**
0.4
7.2E-04
365
100
25
to
I
18***
0.4
7.2E-02
20
200
25
10
I
•1 Q****
0.4
7.2E-01
I
5000
25
to
I
     Input assumptions:
     - Oil (fraction of waste) = 1.0
     - Molecular weight of oil = 282
tt   -Density of oil = 1.0
     Reasonable Best Case (minimum) Emissions (assuming typical source area)
* * * Typical Emission Conditions (assuming typical source area)
* * * * Reasonable Worst Case (maximum) Emissions (assuming typical source area)
Note: If actual Input values vary significantly from the above scenarios it is recommended that CHEMDAT6 be used to calculate emission estimates directly.

-------
                             TABLE E-2
EMISSION RATE ESTIMATES (106 g/yr) - OIL FILMS ON STORAGE IMPOUNDMENTS
Raoult's Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
Raoult's Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
HVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
Raoult's Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
(Case 1)
394E-03
394E-03
3.94E-03
394E-03
394E-03
394E-03
1 08E-04
3.94E-03
3.94E-03
(Case 9)
0 197
0 197
0 197
0 197
0 195
0 197
550E-05
0.197
0.197
(Case 17)
1.08E 04
1 08E-04
1.08E-04
1.08E-04
1.08E-04
1.08E-04
4.25E-05
1.08E-04
1 08E-04
(Case 2)
0039
0039
0039
0039
0.039
0.039
1.10E-04
0039
0.039
(Case 10)
0394
0394
0.394
0.394
0389
0394
1 10E-04
0.394
0394
(Case 18)
0.394
0394
0394
0394
0394
0394
1.10E-04
0394
0394
(Case 3)
0394
0394
0.394
0394
0389
0394
i 10E-04
0394
0394
(Case 11)
971
971
971
.968
.945
968
550E-04
.971
971
(Case 19)
186351
188653
190463
6060
41 68
61 35
1.97E-03
1971 00
1971 00
(Case 4)
3.942
3942
3942
1 851
1.388
1 868
1 06E-04
3942
3942
(Case 12)
9855
9855
9855
9838
9727
9839
2.75E-03
9855
9855










(Case 5)
7884
7884
7884
2 115
1.517
2 137
i 02E-04
7.884
7884
1 Year
(Case 13)
0394
0394
0394
0394
0389
0394
1.10E-04
0394
0394










(Case 6)
0394
0394
0394
0394
0389
0394
i 10E-04
0394
0394
5 Years
(Case 14)
0394
0 394
0394
0.394
0389
0394
1 10E-04
0394
0 394










(Case 7)
0158
0158
0 158
0 158
0 158
0 158
1 10E-04
0158
0 158
10 Years
(Case 15)
0394
0394
0394
0394
0389
0394
1 10E-04
0394
0394










(Case 8)
0022
0022
0022
0022
0022
0022
i 08E-04
0022
0022
70Yeais
(Case 16)
0394
0394
0394
0394
0389
0394
1.10E-04
0394
0 394











-------
           Appendix F
      Emission Rate Estimates
Mechanically Aerated Impoundments

-------
                                                                            TABLE F-1
                        EMISSION RATE MODELING SOURCE SCENARIO CASE SPECIFICATIONS - MECHANICALLY AERATED IMPOUNDMENT
Modeling
Parameters
Area (acres)
Depth (m)
Retention time (days)
Constituent
concentration (ppm)
Fraction agitated
Air temperature (°C)
Wind speed (mph)
Calculational period (yrs)
CASE NUMBERS
I
0.4
0.9
10
1000
0.24
25
10
1
9
L
0.4
1.8
10
1000
0.24
25
10
1
3
0.4
3.6
10
1000
0.24
25
10
I
4
0.4
5.0
10
1000
0.24
25
10
I
5
0.4
1.8
3
1000
0.24
25
10
I
6
0.4
1.8
10
1000
0.24
25
10
I
7
0.4
1.8
15
1000
0.24
25
10
I
8
0.4
1.8
20
1000
0.24
25
10
I
9
0.4
1.8
10
10
0.24
25
10
I
10
0.4
1.8
10
1000
0.24
25
10
I
11
0.4
1.8
10
2000
0.24
25
10
I
12
0.4
1.8
10
4000
0.24
25
10
I
13
0.4
1.8
10
1000
0.17
25
10
I
14
0.4
1.8
10
1000
0.24
25
10
I
15
0.4
1.8
10
1000
0.52
25
10
1
16
0.4
1.8
10
1000
0.87
25
10
I
17
0.4
1.8
10
1000
0.24
25
10
I
18
0.4
1.8
10
1000
0.24
25
10
5
19
0.4
1.8
10
1000
0.24
25
10
10
20
0.4
1.8
10
1000
0.24
25
10
70
21**
0.4
0.9
20
10
0.17
25
10
1
22***
0.4
1.8
10
1000
0.24
25
10
I
23****
0.4
5.0
3
4000
0.87
25
10
I
     Input assumptions:
     -Active biomass = 0.0g/l
     - Biomass solids in = 0.0 mYsec
     - Submerged air flow = 0.0 mYsec
**   Number of impellers = 1
     Reasonable Best Case (minimum) Emissions (assuming typical source area)
* * * Typical Emission Conditions (assuming typical source area)
**** Reasonable Worst Case (maximum) Emissions (assuming typical source area)
Oxygen transfer correction factor = 0.83
Impeller diameter = 61 cm
Impeller speed = 126 rad/sec
Note: If actual input values, vary significantly from the above scenarios it is recommended that CHEMBAT6 be used to calculateemission estimates directly.

-------
                              TABLE F-2
EMISSION RATE ESTIMATES (106 g/yr) - MECHANICALLY AERATED IMPOUNDMENTS
Henry's Law Constant Surrogate
MHLB
HHLB
LHMB
MHMB
HHMB
LHHB
MHHB
HHHB
Henry's Law Constant Surrogate
MHLB
HHLB
LHMB
MHMB
HHMB
LHHB
MHHB
HHHB
Henry's Law Constant Surrogate
MHLB
HHLB
LHMB
MHMB
HHMB
LHHB
MHHB
HHHB
(Case 1)
47.2
49.2
11.0
48.3
49.2
7.9
48.6
49.2
(Case 9)
0.91
0.98
0.12
0.95
0.98
0.085
0.96
0.98
1Year
(Case 17)
90.6
98.4
12.3
94.7
98.3
8.5
95.9
98.4
(Case 2)
90.6
98.4
12.3
94.7
98.3
8.5
95.9
98.4
(Case 10)
90.6
98.4
12.3
94.7
98.3
8.5
95.9
98.4
5 Years
(Case 18)
90.6
98.4
12.3
94.7
98.3
8.5
95.9
98.4
(Case 3)
168.1
196.5
13.2
182.6
195.8
8.9
187.0
186.4
(Case 11)
181.2
196.9
24.7
189.5
196.5
17.1
191.9
196.8
10 Years
(Case 19)
90.6
98.4
12.3
94.7
98.3
8.5
95.9
98.4
(Case 4)
220.8
272.6
13.4
246.5
271.2
9.0
254.6
272.3
(Case 12)
362.4
393.8
49.4
379.0
393.0
34.2
383.8
393.6
70 Years
(Case 20)
90.6
98.4
12.3
94.7
98.3
8.5
95.9
98.4
(Case 5)
253.9
326.9
13.5
289.4
324.9
9.1
300.9
326.6
(Case 13)
86.6
98.4
8.9
92.6
98.0
6.0
94.4
98.3
(Case 21)
0.24
0.25
0.070
0.24
0.25
0.050
0.24
0.25
(Case 6)
90.6
98.4
12.3
94.7
98.3
8.5
95.9
98.4
(Case 14)
90.6
98.4
12.3
94.7
98.3
8.5
95.9
98.4
(Case 22)
90.6
98.4
12.3
94.7
98.3
8.5
95.9
98.4
(Case 7)
62.1
65.6
11.6
64.0
65.6
8.2
64.5
65.6
(Case 15)
95.4
98.5
25.5
97.1
98.5
18.8
97.6
98.5
(Case 23)
3,169.2
3,635.2
252.4
3,414.6
3,624.2
174.9
3,487.5
3,633.5
(Case 8)
47.2
49.2
11.0
48.3
49.2
7.9
48.6
49.2
(Case 16)
97.0
98.6
40.2
97.9
98.5
31.3
98.1
98.6










-------
     Appendix G


Emission Rate Estimates
 Diffused Air Systems

-------
                                                                                  TABLE G-1
                                      EMISSION RATE MODELING SOURCE SCENARIO CASE SPECIFICATIONS - DIFFUSED AIR SYSTEM*

Modeling
Parameters

Area (acres)
Depth (m)
Retention time
(hours)
Constituent
concentration
(ppm)
Submerged air
(Iow(m3/sec)
Air
temperature
TO
Wind speed
(mph)
Cakulational
period (yrs)
CASE NUMBERS


1
6 7E-03
2
4

1000

004

25


10

1



2
6 7E-03
4
4

1000

004

25


10

1



3
6.7E-03
5
4

1000

0.04

25


10

1



4
6.7E-03
6
4

1000

0.04

25


10

1



5
6.7E-03
4
3

1000

0.04

25


10

1



6
6.7E-03
4
4

1000

0.04

25


10

1


7
67E-03
4
5

1000

004

25


10

1


8
6.7E-03
4
6

1000

0.04

25


10

1


9
6.7E-03
4
4

10

0.04

25


10

1


10
6.7E-03
4
4

1000

0.04

25


10

1


11
67E-03
4
4

2000

0.04

25


10

1


12
6.7E-03
4
4

4000

004

25


10

1


13
6.7E-03
4
4

1000

0.03

25


10

1


14
6.7E-03
4
4

1000

0.04

25


10

1


15
6.7E-03
4
4

1000

0045

25


10

1


16
6.7E-03
4
4

1000

005

25


10

1


17
6.7E-03
4
4

1000

0.04

25


10

1


18
6.7E-03
4
4

1000

0.04

25


10

5


19
6.7E-03
4
4

1000

0.04

25


10

10


20
67E-03
4
4

1000

0.04

25


10

70


21**
67E-03
2
6

10

0.03

25


10

1


22***
6.7E-03
4
4

1000

004

25


10

1


23****
6.7E-03
6
3

4000

005

25


10

1

       Input assumptions:
         Active biomass = 0.0 g/l
         Biomass solids in = 0.0 nf/sec
         Fraction agitated = 0.0
         Number of impellers = 1
         Oxygen transfer rating = 3 Ib 02/h-hp
       Reasonable Best Case (minimum) Emissions (assuming typical source area)
      Typical Emission Conditions (assuming typical source area)
       Reasonable Worst Case (maximum) Emissions (assuming typical source area
Power (total) = 75 hp
Oxygen transfer correction factor = 0.83
Impeller diameter = 61 cm
Impeller speed = 126 rad/sec
Note: If actual input values vary significantly from the above scenarios it is recommended that CHEMDAT6 be used to calculate emission estimates directly.

-------
      Appendix H
Emission Rate Estimates
    Land Treatment
(Emissions  After Tilling)

-------
                                                                          TABLE H-1
                    EMISSION RATE MODELING SOURCE SCENARIO CASE SPECIFICATIONS - LAND TREATMENT (EMISSIONS AFTER TILLING)*
Modeling
Parameters
Area (acres)
Annual waste
(oil & water)
throughput ( 106g/yr)
Oil content of
waste(%)
Constituent of
interest content of oil
(ppm)
Soil porosity (%)
Tilling depth (cm)
Air temperature (°C)
Calculational period
(yrs)
CASE NUMBERS
1
6.2
1800
2
2000
50
20
25
1
2
6.2
1800
10
2000
50
20
25
1
3
6.2
1800
20
2000
50
20
25
1
4
6.2
1800
50
2000
50
20
25
1
5
6.2
1800
10
500
50
20
25
1
6
6.2
1800
10
2000
50
20
25
1
7
6.2
1800
10
5000
50
20
25
1
8
6.2
1800
10
10,000
50
20
25
1
9
6.2
1800
10
2000
43
20
25
1
10
6.2
1800
10
2000
50
20
25
1
11
6.2
1800
10
2000
50
20
25
1
12
6.2
1800
10
2000
65
20
25
1
13
6.2
1800
10
2000
50
15
25
1
14
6.2
1800
10
2000
50
20
25
I
15
6.2
1800
10
2000
50
40
25
I
16
6.2
1800
10
2000
50
65
25
I
17
6.2
1800
10
2000
50
20
25
I
18
6.2
1800
10
2000
50
20
25
5
19
6.2
1800
10
2000
50
20
25
10
20
6.2
1800
10
2000
50
20
25
70
21"
6.2
1800
2
500
43
65
25
I
22***
6.2
1800
10
2000
50
20
25
I
23****
6.2
1800
50
10000
65
15
25
I
     Input assumptions:
         Molecular weight of oil  =  282
         Organics (VO) dissolved in water = 0.0
         Biodegradation considered = yes
     Reasonable Best Case (minimum) Emissions (assuming typical source area)
    Typical Emission Conditions (assuming typical source area)
    * Reasonable Worst Case (maximum) Emissions (assuming typical source area)
Note: If actual input values vary significantly from the above scenarios it is recommended that CHEMDAT6 be used to calculate emission estimates directly.

-------
                                                                TABLE H-2
                                   EMISSION RATE ESTIMATES (106g/yr) - LAND TREATMENT (EMISSION AFTER TILLING)
Raoult's Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
Raoult's Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
HVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
Raoult's Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVM8
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
(Case 1)
0.071
0.072
0.072
0.044
0.063
0.071
7.92E-04
0.072
0.072
(Case 9)
0.334
0.355
0.359
0.091
0.194
0.330
1 .44E-03
0.355
0.359
(Case 1 7)
0.341
0.357
0.359
0.108
0.219
0.338
1 .80E-03
0.356
0.359
(Case 2)
0.341
0.357
0.359
0.108
0.219
0.338
1 .80E-03
0.356
0.359
(Case 10)
0.341
0.357
0.359
0.108
0.219
0.338
1 .80E-03
0.356
0.359
(Case 18)
0.341
0.357
0.359
0.108
0.219
0.338
1 .80E-03
0.356
0.359
(Case 3)
0.650
0.708
0.719
0.153
0.338
0.639
2.16E-03
0.708
0.719
(Case 11)
0.345
0.357
0.359
0.121
0.235
0.342
1 .80E-03
0.357
0.359
(Case 19)
0.341
0.357
0.359
0.108
0.219
0.338
1 .80E-03
0.356
0.359
(Case 4)
1.431
1.730
1.793
0.243
0.533
1.382
3.60E-03
1.728
1.796
(Case 12)
0.349
0.358
0.359
0.147
0.262
0.347
2.52E-03
0.358
0.359
(Case 20)
0.341
0.357
0.359
0.108
0.219
0.338
1 .80E-03
0.356
0.359
(Case 5)
0.085
0.089
0.090
0.027
0.055
0.085
4.50E-04
0.089
0.090
(Case 13)
0.346
0.357
0.359
0.125
0.240
0.343
2.16E-03
0.357
0.359
(Case 21)
0.017
0.018
0.018
0.006
0.011
0.017
9.00E-05
0.018
0.018
(Case 6)
0.341
0.357
0.359
0.108
0.219
0.338
1 .BOE-03
0.356
0.359
(Case 14)
0341
0.357
0.359
0.108
0.219
0.338
1 .80E-03
0.356
0.359
(Case 22)
0.341
0.357
0.359
0.108
0.219
0.338
1 .80E-03
0.356
0.359
(Case 7)
0853
0.892
0.898
0.271
0.548
0.845
4.50E-03
0.891
0.898
(Case 15)
0.325
0.354
0.359
0.077
0.169
0.319
1 .08E-03
0.354
0.359
(Case 23)
8.118
8.847
8.982
1.908
4.194
7.974
2.70E-02
8.838
8.982
(Case 8)
1.706
1.784
1.796
0.542
1.096
1.690
9.00E-03
1.782
1.796
(Case 16)
0.308
0.351
0.359
0.060
0.133
0.300
1 .08E-03
0.350
0.359










I
f-J

-------
              Appendix I
        Emission Rate Estimates
Oil Film Surface on Land Treatment Units

-------
                                                                      TABLE 1-1
              EMISSION RATE MODELING SOURCE SCENARIO CASE SPECIFICATIONS - OIL FILM SURFACE ON LAND TREATMENT UNITS*

Modeling
Parameters

Area (acres)
Depth of oil film(m)
Number of Applications
per year
Constituent
concentration in oil
(ppm)
Air temperature (°C)
Wind speed (mph)
Calculational period (yrs)
CASE NUMBERS


1
6.2
7.2E-04
365


200

25
10
1


2
62
7.2E-03
365


200

25
10
1


3
6.2
7.2E-02
365


200

25
10
1

4
6.2
7.2E-01
365


200

25
10
1

5
62
7.2E-02
20


200

25
10
1

6
6.2
7.2E-02
50


200

25
10
1

7
6.2
7.2E-02
365


200

25
10
1

8
6.2
7.2E-02
730


200

25
10
1

9
62
7.2E-02
365


100

25
10
1

10
62
7.2E-02
365


200

25
10
1

11
6.2
7.2E-02
365


1000

25
10
1

12
62
7.2E-02
365


5000

25
10
1

13
62
7.2E-02
365


200

25
10
1

14
62
7.2E-02
365


200

25
10
5

15
62
7.2E-02
365


200

25
10
10

16
62
7.2E-02
365


200

25
10
70

17**
62
7.2E-04
20


100

25
10
1

18***
62
7.2E-02
365


200

25
10
1

19****
62
7.2E-01
730


5000

25
10
1
*    Input assumptions:
         Flow = 0.0 m3/sec
         Oil (fraction of waste) =  1.0
         Molecular weight of oil = 282
         Density of oil = I.Og/cc
     Reasonable Best Case (minimum) Emissions (assuming typical source area)
* * *  Typical Emission Conditions (assuming typical source area)
     Reasonable Worst Case (maximum) Emissions (assuming typical source area)
Note: If actual input values vary significantly from the above scenarios it is recommended that CHEMDAT6 be used to calculate emisison estimates directly

-------
                               TABLE 1-2
EMISSION RATE ESTIMATES (10« g/yr) - OIL FILM SURFACE ON LAND TREATMENT UNIT
Raoult s Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
Raoult's Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
HVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
Raoult s Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
' MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB

(Case 1)
.3
.3
.3
3
.3
.3
1 55E-03
.3
.3
(Case 9)
65.7
657
65.7
154
11.0
156
7.23E-04
657
65.7
(Case 17)
0036
0.036
0036
0036
0036
762E-04
0036

(Case 2)
13 1
13.1
13.1
12 2
11.0
123
1.54E-03
13.1
13.1
(Case 10)
131.4
131.4
131.4
30.8
22.0
31 2
1.45E-03
131.4
131 4
(Case 18)
131.4
131.4
131 4
308
in
1 45E-03
131 4

(Case 3)
131.4
131.4
131.4
30.8
220
31 2
1.45E-03
131.4
131 4
(Case 11)
657.0
657.0
657.0
154.2
1099
155.9
7.23E-03
657.0
6570
(Case 19)
46.0724
47,942.7
49,6346
846.7
857.3
038
65,699 1

(Case 4)
1,205.2
1,225.5
1,2420
347
238
35 1
1.31E-03
1,314.0
1,3140
(Case 12)
3,285.0
3,285.0
3,285.0
771.1
549.7
7795
0.036
3,285.0
3,2850









(Case 5)
72
72
72
7.1
69
7.1
1.54E-03
7.2

1 Year
(Case 13)
131.4
131.4
131.4
308
220
31.2
1.45E-03
131.4










(Case 6)
180
18.0
180
154
13.2
155
1 53E 03
18.0

5 Years
(Case 14)
131.4
131 4
131.4
308
22.0
31 2
1 45E-03
131.4










(Case 7)
131.4
131.4
131.4
308
22.0
31 2
1.45E-03
131.4

10 Years
(Case 15)
131.4
131.4
131 4
308
220
31 2
1 45E-03
131 4










(Case 8)
2628
2628
2628
327
228
33 1
1.31E-03
2628

70 Years
(Case 16)
131.4
131 .f,
131 4
308
220
31 2
1 45E-03
131.4











-------
     Appendix J

Emission Rate Estimates
    Closed Landfills

-------
                                                                                   TABLE J-1
                                EMISSION RATE MODELING SOURCE SCENARIO CASE SPECIFICATIONS - CLOSED LANDFILL (VENTED)*
Modeling
Parameters
Area (acres)
Waste-bed thickness
(ft)
Cap thickness (ft)
Weight percent
organics (VO) in waste
Air porosity of fixed
waste (%)
Waste liquid density
(g/cm3)
Cap air porosity (%)
Cap total porosity (%)
Temperature beneath
cap fC)
Typical barometric
pressure (mb)
Typical barometric
pressure drop (mb)
Air temperature (°C)
Calculational period
(yrs)
CASE NUMBERS
I
3.5
15
3.5
40
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
1
2
3.5
30
3.5
40
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
1
3
3.5
60
3.5
40
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
I
4
3.5
120
3.5
40
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
1
5
3.5
15
2
40
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
1
6
3.5
15
3.5
40
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
1
7
3.5
15
5
40
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
1
8
3.5
15
6
40
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
1
9
3.5
15
3.5
10
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
I
10
3.5
15
3.5
40
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
1
11
3.5
15
3.5
60
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
1
12
3.5
15
3.5
90
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
I
13
3.5
15
3.5
40
5
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
1
14
3.5
15
3.5
40
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
I
15
3.5
15
3.5
40
50
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
1
16
3.5
15
3.5
40
75
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
1
17
3.5
15
3.5
40
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
I
18
3.5
15
3.5
40
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
5
19
3.5
15
3.5
40
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
10
20
3.5
15
3.5
40
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
70
21"
3.5
15
6
10
5
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
1
22***
3.5
15
3.5
40
25
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
1
23****
3.5
120
2
90
75
1.2
8
41
15
1013
4
25
I
      Input  assumptions:
          100%  of the organics in  waste  is the  constituent  of interest
         Weight percent oil  in waste =  O.0% (fraction  =  0.0)
         Weight percent water in  waste  =  100%-organlcs  (fraction  =  1.0-organics)
         Barometric  pumping time  = 86,400 sec
         Molecular  weight oil  = 147

        Reasonable  Best Case  (minimum)  Emissions  (assuming typical  source area)
        Typical  Emission Conditions (assuming typical source area)
        Reasonable  Worst Case  (maximum) Emissions  (assuming  typical  source area)
 CHEMDAT6 CC/GVOC conversion factor = 1750
 Active biomass = 0.0 g/cc
 Organics  dissolved in  water =  0  (i.e., use  Raoult's Law)
 R ho-liquid density  =  1.0  g/cm3
Molecular  weight  of liquid  =  18
Note:  If actual  input values vary significantly from the  above  scenarios it is recommended that  CHEMDAT6  be used to  calculate emission  estimates directly

-------
                       TABLE J-2
EMISSION RATE ESTIMATES (106g/yr) - CLOSED LANDFILL (VENTED)
Raoult's Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
Raoult's Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
Raoult's Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
(Case 1)
2.44E +01
2.24E +01
4.69E +01
4.45E -01
3.98E-01
8.08E-01
1 .55E-05
1.19E+02
2.64E +02
(Case 9)
2.44E +01
2.24E +01
4.68E +01
4.45E-01
3.98E-01
8.08E-01
1 .55E-05
1.18E+02
2.61E+02
1 Year
(Case 1 7)
2.44E +01
2.24E +01
4.70E+01
4.45E-01
3.98E-01
8.08E-01
1 55E-05
1.19E +02
2.64E +02
(Case 2)
4.44E +01
3.96E +01
8.60E +01
8.24E-01
7.46E-01
1.51 E+00
2.83E-05
2.15E+02

(Case 10)
2.44E +01
2.24E +01
4.70E +01
4.45E-01
3.98E-01
8.08E-01
1 .55E-05
1.19E+02
2.64E +02
5 Years
(Case 18)
2.44E +01
2.24E+01
4.68E +01
4.45E-01
3.98E-01
8.08E-01
1.55E 05
1 18E + 02
2 60E + 02
(Case 3)
8.44E +01
7.40E +01
1 .64E +02
1 .58E +00
1 .44E+00
2.92E+00
5.39E-05
4.09E +02
9.03E +02
(Case 11)
2.44E +01
2.24E +01
4.70E +01
4.45E-01
3.98E-01
8.08E-01
1 .55E-05
1.19E+02
2.64E +02
10 Years
(Case 19)
2.44E +01
2.23E +01
4.66E+01
4.45E-01
3.98E -01
8.08E -01
1 55E 05
1.17E +02
2 5-1E + 02
(Case 4)
1 .64E + 02
1 .43E +02
3.20E +02
3.10E+00
2.83E +00
5.73E +00
1 .05E-04
7.96E +02
1.76E+03
(Case 12)
2.44E +01
2.24E +01
4.70E +01
4.45E-01
3.98E-01
8.08 E-01
1 .55E-05
1.19E+02
2.65E + 02
70 Years
(Case 20)
2.38 +01
2.18E+01
4.45E +01
4.45E-01
3.98E -01
8 OiiE-01
1 5',F OS
1 (ME i 02
1 <1!>|- t 02
(Case 5)
2.78E +01
2.63E +01
5.29E +01
4.94E-01
4.36E-01
8.88E-01
1 .76E-05
I" 1 .35E +02
3.02E +02
(Case 13)
8.45E +00
8.63E +00
1.57E+01
1.41 E-01
1 .20E-01
2.46E-01
5.29E-06
4.14E+01
9.40E+01
(Case 21)
6.59E +00
6.47E +00
1 .24E +01
1.14E-01
989E 02
2.02E-01
'1 15E-06
3 22C * 01
7 2'1C i 01
(Case 6)
2.44E +01
2.24E +01
4.70E +01
4.45E-01
3.98E-01
8.08E-01
1 .55E -05
1.19E+02
2.64E +02
(Case 14)
2.44E +01
2.24E+01
4.70E +01
4.45E-01
3.98E-01
8.08E-01
1 .55E-05
1.19E+02
2.64E +02
(Case 22)
2.44E +01
2.24E +01
4.70E +01
4.45E-01
3.98E-01
8 08E-01
1 55E-05
1 19E + 02
2 64fc +02
(Case 7)
2.31 E+01
2.08E +01
4.46E +01
4.25E-01
3.83E-01
7.77E-01
1 .47E-05
1.12E+02
2.49E + 02
(Case 15)
4.44E +01
3.96E +01
8.60E +01
8.25E-01
7.46E-01
1.51 E+00
2.83E-05
2.15E+02
4.75E +02
(Case 23)
4.88E +02
4.22E +02
9.51E+02
9.22E+00
8.44E +00
1.70E + 01
3 12E-04
2 36E + 03
5.20E + 03
(Case 8)
2.26E +01
2.02E +01
4.37E +01
4.18E-01
3.77E-01
7.64E-01
1 .44E-05
1.0E +02
2.43E +02
(Case 16)
6.44E +01
5.68E +01
1.25E+02
1.20E+OO
1 .09E +00
2.21 E+OO
4.11E-05
3.11E+02
6.85E +02











-------
     AppendixK

Emission Rate Estimates
    Open  Landfills

-------
                                                                           TABLE K-1
                                    EMISSION RATE MODELING SOURCE SCENARIO CASE SPECIFICATIONS - OPEN LANDFILL*
Modeling
Parameters
Area (acres)
Waste-bed thickness
(ft)
Constituent content
of waste (%)
Air porosity of fixed
waste (%)
Total porosity of fixed
waste (%)
Waste liquid density
(g/cm3)
Air temperature (°C)
Cakulational period
(yrs)
CASE NUMBERS
I
3.5
3
40
25
50
1.2
25
I
2
3.5
7.5
40
25
50
1.2
25
I
3
3.5
15
40
25
50
1.2
25
1
4
3.5
30
40
25
50
1.2
25
1
5
3.5
7.5
10
25
50
1.2
25
I
6
3.5
7.5
40
25
50
1.2
25
1
7
3.5
7.5
60
25
50
1.2
25
I
8
3.5
7.5
90
25
50
1 .2
25
I
9
3.5
7.5
40
5
50
1.2
25
I
10
3.5
7.5
40
25
50
1.2
25
I
11
3.5
7.5
40
35
50
1.2
25
I
12
3.5
7.5
40
50
50
1.2
25
1
13
3.5
7.5
40
25
10
1.2
25
I
14
3.5
7.5
40
25
25
1.2
25
1
15
3.5
7.5
40
25
50
1.2
25
I
16
3.5
7.5
40
25
75
1.2
25
I
17
3.5
7.5
40
25
50
1.2
25
I
18
3.5
7.5
40
25
50
1.2
25
5
19
3.5
7.5
40
25
50
1.2
25
10
20
3.5
7.5
40
25
50
1.2
25
70
21**
3.5
3
10
5
75
1.2
25
I
22***
3.5
7.5
40
25
50
1.2
25
I
23****
3.5
30
90
50
10
1.2
25
I
'     Input assumptions
         Organic (VO) concentration of waste = 1,000,000 ppmw
         Molecular weight of oil = 147
         Organics dissolved in water = 0 (i.e., no)
M       Biodegradation = 0 (i.e., no)
^   Reasonable Best Case (minimum)  Emissions (assuming typical source area)
     Typical Emission Conditions (assuming typical source area)
****  Reasonable Worst Case (maximum) Emissions (assuming typical source area)
Note: If actual values vary significantly from the above scenarios it is recommended that CHEMDAT6 be used to calculate emission estimates directly.

-------
                                                                    TABLE K-2
                                                 EMISSION RATE ESTIMATES (106 g/yr)  OPEN LANDFILL
Raoult's Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
Raoult's Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
Raoult's Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
(Case 1)
7692
B4I.3
817.3
781
60.1
78 1
05
2361.7
25180
(Case 9)
300
30.0
300
2.4
2.0
23
002
75 1
75.1
1 year
(Case 17)
7662
841.3
811 3
75.1
60 1
75.1
0.6
23587
25090
(Case 2)
766.2
841.3
811.3
75 1
60.1
751
06
23587
25090
(Case 10)
7662
841.3
811.3
75.1
'60.1
751
06
23587
2509.0
5 years
(Case 18)
1727.7
18780
18329
1653
1352
165.3
1.2
52734
56189
(Case 3)
781 2
B41 3
811.3
90.1
60 1
90 1
06
23738
25240
(Case 11)
15925
17428
1697.7
1653
120.2
150.2
1.1
4882.7
52133
10 years
(Case 19)
24339
26592
2584 1
240.4
1953
240.4
1.7
7451 8
7917 5
(Case 4)
781.2
841.3
841.3
60 1
60 1
60.1
0.6
2343.7
25240
(Case 12)
34555
37860
36808
345.5
2704
3305
24
103364
10907.3
70 years
(Case 20)
64452
7046.2
68509
646.0
5108
631 0
4.4
14558 1
14723 3
(Case 5)
3869
4207
409.4
37.6
300
376
03
11794
12582
(Case 13)
3846 1
42067
40865
3756
3005
3756
2.7
112979
118538
(Case 21)
79
86
84
08
06
08
0.01
24 1
25 7
(Case 6)
7662
841 3
811.3
75 1
60 1
75.1
06
23587
25090
(Case 14)
1547 5
1682 7
16376
1502
1202
1502
11
4717 5
5033.0
(Case 22)
7662
841 3
811 3
75 1
60 1
75 1
06
2358 7
25090
(Case?)
9465
10366
991.6
90 1
67.6
90.1
07
2884 6
30874
(Case 15)
7662
841.3
811 3
75.1
60.1
75 1
06
23587
25090
(Case 23)
25961 1
283950
275837
25691
20282
2569 1
176
78829 9
836976
(Case 8)
11493
12507
12169
101 4
101.4
101 4
07
35494
37860
(Case 16)
5108
5559
5409
45 1
45 1
45 1
03
15775
1682 7










7s
ro

-------
     Appendix L
Emission Rate Estimates
      Wastepiles

-------
                                                                             TABLE L-1
                                      EMISSION  RATE MODELING SOURCE SCENARIO CASE SPECIFICATIONS - WASTEPILES*
Modeling
Parameters
Area (acres)
Turnover rate (per
year)
Constituent content
of waste (%)
Air porosity of fixed
waste (%)
Total porosity of fixed
waste (%)
Pile height(m)
Waste liquid density
(g/cm3)
Air temperature (°C)
Calculational period
(yrs)
CASE NUMBERS
1
0.1
730
40
25
50
I
1.2
25
1
2
0.1
365
40
25
50
I
1.2
25
I
3
0.1
140
40
25
50
I
1.2
25
I
4
0.1
52
40
25
50
1
1.2
25
1
5
0.1
140
10
25
50
1
1.2
25
1
6
0.1
140
40
25
50
1
1.2
25
I
7
0.1
140
60
25
50
I
1.2
25
1
8
0.1
140
90
25
50
1
1.2
25
1
9
0.1
140
40
5
50
1
1.2
25
1
10
0.1
140
40
25
50
I
1.2
25
1
11
0.1
140
40
35
50
I
1.2
25
I
12
0.1
140
40
50
50
I
1.2
25
I
13
0.1
140
40
25
10
I
1.2
25
I
14
0.1
140
40
25
25
I
1.2
25
I
15
0.1
140
40
25
50
I
1.2
25
I
16
0.1
140
40
25
75
I
1.2
25
I
17
0.1
140
40
25
50
I
1.2
25
I
18
0.1
140
40
25
50
1
1.2
25
5
19
0.1
140
40
25
50
I
1.2
25
10
20
0.1
140
40
25
50
1
1.2
25
70
21"
0.1
52
10
5
75
1
1.2
25
1
22***
0.1
140
40
25
50
1
1.2
25
I
23****
0.1
730
90
50
10
I
1.2
25
I
*     Input assumptions:
         Organic (VO) concentration of waste = 1,000,000 ppmw
         Molecular weight of oil =  147
         Organics dissolved in water = O (i.e., no)
         Biodegradation = O  (i.e.,  no)
**    Reasonable Best Case (minimum) Emissions (assuming typical source area)
***   Typical Emission Conditions (assuming typical source area)
* *** Reasonable Worst Case (maximum) Emissions (assuming typical source area)
Note: If actual Input values vary significantly from the above scenarios it is recommended that CHEMDAT6 be used to calculate emission estimates directly

-------
                 TABLE L-2
EMISSION RATE ESTIMATES (106 g/yr) - WASTEPILE
Raoull's Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVM8
MVLB
LVMB
VHVH8
VHVLB
Raoull's Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
Raoult's Law Surrogate
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
(Case 1)
5953
651.6
633.7
593
47.6
583
0.4
5824.4
1947.9
(Case 9)
80
88
85
0.8
06
08
0.01
245
26 1
(Case 17)
261.4
2849
2770
260
209
25 5
0.2
799 3
852 1
(Case 2)
421.1
4609
447 9
41.9
336
41.2
0.3
1289.4
1378.6
(Case 10)
261.4
2849
2770
260
209
25 5
0.2
799.3
852 1
(Case 18)
261.4
2849
2770
260
20.9
25 5
02
799 3
852 1
(Case 3)
2614
2849
277.0
26.0
20.9
255
0.2
739.3
852.1
(Case 11)
5408
593.5
575.1
538
43.3
530
0.4
6593
767.4
(Case 19)
261 4
2849
2770
260
209
25 5
0.2
799 3
852 1
(Case 4)
1537
1744
1695
159
12.7
15.6
0.1
487.9
5203
(Case 12)
11739
1284 7
1247.8
1166
936
1148
08
3.5876
3,8250
(Case 20)
261.4
2849
2770
26.0
209
25 5
02
799 3
852 1
(Case 5)
1306
143 1
1392
13.0
104
128
0.1
3997
426 7
(Case 13)
13058
14298
1387.6
1298
104 2
1277
09
4.0097
4,273 5
(Case 21)
1.6
18
1.7
02
0.1
02
0001
50
53
(Case 6)
2514
2849
2770
260
209
25 5
02
7993
852 1
(Case 14)
5223
5724
5566
52.0
41.7
51 2
04
1,5986
1.706.8
(Case 22)
261 4
2849
2770
260
209
255
0.2
799.3
852 1
(Case 7)
320 1
3502
3403
31 8
256
31.3
02
981 3
1044 6
(Case 15)
261 4
2849
2770
260
209
25 5
02
7993
852 1
(Case 23)
20,061.7
21,9444
21.327.1
1,993.8
1,601 8
1.959.9
13 7
61.4196
65,431 9
(Case 8)
391.7
4291
416 7
389
31.3
383
03
11990
1282 0
(Case 16)
174 1
1907
185 2
17 3
139
170
01
532.9
5698











-------
      Appendix M

Emission Rate  Estimates
   Fixed Roof  Tanks

-------
                                                                             TABLE M-1
                                      EMISSION RATE MODELING SOURCE SCENARIO CASE SPECIFICATIONS - FIXED ROOF TANK
Modeling
Parameters
Tank diameter (ft)
Tank height (ft)
Turnovers (per yr)
throughput (10sgal/yr)
Calculational period (yrs)
CASE NUMBERS
1
10
40
2674
63
1
2
20
40
668
63
1
3
40
40
167
63
1
4
60
40
74
63
1
5
100
40
27
63
1
6
200
40
7
63
1
7
100
10
107
63
1
8
100
20
53
63
1
9
100
30
36
63
1
10
100
40
27
63
1
11
100
50
21
63
I
12
100
40
4
10

13
100
40
21
50
1
14
100
40
42
100
I
15
100
40
127
300
'
16
100
40
212
500
1
17
100
40
297
700
1
18
100
40
27
63
I
19
100
40
27
63
5
20
100
40
27
63
10
21
100
40
27
63
70
22*
20
40
668
63
1
23**
100
40
27
63
1
24***
200
50
59
700
1
       Reasonable Best Case (minimum) Emissions (assuming typical tank size)
       Typical Emission Conditions (assuming typical tank size)
       Reasonable Worst Case (maximum) Emission (assuming typical tank size)
Note: If actual input values vary significantly from the above scenarios it is recommended that AP-42 be used to calculate emission estimates directly.

-------
                   TABLE M-2
EMISSION RATE ESTIMATES (106 g/yr) - FIXED ROOF TANK
Raoult's Law
Surrogate
HVHB*
HVMB*
HVLB*
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB*
VHVLB*
Raoult's Law
Surrogate
HVHB*
HVMB*
HVLB*
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB*
VHVLB"
Raoult's Law
Surrogate
HVHB*
HVMB
HVLB*
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB*
VHVLB*
(Casel)
Breathing



1.6E-02
1.6E-02
2 9E-02
1.4E-05


Working



93E-01
85E-01
1 7E + 00
3.1E-05


(Case 9)
Breathing



1.5E + 00
1.5E + 00
27E + 00
1 3E-03


Working



39E + 00
3.5E + 00
7.1E + 00
1.3E-04


(Case 17)
Breathing



1 BE + 00
1.8E+00
32E+00
1.5E-03


Working



1 3E + 01
1 2E + 01
24E+01
4.3E-04


(Case 2)
Breathing



9.8E-02
9.8E-02
1.8E-01
8.5E-05


Working



9.3E-01
8.5E-01
1.7E + 00
3. IE-OS


(Case 10)
Breathing



1 8E + 00
1.8E+00
32E + 00
1.5E-03


Working



3.9E + 00
3.5E+00
7.1E + 00
1.3E-04


(Case 18)
Breathing



1 8E + 00
1 8E + 00
32E + 00
1.5E-03


Working



3.9E + 00
3.5E + 00
7.1E + 00
1.3E-04


(Case 3)
Breathing



36E-01
3.6E-01
6.5E-01
3 2E-04


Working



1.4E + 00
1.2E + 00
2.5E + 00
4.5E-05


(Case 11)
Breathing



2.0E + 00
2.0E + 00
3.5E + 00
1.7E-03


Working



3.9E + 00
3.5E + 00
7.1E + 00
1.3E-04


(Case 19)
Breathing



1 BE + 00
1 BE + 00
3.2E + 00
1.5E-03


Working



39E + 00
35E + 00
7 1E + 00
1.3E-04


(Case 4)
Breathing



7.3E-01
7.3E-01
1.3E + 00
64E-04


Working



2.7E + 00
25E + 00
5.0E + 00
9. IE-OS


(Case 12)
Breathing



1.8E + 00
1.8E+00
3.2E + 00
1.5E-03


Working



6.1E-01
5.6E-01
1.1E + 00
2. IE-OS


(Case 20)
Breathing



1 8E + 00
1.8E + 00
3.2E + 00
1.5E-03


Working



3.9E + 00
3.5E+00
7.1E + 00
1.3E-04


(Case 5)
Breathing



1.8E+00
1.8E + 00
3.2E + 00
1.5E-03


Working



39E+00
35E + 00
7.1E + 00
1.3E-04


(Case 13)
Breathing



1.8E + 00
1 BE + 00
3.2E+00
1.5E-03


Working



3.1E + 00
2.8E + 00
5.7E + 00
1.0E-04

-
(Case 21)
Breathing



1 8E + 00
1 8E + 00
32E + 00
1.5E-03


Working



3 9E + 00
3.5E + 00
7. 1 E + 00
1 3E-04


(Case 6)
Breathing



59E + 00
5.8E + 00
1.0E + 01
5.1E-03


Working



3.9E + 00
35E + 00
7.1E + 00
1.3E-04


(Case 14)
Breathing



1.8E + 00
1.8E + 00
32E + 00
1.5E-03


Working



4.9E + 00
4.5E + 00
9 IE + 00
1.7E-04


(Case 22)
Breathing



98E-02
9.8E-02
1.8E-01
8.5E-05


Working



9.3E-01
8.5E-01
1 7E + 00
3. IE-OS


(Case 7)
Breathing



8.7E-01
87E-01
1 6E + 00
7.6E-04


Working



1 8E + 00
1 6E + 00
3.3E + 00
6.0E-05


(Case 15)
Breathing



1.8E + 00
1 8E + 00
32E + 00
1.5E-03


Working



84E + 00
7.7E + 00
5.9E + 01
28E-04


(Case 23)
Breathing



1 BE +00
1.8E + 00
32E + 00
1.5E-03


Working



39E + 00
35E + 00
7 IE + 00
1.3E-04


(Case 8)
Breathing



1.2E + 00
1.2E+00
22E + 00
1.1E03


Working



27E + 00
25E+00
5 OE +00
9 IE-OS


(Case 16)
Breathing



1.8E + 00
1 8E + QO
3.2E + 00
1.5E-03


Working



92E + 00
8.4E + 00
1 7E + 01
3.1E-04


(Case 24)
Breathing



66E+00
65E + 00
1.2E + 01
5.7E-03


* I his type ol tank is not typically used tor materials with this high vapor pressure
Working



30E + 01
28E + 01
56E + 01
l.OE-03




-------
     Appendix  N

Emission Rate Estimates
  Floating Roof  Tanks

-------
                                                                    TABLE N-l
                           EMISSION RATE MODELING SOURCE SCENARIO CASE SPECIFICATION - FLOATING ROOF TANK

Modeling
Parameters

Rim seal class
(see Table J-3)

(see Table J-4)
Average liquid density
(Ib/gal)
Tank diameter
(ft)
Tank throughput
(10sgal/yr)
Calculational period
(yrs)
CASE NUMBERS


]
A



6.1

100

63

1


2
8



6.1

100

63

1


3
C



6.1

100

63

1


4
D



6.1

100

63

1


5
E



6.1

100

63

1


6
F



61

100

63

1


7
G



6.1

100

63

1


8
H



6.1

100

63

1


9
H



6.1

100

63

1


10
H



6.1

100

63

1


11
H



6.1

100

63

1


12
H



5.6

100

63

1


13
H



7.6

100

63

1


14
H



9.6

100

63

1


15
H



116

100

63

1


16
H



134


100

63

1


17
H



6 1


30

63

1


18
H



6 1


60

63

1


19
H



6 1


100

63

1


20
H

fa

6.1


140

63

1


21
H

fa

6.1


180

63

1


22
H

fa

6.1


100

63

15


23
H

fa

6.1


100

63

10


24
H

fa

6 1


100

63

70


25
H

fa

6.1


100

63

1


26'
H

fa

•if,


30

63

1


27"
H

fa

6.1


100

63

1


28"""
H

c

13.4

180

63

1

      Estimated Best Case (minimum) Emissions (assuming typical tank size)
      Typical Emission Conditions (assuming typical tank size)
      Estimated Worst Case (maximum) Emissions (assuming typical tank size)
Note: If actual input values vary significantly from the above scenarios it is recommended that AP-42 be used to calculate emission estimates directly

-------
                                                                     TABLE N-2
                                            EMISSION RATE ESTIMATES (106 g/yr). FLOATING ROOF TANK
Raoult's
Law
Surrogates
HVHB"
HVMB*
HVLB*
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB*
VHVLB*
Raoult's
Law
Surrogates
HVHB*
HVMB*
HVLB-
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB*
VHVLB*

Rim



1 3E-02
1 2E-02
2.4E-02
4.4E-07



Rim



62E 01
5.7E-01
1 1 E , 00
2 1E-05


Case 1
Wilhdiawal



62E-02
62E-02
62E-02
6.2E-02


Case?
Withdrawal



62E 02
6 2E-02
6 2E 02
6 2E 02



Fitting



30E-02
28E-02
56E-02
1.0E-06



Fitting



30E-02
28E-02
56E-02
1 OE-06


Case 2
Rim



3 5E-02
3.2E-02
64E-02
1 2E-06



Rim



1 OE.OO
9 5E-01
1 9E + 00
3.5E-05


Withdrawal



6.2E-02
6.2E-02
62E-02
62E 02


Fining



30E-02
28E-02
5.6E-02
1. OE-06


CaseS
Withdrawal



62E-02
6.2E-02
6.2E-02
6.2E-02


Fitting



3 OE-02
2 8E-02
5.6E-02
1. OE-06


Case 3
Rim



5.5E-02
5.IE-02
1 OE-01
1 9E-06


Withdrawal



6.2E-02
6.2E-02
62E-02
62E-02


Fitting



30E-02
28E-02
56E-02
1 OE-06


Case 9
Rim



1 OEtOO
95E-01
1 9E , 00
3.5E-05


Withdrawal



62E-02
62E-02
6 2E-02
62E 02


Fitting



30E-02
28E-02
5.6E-02
1 OE 06


Case 4
Rim



96E-02
88E-02
1 8E-01
3 2E-06


Withdrawal



62E-02
62E-02
62E-02
6.2E-02


Fitting



30E-02
28E-02
56E-02
1. OE-06


Case 10
Rim



1 OE,00
95E-01
1 9E + 00
3 5E-05


Withdrawal



3 IE 01
3 IE 01
3 1E-01
3 1E-01


Fitting



3.0E-02
28E-02
5.6E-02
1. OE-06


CaseS
Rim



1 8E-01
1.6E-01
33E-01
60E-06


Withdrawal



62E-02
62E-02
62E-02
62E-02


Fitting



30E-02
2.8E-02
56E-02
1 OE-06


Case 1 1
Rim



1 OE , 00
9.5E-01
1 9E.OO
3.5E-05


Withdrawal



62E.OO
62E.OO
6 2E»00
6 2E.OO


Fitting



3 OE 02
2.8E-02
56E-02
1 OE-06


Case 6
Rim



3 3E-01
3 1E-01
62E-01
1. IE-OS


Withdrawal



62E-02
62E-02
62E-02
62E-02


Fitting



3 OE-02
28E-02
5.6E-02
1. OE-06


Case 12
Rim



1 OE.OO
95E-OI
1 9E,00
3 5E-05


Withdiawdl



S.7E-02
5.7E-02
5.7E-02
5.7E-02


Fitting



3 OE 02
28E-02
5.6E-02
1 OE-06


This type of tank is not typically used for materials with this high vapor pressure

-------
                                                                  TABLE N-2
                                    EMISSION RATE ESTIMATES (106g/yr) - FLOATING ROOF TANK (CONTINUED)
Raoult's
Law
Surrogates
HVHB"
HVMB'
HVLB'
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB'
VHVLB'
Raoult's
Law
Surrogates
HVH8"
HVMB'
HVLB'
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB'
VHVLB'
Case 13
Rim



l.OE + 00
9.5E-01
1.9E+00
3.5E-05


Withdrawal



7.8E-02
7.8E-02
7.8E-02
7.8E-02


Fitting



3.0E-02
2.8E-02
5.6E-02
l.OE-06


Case 19
Rim



l.OE+00
9.5E-01
1.9E+00
3.5E-OS


Withdrawal



6.2E-02
6.2E-02
6.2E-02
6.2E-02


Fitting



3.0E-02
2.8E-02
5.6E-02
l.OE-06


Case 14
Rim



l.OE+00
9.5E-01
1.9E+00
3.5E-05


Withdrawal



9.8E-02
9.8E-02
9.8E-02
9.8E-02


Fitting



3.0E-02
2.8E-02
5.6E-02
l.OE-06


Case 20
Rim



1.5E+00
1.3E+00
2.7E+00
4.9E-05


Withdrawal



4.4E-02
4.4E-02
4.4E-02
4.4E-02


Fitting



3.0E-02
2.8E-02
5.6E-02
l.OE-06


Case 15
Rim



l.OE + 00
9.5E-01
1.9E+00
3.5E-05


Withdrawal



1.2E-01
1.2E-01
1.2E-01
1.2E-01


Fitting



3.0E-02
2.8E-02
5.6E-02
l.OE-06


Case 21
Rim



1.9E+00
1.7E+00
3.5E+00
6.3E-05


Withdrawal



3.4E-02
3.4E-02
3.4E-02
3.4E-02


Fitting



3.0E-02
2.8E-02
5.6E-02
l.OE-06


Case 16
Rim



l.OE + 00
9.5E-01
1.9E+00
3.5E-05


Withdrawal



1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-01


Fitting



3.0E-02
2.8E-02
5.6E-02
l.OE-06


Case 22
Rim



l.OE+00
9.5E-01
1.9E+00
3.5E-05


Withdrawal



6.2E-02
6.2E-02
6.2E-02
6.2E-02


Fitting



3.0E-02
2.8E-02
5.6E-02
l.OE-06


Case 17
Rim



3.1E-01
2.9E-01
5.8E-01
1.1E-05


Withdrawal



2.3E-01
2.3E-01
2.3E-01
2.3E-01


Fitting



3.0E-02
2.8E-02
5.6E-02
l.OE-06


Case 23
Rim



l.OE+00
9.5E01
1.9E+00
3.5E-OS


Withdrawal



6.2E-02
6.2E-02
6.2E-02
6.2E-02


Fitting



3.0E.02
2.8E-02
5.6E-02
l.OE-06


Case 18
Rim



6.2E-01
5.7E-01
1.2E+00
2.1E-05


Withdrawal



1.1E-01
1.1E-01
1.1E-01
1.1E-01


Fitting



3.0E-02
2.8E-02
5.6E-02
l.OE-06


Case 24
Rim



l.OE+00
9.5E-01
1.9E+00
3.5E-05


Withdrawal



6.2E-02
6.2E-02
6.2E-02
6.2E-02


Fitting



3.0E-02
2.8E-02
5.6E-02
l.OE-06


This type of tank is not typically used for materials with this high vapor pressure

-------
                                              TABLE N-2
                EMISSION  RATE ESTIMATES 106g/yr) - FLOATING ROOF TANK (CONTINUED)
Raoult's
Law
Surrogates
HVHB*
HVMB*
HVLB*
MVHB

MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB*
VHVLB*

Rim



I.OEtOO
9.5E-01
1.9E*00
3 5E-OS


Withdrawal



62E-02
62E-02
62E-02
62E-02


Fitting



3.0E-02
28E-02
5.6E-02
1.0E-06



Rim



3.1E-01
2.9E-01
5.8E-01
10E-05


Withdrawal



2.2E-01
22E-01
2.2E-01
2.2E-01


Fitting



30E-02
28E-02
5.6E-02
1 OE-06


Case 27
Rim



I.OEtOO
95E-01
1.9EtOO
3 5E-05


Withdrawal



62E-02
62E-02
62E-02
62E-02


Fitting



3.0E-02
28E-02
5.6E-02
1. OE-06


Case 28
Rim



1 9EtOO
1 7E«00
3.5E«00
63E-05


^Vithdtawal



7.4EtOO
74E + 00
7.4EtOO
74E«00


Fitting



30E-02
28E-02
56E-02
1 OE-06


^This type of tank is not typically used for materials with this high vapor pressure

-------
                             TABLE N-3
                      TANK RIM SEAL CLASSES
DESCRIPTION
External Floating Roof Tank:
Metallic shoe seal
- primary seal only
with shoe mounted secondary seal
with rim mounted secondary seal
Liquid mounted resilient seal
- primary seal only
with weather shield
with rim mounted secondary seal
Vapor mounted resilient seal
- primary seal only
with weather shield
with rim mounted secondary seal
Internal Floating Roof Tank:
Liquid mounted resilient seal
- primary seal only
with rim mounted secondary seal
Vapor mounted resilient seal
- primary seal only
with rim mounted secondary seal
CLASS
E (E)*
C (D)*
A (B)*
c
B
A
H
G
F
A
A
B
A
"For riveted tank
                            TABLE N-4
                      TANK SHELL CONDITIONS
CLASS
A
B
C
DESCRIPTION
Light rust
Dense rust
Gunite lined
                               N-5

-------
       Appendix O

  Emission Rate  Estimates
Variable Vapor Space Tanks

-------
                                                      TABLE 0-1
        EMISSION  RATE MODELING SOURCE SCENARIO CASE SPECIFICATIONS - VARIABLE VAPOR SPACE TANK
Modeling
Parameters
Throughput (106gal/yr)
Transfers into tank(#/yr)
Calculational period (yrs)
CASE NUMBERS
1
.5
60
1
2
10
60
I
3
24
60
I
4
42
60
I
5
10
3
I
6
10
60
1
7
10
120
I
8
10
250
1
9
10
60
1
10
10
60
5
11
10
60
10
12
10
60
70
13*
10
60
1
14**
10
60
I
15***
40
250
I
      Reasonable Best Case (minimum) Emissions (assuming typical tank size)
      Typical Emission Conditions (assuming typical tank size)
      Reasonable Worst Case (maximum) Emissions (assuming typical tank size)
Note:  If actual input values vary significantly from the above scenarios it is recommended that AP-42 be used to calculate emission estimates
      directly.

-------
                       TABLE 0-2
EMISSION RATE ESTIMATES (10 g/yr)-VARIABLE VAPOR SPACE TANK
Raoult's Law
Surrogates
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
Raoult's Law
Surrogates
HVHB
HVMB
HVLB
MVHB
MVMB
MVLB
LVMB
VHVHB
VHVLB
Casel
7.8E-01
6.7E-01
1.5E+00
1.5E-02
1.4E-02
2.7E-02
5.0E-07
3.8E+00
8.3E+00
CaseS
3.0E+01
2.6E+01
5.9E+01
5.7E-01
5.3E-01
1.1E+00
1.9E-05
1.5E+02
Case 2
3.0E+01
2.6E+01
5.9E+01
5.7E-01
5.3E-01
1.1E+00
1.9E-05
1.5E+02
3.2E+02
Case 10
3.0E+01
2.6E+01
5.9E+01
5.7E-01
5.3E-01
1.1E+00
1.9E-05
1.5E+02
Case 3
7.7E+01
6.6E+01
1.5E+02
1.5E+00
1.3E+00
2.7E+00
4.9E-05
3.7E+02
8.2E+02
Case 11
3.0E+01
2.6E+01
5.9E+01
5.7E-01
5.3E-01
1.1E+00
1.9E-05
1.5E+02
Case 4
1.3E+02
1.2E+02
2.6E+02
2.6E+00
2.3E+00
4.7E+00
8.6E-05
6.5E+02
1.4E+03
Case 12
3.0E+01
2.6E+01
5.9E+01
5.7E-01
5.3E-01
1.1E+00
1.9E-05
1.5E+02
CaseS
3.1E+01
2.7E+01
6.0E+01
5.9E-01
5.4E-01
1.1E+00
2.0E-05
1.5E+02
3.3E+02
Case 13
3.0E+01
2.6E+01
5.9E+01
5.7E-01
5.3E-01
1.1E+00
1.9E-05
1.5E+02
3.2E+02 3.2E+02 3.2E+02 3.2E+02 3.2E+02
Case 6
3.0E+01
2.6E+01
5.9E+01
5.7E-01
5.3E-01
1.1E+00
1.9E-05
1.5E+02
3.2E+02
Case 14
3.0E+01
2.6E+01
5.9E+01
5.7E-01
5.3E-01
1.1E+00
1.9E-05
1.5E+02
Case 7
2.9E+01
2.5E+01
5.8E+01
5.6E-01
5.1E-01
1.0E+00
1.9E-05
1.4E+02
3.1E+02
Case 15
1.3E+02
1.1E+02
2.5E+02
2.4E+00
2.2E+00
4.4E+00
8.1 E-OS
6.1E+02
CaseS
2.8E+01
2.4E+01
5.4E+01
5.3E-01
4.8E-01
9.8E-01
1.8E-05
1.3E+02
3.0E+02









3.2E+02 1.3E+03

-------
        Appendix P
  Emission Rate Estimates
Particles from Storage Piles

-------
                                                                         TABLE P-1
                         EMISSION RATE MODELING SOURCE SCENARIO CASE SPECIFICATIONS - PARTICLES FROM STORAGE PILES

Modeling
Parameters

Area of surface of pile
[acres)
Silt content (%)
% of time windspeed
exceeds 12 mph
Days of precipitation
>. .01 inch per year (see
Figure P-l)
Mean windspeed (mph)
Moisture content (%)

Vehicle weight (tons)
(assume front end
loader)
... , . .
loader
Throughput (102 tons/yr)
Mass fraction of
contaminant (ppm)
Calculational period (yrs)
CASE NUMBERS


1
5

2
10

60


10
0.5






500
1

1

2
5

5
10

60


10
0 5






500
1

1

3
5

to
10

60


10
05






500
1

1

4
5

20
10

60


10
n s






500
1

1

5
5

15
S

60


10
0 5






500
1

1

6
5

15
10

60


10
0 5






500
1

1

7
5

15
15

60


10
05






500
1

1

8
5

15
25

60


10
0 5






500
1

1

9
5

15
10

20


10
05






500
1

1

10
5

15
10

60


10
0 5






500
1

1

11
5

15
10

too


10
0 5






,500
1

1

12
5

15
10

120


10
0 5






500
1

1

13
5

15
10

60


6
0 5






500
1

1

14
5

15
10

60


10
n s






500
1

1

15
5

15
10

60


14
0 5






500
1

1

16
5

15
10

60


10
0 S






500
1

1

17
5

15
10

60


10
1






500
1

1

18
5

15
10

60


10
1






500
1

1

19
5

15
10

60


10
6






500
1

1

20
5

15
10

60


10
0 5






500
1

1

21
5

15
10

60


10
0 S






500
1

1

22
5

15
10

60


10
0 5

10




500
1

1

23
5

15
10

60


10
05






500
1

1

24
5

15
10

60


10
0 5






500
1

5

25
5

15
10

60


10
05






500
1

10

26
5

15
10

60


to
05






500
1

70

27*
5

5
5

too


6
1






500
1

1

28**
5

15
10

60


10
0.5






500
1

1

29***
5

20
25

20


14
05

4




500
1

1
* Reasonable  Best Case (minimum) Emissions (assuming typical surface area)
**  Typical  Emission Condition  (assuming typical  surface  area)
*** Reasonable Worst Case (maximum) Emissions (assuming typical surface area)
Note: If actual unit specific parameters are significantly different from the cases provided above it is recommended that emission rates be calculated directly based on the methodology
      presented in AP-42 (4th Edition Volume I - Supplement B, September 1988)

-------
Table P-2. Emission  Rate Estimates  (IO6g/yr) - Particles from Storage Piles*
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Wind Erosion**
8.1E-07
2.0E-06
4.0E-06
8.1E-06
3.1E-06
6.2E-06
9.0E-06
1.5E-05
6.9E-06
6.2E-06
5.2E-06
5.0E-06
6.2E-06
6.2E-06
6.2E-06
6.2E-06
6.2E-06
6.2E-06
6.2E-06
6.2E-06
6.2E-06
6.2E-06
6.2E-06
6.2E-06
6.2E-06
6.2E-06
8.8E-07
6.2E-06
2.3E-05
Batch Dump***
1.1E-06
2.8E-06
5.6E-06
1.1E-05
8.7E-06
8.7E-06
8.7E-06
8.7E-06
8.7E-06
8.7E-06
8.7E-06
8.7E-06
5.1E-06
8.7E-06
1.2E-05
8.7E-06
2.1E-06
2.3E-07
5.9E-08
8 . 7 E - 0 6
8.7E-06
8.7E-06
8.7E-06
8.7E-06
8.7E-06
8.7E-06
4.2E-07
8.7E-06
1.6E-05
Vehicle
Activity****
1.4E-07
3.6E-07
7.1E-07
1.4E-06
1.1E-06
1.1E-06
1.1E-06
1.1E-06
1.2E-06
1.1E-06
9.3E-07
8.6E-07
1.1E-06
1.1E-06
1.1E-06
1.1E-06
1.1E-06
1.1E-06
1.1E-06
6.5E-07
1.1E-06
2.1E-06
1.1E-06
1.1E-06
1.1E-06
1.1E-06
3.1E-07
1.1E-06
1.7E-06
                                    P-2

-------
                                 Table  P-2 (Cont'd)

*Particle size  of 10  microns assumed  (emission rate particle multiplier  of  0.5  used,
based  on  pg.  4-7  of Control  of  Open  Fugitive Dust  Sources,  U.S. EPA,  September
1988).  Constituent  concentration  of 1 ppm  assumed.

**Emission  rate  estimates  for wind  erosion  based  on  Equation  3,  p.  11.2.3-5  of
Compilation of  Air  Pollutant  Emission  Factors,  Vol.I,  (U.S.  EPA,  September 1985).

***Emission rate  estimates  for batch  dump operations  were  calculated  using
Equation 1, p.  11.2.3-3 of Compilation  of  Air  Pollutant Emission  Factors,  Vol.  1. (U.S.
EPA, September  1985).  Drop height of  21.9 feet  and  dumping  device capacity  of
6.375 yd'assumed.

****Emission  rate  estimates  for vehicle  activity were  calculated  using  Equation  1,  p.
11.2.1-1  of  Compilation  of Air  Pollutant Emission Factors, Vol.  1,  (U.S.  EPA,
September,  1985)  assuming  one  vehicle in continuous  operation  for 2,080  hours  per
year at  speed  of 3 mph  (this  low speed  assumed  to account for loading/unloading  in
immediate  vicinity  of the waste  pile.)  Minor adjustments in emission  rates  should
be  implemented  if  unit-specific  vehicle speeds  and/or  total vehicle  miles traveled
per year are higher  than these assumptions.
                                        P-3

-------
MEAN NUMBER OF DAYS WITH 0.01  INCH OR MORE OF PRECIPITATION  ANNUAL
                Figure P-1. Map of Precipitation Frequency (AP 42)

-------
                  Appendix Q

            Emission  Rate  Estimates
Particles  from Exposed,  Flat,  Contaminated Areas

-------
               EMISSION RATE MODELING SOURCE SCENARIO CASE SPECIFICATIONS -PARTICLES FROM EXPOSED, FLAT, CONTAMINATED AREAS

Modeling
Parameters

Area of exposed
area (acres)
Silt content (%)
Surface erodi-
bility (tons/acre-
year)(see Table
Q-3)
Precipitation-
evaporation (PE)
Index (see
FigureQ-1)
% of time wind
speed exceeds
12 mph
Mass fraction of
contaminant
(ppm)
Calculational
period (yrs)
CASE NUMBERS


1
5

2
47



100



10


1


1


2
5

5
47



100



10


1


1


3
5

10
47



100



10


1


1


4
5

20
47



100



10


1


1


5
5

15
38



100



10


1


1


6
5

15
56



100



10


1


1


7
5

15
86



100



10


1


1


8
5

15
134



100



10


1


1


9
5

15
220



100



10


1


1


10
5

15
47



20



10


1


1


11
5

15
47



60



10


1


1


12
5

15
47



100



10


1


1


13
5

15
47



200



10


1


1


14
5

15
47



300



10


1


1


15
5

15
47



100



5


1


1


16
5

15
47



100



to


17
5

15
47



100



15


1 1


1 1


18
5

15
47



100



25


1


1


19
5

15
47



100



10


1


1


20
5

15
47



100



10


1


5


21
5

15
47



100



10


1


10


22
5

15
47



100



10


1


70


23*
5

5
38



120



5


1


1


24**
5

15
47



100



10


1


1


25***
5

20
220



20



25


1


1

       Reasonable Best Case (minimum) Emissions (assuming typical surface area)
       Typical Emission Conditions (assuming typical surface area)
       Reasonable Worst Case (maximum) Emissions (assuming typical surface area)
Note:  If actual unit-specific parameters are significantly different from those provided above it is recommended that emission rates be calculated directly using the methodology provided in
      Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources (U.S. EPA, September 1988).

-------
                                 TABLE Q-2
  EMISSION RATE ESTIMATES (106g/yr) PARTICLES FROM EXPOSED AREAS*
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Estimated Emission Rates**
(106g/yr)
4.8E-08
1.2E-07
2.4E-07
4.8E-07
2.9E-07
4.3E-07
6.7E-05
1.0E-06
1.7E-06
9.1E-06
1.0E-06
3.6E-07
9.1E-06
4.0E-08
1.8E-07
3.6E-07
5.5E-07
9.1E-07
3.6E-07
3.6E-07
3.6E-07
3.6E-07
3.4E-08
3.6E-07
1.4E-04
   Particle size  of  10  microns  assumed  (emission rate  particle  multiplier  of  0.5
   used,  based on  p. 6-9 of  Control of  Open Fugitive Dust Sources,  U.S.  EPA,
^ ^ September 1988). Constituent concentration  of  1  ppm assumed.
   Emission  rate estimates for particles from exposed  areas  were  calculated
   using  Equation  8,  p.  4-2  of Fugitive  Emissions  from  Integrated Iron and
   Steel  Plants (U.S. EPA,  March  1978).
                                    Q-2

-------
                      TABLE Q-3
SOIL ERODIBILITY FOR VARIOUS SOIL TEXTURAL CLASSES*
Predominant Soil
Textural Class
Sand
Loamy sand
Sandy loam
Clay
Silty clay
Loam
Sandy clay loam
Sandy clay
Silt loam
Clay loam
Silty clay loam
Silt
Erodibility,
tons/acre/year
220
134
86
86
86
56
56
56
47
47
38
38
* U.S. Department of  Agriculture. July 1964. Guide  for
Wind Erosion Control on Cropland in  the Great  Plains
States,  Soil  Conservation Service.
                        Q-3

-------
       Q-1.MapofPElndexforStateC).
matic Divisions
U. S. EPA,  March  1977.  Technical  Guidance  for Control of
Industrial Process Fugitive  Particulate  Emissions, OAQPS,
Research Triangle Park,  NC 27711)

-------
    Appendix  R
Dispersion Estimates

-------
                                                                       TABLE R-1
                                                     CONCENTRATION ESTIMATION WORKSHEET
Col 1
Downwind
Sector
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
ssw
sw
wsw
w
WNW
NW
NMW
Col 2
Instruction A:
Input
Distance
to
Receptors**
(miles)
















Col 3
Instruction B:
Determine
Dispersion
Factor
(Figure R-1)
















Col 4
Instruction C
Assume
Annual
Downwind
Frequency
of 100%
(percent)
















Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 Col 8 Col 9 CoMO Col 1 1 CoM2 CoM3
Instruction D:
Compute Long-Term Concentration Estimates (yg/m?) Based on Equation 1 *
(select and circle appropriate surrogate subset, Henry's Law Constant or Raoult's Law or particle case)
MHLB
°r HHLB LHMB MHMB HHMB LHHB MHHB HHHB .... = Henry's Law Constant Surrogate
* or or or or or or or or
particle HVMB HVLB MVHB MVM8 MVL8 LVMB VHVHB VHVLB = Raoult's Law Surrogate
case
















Health Criteria (yg/m3) Toxic Criteria
Based on RFI Guidance Carcinogenic Criteria
Equation 1 Long-Term Concentration Esl dig/m ') = Col 3 x Col 4 x (unil/surrocjale-specifk f minio
(Safety Factor = 10)
Mg/yr =  106g/yr
Distance from downward unit boundary
>•"., MU'VI
l on Appendix S Worksheets) x (Conversion Factor = 3-17x10'') x

-------
     .0-1.
Figure  R-l.  Atmospheric Dispersion  Factors for  Typical  U.S.  Meteorological
            Conditions  (Neutral Stability  and  IO-MPH Wind  Speed)
                                      R-2

-------
      Appendix  S

Emission  Rate  Estimation
      Worksheets

-------
                                                          TABLE S-1
                              EMISSION RATE ESTIMATION WORKSHEET- DISPOSAL IMPOUNDMENT
Line
          CoM
  Col 2
       Col 3
CoM
Col 5    Col 6
Col 7
Col 8    Col 9    Col 10 Col  11
                       Instruction A:
        Modeling
        Parameters
Input Unit-
 Specific
  Values
      Instruction  B:
Select a Representative
Case from Appendix C -
Table C-1 (underline
selected case)
                                                                 Instruction C:
                                                  Determine Surrogate-Specific Scaling Factors'*
                                                               MHLB   HHLB    LHMB  MHMB  HHMB   LHHB    MHHB   HHHB
 1    Area*

 2    Depth'

 3    Turnovers*

 4  Constituent
     Concentration'
   acres

   m

   /year

   ppm
        1,2,3or4

       5,6,7or8
                      INSTRUCTION D:
                  Complete Lines 5-6 and 8

     Account for Area
 5 [unit-specific area/(Case 18 area = 2.2 acres)]

 6   Account for  Concentration
     [unit-specific cone./(Case 18 cone. =  1,000 ppm)]

 7   Typical Surrogate-Specific Emission Rate
     (Case 18), 106g/yr

 8   Calculate Unit-Specific Emission Rate, 106g/yr
     (multiply lines #2 x #3 x #5 x  #6 x #7)
                                                         SURROGATE-SPECIFIC VALUES
                                        32.4     324      14.1      32.4     32.4      9.4     32.4    32.4
 Critical input  values
 Scaling Factor determined for Lines 2 and 3 from Appendix C - Emission Rate Estimate from Table C-2 divided by Typical Emission Rate
  defined in Case 18 (see line 7).

-------
                                                         TABLE S-2
                              EMISSION RATE ESTIMATION WORKSHEET- STORAGE IMPOUNDMENT
Line
          COM
  Col 2
Col 3
                          Col 4
Col 5    Col 6
Col 7
Col 8    Col 9    Col 10 Col 11
                      Instruction A:
        Modeling
       Parameters
Input  Unit-
 Specific
  Values
      Instruction  B:
Select a Representative
Case from Appendix D -
Table D-1  (underline
selected case)
                                             Instruction C:
                              Determine Surrogate-Specific Scaling Factors**


                   MHLB    HHLB    LHMB MHMB HHMB    LHHB    MHHB  HHHB
1    Area*

2   Depth'

3   Retention
    time*

4  Constituent
    Concentration*
   acres

   m

   days


   ppm
 1,2,3or4

 5,6,7,or8
                      INSTRUCTION  D:
                  Complete Lines 5-6 and 8

    Account for Area
5 [unit-specific area/(Case  18 area =  0.4 acres)]

6   Account for  Unit-Specific Concentration
    [unit-specific cone./(Case 18 cone. = 1,000 ppm)]

7   Typical Surrogate-Specific Emission Rate
    (Case 18), 106g/yr

8   Calculate Unit-Specific Emission Rate, 106g/yr
    (multiply lines #2 x #3 x #5 x #6 x #7)
                                                         SURROGATE-SPECIFIC VALUES
                                        34.0     39.24     3.25    38.10    38.40     1.97    38.74   39.24
Critical  input values
Scaling  Factor determined for Lines 2 and 3 from Appendix D - Emission Rate Estimate from Table D-2 divided by Typical Emission Rate
 defined in Case 18 (see line 7).

-------
                                                             TABLE S-3
                            EMISSION RATE ESTIMATION WORKSHEET - OIL FILM ON STORAGE IMPOUNDMENT
Line
CoM
Col 2
Col 3
Col 4     cot5    Col 6    Col 7    Col 8     Col 9   Col 10    Col 11    Col 12
                      Instruction A:
        Modeling
       Parameters
              Input Unit-
               Specific
               Values
                 Instruction B:
           Select a Representative
           Case  from Appendix E -
           Table E-1  (underline
           selected case)
                                                                                   Instruction C:
                                                                    Determine  Surrogate-Specific Scaling  Factors"
                                                              HVHB   HVMB   HVLB    MVHB  MVMB  MVLB    LVMB  VHVHB VHVLB
I    Area*

2   Depth of Oil
    Film*

3   Retention  Time*

4
    Constituent
    Concentration*
                 acres

                m


                days

                ppm
                   I,2,3or4


                   5,6,7,or8
                      INSTRUCTION  D:
                  Complete Lines 5-6 and 8

    Account for Area
5 [unit-specific area/(Case 18 area =  0.4 acres)]

5   Account for  Concentration
    [unit-specific cone./(Case 18 cone. = 200 ppm)]

1   Typical Surrogate-Specific Emission Rate
    (Case 18), 106g/yr

8   Calculate Unit-Specific Emission Rate, 106g/yr
    (multiply lines #2 x #3 x #5 x #6 x #7)
                                                                          SURROGATE-SPECIFIC  VALUES
                                                     0.394    0.394   0.394    0.394    0.389    0.394   I.IOE-    0.394    0.394
                                                                                                        04
Critical input values
Scaling Factor determined for Lines 2 and 3 from Appendix E - Emission Rate Estimate from Table E-2 divided by Typical Emission Rate defined in
 Case 18 (see line 7).

-------
                                                          TABLE S-4
                       EMISSION RATE ESTIMATION WORKSHEET- MECHANICALLY AERATED IMPOUNDMENT
Line
           CoM
  Col 2
       Col 3
Col 4
Col 5    Col 6
Col 7
Col 8    Col 9    Col 10 Col 11
                       Instruction A:
         Modeling
        Parameters
Input  Unit-
 Specific
  Values
      Instruction B:
Select a Representative
Case from Appendix F -
Table F-1  (underline
selected case)
                                                                 Instruction C:
                                                  Determine Surrogate-Specific Scaling Factors*
                                                               MHLB    HHLB    LHMB MHMB  HHMB   LHHB    MHHB   HHHB
 1   Area*

 2   Depth'

 3   Retention  Time*

 4   Constituent
     Concentration*

 5   Fraction Agitated
   acres

   m

   days

   ppm
        1,2,3 or4

       5,6,7 or 8




      13,14,15 or 16
                       INSTRUCTION D:
                   Complete Lines 6-7 and 9

     Account for Area
 '[unit-specific area/(Case 22 area = 0.4 acres)]

 7   Account for Concentration
     [unit-specific cone./(Case 22 cone. = 1,000 ppm)]

 8   Typical Surrogate-Specific Emission Rate
     (Case 22),  106g/yr

 9   Calculate Unit-Specific Emission Rate, 106g/yr
     (multiply lines #2 x #3 x #5x #6x #7x #8)
                                                         SURROGATE-SPECIFIC VALUES
                                        90.6
                                   984     12.3     94.7     98.3      8.5
                                                   95.9     98.4
 Critical  input values
  Scaling Factor determined for Lines 2-3 and 5 from Appendix F - Emission Rate Estimate from Table F-2 divided by Typical Emission Rate
   defined in Case 22 (see line 8).

-------
                                                            TABLE S-5
                                             EMISSION RATE  ESTIMATION WORKSHEET-
 line
            COM
  Col 2
       Col 3
Col 4
Col 5    Col 6     Col 7    Col 8    Col 9    Col 10 Col  11
                         Instruction  A:
          Modeling
         Parameters
Input  Unit-
 Specific
  Values
      Instruction B:
Select a Representative
Case from Appendix G -
Table G-1 (underline
selected case)
                                                                  Instruction C:
                                                   Determine Surrogate-Specific Scaling  Factors**
                                                                  MHLB   HHLB   LHMB  MHMB  HHMB    LHHB MHHB  HHHB
  1   Area*

  2   Depth'

  3   Retention Time*

  4   Constituent
      Concentration*

  5  Submerged  Air
      Flow
   acres

   m

   hours

   ppm


   mVsec
        1,2,3 or4

        5,6,7 or 8
      13,14,15 or 16
                        INSTRUCTION D:
                    Complete Lines 6-7 and 9

      Account for Area
  6  [unit-specific area/(Case 22  area = 6.7 x 103acres)]

  7   Account  for Concentration
      [unit-specific cone./(Case 22 cone. = 1,000 ppm)]

  8   Typical Surrogate-Specific  Emission Rate
      (Case  22),  106g/yr

  9   Calculate Unit-Specific Emission Rate, 106g/yr
      (multiply lines #2x #3 x #5x #6x #7 x #8)
                                                          SURROGATE-SPECIFIC  VALUES
                                         3.9     2054    0086     6.4     51.5    0.055     8.1
                                                                                      128.9
* Critical  input values
** Scaling  Factor determined for Lines 2-3 and 5 from Appendix G - Emission Rate Estimate from Table G-2 divided by Typical Emission Rate
   defined in Case 22 (see line 8)

-------
                                                                TABLE  S-6
                           EMISSION RATE  ESTIMATION WORKSHEET - LAND TREATMENT EMISSIONS (AFTER TILLING)
Line
           Col 1
                           Col 2
                                               Col 3
                                         Col 4    Col 5    Col 6    Col 7    Col 8    Col 9   Col 10   Col 11    Col  12
                        Instruction  A:
         Modeling
        Parameters
Input  Unit-
  Specific
  Values
      Instruction  B:
Select  a  Representative
Case from Appendix H  -
Table H-1  (underline
selected case)
                                                                         Instruction  C:
                                                         Determine  Surrogate-specific Scaling Factors**
                                                                   HVHB   HVMB   HVLB    M V H B  M V M B   M V L B   LVMB  VHVHB  VHVLB
 1    Annual  waste
     throughput*
     (water & oil)

 2    Oil  content
     of  waste(%)*

 3   Constituent
     concentration*

 4    Soil  porosity

 5  Tilling depth
    106  g/yr
   percent
   ppm
   percent
        1,2,3 or  4


        5,6,7 or  8


      9,10,11 or  12

      13,14,  15 or 16
                        INSTRUCTION D:
                    Complete Lines  6 and 8

     Account  for Unit-Specific Annual  Waste  Throughput
 6  [unit annual  waste throughput/(Case  22  =  1,800  106g/yr)]

 7    Typical  Surrogate-Specific Emission  Rate
     (Case 22),  106g/yr

 8    Calculate Unit-Specific Emission  Rate, 106  g/yr
     (multiply lines  #2x  #3x #4x  #5x #6x  #7)
                                                                 SURROGATE-SPECIFIC VALUES
                                          0.341    0357    0.359    0.108    0.219    0.338  0.0018  0.356    0.359
 Critical  input values
 Scaling Factor determined for Lines 2-5 from Appendix H - Emission Rate Estimate from Table H-2 divided by Typical Emission Rate defined in Case
  22 (see line 9).

-------
                                                               TABLE S-7
                           EMISSION RATE  ESTIMATION WORKSHEET- OIL  FILM SURFACE ON LAND TREATMENT UNIT
  Line
CoM
Col 2
Col 3
Col 4     Col 5    Col 6    Col 7    Col 8     Col 9   Col 10   Col 11    Col 12
                        Instruction A:
          Modeling
         Parameters
              Input Unit-
               Specific
               Values
                 Instruction B:
           Select a Representative
           Case from Appendix I -
           Table 1-1 (underline
           selected case)
                                                                                   Instruction C:
                                                                   Determine Surrogate-Specific Scaling Factors*
                                                                HVHB   HVMB   HVLB    MVHB  MVMB MVLB    LVMB  VHVHB VHVLB
  1   Area*

  2   Depth of Oil
      Film*

  3  Applications  per
      Year

  4  Constituent
      Concentration'
                 acres

                m


                /year


                 ppm
                   1,2,3 or 4


                  5,6,7 or 8
                        INSTRUCTION D:
                    Complete Lines 5-6 and 8

      Account for Area
  '[unit-specific area/(Case 18 area = 6.2 acres)]

  6   Account for Concentration
      [unit-specific cone./(Case 18 cone. = 200 ppm)]

  7   Typical Surrogate-Specific Emission  Rate
      (Case 18), 106g/yr

  8   Calculate Unit-Specific Emission Rate, 106g/yr
      (multiply lines #2 x #3x #5x #6x #7)
                                                                          SURROGATE-SPECIFIC VALUES
                                                     131,4    131.4    131.4    30.8    22.0     31.2    1.45E-    131.4    1314
                                                                                                        0 3
* Critical input values
** Scaling Factor determined for Lines 2 and 3 from Appendix I - Emission Rate Estimate from Table 1-2 divided by Typical Emission Rate defined in
    Case 18 (see line 7).

-------
                                                               TABLE  S-8
                                        EMISSION  RATE ESTIMATION WORKSHEET-  CLOSED LANDFILL
 Line
CoM
Col 2
Col 3
Col 4
Col 5    Col 6    Col 7   Col 8    Col 9    Col 10   Col 11   Col 12
                        Instruction A:
          Modeling
         Parameters
              Input Unit-
               Specific
               Values
                 Instruction B:
           Select  a Representative
           Case from Appendix J -
           Table J-1 (underline
           selected case)
                                                                                   Instruction C.
                                                                    Determine Surrogate-Specific Scaling Factors*
                                                                 HVHB    HVMB   HVLB   MVHB  MVMB  MVLB   LVMB VHVHB  VHVLB
  1   Area*

  2  Waste-bed
      thickness*

  3 Cap thickness

  4   Constituent
      content of waste*

  5 Air  porosity
                 acres

                ft


                ft

                percent


                percent
                   1,2,3 or 4


                   5,6,7 or 8

                 9,10,11 or 12


                 13,14,15 or 16
                        INSTRUCTION D:
                     Complete Lines 6 and 8

      Account for Area
  6 [unit-specific area/(Case 22 area = 3.5 acres)]

  7   Typical Surrogate-Specific Emission Rate
      (Case 22), 106g/yr

  8   Calculate Unit-Specific Emission Rate, 106g/yr
      (multiply lines #2x #3x #4x #5x #6x #7)
                                                                           SURROGATE-SPECIFIC VALUES
                                                      24.4     224     47.0    0.445   0.398    0.808
                                                                                       I.55E-
                                                                                         05
                                                                              119
                                                                    264
* Critical input values
** Scaling Factor determined for Lines 2-5 from Appendix J - Emission Rate Estimate from Table J-2 divided by Typical Emission Rate defined in Case
    22 (see line 7).

-------
                                                               TABLE S-9
                                         EMISSION RATE  ESTIMATION WORKSHEET - OPEN LANDFILL
Line Col 1
Modeling
Parameters
1 Area*
2 Waste-bed
thickness*
3 Constituent
content of waste*
4 Air porosity
(fixed waste)
5 Total porosity
(fixed waste)
Col 2
Instruction A:
Input Unit-
Specific
Values
acres
ft
percent
percent
percent
Col 3
Instruction B:
Select a Representative
Case from Appendix K -
Table K-1 (underline
selected case)
1,2,3 or4
5,6,7 or 8
9,10,11 or 12
13,14,15 or 16
INSTRUCTION D:
Complete Lines 6 and 8
Account for Area
6 [unit-specific area/(Case 22 area = 3.5 acres)]
7 Typical Surrogate-Specific Emission Rate
(Case 22), 106g/yr
8 Calculate Unit-Specific Emission Rate, 106g/yr
(multiply lines #2x #3x #4x #5x #6x #7)
Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 Col 8 Col 9 CoMO Col 11 Col 12
Instruction C:
Determine Surrogate-Specific Scaling Factors**
HVHB HVMB HVLB MVHB MVMB MVLB LVMB VHVHB VHVLB
—


-

SURROGATE-SPECIFIC VALUES
766.2 8413 811.3 75.1 60.1 75.1 0.6 2358.7 25090
* Critical  input values
** Scaling  Factor determined for Lines 2-5 from Appendix K - Emission Rate Estimate from Table K-2 divided by Typical Emission Rate defined in Case
   22 (see line 7).

-------
                                                               TABLE  S-10
                                          EMISSION RATE  ESTIMATION  WORKSHEET - WASTEPILES
Line Col 1
Modeling
Parameters
1 Area*
2 Turnover
rate*
3 Constituent
content of waste*
4 Air porosity
(fixed waste)
5 Total porosity
(fixed waste)

Col 2
Instruction A:
Input Unit-
Specific
Values
acres
per year
percent
percent
percent
Col 3
Instruction B:
Select a Representative
Case from Appendix L -
Table L-1 (underline
selected case)
1,2,3 or 4
5,6,7 or 8
9,10,11 or 12
13,14,15 or 16
INSTRUCTION D:
Complete Lines 6 and 8
Account for Area
6 [unit-specific area/(Case 22 area = 0.1 acres)]
7 Typical Surrogate-Specific Emission Rate
(Case 22), 106g/yr
8 Calculate Unit-Specific Emission Rate, 106g/yr
(multiply lines #2x #3x #4 x #5x #6x #7)
Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 Col 8 Col 9 Col 10 Col 11 Col 12
Instruction C:
Determine Surrogate-Specific Scaling Factors**
HVHB HVMB HVLB MVHB MVMB MVLB LVMB VHVHB VHVLB
--




SURROGATE-SPECIFIC VALUES

261.4 284.9 277.0 26.0 20.9 25.5 0.2 799.3 852.1
 Critical input values
' Scaling Factor determined for Lines 2-5 from Appendix L- Emission Rate Estimate from Table L-2 divided by Typical Emission Rate defined in Case
  22 (see line 7).

-------
                                                                    TABLES-11
                                            EMISSION  RATE  ESTIMATION WORKSHEET  -  FIXED ROOF TANKS
 .me
           CoM
    Col 2
      Col 3
                                          Col 4    Col 5    Col 6   Col 7     Col 8   Col 9    Col 10   Col 11    Col 12
                    Instruction A:
        Modeling
       Parameters
Input Unit-
 Specific
  Values
       Instruction 8:
Select a Representative
Case from Appendix M -
Table M-2 (underline
selected case)
                                                                                    Instruction C:
                                                                    Determine Surrogate-Specific Scaling Factors*'
                                      HVH8   HVM8   HVLB    MVHB  MVMB  MVLB    LVMB  VHVHB VHVLB
   1  Diameter*

   2

   3  Height*

   4

   5  Throughput*
   ft
    ft
   1,2(3,4,5or6


   7,8, 9, 10 or 11


12,13, 14,15, 16or17
                          Breathing Loss

                          Working Loss
                          Breathing Loss
                          Working Loss
                          Working Loss
                        gal/yr
                             INSTRUCTION D:
                           Complete Lines 8-10

  g   Typical Surrogate-Specific Working Loss Emission
      Rate (Case 23), 106 g/yr

  7   Typical Surrogate-Specific Breathing Loss Emission
      Rate (Case 23), 1Q6g/yr

  8   Calculate Unit-Specific Working Loss Emission Rate, 106g/yr
      (multiply Lines #2x #4x #5x #6)

  9   Calculate Unit-Specific Breathing Loss Emission Rate, 106g/yr
      (multiply Lines #1 x #3 x #7)

  10 Calculate Total Emission Rate, 106 g/yr
      (add Lines #8 + #9)
                                                                            SURROGATE-SPECIFIC VALUES
                                                                                3.9      3.5      7.1     0.0001
                                                                                1.8      1.8      3.2    0.0015
*   Critical input values
** Scaling Factor determined for Lines 1-5 from Appendix M - Emission Rate Estimate from Table M-2 divided by Typical Emission Rate defined in Case 23 (see
    lines 7 and 8).

-------
                                                                         TABLE S-12
                                              EMISSION RATE  ESTIMATION WORKSHEET-  FLOATING  ROOF TANKS
Line cot 1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
'12
:i3
114
1-5
HMBHMH
Modeling
Parameters
Rim seal
class*
Shell type*
Average
liquid
density*
Diameter*
Throughput
Co! 2
Instruction A:
Input Unit-
Specific
Values
Ib/gal
ft
x1Q6
gal/yr
Col 3
Instruction B:
Select a Representative
Case from Appendix N -
Table N-1 (underline
selected case)
1,2,3,4,5,6,7 or 8
9,10 or II
12, 13, 14, 15 or 16
17, 18, 19, 20 or 21
INSTRUCTION D:
Complete Lines 8 and 12-15
Account for Throughput
[unit-specific throughput/(Case 27 throughpu
Typical Surrogate-Specific Rim Loss Emission Rate
(Case 27), 106g/yr
Typical Surrogate-Specific Withdrawal Loss Emission Rat<
(Case 27), 106g/yr
Typical Surrogate-Specific Fitting Loss Emission Rate
(Case 27), 106g/yr
Calculate Unit-Specific Rim Loss Emission Rate, 106g/yr
(multiply lines #1 x #4 x #9)
Calculate Unit-Specific Withdrawal Loss Emission Rate, 1
(multiply lines #2 x #3 x #5 x #8x #10)
Calculate Unit-Specific Fitting Loss Emission Rate, 106g/yr
(multiply lines #6x #11)
Calculate Total Emission Rate, 106q/yr
_(add lines #12 + #13 + #14) -
Col 4 Col 5 col 6 Col 7 Col 8 Col 9 Col 10 Col 1 1 Col 1?
Instruction C:
Determine Surrogate-Specific Scaling Factors* .
HVHB HVMB HVLB MVHB MVMB MVLB LVMB VHVHB VHVLB
Kim LOSS
Withdrawal Loss
Withdrawal Loss
RIM Loss
Withdrawal Loss
Fitting Loss
""
SURROGATE-SPECIFIC VALUES
t - 63x 106gal/yr)]
l.O 0.95 1,9 0.00004
i
0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062
0030 0.028 0.056 0.000001
06g/yr



'  critical  input  values
'*  Scaling  Factor determined  for Lines 1-6 from  Appendix  N - Emission Rate Estimate  from  Table  N-2  divided  by Typical Emission Rate defined  in Case  27 (see
   lines 9, 10 and 11).

-------
                                                              TABLE S-13
                                 EMISSION RATE ESTIMATION WORKSHEET • VARIABLE VAPOR SPACE TANKS
Line Col 1
Modeling
Parameters
1 Throughput*
2 Transfers into
tank*

Col 2
Instruction A:
Input Unit-
Specific
Values
x!06gal/yr
#/yr
INSTRUCTION D:
Col 3
Instruction 8:
Select a Representative
Case from Appendix 0-
Table O-1 (underline
selected case)
1,2,3 or 4
5,6,7 or 8

Complete Line 4
Typical Surrogate-Specific Emission
Rate (Case 14) 1066g/yr
4 Calculate Unit-Specific Emission Rate, 106g/yr
(multiply Lines #1 x #2 x #3)
Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 Col 8 Col 9 Col 10 Col 11 Col 12
Instruction C:
Determine Surrogate-Specific Scaling Factors**
HVHB HVMB HVLB MVHB MVMB MVLB LVMB VHVHB VHVLB




SURROGATE-SPECIFIC VALUES
30. 26 59 0.57 053 1.1 1.9E-05 150 320
*  Critical input values
*  * Scaling Factor determined for Lines 1  and 2 from Appendix 0- Emission Rate Estimate from Table O-2 divided by Typical Emission Rate defined in
   Case 14 (see line 3).

-------
                 APPENDIX H

            SOIL LOSS CALCULATION

               EXCERPTED FROM

U.S. EPA. Final Draft Superfund Exposure Assessment
 Manual. September, 1987. Office of Emergency and
    Remedial Response, Washington,  D.C. 20460
                     H-l

-------
                                 APPENDIX H

                            SOIL LOSS CALCULATION

 Introduction

     Many  of  the  organic substances of concern found  at  Superfund sites are
 relatively  nonpolar,  hydrophobic  substances  (Delos  et  al.,  1984).  Such  substances
 can be expected to sorb to site soils and  migrate from the site more slowly than will
 polar compounds. As discussed in Haith  (1980) and Mills et al. (1982), estimates  of
 the amount of hydrophobic  compounds released in site runoff can be  calculated
 using the  Modified Universal  Soil  Loss  Equation (MUSLE)  and  sorption  partition
 coefficients  derived  from the compound's octanol-water partition  coefficient. The
 MUSLE  allows estimation  of the amount of surface  soil eroded  in a storm  event  of
 given intensity,  while  sorption coefficients allow the projection of  the  amounts  of
 contaminant carried along with the soil, and the amount carried in dissolved form.

 Soil Loss Calculation

     Equation  2-20 is the basic  equation for estimating soil loss.  Equations 2-21
through 2-24 are used  to calculate certain  input parameters required to apply
 Equation  2-20.  The  modified  universal soil  loss equation (Williams  1975), as
 presented in Mills et al. (1982), is:

          Y(S)E= a(Vrqp)066KLSCP                                       (2-20)

where

     Y(s)E      =    sediment yield (tons per  event, metric tons per  event).
        a      =    conversion constant,  (95 English, 11.8 metric). *
        V  r =     volume  of runoff,  (acre-feet, m3).
        q   p   =     peak flow rate, (cubic feet per second, ms/see).
     Metric  conversions presented in the  following  runoff contamination equations
     are from Mills et al. (1982).
                                     H-2

-------
         K      =    the soil erodibility factor,  (commonly  expressed in  tons per
                     acre  per dimensionless  rainfall erodibility unit). K can be
                     obtained from the local Soil Conservation Service office.
         L      =    the slope-length factor,  (dimensionless  ratio).
         S      =    the slope-steepness factor,  (dimensionless  ratio).
         C      =    the cover factor,  (dimensionless  ratio:  1.0  for bare  soil); see
                     the following discussion for vegetated site  "C" values).
         P      =    the erosion  control practice  factor,  (dimensionless ratio: 1.0
                     for  uncontrolled hazardous  waste sites).

     Soil  erodibility factors  are  indicators of the  erosion potential  of given  soils
types.  As such,  they are highly site-specific. K values  for sites  under  study can be
obtained from the  local Soil Conservation Service office. The slope length factor,  L,
and the  slope  steepness factor,  S, are  generally  entered into the MUSLE  as  a
combined factor,  LS, which is obtained  from Figures 2-4 through  2-6. The  cover
management factor, C,  is determined by the amount and type of vegetative cover
present at the site.  Its value is"l"  (one)  for bare  soils.  Consult Tables 2-4 through 2-
5  to obtain  C values for sites with vegetative covers. The  factor, P,  refers to any
erosion control practices  used on-site. Because these generally describe the type of
agricultural  plowing or  planting  practices, and because  it  is unlikely that  any
erosion control would be practiced at an abandoned hazardous waste site,  use  a
worst-case (conservative)  P value of 1 (one) for uncontrolled  sites.

     Storm runoff volume, Vr, is calculated as follows (Mills et al,  1982):

                            Vr=  aAQr                                     (2-21)

where

     a    =    conversion constant,  (0.083 English,  100 metric).
     A   =    contaminated area, (acres, ha).
     Q r =     depth of  runoff, (in, cm).

     Depth of runoff, Qr,  is determined  by (Mockus  1972):

                     Qr= (Rt- 0.2  Sw)2/(Rt  +  0.8 Sw)                          (2-22)
                                      H-3

-------
                                Slope  Length, Meters
                    20 30  40  60 80100 150200300400600800
               40.0 -
                20.0 -
                    70  IOO    200     4OO 600  IOOO    2000
                                Slope Length,  Feet
Figure 2-4.     Slope Effect chart Applicable to Areas A-1  in Washington,  Oregon,
              and Idaho, and All of A-3:  See Figure 3-5 (USDA 1974 as Presented
              in Mills etal. 1982).

NOTE :    Dashed lines  are  extension of LS formulae beyond values tested  in
         studies.
                                      H-4

-------
                                                                 MILES
Figure 2-5.     Soil Moisture-Soil Temperature Regimes of the Western United
              States (USDA 1974).
                                     H-5

-------
                                Slope Length, Meters
       20.0
        10.0
        8.0
        6.0

        4.0
        3.0
     o
     o  2.0
     o
     S   i.o
     0»   0.8
     O
     §"   0.6
        0.4
        0.3

        0.2


         0.1
            3.5    6.0    10
              20
                                          40  60     IOO
                                          200      4OO  6OO
           10
20      40    60     100      200      400  600   1000     2000
               Slope Length, Feet
Figure 2-6.      Slope  Effect Chart for  Areas Where  Figure 3-5  Is  Not  Applicable
               (USDA1974).

NOTE:     The  dashed  lines represent  estimates for slope dimensions beyond the
          range of lengths and steepnesses for which  data are available.
                                       H-6

-------
                                              TABLE  2-4

                              "C" VALUES FOR PERMANENT PASTURE,
                                   RANGELAND, AND IDLE LAND
Vegetal canopy
Type and height
of raised canopy"
No appreciable canopy

Canopy of tall weeds or
short brush
(0.5 m fall height)



Appreciable brush or
brushes
(2 m fall height)



Trees but no appreciable
low brush
(4 m fall height)



Canopy
coverc
(%)


25

50

75

25

50

75

25

50

75

Cover that contacts the surface/Percent groundcover


Typed
G
m
G
w
G
w
G
w
G
w
G
w
G
w
G
w
G
w
G
w

0
0.45
0.45
0.36
0.36
0.26
0.26
0.17
0.17
0.40
0.40
0.34
0.34
0.28
0.28
0.42
0.42
0.39
0.39
0.36
0.36

20
0.20
0.24
0.17
0.20
0.13
0.16
0.10
0.12
0.18
0.22
0.16
0.19
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.23
0.18
0.21
0.17
0.20

40
0.10
0.15
0.09
0.13
0.07
O.ll
0.06
0.09
0.09
0.14
0.085
0.13
0.08
0.12
0.10
0.14
0.09
0.14
0.09
0.13

60
0.042
0.090
0.038
0.082
0.035
0.075
0.031
0.067
0.040
0.085
0.038
0.081
0.036
0.077
0.041
0.087
0.040
0.085
0.039
0.083

80
0.013
0.043
0,012
0.041
0.012
0.039
0.011
0.038
0.013
0.042
0.012
0.041
0.012
0.040
0.013
0.042
0.013
0.042
0.012
0.041

95-100
0.003
0.011
0.003
0.011
0.003
0.011
0.003
0.011
0.003
0.011
0.003
0.011
0.003
0.011
0.003
0.011
0.003
0.011
0.003
0.011 I
Source: Wischemier 1972.

a All values shown assume: (1) random distribution  of mulch or vegetation and (2) mulch of appreciable depth
  where it exists.
i> Average fall  height of waterdrops from canopy to  soil surface: m  =  meters.
« Portion of total-area surface that would be hidden from view by canopy in a vertical projection (a bird's-eye
  view).
d G:   Cover at surface is grass, grasslike plants, decaying compacted duff, or litter at least 5 cm (2 in.) deep.
  W: Cover at surface is  mostly broadleaf  herbaceous plants (as weeds) with little laterial-root network near the
       surface and/or undecayed residue.
                                                 H-7

-------
                                        TABLE 2-5

                             "C" VALUES FOR WOODLAND
Stand condition
Well stocked
Medium stocked
Poorly stocked
Tree canopy
percent of area"
100-75
70-40
35-20
Forest litter
percent of area"
100-90
85-75
70-40
Undergrowth
Managed"
Unmanaged
Managed
Unmanaged
Managed
Unmanaged
"C" factor
0.001
0.003-0.011
0.002-0.004
0.01-0.04
0.003-0.009
0.02-0.098
Source: Wischemier 1972.

Q   When tree canopy is less than 20 percent, the area will be considered as grass land or cropland
    for estimating soil loss.
b   Forest litter is assumed to be at least 2 in. deep over the percent ground surface area covered.
c   Undergrowth is defined as shrubs, weeds, grasses, vines, etc., on the surface area not
    protected by forest  litter, Usually found under canopy openings.
d   Managed - grazing and fires are  controlled.
    Unmanaged - stands that are overgrazed or subjected  forepeated  burning.
e   For unmanaged woodland with litter cover of less than 75 percent,  C values should be derived
    by taking 0.7 of the  appropriate values in Table 3-4. The factor of 0.7  adjusts for much higher
    soil organic  matter on  permanent woodland.
                                          H-8

-------
 where
      R t  =     the total storm rainfall, (in, cm).
      S  "  =     water retention  factor, (in, cm).

      The  value of SW,  the  water retention factor, is  obtained as follows (Mockus
 1972):

                     sw  =  1000   _10a                                 (223)
                              CN
where
     S w  =    water retention factor, (in, cm).
     CN   =   the SCS Runoff Curve  Number, (dimensionless, see Table 2-6).
     a     =   conversion constant (1.0  English, 2.54  metric).

     The  CN factor  is determined by  the type  of soil at the site, its condition, and
other parameters  that  establish a  value  indicative  of the tendency of the soil  to
absorb and hold  precipitation or to allow precipitation to run  off the surface. The
analyst can obtain CN values of uncontrolled  hazardous waste sites from Table 2-6.

     The  peak runoff rate, qp, is determined  as follows (Haith 1980):
                                           -
                              P    Tr(Rt- 0.2 Sw)
where
     qp   =   the peak runoff rate, (ftVsec, mVsec).
     a    =   conversion  constant, (1  .01 English, 0.028 metric).
     A    =   contaminated area, (acres, ha).
     Rt   =   the total storm rainfall, (in, cm).
     Qr   =   the depth of runoff from the watershed area, (in, cm).
     Tr    =   storm duration, (hr).
                                      H-9

-------
                                   TABLE 2-6

                            RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS
Soil Group
A
B
c
D
Description
Lowest runoff potential: Includes deep
sands with very little silt and clay, also
deep, rapidly permeable loess
(infiltration rate = 8-12 mm/h).
Moderately low runoff potential: Mostly
sandy soils less deep than A, and loess less
deep or less aggregated than A, but the
group as a whole has above-average
infiltration after thorough wetting
(infiltration rate = 4-8 mm/h).
Moderately high runoff potential:
Comprises shallow soils and soils
containing considerable clay and colloids,
though less than those of group D. The
group has below-average infiltration
after presaturation (infiltration rate = 1-
4 mm/h),
Highest runoff potential: Includes mostly
clays of high swelling percent, but the
group also includes some shallow soils
with nearly impermeable subhorizons
near the surface (infiltration rate = 0-1
mm/h).
Site Type
Overall
site"
59
74
82
86
Road/right
of way
74
84
90
92
Meadow
30
58
71
78
Woods
45
66
77
83
Source: Adapted from Schwab et al. 1966.

a Values taken from farmstead category, which is a composite including  buildings, farmyard,
  road, etc.
                                      H-10

-------
     S w =     water retention factor,  (in, cm).

 Dissolved/Sorbed Contaminant Release

     As  discussed  in Mills et al.  (1985),  the analyst  can predict the degree of
 soil/water partitioning expected for given compounds once the storm event soil loss
 has  been calculated with the following  equations. First,  the  amounts of absorbed
 and dissolved substances are determined, using the equations  presented below as
 adapted from Haith (1980):
                         Ss = [1/(1  -i- 0c/KdS)l(C)(A)                     (2-25)
                                     and
                         Ds = [1/(1 + KdB/ec)](Cj)(A)                     (2-26)
where
     Ss   =    sorbed substance quantity, (kg, Ib).
     0C   =    available water capacity of the top cm of soil (difference between
               wilting  point and  field capacity),  (dimensionless).
     K
-------
can be estimated according to procedures described in Lyman et al. (1982). Initially,
the octanol-water partition coefficient can  be estimated based on the substance's
molecular structure.  If  necessary, this value  can be used,  in turn, to estimate  either
solubility in water  or bioconcentration factor.

     After calculating  the amount of sorbed and dissolved contaminant, the total
loading to the receiving  waterbody is calculated as follows  (adapted from  Haith
1980):

                             PXi= (Y(S) E/100 B)  Ss                         (2-27)
                                      and
                                PQi=  (Qr/Rt) Ds                           (2-28)
where
     Px  , =     sorbed substance loss per event, (kg, Ib).
     Y(S)E=    sediment yield, (tons per event,  metric tons).
     B    =    soil bulk density, (g/cm3).
     S s =     sorbed substance quantity, (kg, Ib).
     PQ , =    dissolved substance loss per event, (kg, Ib).
     Q  r =     total storm runoff depth, (in, cm).
     R  t =     total storm rainfall, (in, cm).
     D  s =     dissolved substance quantity, (kg, Ib).

     Px^nd  PQiCan be  converted to mass per volume terms for use in estimating
     contaminant  concentration in  the receiving waterbody by dividing by the site
     storm runoff volume  (Vr,  see Equation 2-21).
                                     H-12

-------
                                 REFERENCES

 Delos C. G., Richardson, W. L, DePinto J. V., et  al. 1984. Technical guidance manual
 for  performing  wasteload allocations,  book  II:  streams  and rivers.  U.S.
 Environmental Protection  Agency.  Office  of  Water Regulations  and Standards.
 Water  Quality Analysis  Branch. Washington, D.C.  (Draft  Final.)

 Haith D. A.,  1980. A mathematical  model for  estimating pesticide losses  in  runoff.
 Journal of Environmental  Quality. 9(3):428-433.

 Lyman, W. J., Reehl W. F., Rosenblatt D.  H.,  1982. Handbook of  chemical  property
 estimation  methods.  New York.  McGraw-Hill.

 Mills W. B., Dean J. D., Porcella D.  B.,  et  al.  1982. Water quality assessment:  a
 screening procedure  for  toxic  and conventional  pollutants:  parts  1, 2, and 3.
 Athens,  GA:  U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.  Environmental  Research
 Laboratory. Office of Research and Development.  EPA/600/6-85/002 a,  b, c.

 Schwab  G.  O., Frevert  R. K., Edminster T. W.,  Barnes  K. K., 1966. Soil and  water
 conservation  engineering. 2nd edn.  New York:  John Wiley and Sons.

 USDA.  1974.  Department of Agriculture.  Universal soil  loss equation. Agronomy
technical note no. 32. Portland, Oregon.  U.S.  Soil Conservation Service. West
Technical Service Center.

Williams J. R., 1975.  Sediment-yield prediction with the universal  equation  using
 runoff  energy factor.   In  present  and  prospective  technology for predicting
sediment yields and sources. U.S. Department of  Agriculture. ARS-S-40.

Wischmeier  W.  H.,  1972. Estimating the  cover  and. management factor on
 undisturbed  areas. U.S.  Department of Agriculture.  Oxford,  MS: Proceedings of
the USDA Sediment Yield Workshop.
                                    H-13

-------