# Constituent Screening for Coal Combustion Wastes
Work Assignment 3-43 Contract No. 68-W-98-085

Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Prepared by: RTI P.O. Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

October 2002

# Constituent Screening for Coal Combustion Wastes

Work Assignment No. 3-43 Contract No. 68-W-98-085

Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Prepared by: RTI P.O. Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

October 2002

### iii Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 2.0 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1 Waste Constituents of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 2.1.1 Selection and Grouping of Waste Types of Concer n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 2.1.2 Selection of Appropriate Analyte Data for Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 2.1.3 Development of Waste Constituent Concentrations for Screening . . . . 2-5 2.2 Human Health Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 2.3 Ecological Receptors, Endpoints, and Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11 2.4 Exposure Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12 2.4.1 Human Health-Based Numbers (HBNs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12 2.4.2 Ecological Chemical Stressor Concentration Limits (CSCLs) . . . . . . 2-13 2.4.3 Media-Specific Exposure Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15 2.5 Risk Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17 3.0 Risk Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.1 Human Health Results—Groundwater Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.1.1 Groundwater-to-Drinking-Water Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.1.2 Groundwater-to-Surface-Water Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 3.1.3 Summary and Conclusions: Groundwater Pathway Analysis . . . . . . . . 3-7 3.2 Human Health Results—Aboveground Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7 3.3 Ecological Risk Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10 3.3.1 Soil Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10 3.3.2 Surface Water Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12 3.3.3 Ecological Risk Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16 3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17 3.4.1 Aboveground Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17 3.4.2 Groundwater Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19 3.4.3 Constituents Not Addressed in the Screening Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20 4.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 Appendix A–CCW Constituent Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 Appendix B–Human Health Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 Appendix C–Chemical Stressor Concentration Limits (CSCLs) for Ecological Screening . . . C-1 Appendix D–Calculation of Health-Based Numbers (HBNs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 Appendix E–Chemical-Specific Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1 Appendix F–Biota Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1 Appendix G–Human Exposure Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1 Appendix H–Site Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1 Appendix I–Tabulated Human Health Screening Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 Appendix J–Tabulated Ecological Risk Screening Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1

### iv List of Figures Figure Page 1-1. Conceptual model of CCW risk assessment for landfills and surface impoundments . 1-3 2-1. Comparison of 1998 and 2002 CCW porewater concentration data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8 2-2. Comparison of 1998 and 2002 CCW TCLP data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9 2-3. Comparison of 1998 and 2002 CCW landfill whole waste concentration data . . . . . . 2-10 2-4. Soil dilution factors from the 1998 aboveground risk analysis for CCW landfills. . . 2-17 3-1. CCW surface impoundment porewater screening risk levels for the groundwater-to-drinking-water pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23-2 CCW landfill leachate screening risk levels for the groundwater-todrinking-water pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 3-3. CCW surface impoundment porewater screening risk levels for the surface water (fish consumption) and drinking water pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 3-4. CCW landfill leachate screening risk levels for the surface water (fish consumption) and drinking water pathways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 3-5. Comparison of 1998 and 2002 aboveground human health risk results for the soil pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 3-6. CCW landfill aboveground ecological screening risks: Soil pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-113-7. CCW surface impoundment ecological screening risks: Groundwater-to-surfacewater pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 3-8. CCW landfill (TCLP) ecological scr eening risks: Groundwater-to-surfacewater pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14 3-9. CCW landfill aboveground ecological scr eening risks: Sediment pathway . . . . . . . . 3-15

### v List of Tables Table Page 2-1. Constituents Addressed in the Screening Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 2-2. Waste Types in CCW Constituent Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 2-3. Comparison/Hierarchy of Leaching Methods Represented in CCW Constituent Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 2-4. Ecological Receptors Assessed in Each Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11 2-5. CSCL Exposure Assumptions for Mammals and Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15 2-6. Comparison of IWEM and CCW Landfill Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16 2-7. Comparison of IWEM and CCW Surface Impoundment Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16 3-1 Summary of Screening Results: Constituents Exceeding Human Health Screening Criteria for Groundwater Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 3-2. CCW Screening Results Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18 3-3. Summary of CCW Screening Results: Groundwater Pathway Exceedances . . . . . . . 3-19 3-4. CCW Constituents/Measurements Not Addressed in Screening Because of Lack of Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21

### Section 1.0 Problem Formulation



### 1-1 

# Constituent Screening for

Coal Combustion Wastes

This report presents the methodology and results from RTI's screening and selection of constituents of concern for the coal combustion wastes (CCW) risk assessment. RTI developed and applied a risk-based methodology for selecting CCW chemical constituents, waste types, receptors, and exposure pathways for detailed modeling or additional study. Screening was conducted for the following receptors and pathways of concern:



## # Human health impacts from groundwater contamination 

## # Human health impacts from aboveground contamination 

## # Ecological impacts from groundwater contamination 

## # Ecological impacts from aboveground contamination. Previous risk assessment results for CCW (U.S. EPA, 1998) indicated concern for the groundwater pathway and limited concern for aboveground pathways for human and ecological receptors. The primary purpose of this risk assessment is to update those results by incorporating new waste characterization data received since 1998 and by applying current data and methodologies to the risk assessment. The initial step in this process is screening and constituent selection for a more detailed analysis. 

# 1.0 Problem Formulation For more than 10 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conducted risk assessments to assist regulators, industry, and the public in evaluating the environmental risks associated with CCW landfills, surface impoundments, other disposal procedures, and beneficial uses. In April 2000, the Agency determined that certain coal combustion waste would be subject to Resource Conservation and Rec overy Act (RCRA) Subtitle D regulation, but did not specify the regulatory options at that time. This screening analysis is a first step toward identifying and quantifying human health and ecological risks that may be associated with current management practices for high-volume CCW: fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) sludge, and wastes from fluidized-bed combustion (FBC) units. These CCW risk assessments will assist the Agency in developing specific CCW regulatory options for these waste streams under RCRA Subtitle D regulation. Details on EPA's CCW project, including work conducted to date, can be found at http://www.epa.gov./epaoswer/other/fossil/index.htm.

### Section 1.0 Problem Formulation



### 1-2 The goal of screening is to identify CCW constituents, waste types, receptors, and exposure pathways with risks below the level of concern and eliminate those combinations from further analysis. The scope of screening is utility coal combustion wastes. EPA’s Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels (U.S. EPA, 1999) reports that there are 440 coal-fired utility power plants in the United States. Although they are concentrated in the East, the plants are found in nearly every state, with facility settings ranging from urban to rural. The large volumes of wastes generated by these plants are typically managed onsite in landfills and surface impoundments. The screening analysis must be designed to be appropriate for and protective of this national waste management setting. Risk-based screening analyses are, by design, intended to be protective. The objective is to focus attention to the constituents, exposure pathways, and receptors of concern so that EPA can begin to formulate appropriate regulatory options and undertake the additional analyses needed to determine the best approach. To accomplish this objective, screening criteria must be set to be protective of all CCW management scenarios across the United States. An appropriate level of conservatism will result in confident identification of de minimis risks but will only indicate a potential for significant risks for constituents, waste management scenarios, exposure pathways, and receptors that do not pass the screen. This potential for risk can be examined through less conservative analyses of conditions at CCW facilities, such as detailed site-based modeling or analysis of damage cases at specific facilities. Screening should also be comprehensive in coverage of exposure pathways and receptors of potential concern. Figure 1-1 provides a con ceptual model of exposure pathways associated with the management of CCW in surface impoundm ents and landfills. Key features of this model include



## # Contaminant release from landfills through water and wind erosion and leaching



## # Contaminant release from surface impoundments through infiltration through the bottom of the impoundment



## # Transport of contaminants through air, overland runoff, surface water, and groundwater



## # Uptake and accumulation of contaminants by plants and animals



## # Human exposure through direct contact with or ingestion of contaminated air, water, soil, produce, beef, milk, and fish



## # Ecological exposure through direct contact with contaminated media and ingestion of contaminated organisms. The design of the screening analysis used this conceptual model to ensure that screening is comprehensive with respect to releases, exposure pathways, and receptors of potential concern.

### 1-3 Section 1.0 Problem FormulationSOURCERELEASEMECHANISMSMEDIAEXPOSURESCENARIOSEXPOSUREROUTESRECEPTORSErosion & RunoffSoilLeaching/InfiltrationGroundwaterResidencePostclosureSurfaceImpoundmentIngestion of drinking waterResident1Agricultural Field/Home Garden/BackyardTerrestrialHabitatSurface WaterHabitatIngestion of produce,meat, and milkContact with soilSoil invertebrate communitySurface WaterIngestion of fishInhalation of particulatesIngestion of soilResident farmerRecreational fisher,piscivorous wildlifeParticulate EmissionsAirNote:1. Resident, recreational fisher, and resident farmer include one adult and four child age groupsIngestion of terrestrial plants,soil, and soil invertebratesMammals and birdsContact with waterAmphibians, aquaticcommunityIngestion of aquatic plantsand invertebratesMammals, birds,aquatic communitySedimentContact with sedimentSediment invertebratecommunityIngestion of sedimentinvertebratesMammals, birds, fishActiveSurfaceImpoundmentLandfillSediment HabitatFigure 1-1. Conceptual model of CCW risk assessment for landfills and surface impoundments.

### Section 2.0 Analysis

1 For the groundwater-to-surface-water pathway, the an alysis assumes human exposure occurs through the consumption of contaminated fish. Ecological exposure o ccurs through direct contact to contaminated surface water and sediment and consumption of aquatic organisms. 

### 2-1 

# 2.0 Analysis The screening risk analysis is designed to identify CCW constituents for possible full-scale exposure modeling of the groundwater and aboveground exposure pathways by estimating exposure and risk that may occur from the constituents and comparing these risk estimates with target risk criteria. The groundwater pathway screening evaluates exposure through drinking water ingestion and surface water contamination 1 

### from groundwater; the aboveground pathway screening evaluates exposur e through ingestion of media and food items from a contaminated area adjacent to the waste management unit. The analysis considers risks to both human and ecological receptors. Waste constituents that pass the screen (i.e., are below target risk/hazard criteria) are assumed to pose de minimis risks and will not be addressed in the full-scale modeling. RTI’s approach to CCW screening is to compare protective concentrations in each medium of concern for human and ecological receptors with estimated offsite media concentrations of CCW constituents. Health-based numbers (HBNs) are media concentrations developed to protect human health, and chemical stressor concentration limits (CSCLs) are developed to protect ecological receptors. HBNs are calculated based on the target risk criteria for the screening analysis: a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1 (for noncarcinogens) or an excess cancer risk level of 10 -5 

### . CSCLs are calculated based on a HQ of 1. The analysis phase for screening involves developing these HBNs and CSCLs, as well as preparing the waste constituent or media concentrations to be used in the comparison and estimating the risk associated with these concentrations. Pathways and waste streams evaluated in the analysis include



## # Groundwater-to-drinking water, by compari ng drinking water HBNs directly with landfill leachate and surface impoundment porewater concentrations



## # Groundwater-to-surface water, by comparing surface water HBNs and CSCLs directly with landfill leachate and su rface impoundment porewater concentrations



## # Aboveground soil, by comparing soil HBNs and CSCLs to offsite soil contaminant concentrations from the erosion and overland transport of landfill waste

### Section 2.0 Analysis



### 2-2 

## # Aboveground sediments, by comparing sedime nt CSCLs to sediment contaminant concentrations from the erosion and overland transport of landfill waste and contaminated soil. Direct ecological exposure to surface impoundment waters was not considered because no new data were available. Results for this pathway from the 1998 CCW ecological risk assessment are provided in the summary table and figures in Section 3.0. 

## 2.1 Waste Constituents of Concern The CCW screening analysis addresses metals and inorganic compounds identified by EPA as potential constituents of concern in CCW (Table 2-1). RTI derived waste concentrations for most of these constituents from a waste characterization database prepared for EPA by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). This CCW constituent database includes analyte concentration data in three tabl es representing different types of waste samples: landfill leachate analyses (in mg/L), surface impoundment and landfill porewater analyses (in mg/L), and analyses of whole waste samples (in mg/kg). Each table specifies, for most samples, the type of waste sampled and the type of coal burned at the facility.
Table 2-1. Constituents Addressed in the Screening Analysis

Constituent CAS ID Constituent CAS ID Metals Inorganic Anions Aluminum 7429-90-5 Chloride 16887-00-6 Antimony 7440-36-0 Cyanide 57-12-5 Arsenic 7440-38-2 Fluoride 16984-48-8 Barium 7440-39-3 Total Nitrate Nitrogen 14797-55-8 Beryllium 7440-41-7 Phosphate 14265-44-2 Boron 7440-42-8 Silicon 7631-86-9 Cadmium 7440-43-9 Sulfate 14808-79-8 Chromium 7440-47-3 Sulfide 18496-25-8 Cobalt 7440-48-4 Inorganic Cations Copper 7440-50-8 Ammonia 7664-41-7 Iron 7439-89-6 Calcium 7440-70-2 Lead 7439-92-1 pH 12408-02-5 Magnesium 7439-95-4 Potassium 7440-09-7 Manganese 7439-96-5 Sodium 7440-23-5 Mercury 7439-97-6 Nonmetallic Elements Molybdenum 7439-98-7 Inorganic Carbon 7440-44-0 Nickel 7440-02-0 Total Elemental Sulfur 7704-34-9 Selenium 7782-49-2 Measurements Silver 7440-22-4 Total Dissolved Solids none (continued)

### Table 2-1. (Continued) Section 2.0 Analysis

Constituent CAS ID Constituent CAS ID



### 2-3 Strontium 7440-24-6 Total Organic Carbon none Thallium 7440-28-0 Dissolved Organic Carbon none Vanadium 7440-62-2 Zinc 7440-66-6


### Table 2-2 lists the waste types evaluated in the screening analysis along with the number of sites representing each waste type in the database. Key steps in preparing these data for screening include (1) selection and grouping of wast e types to be addressed, (2) selection of the analyte data to be used, and (3) processing of these data to develop the analyte concentrations for the screening analysis. 2.1.1 Selection and Grouping of Waste Types of Concern The CCW constituent database contains a variety of waste types. Some selection and grouping of these types was necessary to produce a consistent and simple screening analysis. Table 2-2. Waste Types in CCW Constituent Database 1



### Waste Type Number of Sites by Waste Type
Landfill Leachate Landfill Porewater Surface Impoundment

Porewater Whole Waste Conventional Combustion Waste 92 5 16 57 Ash (not otherwise specified) 33 1 0 25 Fly ash 62 2 2 34 Bottom ash & slag 23 1 4 22 Combined fly & bottom ash 9 0 5 4 FGD sludge 5 1 6 5 Combined ash & coal waste 4 0 4 1 Fluidized-Bed Combustion Waste 55 1 0 53 Ash (not otherwise specified) 15 1 0 9 Fly ash 34 0 0 33 Bottom and bed ash 25 0 0 25 Combined fly & bottom ash 20 0 0 22

1 Counts by waste type from leachate, porewater, and w hole waste data tables in 7/08/02 SAIC database

### Section 2.0 Analysis



### 2-4 The analysis excludes coal waste (e.g., mill rejects, coal gob, storage pile runoff) because it is not coal combustion waste and, therefore, is out of scope for the analysis. Mixed ash and coal waste are included. Mine-filled waste is included under the assumption that it is representative of wastes destined for mine waste disposal and that similar waste could be disposed of in landfills and surface impoundments. However, porewater from mine waste disposal sites is excluded from the analysis because acidic conditions characteristic of mine disposal sites are not characteristic of the CCW landfills and surface impoundments that are the subject of this analysis. Combustion ash types in the CCW constituent database include fly ash, bottom ash, bed ash, slag, combined fly and bottom ash, and coal ash not otherwise specified. The analysis combines data for these ash types, as appropriate, for landfills and surface impoundments at the same site. However, units holding FBC wast es, FGD sludges, and codisposed ash and coal waste are addressed separately because the composition and chemistry of these wastes are likely to be different from those of coal combustion as h. That is, the analyte concentration data for FBC wastes, FGD sludges, and combined ash and coal waste are not mixed with analyte concentration data for ash from conventional coal combustion units. 2.1.2 Selection of Appropriate Analyte Data for Screening CCW analyte concentration data represent (1) leachate from landfills and surface impoundments and (2) whole waste in landfills, as follows.



## # Whole waste analyte concentrations (in mg/kg) represent landfill waste concentrations for screening the aboveground pathways.



## # Analyte concentrations (in mg/L) in porewater sampled from surface impoundment sediments represent surface impoundment leachate affecting the groundwater pathways.



## # To represent landfill leachate, the leachate table in the CCW constituent concentration database includes analyte concentrations from several leaching methods. Data are also available from landfill porewater analyses at six sites in the porewater data table. Table 2-3 describes the method types included in the database, along with the decision hierarchy used when several types of leaching data are available for a disposal site. As shown in Table 2-3, the methods thought to best represent long-term waste monofill porewater composition (i.e., methods with long equilibration times and low liquid-to-solid ratios) represent only a few sites, with most sites having toxic characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) and/or synthetic precipitation leaching procedur e (SPLP) measurements. To best represent CCW landfill waste concentration at a wide variety of sites, the hierarchy rank shown in Table 2-3 is used to select the best method for a particular site. For sites where two or more methods are available in the same rank (which often occurs for SPLP and TCLP analyses), the screening analysis uses the method with the highest analyte concentrations. This ensures that the data used in the screening analysis are the best that are available and represent a broad variety waste disposal conditions.

### Section 2.0 Analysis



### 2-5 Table 2-3. Comparison/Hierarchy of Leaching Methods Represented in CCW Constituent Database Method (Rank) Description Pros Cons Landfill porewater (1) Direct porewater samples from landfill Most representative of leachate chemistry Low number of sites represented High retention time and low L:S methods (2) Waste extractions with long equilibration times (days to weeks) and low liquid-to-solid ratios (L:S) Better representation of landfill equilibration times and L:S Low number of sites represented

Low L:S methods (3) Waste extractions with low liquid-to-solid ratios Better representation of landfill L:S Low number of sites represented; equilibrium times relatively short High retention time methods (3) Waste extractions with long equilibration times (days to weeks) Better representation of landfill equilibration times Low number of sites represented; L:S relatively high TCLP (4) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure waste extractions Most representative in terms of number of sites, waste types covered High L:S (20:1) can dilute leachate concentrations; short equilibration time (18 hr) may not allow equilibrium to develop; Na-acetate buffer can overestimate leaching for some constituents (e.g., Pb) SPLP (4) Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure and other dilute water waste extractions More representative in terms of number of sites, waste types covered; extract similar to precipitation High L:S (20:1) can dilute leachate concentrations; short equilibration time (18 hr) may not allow equilibrium to develop



### 2.1.3 Development of Waste Constituent Concentrations for Screening To allow screening decisions to be made by waste constituent, waste stream, and exposure pathway, CCW data are processed to produce a single concentration per analyte and waste stream (surface impoundment porewater, la ndfill leachate, and landfill whole waste) for comparison with HBNs and CSCLs. Data processing to create these analyte concentrations involves two steps: 1. Calculation of average constituent concentrations by site for landfill leachate, surface impoundment porewater, and total ash concentrations . Site averaging avoids potential bias toward sites with many analyses per analyte. During site averaging, separate waste disposal scenarios at a site (e.g., non-FBC and FBC ash; FGD sludge and ash) are treated as separate "sites" and are averaged independently. This approach is consistent with that used in the 1998 CCW risk

### Section 2.0 Analysis

2 Appendix A contains figures showing how site-averaged 90 th percentile concentrations and 90 th percentile concentrations taken across all analyses (nonaveraged concentrations) compare with HBNs for surface impoundment porewater, TCLP leachate, and whole waste concentrations.

3 Although 90 th percentile concentrations are used for screening, 95 th percentile concentrations are presented in these figures for purposes of comparison to the available data from the 1998 risk analysis. 

### 2-6 analysis. As in 1998, nondetects are averaged at one-half the reported detection limit. 2 

### 2. Selection of screening concentrations from site-averaged values . For the screening calculations, the analysis uses the 90 th 

### percentile of the site-averaged concentrations across all sites for landfill leachate, surface impoundment porewater, and total ash concentrations. Figures 2-1 through 2-3 compare the 1998 and 2002 95 th 

### percentile constituent concentrations for the porewater, landfill leachate (TCLP), and whole waste data sets. 3 

### The 2002 data set includes all of the 1998 data sets along with additional analyses that EPA has received from industry and state sources since 1998. A lthough the 2002 porewater data set includes only surface impoundment porewater, the smaller 1998 data set includes a few landfill leachate and mine waste leachate porewater samples. The mine waste porewater samples were excluded in 2002 because this disposal environment tends to produce acidic leachate not characteristic of the onsite landfills and surface impoundments that are the subject of this analysis. SAIC prepared the waste characterization database for EPA in 2002. The 2002 waste characterization database includes all of the coal combustion waste characterization data used by EPA in its risk assessments supporting the March 1999 Report to Congress (RTC) on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels . In addition to the data set from the March 1999 RTC, SAIC supplemented the database in 2002 with the following:



## # Data submitted with public comments to EPA on the 1999 RTC



## # Data submitted with public comments to EPA concerning the May 22, 2002, Final Regulatory Determination



## # Data collected by and provided to EPA since the end of the public comment period on the Final Regulatory Determination



## # Data identified from literature searches. The primary sources of these additional data include the electric power industry, state regulatory agencies, and scientific literature. The additional data represent a significant expansion in the quantity and scope of characterization data available to EPA for analysis. For example, the data set used for the risk assessments supporting the RTC covered approximately 50 coal combustion waste generation and/or disposal sites. With the addition of the supplemental data, the 2002 waste characterization database now covers approximately 140 sites.

### Section 2.0 Analysis



### 2-7 Although comparable for many constituents, the larger 2002 data set has several distinct differences from the 1998 data set:



## # Porewater data in 2002 are consistently lower than 1998 values (Figure 2-1). Barium concentrations are almost 2 orders of magnitude lower in 2002. All other analytes show less than an order-of-magnitude difference, with the largest differences occurring for arsenic, molybdenum, nickel, and zinc. Only cadmium shows a slightly higher value in 2002. Porewater data are limited for antimony, beryllium, mercury, and thallium to a few nondetect analyses in both data sets. Although silver has a larger data set, all values are below detection in 1998 and 2002.



## # TCLP data were limited to four metals in 1998 (Figure 2-2). Concentrations of arsenic, nickel, and chromium are an order of magnitude or more higher in 2002, while selenium shows lower concentrations in the more recent data set.



## # Whole waste data do not show a consistent pattern from 1998 to 2002 and tend to agree more closely than porewater or TCLP data (Figure 2-3). The largest differences can be seen for barium, selenium, and strontium, which have higher 1998 concentrations, and nickel and vanadium, which have higher 2002 concentrations. Barium, selenium, and strontium show consistently lower 1998 values for all three waste categories. 

## 2.2 Human Health Benchmarks HBNs for the residential well screening are based on human health benchmarks from approved EPA sources selected based on the follo wing order of preference (which is consistent with previous EPA Office of Solid Waste [OSW] risk assessments):



## # Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 

## # Superfund Technical Support Center Provisional Benchmarks 

## # Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) 

## # EPA health assessment documents 

## # Various other EPA health benchmark sources 

## # Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) minimal risk levels (MRLs) 

## # California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) chronic inhalation reference exposure levels (RELs) and cancer potency factors 

## # Drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or action levels. Note that the hierarchy uses non-EPA sources as a last resort. MCLs are used for constituents lacking human health benchmarks from other sources. Where MCLs are lower than HBNs (e.g., for nitrate), the MCL is used for screening. Appendix B provides a more detailed discussion of the rationale, data sources, and human health benchmark values used for CCW screening.

### Section 2.0 Analysis



### 2-8 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Zn V Tl Sr Ag Se NO2 NO3

Ni Mo Hg Mn PbFCu Co Cr Cd

B Be Ba As Sb AlAnalytes



### 95th Percentile Concentration (mg/L)
2002 SI Porewater 1998 Porewater (not detected in 1998; 11 nondetects in 2002)

(insufficient data in 1998; 1 detection, 10 nondetects in 2002)

(one nondetect analysis in 2002)

(not detected in 1998; 49 nondetects in 2002)

(insufficient data in 1998; 11 nondetects in 2002)



### Figure 2-1. Comparison of 1998 and 2002 CCW porewater concentration data.

### Section 2.0 Analysis



### 2-9 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Zn V Tl Sr Ag Se NO3

Ni Mo Hg Mn PbFCN Cu Co Cr Cd B Be Ba As Sb AlAnalytes

95th Percentile Concentration (mg/L)
2002 TCLP/EP 1998 TCLP 

### Figure 2-2. Comparison of 1998 and 2002 CCW TCLP data.

### Section 2.0 Analysis



### 2-10 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Zn V Tl Sr Ag Se Pb Ni Mo Mn Cu Co Cr Cd B Be Ba Sb As AlAnalyte

95th Percentile Total Waste Concentration (mg/kg) 1998 2002 

### Figure 2-3. Comparison of 1998 and 2002 CCW whole waste concentration data.

### Section 2.0 Analysis



### 2-11 

## 2.3 Ecological Receptors, Endpoints, and Benchmarks Ecological CSCLs are taken directly from th e 1998 fossil fuel combustion risk analysis, Non-groundwater Pathways, Human Health and Ecological Risk Analysis for Fossil Fuel Combustion Phase 2 (FFC2) (U.S. EPA, 1998). The receptors and endpoints selected for the 1998 analysis were evaluated and are considered appropriate for the goals of this screening analysis. As summarized in Table 2-4, the analysis considers both direct contact and ingestion endpoints and benchmarks. Ecological receptors are exposed through direct contact with contaminants in surface water, sediment, and soil. The receptors selected to assess the direct contact exposure route for each medium are shown in Table 2-4 and are described in Appendix C, along with the endpoints and benchmarks used to develop direct-contact CSCLs. The derivation of ingestion CSCLs begins with the selection of appropriate ecotoxicological data based on a hierarchy of data sources. The assessment endpoint for the ecological screening analysis was population viability; therefore, the analysis develops benchmarks from measures of reproductive-deve lopmental success or, if unavailable, from other effects that could conceivably impair populati on dynamics. Population-level benchmarks are preferred over benchmarks for individual or ganisms; however, very few population-level benchmarks have been developed. Therefore, th e ecological screening analysis uses benchmarks derived from individual organism studies, and pr otection is inferred at the population level.
Table 2-4. Ecological Receptors Assessed in Each Medium

Receptor Type Surface Water (Leachate, Porewater) Sediment (Whole Waste) Soil (Whole Waste) Direct Contact Exposure Aquatic Community 

## U Sediment Community 

## U Soil Community 

## U Amphibians 

## U Aquatic Plants and Algae 

## U Terrestrial Plants 

## U Ingestion Exposure Mammals 

## U U Birds 

## U U

### Section 2.0 Analysis



### 2-12 

## 2.4 Exposure Assessment Exposure assessment for CCW screening involves both deriving protective HBNs and CSCLs for human and ecological receptors and selecting conservative exposure concentrations in the media of concern for the analysis. The exposure scenarios assumed for CCW management (see Figure 1) define the media of concern for the analysis. Human exposure scenarios include:



## # Drinking of groundwater contaminated by leachate from CCW landfills and surface impoundments



## # Consumption of fish by recreational fishers fishing in streams and lakes contaminated by CCW leachate through the groundwater-to-surface-water pathway



## # Exposure to a farmer through the consumption of soil, produce, beef, and milk contaminated with constituents eroded by wind and water from a CCW landfill and deposited on an adjacent agricultural field and home garden



## # Inhalation (by the farmer) of airborne particulates eroded from a CCW landfill by wind. Ecological exposure scenarios occurring near CCW landfills or surface impoundments include direct contact and ingestion exposure routes and follows:



## # Direct contact with soil and sediment contaminated by erosion and overland transport from a CCW landfill 

## # Ingestion of plants, soil, and soil invertebrates contaminated with constituents eroded by wind and water from a CCW landfill and deposited on an adjacent terrestrial habitat



## # Direct contact with surface water contaminated by CCW leachate through the groundwater-to-surface-water pathway



## # Ingestion of aquatic organisms in streams and lakes contaminated by CCW leachate through the groundwater-to-surface-water pathway. The screening analysis calculates HBNs and CSCLs for the contaminated media in each of these exposure scenarios. 2.4.1 Human Health-Based Numbers (HBNs) HBNs represent media concentrations that are protective of human health from exposure pathways that are relevant to that particular medium. The CCW screening analysis uses HBNs calculated for groundwater and surface water exposure, as well as for the aboveground exposure

### Section 2.0 Analysis



### 2-13 pathways described above. The CCW HBNs represent reasonable maximum exposure (RME) scenarios for an offsite receptor:



## # Groundwater HBNs are protective for resi dential drinking water exposure from a domestic well immediately downgradient from a CCW landfill or surface impoundment.



## # Surface water HBNs are protective for fish caught (and consumed) by a recreational fisher from a river, lake, or stream adjacent to a CCW landfill or surface impoundment.



## # Aboveground HBNs are protective for a farmer living just downslope of an CCW landfill. Exposure pathways for the farmer include inhalation of air contaminated with waste particulate matter blowing off the landfill; soil ingestion; consumption of produce grown in contaminated soil and contaminated via air deposition; and consumption of beef and milk from cattle eating grain, forage, and silage grown in contaminated soil and contaminated via air deposition. Key features and assumptions of the HBN calculations include the following:



## # HBNs are calculated based on a target cancer risk of 10 -5 

### or target HQ of 1.



## # The source size for estimating landfill particulate emissions is set at the 95 th 

### percentile for landfill areas identified in the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) database (EPRI, 1997).



## # The analysis considers exposures for one adult and three child receptor cohorts; exposure for each cohort is assumed to start at ages 3, 8, 15, and 20. 

## # Chemical properties (biouptake and bioaccumulation factors) are collected from best available literature values (see Appendix E).



## # Human exposure factors (e.g., body weight, exposure duration, exposure frequency, consumption rates) are set at central-tendency values (see Appendix G). Appendix D provides details on the HBN calculati ons, including all assumptions and equations. Appendices E through H provide the input data used in the calculations and all data sources. 2.4.2 Ecological Chemical Stressor Concentration Limits (CSCLs) The CCW ecological screening analysis parallels the human health screening analysis and addresses two routes of exposure for ecological receptors: direct contact with contaminated media and ingestion of contaminated food ite ms. Screening CSCLs incorporate chemicalspecific assumptions protective of ecological receptors of concern. These media concentrations are analogous to HBNs used in the human health screening. As with the HBNs, CSCLs can be compared directly with concentrations of constituents found in CCW, leachate, and porewater, or with conservative offsite media concentrations to estimate risk.

### Section 2.0 Analysis



### 2-14 The analysis derives CSCLs for each chemical and receptor to the extent that supporting data are available. The lowest (most sensitive) CSCL for each chemical in each medium is used to calculate HQs in the screening analysis. For example, several receptors (soil invertebrates, terrestrial plants, mammals, and birds) can be exposed to chemicals in soils; the analysis uses the lowest (most conservative) soil CSCL for these receptors. The CCW CSCLs come from a compilation of data from sources meeting predetermined data quality objectives. The analysis uses the lowest CSCL for each receptor in each medium, and different CSCLs reflect different effects levels.



## # Mammal and bird CSCLs are all based on no-observed-adverse-effects-level (NOAEL) dose benchmarks.



## # Soil CSCLs are mostly based on low effects levels (i.e., they are concentrations at which adverse effects would be expected, but these effects would not be expected to impair the receptor’s ability to maintain its function in the ecosystem).



## # Sediment CSCLs are based on lowest observed effects levels (LOAELs, which are less conservative than NOAELs) for some chemicals, and on threshold effects levels (TELs) for others. TELs are the geometric mean of the 15 th 

### percentile effects data and the 50 th 

### percentile no effects data and can be thought of as an intermediate value between a NOAEL and a LOAEL.



## # Surface water CSCLs are National Ambient Water Quality Criteria (NAWQC), secondary chronic values (SCVs) derived using methods similar to the NAWQC, or Great Lake Initiative final chronic values (FCVs). As such, they generally reflect low effects values.



## # Amphibian CSCLs consist of the geometric mean of LC50 data. They are based on the only data available: acute exposure data. Although this is a departure from the methods used for other CSCLs, amphibians are generally sensitive receptors and need to be addressed with the best data available. The CSCLs for mammals and birds are calculated based on several assumptions about exposure (see Table 2-5). In general, the assumptions used for this analysis are representative (as opposed to conservative) with the exception of the percentage of diet that is contaminated; the analysis assumes that 100 percent of each receptor’s diet is contaminated.

### Section 2.0 Analysis

4 Although the 95 th percentile was used in 1998, the 90 th percentile is used in this analysis as a reasonably conservative value considering the protective screening an alysis assumptions and the larger 2002 data set. 

### 2-15 Table 2-5. CSCL Exposure Assumptions for Mammals and Birds Assumption Potential Bias Ingestion rates and diet composition are for adults. Does not account for different susceptibility for young. Body weights are mean adult values, including male and female data. Does not account for different susceptibility among young. Dietary composition includes a representative variety of items when appropriate and a single item in cases where one item is preponderant (e.g., makes up more than 90% of the diet) Representative

100% of diet is contaminated. Conservative assumption; unlikely except for species with small home ranges (e.g., salamanders and other amphibians, small mammals)


### Appendix B summarizes the methodology used to develop the CSCLs and provides the CSCLs used in the analysis. Both direct cont act and ingestion CSCLs were developed for the 1998 risk analysis. For direct contact CSCLs, eco logical receptors that live in close contact with contaminated media are considered potentially at risk. These receptors are exposed through direct contact with contaminants in surface water, sediment, and soil. The ingestion route of exposure addresses the exposure of terrestrial mammals and birds through ingestion of plants and prey and incidental soil ingestion. Thus , ingestion CSCLs express media concentrations that, based on certain assumptions about receptor diet and foraging behavior, are expected to be protective of populations of mammals and birds that feed and forage in contaminated areas. 2.4.3 Media-Specific Exposure Concentrations The screening analysis requires media concentrations for soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment to compare with the HBNs and CSCLs. The simple scope of the screening analysis does not allow for media-specific modeling to be conducted. Instead, the analysis uses waste concentrations as protective estimates of offsite media concentrations. For soil and sediment, simple dilution factors, based on modeling conducted for the 1998 CCW risk assessment, are used to adjust whole waste concentrations to better represent offsite soil. For groundwater-to-drinking-water exposures, the analysis uses the 90 th 

### percentile waste porewater 4 

### and leachate concentrations to represent groundwater contamination from the surface impoundment and landfill, respectively. No dilution or attenuation is assumed between the waste management unit and the drinking water well because the large size range of CCW units precludes the use of dilution attenuation factors ( DAFs) greater than 1, such as those that were developed for the industrial waste management scenarios addressed by the Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM). Tables 2-6 and 2-7 compare the size distribution of

### Section 2.0 Analysis



### 2-16 landfills and surface impoundments for CCWs with the industrial waste management units used to develop the IWEM DAFs, showing that CCW units are much larger than industrial waste management units. A DAF of 1 was also used for constituent screening in the 1998 risk analysis.
Table 2-6. Comparison of IWEM and CCW Landfill Areas Percentile IWEM (acres) CCW (acres) min 0.01 3

10 0.12 16 25 0.6 27 50 3 68 75 13 176 90 35 300 95 55 351 max 770 900


### Table 2-7. Comparison of IWEM and CCW Surface Impoundment Areas Percentile IWEM (acres) CCW (acres) min 0.002 5

10 0.04 22 25 0.1 43 50 0.4 100 75 1.7 195 90 7 310 95 13 412 max 1,200 1,500


### To represent soil concentrations for aboveground exposures, the analysis divides the 90 th 

### percentile whole waste concentration by a conservative dilution factor to represent the offsite transport to downslope soils adjacent to the la ndfill. This dilution factor is based on the modeling results for soil exposure scenarios from the 1998 CCW risk analyses. Figure 2-4 plots the ratio of 1998 whole waste concentrations to soil concentrations for several constituents as a function of the soil-water partition coefficient. The graph illustrates that the lowest waste-to-soil ratio is 20, and this ratio appears to meet a minimum value at close to 20. This minimum value (20) is used to represent soil concentrations for the characterization of risks for ecological receptors. The aboveground analysis of human risks use a dilution factor of 10, because exposures include direct soil ingestion and plant uptake from soil along with deposition of particulate matter onto leafy vegetation. The more conservative value (10) was used in this case

### Section 2.0 Analysis



### 2-17 21935 4170 2945 297 192 99 42 28 20

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1998 Soil DF (Total Waste Concen tration/Offsite Soil Concentration)Kd(L/kg) Ag B Se Co Tl Cd Ba Al Pb 2002 FFCW Soil DAF (10)



### Figure 2-4. Soil dilution factors from the 1998 aboveground risk analysis for CCW landfills. to allow some soil dilution without overly diluting the contribution from aerial deposition of dust from the landfill. 

## 2.5 Risk Calculations The analysis estimates human-health risk for CCW constituents by calculating the ratio between the 90 th 

### percentile constituent concentrations (numerator) and the HBNs (denominator) developed for the aboveground and groundwater pathways. Because HBNs are derived for the target risk criteria set for the analysis—an excess cancer risk of 10 -5 

### or a HQ of 1—the ratio of the 90 th 

### percentile concentration and the HBN represents the screening risk estimate (HQ for noncarcinogens or cancer risk for carcinogens): HQ (or cancer risk) = 90 th 

### percentile concentration / HBN. Similarly, the analysis screens constituents for adverse ecological effects by calculating the ratio between the 90 th 

### percentile concentrations (numerator) and the CSCLs (denominator). Because the CSCLs are derived for a target HQ of 1 for relevant ecological endpoints, the ratio of a 90 th 

### percentile constituent concentration to its CSCL represents the HQ for that constituent: HQ = 90 th 

### percentile concentration / CSCL.

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization



### 3-1 

# 3.0 Risk Characterization Risk characterization for the CCW risk assessment involved estimating the risks to human health and ecological receptors associated with exposure to CCW through the exposure pathways pictured in Figure 1-1 and described in Section 2.3. Consistent with the goals of the screening analysis, screening results are used primarily to identify, with a high level of confidence, CCW constituents, waste streams, and exposure pathways of no further concern for the CCW risk analysis. Constituents with risk levels that exceed the target risk criteria (10 -5 

### excess cancer risk or an HQ of 1) cannot be eliminated from concern and will be investigated further by EPA. However, the screening risk estimates for these constituents should not be considered accurate estimates of the risks currently posed to human and ecological receptors by CCW. The highly protective assumptions (e.g., RME scenarios, waste concentrations as media concentrations) needed for protective screening of constituents of further concern have likely resulted in overestimates of the actual risks posed by CCW constituents managed in landfills and surface impoundments. As described in Section 2.4, the screening analysis estimates risk by dividing media (or waste) chemical concentrations by HBNs (for human health) or CSCLs (for ecological risks). This section characterizes these results with respect to the target risk criteria for humans and ecological receptors, compares results with the results of the 1998 CCW risk assessment (U.S. EPA, 1998a,b), and evaluates differences. Although 95 th 

### percentile waste concentrations were used in 1998, this analysis uses 90 th 

### percentile concentrations for screening decisions because of the conservatism of the screening assumptions and the larger, more comprehensive data set available to evaluate 2002 risks. The 95 th 

### percentile 2002 concentrations are also presented for comparison with 90 th 

### percentile values and 1998 risk results. 

## 3.1 Human Health Results—Groundwater Pathways The screening analysis evaluates groundwater pathways for both landfills and surface impoundments. Groundwater pathways screened for human health risks include the groundwater-to-drinking water pathway for dom estic wells and the groundwater-to-surfacewater pathway for exposure through fish consumption by recreation fishers. The latter pathway is significant because coal-fired power plants ar e often located adjacent to large bodies of water that are used for recreational fishing. 3.1.1 Groundwater-to-Drinking-Water Pathway Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show the groundwater-t o-drinking-water pathway screening results for surface impoundments and landfills, respectively. Based on the screening criteria—HQ of 1 for noncancer risk and a 10 -5 

### cancer risk—16 of 24 constituents fail the screen for surface

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization



### 3-2 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 As, Cancer As NO3 (MCL) B Tl Pb (MCL) Co Cd Mo Mn SbFCr VI

Se V NO2

Ni Sr Al Cu (MCL) Ba Be Zn Ag Hg Cr IIIAnalytes

Hazard Quotient (Risk Level) 2002 SI Porewater 90th percentile 2002 SI Porewater 95th percentile 1998 Porewater 95th percentile (10 -6 ) (10 -5 ) (10 -7 ) (10 -8 ) (10 -4 ) (10 -3 ) (10 -2 ) (10 -1 )



### Figure 3-1. CCW surface impoundment porewater screening risk levels for the groundwater-to-drinking-water pathway.

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization



### 3-3 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 As, Cancer As Sb Tl Pb (MCL) Mo

B Cd Cr VI VFSe NO2

Mn Ba Sr Ni Hg NO3 (MCL) Be Ag Zn Al Co Cu (MCL) CN Cr IIIAnalytes

Hazard Quotient (Risk Level) 2002 Leachate 90th percentile 2002 Leachate 95th percentile 1998 TCLP 95th percentile (10 -5 ) (10 -6 ) (10 -7 ) (10 -8 ) (10 -4 ) (10 -3 ) (10 -2 )



### Figure 3-2. CCW landfill leachate screening risk levels for the groundwater-todrinking-water pathway

.

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization

5 Manganese and hexavalent chromium also show lo wer HBNs in 2002 because of lower health benchmarks than those used in 1998. Fluoride has a slightly higher HBN in 2002 because of EPA’s decision to use the adjusted reference dose (RfD) for skeletal fluorosis instead of the RfD for dental fluorosis. 

### 3-4 impoundment porewater (Figure 3-1). These results are generally consistent with the 1998 CCW groundwater risk analysis. Cobalt was not a ddressed in porewater in 1998, but does show a screening exceedance in the 2002 results. Barium and zinc, which showed exceedances in 1998, do not exceed the screening criteria in 2002 because the waste concentrations in the 2002 database are lower than in the 1998 database (see Figure 2-1). Antimony and thallium surface impoundment porewater concentrations are all below detection limits in the 2002 data, as they were in 1998. However, because the detection limit is more than twice the HBN for most of the analyses in the 2002 database, the 90 th 

### percentile of the nondetect values is above the screening criteria for these constituents. EPA elected not to consider these nondetects quantitatively in the 1998 risk analysis. Although concentrations set at one-half of the detection limit do exceed the risk criteria in 2002, the values could be less than this assumed value. Figure 3-2 shows the 2002 landfill leachate screening risks and compares them with the risk results for the few constituents with TCLP leachate data in 1998. Constituents failing the landfill leachate screen are similar to those failing the screen for surface impoundment porewater, with 12 of 25 constituents failing the screen. Exceptions include nitrate, cobalt, and nickel, which fail for surface impoundment porewater only. Antimony and thallium, which have detectable concentrations in the landfill leachate data set, fail the screen for both landfills. Appendix D includes a comparison of the 1998 and 2002 drinking water HBNs. Aluminum and cobalt were not evaluated in 1998 because health benchmarks were not available. Aluminum screens out for both landfills and surface impoundments for the 2002 data set; cobalt screens out in landfill leachate, but not in surface impoundment porewater. Most of the remaining constituents show lower HBNs in 2002 by a factor of 1.8, primarily because of the differences in exposure factors between the adult-only scenario assumed in 1998 and the child age cohorts used in 2002. 5 

### However, the changes in HBNs from 1998 to 2002 did not affect the results (in terms of number of exceedances). 3.1.2 Groundwater-to-Surface-Water Pathway The ground-water-to-surface-water pathway screening analysis considers risks to human health from the migration of contaminants from the landfill or surface impoundment, through groundwater, and into surface water, where contaminants can accumulate in fish. Recreational fishers who consume their catch are the receptors of concern. This pathway was not addressed in the 1998 risk analysis. Figures 3-3 and 3-4 summarize the 90 th 

### percentile groundwater-to-surface-water screening results for surface impoundments and landfills, respectively. In each case, five metals show screening risks of concern: arsenic, cadmium, mercury, selenium, and thallium. Comparing these results with the 90 th 

### percentile groundwater-to-drinking-water results shows that arsenic, cadmium, selenium, and thallium show screening exceedances for both pathways.

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization



### 3-5 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Hg As, Cancer Se As Tl Cd Cu Mo Zn Sb Cr VI

Be Ni Cr IIIAnalytes



### Hazard Quotient (Risk Level) Surface water (fish) Drinking-water (10 -6 ) ( 10 -5 ) ( 10 -7 ) (10 -8 ) (10 -4 ) (10 -3 ) (10 -2 ) (10 -1 ) (10 -10 ) (10 -9 )


### Figure 3-3. CCW surface impoundment porewater screening risk levels for the surface water (fish consumption) and drinking water pathways.

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization



### 3-6 0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Hg Tl Se As, Cancer Cd As Zn Cu Sb Mo Be Cr VI

Ni CN Cr IIIAnalytes

Hazard Quotient (Risk Level) Surface-water (fish) Drinking Water (10 -5 ) (10 -6 ) (10 -7 ) (10 -8 ) (10 -4 ) (10 -3 ) (10 -2 ) (10 -11 ) (10 -9 ) (10 -10 )



### Figure 3-4. CCW landfill leachate screening risk levels for the surface water (fish consumption) and drinking water pathways

.

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization 

### Mercury, which tends to bioconcentrate in fish tissue, only exceeds the screening criterion for the groundwater-to-surface-water pathway. 3.1.3 Summary and Conclusions: Groundwater Pathway Analysis Table 3-1 summarizes the results of the groundwater pathway screening analysis for drinking water ingestion and fish consumption, listing the 17 constituents found to exceed the screening criteria for either landfill leachate or surface impoundment porewater, along with their relative rank in the landfill and surface impoundment results. More detailed results are tabulated in Appendix I. Key findings of the groundwater pathway human health screening analysis include the following:



## # Sixteen chemicals exceed screening criteria for the groundwater-to-drinking water pathway. Most of these chemicals showed exceedances in the 1998 risk analysis as well (cobalt was not evaluated in 1998).



## # Although they exceeded risk criteria in 1998, barium and zinc do not exceed risk criteria in the 2002 screening analysis because of lower waste concentrations in the more comprehensive surface impoundment porewater database.



## # Arsenic, cadmium, selenium, and thallium exceeded risk criteria for both pathways in landfills and surface impoundments.



## # Six chemicals exceeded screening criteria for the groundwater-to-surface-water pathway, with mercury exceeding for this pathway only. Mercury and selenium show higher screening risks for this pathway than for the drinking water pathway because of their tendency to accumulate in fish tissues. 

## 3.2 Human Health Results—Aboveground Pathways Figure 3-5 summarizes the 2002 aboveground human health screening risk results for the offsite soil scenario and compares them with 1998 aboveground risk results. The 2002 aboveground risks are calculated by first dividing wa ste concentrations by a dilution factor of 10 to represent a conservative offsite soil concentration for a farm immediately downslope from a CCW landfill. That is, the soil is assumed to be 5 percent CCW eroded from the landfill and deposited on the field by wind and water. The ratio between this offsite soil concentration and the soil HBN provides the screening level risk/hazard estimates. For constituents addressed in both 1998 and 2002, screening results differ somewhat from 1998 aboveground risk analysis; arsenic, barium, and thallium showed risks at or above the screening criteria in 1998 and no risk exceedances in 2002. Although the complexity of the aboveground risk assessment makes it difficult to iden tify all of the factors that result in these differences, the lower concentration of these analytes in the 2002 data is a primary factor (see Figure 2-3).

### 3-8 Section 3.0 Risk CharacterizationTable 3-1. Summary of Screening Results: Constituents Exceeding Human HealthScreening Criteria for Groundwater PathwaysChemicalHazard Quotient orCancer RiskNumber of Sites with Analyses(Number of Sites Exceeding Screening Criteria)2Percent NondetectSites1SI Porewater Landfill Leachate SI Porewater Landfill LeachateGW->DW GW->SW GW->DW GW->SW GW->DW GW->SW GW->DW GW->SW SI PW LeachateCarcinogenic Constituents (screening risk criterion = 10-5cancer risk)Arsenic, cancer1.81E-02 2.24E-04 1.38E-03 1.71E-05 17 (17) 17 (6) 119 (113) 119 (22) 12% 22%Noncarcinogenic Constituents (screening risk criterion = HQ of 1)Antimony5.450.0222.200.062 (1)2 (0)60 (37)60 (0) 100% 45%Arsenic588.00 7.28 44.800.5517 (15) 17 (4) 119 (99)119 (8) 12% 22%Boron28.40--4.00--18 (11)-72 (28)- 6% 4%Cadmium8.91 3.73 3.37 1.41 17 (5) 17 (3) 117 (39) 117 (22)53% 32%Chromium VI4.150.012.27< 0.0118 (6)18 (0)118 (35)118 (0) 44% 14%Cobalt10.70-- 0.14 --4 (1)- 51 (0) - 50% 20%Fluoride5.42--1.80--15 (4)-33 (6)- 13% 3%Lead11.80--15.90--14 (6)-116 (78)- 36% 33%Manganese5.56-- 0.99 --16 (4)- 72 (8) - 12% 18%Mercury 0.0365.000.31700.001 (0)1 (1)97 (6)97 (97)100% 62%Molybdenum6.810.084.200.0518 (13)18 (0)49 (29)49 (1) 33% 10%Nickel1.27< 0.01 0.53 < 0.0117 (3)17 (0) 80 (3) 80 (0) 24% 24%Nitrate60.20-- 0.28 --13 (3)- 17 (1) - 23% 18%Nitrite1.78--1.18--15 (2)-5 (1)- 27% 80%Selenium2.43 9.50 1.20 4.69 15 (5) 15 (9) 119 (14) 119 (69)20% 19%Thallium19.30 5.69 21.30 6.29 2 (2) 2 (1) 40 (32) 40 (20)100% 45%Vanadium2.33--2.19--15 (6)-40 (8)- 7% 12%1Percent of sites with no detections of chemical in any sample.2Number of sites exceeding screeningcriteria are given in parentheses.Bold indicates values/pathways exceedingscreening risk criteria (HQ of 1 or 10-5cancer risk).GW->DW = groundwater-to-drinking-water pathway; GW->SW = groundwater-to-surface-water pathway (fish ingestion); SI = surface impoundment;PW = porewater; TCLP = ToxicityCharacteristic Leaching Procedure-- = no HBN available for constituent/pathway combination

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization



### 3-9 0.00000001 0.0000001 0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 As, cancer Tl B Ag Sb As Hg Sr Zn Cr VI, cancer Mo Cr VI V Cd Ni Ba Al Se Pb (SSL/PRG) Mn Co Co, cancer Be Be, cancerFCd, cancer Cr III

CN NO3Analytes



### Hazard Quotient (Risk Level) 2002 90th percentile 2002 95th percentile 1998 95th percentile (10 -5 ) (10 -4 ) (10 -6 ) ( 10 -7 ) (10 -8 ) (10 -9 ) (10 -10 ) (10 -11 ) (10 -12 ) (10 -13 )

1 Offsite soil = total waste concentrations/10 

### Figure 3-5. Comparison of 1998 and 2002 aboveground human health risk results for the soil pathway.

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization

6 The HQs shown in Figure 3-6 reflect a soil dilution factor of 20 applied to whole waste concentrations. The dilution factor was derived from the 1998 analysis by co mparing whole waste concentrations to modeled offsite soil concentrations (see Section 2.3.3). 

### 3-10 More detailed results for the aboveground human health screening analysis are tabulated in Appendix I. For human exposure through aboveground pathways, no exceedances occur for soil concentrations based on the 90 th 

### percentile whole waste concentrations, with only slight exceedances (HQ at or less than 1.5) at the 95 th 

### percentile concentrations for mercury, thallium, boron, and silver (which did not exceed the risk criteria in 1998). Based on these results and considering the highly protective assumptions of the aboveground screening analysis, EPA does not believe that additional modeling or evaluation of aboveground human exposure pathways is necessary. 

## 3.3 Ecological Risk Results Ecological screening assesses risks for soil and surface water pathways, considering exposure through direct contact and ingestion. The surface water analysis includes exposure to both contaminated water and sediments. Results for each pathway are discussed below. 3.3.1 Soil Pathways In general, the soil pathway for ecological receptors addresses exposure through direct contact with soil and ingestion of terrestrial (i .e., soil-based) food and prey items. Figure 3-6 shows ecological screening estimates calculated for soil pathways by dividing the 90 th 

### percentile offsite soil concentrations by ecological CSCLs. The screening criterion for soil ecological risk is an HQ of 10. This is consistent with the approach used in 1998 bounding risk analysis and justified as "strongly suggestive of de minimis ecological impacts” because of the highly conservative nature of the screening ecological risk analysis. The 1998 CSCLs are conservative both in terms of the benchmark selection and the assumption of direct exposures. Moreover, the spatial scale of potential ecological effects based on the screening results is highly conservative (i.e., the area affected by landfills may be of limited significance ecologically). Because the 2002 analysis uses the 1998 CSCLs along with protective assumptions about offsite soil concentrations, 6 

### the HQ of 10 was considered to be an appropriate criterion for this analysis. As in 1998, all constituents except boron passed the ecological risk screen for soil. Boron was excluded in 1998 because its soil CSCL (based on toxicity to plants) is lower than typical background soil levels across the United States. It is included for discussion in these results because boron is an important component of coal ash and because previous work (e.g., Carlson and Adriano, 1993) indicates that the boron in coal ash is in a more available and toxic form for plant uptake than it is in typical soils. Aluminum also may be of concern (draft CSCLs are well below whole waste concentrations), but the chemical form is especially important for this metal because of its widespread occurrence in aluminosilicate minerals in soil and CCW. The screening results indicate that chemicals othe r than boron and aluminum are not of potential concern for terrestrial wildlife exposed through these pathways.

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization



### 3-11 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 B Se Hg Ni Cu As V Zn Cd Sb Pb Cr Ba Mo CoAnalytes

Ecological Hazard Quotient (HQ) 2002 90th percentile 2002 95th percentile 1998 95th percentile Boron CSCL < typical background

1 Offsite soil = total waste concentrations/20 

### Figure 3-6. CCW landfill aboveground ecological screening risks: Soil pathway.

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization

7 The 2002 CCW constituent database does not include impoundment water samples, and the direct exposure pathway was not addressed. 

### 3-12 3.3.2 Surface Water Pathways The screening analysis assesses ecological receptor exposure to surface water and sediments for the groundwater-to-surface-water pathway. Porewater analyses for surfaceimpoundments and leachate analyses for landfills are used to assess groundwater-to-surfacewater contamination. The screening analysis calculates HQs by dividing the 90 th 

### percentile waste concentration by the appropriate CSCL. No dilution factor is applied in these results because this pathway was not assessed in the 1998 study, and data are therefore lacking to support estimation of a dilution factor.Figures 3-7 and 3-8 show the respective screening results for the groundwater-to-surfacewater pathway. At the HQ criterion limit of 1, none of the constituents of concern are below the screening criterion for landfills or for surface impoundments. However, considering the conservative nature of the CSCLs and the use of waste leachate and porewater concentrations to represent surface water concentrations, a target HQ of 10 can be applied and a few metals (4 surface impoundment porewater and 5 for landfill leachate) are below the screening criterion. In the 1998 study, all but seven metals were below the risk criterion for the surface water pathway—aluminum, arsenic, boron, cadmium, lead, mercury, selenium. (Aluminum and boron HQs greater than 1 were based on amphibian CSCL s derived from acute effects data.) However, the 1998 study estimated surface water exposure for ecological receptors based on surface water concentrations from aboveground transport (where risks were negligible) and concentrations in the waters of the surface impoundments themselves (where risks were significant). While surface impoundments may be used by mammals and birds in the area for feeding and foraging, there is no expectation that surface impoundments support aquatic communities (e.g., fish, aquatic invertebrates), and therefore risks to aquatic receptors were not considered in 1998 for exposures within surface impoundments. The current surface water screening addresses exposure to receptors in offsite surface waterbodies impacted by groundwater, where both the aquatic communities and upper trophic level terrestrial receptors would need to be protected. 7 

### Figures 3-7 and 3-8 show the 1998 impoundment water results for comparison. If data were available to reassess ecological risks for exposure in surface impoundment waters, we would follow a similar approach to the 1998 study and restrict the analysis to terrestrial recep tors that obtain food and prey from the surface impoundments and exclude aquatic receptors living in the water column. However, in the absence of new analytical data for impoundment water, the 1998 results are used for this 2002 screening analysis. Results for the sediment pathway are shown in Figure 3-9. Sediment HQs are calculated by dividing 90 th 

### percentile whole-waste concentrations by sediment CSCLs. All chemicals for which CSCLs are available screen out for the sediment pathway. The sediment HQs in Figure 3-9 reflect a sediment concentration equivalent to 95 th 

### percentile whole waste concentrations diluted by a factor of 1,000. In a comparison, based on the 1998 waste concentrations and modeled sediment concentra tions, the lowest dilution factor was 13,000 (i.e.,

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization



### 3-13 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 B Hg As IV

Pb Co Al Ba Se, total Cd Se VI As III Cr VI

Cu V Ni Ag Se IV

Be Zn Cr III

Tl Mo SbAnalytes



### Ecological Hazard Quotient (HQ) 2002 SI Porewater (GW-to-SW exposure pathway) 1998 SI Wastewater (direct exposure)



### Figure 3-7. CCW surface impoundment ecological screening risks: Groundwater-to-surface-water pathway.

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization



### 3-14 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Hg

B Pb Ba Al Ag As IV Se, total Be V Cd Se VI Cr VI

Zn Cu Sb Se IV Ni Tl Co As III Cr III

MoAnalytes

Ecological Hazard Quotient (HQ) 2002 Landfill leachate (GW-to-SW exposure pathway) 1998 SI wastewater (direct exposure) 

### Figure 3-8. CCW landfill (TCLP) ecological screening risks: Groundwater-to-surface-water pathway.

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization



### 3-15 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 Pb As V Sb Ni Ag Hg Cu Cr Cd Ba Zn MoAnalytes

Ecological Hazard Quotient (HQ) 2002 90th percentile 2002 95th percentile 1998 95th percentile 

### Figure 3-9. CCW landfill aboveground ecological screening risks: Sediment pathway.

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization



### 3-16 the factor of 1,000 is clearly conservative). These results indicate no potential concern for the sediment pathway with respect to aboveground transport pathways. However, the potential for sediment contamination from groundwater-to-surface water discharge has not been assessed. Furthermore, eight potentially significant metals (aluminum, beryllium, boron, cobalt, molybdenum, selenium, thallium, and vanadium) are not assessed for the sediment pathway because of a lack of toxicological benchmarks. 3.3.3 Ecological Risk Conclusions and Recommendations As described above, the CCW screening analysis calculates ecological HQs as the media concentration (soil, sediment, and surface water) divided by the chemical- and receptor-specific CSCL. For CCW screening, both the numerator (waste concentration) and the denominator (CSCL) are conservative. CSCLs are taken from a compilation of data sources meeting predetermined data quality objectives, with the lowest value for each receptor in each medium being selected (see Section 2.3). The analysis also uses protective assumptions to estimate media concentrations. Porewater and leachate concentrations are used to represent surface water concentrations contaminated through the groundwater pathway. A conservative dilution factor of 20, based on the 1998 CCW exposure modeling results (see Section 2.4), is used to adjust whole waste concentrations to represent offsite soil concentrations. Generally speaking, these concentrations are conservative and it is unlikely that ecological receptors are exposed to these concentrations for most CCW exposure scenarios. However, the surface impoundment scenario may be an exception. It is probable that ecological receptors eat and drink from surface impoundments in some settings. In addition, ecological receptors, particularly amphibians who may lay their eggs in surface impoundments, are probably exposed through chronic contact with wastewater. Because amphibians are prey to a large variety of animals (e.g., raptors; wading birds; mammalian omnivores, such as foxes, raccoons, and weasels), this exposure is transferred up the food chain. Aquatic plants, although not often a focus of ecological risk assessment, are directly exposed in surface impoundments. Plants, in turn, may be ingested by vertebrates and invertebrates at higher trophic levels. Similarly, in landfills, there is a chance that receptors could incidentally ingest some whole waste. For example, a white-tailed deer or a vole could ingest whole waste as it browses or forages in the landfill. Small mammals, such as voles, are preyed upon by higher trophic levels. The ecological screening results indicate some areas of potential concern for ecological risks. In particular,



## # Boron may represent a risk for terrestrial plants exposed to contaminated soil.



## # Aluminum may be of concern for various receptors and pathways, but impacts are highly dependent on the chemical speciation of the metal.

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization



### 3-17 

## # For the groundwater-to-surface-water pathway, all but five chemicals of potential concern are above the risk criterion for aquatic receptors.



## # The sediment pathway is not of concern with respect to aboveground contamination. However, surface water sediments can be contaminated by groundwater discharge, and this pathway was not evaluated in this screening analysis.



## # Risks to organisms in the hyporheic zone (the transition zone between groundwater and surface water) were not evaluated in this analysis but could be significant for the groundwater-to-surface-water pathway.



## # Based on the 1998 CCW risk assessment results, direct exposure to surface impoundment waters may pose risks of concern to mammals and birds for seven metals. 

## 3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations This screening analysis addressed constituents of concern in CCW for which the human health or ecological benchmarks were available to apply the risk-based methodology described in Section 2. Table 3-2 lists these constituents and shows the results, by pathway and receptor type, in terms of the risk criteria used in the analysis; values of 1 or above indicate risks of concern that will be investigated further by EPA. Recommendations are described by pathway in the following sections. 3.4.1 Aboveground Pathways All constituents evaluated were below the screening criteria for human exposure through the aboveground pathways evaluated (inhalation, soil ingestion, and ingestion of contaminated produce, beef, and milk). This confirms the findings of the 1998 risk assessment, and supports the conclusion that no additional analysis is needed with respect to human health impacts through aboveground exposure pathways. The analysis also evaluated ecological impacts from exposure to soils and sediments contaminated through aboveground overland transport. No screening exceedances occur for surface water sediment contaminated through erosion and overland transport of soil. Only boron exceeds the risk criteria for direct exposure to contaminated soil. This agrees with previous studies noting plant toxicity to boron in coal ash (e.g., Carlson and Adriano, 1993). Because of the magnitude of this screening exceedance (3.5 times the risk criteria) and the existence of documented damage cases, we do not believe additional modeling of this pathway is needed to confirm that boron is of concern to plants grown in soil contaminated with coal ash. Consequently, additional full-scale modeling will not be conducted for human or ecological aboveground exposure pathways.

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization



### 3-18 Table 3-2. CCW Screening Results Summary

Analyte Human Health Risk/Risk Criteria 1 

### Ecological Risk/Risk Criteria 2

### GW-toDW GW-toSW AG-Soil GW-toSW AG-Soil AGSediment SI-direct (1998) 3 

### Aluminum 0.39 -- 0.03 26.50

-- -- 10.00 Antimony 2.22 0.06 0.28 0.87 0.02 < 0.01 0.46 Arsenic 1,811.00 22.40 0.80 63.90 0.05 0.02 19.00 Barium 0.78 -- 0.04 40.10 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Beryllium 0.27 0.02 < 0.01 2.40 -- -- NA Boron 28.40 -- 0.72 4,699.00 3.46

-- 16.00 Cadmium 8.91 3.73 0.07 5.23 0.03 < 0.01 23.00 Chromium 4.15 0.01 0.10 3.33 0.01 < 0.01 0.10 Cobalt 10.70 -- 0.01 27.30 < 0.01 -- 0.20 Copper 0.22 0.22 -- 3.05 0.05 < 0.01 0.34 Cyanide 0.11 < 0.01 < 0.01 -- -- -- NA Fluoride 5.42 -- < 0.01 -- -- -- NA Lead 15.90 -- 0.02 79.40 0.01 0.04 830.00 Manganese 5.56 -- 0.02 -- -- -- NA Mercury 0.31 700.00 0.24 1,418.00 0.08 < 0.01 4,500.00 Molybdenum 6.81 0.08 0.09 0.27 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.14 Nickel 1.27 < 0.01 0.05 1.44 0.06 < 0.01 0.28 Nitrate 60.20 -- < 0.01 -- -- -- NA Nitrite 1.78 -- -- -- -- -- NA Selenium 2.43 9.50 0.03 7.13 0.11 -- 30,000.00 Silver 0.27 -- 0.52 11.00 -- < 0.01 0.15 Strontium 0.55 -- 0.17 -- -- -- NA Thallium 21.30 6.29 0.07 0.42 -- -- 0.45 Vanadium 2.33 -- 0.08 2.39 0.04 0.01 0.31 Zinc 0.22 0.24 0.12 1.61 0.03 < 0.01 0.10

1 Human health risk criteria are an HQ of 1 for noncarcinogens and a 10 -5 excess cancer risk for carcinogens 2 Ecological risk criteria are an HQ of 10 for soil, surface water, and sediment and an HQ of 1 for direct surface

impoundment exposure. 3 Results from 1998 ecological risk analysis (U.S. EPA, 1998a), which considered only risks to mammals, birds,

and amphibians frequenting the impoundment. Effects on aquatic biota within the impoundment were not considered to be indicative of ecol ogical risk because surface impoundments are not designed to serve as aquatic habitats. Bold indicates values over the risk criteria; the highest of landfill and surface impoundment results are shown in the table. GW = groundwater, SW = surface water, AG = aboveground, SI = surface impoundment -- = no health benchmark available to conduct the analysis NA = not addressed in 1998

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization



### 3-19 3.4.2 Groundwater Pathways With respect to exposure through groundwater transport, 23 CCW constituents showed risk above the screening criteria for human or ecological exposure. The screening analysis confirms the results of the 1998 risk analysis that showed significant risks through the groundwater-to-drinking-water pathway and suggests that risks are also significant for exposure to human and ecological receptors through the groundwater-to-surface-water pathway (which was not evaluated in 1998). The screening results support a full-scale modeling effort to characterize the nationwide distribution of risks through groundwater transport. Table 3-3 summarizes the groundwater pathway screening results for these constituents by showing the risk ranking, by pathway, for each constituent. This table also prioritizes the 23 constituents of concern for the groundwater pathways by risk rank and number of pathways/ receptors with screening exceedances. These priorities are intended to help plan and implement the full-scale modeling effort. Full-scale modeling will address both groundwater impacts on drinking water wells (for human receptors) and groundwater impacts on surface water quality (for human and ecological receptors). Waterbodies of concern include fishable streams, rivers,and lakes adjacent to CCW landfills and surface impoundments, as well as nearby groundwaterfed wetlands where sensitive ecological receptors may be present. Table 3-3. Summary of CCW Screening Results: Groundwater Pathway Exceedances

Analyte Human Health - Drinking Water Human Health - Surface Water 1 Ecological Risk - Surface Water Modeling Priority LF Rank SI Rank LF Rank SI Rank LF Rank SI Rank Arsenic 1 1 2 5 7 3 1 Boron 6 3 - - 2 1 1 Cadmium 7 7 5 4 11 9 1 Lead 4 5 - - 3 4 1 Mercury - - 1 1 1 2 1 Selenium 11 13 3 3 8 8 1 Thallium 3442- - 1 Aluminum - - - - 5 6 2 Antimony 2 10 - - - - 2 Barium - - - - 4 7 2 Cobalt 6 - - - 5 2 Molybdenum 5 8 ---- 2 Chromium 8 12 - - 12 10 3 Fluoride 10 11 - - - - 3 Manganese 13 9 - - - - 3 Vanadium 9 14 - - 10 12 3 (continued)

### Table 3-3. (Continued) Section 3.0 Risk Characterization



### 3-20 Analyte Human Health - Drinking Water Human Health - Surface Water 1 Ecological Risk - Surface Water Modeling Priority LF Rank SI Rank LF Rank SI Rank LF Rank SI Rank Beryllium ----9- 4 Copper - - - - 14 11 4 Nickel - 16 - - - 13 4 Nitrate - 2 - - - - 4 Nitrite 12 15 - - - - 4 Silver - - - - 6 14 4 Zinc - - - - 13 - 4

1 

### Fish-consumption pathway LF = landfill SI = surface impoundment


### 3.4.3 Constituents Not Addressed in the Screening Analysis Table 3-4 lists the constituents not addressed in the screening analysis; they are not addressed primarily because there are no suitable human health or ecological benchmarks to conduct the risk-based screening described in this report. Ammonia was not addressed because data in the CCW constituent database are limited to a few pilot project sites; EPA is in the process of collecting additional analyte data for facilities that implement this new technology. Several of the constituents that were not screened are of actual or potential concern with respect to environmental impacts. Perhaps the most significant of these is porewater or leachate pH, which ranges from the acidic conditions (pH 3 to 4) that occur when ash is codisposed with coal wastes, to the very alkaline conditions (a pH of up to 12.5 or higher) that are characteristic of FBC wastes and certain FGD sludges and conve ntional combustion ash. Carlson and Adriano (1993) cite damage incidents resulting from alkaline CCW effluent discharge to surface waterbodies. The potential for negative impacts on groundwater chemistry is possible as well. Public comments to the 1999 RTC also mention environmental damages by excessively high pH as an area of concern. Similarly, several metals and ions (calcium, chloride, iron, potassium, sodium, sulfate, and sulfur) occur at concentrations in ash leachate and porewater that are high enough to be of concern because of their potential to change aquatic chemistry and have a negative impact on ecosystems.

### Section 3.0 Risk Characterization



### 3-21 Table 3-4. CCW Constituents/Measurements Not Addressed in Screening Because of Lack of Benchmarks

Constituent Comment Potential concern because of high concentrations Calcium Values range from 1 to more than 1,000 mg /L; could affect surface or groundwater chemistry Chloride Values range from < 1 to more than 23, 000 mg/L (in FGD sludge); could affect surface or groundwater chemistry Iron Values range from below detection to 48,000 mg/L; could affect surface or groundwater chemistry pH Values range from < 3 to more than 12; most wastes are very alkaline, with ash mixed with coal waste tending to be acidic. Damage cases show toxicity to aquatic life. Potassium Values range from < 1 to more than 5,000 mg/L; could affect surface or groundwater chemistry Sodium Values range from < 2 to more than 10,000 mg /L; could affect surface or groundwater chemistry Sulfate Values range from < 1 to more than 50,000 mg /L in ash mixed with coal waste; could affect surface or groundwater chemistry Total Sulfur Values range from < 1 to more than 25, 000 mg/L; could affect surface or groundwater chemistry Not of concern because of generally low concentrations Carbon Cyanide Dissolved Organic Carbon Magnesium Phosphate Silicon Sulfide Total Organic Carbon Insufficient data to determine concern Ammonia EPA is in the process of obtaining additional data Total Dissolved Solids

### Section 4.0 References



### 4-1 

# 4.0 References

Carlson, C. L., and D. C. Adriano. 1993. Environmental impacts of coal combustion residues. J. Environ. Qual. 22:227-247.EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 1997. Coal Combustion By-Products and LowVolume Wastes Comanagement Survey. Palo Alto, CA. June. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998a. Non-groundwater Pathways, Human Health and Ecological Risk Analysis for Fossil Fuel Combustion Phase 2 (FFC2): Draft Final Report. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC. June. U.S EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998b. Technical Background Document for the Supplemental Report to Congress on Remaining Fossil Fuel Combustion Wastes: Ground-Water Pathway Human Health Risk Assessment. Revised Draft Final. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC. June. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels . EPA 530-5-99-010. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. March.

# Appendix A FFCW Constituent Data

### Appendix A



### A-3 Table A-1. FFCW Landfill Waste Analyte Concentrations: Total Waste Analyses (mg/kg)

Analyte Sites 1 ND Sites 2 2002 FFCW Total Waste Concentrations 1998 Total Waste 95th Minimum Maximum 50th 75th 90th 95th Aluminum 71 0 1.45E+01 1.37E+05 2.53E+0 4 4.17E+04 8.57E+04 9.76E+04 1.43E+05 Antimony 64 19 1.25E-01 3.10E+02 1.56E+01 2 .94E+01 4.62E+01 7.93E+01 4.67E+01 Arsenic 111 3 4.70E-02 3.70E+02 2.79E+0 1 6.18E+01 1.05E+02 1.25E+02 1.54E+02 Barium 94 1 4.76E+00 7.14E+03 2.22E+02 4 .49E+02 1.05E+03 2.59E+03 8.38E+03 Beryllium 37 6 1.19E-01 2.85E+01 4.10E+00 1 .00E+01 1.76E+01 2.25E+01 1.56E+01 Boron 70 4 2.50E-02 2.47E+03 5.35E+01 1 .50E+02 3.46E+02 5.54E+02 4.17E+02 Cadmium 102 21 1.65E-04 7.60E+02 1.08E+0 0 2.26E+00 5.43E+00 1.12E+01 2.37E+01 Chromium 108 2 5.00E-03 1.38E+03 4.45E+0 1 7.62E+01 1.66E+02 1.81E+02 2.91E+02 Cobalt 67 8 5.00E-03 1.35E+02 1.02E+01 3 .26E+01 6.22E+01 7.93E+01 4.16E+01 Copper 95 3 5.00E-03 8.90E+02 3.61E+01 8 .24E+01 2.28E+02 2.99E+02 1.55E+02 Cyanide 2 1 1.25E-01 2.48E-01 1.86E -01 2.17E-01 2.35E-01 2.41E-01 - Fluoride 8 0 2.50E+00 7.61E+02 1.08E +01 2.07E+01 2.49E+02 5.05E+02 - Lead 107 6 1.30E-02 1.37E+03 2.87E+01 4 .97E+01 8.06E+01 1.25E+02 1.52E+02 Manganese 87 2 5.00E-02 9.81E+03 1.11E+0 2 2.41E+02 5.10E+02 6.37E+02 8.17E+02 Mercury 86 12 6.00E-04 6.43E+01 3. 28E-01 6.00E-01 1.63E+00 8.22E+00 - Molybdenum 73 7 4.43E-02 1.26E+02 1.20E+0 1 2.23E+01 3.47E+01 5.38E+01 4.31E+01 Nickel 106 5 4.90E-02 5.41E+04 4.23E+01 1 .30E+02 3.29E+02 6.79E+02 1.55E+02 Nitrate 1 1 2.43E-01 2.43E-01 2.43E -01 2.43E-01 2.43E-01 2.43E-01 - Nitrite 0 0 - - - - - - - Selenium 94 11 5.05E-03 6.73E+02 5.12E+0 0 1.03E+01 2.14E+01 4.79E+01 3.24E+02 Silver 69 26 5.00E-02 1.90E+03 1.72E+00 3 .30E+00 1.37E+01 2.66E+01 1.36E+01 Strontium 15 1 5.60E+00 1.23E+03 2.63E+0 2 7.63E+02 1.05E+03 1.20E+03 4.76E+03 Thallium 20 10 9.00E-02 1.00E+02 3.23E+0 0 1.05E+01 2.08E+01 4.21E+01 4.80E+01 Vanadium 43 1 3.30E+00 4.55E+03 2.24E+0 2 3.48E+02 9.07E+02 2.95E+03 3.46E+02 Zinc 98 1 3.40E-02 1.82E+04 4.58E+01 1 .44E+02 2.93E+02 1.43E+03 8.56E+02

1 Number of sites with analyte data (2002) 2 Number of sites with only nondetect analyte data (2002)

### Appendix A



### A-4 Table A-2. FFCW Surface Impoundment Waste Analyte Concentrations: Porewater Analyses (mg/L)

Analyte Sites 1 ND Sites 2 2002 SI Porewater Concentrations 1998 Porewater 95th 3 Minimum Maximum 50th 75th 90th 95th Aluminum 17 2 1.50E-02 8.91E+01 1.18E+0 0 4.68E+00 2.30E+01 5.02E+01 2.70E+02 Antimony 2 2 1.00E-02 7.00E-02 4.00E -02 5.50E-02 6.40E-02 6.70E-02 - Arsenic 17 2 7.50E-03 6.77E+00 1.80E-01 4 .94E-01 5.18E+00 5.65E+00 9.64E+00 Barium 17 2 1.00E-03 5.50E-01 1.10E-01 1 .59E-01 3.02E-01 4.88E-01 2.74E+01 Beryllium 2 1 1.00E-03 6.20E-03 3.60E -03 4.90E-03 5.68E-03 5.94E-03 - Boron 18 1 2.50E-02 3.37E+02 5.01E+00 2 .92E+01 7.52E+01 1.44E+02 3.42E+02 Cadmium 17 9 1.00E-03 2.50E-01 2.50E-03 1 .56E-02 1.31E-01 1.90E-01 1.56E-01 Chromium 18 8 9.00E-04 5.78E-01 3.56E-0 2 1.13E-01 3.66E-01 5.29E-01 7.46E-01 Cobalt 4 2 5.00E-03 8.87E+00 1.07E -01 2.37E+00 6.27E+00 7.57E+00 - Copper 16 5 6.40E-04 7.22E-01 3.63E-02 1 .26E-01 2.84E-01 4.90E-01 6.90E-01 Cyanide 0 0 - - - - - - - Fluoride 15 2 5.05E-02 4.10E+02 8.96E-01 4 .99E+00 1.91E+01 1.39E+02 4.10E+02 Lead 14 5 1.23E-03 2.28E-01 5.90E-03 4 .53E-02 1.77E-01 2.16E-01 4.68E-01 Manganese 16 2 4.24E-03 1.82E+02 1.69E-0 1 1.20E+00 7.67E+00 5.15E+01 1.03E+02 Mercury 1 1 2.50E-04 2.50E-04 2.50E-04 2 .50E-04 2.50E-04 2.50E-04 7.96E-04 Molybdenum 18 6 1.79E-02 1.14E+01 4.73E-0 1 6.55E-01 1.00E+00 2.70E+00 1.14E+01 Nickel 17 4 5.00E-03 1.23E+01 4.61E-02 2 .75E-01 7.49E-01 3.09E+00 8.33E+00 Nitrate 13 3 8.05E-02 1.17E+03 1.85E+00 4 .73E+00 6.02E+02 9.17E+02 1.17E+03 Nitrite 15 4 7.00E-03 4.61E+02 1.89E-01 1 .39E+00 5.22E+00 1.43E+02 4.61E+02 Selenium 15 3 2.50E-03 1.03E+00 6.97E-0 2 1.93E-01 3.56E-01 5.92E-01 1.03E+00 Silver 8 8 5.00E-05 5.00E-03 2.06E -03 4.25E-03 5.00E-03 5.00E-03 Strontium 17 0 4.20E-01 1.61E+01 4.25E+0 0 7.00E+00 8.74E+00 1.06E+01 1.61E+01 Thallium 2 2 2.50E-03 5.00E-02 2.63E -02 3.81E-02 4.53E-02 4.76E-02 Vanadium 15 1 1.25E-03 6.61E-01 1.03E-0 1 3.15E-01 4.78E-01 5.81E-01 8.00E-01 Zinc 17 5 1.16E-02 2.34E+01 1.00E-01 1 .20E-01 6.70E-01 5.40E+00 2.31E+01

1 Number of sites with analyte data (2002) 2 Number of sites with only nondetect analyte data (2002) 3 Includes both landfill and surface impoundment (SI) porewater data

### Appendix A



### A-5 Table A-3. FFCW Landfill Waste Analyte Concentrations: TCLP Analyses (mg/L)

Analyte Sites 1 ND Sites 2 TCLP Concentrations 1998 TCLP 95th Minimum Maximum 50th 75th 90th 95th Aluminum 54 3 3.00E-02 2.86E+01 2. 06E+00 4.47E+00 1.05E+01 1.36E+01 - Antimony 60 27 6.50E-04 7.87E-01 2.19E -02 7.50E-02 2.61E-01 2.98E-01 - Arsenic 119 26 1.00E-03 1.80E+00 3.65E-0 2 1.31E-01 3.94E-01 1.01E+00 2.40E-01 Barium 115 7 2.00E-02 4.20E+01 3.04E -01 5.71E-01 1.60E+00 2.55E+00 - Beryllium 47 15 5.00E-05 2.80E-01 2. 14E-03 5.37E-03 1.58E-02 2.96E-02 - Boron 72 3 1.00E-02 2.79E+01 1.07E +00 4.57E+00 1.06E+01 2.07E+01 - Cadmium 117 38 1.50E-04 6.00E-01 1. 00E-02 2.24E-02 4.94E-02 9.00E-02 - Chromium 118 17 1.00E-03 7.64E-01 3.40E-0 2 1.00E-01 2.00E-01 3.50E-01 5.90E-02 Cobalt 51 10 1.92E-03 2.46E-01 1.52E -02 2.55E-02 8.25E-02 1.31E-01 - Copper 72 13 1.60E-03 3.27E+00 4.14E -02 9.46E-02 1.50E-01 4.55E-01 - Cyanide 24 14 3.50E-03 1.20E-01 7. 23E-03 2.03E-02 6.32E-02 8.67E-02 - Fluoride 33 1 8.00E-02 5.99E+01 8.19E -01 1.90E+00 6.34E+00 3.09E+01 - Lead 116 38 1.00E-03 3.61E+00 3.23E -02 7.23E-02 2.39E-01 2.90E-01 - Manganese 72 13 1.25E-03 3.27E+00 1. 63E-01 4.39E-01 1.37E+00 1.56E+00 - Mercury 97 60 5.00E-06 2.90E-01 2. 89E-04 1.00E-03 2.69E-03 1.32E-02 - Molybdenum 49 5 1.00E-02 3.09E+01 1. 77E-01 3.40E-01 6.16E-01 1.27E+00 - Nickel 80 19 2.00E-03 3.88E+00 5.17E-02 1 .41E-01 3.09E-01 5.70E-01 5.00E-02 Nitrate 17 3 1.75E-02 2.60E+01 1.59E +00 2.50E+00 2.83E+00 7.72E+00 - Nitrite 5 4 5.00E-02 5.00E+00 8.33E-01 1.17E+00 3.47E+00 4.23E+00 - Selenium 119 23 1.00E-03 1.05E+00 4.87E-0 2 8.74E-02 1.76E-01 2.06E-01 4.40E-01 Silver 109 60 0.00E+00 2.50E-01 8.70E -03 1.75E-02 3.95E-02 5.02E-02 - Strontium 20 0 6.35E-02 4.28E+01 2. 95E+00 4.87E+00 9.70E+00 1.36E+01 - Thallium 40 18 1.00E-03 1.97E-01 8. 29E-03 2.34E-02 5.00E-02 6.54E-02 - Vanadium 40 5 1.00E-03 1.20E+01 1. 07E-01 1.82E-01 4.50E-01 1.50E+00 - Zinc 75 9 2.00E-03 5.83E+01 1.30E -01 6.09E-01 1.94E+00 1.01E+01 -

1 Number of sites with analyte data (2002) 2 Number of sites with only nondetect analyte data (2002) TCLP = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

### Appendix A



### A-6 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 As, Cancer As NO3 (MCL) B Tl Pb (MCL) Co Cd Mo Mn SbFCr VI

Se V NO2

Ni Sr Al Cu (MCL) Ba Be Zn Ag Hg Cr IIIAnalytes

90th percentile concentration/health-based number (HBN) Non-averaged Site-averaged 

### Figure A-1. Comparison of site-averaged a nd nonaveraged results for surface impoundment porewater screening, groundwater-to-drinking-water pathway.

### Appendix A



### A-7 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 As, Cancer As Sb Tl Pb (MCL) B VFCd Cr VI

Mo Mn Se Ba Zn Hg Ni Be Ag Cu (MCL) NO3 (MCL) Co Sr Al CN Cr IIIAnalytes

95th percentile concentration/health-based number (HBN) Non-averaged Site-averaged 

### Figure A-2. Comparison of site-averaged and nonaveraged results for landfill leachate (TCLP) screening, groundwater-to-drinking-water pathway.

### Appendix A



### A-8 0.0000001 0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 As, Cancer Tl B Ag Sb As Hg Sr Zn Mo Cr VI V Cd Ni Ba Al Se Pb (SSL/PRG) Mn Co Cr VI, Cancer BeFCo, Cancer Be, Cancer Cr III Cd, Cancer CN NO3Analytes

90th percentile concentration/health-based number (HBN) Non-averaged Site-averaged 

### Figure A-3. Comparison of site-averaged and nonaveraged results for landfill total waste screening, aboveground pathways.

# Appendix B Human Health Benchmarks

### Appendix B September 2002



### B-3 

# Appendix B Human Health Benchmarks The fossil fuel combustion waste (FFCW) risk assessment will require human health benchmarks to assess potential risks from chr onic oral and inhalation exposures. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses reference doses (RfDs) and reference concentrations (RfCs) to evaluate noncancer risk from oral and inhalation exposures, respectively. Oral cancer slope factors (CSFs), inhalation unit risk factors (URFs), a nd inhalation CSFs are used to evaluate risk for carcinogens. This appendix provides the human health benchmarks used in the FFCW screening and risk analyses. Section B.1 describes the data sources and general hierarchy that RTI used to collect these benchmarks. Section B.2 provides the benchmarks along with discussions of individual human health benchmarks extracted from a variety of sources. 

## B.1 Methodology and Data Sources Several sources of health benchmarks are available. RTI used health benchmarks developed by EPA to the extent that they were available. For chemicals for which EPA benchmarks were not available, we used available benchmarks from non-EPA sources. RTI obtained human health benchmarks from sources in the following order of preference:



## # Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 

## # Superfund Technical Support Center Provisional Benchmarks 

## # Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) 

## # EPA health assessment documents 

## # Various other EPA health benchmark sources 

## # Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) minimal risk levels (MRLs) 

## # California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) chronic inhalation reference exposure levels (RELs) and cancer potency factors. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Benchmarks in IRIS are prepared and maintained by EPA, and RTI used values from IRIS whenever available. IRIS is EPA’s electronic data base containing information on human health effects (U.S. EPA, 2002). Each chemical file contains descriptive and quantitative information on potential health effects. Health benchmarks for chronic noncarcinogenic health effects include RfDs and RfCs. Cancer classification, oral CSFs, and inhalation URFs are included for carcinogenic effects. IRIS is the official repository of Agency-wide consensus of human health risk information.

### Appendix B September 2002



### B-4 Inhalation CSFs are not available from IRIS, so we calculated them from inhalation URFs (which are available from IRIS) using the following equation:

In this equation, 70 kg represents average body weight; 20 m 3 

### /d represents average inhalation rate; and 1000 : 

### g/mg is a units conversion factor (U.S. EPA, 1997). EPA uses these standard estimates of body weight and inhalation rate in the calculation of the URF; therefore, we used these values to calculate inhalation CSFs. Superfund Provisional Benchmarks The Superfund Technical Support Center (EPA ’s National Center for Environmental Assessment [NCEA]) derives provisional RfCs, RfDs , and CSFs for certain chemicals. These provisional health benchmarks can be found in Risk Assessment Issue Papers. Some of the provisional values have been externally peer reviewed. These provisional values have not undergone EPA’s formal review process for finalizing benchmarks and do not represent Agency-wide consensus information. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) HEAST is a listing of provisional noncarcinogenic a nd carcinogenic health toxicity values (RfDs, RfCs, URFs, and CSFs) derived by EPA (U.S. EPA, 1997). Although the health toxicity values in HEAST have undergone review and have the concu rrence of individual EPA program offices, either they have not been reviewed as extensively as those in IRIS or their data set is not complete enough to be listed in IRIS. HEAST benchmarks have not been updated in several years and do not represent Agency-wide consensus information.
Other EPA Health Benchmarks EPA has also derived health benchmark values in other risk assessment documents, such as Health Assessment Documents (HADs), Health Effect Assessments (HEAs), Health and Environmental Effects Profiles (HEEPs), Health and Environmen tal Effects Documents (HEEDs), Drinking Water Criteria Documents, and Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents. Evaluations of potential carcinogenicity of chemicals in support of reportable quantity adjustments were published by EPA’s Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG) and may include cancer potency factor estimates. Health benchmarks derived by EPA for listing determinations (e.g., solvents) or studies (e.g., Air Characteristic Study) are also available. Health toxicity values identified in these EPA documents are usually dated and are not recognized as Agency-wide consensus information or verified benchmarks.

### Appendix B September 2002



### B-5 ATSDR Minimal Risk Levels The ATSDR MRLs are substance-specific health guidance levels for noncarcinogenic endpoints (ATSDR, 2002). An MRL is an estimate of the daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs are based on noncancer health effects only and are not based on a consideration of cancer effects. MRLs are derived for acute, intermediate, and chronic exposure durations for oral and inhalation routes of exposure. Inhalation and oral MRLs are derived in a manner similar to EPA’s RfCs and RfDs, respectively (i.e., ATSDR uses the no observed adverse effect level/uncertainty factor [NOAEL/UF] approach); how ever, MRLs are intended to serve as screening levels and are exposure duration-specific. Al so, ATSDR uses EPA’s (1994) inhalation dosimetry methodology in the derivation of inhalation MRLs. CalEPA Cancer Potency Factors and Reference Exposure Levels CalEPA has developed cancer potency factors for chemicals regulated under California’s Hot Spots Air Toxics Program (CalEPA, 1999a). The cancer potency factors are analogous to EPA’s oral and inhalation CSFs. CalEPA has also develope d chronic inhalation RELs, analogous to EPA’s RfC, for 120 substances (CalEPA, 1999b, 2000). CalEPA used EPA’s (1994) inhalation dosimetry methodology in the derivation of inhalation RELs. The cancer potency factors and inhalation RELs have undergone internal peer review by various California agencies and have been the subject of public comment. Surrogate Health Benchmarks If no human health benchmarks were available from EPA or alternative sources, then RTI sought benchmarks for similar chemicals to use as surrogate data. For example, the health benchmark of a mixture could serve as the surrogate benchmark for its components or a benchmark of a metal salt could serve as the surrogate for an elemental metal. 

## B.2 Human Health Benchmarks The chronic human health benchmarks used to calculate the health-based numbers (HBNs) in the FFCW screening analysis are summarized in Table B-1, which provides the Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number (CASRN), constituent name, RfD (mg/kg-d), RfC (mg/m 3 

### ), oral CSF (mg/kg-d -1 

### ), inhalation URF [( : 

### g/m 3 

### ) -1 

### ], inhalation CSF (mg/kg-d -1 

### ), and reference for each benchmark. A key to the references cited and abbreviations used is provided at the end of the table. For a majority of constituents, human health benchmarks were available from IRIS (U.S. EPA, 2002), Superfund Provisional Benchmarks, or HEAS T (U.S. EPA, 1997). Benchmarks also were obtained from ATSDR (2002) or CalEPA (1999a, 1999b, 2000). This section describes benchmarks obtained from other sources, along with the Superf und Provisional values and special uses of IRIS benchmarks.

### Appendix B September 2002



### B-6 Provisional inhalation health benchmarks were de veloped in the Air Characteristic Study (U.S. EPA, 1999) for several constituents lacking IRIS, HEAST, alternative EPA, or ATSDR values. For vanadium, the study on which the ATSDR acute inhalation MRL is based was used but was adjusted for chronic exposure. Additional details on the derivation of this inhalation benchmark can be found in the Revised Risk Assessment for the Air Characteristic Study (U.S. EPA, 1999). The provisional RfD of 0.02 mg/kg-d devel oped by NCEA for the Superfund Technical Support Center (U.S. EPA, 2001) was used for cobalt.

### B-7 Appendix B August 2002Table B-1. Human Health Benchmarks Used in FFCW Screening AnalysisConstituent Name CASRNRfD(mg/kg-d) RefRfC(mg/m3) RefCSFo(permg/kg-d) RefURF(perug/m3) RefCSFi(per mg/kg-d) RefMCL(mg/L) NotesAluminum 7429-90-5 2.0E+00 ARfD is for intermediate durationAmmonia 7664-41-7 9.7E-01 H 1.0E-01 I RfD= 34 mg/LAntimony 7440-36-0 4.0E-04 I 2.0E-04 I RfC is for antimony trioxideArsenic, inorganic 7440-38-2 3.0E-04 I 3.0E-05 Cal00 1.5E+0 I 4.3E-3 I 1.5E+1 calcBarium 7440-39-3 7.0E-02 I 5.0E-04 HBeryllium 7440-41-7 2.0E-03 I 2.0E-05 I 2.4E-3 I 8.4E+0 calcBoron 7440-42-8 9.0E-02 I 2.0E-02 HCadmium 7440-43-9 5.0E-04 I 2.0E-05 Cal00 1.8E-3 I 6.3E+0 calc RfD for H2O (food = 1E-3)Chloride 16887-00-6250Chromium (III),insoluble salts16065-83-1 1.5E+00 IChromium (VI) 18540-29-9 3.0E-03 I 1.0E-04 I 1.2E-2 I 4.2E+1 calcCobalt (and cmpds) 7440-48-4 2.0E-02 SF 1.0E-04 A 2.8E-3 SF 9.8E+0 calcCopper 7440-50-81.3Cyanide (amenable) 57-12-5 2.0E-02 IDivalent mercury 3.0E-04 HRfD is for mercuric chloride; usedfor food, water, soilDivalent mercury 1.0E-04 IRfD is for methyl mercury; used forfish onlyFluoride 16984-48-8 1.2E-01 IRfD is for fluorine; the alternativeIRIS value (for skeletal, rather thandental, fluorosis) was usedIron 7439-89-60.3Lead and cmpds(inorganic)7439-92-10.015(continued)

### Appendix B September 2002



### B-8Table B-1. (continued)Constituent Name CASRNRfD(mg/kg-d) RefRfC(mg/m3) RefCSFo(permg/kg-d) RefURF(perug/m3) RefCSFi(per mg/kg-d) RefMCL(mg/L) NotesManganese 7439-96-5 1.4E-01 I 5.0E-05 I RfD for food; H2O and soil = 4.7E2 mkdMolybdenum 7439-98-7 5.0E-03 INickel, soluble salts 7440-02-0 2.0E-02 I 2.0E-04 ANitrate 14797-55-8 1.6E+00 INitrite 14797-65-0 1.0E-01 ISelenium 7782-49-2 5.0E-03 I 2.0E-02 Cal00Silver 7440-22-4 5.0E-03 IStrontium 7440-24-6 6.0E-01 ISulfate 14808-79-8250Thallium, elemental 7440-28-0 8.0E-05 IRfD is for thallium chlorideTotal dissolved solids500Vanadium 7440-62-2 7.0E-03 H 7.0E-05 ACZinc 7440-66-6 3.0E-01 IKey: CASRN = Chemical Abstract Service registry number. CSFo = oral cancer slope factor.RfD = reference dose. CSFi = inhalation cancer slope factor.RfC = reference concentration. URF = unit risk factor.MCL = maximum contaminant level.aSources:A = ATSDR MRLs (ATSDR, 2002)AC = developed for the Air Characteristic Study (U.S. EPA, 1999)calc = calculatedCal00 = CalEPA chronic REL (CalEPA, 2000)H = HEAST (U.S. EPA, 1997)I = IRIS (U.S. EPA, 2002)SF = Superfund Risk Issue Paper (U.S. EPA, 2001a,b)

### Appendix B September 2002



### B-9 For several constituents, IRIS benchmarks for similar chemicals were used as surrogate data. The rationale for these recommendations is as follows:



## # The RfC for antimony trioxide (2E-04 mg/m 3 

### ) was used as a surrogate for antimony.



## # Fluoride was based on fluorine. The IRIS Rf D for fluorine is based on soluble fluoride. The primary RfD cited in IRIS (6E-02 mg/kg-d) is for dental fluorosis, a cosmetic effect. In this analysis, an alternative IRIS value (1.2E-01 mg/kg-d) for skeletal fluorosis in adults was used instead.



## # The RfC for mercuric chloride (9E-05 mg/m 3 

### ) was used as a surrogate for elemental mercury. The RfDs for mercuric chloride (3E-04 mg/kg-d) and methyl mercury (1E-04 mg/kg-d) were used as surrogates for elemental mercury for assessing potential risks from food, soil, and water ingestion, and fish ingestion, respectively.



## # Thallium was based on thallium chloride. There are several thallium salts that have RfDs in IRIS. The lowest value among the thallium salts (8E-05 mg/kg-d) is routinely used to represent thallium in risk assessments. 

## B.3 References ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2002. Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) for Hazardous Substances. Available online at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html. CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 1999a. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part II. Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Berkeley, CA. Available online at http://www.oehha.org/air/cancer_guide/hsca2.html. CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 1999b. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part III. Technical Support Document for the Determination of Noncancer Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. SRP Draft. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Berkeley, CA. Available online (in two sections) at http://www.oehha.org/air/chronic_rels/ragsii.html, http://www.oehha.org/air/chronic_rels/RAGSp3draft.html. CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part III. Technical Support Document for the Determination of Noncancer Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Berkeley, CA. Available online (in four sections) at http://www.oehha.org/air/chronic_rels/22RELS2k.html, http://www.oehha.org/air/chronic_rels/42kChREL.html, http://www.oehha.org/air/chronic_rels/Jan2001ChREL.html, http://www.oehha.org/air/chronic_rels/1201Crels.html.

### Appendix B September 2002



### B-10 U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry . EPA/600/8-90-066F. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) . EPA-540-R-97-036. FY 1997 Update. O ffice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Revised Risk Assessment for the Air Characteristic Study. EPA-530-R-99-019a. Volume 2. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001a. Risk Assessment Paper for Derivation of a Provisional RfD for Cobalt and Compounds (CASRN 7440-48-4). 00-122/3-16-01. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Superfund Technical Support Center, Cincinnati, OH. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001b. Risk Assessment Paper for Derivation of a Provisional Carcinogenicity Assessment for Cobalt and Compounds (CASRN 7740-48-4). 00-122/3-16-01. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Superfund U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/.

# Appendix C Chemical Stressor Concentration Limits (CSCLs) for Ecological Screening

### Appendix C August 2002



### C-3 

# Appendix C Chemical Stressor Concentration Limits (CSCLs) for Ecological Screening C.1 Introduction The screening analysis for fossil fuel combustion wastes included an ecological screening analysis (ESA) that parallels the human health screening analysis. As described in Section 2.2.2 of this report, the ESA addressed two routes of exposur e for ecological receptors, direct contact with contaminated media and ingestion of contaminated food items. Screening hazard quotients (HQs) were calculated using chemical-specific media concentrations assumed to be protective of ecological receptors of concern. These media concentrations are referred to as chemical stressor concentration limits, or CSCLs. CSCLs are analogous to health-based numbers (HBNs) used in the human health screening. The CSCLs were compared directly with concentrations of constituents found in fossil fuel combustion wastes, leachate, and pore water. Table C-1 shows the receptor types assessed for each exposure route in each environmental medium and the type of waste data assumed to represent exposure levels in each medium. CSCLs were taken directly from the 1998 fossil fuel combustion risk analysis, Nongroundwater Pathways, Human Health and Ecological Risk Analysis for Fossil Fuel Combustion Phase 2 (FFC2) (U.S. EPA, 1998). The receptors and endpoints selected for the 1998 analysis were evaluated and considered appropriate for the goals of this screening analysis. The CSCLs were derived for each chemical and receptor to the extent that supporting data were available. Table C-1. Receptors Assessed in Each Medium

Receptor Type Surface Water (Leachate ) Sediment (Pore Water) Soil (Whole Waste) Direct Contact Exposure Aquatic Community 

### U Sediment Community 

### U Soil Community 

### U Amphibians 

### U Aquatic Plants and Algae 

### U Terrestrial Plants 

### U Ingestion Exposure Mammals 

### U U Birds 

### U U

### Appendix C August 2002



### C-4 To calculate HQs in the screening analysis, the lowest (most sensitive) CSCL for each chemical in each medium was selected. For example, several receptors (soil invertebrates, terrestrial plants, mammals, and birds) are exposed to constituents in soils. The soil HQ for a given chemical was calculated using whichever soil CSCL was the lowest and would thus give the highest (most conservative) HQ. Table C-2 shows the CSCLs used to calculate HQs. The following sections summarize methods used in the 1998 analysis to generate the CSCLs used in the ESA. Section C2.0 summarizes the derivation of CSCLs for media contact, and Section C3.0 summarizes the derivation of the ingestion CSCLs. 

## C.2 CSCLs for the Direct Contact Exposure Ecological receptors that live in close contact with contaminated media are considered to be potentially at risk. These receptors are exposed through direct contact with contaminates in surface water, sediment, and soil. The receptors selected to assess the direct contact exposure route for each medium are shown in Table C-1. The CSCLs for receptor communities are not truly community-level concentration limits in that they do not consider predator-prey interactions. Rather, they are based on the theory that protection of 95 percent of the species in the community will provide a sufficient level of protection for the community (see, for example, Stephan et al., 1985, for additional detail). The following sections summarize the CSCL derivation methods for each receptor assessed for the direct contact route of exposure. C.2.1 Aquatic Community CSCLS The aquatic community receptor comprises fish and aquatic invertebrates exposed through direct contact with constituents in surface water. For the aquatic community, the Final Chronic Value (FCV), developed either for the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (U.S. EPA, 1993) or the National Ambient Water Quality Criteria (NAWQC) (U.S. EPA, 1995a, 1995b), was the preferred source for the CSCL. If an FCV was unavailable a nd could not be calculated from available data, a Secondary Chronic Value (SCV) was estimated using methods developed for wildlife criteria for the Great Lakes Initiative (e.g., 58 FR 20802; U.S. EPA, 1993). The SCV methodology is based on the original species data set established for the NAWQC; however, it requires fewer data points and includes statistically derived adjustment factors. For CSCL derivation, the minimum data set required at least one data point for doughnuts. C.2.2 Amphibian CSCLS For amphibian populations, the development of CSCLs was severely limited by data availability. After a review of several compendia presenting amphibian ecotoxicity data (e.g., U.S. EPA, 1996; Power et al., 1989), as well as primary literature sources, it was determined that the lack of standard methods on endpoints, species, and test durations made deriving a chronic CSCL for amphibians inappropriate. Consequently, an acute CSCL was derived for aqueous exposures in amphibians by taking a geometric mean of LC 50 

### (i.e., concentration lethal to 50% of test subjects) data identified in studies with exposure durations less than 8 days. Although the use of acute effects levels is not consistent with other benchmarks and CSCLs, the sensitivity of these receptors warrants their inclusion even though chronic concentration limits have not yet been developed.

### C-5 Appendix C August 2002Table C-2. CSCLs Used to Calculate Ecological Screening Hazard QuotientsConstituentSoilCriterionTerrestrialReceptorSedimentCriterion Sediment Receptor Aquatic Criterion Aquatic Receptor SourceAluminum ID -- ID -- 0.09 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Antimony 14 Raccoon 2 Sediment biota 0.03 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Arsenic total 10 Plants 0.51 Spotted Sandpiper ID -- 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Arsenic III ID -- ID -- 0.15 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Arsenic IV ID -- ID -- 8.10E-03 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Barium 500 Plants 190 Spotted Sandpiper 4.00E-03 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Beryllium ID -- ID -- 6.60E-04 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Boron 0.5 Plants ID -- 1.60E-03 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Cadmium 1 Soil invertebrates 0.68 Sediment biota 2.50E-03 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Chromium total 64 Soil invertebrates 16.63 Spotted Sandpiper ID -- 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Chromium IV ID -- ID -- 0.09 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Chromium VI ID -- ID -- 0.01 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Cobalt 1000 Soil invertebrates ID -- 0.02 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Copper 21 Soil invertebrates 18.7 Sediment biota 9.30E-03 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Lead 28 Soil invertebrates 0.22 Spotted Sandpiper 3.00E-04 River Otter 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Mercury 0.1 Soil invertebrates 0.11 Spotted Sandpiper 1.90E-07 Kingfisher 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Molybdenum 42.08 Amer. woodcock 34 Spotted Sandpiper 0.37 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Nickel 30 Plants 15.9 Sediment biota 0.05 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Selenium total 1 Plants ID -- 5.00E-03 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Selenium IV ID -- ID -- 0.03 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Selenium VI ID -- ID -- 9.50E-03 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Silver ID -- 0.73 Sediment biota 3.60E-04 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Thallium ID -- ID -- 0.01 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Vanadium 130.00 Soil Invertebrates 18 Spotted Sandpiper 0.02 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)Zinc 50 Plants 120 Sediment biota 0.12 Aquatic Biota 1998 Study, (U.S. EPA, 1998)

### Appendix C August 2002



### C-6 C.2.3 Sediment Community CSCLs For the sediment community, CSCLs were selected based on a complete assessment of several sources proposing sediment benchmark values. Pr imary sources evaluated for developing sediment community CSCLs are shown in Table C-3. Table C-3. Primary Sources Evaluated fo r Developing Sediment Community CSCLs
Long, E.R., and L.G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Jones, D.S., G.W. Suter, II, and R.N. Hull. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. U.S. EPA. 1997. Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment at Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Solid Waste. U.S. EPA. 1995c. Technical Support Document for the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule: Risk Assessment for Human and Ecological Receptors . Office of Solid Waste. MacDonald, D.D. 1994. Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality in Florida Coastal Waters . Vol. 1. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Tallahassee, FL. 

### C.2.4 Soil Community CSCLs For the soil community, the preferred methods for deriving CSCLs were analogous to those used in deriving the NAWQC. CSCL values for soil fauna were estimated to protect 95 percent of the species found in a typical soil community, including earthworms, insects, and other various soil fauna. The methodology presumes that protecting 95 percent of the soil species with a 50 th 

### percentile level of confidence will ensure long-term sustainability of a functioning soil community. The toxicity data on soil fauna were taken from several major compendia and supplemented with additional studies identified in the open literature. The approach to calculating benchmarks for the soil community is based on efforts by Dutch scientists (i.e., the RIVM methodology) to develop hazardous concentrations (HC) at specified levels of protection (primarily 95%) at both a 95 th 

### percentile and a 50 th 

### percentile level of confidence (Sloof, 1992). For the soil fauna benchmarks, the 50 th 

### percentile level of confidence was selected because the 95 th 

### percentile appeared to be overly conservative for a “no effects” approach. The RIVM methodology follows two steps: (1) fitting a distributi on to the log of the selected endpoints, and (2) extrapolating to a benchmark concentration based on the mean and standard deviation of a set of endpoints. The key assumptions in the Dutch methodology are that (1) lowest observed effects concentration (LOEC) data are distributed logisti cally, and (2) the 95 percent level of protection is ecologically significant. The following formula was used to calculate soil fauna benchmarks:

### Appendix C August 2002



### C-7 

# [ ] HC x k s m m 5% 1 

## − − (Eq. C-1) where
HC 5% 

### = soil concentration protecting 95 percent of the soil species

x m 

### = sample mean of the log LOEC data
k l 

### = extrapolation constant for calculating the one-sided leftmost confidence limit for a 95 percent protection level

s m 

### = sample standard deviation of the log LOEC data. Sufficient data were available to develop CSCL s using this methodology for four of the metals of concern: cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc. For the remaining constituents, benchmark studies identifying effects to earthworms and other soil biota proposed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Efroymson et al., 1997a) or criteria developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME, 1997) were used to estimate protective soil concentrations. C.2.5 Algae and Aquatic Plants For algae and aquatic plants, adverse effects concentrations are identified in the open literature or from a data compilation presented in Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision (Suter and Tsao, 1996). For most contaminants, studies were not available for aquatic vascular plants, and lowest effects concentrations were identified for algae. The CSCL for algae and aquatic plants was based on (1) a LOEC for vascular aquatic plants or (2) an effective concentration (EC xx 

### ) for a species of freshwater algae, frequently a species of green algae (e.g., Selenastrum capricornutum ). Because of the lack of data for this receptor group and the differences between vascular aquatic plants and algae sensitivity, the lowest value of those identified was usually chosen.
C.2.6 Terrestrial Plant CSCLs For the terrestrial plant community, ecotoxicological data were identified from a summary document prepared at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for E ffects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision (Efroymson et al., 1997b). The measurement endpoints are generally limited to growth and yield parameters because (1) they are the most common class of response reported in phytotoxicity studies and, therefore, will allow for criterion calculations for a large number of constituents, and (2) they are ecologically significant responses both in terms of plant populations and, by extension, the ability of producers to support higher trophic levels. As pres ented in Efroymson et al. (1997a), CSCLs for phytotoxicity were selected by rank ordering the LOEC values and then approximating the 10 th 

### percentile. If there were 10 or fewer values for a chemical, the lowest LOEC was used. If there were more than 10 values, the 10 th 

### percentile LOEC was used.

### Appendix C August 2002



### C-8 

## C.3 CSCLs for Ingestion Exposure The ingestion route of exposure addresses the exposure of terrestrial mammals and birds through ingestion of plants and prey and incident al soil ingestion. Thus, the CSCLs express media concentrations that, based on certain assumptions about receptor diet and foraging behavior, are expected to be protective of populations of mamma ls and birds feeding and foraging in contaminated areas. The derivation of ingestion CSCLs begins with the selection of appropriate ecotoxicological data based on a hierarchy of data sources. The assessment endpoint for the ESA was population viability, and therefore, the benchmarks were deve loped from measures of reproductive/developmental success or, if unavailable, from other effects th at could conceivably impair population dynamics. Population-level benchmarks are preferred over be nchmarks for individual organisms; however, very few population-level benchmarks have been develope d. Therefore, the ESA used benchmarks derived from individual organism studies, and protec tion was inferred at the population level. Once the benchmark study was identified, the CSCL was calculated using a three-step process. The remainder of this section outlines the basic technical approach used to convert avian or mammalian benchmarks (in daily doses) to the CSCL (in units of concentration) for surface water and soil. The methods reflect exposure through the inge stion of contaminated plants, prey, and various media and include parameters on accumulation (e.g., bioconcentration factors), uptake (e.g., consumption rates), and dietary preferences.
STEP 1 Scale benchmark : The benchmarks derived for test species can be extrapolated to wildlife receptor species within the same taxon using a cross-species scaling equation (Equation 2) (Sample et al., 1996). This is the default methodology EPA proposed for carcinogenicity assessments and reportable quantity documents for adjusting animal data to an equivalent human dose (57 FR 24152).

(Eq. C-2) where Benchmark w 

### = scaled ecological benchmark for species w (mg/kg/d) LOAEL t 

### = lowest observed adverse effects level for test species (mg/kg/d) bw t 

### = body weight of the surrogate test species (kg) bw w 

### = body weight of the representative wildlife species (kg).

### Appendix C August 2002



### C-9 

# ( ) CSCL benchmark bw I I BAF sw w fish 

## = × + × STEP 2 Identify BCFs/ BAFs: For metal constituents, whole-body bioconcentration factors (BCFs) and bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) were identified for aquatic and terrestrial organisms that may be used as food sources (e.g., fish, plants, earth worms). The Oak Ridge National Laboratory has proposed methods and data that are useful in predicting bioaccumulation in earthworms and small mammals (Sample et al. 1998a, 1998b). These values were typically identified in the open literature and EPA references.
STEP 3 Calculate CSCLs : The following equation provides the basis for calculating the CSCL for surface water using a population-inference benchmark (e.g., endpoint on fecundity).
(Eq. C-3) 

# ( ) 

# [ ] ( ) Benchmark I BAF C I C bw fish w w w 

### = × +×

where I fish 

### = intake of contaminated fish (kg/d) BAF = whole-body bioaccumulation factor (L/kg) bw = weight of the representative species (kg) I w 

### = intake of contaminated water (L/d) C w 

### = total concentration in the water (mg/L) For chemicals that bioaccumulate significantly in fish tissue, the ingestion of contaminated food will tend to dominate the exposure (i.e., [I fish 

### × C fish 

### ] >> [I w 

### C w 

### ]), and the water term (i.e., [I w 

### × C w 

### ]) can be dropped from Equation 3 resulting in Equation 4.
(Eq. C-4) 

# ( ) Benchmark I BAF C bw fish w 

### = × ×



### At the benchmark dose (mg/kg-day), the concentration in water is equivalent to the chemical stressor concentration limit for that receptor as a function of body weight, ingestion rate, and the bioaccumulation potential for the chemical of concern. Hence, Equation 5 can be rewritten to solve for the CSCL in surface water (CSCL sw 

### ) as follows: (Eq. C-5)
For wildlife populations of mammals and birds in terrestrial systems, the CSCL for a given receptor is given by Equation 6:

### Appendix C August 2002



### C-10 (Eq. C-6) 

# ( ) CSCL benchmark bw I BCF F xAB I soil food j j j soil 

## = × × + 

# ∑
where bw = body weight (kg) I food 

### = total daily food intake of species (kg/d) I soil 

### = total daily soil intake of species (kg/d) BCF j 

### = bioaccumulation factor in food item j (assumed unitless) F

j 

### = fraction of consisting of food item j (unitless) Ab j 

### = absorption of chemical in the gut from food item j

. 

## C.4 References CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1997. Recommended Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines . Science Policy and Environmental Quality Branch, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. ISBN 1-895-925-92-4. Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter. 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter, and A.C. Wooten. 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Con cern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Jones, D.S., G.W. Suter, II, and R.N. Hull. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for E ffects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Long, E.R., and L.G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum, NOS OMA 52. MacDonald, D.D. 1994. Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality in Florida Coastal Waters, Volume 1. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Tallahassee, FL. Power, T., K.L. Clark, A. Harfenist, and D.B. Peakall. 1989. A Review and Evaluation of the Amphibian Toxicological Literature. Technical Report Series No. 61. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.

### Appendix C August 2002



### C-11 Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suter, II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-86/R3. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Sample, B.E., J.J. Beauchamp, R.A. Efroymson, G.W. Suter, II, and T.L. Ashwood. 1998a. Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms . ES/ER/TM220. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Sample, B.E., J.J. Beauchamp, R.A. Efroymson, and G.W. Suter, II. 1998b. Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Small Mammals. ES/ER/TM-219. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Sloof, W. 1992. Ecotoxicological Effect Assessment: Deriving Maximum Tolerable Concentrations (MTC) from Single Species Toxicity Data . Guidance Document. Report No. 719102.018. National Institute of Public Hea lth and Environmental Protection (RIVM), Hilversum, the Netherlands. Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G. A. Chapman, and W.A. Brungs. 1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Use. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. mg/l NTIS PB85-220749, Springfield, VA. Suter, G.W., and C.L. Tsao. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN. June. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System and Correction. Proposed Rule. 58 FR 20802. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1995a. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Criteria Documents for the Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water. EPA-820-B95-004. Office of Water, Washington, DC. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1995b. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Criteria Documents for the Protection of Wildlife DOT, Mercury, 2,3,78-TCDD, and PCBs. EPA-820-B-95-008. Office of Water, Washington, DC. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1995c. Technical Support Document for the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule . Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. Water Quality Criteria Documents for the Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water: 1995 Updates. EPA-820-B-96-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.

### Appendix C August 2002



### C-12 U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment at Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, (Volumes 1 and 2). U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste. Internal Review Draft. February 28, 1997. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Non-groundwater Pathways, Human Health and Ecological Risk Analysis for Fossil Fuel Combustion Phase 2 (FFC2) . Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1999 . National Recommended Water Quality Criteria-Correction. EPA/822-Z-99-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.

# Appendix D Calculation of Health-Based Numbers (HBNs)

### Appendix D August 2002



### D-3 

# Appendix D Calculation of Health-Based Numbers (HBNs)

Management of fossil fuel combustion waste (FFCW) can result in contaminants moving from a waste management unit (WMU) and contaminating nearby air, soil, groundwater, and surface water via mechanisms such as groundwater transport, overland transport, wind erosion, and subsequent deposition. Individuals living near WMUs may then come into contact with chemicals directly via inhalation of ambient air, ingestion of drinking water, or ingestion of soil. Chemicals may then contaminate food items via chemical uptake and accumulation in produce, animal products, or fish. Health-based numbers (HBNs) for soil, groundwater (as drinking water), and surface water are used in this analysis to consider risks and hazards to human receptors from chemicals that are released from FFCW management units and move through the subsurface and aboveground environments. HBNs represent concentrations in environmental media that will not cause an exceedance of a target cancer risk of 10 -5 

### or a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1. The pathways included in the HBN calculations are summarized in Table D-1. The HBNs for soil are based on a farmer scenario with receptors living at a site adjacent to an FFCW WMU, breathing contaminated air, ingesting contaminated soil, and raising their own crops, beef cattle, and/or dairy cattle. The HBN for groundwater is based on domestic use of groundwater as drinking water. Surface water HBNs are based on a recreational fisher scenario in which the receptor is assumed to live at a different off-site location and to only be exposed to fish. 

## D.1 Methodology All HBNs consider human receptors exposed to contaminated media and/or food items at different ages to take into account changing exposure patterns with age. The specific receptors considered were individuals exposed starting at ages 3, 8, 15, and 20. Depending on the start age, an appropriate exposure duration was selected for each receptor based on residency data. Each receptor was exposed for the period of time determined by the exposure duration, and the model accounted for Key Features of HBN Calculations

# HBNs calculated for groundwater (mg/L), surface water (mg/L), and soil (mg/kg) # HBNs based on a target cancer risk of 10 -5 and a HQ of 1 # Soil HBNs based on a farmer scenario, and consider inhalation, direct ingestion, and indirect pathways # Groundwater HBNs based on a residential drinking water scenario. # Surface water HBNs based on a recreational fisher scenario. # Adult and child receptors first exposed at ages 3, 8, 15 and 20. # Exposure factors set at central tendency values. # Source size set at the 95 th percentile of FFCW landfills.

### Appendix D August 2002



### D-4 changes in exposure patterns as a person ages. All exposure parameters selected for this analysis were based on 50 th 

### percentile values. Once the cancer risks and HQs were calculated for each receptor, HBNs were calculated based on total cancer risk across all Table D-1. Pathways Included in HBN Calculations

HBN Calculation Drinking Water Ingestion Inhalation of Ambient Air Soil Ingestion Ingestion of Produce a Ingestion of Animal Products b Fish Ingestion Groundwater HBN 

### T Soil HBN 

### TTT T Surface water HBN 

### T

a Includes above- and belowground produce. b Includes beef and milk. 

### pathways, noncancer inhalation, and noncancer ingesti on. The most conservative HBN (i.e., the lowest across all age groups) was selected. In all cases, the HBN calculations used central tendancy exposure factors (e.g., body weight, exposure duration, exposure frequency, consumption rates). The equations used to calculate the HBNs are provided at the end of this appendix in Tables D-6 through D-27; Table D-2 below lists the tables of equations by exposure pathway. Data used in these equations to calculate the FFCW HBNs can be found in the other appendices to this report. Groundwater HBNs are based on standard reside ntial exposure assumptions for drinking water consumption, using equations from (U.S. EPA, 1998a). The surface water HBNs are based on concentrations in fish estimated using an aquatic food chain model (see Section D.1.2). For the soil HBNs, concentrations in crops and animal products were estimated using the terrestrial food chain model described in Section D.1.1. The soil HBNs also consider air concentration above the contaminated soil to address windblown emissions off the nearby landfill. To estimate windblown dust emissions and air concentrations, a particulate emission factor (PEF) was calculated based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Soil Screening Guidance (U.S. EPA, 1996; 2001) using conservative assumptions (e.g., fraction of vegetative cover was set to zero). The source size used for estimating the PEF was the 95 th 

### percentile value presented in the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) database (EPRI, 1997). Waste concentrations are divided by the PEF in order to estimate the air concentration.
D.1.1 Terrestrial Food Chain The methodology used for estimating concentrations in food items is based on EPA’s Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Pathways of Exposure to Combustor Emissions (U.S. EPA, 1998a). The terrestrial food chain is designed to predict the

### Appendix D August 2002



### D-5 accumulation of a contaminant in the edible parts of a plant from uptake of contaminants in soil and through translocation and direct deposition of contamin ants in air. Concentrations are predicted for three main categories of food crops presumed to be eaten by humans: exposed Table D-2. Key to Tables of Equations Used to Calculate HBNs Equations for Air Pathway: Emissions, Dispers ion, Air Concentrations, and Deposition Rates D-6 Particulate Phase Air Concentration from Soil Emissions (mg/m 3 

### ) D-7 Particulate Emissions Factor for Unlimited Mass–Commercial/Industrial Scenario (m 3 

### /kg) D-8 Dispersion Factor (g/m 2 

### -s)/(kg/m 2 

### ) D-9 Annual Wet Depositon from Particle Phase (g/m 2 

### -yr) D-10 Annual Dry Deposition from Particle Phase (g/m 2 

### -yr) Equations for Indirect Soil Pathways: Produce, Beef, Milk, and Fish D-11 Total Concentration in Above-G round Vegetation (mg/kg - WW or DW) D-12 Aboveground Vegetation Concentration Due to Root Uptake (mg/kg - DW) D-13 Vegetative Concentration Due to Direct Deposition (mg/kg - DW) D-14 Concentration in Belowground Vegeta tion Due to Root Uptake (mg/kg - WW) D-15 Deposition Term for Plants (mg/m 2 

### -yr) D-16 Concentration in Beef Due to Plant and Soil Ingestion (mg/kg - WW) D-17 Concentration in Milk Due to Plant and Soil Ingestion (mg/kg - WW) D-18 Concentration in Fish at Different Trophic Levels (mg/kg) Equations for Human Exposure D-19 Daily Intake of Contaminant from Consumption of Aboveground Produce (mg/kg BW/day) D-20 Daily Intake of Contaminant from Consumption of Belowground Produce (mg/kg BW/day) D-21 Daily Intake of Contaminant from Consumption of Fish (mg/kg BW/day) D-22 Daily Intake of Contaminant from Incidental Ingestion of Soil (mg/kg BW/day) D-23 Daily Intake of Contaminant from Consumption of Drinking Water (mg/kg BW/day) D-24 Daily Intake of Contaminant from Ingestion of Animal Tissue Groups (mg/kg/BW/day) Equations for Unit Risk Calculations and Health-based Numbers D-25 Cancer Risk and Hazard Quo tient Due to Inhalation (unitless) D-26 Cancer Risk and Hazard Quo tient Due to Ingestion (unitless) D-27 Health-Based Concentration (ppm)


### fruits and vegetables, protected fruits and vegeta bles, and root vegetables. The terms “exposed” and “protected” refer to whether or not the edible portion of the produce is exposed to the atmosphere. Examples include tomatoes (exposed vegetable), bananas (protected fruit), and potatoes (root vegetables). In addition, the terrestrial food chain estimates the contaminant concentration in farm crops for cattle. Vegetation consumed by cattle includes grain, forage, and silage. Grain is considered to be a

### Appendix D August 2002



### D-6 protected vegetation and forage an exposed vegetation. Silage refers to any plants harvested for animal consumption, whether protected or exposed. Silage is calculated as exposed vegetation; however, an empirical correction factor for silage takes into account that silage is partly protected and partly exposed. Table D-3 summarizes the mechanisms by which vegetation can be exposed to contaminants. The three mechanisms are (1) deposition of particle-bound contaminants to exposed plant tissues, (2) vapor-phase deposition of contaminants to exposed plant tissues, and (3) root uptake. Table D-3. Terrestrial Food Chain Vegetation

Type of Vegetation Particulate Deposition Vapor-Phase Deposition Root Uptake Human ingestion Exposed vegetables 

### T TT Exposed fruit 

### T TT Protected vegetables 

### T Protected fruit 

### T Root vegetables 

### T Beef and dairy cow ingestion Forage 

### T TT Silage 

### T TT Grain 

### T Exposed vegetation is subject to contamination via particulate deposition, vapor-phase deposition, and root uptake, while protected vegetation is contam inated only through root uptake because the edible portion of the vegetation is not in direct contact with air. Accumulation by root uptake can occur through the uptake of soil and water for aboveground protected vegetables and fruit, or by absorption into the outer parts of the root vegetables. D.1.2 Aquatic Food Chain The methodology used for estimating concentrations in fish is based on EPA’s Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Pathways of Exposure to Combustor Emissions (U.S. EPA, 1998a). An aquatic food chain model was used to estimate the concentration of constituent that may accumulate in fish. It is assumed for this analysis that fish are a food source for a recreational fisher. Trophic level three (T3) and four (T 4) fish were considered in this analysis. T3 fish are those that consume invertebrates and plankton. T4 fish are those that consume other fish. Most of the fish that humans eat are T4 fish (e.g., salmon, trout, walleye, bass) and medium to large T3 fish

### Appendix D August 2002



### D-7 (e.g., carp, smelt, perch, catfish, sucker, bullhead, sauger). For metals other than mercury, the calculation of contaminants in fish is based on the total concentration of contaminants in the waterbody (i.e., dissolved and suspended solids). For mercury, the calculation of contaminants in fish is based on the dissolved concentration of methyl mercury in the waterbody. Fish tissue concentrations are dependent on a bi oconcentration factor (BCF), which is used to estimate the amount of constituent being transferred from the waterbody into the fish tissue. Specifically, BCFs reflect the ratio between the tissue concentration in fish and the appropriate waterbody concentration. BCFs were developed for each constituent to reflect accumulation in each trophic level considered. They were also developed to estimate the concentration in the fish filet versus the total fish. Human receptors consume only the filet portion of the fish, which has a lower lipid content. Because some constituents tend to accumulate in the fatty tissue, the concentration in the filet portion of the fish is sometimes lower than the concentration in the whole fish. 

## D.2 Health-Based Numbers Table D-4 provides the HBNs for surface water and groundwater and compares the groundwater numbers developed for the 2002 FFCW risk analysis to those developed for the 1998 FFCW risk analysis (U.S. EPA, 1998b). (Surface water HBNs were not developed in 1998.) Constituents with groundwater HBNs in 2002 but not in 1998 include aluminum and cobalt. Most of the remaining constituents show lower groundwater HBNs in 2002 by a factor of 1.8, which is due to the differences in exposure factors between the adult-only scenario assumed in 1998 and the child age cohorts used in 2002. Manganese and hexavalent chromium also show lower HBNs in 2002 because of lower health benchmarks than those used in 1998 (see Appendix A for the human health benchmarks used to calculate the HBNs). Fluoride shows a slightly higher HBN in 2002 because of EPA’s decision to use the skeletal fluorosis refere nce dose (RfD) instead of the lower RfD for dental fluorosis. Table D-5 lists the 2002 soil HBNs along with the relative contribution of each exposure pathway to the HBN. Most of the soil HBNs are driven by the soil or milk ingestion pathways, with antimony and the noncancer beryllium HBNs mainly reflecting risk from the ingestion of contaminated produce. The cancer HBNs for beryllium, cadmium, chromium, and cobalt and the noncancer HBN for ammonia are based entirely on inhalation benchmar ks and therefore only reflect inhalation risks.
Table D-4. Groundwater and Surface Water HBNs

Chemical 2002 Benchmark Type Groundwater HBN (mg/L) 1 

### Surface Water HBN 2 

### (mg/L) 2002 1998 Aluminum Noncancer 58.7 NA NA Antimony Noncancer 0.012 0.021 NA Arsenic Cancer 0.0029 0.0029 0.23 (continued)

### Table D-4. (continued) Appendix D August 2002

Chemical 2002 Benchmark Type Groundwater HBN (mg/L) 1 

### Surface Water HBN 2 

### (mg/L) 2002 1998



### D-8 Arsenic Noncancer 0.0088 0.015 0.71 Barium Noncancer 2.1 3.6 NA Beryllium Noncancer 0.059 NA 1.0 Boron Noncancer 2.64 4.63 NA Cadmium Noncancer 0.015 0.026 0.035 Chromium (III) Noncancer 44 NA 23,700 Chromium (VI) Noncancer 0.088 0.26 47 Cobalt Noncancer 0.59 NA NA Copper MCL 1.3 1.3 NA Cyanide Noncancer 0.59 NA NA Fluoride Noncancer 3.52 3.08 NA Lead MCL 0.015 0.015 NA Manganese Noncancer 1.4 7.2 NA Mercury Noncancer 0.0088 0.015 3.85E-06 Molybdenum Noncancer 0.147 0.257 12 Nickel Noncancer 0.59 1.03 237 Nitrate MCL 10 10 NA Nitrate Noncancer 47 NA NA Nitrite Noncancer 2.9 10 NA Selenium Noncancer 0.147 0.257 0.038 Silver Noncancer 0.147 0.257 NA Strontium Noncancer 17.6 30.8 NA Thallium Noncancer 0.0024 0.0041 0.008 Vanadium Noncancer 0.21 0.36 NA Zinc Noncancer 8.8 15.4 8.13

1 Based on domestic drinking water ingestion. 2 Based on fish consumption by a recreational fisher. MCL = maximum contaminant level or drinki ng water action level (for lead and copper) NA = not available

### D-9 Appendix D August 2002Table D-5. Soil HBNs and Exposure Pathway ContributionsChemical HBN (mg/kg) Benchmark TypePathway ContributionsDrivingPathwaySoil Beef Milk Veg Root Airluminum 3.02E+05 Noncancer ingestion 69% 5.6% 21% 3.4% 0.80% N/A SoilAntimony 1.64E+01 Noncancer ingestion 19% 6.2% 20% 44% 11% N/A VegArsenic 1.31E+01 Cancer 62% 15% 14% 8.2% 0.82% 0.24% SoilArsenic 4.04E+01 Noncancer ingestion 62% 15% 14% 8.2% 0.82% N/A SoilBarium 2.59E+03 Noncancer ingestion 17% 0.7% 49% 26% 7.4% N/A MilkBeryllium 8.44E+03 Cancer 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% AirBeryllium 3.60E+02 Noncancer ingestion 83% 5.2% 0.13% 9.7% 2.4% N/A SoilBoron 4.82E+01 Noncancer ingestion 0% 1.1% 74% 22% 2.8% N/A MilkCadmium 1.13E+04 Cancer 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% AirCadmium 8.01E+00 Noncancer ingestion 4% 1.2% 75% 17% 2.7% N/A MilkChromium (III) 9.65E+04 Noncancer ingestion 30% 8.3% 62% 0.27% 0.08% N/A MilkChromium (VI) 1.93E+02 Noncancer ingestion 30% 8.3% 62% 0.27% 0.08% N/A MilkChromium (VI) 1.69E+03 Cancer 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% AirCobalt 5.81E+02 Noncancer ingestion 13% 20% 61% 4.8% 0.77% N/A MilkCobalt 7.23E+03 Cancer 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% AirCyanide 4.35E+03 Noncancer ingestion 99.9% 0% 0% 0.07% 0.0% N/A SoilFluoride 2.61E+04 Noncancer ingestion 99.9% 0% 0% 0.07% 0% N/A SoilManganese 2.59E+03 Noncancer ingestion 25% 1.4% 39% 28% 6.1% N/A MilkMercury (divalent) 6.90 Noncancer ingestion 1.1% 8% 89% 2% 0.1% N/A MilkMolybdenum 3.96E+01 Noncancer ingestion 4% 8.8% 72% 13% 2.6% N/A MilkNickel 6.90E+02 Noncancer ingestion 16% 7.6% 43% 31% 2.7% N/A MilkNitrate 3.48E+05 Noncancer ingestion 99.9% 0% 0% 0.07% 0% N/A SoilNitrite 2.17E+04 Noncancer ingestion 99.9% 0% 0% 0.07% 0% N/A SoilSelenium 7.83E+01 Noncancer ingestion 7% 9.1% 76% 7% 0.52% N/A MilkSilver 2.62E+00 Noncancer ingestion 0.2% 0.44% 98% 1.4% 0.28% N/A MilkStrontium 6.22E+02 Noncancer ingestion 0.5% 0.51% 84% 12% 3.4% N/A MilkThallium 2.81E+00 Noncancer ingestion 16% 35% 48% 0.7% 0.19% N/A MilkVanadium 1.16E+03 Noncancer ingestion 76% 10% 2.4% 10% 1.2% N/A SoilZinc 2.43E+02 Noncancer ingestion 0.4% 19% 69% 11% 0.14% N/A Milk

### Table D-6. Particulate-Phase Air Concentration From Soil Emissions (mg/m^3)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Cpar

PEF Csoil Cpar =

PEF Particulate emissions factor for unlimited mass (m^3/kg) Calculated Csoil Soil concentration (mg/kg) Set equal to 1 for the HBN calculation Based on Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, U.S. EPA, 2001, OSWER 9355.4-24.

D-10

### Table D-7. Particulate Emissions Factor for Unlimited Mass--Commercial/Industrial Scenario (m^3/kg) Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### PEF


# ( ) Fx

ut uw VC QC PEF ×       ×
− × × = 3



### 1 036

. 0 3600

Q/C Dispersion factor (g/m^2-s)/(kg/m^2) Calculated Fx Function dependent on uw/ut derived using Cowherd et al. (1985)

(unitless) See Appendix H

ut Equivalent threshold value of windspeed at 7m (m/s) See Appendix H
uw Mean annual windspeed (m/sec) See Appendix H VC Fraction vegetative cover (unitless) See Appendix H Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, U.S. EPA, 2001, OSWER 9355.4-24, Equation 4-5.

D-11

### Table D-8. Dispersion Factor (g/m^2-s)/(kg/m^2)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Q/C

( ) ( ) 

      

− 

### × = C B DF DF Area
A 

### e DF QC 2 ln

Area Source area (acres) See Appendix H DF_A Constant selected based on location (unitless) See Appendix H DF_B Constant selected based on location (unitless) See Appendix H DF_C Constant selected based on location (unitless) See Appendix H Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, U.S. EPA, 2001, OSWER 9355.4-24.

D-12

### Table D-9. Annual Wet Deposition from Particle Phase (g/m^2-yr)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Dywp
00001

. 0 × × × = Wp May Cpar Dywp

1.00E-05 Conversion factor (10 -3 g/mg)(10 -2 m/cm) Wp Volumetric washout ratio for particulates (unitless) 1.00E5 (Bidleman, 1988) Cpar Contaminant air concentration (mg/m^3) Calculated May Average annual moisture (precipitation: rainfall, snowfall) (cm/yr) See Appendix H Source: U.S. EPA (1998a) Equation 4-3 for particles and 6-16 for vapors.

D-13

### Table D-10. Annual Dry Deposition from Particle Phase (g/m^2-yr)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Dydp Cpar Vdp Dydp ×

× = 36

. 315

315.36 Conversion factor ([3.1536E+07 sec/yr]/[100 cm/m][1e3 mg/g]) Vdp Dry deposition velocity of particles (cm/s) 1 Cpar Particle phase air concentration (μg/m^3) Calculated Source: U.S. EPA (1998a) Equation 4-2 for particles and 6-17 for vapors.

D-14

### Table D-11. Total Concentration in Aboveground Vegetation (mg/kg - WW or DW)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Pveg 

# ( ) 100

100 MAF Pf Pv Pd P veg 

### −

× + + =

100 Conversion factor to percent (unitless) Pd Vegetative concentration due to direct deposition (mg/kg - DW) Calculated Pr Aboveground vegetation concentration due to root uptake (mg/kg -

DW) Calculated
Pv Vegetative concentration due to air-to-plant transfer (mg/kg - DW) Calculated MAF Plant tissue-specific moisture adjustment factor to convert DW

concentration into WW (percent) See note below Source: U.S. EPA, 1998a. Note: For exposed vegetation, MAF is 92, for exposed fruit 85, for protected fruit 90, and for protected vegetables 80. Dry weight is used for silage and feed. Wet weight is used for exposed vegetataion, exposed fruit, and protected fruit

D-15

### Table D-12. Aboveground Vegetation Concentration Due to Root Uptake (mg/kg - DW)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Pr

Br Csoil × = Pr

BrExfruit Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor for exposed fruit (mg/kg DW

plant / mg/kg soil) See Appendix E BrExveg Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor for exposed vegetables (mg/kg

DW plant / mg/kg soil) See Appendix E BrForage Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor for forage (mg/kg DW plant /

mg/kg soil) See Appendix E
BrGrain Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor for grain (mg/kg DW plant /

mg/kg soil) See Appendix E
BrProfruit Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor for protected fruit (mg/kg DW

plant / mg/kg soil) See Appendix E BrProveg Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor for protected vegetables (mg/kg

DW plant / mg/kg soil) See Appendix E BrSilage Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor for silage (mg/kg DW plant /

mg/kg soil) See Appendix E
Csoil Concentration of contaminant in soil (mg/kg) Set equal to 1 for the HBN calculation Source: U.S. EPA, 1998a.

D-16

### Table D-13. Vegetative Concentration Due to Direct Deposition (mg/kg - DW)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Pd
( ) 

### KpPar Yp e Rp Dp Pd Tp KpPar 

### × − × × = ×
− 

### 1

Dp Deposition term for plants (mg/m^2-yr) Calculated KpPar Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate (1/yr) See Appendix E Rp_exfruit Interception fraction for exposed fruit (unitless) See Appendix F Rp_exveg Interception fraction for exposed vegetables (unitless) See Appendix F Rp_forage Interception fraction for forage (unitless) See Appendix F Rp_silage Interception fraction for silage (unitless) See Appendix F Tp_exfruit Length of plant exposure to deposition for exposed fruit (yr) See Appendix F Tp_exveg Length of plant exposure to deposition for exposed vegetables (yr) See Appendix F Tp_forage Length of plant exposure to deposition for forage (yr) See Appendix F Tp_silage Length of plant exposure to deposition for silage (yr) See Appendix F Yp_exfruit Crop yield for exposed fruit (kg DW/m^2) See Appendix F Yp_exveg Crop yield for exposed vegetables (kg DW/m^2) See Appendix F Yp_forage Crop yield for forage (kg DW/m^2) See Appendix F Yp_silage Crop yield for silage (kg DW/m^2) See Appendix F Source: U.S. EPA, 1998a.

D-17

### Table D-14. Concentration in Belowground Vegetation Due to Root Uptake (mg/kg - WW)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Prbg

DWr Br Csoil root 

### × × = Prbg

Br_root Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor for roots (mg/kg DW plant /

mg/kg soil) See Appendix E
DWr Dry weight fraction for root vegetables (unitless) See Appendix F Csoil Concentration of contaminant in soil (mg/kg) Set equal to 1 for the HBN calculation Source: U.S. EPA, 1998a.

D-18

### Table D-15. Deposition Term for Plants (mg/m^2-yr)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Dp 

# ( ) ( ) ( )

( )

Dywp Fw Dydp F Q Dp v 

### × + ×
− × × = 1 1000

1000 Conversion factor (mg/g) Dydp Normalized annual average dry deposition from particle phase (sm^2/m^2-yr) Dywp Normalized annual average wet deposition from particle phase (sm^2/m^2-yr) Fw Fraction of wet deposition adhering to plant surface (unitless) 0.6 Fv Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase (unitless) See Appendix E Q Emission rate from source (g/s-m^2) Set to unit value of 1 Source: U.S. EPA, 1998a.

D-19

### Table D-16. Concentration in Beef Due to Plant and Soil Ingestion (mg/kg - WW)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Abeef
)

( ) ( ) ( silage silage forage forage grain grain 

### P Qsbs F P Qfbs F P Qgbs F e PlantIntak × × + × × + × × =

BaBeef Csoil Qsoilbs e PlantIntak A beef 

### × × + = )

( (

P_forage Vegetative concentration for forage (mg/kg - DW) Calculated P_grain Vegetative concentration for grain (mg/kg - DW) Calculated P_silage Vegetative concentration in silage (mg/kg - DW) Calculated PlantIntake Amount of vegetation consumed by beef cattle (mg/day) (mg/day) Calculated BaBeef Beef biotransfer factor (day/kg - WW) See Appendix E F_forage Fraction of forage grown on contaminated soil and eaten (unitless) See Appendix F F_grain Fraction of grain grown on contaminated soil and eaten (unitless) See Appendix F F_silage Fraction of silage grown on contaminated soil and eaten (unitless) See Appendix F Qfbs Quantity of forage eaten each day by beef cattle (kg - DW/day) See Appendix F Qgbs Quantity of grain eaten each day by beef cattle (kg - DW/day) See Appendix F Qsbs Quantity of silage eaten each day by beef cattle (kg - DW/day) See Appendix F Qsoilbs Consumption rate of soil for beef cattle (kg/day) See Appendix F Csoil Concentration of contaminant in soil (mg/kg) Set equal to 1 for the HBN calculation Source: U.S. EPA, 1998a.

D-20

### Table D-17. Concentration in Milk Due to Plant and Soil Ingestion (mg/kg - WW)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Amilk
)

( ) ( ) ( silage silage forage forage grain grain 

### P Qsbs F P Qfbs F P Qgbs F e PlantIntak × × + × × + × × =

BaMilk Csoil Qsoilbs e PlantIntak A milk 

### × × + = )

( (

P_forage Vegetative concentration for forage (mg/kg - DW) Calculated P_grain Vegetative concentration for grain (mg/kg - DW) Calculated P_silage Vegetative concentration in silage (mg/kg - DW) Calculated PlantIntake Amount of vegetation consumed by beef cattle (mg/day) Calculated BaMilk Milk biotransfer factor (day/kg - WW) See Appendix E F_forage Fraction of forage grown on contaminated soil and eaten (unitless) See Appendix F F_grain Fraction of grain grown on contaminated soil and eaten (unitless) See Appendix F F_silage Fraction of silage grown on contaminated soil and eaten (unitless) See Appendix F Qfds Quantity of forage eaten each day by dairy cattle (kg - DW/day) See Appendix F Qgds Quantity of grain eaten each day by dairy cattle (kg - DW/day) See Appendix F Qsds Quantity of silage eaten each day by dairy cattle (kg - DW/day) See Appendix F Qsoilds Consumption rate of soil for dairy cattle (kg/day) See Appendix F Csoil Concentration of contaminant in soil (mg/kg) Set equal to 1 for the HBN calculation Source: U.S. EPA, 1998a.

D-21

### Table D-18. Concentration in Fish at Different Trophic Levels (mg/kg)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Cfish_T

T T 

### BCF Cdw Cfish ForMercury × = :

Cwt Cdw × = 05

. 0

T T 

### BCF Cwt Cfish tals VolatileMe ForNon × = − :

Cdw Concentration in water (dissolved) (mg/L) Calculated Cwt Concentration in water (total) (mg/L) Calculated 0.05 Fraction of total mercury as dissolved methyl mercury Derived from MRTC, 1997 BCF_T3F Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3, fish filet (L/kg) See Appendix E BCF_T3W Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3, fish whole (L/kg) See Appendix E BCF_T4F Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4, fish filet (L/kg) See Appendix E BCF_T4W Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4, fish whole (L/kg) See Appendix E Source: U.S. EPA, 1998a.

D-22

### Table D-19. Daily Intake of Contaminant from Consumption of Aboveground Produce (mg/kg BW/day) Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Iag 

# ( )

L P F CR I

−

× × × = 1 000 , 1

proveg

profruit exveg exfruit 

### I

I I I Iag +

+ + =

1000 Conversion factor (g/kg) I_exfruit Contaminant intake from consumption of exposed fruit (mg/kg

BW/day) Calculated I_exveg Contaminant intake from consumption of exposed vegetables (mg/kg

BW/day) Calculated I_profruit Contaminant intake from consumption of protected fruit (mg/kg

BW/day) Calculated I_proveg Contaminant intake from consumption of protected vegetables (mg/kg

BW/day) Calculated P_exfruit Exposed fruit concentration (mg/kg WW) Calculated P_exveg Exposed vegetable concentration (mg/kg WW) Calculated P_profruit Protected fruit concentration (mg/kg WW) Calculated P_proveg Protected vegetable concentration (mg/kg WW) Calculated CR_exfruit Daily human consumption rate of exposed fruit (g WW/kg BW/day) See Appendix G CR_exveg Daily human consumption rate of exposed vegetables (g WW/kg

BW/day) See Appendix G CR_profruit Daily human consumption rate of protected fruit (g WW/kg BW/day) See Appendix G CR_proveg Daily human consumption rate of protected vegetables (g WW/kg

BW/day) See Appendix G F_exfruit Fraction of exposed fruit grown in contaminated soil (unitless) See Appendix G F_exveg Fraction of exposed vegetables grown in contaminated soil (unitless) See Appendix G F_profruit Fraction of protected fruit grown in contaminated soil (unitless) See Appendix G F_proveg Fraction of protected vegetables grown in contaminated soil (unitless) See Appendix G L_exfruit Food preparation loss for exposed fruit (unitless) See Appendix G L_exveg Food preparation loss for exposed vegetables (unitless) See Appendix G L_profruit Food preparation loss for protected fruit (unitless) See Appendix G L_proveg Food preparation loss for protected vegetables (unitless) See Appendix G Source: U.S. EPA, 1998a.

D-23

### Table D-20. Daily Intake of Contaminant from Consumption of Belowground Produce (mg/kg BW/day) Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Ibg 

# ( ) bg bg bg bg 

### L

F CR I

−

× × × = 1

000 , 1 Prbg

1000 Conversion factor (g/kg) Prbg Belowground vegetable concentration in whole weight (mg/kg WW) Calculated CR_bg Daily human consumption rate of below ground vegetables (g WW/kg

BW/day) See Appendix G F_bg Fraction of belowground vegetables grown in contaminated soil

(unitless) See Appendix G L_bg Food preparation loss for root vegetables (unitless) See Appendix G Source: U.S. EPA, 1998a.

D-24

### Table D-21. Daily Intake of Contaminant from Consumption of Fish (mg/kg BW/day)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Ifish

F fishT T F fishT T T 

### C

F C F Cfish 4 4 3 3 

### ×

+ × =

BW

F CR Cfish Ifish fish fish T 

### × × × = 000

, 1

1000 Conversion factor (g/kg) C_fishT3F Concentration of contaminant in fish at different trophic levels (mg/kg) Calculated C_fishT4F Concentration of contaminant in fish at different trophic levels (mg/kg) Calculated Cfish_T Concentration of contaminant in fish (mg/kg) Calculated BW Body weight (kg) See Appendix G CR_fish Consumption rate of fish (g WW/day) See Appendix G F_fish Fraction of fish intake from contaminated source (unitless) See Appendix G F_T3 Fraction of trophic level 3 intake, 0.36 (unitless) See Appendix G F_T4 Fraction of trophic level 4 intake, 0.64 (unitless) See Appendix G Source: U.S. EPA, 1998a.

D-25

### Table D-22. Daily Intake of Contaminant from Incidental Ingestion of Soil (mg/kg BW/day)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Isoil

000001

. 0 × × × = BW F CRs Csoil Isoil soil

0.000001 Conversion factor (kg/mg) Isoil Daily intake of contaminant from incidental ingestion of soil (mg/kg

BW/day) Calculated
BW Body weight (kg) See Appendix G CRs Soil ingestion rate (mg/day) See Appendix G F_soil Fraction of contaminated soil that is ingested (unitless) See Appendix G Csoil Concentration of contaminant in soil (mg/kg) Set equal to 1 for the HBN calculation Source: U.S. EPA, 1998a.

D-26

### Table D-23. Daily Intake of Contaminant from Consumption of Drinking Water (mg/kg BW/day) Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Idw

BW F Cr C Idw dw dw dw 

### × × =

1000 Conversion factor (mL/L) Cdw Concentration of contaminant in water (mg/L) Calculated BW Body weight (kg) See Appendix G CR_dw Consumption rate of water (L/day) See Appendix G F_dw Fraction of drinking water ingested that is contaminated (unitless) See Appendix G Source: U.S. EPA, 1998a.

D-27

### Table D-24. Daily Intake of Contaminant from Ingestion of i-th Animal Tissue Group (mg/kg BW/day) Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Ianimal

Li

Fi CRi Ai Ianimal ×

× × = 000 , 1

1000 Conversion factor (g/kg) Ai Concentration of contaminant in i-th animal tissue group (mg/kg WW) Calculated CRi Daily human consumption rate of i-th animal tissue group (g WW/kg

BW/day) See Appendix G
Fi Fraction of animal tissue that is contaminated (unitless) See Appendix G Li Contaminant loss factor (unitless) See Appendix G Source: U.S. EPA, 1998a.

D-28

### Table D-25. Cancer Risk and Hazard Quotient Due to Inhalation (unitless)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Risk_Air

RfC Cair HQ Air 

### =



### BW AT CSF

EFi EDi BRi Cair Risk inhal Air 

### ×

× × × × × = 365

365 Conversion factor (days/yr) Cair Concentration of contaminant in air (mg/m^3) Calculated HQ_Air Noncancer hazard quotient for inhalation (unitless) Calculated CSFInhal Inhalation cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)-1 See Appendix B RfC Noncancer reference concentration (mg/m^3) See Appendix B AT Averaging time (yr) See Appendix G Bri Breathing rate (m^3/day) See Appendix G BW Body weight (kg) See Appendix G EDi Exposure duration for inhalation (yr) See Appendix G EFi Exposure frequency (days/yr) See Appendix G

D-29

### Table D-26. Cancer Risk and Hazard Quotient Due to Ingestion (unitless)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### Risk_Oral

RfD I HQ Oral 

### =



### 365

× × × × = AT CSF

EF ED I Risk Oral Oral

365 Conversion factor (days/yr) HQ_Oral Noncancer hazard quotient for ingestion (unitless) Calculated I Combined intake rate from soil, animal products and produce

(mg/kg/day) Calculated
CSFOral Oral cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)-1 See Appendix B RfD Noncancer reference dose (mg/kg/day) See Appendix B AT Averaging time (yr) See Appendix G ED Exposure duration for oral ingestion (yr) See Appendix G EF Exposure frequency (days/yr) See Appendix G

D-30

### Table D-27. Health-Based Concentration (ppm)

Appendix D

Name Description Value 

### CalcHBN 

## THQ HQ C HBN Oral NC Oral 

## × =

THQ HQ C HBN Inhal

inhal NC 

## × =



## TR Risk C HBN Risk 

## × =

THQ Target noncancer hazard quotient (unitless) 1 TR Target cancer risk (unitless) 1.00E-5 HQ_Inhal Noncancer hazard quotient for inhalation (unitless) Calculated HQ_Oral Noncancer hazard quotient for ingestion (unitless) Calculated Risk Total cancer risk (unitless) Calculated C Constituent concentration in media (mg/L or mg/kg) Value set to unit concentration of 1 Backcalculation assuming linearity.

D-31

### Appendix D August 2002



### D-32 

## D.3 References Bidleman, T.F. 1988. Atmospheric Processes. Environmental Science and Technology 22(4). EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 1997 . Coal Combustion and Low Volume Wastes Comanagement Survey. EPRI. Palo Alto, CA. June. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. Soil Screening Guidance Technical Background Document . EPA/540/R/95/128. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. May. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998a. Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Pathways of Exposure to Combustor Emissions. EPA 600/R98/137. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH. December. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998b. Technical Background Document for the Supplemental Report to Congress on Remaining Fossil-Fuel Combustion Wastes— Ground-Water Pathway Human Health Risk Assessment. Revised Draft Final. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC. June. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites: Peer Review Draft . OSWER 9355.4-24. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. March.

# Appendix E Chemical-Specific Inputs

### Appendix E



### E-3 

# Appendix E Chemical-Specific Inputs Chemical-specific inputs used to develop the FFCW HBNs include the biouptake, biotranfer, and bioconcentration factors needed to estimate exposure concentrations in produce, beef, milk, and fish. Values for these inputs are obtained from the best available literature source. Tables E-1 through E-25 provide, for each chemical in the FFCW screening analysis, the values used in the analysis along with the source of each value.

### Table E-1. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Aluminum (7429905)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 1.5E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 2.0E-4 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet BCF_T3W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet BCF_T4W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole BrExfruit 6.5E-04 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 4.0E-03 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 4.0E-03 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 6.5E-04 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 6.5E-04 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 6.5E-04 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 4.0E-03 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 4.0E-03 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-4

### Table E-2. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Ammonia (7664417)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description
BaBeef NO DATA - - Beef biotransfer factor
BaMilk NO DATA - - Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet BCF_T3W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet BCF_T4W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole
BrExfruit NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit BrExveg NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit BrProveg NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots BrSilage NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-5

### Table E-3. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Antimony (7440360)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 1.0E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 1.0E-4 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F 0 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet

BCF_T3W 0 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F 0 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet

BCF_T4W 0 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole

BrExfruit 3.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 2.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 2.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 3.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 3.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 3.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 2.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 2.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-6

### Table E-4. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Arsenic (7440382)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 2.0E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 6.0E-5 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F 4.0E+00 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet

BCF_T3W 4.0E+00 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F 4.0E+00 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet

BCF_T4W 4.0E+00 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole

BrExfruit 2.0E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 1.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 5.3E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 4.3E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 2.0E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 2.0E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 4.6E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 5.3E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-7

### Table E-5. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Barium (7440393)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 1.5E-4 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 3.5E-4 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet BCF_T3W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet BCF_T4W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole BrExfruit 1.5E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 1.5E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 1.5E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 1.5E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 1.5E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 1.5E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 1.5E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 1.5E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-8

### Table E-6. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Beryllium (7440417)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 1.0E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 9.0E-7 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F 1.9E+01 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet

BCF_T3W 1.9E+01 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F 1.9E+01 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet

BCF_T4W 1.9E+01 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole

BrExfruit 1.5E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 1.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 1.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 1.5E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 1.5E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 1.5E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 1.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 1.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-9

### Table E-7. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Boron (7440428)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 8.0E-4 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 1.5E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet BCF_T3W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet BCF_T4W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole BrExfruit 2.0E+00 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 4.0E+00 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 4.0E+00 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 2.0E+00 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 2.0E+00 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 2.0E+00 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 4.0E+00 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 4.0E+00 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-10

### Table E-8. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Cadmium (7440439)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 5.5E-4 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 1.0E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F 2.7E+02 (L/kg) Kumada et al., 1972 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Geomean of 3 data points in Table 2. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet

BCF_T3W 2.7E+02 (L/kg) Kumada et al., 1972 Geomean of 3 data points in Table 2. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole
BCF_T4F 2.7E+02 (L/kg) Kumada et al., 1972 BCF_T4W was used as a surrogate. Geomean of 3 data points in Table 2. Species were doce and rainbow trout. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet

BCF_T4W 2.7E+02 (L/kg) Kumada et al., 1972 Geomean of 3 data points in Table 2. Species were doce and rainbow trout. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole

BrExfruit 2.5E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 6.7E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 4.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 1.1E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 2.5E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 2.5E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 2.5E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 4.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-11

### Table E-9. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Chromium(III) (16065831)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 5.5E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 1.5E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F 6.0E-01 (L/kg) Stephan, 1993 BCF_T4F was used as a surrogate. Geomean (as cited in Stephan, 1993) based on Buhler et al. (1977) and Calamari et al. (1982). Used chromium as a surrogate. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet

BCF_T3W 6.0E-01 (L/kg) Stephan, 1993 BCF_T4F was used as a surrogate. Geomean (as cited in Stephan, 1993) based on Buhler et al. (1977) and Calamari et al. (1982). Used chromium as a surrogate. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole

BCF_T4F 6.0E-01 (L/kg) Stephan, 1993 Geomean (as cited in Stephan, 1993) based on Buhler et al. (1977) and Calamari et al. (1982). Used chromium as a surrogate. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet

BCF_T4W 6.0E-01 (L/kg) Stephan, 1993 BCF_T4F was used as a surrogate. Geomean (as cited in Stephan, 1993) based on Buhler et al. (1977) and Calamari et al. (1982). Used chromium as a surrogate. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole

BrExfruit 1.4E-04 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 5.8E-04 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 1.9E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 9.0E-05 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 1.4E-04 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 1.4E-04 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 9.5E-04 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 1.9E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-12

### Table E-10. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Chromium(VI) (18540299)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 5.5E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 1.5E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F 6.0E-01 (L/kg) Stephan, 1993 BCF_T4F was used as a surrogate. Geomean (as cited in Stephan, 1993) based on Buhler et al. (1977) and Calamari et al. (1982). Used chromium as a surrogate. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet

BCF_T3W 6.0E-01 (L/kg) Stephan, 1993 BCF_T4F was used as a surrogate. Geomean (as cited in Stephan, 1993) based on Buhler et al. (1977) and Calamari et al. (1982). Used chromium as a surrogate. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole

BCF_T4F 6.0E-01 (L/kg) Stephan, 1993 Geomean (as cited in Stephan, 1993) based on Buhler et al. (1977) and Calamari et al. (1982). Used chromium as a surrogate. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet

BCF_T4W 6.0E-01 (L/kg) Stephan, 1993 BCF_T4F was used as a surrogate. Geomean (as cited in Stephan, 1993) based on Buhler et al. (1977) and Calamari et al. (1982). Used chromium as a surrogate. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole

BrExfruit 1.4E-04 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 5.8E-04 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 1.9E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 9.0E-05 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 1.4E-04 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 1.4E-04 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 9.5E-04 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 1.9E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-13

### Table E-11. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Cobalt (7440484)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 0.020 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 2.0E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet BCF_T3W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet BCF_T4W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole BrExfruit 7.0E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 2.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 2.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 7.0E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 7.0E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 7.0E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 2.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 2.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-14

### Table E-12. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Cyanide (57125)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description
BaBeef NO DATA - - Beef biotransfer factor
BaMilk NO DATA - - Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet BCF_T3W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet BCF_T4W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole
BrExfruit NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit BrExveg NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit BrProveg NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots BrSilage NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-15

### Table E-13. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Fluoride (16984488)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description
BaBeef NO DATA - - Beef biotransfer factor
BaMilk NO DATA - - Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet BCF_T3W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet BCF_T4W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole
BrExfruit NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit BrExveg NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit BrProveg NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots BrSilage NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-16

### Table E-14. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Manganese (7439965)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 4.0E-4 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 3.5E-4 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet BCF_T3W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet BCF_T4W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole BrExfruit 5.0E-02 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 2.5E-01 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 2.5E-01 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 5.0E-02 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 5.0E-02 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 5.0E-02 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 2.5E-01 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 2.5E-01 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-17

### Table E-15. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Mercury (99991)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 7.7E-03 (day/kg - WW) U.S. EPA, 1997a BTF based on divalent mercury. Beef biotransfer factor
BaMilk 2.6E-03 (day/kg - WW) U.S. EPA, 1997a BTF based on divalent mercury. Milk biotransfer factor
BCF_T3F 1.6E+06 (L/kg) U.S. EPA, 1997a BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. BAF used with dissolved methylmercury concentrations. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet

BCF_T3W 1.6E+06 (L/kg) U.S. EPA, 1997a BAF used with dissolved methylmercury concentrations. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole

BCF_T4F 6.8E+06 (L/kg) U.S. EPA, 1997a BCF_T4W was used as a surrogate. BAF used with dissolved methylmercury concentrations. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet

BCF_T4W 6.8E+06 (L/kg) U.S. EPA, 1997a BAF used with dissolved methylmercury concentrations. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole

BrExfruit 1.4E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 For divalent mercury. Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 1.7E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 For divalent mercury. Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 6.7E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 For divalent mercury. Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 8.6E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 For divalent mercury. Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 1.4E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 For divalent mercury. Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 1.4E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 For divalent mercury. Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 3.6E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 For divalent mercury. Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 6.7E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 For divalent mercury. Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 40.41 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b For divalent mercury. Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-18

### Table E-16. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Molybdenum (7439987)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 6.0E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 1.5E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F 4.0E+00 (L/kg) Eisler, 1989 BCF_T4F was used as a surrogate. Geomean of values found on pages 27 and 28. Species were rainbow trout and steelhead trout. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet

BCF_T3W 4.0E+00 (L/kg) Eisler, 1989 BCF_T4F was used as a surrogate. Geomean of values found on pages 27 and 28. Species were rainbow trout and steelhead trout. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole

BCF_T4F 4.0E+00 (L/kg) Eisler, 1989 Geomean of values found on pages 27 and 28. Species were rainbow trout and steelhead trout. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet

BCF_T4W 4.0E+00 (L/kg) Eisler, 1989 BCF_T4F was used as a surrogate. Geomean of values found on pages 27 and 28. Species were rainbow trout and steelhead trout. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole

BrExfruit 6.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 2.5E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 2.5E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 6.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 6.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 6.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 2.5E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 2.5E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-19

### Table E-17. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Nickel (7440020)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 6.0E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 1.0E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F 8.0E-01 (L/kg) Stephan, 1993 BCF_T4F was used as a surrogate. Derived from Calamari et al. (1982) (as cited in Stephan, 1993). Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet

BCF_T3W 8.0E-01 (L/kg) Stephan, 1993 BCF_T4F was used as a surrogate. Derived from Calamari et al. (1982) (as cited in Stephan, 1993). Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole

BCF_T4F 8.0E-01 (L/kg) Stephan, 1993 Derived from Calamari et al. (1982) (as cited in Stephan, 1993). Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet

BCF_T4W 8.0E-01 (L/kg) Stephan, 1993 BCF_T4F was used as a surrogate. Derived from Calamari et al. (1982) (as cited in Stephan, 1993). Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole

BrExfruit 6.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 1.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 2.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 6.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 6.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 6.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 6.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 2.0E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-20

### Table E-18. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Selenium (7782492)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 0.015 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 4.0E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F 4.9E+02 (L/kg) Lemly, 1985 Based on threadfin shad and blueback herring. Units corrected. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet

BCF_T3W 4.9E+02 (L/kg) Lemly, 1985 BCF_T3F was used as a surrogate. Based on threadfin shad and blueback herring. Units corrected. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole

BCF_T4F 1.7E+03 (L/kg) Lemly, 1985 Based on threadfin shad and blueback herring. Units corrected. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet

BCF_T4W 1.7E+03 (L/kg) Lemly, 1985 BCF_T4F was used as a surrogate. Based on threadfin shad and blueback herring. Units corrected. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole

BrExfruit 2.5E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 2.5E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 2.5E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 2.5E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 2.5E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 2.5E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 2.5E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 2.5E-02 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-21

### Table E-19. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Silver (7440224)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 3.0E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 0.020 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F 0 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet

BCF_T3W 0 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F 0 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet

BCF_T4W 0 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole

BrExfruit 1.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 4.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 4.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 1.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 1.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 1.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 4.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 4.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-22

### Table E-20. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Strontium (7440246)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 3.0E-4 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 1.5E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet BCF_T3W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet BCF_T4W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole BrExfruit 2.5E-01 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 2.5E+00 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 2.5E+00 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 2.5E-01 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 2.5E-01 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 2.5E-01 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 2.5E+00 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 2.5E+00 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-23

### Table E-21. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Thallium (7440280)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 0.040 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 2.0E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F 3.4E+01 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet

BCF_T3W 3.4E+01 (L/kg) Barrows et al., 1980 Species was sunfish. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F 1.3E+02 (L/kg) Stephan, 1993 Derived from Zitko et al. (1975) (as cited in Stephan, 1993). Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet

BCF_T4W 1.3E+02 (L/kg) Stephan, 1993 BCF_T4F was used as a surrogate. Derived from Zitko et al. (1975) (as cited in Stephan, 1993). Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole

BrExfruit 4.0E-04 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 4.0E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 4.0E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 4.0E-04 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 4.0E-04 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 4.0E-04 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 4.0E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 4.0E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-24

### Table E-22. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Total Nitrate Nitrogen (14797558)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description
BaBeef NO DATA - - Beef biotransfer factor
BaMilk NO DATA - - Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet BCF_T3W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet BCF_T4W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole
BrExfruit NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit BrExveg NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit BrProveg NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots BrSilage NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-25

### Table E-23. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Total Nitrite Nitrogen (14797650)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description
BaBeef NO DATA - - Beef biotransfer factor
BaMilk NO DATA - - Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet BCF_T3W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet BCF_T4W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole
BrExfruit NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit BrExveg NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit BrProveg NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots BrSilage NO DATA - - Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-26

### Table E-24. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Vanadium (7440622)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 2.5E-3 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 2.0E-5 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet BCF_T3W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole BCF_T4F NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet BCF_T4W NO DATA - - Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole BrExfruit 3.0E-03 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 5.5E-03 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 4.9E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 3.0E-03 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 3.0E-03 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 3.0E-03 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 5.5E-03 (ug/g DW plants)/(ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 4.9E-03 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-27

### Table E-25. Chemical-Specific Inputs for Zinc (7440666)
Parameter Value Units Reference Appendix E

Comment Description BaBeef 0.10 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Beef biotransfer factor BaMilk 0.010 (day/kg - WW) Baes et al., 1984 Milk biotransfer factor BCF_T3F 3.5E+02 (L/kg) Murphy et al., 1978 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Geomean of converted dry weight concentration in Table 1 of bluegills at Site A and B. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, filet

BCF_T3W 3.5E+02 (L/kg) Murphy et al., 1978 Geomean of converted dry weight concentration in Table 1 of bluegills at Site A and B. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 3 fish, whole

BCF_T4F 3.5E+02 (L/kg) Murphy et al., 1978 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Geomean of converted dry weight concentration in Table 1 of bluegills at Site A and B. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, filet

BCF_T4W 3.5E+02 (L/kg) Murphy et al., 1978 BCF_T3W was used as a surrogate. Geomean of converted dry weight concentration in Table 1 of bluegills at Site A and B. Bioconcentration factor for trophic level 4 fish, whole

BrExfruit 9.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed fruit
BrExveg 3.3E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, exposed vegetables BrForage 3.2E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, forage
BrGrain 3.3E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, grain
BrProfruit 9.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected fruit
BrProveg 9.0E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Baes et al., 1984 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, protected vegetables BrRoot 1.3E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, roots
BrSilage 3.2E-01 (ug/g DW plant)/ (ug/g soil) Calculated based on U.S. EPA, 1999 Soil-to-plant bioconcentration factor, silage
Fv 0 (unitless) - Set to zero for nonvolatile chemicals. Fraction of air concentration in vapor phase
KpPar 18.07 (1/yr) U.S. EPA, 1997b Plant surface loss coefficient, particulate



### E-28

### Appendix E



### E-29 

## References Baes, C.F., III, R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. 1984. A Review and Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides Through Agriculture . ORNL-5786. Oak Ridge National Labor atory, Oak Ridge, TN. September. Barrows, M.E., S.R. Petrocelli, K.J. Macek, and J.J. Carroll. 1980. Chapter 24: Bioconcentration and elimination of selected water pollutants by bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ). In: Dynamics, Exposure and Hazard Assessment of Toxic Chemicals, R. Haque (ed.), Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. pp. 379-392. Eisler, R. 1989. Molybdenum Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review

. Contaminant Hazard Reviews, Report No. 19, Biological Report 85(1.19). Laurel, MD. August. Kumada, H., S. Kimura, M. Yokote, and Y. Matid a. 1972. Acute and chronic toxicity, uptake, and retention of cadmium in freshwater organisms. Bulletin of Freshwater Fisheries Research Laboratory 22 (2):157-165. December 20. Lemly, A.D. 1985. Toxicology of selenium in a freshw ater reservoir: Implications for environmental hazard evaluation and safety. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 10 :314-338. Murphy, B.R., G.J. Atchison, and A.W. McIntosh. 1978. Cadmium and zinc in muscle of bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ) and largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ) from an industrially contaminated lake. Environmental Pollution 17 :253-257. Stephan, C.E. 1993. Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative (Draft). PB93-154672. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN. March. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1997a. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Volume III - Fate and Transport of Mercury in the Environment . EPA 452/R-97/005. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1997b. The Parameter Guidance Document. A Companion Document to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Pathways Exposure to Combustor Emissions (Internal Draft). NCEA-0238. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH. March. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Estimating Risk from the Use of Agricultural Fertilizers (Draft Report). Office of Solid Wa ste, Washington, DC. August. Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/fertiliz/risk/index.htm.

# Appendix F Biota FactorsCode Description Value Appendix F 

### Table F-1. Model Parameters for Biota Data
Reference Cattle Intake Rates Qfbs Quantity of forage eaten each day by beef cattle (kg - DW/day) 8.8 U.S.EPA, 1997 Qfds Quantity of forage eaten each day by dairy cattle (kg - DW/day) 11 U.S.EPA, 1997 Qgbs Quantity of grain eaten each day by beef cattle (kg - DW/day) 0.47 U.S.EPA, 1997 Qgds Quantity of grain eaten each day by dairy cattle (kg - DW/day) 2.6 U.S.EPA, 1997 Qsbs Quantity of silage eaten each day by beef cattle (kg - DW/day) 2.5 U.S.EPA, 1997 Qsds Quantity of silage eaten each day by dairy cattle (kg - DW/day) 3.3 U.S.EPA, 1997 Qsoilbs Consumption rate of soil for beef cattle (kg/day) 0.39 U.S.EPA, 1997 Qsoilds Consumption rate of soil for dairy cattle (kg/day) 0.41 U.S.EPA, 1997 Fraction Contaminated F_forage Fraction of forage grown on contaminated soil and eaten (unitless) 1 U.S.EPA, 1997 F_grain Fraction of grain grown on contaminated soil and eaten (unitless) 1 U.S.EPA, 1997 F_silage Fraction of silage grown on contaminated soil and eaten (unitless) 1 U.S.EPA, 1997 Vegetation DWr Dry weight fraction for root vegetables (unitless) 0.13 U.S.EPA, 1997 Rp_exfruit Interception fraction for exposed fruit (unitless) 0.052 U.S.EPA, 1997 Rp_exveg Interception fraction for exposed vegetables (unitless) 0.052 U.S.EPA, 1997 Rp_forage Interception fraction for forage (unitless) 0.47 U.S.EPA, 1997 Rp_silage Interception fraction for silage (unitless) 0.44 U.S.EPA, 1997 Tp_exfruit Length of plant exposure to deposition for exposed fruit (yr) 0.123 U.S.EPA, 1997 Tp_exveg Length of plant exposure to deposition for exposed vegetables (yr) 0.123 U.S.EPA, 1997 Tp_forage Length of plant exposure to deposition for forage (yr) 0.123 U.S.EPA, 1997 Tp_silage Length of plant exposure to deposition for silage (yr) 0.164 U.S.EPA, 1997 Yp_exfruit Crop yield for exposed fruit (kg DW/m2) 0.09 U.S.EPA, 1997 Yp_exveg Crop yield for exposed vegetables (kg DW/m2) 0.18 U.S.EPA, 1997 Yp_forage Crop yield for forage (kg DW/m2) 0.31 U.S.EPA, 1997 Yp_silage Crop yield for silage (kg DW/m2) 0.31 U.S.EPA, 1997



### F

- 3

### Appendix F



### F-4 References U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. The Parameter Guidance Document. A Companion Document to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Pathways Exposure to Combustor Emissions (Internal Draft). NCEA-0238. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 1-281. March.

# Appendix G Human Exposure Factors

### Appendix G August 2002



### G-3 

# Appendix G Human Exposure Factors

Exposure factors are data that quantify human behavior patterns (e.g., ingestion rates of beef and fruit) and characteristics (e.g., body weight) th at affect their exposure to environmental contaminants. These data can be used to construct realistic assumptions concerning an individual’s exposure to and subsequent intake of a contaminant in the environment. The exposure factors data also enable the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine the exposures of individuals who have different lifestyles (e.g., a resident vs. a farmer, and a child vs. an adult). Most human exposure factors used in the fossil fuel combustion waste (FFCW) screening analysis are based on national data provided in EPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook (EFH) (U.S. EPA, 1997a, 1997b, 1997c). The EFH summarizes da ta from relevant studies and provides recommendations and associated confidence estimates on the values of exposure factors. The main sources of information on food consumption rates are the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) and the USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). EPA used data from the NFCS to generate consumer-only and per capita intake rates for various food items and food groups, and data from the CSFII to generate per capita intake rates (U.S. EPA, 1997b). The exposure factors parameters used in the deterministic fossil fuel combustion waste (FFCW) screening analysis are summarized in Tables G-1a and G-1b.Code Description Value Appendix G 

### Table G-1a. Model Parameters for Exposure Data
Reference

AT Averaging time (yr) 70 U.S. EPA, 1991. Bri_1 Breathing rate (m3/d) Receptor Specific Bri_2 Breathing rate (m3/d) Receptor Specific Bri_3 Breathing rate (m3/d) Receptor Specific Bri_4 Breathing rate (m3/d) Receptor Specific BW_1 Body weight (kg) Receptor Specific BW_2 Body weight (kg) Receptor Specific BW_3 Body weight (kg) Receptor Specific BW_4 Body weight (kg) Receptor Specific CR_beef_1 Daily human consumption rate of beef (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_beef_2 Daily human consumption rate of beef (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_beef_3 Daily human consumption rate of beef (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_beef_4 Daily human consumption rate of beef (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_dw_1 Consumption rate of water (L/day) Receptor Specific CR_dw_2 Consumption rate of water (L/day) Receptor Specific CR_dw_3 Consumption rate of water (L/day) Receptor Specific CR_dw_4 Consumption rate of water (L/day) Receptor Specific CR_exfruit_1 Daily human consumption rate of exposed fruit (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_exfruit_2 Daily human consumption rate of exposed fruit (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_exfruit_3 Daily human consumption rate of exposed fruit (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_exfruit_4 Daily human consumption rate of exposed fruit (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_exveg_1 Daily human consumption rate of exposed vegetables (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_exveg_2 Daily human consumption rate of exposed vegetables (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_exveg_3 Daily human consumption rate of exposed vegetables (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_exveg_4 Daily human consumption rate of exposed vegetables (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_fish_1 Consumption rate of fish (g WW/day) Receptor Specific CR_fish_2 Consumption rate of fish (g WW/day) Receptor Specific CR_fish_3 Consumption rate of fish (g WW/day) Receptor Specific CR_fish_4 Consumption rate of fish (g WW/day) Receptor Specific CR_milk_1 Daily human consumption rate of milk (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_milk_2 Daily human consumption rate of milk (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_milk_3 Daily human consumption rate of milk (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_milk_4 Daily human consumption rate of milk (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific 

### G-4Code Description Value Appendix G 

### Table G-1a. Model Parameters for Exposure Data
Reference CR_profruit_1 Daily human consumption rate of protected fruit (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_profruit_2 Daily human consumption rate of protected fruit (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_profruit_3 Daily human consumption rate of protected fruit (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_profruit_4 Daily human consumption rate of protected fruit (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_proveg_1 Daily human consumption rate of protected vegetables (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_proveg_2 Daily human consumption rate of protected vegetables (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_proveg_3 Daily human consumption rate of protected vegetables (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_proveg_4 Daily human consumption rate of protected vegetables (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_root_1 Daily human consumption rate of below ground vegetables (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_root_2 Daily human consumption rate of below ground vegetables (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_root_3 Daily human consumption rate of below ground vegetables (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CR_root_4 Daily human consumption rate of below ground vegetables (g WW/kg BW/day) Receptor Specific CRs_1 Soil ingestion rate (mg/day) Receptor Specific CRs_2 Soil ingestion rate (mg/day) Receptor Specific CRs_3 Soil ingestion rate (mg/day) Receptor Specific CRs_4 Soil ingestion rate (mg/day) Receptor Specific ED_1 Exposure duration (yr) Receptor Specific ED_2 Exposure duration (yr) Receptor Specific ED_3 Exposure duration (yr) Receptor Specific ED_4 Exposure duration (yr) Receptor Specific EF Exposure frequency (d/yr) 350 U.S. EPA, 1991. F_beef Fraction of animal tissue that is contaminated (unitless) Receptor Specific F_dw Fraction of drinking water ingested that is contaminated (unitless) 1 F_exfruit Fraction of exposed fruit grown in contaminated soil (unitless) Receptor Specific F_exveg Fraction of exposed vegetables grown in contaminated soil (unitless) Receptor Specific F_fish Fraction of fish intake from contaminated source (unitless) 1 F_milk Fraction of milk that is contaminated (unitless) Receptor Specific F_profruit Fraction of protected fruit grown in contaminated soil (unitless) Receptor Specific F_proveg Fraction of protected vegetables grown in contaminated soil (unitless) Receptor Specific



### G-5Code Description Value Appendix G 

### Table G-1a. Model Parameters for Exposure Data
Reference F_root Fraction of below ground vegetables grown in contaminated soil (unitless) Receptor Specific F_soil Fraction of contaminated soil that is ingested (unitless) 1 F_T3 Fraction of trophic level 3 intake, 0.36 (unitless) 0.36 F_T4 Fraction of trophic level 4 intake, 0.64 (unitless) 0.64 L_exfruit Food preparation loss for exposed fruit (unitless) 0.21 U.S. EPA, 1997. L_exveg Food preparation loss for exposed vegetables (unitless) 0.16 U.S. EPA, 1997. L_profruit Food preparation loss for protected fruit (unitless) 0.29 U.S. EPA, 1997. L_proveg Food preparation loss for protected vegetables (unitless) 0.13 U.S. EPA, 1997. L_root Food preparation loss for root vegetables (unitless) 0.05 U.S. EPA, 1997. L1_beef Cooking loss for beef (unitless) 0.27 U.S. EPA, 1997. L2_beef Post-cooking loss for beef (unitless) 0.24 U.S. EPA, 1997. SY Start year (yr) Receptor Specific U.S. EPA, 1997.



### G-6Parameter Appendix G 

### Table G-1b. 50th Percentile Exposure Data
Cohort_1 Cohort_2 Cohort_3 Cohort_4 Value
Parameters f or Above g round and Drinkin g Water HBN Calculation BW (kg) 15.3 29.6 56.8 69.3 SY (yr) 3 8 15 20
Parameters f or Above g round HBN Calculation Bri (m3/d) 7.6 11.8 14 13.3 CR_beef (g WW/kg BW/day) 2.11 2.11 1.51 1.64 CR_exfruit (g WW/kg BW/day) 1.82 1.11 0.609 1.3 CR_exveg (g WW/kg BW/day) 1.46 0.643 0.656 1.38 CR_fish (g WW/day) 2 22 2 CR_milk (g WW/kg BW/day) 69.99 38.6 14.28 12.1 CR_profruit (g WW/kg BW/day) 2.34 2.34 1.23 2.13 CR_proveg (g WW/kg BW/day) 1.397 0.791 0.583 0.599 CR_root (g WW/kg BW/day) 0.686 0.523 0.565 0.883 CRs (mg/day) 100 50 50 50 ED (yr) 5 7.5 8 10 F_beef (unitless) 0.485 F_exfruit (unitless) 0.328 F_exveg (unitless) 0.42 F_milk (unitless) 0.254 F_profruit (unitless) 0.03 F_proveg (unitless) 0.394 F_root (unitless) 0.173
Parameters f or Drinkin g Water HBN Calculation CR_dw (L/day) 0.6165 0.731 0.8685 1.275 ED (yr) 5 7.5 8 9



### G-7

### Appendix G August 2002



### G-8 

## References
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) (Interim Final). EPA/540/1-89/002. Prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. December. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1997a. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume I, General Factors. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. Office of Res earch and Development, Washington, DC. August. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1997b. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume II, Food Ingestion Factors. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. August. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1997c. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume III, Activity Factors. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. Office of Res earch and Development, Washington, DC. August.

# Appendix H Site Data

### Appendix H



### H-3 

# Appendix H Site Data To estimate air dispersion and deposition, the HBN calculations require assumptions about site meteorology, ground cover, and waste management unit (WMU) size. Default values for most of these variables are from EPA’s Soil Screening Guidance and are designed to be protective for a nationwide screening analysis. The WMU area used is the 95 th 

### percentile value from EPRI’s survey of FFCW onsite landfills. The landfill is also assumed to be uncovered.Code Description Value Appendix H 

### Table H-1. Model Parameters for Site Data
Reference Meteorology DF_A Dispersion factor constant selected based on location (unitless) 16.2302 U.S. EPA, 2001 DF_B Dispersion factor constant selected based on location (unitless) 18.7762 U.S. EPA, 2001 DF_C Dispersion factor constant selected based on location (unitless) 216.108 U.S. EPA, 2001 May Average annual moisture (precipitation: rainfall, snow) (cm/yr) 150 U.S. EPA, 1998 ut Equivalent threshold value of windspeed at 7m (m/s) 11.32 U.S. EPA, 2001 uw Mean annual windspeed (m/s) 4.69 U.S. EPA, 2001 Source Area Source area 95th percentile (acres) 351.2 EPRI, 1997 Csoil Soil concentration (mg/kg) 1 Set equal to 1 for the HBN calculation Fx Function dependent on uw/ut derived using Cowherd et al. (1985) (unitless) 0.194 U.S. EPA, 2001 VC Fraction vegetative cover (unitless) 0 Assumed protective value



### H -4

### Appendix H



### H-5 References U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Pathways of Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Update to EPA/600/6-90/003 Methodology for Assessing Hea lth Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions . EPA 600/R-98/137. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH. December. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. Office of Solid Waste, Washington DC. March. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 1997. Coal Combustion and Low Volume Wastes Comanagement Survey. EPRI. Palo Alto, CA. June.

# Appendix I Tabulated Human Health Screening Results

### Appendix I



### I-3 Table I-1. FFCW Surface Impoundment (SI) Human Health Screening Results: Groundwater-to-Drinking-Water Pathway

Chemical Benchmark Type 2002 HBN 2002 SI Porewater

1998 HBN 1998 Porewater

90th Percentile HQ (Cancer

Risk) Number of Sites (Sites Exceeding) 95 th Percentile HQ (Cancer

Risk) Analytes Exceeding Risk Criteria 1 Antimony Noncancer 1.17E-02 6.40E-02 5.45E+00 2 (1) 2.10E-02 NA NA Arsenic Cancer 2.86E-03 5.18E+00 (1.81E- 02) 17 (17) 2.90E-03 9.64E+00 (3.32E-02) Arsenic Noncancer 8.81E-03 5.18E+00 5.88E +02 17 (15) 1.50E-02 9.64E+00 6.43E+02 Boron Noncancer 2.64E+00 7.52E+01 2.84E+0 1 18 (11) 4.63E+00 3.42E+02 7.39E+01 Cadmium Noncancer 1.47E-02 1.31E-01 8.91E +00 17 (5) 2.60E-02 1.56E-01 6.00E+00 Chromium (VI) Noncancer 8.81E-02 3.66E-01 4 .15E+00 18 (6) 2.60E-01 7.46E-01 2.87E+00 Cobalt Noncancer 5.87E-01 6.27E+00 1.07E+01 4 (1) NA NA NA Fluoride Noncancer 3.52E+00 1.91E+01 5.42E +00 15 (4) 3.08E+00 4.10E+02 1.33E+02 Lead MCL 1.50E-02 1.77E-01 1.18E+01 14 (6) 1.50E-02 4.68E-01 3.12E+01 Manganese Noncancer 1.38E+00 7.67E+00 5.56E +00 16 (4) 7.20E+00 1.03E+02 1.43E+01 Molybdenum Noncancer 1.47E-01 1.00E+00 6.81E +00 18 (13) 2.57E-01 1.14E+01 4.44E+01 Nickel Noncancer 5.87E-01 7.49E-01 1.27E +00 17 (3) 1.03E+00 8.33E+00 8.09E+00 Nitrate MCL 1.00E+01 6.02E+02 6.02E+0 1 13 (3) 1.00E+01 1.17E+03 1.17E+02 Nitrite Noncancer 2.94E+00 5.22E+00 1.78E +00 15 (2) 1.00E+01 4.61E+02 4.61E+01 Selenium Noncancer 1.47E-01 3.56E-01 2.43E +00 15 (5) 2.57E-01 1.03E+00 4.01E+00 Thallium Noncancer 2.35E-03 4.52E-02 1.93E+01 2 (2) 4.10E-03 NA NA Vanadium Noncancer 2.06E-01 4.78E-01 2.33E +00 15 (6) 3.60E-01 8.00E-01 2.22E+00 Analytes Below Risk Criteria 1 Aluminum Noncancer 5.87E+01 2.30E+01 3.92E-01 17 (1) NA 2.70E+02 NA Barium Noncancer 2.06E+00 3.02E-01 1.47E -01 17 (0) 3.60E+00 2.74E+01 7.61E+00 Beryllium Noncancer 5.87E-02 5.68E-03 9.67E-02 2 (0) 1.00E-04 NA NA Chromium (III) Noncancer 4.40E+01 3.66E-01 8.31E-03 18 (0) NA 7.46E-01 NA Copper MCL 1.30E+00 2.84E-01 2.18E-01 16 (0) 1.30E+00 6.90E-01 5.31E-01 Mercury Noncancer 8.81E-03 2.50E-04 2.84E -02 1 (0) 1.50E-02 7.96E-04 5.31E-02 Silver Noncancer 1.47E-01 5.00E-03 3.41E-02 8 (0) 2.57E-01 NA NA Strontium Noncancer 1.76E+01 8.74E+00 4.96E -01 17 (0) 3.08E+01 1.61E+01 5.23E-01 Zinc Noncancer 8.81E+00 6.70E-01 7.60E-0 2 17 (1) 1.54E+01 2.31E+01 1.50E+00

1 Risk criteria are 1E-05 cancer risk or a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1E+00 for noncancer endpoints. HBN = health-based number 90th percentile = 90th percentile SI porewater concentration HQ = hazard quotient MCL = maximum contaminant level NA = not available in 1998

### Appendix I



### I-4 Table I-2. FFCW Surface Impoundment (SI) Human Health Screening Results: Groundwater-to-Surface-Water (Fish Ingestion) Pathway

Chemical Benchmark Type 2002 HBN 2002 SI Porewater
90th Percentile HQ (Cancer Risk) Number of Sites (sites exceeding) Analytes Exceeding Risk Criteria 1 Arsenic Cancer 0.23 5.18E+00 (2.24E-04) 17 (6) Arsenic Noncancer 0.71 5.18E+00 7.28E+00 17 (4) Cadmium Noncancer 0.035 1.31E-01 3.73E+00 17 (3) Mercury Noncancer 3.85E-06 2.50E-04 6.50E+01 1 (1) Selenium Noncancer 0.038 3.56E-01 9.50E+00 15 (9) Thallium Noncancer 0.008 4.52E-02 5.69E+00 2 (1) Analytes Below Risk Criteria 1 Antimony AWQ 4.3 6.40E-02 1.49E-02 2 (0) Beryllium Noncancer 1.00 5.68E-03 5.69E-03 2(0) Chromium (III) Noncancer 23,700 3.66E-01 1.54E-05 18 (0) Chromium (VI) Noncancer 47 3.66E-01 7.72E-03 18 (0) Copper AWQ 1.3 2.84E-01 2.18E-01 16 (0) Molybdenum Noncancer 12 1.00E+01 8.43E-02 18 (0) Nickel Noncancer 237 7.49E-01 3.16E-03 17 (0) Zinc Noncancer 8.13 6.70E-01 8.24E-02 17 (1)

1 Risk criteria are 1E-05 cancer risk or a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1E+00 for noncancer endpoints. HBN = health-based number 90th percentile = 90th percentile SI porewater concentration HQ = hazard quotient AWQ = National Ambient Water Quality Criteria MCL = maximum contaminant level NA = not available in 1998

### Appendix I



### I-5 Table I-3. FFCW Landfill Leachate Human Health Screening Results: Groundwater-to-Drinking-Water Pathway

Chemical Benchmark Type 2002 HBN 2002 Landfill Leachate

1998 HBN 1998 TCLP

90th Percentile HQ (Cancer

Risk) Number of Sites (Sites Exceeding) 95th Percentile HQ (Cancer

Risk) Analytes Exceeding Risk Criteria 1 Antimony Noncancer 1.17E-02 2.61E-01 2.22E+01 60 (37) 2.10E-02 NA NA Arsenic Cancer 2.86E-03 3.94E-01 (1.38E- 03) 119 (113) 2.90E-03 2.40E-01 (8.28E-04) Arsenic Noncancer 8.81E-03 3.94E-01 4.48E +01 119 (99) 1.50E-02 2.40E-01 1.60E+01 Boron Noncancer 2.64E+00 1.06E+01 4.00E+00 72 (28) 4.63E+00 NA NA Cadmium Noncancer 1.47E-02 4.94E-02 3.37E+00 117 (39) 2.60E-02 NA NA Chromium (VI) Noncancer 8.81E-02 2.00E-01 2 .27E+00 118 (35) 2.60E-01 5.90E-02 2.27E-01 Fluoride Noncancer 3.52E+00 6.34E+00 1.80E+00 33 (6) 3.08E+00 NA NA Lead MCL 1.50E-02 2.39E-01 1.59E+01 116 (78) 1.50E-02 NA NA Molybdenum Noncancer 1.47E-01 6.16E-01 4.20E+00 49 (29) 2.57E-01 NA NA Nitrite Noncancer 2.94E+00 3.47E+00 1.18E+00 5 (1) 1.00E+01 NA NA Selenium Noncancer 1.47E-01 1.76E-01 1.20E +00 119 (14) 2.57E-01 4.40E-01 1.71E+00 Thallium Noncancer 2.35E-03 5.00E-02 2.13E+01 40 (32) 4.10E-03 NA NA Vanadium Noncancer 2.06E-01 4.50E-0 1 2.19E+00 40 (8) 3.60E-01 NA NA Analytes Below Risk Criteria 1 Aluminum Noncancer 5.87E+01 1.05E+01 1.79E-01 54 (0) NA NA NA Barium Noncancer 2.06E+00 1.60E+00 7.80E-01 115 (10) 3.60E+00 NA NA Beryllium Noncancer 5.87E-02 1.58E-02 2.70E-01 47 (1) 1.00E-04 NA NA Chromium (III) Noncancer 4.40E+01 2.00E-01 4.54E-03 118 (0) NA NA NA Cobalt Noncancer 5.87E-01 8.25E-02 1.40E-01 51 (0) NA NA NA Copper MCL 1.30E+00 1.50E-01 1.15E-01 72 (2) 1.30E+00 NA NA Cyanide Noncancer 5.87E-01 6.32E-02 1.08E-01 24 (0) NA NA NA Manganese Noncancer 1.38E+00 1.37E+0 0 9.92E-01 72 (8) 7.20E+00 NA NA Mercury Noncancer 8.81E-03 2.69E-03 3.06E-01 97 (6) 1.50E-02 NA NA Nickel Noncancer 5.87E-01 3.09E-01 5.27E -01 80 (3) 1.03E+00 5.00E-02 4.85E-02 Nitrate MCL 1.00E+01 2.83E+00 2.83E-01 17 (1) 1.00E+01 NA NA Silver Noncancer 1.47E-01 3.95E-02 2.69E-01 109 (2) 2.57E-01 NA NA Strontium Noncancer 1.76E+01 9.70E+00 5.51E-01 20 (1) 3.08E+01 NA NA Zinc Noncancer 8.81E+00 1.94E+00 2.20E-01 75 (5) 1.54E+01 NA NA

1 Risk criteria are 1E-05 cancer risk or a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1E+00 for noncancer endpoints, applied to 90th percentile concentrations. HBN = health-based number 90th percentile = 90th percentile concentration HQ = hazard quotient MCL = maximum contaminant level NA = not available in 1998

### Appendix I



### I-6 Table I-4. FFCW Landfill Leachate Human Health Screening Results: Groundwater-to-Surface-Water Pathway

Chemical Benchmark Type 2002 HBN 2002 Landfill Leachate
90 th Percentile HQ (Cancer Risk) Number of Sites (sites exceeding) Analytes Exceeding Risk Criteria 1 Arsenic Cancer 0.23 3.94E-01 (1.71E-05) 119 (22) Cadmium Noncancer 0.035 4.94E-02 1.41E+00 117 (22) Mercury Noncancer 3.85E-06 2.69E-03 7.00E+02 97 (97) Selenium Noncancer 0.038 1.76E-01 4.69E+00 119 (69) Thallium Noncancer 0.008 5.00E-02 6.29E+00 40 (20) Analytes Below Risk Criteria 1 Antimony AWQ 4.3 2.61E-01 6.07E-02 60 (0) Arsenic Noncancer 0.71 3.94E-01 5.54E-01 119 (8) Beryllium Noncancer 1.00 1.58E-02 1.59E-02 47(0) Chromium (III) Noncancer 23,700 2.00E-01 8.44E-06 118 (0) Chromium (VI) Noncancer 47 2.00E-01 4.22E-03 118 (0) Copper AWQ 1.3 1.50E-01 1.15E-01 72 (2) Cyanide AWQ 222 6.32E-02 2.85E-04 24 (0) Molybdenum Noncancer 12 6.16E-01 5.20E-02 49 (1) Nickel Noncancer 237 3.09E-01 1.30E-03 80 (0) Zinc Noncancer 8.13 1.94E+00 2.38E-01 75 (5)

1 Risk criteria are 1E-05 cancer risk or a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1E+00 for noncancer endpoints, applied to 90th percentile concentrations. HBN = health-based number 90th percentile = 90th percentile concentration HQ = hazard quotient AWQ = National Ambient Water Quality Criteria MCL = maximum contaminant level NA = not available in 1998

### Appendix I



### I-7 Table I-5. FFCW Landfill Human Health Screening Results: Aboveground Inhalation and Ingestion Pathways

Chemical Benchmark Type 2002 HBN 2002 Aboveground Results 1998 Aboveground Cancer Risk or HQ 90th Percentile 2 HQ (Cancer Risk) Driving Pathway 3 Number of Sites (Sites Exceeding) Analytes Below Risk Criteria 1 Aluminum Noncancer 3.02E+05 8.57E+03 2.84E-02 Soil 71 (0) NA Antimony Noncancer 1.64E+01 4.62E+00 2.81E-01 Produce 64 (3) NA Arsenic Cancer 1.31E+01 1.05E+01 (8.05E-06) Soil 111 (4) 1.70E+00 Arsenic Noncancer 4.04E+01 1.05E+01 2.60E-01 Soil 111 (0) NA Barium Noncancer 2.59E+03 1.05E+02 4.05E-02 Milk 94 (0) 1.00E+00 Beryllium Noncancer 3.60E+02 1.76E+00 4.88E-03 Soil 37 (0) NA Beryllium Cancer 8.44E+03 1.76E+01 (2.08E-08) Air 37 (0) NA Boron Noncancer 4.82E+01 3.46E+01 7.18E-01 Milk 70 (5) 5.00E-04 Cadmium Noncancer 8.01E+00 5.42E-01 6.77E-02 Milk 102 (2) 1.00E-01 Cadmium Cancer 1.13E+04 5.42E+00 (4.82E-09) Air 102 (0) NA Chromium (III) Noncancer 9.65E+04 1.66E+01 1.72E-04 Milk 108 (0) NA Chromium (VI) Cancer 1.69E+03 1.66E+0 2 (9.83E-07) Inhalation 108 (0) 3.50E-01 Chromium (VI) Noncancer 1.93E+02 1.66E+01 8.60E-02 Milk 108 (0) 3.10E-02 Cobalt Noncancer 5.81E+02 6.22E+00 1.07E-02 Milk 67 (0) 2.00E-03 Cobalt Cancer 7.23E+03 6.22E+01 (8.60E-08) Inhalation 67 (0) NA Cyanide Noncancer 4.35E+03 2.35E-02 5.41E-06 Soil 2 (0) NA Fluoride Noncancer 2.61E+04 2.49E+01 9.56E-04 Soil 8 (0) NA Lead SSL/PRG 4.00E+02 8.06E+00 2.01E-02 Soil 107 (0) NA Manganese NoncancEr 2.59E+03 5.10E+01 1.97E-02 Milk 87 (0) NA Mercury (divalent) Noncancer 6.90E-01 1.63E-01 2.37E-01 Milk 86 (5) NA Molybdenum Noncancer 3.96E+01 3.47E+00 8.76E-02 Milk 73 (0) NA Nickel Noncancer 6.90E+02 3.29E+01 4.77E-02 Milk 106 (1) 2.10E-02 Nitrate Noncancer 3.48E+05 2.42E-02 6.97E-08 Soil 3 (0) NA (continued)

### Table I-5. (continued) Appendix I

Chemical Benchmark Type 2002 HBN 2002 Aboveground Results 1998 Aboveground Cancer Risk or HQ 90th Percentile 2 HQ (Cancer Risk) Driving Pathway 3 Number of Sites (Sites Exceeding)



### I-8 Selenium Noncancer 7.83E+01 2.14E+00 2.74E-02 Milk 94 (0) 9.30E-03 Silver Noncancer 2.62E+00 1.37E+00 5.23E-01 Milk 69 (4) 8.00E-04 Strontium Noncancer 6.22E+02 1.05E+02 1.69E-01 Milk 15 (0) NA Thallium Noncancer 2.81E+00 2.08E+00 7.39E-01 Milk 20 (2) 1.10E+00 Vanadium Noncancer 1.16E+03 9.07E+01 7.85E-02 Soil 43 (0) NA Zinc Noncancer 2.43E+02 2.93E+01 1.21E-01 Milk 98 (3) NA

1 Risk criteria are 1.0E-05 cancer risk or a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1.0E+00 for noncancer endpoints, applied to 90 th percentile concentrations 2 Soil concentrations (total waste/10) or total waste concentrations (for Be, Cd, Cr VI, and Co inhalation cancer risk) 3 See Appendix D, Table D-5 for relative contributions of ingestion pathways to risk estimates HBN = health-based number 90th percentile = 90th percentile concentration HQ = hazard quotient MCL = maximum contaminant level NA = not available

# Appendix J Tabulated Ecological Risk Screening Results

### Appendix J



### J-3 Table J-1. Landfill Ecological Screening Results: Aboveground Soil Pathway

Chemical CSCL 2002 Soil 1998 Soil

Soil (mg/kg) 1 HQ Number of Sites (Sites Exceeding) Soil (mg/kg) HQ Analytes Exceeding Risk Criterion 2 Boron 5.00E-01 1.73E+01 3.46E+01 70 (25) 1.00E-01 - Analytes Not Exceeding Risk Criterion 2 Antimony 1.40E+01 2.31E+00 1.65E-01 64 (0) - - Arsenic 1.00E+01 5.26E+00 5.26E-01 111 (0) - - Barium 5.00E+02 5.26E+01 1.05E-01 94 (0) 2.00E+02 3.90E-01 Cadmium 1.00E+00 2.71E-01 2.71E-01 102 (2) 2.40E-01 2.40E-01 Chromium 6.40E+01 8.30E+00 1.30E-01 108 (0) - - Cobalt 1.00E+03 3.11E+00 3.11E-03 67 (0) 1.40E-01 1.40E-04 Copper 2.10E+01 1.14E+01 5.44E-01 95 (0) - - Lead 2.80E+01 4.03E+00 1.44E-01 107 (0) 7.60E+00 2.70E-01 Mercury 1.00E-01 8.17E-02 8.17E-01 86 (2) - - Molybdenum 4.21E+01 1.74E+00 4.12E-02 73 (0) - - Nickel 3.00E+01 1.65E+01 5.49E-01 106 (1) - - Selenium 1.00E+00 1.07E+00 1.07E+00 94 (2) 1.10E-01 1.10E-01 Vanadium 1.30E+02 4.53E+01 3.49E-01 43 (0) - - Zinc 5.00E+01 1.47E+01 2.93E-01 98 (2) - -

1 90 th percentile total waste concentration / 20 (dilution factor) 2 Risk criterion is a hazard quotient (HQ) of 10 CSCL = chemical stressor concentration level

### Appendix J



### J-4 Table J-2. Surface Impoundment Ecological S creening Results: Direct Surface Impoundment and Groundwater-to-Surface-Water Pathways

CSCL 2002 SI Porewater 1998 SI Water

Chemical (mg/L) 90 th Percentile

(mg/L) HQ Number of Sites (Sites Exceeding) 95th Percentile

(mg/L) HQ Analytes Exceeding Risk Criterion 1 Aluminum 8.70E-02 2.30E+01 2.65E+02 17 (11) 5.11E+00 5.87E+01 Arsenic III 1.50E-01 5.18E+00 3.45E+01 17 (3) 5.50E-01 3.67E+00 Arsenic IV 8.10E-03 5.18E+00 6.39E+02 17 (11) 5.50E-01 6.79E+01 Barium 4.00E-03 3.02E-01 7.54E+01 17 (13) 7.12E-01 1.78E+02 Boron 1.60E-03 7.52E+01 4.70E+04 18 (18) 4.60E+02 2.88E+05 Cadmium 2.50E-03 1.31E-01 5.23E+01 17 (3) 2.50E-01 1.00E+02 Chromium VI 1.10E-02 3.66E-01 3.33E+01 18 (5) 2.67E-02 2.43E+00 Cobalt 2.30E-02 6.27E+00 2.73E+02 4 (1) 1.00E-02 4.35E-01 Copper 9.30E-03 2.84E-01 3.05E+01 16 (5) 3.90E-01 4.19E+01 Lead 3.01E-04 1.77E-01 5.88E+02 14 (10) 2.50E-01 8.31E+02 Mercury 1.90E-07 2.50E-04 1.32E+03 1 (1) 1.50E-03 7.89E+03 Nickel 5.20E-02 7.49E-01 1.44E+01 17 (3) 6.00E-01 1.15E+01 Selenium IV 2.80E-02 3.56E-01 1.27E+01 15 (3) 7.80E+00 2.79E+02 Selenium total 5.00E-03 3.56E-01 7.13E+01 15 (8) 7.80E+00 1.56E+03 Selenium VI 9.50E-03 3.56E-01 3.75E+01 15 (6) 7.80E+00 8.21E+02 Silver 3.60E-04 5.00E-03 1.39E+01 8 (3) 5.00E-03 1.39E+01 Vanadium 2.00E-02 4.78E-01 2.39E+01 15 (6) 8.00E-01 4.00E+01 Analytes Not Exceeding Risk Criterion 1 Antimony 3.00E-02 6.40E-02 2.13E+00 2 (0) 1.37E-01 4.57E+00 Beryllium 6.60E-04 5.68E-03 8.61E+00 2 (0) 1.00E-03 1.52E+00 Chromium III 8.60E-02 3.66E-01 4.26E+00 18 (0) 4.00E-01 4.65E+00 Molybdenum 3.70E-01 1.00E+00 2.70E+00 18 (1) 5.00E-01 1.35E+00 Thallium 1.20E-02 4.52E-02 3.77E+00 2 (0) 5.00E-02 4.17E+00 Zinc 1.20E-01 6.70E-01 5.58E+00 17 (1) 6.70E-01 5.58E+00

1 Risk criterion is a hazard quotient (HQ) of 10 (for direct exposure to impoundment waters). SI = surface impoundment CSCL = chemical stressor concentration level

### Appendix J



### J-5 Table J-3. Landfill Ecological Screening Results: Groundwater-to-Surface-Water Pathway

Chemical CSCL (mg/L) 2002 - Landfill Leachate 90 th Percentile (mg/L) HQ Number of Sites (Sites Exceeding) Analytes Exceeding Risk Criterion 1 Aluminum 8.70E-02 1.05E+01 1.21E+02 54 (36) Arsenic IV 8.10E-03 3.94E-01 4.87E+01 119 (40) Barium 4.00E-03 1.60E+00 4.01E+02 115 (112) Beryllium 6.60E-04 1.58E-02 2.40E+01 47 (11) Boron 1.60E-03 1.06E+01 6.61E+03 72 (71) Cadmium 2.50E-03 4.94E-02 1.98E+01 117 (25) Chromium VI 1.10E-02 2.00E-01 1.82E+01 118 (27) Copper 9.30E-03 1.50E-01 1.61E+01 72 (19) Lead 3.01E-04 2.39E-01 7.94E+02 116 (102) Mercury 1.90E-07 2.69E-03 1.42E+04 97 (97) Selenium total 5.00E-03 1.76E-01 3.52E+01 119 (54) Selenium VI 9.50E-03 1.76E-01 1.85E+01 119 (27) Silver 3.60E-04 3.95E-02 1.10E+02 109 (77) Vanadium 2.00E-02 4.50E-01 2.25E+01 40 (9) Zinc 1.20E-01 1.94E+00 1.61E+01 75 (12) Analytes Not Exceeding Risk Criterion 1 Antimony 3.00E-02 2.61E-01 8.70E+00 60 (3) Arsenic III 1.50E-01 3.94E-01 2.63E+00 119 (2) Chromium III 8.60E-02 2.00E-01 2.33E+00 118 (0) Cobalt 2.30E-02 8.25E-02 3.59E+00 51 (1) Molybdenum 3.70E-01 6.16E-01 1.67E+00 49 (1) Nickel 5.20E-02 3.09E-01 5.95E+00 80 (5) Selenium IV 2.80E-02 1.76E-01 6.28E+00 119 (5) Thallium 1.20E-02 5.00E-02 4.17E+00 40 (1)

1 Risk criterion is a hazard quotient (HQ) of 10 CSCL = chemical stressor concentration level

### Appendix J



### J-6 Table J-4. Landfill Aboveground Ecological Screening Results: Surface Water Sediment Pathways

2002 Sediment Results 1998 Sediment Results

Chemical CSCL 90 th Percentile Total Waste

(mg/kg) Sediment 1 (mg/kg) HQ Number of Sites (Sites Exceeding) 95th Percentile

Total Waste (mg/kg) Sediment (mg/kg) HQ Analytes Not Exceeding Risk Criterion 3 Antimony 2.00E+00 4.62E+01 4.62E-02 2.31E-02 64 (0) 4.67E+01 Arsenic 5.12E-01 1.05E+02 1.05E-01 2.05E-01 111 (0) 1.54E+02 Barium 1.90E+02 1.05E+03 1.05E+00 5.54E-03 94 (0) 8.38E+03 2.40E-01 1.30E-03 Cadmium 6.80E-01 5.42E+00 5.42E-03 7.98E-03 102 (0) 2.37E+01 3.50E-04 5.20E-04 Chromium 1.66E+01 1.66E+02 1.66E-01 9.98E-03 108 (0) 2.91E+02 Copper 1.87E+01 2.28E+02 2.28E-01 1.22E-02 95 (0) 1.55E+02 Lead 2.18E-01 8.06E+01 8.06E-02 3.69E-01 107 (0) 1.52E+02 1.20E-02 5.40E-02 Mercury 1.04E-01 1.63E+00 1.63E-03 1.56E-02 86 (0) - Molybdenu m 3.40E+01 3.47E+01 3.47E-02 1.02E-03 73 (0) 4.31E+01 Nickel 1.59E+01 3.29E+02 3.29E-01 2.07E-02 106 (0) 1.55E+02 Silver 7.30E-01 1.37E+01 1.37E-02 1.88E-02 69 (0) 1.36E+01 6.90E-05 9.40E-05 Vanadium 1.80E+01 9.07E+02 9.07E-01 5.04E-02 43 (0) 3.46E+02 Zinc 1.20E+02 2.93E+02 2.93E-01 2.44E-03 98 (0) 8.56E+02
CSCL = chemical stressor concentration level 1 90 th percentile total waste concentration diluted by 1,000 (lowest 1998 sediment dilution factor / 10) 2 1998 modeled sediment concentration from aboveground pathways using 95 th percentile total waste concentration 3 Risk criterion is a hazard quotient (HQ) of 10