Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0984-0120
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-01-19T05:00Z

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT

Assessment of potential risks

from managing F019 waste

 from the motor vehicle 

 manufacturing industry

18 DecemberSeptember 2006

Disclaimer:

Mention of trade names or commercial products

 does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.Table of
Contents

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u  LIST OF TABLES	  PAGEREF _Toc154220866 \h  1 

Glossary, acronyms and abbreviations	  PAGEREF _Toc154220867 \h  1 

Executive Summary	  PAGEREF _Toc154220868 \h  7 

1.  Risk Assessment Scope and Objectives	  PAGEREF _Toc154220869 \h  9 

2.  Background	  PAGEREF _Toc154220870 \h  11 

2.1   Zinc phosphating of motor vehicles	  PAGEREF _Toc154220871 \h  11 

2.2   Motor vehicle manufacturing wastewater treatment	  PAGEREF
_Toc154220872 \h  12 

2.3   Sludge management techniques	  PAGEREF _Toc154220873 \h  12 

3.  Identifying chemical constituents	  PAGEREF _Toc154220874 \h  13 

3.1   Material Safety Data Sheet review	  PAGEREF _Toc154220875 \h  14 

3.2   Review of other contributing wastewaters	  PAGEREF _Toc154220876
\h  17 

3.3   Wastewater treatment and other process chemicals	  PAGEREF
_Toc154220877 \h  17 

3.4   Transformation of constituents during wastewater treatment	 
PAGEREF _Toc154220878 \h  17 

3.5   Expected chemical composition of sludge	  PAGEREF _Toc154220879 \h
 18 

3.6   Sampling data on chemical composition of sludge	  PAGEREF
_Toc154220880 \h  19 

4.  Exposure and Risk Assessment	  PAGEREF _Toc154220881 \h  25 

4.1   Human activities	  PAGEREF _Toc154220882 \h  27 

4.1.1   Waste accumulation practices	  PAGEREF _Toc154220883 \h  27 

4.1.2   Waste transport practices	  PAGEREF _Toc154220884 \h  28 

4.1.3   Waste placement in landfill	  PAGEREF _Toc154220885 \h  29 

4.1.4   Waste release from landfill	  PAGEREF _Toc154220886 \h  29 

4.2   Ecological receptor activities	  PAGEREF _Toc154220887 \h  30 

4.2.1   Waste accumulation practices	  PAGEREF _Toc154220888 \h  30 

4.2.2   Waste placement in landfill	  PAGEREF _Toc154220889 \h  31 

4.2.3   Waste release from landfill	  PAGEREF _Toc154220890 \h  31 

4.3   Summary of Potential Exposures Assessed	  PAGEREF _Toc154220891 \h
 31 

4.4   Fate, Transport, Exposure, and Risk Modeling	  PAGEREF
_Toc154220892 \h  32 

4.4.1   Overall methodology for this risk assessment	  PAGEREF
_Toc154220893 \h  32 

4.4.2   Delisting Risk Assessment Software, version 2.0	  PAGEREF
_Toc154220894 \h  35 

4.4.3   Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model	  PAGEREF
_Toc154220895 \h  37 

4.4.4   EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products	  PAGEREF _Toc154220896 \h  38 

4.4.5   Peer review of models	  PAGEREF _Toc154220897 \h  39 

5.  Potential noncancer hazard to humans	  PAGEREF _Toc154220898 \h  40 

5.1   Unlined landfill analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc154220899 \h  41 

5.1.1.   High end results for unlined landfill	  PAGEREF _Toc154220900
\h  42 

5.1.2	High end results discussion	  PAGEREF _Toc154220901 \h  48 

5.1.3   Central tendency results and discussion	  PAGEREF _Toc154220902
\h  53 

5.2.   Lined landfill analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc154220903 \h  56 

5.2.1   Results of IWEM Tier 1 Evaluation	  PAGEREF _Toc154220904 \h  57

5.2.2   Results of D&P Evaluation	  PAGEREF _Toc154220905 \h  58 

5.2.3 Discussion of IWEM and D&P analyses	  PAGEREF _Toc154220906 \h  59

6.  Potential carcinogenic risk to humans	  PAGEREF _Toc154220907 \h  60

6.1   Unlined landfill analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc154220908 \h  61 

6.1.2   High end results	  PAGEREF _Toc154220909 \h  63 

6.1.3   High end results discussion	  PAGEREF _Toc154220910 \h  64 

6.1.4   Central tendency results and discussion	  PAGEREF _Toc154220911
\h  65 

6.2 Lined landfill analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc154220912 \h  65 

6.2.1.	Results of IWEM Tier 1 Evaluation	  PAGEREF _Toc154220913 \h  66 

6.2.2   Discussion of IWEM analysis for cancer risk	  PAGEREF
_Toc154220914 \h  66 

7.  Potential ecological effects	  PAGEREF _Toc154220915 \h  66 

7.1  Unlined landfill analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc154220916 \h  67 

7.2 High end results	  PAGEREF _Toc154220917 \h  68 

7.3 High end results discussion	  PAGEREF _Toc154220918 \h  71 

7.4 Central tendency results and discussion	  PAGEREF _Toc154220919 \h 
75 

8.  Special cases: fluoride, sulfide, trivalent chromium, lead and
cyanide	  PAGEREF _Toc154220920 \h  76 

8.1 Human health effects	  PAGEREF _Toc154220921 \h  76 

Fluoride	  PAGEREF _Toc154220922 \h  76 

Sulfide	  PAGEREF _Toc154220923 \h  77 

Trivalent chromium	  PAGEREF _Toc154220924 \h  77 

Lead	  PAGEREF _Toc154220925 \h  79 

8.2 Ecological effects	  PAGEREF _Toc154220926 \h  79 

8.3 Potential explosive hazard	  PAGEREF _Toc154220927 \h  79 

9.  Sources of uncertainty in risk and hazard estimates	  PAGEREF
_Toc154220928 \h  80 

9.1 Measurement Uncertainty	  PAGEREF _Toc154220929 \h  81 

9.2 Model Uncertainty	  PAGEREF _Toc154220930 \h  92 

9.3 Past and Future States	  PAGEREF _Toc154220931 \h  96 

9.4 Summary of Overall Uncertainty	  PAGEREF _Toc154220932 \h  97 

10.  Conclusions	  PAGEREF _Toc154220933 \h  98 

11.  References	  PAGEREF _Toc154220934 \h  101 

APPENDIX A	  PAGEREF _Toc154220935 \h  106 

Fate, Transport, Exposure and Risk Models	  PAGEREF _Toc154220936 \h 
106 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software, Version 2.0 (DRASv2)	  PAGEREF
_Toc154220937 \h  106 

Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM)	  PAGEREF
_Toc154220938 \h  109 

EPA Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products
(EPACMTP)	  PAGEREF _Toc154220939 \h  111 

References for Appendix A	  PAGEREF _Toc154220940 \h  112 

APPENDIX B	  PAGEREF _Toc154220941 \h  115 

DRASv2 Model Inputs	  PAGEREF _Toc154220942 \h  115 

APPENDIX C	  PAGEREF _Toc154220943 \h  180 

Waste Volumes and Physical Characteristics	  PAGEREF _Toc154220944 \h 
180 

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913583"  LIST OF TABLES	  PAGEREF _Toc140913583
\h  ii  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913584"  Glossary, acronyms and abbreviations	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913584 \h  ii  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913585"  Executive Summary	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913585 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913586"  1.  Risk Assessment Scope and Objectives
  PAGEREF _Toc140913586 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913587"  2.  Background	  PAGEREF _Toc140913587
\h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913588"  2.1   Zinc phosphating of motor vehicles
  PAGEREF _Toc140913588 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913589"  2.2   Motor vehicle manufacturing
wastewater treatment	  PAGEREF _Toc140913589 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913590"  2.3   Sludge management techniques	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913590 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913591"  3.  Identifying chemical constituents	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913591 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913592"  3.1   Material Safety Data Sheet review	
 PAGEREF _Toc140913592 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913593"  3.2   Review of other contributing
wastewaters	  PAGEREF _Toc140913593 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913594"  3.3   Wastewater treatment and other
process chemicals	  PAGEREF _Toc140913594 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913595"  3.4   Transformation of constituents
during wastewater treatment	  PAGEREF _Toc140913595 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913596"  3.5   Expected chemical composition of
sludge	  PAGEREF _Toc140913596 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913597"  3.6   Sampling data on chemical
composition of sludge	  PAGEREF _Toc140913597 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913598"  4.  Exposure and Risk Assessment	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913598 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913599"  4.1   Human activities	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913599 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913600"  4.1.1   Waste accumulation practices	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913600 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913601"  4.1.2   Waste transport practices	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913601 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913602"  4.1.3   Waste placement in landfill	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913602 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913603"  4.1.4   Waste release from landfill	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913603 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913604"  4.2   Ecological receptor activities	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913604 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913605"  4.2.1   Waste accumulation practices	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913605 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913606"  4.2.2   Waste placement in landfill	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913606 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913607"  4.2.3   Waste release from landfill	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913607 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913608"  4.3   Summary of Exposures Assessed	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913608 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913609"  4.4   Fate, Transport, Exposure, and
Risk Modeling	  PAGEREF _Toc140913609 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913610"  4.4.1   Overall methodology for this
risk assessment	  PAGEREF _Toc140913610 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913611"  4.4.2   Delisting Risk Assessment
Software, version 2.0	  PAGEREF _Toc140913611 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913612"  4.4.3   Industrial Waste Management
Evaluation Model	  PAGEREF _Toc140913612 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913613"  4.4.4   EPA’s Composite Model for
Leachate Migration with Transformation Products	  PAGEREF _Toc140913613
\h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913614"  4.4.5   Peer review of models	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913614 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913615"  5.  Potential noncancer hazard to humans
  PAGEREF _Toc140913615 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913616"  5.1   Unlined landfill analysis	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913616 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913617"  5.1.1.   High end results for unlined
landfill	  PAGEREF _Toc140913617 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913618"  5.1.2	High end results discussion	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913618 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913619"  5.1.3   Central tendency results and
discussion	  PAGEREF _Toc140913619 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913620"  5.2.   Lined landfill analysis	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913620 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913621"  5.2.1   Results of IWEM Tier 1
Evaluation	  PAGEREF _Toc140913621 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913622"  5.2.2   Results of D&P Evaluation	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913622 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913623"  5.2.3 Discussion of IWEM and D&P
analyses	  PAGEREF _Toc140913623 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913624"  6.  Potential carcinogenic risk to
humans	  PAGEREF _Toc140913624 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913625"  6.1   Unlined landfill analysis	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913625 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913626"  6.1.2   High end results	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913626 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913627"  6.1.3   High end results discussion	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913627 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913628"  6.1.4   Central tendency results and
discussion	  PAGEREF _Toc140913628 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913629"  6.2 Lined landfill analysis	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913629 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913630"  6.2.1.	Results of IWEM Tier 1 Evaluation
  PAGEREF _Toc140913630 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913631"  6.2.2   Discussion of IWEM analysis for
cancer risk	  PAGEREF _Toc140913631 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913632"  7.  Potential ecological effects	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913632 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913633"  7.1  Unlined landfill analysis	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913633 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913634"  7.2 High end results	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913634 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913635"  7.3 High end results discussion	 
PAGEREF _Toc140913635 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913636"  7.4 Central tendency results and
discussion	  PAGEREF _Toc140913636 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913637"  8.  Special cases: fluoride, sulfide,
trivalent chromium, lead and cyanide	  PAGEREF _Toc140913637 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913638"  8.1 Human health effects	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913638 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913639"  Fluoride	  PAGEREF _Toc140913639 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913640"  Sulfide	  PAGEREF _Toc140913640 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913641"  Trivalent chromium	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913641 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913642"  Lead	  PAGEREF _Toc140913642 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913643"  8.2 Ecological effects	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913643 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913644"  8.3 Potential explosive hazard	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913644 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913645"  9.  Sources of uncertainty in risk and
hazard estimates	  PAGEREF _Toc140913645 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913646"  9.1 Measurement Uncertainty	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913646 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913647"  9.2 Model Uncertainty	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913647 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913648"  9.3 Past and Future States	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913648 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913649"  9.4 Overall Assessment	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913649 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913650"  10.  Conclusions	  PAGEREF _Toc140913650
\h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913651"  11.  References	  PAGEREF _Toc140913651
\h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913652"  APPENDIX A	  PAGEREF _Toc140913652 \h  2
 

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913653"  Fate, Transport, Exposure and Risk
Models	  PAGEREF _Toc140913653 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913654"  Delisting Risk Assessment Software,
Version 2.0 (DRASv2)	  PAGEREF _Toc140913654 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913655"  Industrial Waste Management Evaluation
Model (IWEM)	  PAGEREF _Toc140913655 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913656"  EPA Composite Model for Leachate
Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP)	  PAGEREF _Toc140913656
\h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913657"  References for Appendix A	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913657 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913658"  APPENDIX B	  PAGEREF _Toc140913658 \h  2
 

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913659"  DRASv2 Model Inputs	  PAGEREF
_Toc140913659 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913660"  APPENDIX C	  PAGEREF _Toc140913660 \h  2
 

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140913661"  Waste Volumes and Physical
Characteristics	  PAGEREF _Toc140913661 \h  2  

 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.  Constituents likely to be present in motor vehicle
manufacturing wastewater (zinc phosphate conversion coating)

Table 2.  Chemical constituents analyzed in sludge from motor vehicle
manufacturers

Table 3.  Chemical constituents detected in sludge from motor vehicle
manufacturers

Table 4.  DRASv2 exposure pathways, exposure routes, receptors and
activities

Table 5.  IWEM exposure routes, receptors and activities (noncancer)

Table 6.  IWEM exposure routes, receptors and activities (cancer)

Table 7.  Chemical constituents' estimated high-end hazard quotients at
90,000 cubic yards disposed

Table 8.  Chemical constituents' high-end estimated hazard quotients at
90,000 cubic yards disposed (adjusted for children’s exposure by a
factor of 2.04)

Table 9.  Adjusted maximum concentrations for selected constituents

Table 10.  Detection frequencies and concentrations for constituents of
potential concern (including selected data sets based on particular
analytical methods used)

Table 11.  Estimated central tendency hazard quotients for constituents
of potential concern at 21,760 cubic yards disposed

Table 12.  Ratio of D&P analysis composite lined landfill allowable
levels to D&P unlined landfill allowable levels

Table 13.  Carcinogen slope factors (CSFs) and Inhalation unit risk
factors (URFs)

Table 14.  Individual excess cancer risk probabilities calculated at
90,000 cubic yards disposed

Table 15.  Results from ecological risk analysis

Table 16.  Ratios of maximum detected waste concentrations to soil
saturation and toxicity reference value exceedance concentrations

Table 17.  2003 F019 tons and cubic yards used in Economics Background
Document and Technical Support Document

Table 18.  Uncertainty factors, modifying factors, and confidence
ratings for IRIS oral Reference Doses

Table 19.  Uncertainty factors, modifying factors, and confidence
ratings for IRIS inhalation Reference Concentrations

Table 20.  Uncertainty factor and confidence rating for PPRTV reference
dose

Table 21.  Uncertainty factors and confidence ratings for ATSDR Minimal
Risk Levels

Table 12.  IWEM Tier 1 input leachate concentrations and unlined
landfill protectiveness

Table 13.  IWEM Tier 1 unlined landfill allowable levels, DRASv2 high
end allowable levels, and ratio of IWEM to DRASv2 allowable levels

Table 14.  IWEM Tier 1 input leachate concentrations and
single/composite lined landfill protectiveness

Table 15.  IWEM Tier 1 single liner landfill allowable levels, IWEM Tier
1 unlined landfill allowable levels, and ratio of IWEM single to unlined
allowable levels

Table 16.  IWEM Tier 1 composite liner landfill allowable levels, IWEM
Tier 1 unlined landfill allowable levels, and ratio of IWEM
composite/unlined allowable levels

Table 17.  Ratio of D&P analysis composite lined landfill allowable
levels to D&P unlined landfill allowable levels

Table 18.  Carcinogen slope factors (CSFs) and Inhalation unit risk
factors (URFs)

Table 19.  Individual excess cancer risk probabilities calculated at
90,000 cubic yards disposed

Table 20.  Results from ecological risk analysis

Table 21.  Ratios of maximum detected waste concentrations to soil
saturation and toxicity reference value exceedance concentrations

Table 22.  Uncertainty factors, modifying factors, and confidence
ratings for IRIS oral Reference Doses

Table 23.  Uncertainty factors, modifying factors, and confidence
ratings for IRIS inhalation Reference Concentrations

Table 24.  Uncertainty factors and confidence ratings for PPRTV
reference doses and reference concentrations

Table 25.  Uncertainty factors and confidence ratings for ATSDR Minimal
Risk Levels

Glossary, acronyms and abbreviations

Analyte – the specific chemical substances of interest in an
analytical laboratory procedure.

ATSDR – Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.  An agency
of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention.

Bentonite – a type of clay.

BMW – BMW Manufacturing Corporation.

Boiler blowdown – residual water from cleaning a boiler’s steam
tubes.

Carcinogen – as used in this document, a particular chemical
constituent evaluated for its potential to cause cancer due to its
movement from a waste into air, water or soil, and subsequent ingestion,
inhalation, or dermal contact by people.

CAS# or CAS Number - as used in this document, a CAS Registry Number®,
which is a unique numerical identifier created and assigned to a
chemical substance by CAS.  CAS Registry Number® is a Registered
Trademark of the American Chemical Society.  CAS numbers shown in tables
in this document are shown without hyphens, to facilitate numerical
sorting.  However, the usual practice in writing CAS numbers is to
hyphenate them according to the format XX-XX-X, XXX-XX-X, XXXX-XX-X, or
XXXXX-XX-X, where “X” represents the integers in the registry
number.

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations.  The CFR is a codification of the
rules published in the Federal Register by Executive departments and
agencies of the Federal Government. The CFR is divided into 50 titles
which represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation, with
environmental regulations contained in title 40, among others.

COPCs – Constituents of Potential Concern.  The chemical constituents
present in F019 waste from motor vehicle manufacturers that may pose
adverse human health or ecological effects (based on the analyses
performed in this document).

CSF – Cancer Slope Factor.  An upper bound estimate, approximating a
95% confidence limit, on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime
exposure to the chemical constituent.  This estimate, usually expressed
in units of proportion (of a population) affected per milligram of
constituent per kilogram of body weight per day, is generally reserved
for use in the low-dose region of the dose-response relationship, that
is, for exposures corresponding to risks less than 1 in 100.

D&P – Dyes and Pigments.

DAF – Dilution/Attenuation Factor.  The ratio of the concentration of
a particular chemical constituent in landfill leachate to the
model-predicted concentration of that constituent in a drinking water
well.

Delisting – a request under consideration for an exemption from
designation as a hazardous waste, or a similar request that has been
granted an exemption from designation as a hazardous waste.  See 40 CFR
§§ 260.20 and 260.22, and 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix IX.

DRASv2 – Version 2.0 of Delisting Risk Assessment Software.

DOT – United States Department of Transportation.

EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency.

EPACMTP – EPA Composite Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products.

oF – degrees Fahrenheit.

F019 – identifying code for a hazardous waste (wastewater treatment
sludge from chemical conversion coating on aluminum).  See 40 CFR 261.31
for the exact description of F019.

FR – Federal Register.  The official daily publication for rules,
proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as
well as executive orders and other presidential documents.

Geocomposite - a synthetic liner overlying some type of clay liner.

Geomembrane – flexible membrane layer made of high-density
polyethylene.

Geosynthetic – two geotextile outer layers with a uniform core of
bentonite clay.

Geotextile – a textile designed for an application in which it is in
contact with soils.

GM – General Motors.

Inh CSF – inhalation Cancer Slope Factor.

IWAIR – Industrial Waste Air Model.

IWEM – Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model.

 

Kg – kilogram.

Landfill – a type of waste management unit in which waste is placed
into or on the ground, for permanent disposal.

Leachate – any liquid, including any suspended components in the
liquid, that has percolated through or drained from waste.

Leachate samples – samples created by using a leaching procedure
designed to imitate the conditions the waste would undergo when disposed
at a municipal solid waste landfill.  

L – Liter.

MCL – Maximum Contaminant Level.

mg – milligram.

MRL – Minimal Risk Level.

MSDS – Material Safety Data Sheet(s).  A document that identifies the
specific chemical composition of materials handled or used by workers,
to inform the workers of potentially hazardous work practices.

Noncarcinogen – as used in this document, potential adverse noncancer
health effects.  Note that we use the term noncarcinogen to refer to the
type of health effect (health effects that are not cancer) rather than
to refer to the substance’s potential to cause cancer.

Nondetect – an analytical laboratory result in which the analyte is
not detected by the laboratory analytical instruments above the
quantitation level for a particular analysis.

O CSF – oral Cancer Slope Factor.

OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Administration.  An agency of
the United States Department of Labor.

pH – hydrogen ion potential.

Receptors – plants, animals, insects, and other living organisms such
as soil microorganisms that may be affected by chemical constituents in
the wastes.

RCRA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

SDWA – Safe Drinking Water Act.

SIM – Selected Ion Monitoring.  A type of analytical laboratory
procedure.

TCLP – Toxicity Characteristic Leach Procedure.  An analytical
laboratory procedure in which a waste sample is leached with an acidic
leaching fluid to extract chemical constituents from the waste matrix,
in order to simulate conditions in a landfill.

Totals samples – samples that give information on the total quantity
of a particular chemical constituent in the wastewater treatment sludge.

TRI – Toxics Release Inventory.  A database containing information on
toxic chemicals released into the environment.

ug – microgram.

URF – Unit Risk Factor.  The upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk
estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at a
concentration of 1 µg/L in water, or 1 µg/m3 in air.

Wastewater treatment sludge – watery solids obtained from performing
wastewater treatment processes in order to remove contaminants from
wastewater.

Zinc phosphating – a conversion coating process in which a layer of
phosphate crystals are applied to a surface.



Executive Summary

This document describes a risk assessment to evaluate potential human
and environmental hazards from disposing of wastewater treatment sludge
in United States landfills.  The wastewater treatment sludge in question
is from zinc-phosphate conversion coating on aluminum motor vehicle
bodies, a manufacturing step that occurs before painting the motor
vehicle bodies.  Its hazardous waste code, or designation, in 40 CFR
261.31 is “F019.”   

The purpose of the risk assessment is to evaluate whether removing the
hazardous waste designation from this waste could cause adverse effects.
 Currently, the waste is regulated as hazardous waste, unless an EPA
Region or authorized state environmental agency has promulgated a
“delisting” that removes the hazardous waste designation (in many
cases, subject to certain conditions).

The risk assessment addresses potential adverse human health effects
that may be experienced by people living near the landfill, now or in
the future, and potential adverse environmental effects that may be
experienced by aquatic organisms living in a stream downhill from the
landfill.  The potential adverse health and environmental effects would
be due to exposure to constituents that are present in the waste when it
is disposed in the landfill, and that are released from the landfill and
move into air, nearby surface water, or groundwater underneath the
landfill (either at the time of disposal or afterwards).  

People and non-human organisms could be exposed to constituents in the
sludge from other activities besides landfilling the sludge.  We have
not evaluated those exposures for potential adverse health or
environmental effects.   We believe that landfilling is the most
plausible disposal practice, given the nature of the waste and the
disposal practices evidenced by specific facilities that have requested
delistings.  We evaluate disposal in an unlined landfill as the first
step of the analysis (“unlined” means that the bottom of the
landfill consists of bare soil).  For those chemical constituents that
might cause problems when disposed in an unlined landfill, we conduct an
additionala secondary analysis of disposal in a lined landfill (that is,
the bottom of the landfill is designed and constructed with materials
intended to retard the downward flow of water, including leachate,
through the bottom of the landfill and into the subsurface).

For the landfill disposal scenario that we evaluate in this risk
assessment, we narrow down the list of chemical constituents that appear
to be most likely to move through the environment and cause adverse
health and environmental effects.  For this narrowed list of
constituents, we present estimates for a range of conditions that could
occur – the higher end of the range, which we call the “high end”
estimates, and estimates for an indeterminate point somewhere around,
but likely above, the middle of the range, which we call the “central
tendency” estimates.  The estimates are of potential adverse noncancer
human health effects, probabilities of developing cancer, and adverse
ecological effects.

For human noncancer effects, the central tendency estimates are well
below the risk thresholds used as levels of concern by the Agency in
hazardous waste listing determinations, indicating that under most
conditions we would not expect residents living near an unlined landfill
to experience adverse noncancer health effects.  For onesome chemical
constituent - nickel -constituents, the high end estimate is estimates
are generally around, or slightly above the level , levels that could
cause adverse effects.  The high end estimate uses protective
assumptions to predict the potential exposure that , indicating that,
under certain conditions, some residents living near the landfill might
experience,  adverse noncancer health effects as a result of exposure to
constituents from drinking well water the waste.  We estimate that
contains nickel released from the landfilled under the conditions of
disposal in an unlined landfill, with chemical constituent
concentrations that run higher than the average chemical constituent
concentrations in the waste, nearby residents could experience adverse
noncancer health effects due to drinking water exposure to certain
inorganic constituents - most likely, nickel and zinc.  The model that
we use in this part of the risk assessment estimates concentrations of
constituents present in the waste, that move through groundwater to the
drinking water well that the nearby residents rely on for their
drinking, bathing and showering water.  Our overall assessment is that
the models we use probably overestimate the potential adverse effects of
disposing of the F019 waste in landfills.  

For human cancer probabilities, we present point estimates of the high
end and central tendency cancer probabilities.  The high end estimate
for probability of developing cancer due to drinking water exposure to
arsenic from the waste is above one in one hundred thousand (the level
of concern), thus indicating that, under certain conditions, nearby
residents (residents whose drinking water well is within one mile
downgradient of the landfill) could have a very small probability (3 in
one hundred thousand) of developing cancer due to exposure to arsenic
present in the waste.  The central tendency estimate is below the risk
thresholds used by the Agency in hazardous waste listing
determinationslevel of concern, indicating that, under most conditions
we would not expect residents living near the landfill to experience
cancer effects from exposure to constituents in the landfilled waste. 
As with the .  

The high end estimated potential adverse effects from the human
noncancer effects estimates, the nature of the assumptions that we use
in the models means that we may overestimate the actual risks.exposures
would occur in the future, rather than in the present or very near
future.   

For ecological effects, the high end estimates are generally below the
levels causing adverse effects for stream-dwelling organisms, due to
surface water concentrations in the stream.  If the high end estimated
effects were to occur, the model indicates that they would occur either
in the present or the near future.  Central tendency estimates for
ecological effects confirm the high-end results, indicating that at
median waste volumes and constituent concentrations, no adverse effects
are predicted to occur.  

The additionalsecondary analysis is of potential health effects from
disposal in a landfill designed and constructed with certain types of
liners on the bottom of the landfill.  We performperformed this
additionalsecondary analysis for only those constituents that appeared
to possibly pose concerns in the high end estimates of the unlined
landfill scenario.  The results of this additionalsecondary analysis
indicate that those chemical constituents would be unlikely to pose the
same concerns when landfills with certain types of liners are used for
disposal.

Our overall assessment is that the models we use probably overestimate
the potential adverse effects of disposing of the F019 waste in
landfills.  The risk analysis evaluates high-end risks, and is designed
to be protective of human health and the environment.

We develop the estimates of potential adverse health and environmental
effects using the best data and tools that we have available.  When
certain types of data are unavailable, we must use assumptions instead. 
To err on the side of caution and be protective of public health and the
environment, we use many assumptions that may cause the estimates of
risk or hazard to be higher than the true risk/hazard.  The estimates in
this document are uncertain.  If we could resolve some areas of
uncertainty, the result would be that we might revise the estimates in
an upward direction.  If we could resolve other areas of uncertainty,
the result would be that we might revise the estimates in a downward
direction.  

1.  Risk Assessment Scope and Objectives

The purpose of this document is to describe the technical basis for
possible revisions to the F019 hazardous waste listing in 40 CFR 261.31.
 The revisions we are considering are for wastewater treatment sludge
from zinc phosphating of aluminum-containing motor vehicle bodies.  If
revised, the listing would not apply to these wastewater treatment
sludges, provided they are managed in landfills meeting certain
criteria.  The outcome of such a revision would be that facilities
generating these sludges as wastes would no longer be required to
dispose of them in landfills meeting the requirements of 40 CFR Parts
264, 265 and 270, and instead could dispose of them in landfills that
are subject to the design criteria in 40 CFR 258.40, or possibly an
alternate design criterion that references an maximum liner permeability
rate.

EPA listed F019 wastes as hazardous as an outgrowth of the listing for
wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating (F006).  The preamble to
the proposed rule discusses the history of the F019 listing.  EPA listed
F019 due to the presence of hexavalent chromium and cyanide (complexed).
 See 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VII.

The objectives of the risk assessment are to determine whether adverse
human health or environmental effects may occur as a result of revising
the F019 hazardous waste listing in 40 CFR 261.31.  The specific
technical questions decision makers have, relating to this revision,
include:

Who may be affected by adverse human health effects?

Where do they live?

What is the magnitude of the estimated adverse human health effect(s)?

When will the estimated adverse human health effect(s) occur?

What is/are the cause(s) of the estimated adverse human health
effect(s)?

How sure are we about the magnitude of the estimated adverse human
health effect(s)?

What organisms may be affected by adverse environmental effects?

Where are those organisms?

What is the magnitude of the estimated adverse environmental effect(s)?

When will the estimated adverse environmental effect(s) occur?

What is/are the cause(s) of the estimated adverse environmental
effect(s)?

How sure are we about the magnitude of the estimated adverse
environmental effect(s)?

This document describes:

the process of preparing for and applying paint and protective coatings
to motor vehicle bodies (automobiles and light duty trucks), using a
zinc phosphate conversion coating process;

the wastewater treatment processes used for wastewaters generated at the
motor vehicle body assembly plants;

the wastewater treatment sludge generated from the wastewater treatment
process (some of its physical and chemical properties); and

a risk assessment that describes estimates of risk from exposure to
chemical constituents in the waste, for both humans and nonhuman
organisms, from disposing of the wastewater treatment sludge.  The risk
assessment in this document answers the questions listed above (although
we can provide only a partial answer to question 4).

The scope of the risk assessment described in this document is of:

wastewater treatment sludge 

from treating wastewater

that contains discarded nickel/zinc/fluoride-based conversion coating
formulations currently (1996-20072006) used by United States motor
vehicle manufacturers

that is disposed in unlined landfills

for a period of either 20 or 30 years

thus affecting current and future residents living near those landfills

and aquatic organisms currently living in nearby streams

on a chronic basis (due to long-term exposure). 

2.  Background

2.1   Zinc phosphating of motor vehicles

In the United States, assembling motor vehicle bodies generally
involves:

- constructing the vehicle frame

- attaching parts such as the hood, trunk lid, and doors

- preparing the entire vehicle body for protective coatings that protect
the vehicle body from rust or oxidation,

- applying the protective coatings, and then

- attaching numerous other vehicle parts and accessories.

Zinc phosphating is a process used immediately before applying paint on
either steel or aluminum-and-steel motor vehicle bodies.  The zinc
phosphating process creates a layer of phosphate crystals on the metal
surface of the vehicle body.  Paint that is applied adheres to and
becomes bonded with these phosphate crystals.  After the zinc
phosphating step, motor vehicle manufacturers apply the paint, other
coatings, and numerous rinse steps in between to ensure the quality of
the various coatings and their adhesion to the motor vehicle body.  

2.2   Motor vehicle manufacturing wastewater treatment

At motor vehicle manufacturing plants in the United States, wastewater
from the zinc phosphating process is often combined with wastewater from
other parts of the manufacturing plant.  Typically, the combined
wastewaters are treated before disposal in a municipal wastewater
treatment system.  As part of the wastewater treatment process, the
solid particles and other pollutants in the wastewater are separated
from the wastewater and form sludges.  The wastewater treatment sludge
from motor vehicle manufacturing that uses a zinc phosphating process,
when aluminum is a component of the motor vehicle bodies, is the waste
(F019) that EPA is evaluating in this document.

The wastewater from the motor vehicle manufacturing plant enters the
plant’s wastewater treatment system usually through floor drains,
sumps and pipes that convey the wastewater to the wastewater treatment
area.  In the wastewater treatment area, the wastewater usually
undergoes a preliminary step of either removing floating oils with a
skimmer, or removing the largest and heaviest solids in a device called
a “grit chamber”, or both.  After oil and/or grit removal, the
wastewater is generally subjected to various chemical reactions and
physical processes designed to remove the solids from the wastewater,
and in some cases to remove nitrogen, phosphorus, or trace elements that
could pose a problem for the municipal wastewater treatment system
receiving the wastewater for further treatment.  The various treatment
techniques that occur after the preliminary oil/grit removal generally
result in solids being removed from tanks at different stages of the
wastewater treatment process; these solids are the sludge that is the
subject of this document.

Most of the delisting petitions the motor vehicle manufacturing industry
submitted to U.S. EPA describe the motor vehicle assembly process, zinc
phosphating and application of other protective coatings, the resulting
wastewaters, and wastewater treatment steps in considerable detail. 
Copies of these delisting petitions are available in the EPA Regions 4,
5 and 6 rulemaking dockets.

2.3   Sludge management techniques

The solids (sludge) removed from the treatment tanks are usually
combined and pressed in a mechanical device called a filter press to
remove excess water.  After pressing, the sludge is usually placed in
containers for transport to a landfill located away from the
manufacturing facility.  Usually the transport container is a large
open-topped rectangular metal container called a “roll off box”
which is transported by truck.  In some cases the transport container
might be an open-topped rail transport container called a “gondola.”
 When the transport container is full, the motor vehicle manufacturer or
wastewater treatment plant operator arranges for its removal and
transport to a disposal site, usually a landfill located at some
distance from the motor vehicle manufacturer’s facility.

The sludge’s status as a hazardous waste affects its accumulation and
transport conditions.  If the sludge is F019 hazardous waste, the
containers in which it is accumulated and transported are required to be
kept closed, except when adding or removing waste.  Thus the open-topped
roll off box would be covered once the final amount of sludge was placed
in the box, and it would remain covered during transport.  However, if
the sludge is not regulated as hazardous waste, the container may be
kept uncovered during sludge accumulation and during transport (unless
there are state, local or tribal requirements for it to be covered).

When the sludge arrives at the landfill it is placed into a specific
area of the landfill that is in use at that time, called a “cell”
(also referred to as a “unit” in regulatory language).  If the
sludge is F019 hazardous waste, the landfill must have a permit to
accept hazardous waste.  However, if the sludge is not regulated as
hazardous waste, then the landfill would be subject to RCRA Subtitle D
regulations, and any applicable state, local, or tribal regulations. 
The landfill might accept municipal waste or nonhazardous industrial
waste.  Generally these landfills have state permits, and if they accept
municipal waste, in most instances they must also meet certain
performance standards enumerated at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 258, or the state’s corresponding regulations. 

EPA interprets the F019 listing to apply to the final wastewater
treatment solids, and to any other sludges from the wastewater treatment
process that are combined with the final wastewater treatment solids,
including grit that is removed in a preliminary wastewater treatment
step.

3.  Identifying chemical constituents

The starting point for defining potential hazards is to identify the
particular chemical constituents present in the waste, along with their
known human health and ecological effects.

The production process and waste management practices that occur at the
site of waste generation (the motor vehicle manufacturing plant) have an
influence on the chemical composition of the waste.  One of the primary
influences on the waste stream’s ultimate chemical composition is the
conversion coating formulation’s composition.  Adjustments in
quantities of chemical constituents present in the conversion coating
formulation that is applied to the automobiles would affect the
quantities of chemical constituents present in the wastewater treatment
sludge.  Other facility-specific practices that would affect the
identity and quantities of chemical constituents present in the
wastewater, and thus the wastewater treatment sludge, include:

- whether or not the facility co-mingles other wastes with the
conversion coating wastewater at the wastewater treatment facility

- activities at the plant’s wastewater treatment system (for example,
changing the wastewater’s hydrogen ion potential, or pH, causes metal
ions to precipitate out of the wastewater and into the sludge).

3.1   Material Safety Data Sheet review

Using Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) submitted to U.S. EPA from 1996
to 2002 in eleven F019 delisting petitions, we identify chemical
constituents that we expect to be present in wastewater treated at motor
vehicle manufacturing plants in the United States using zinc-phosphate
conversion coating formulations on aluminum-and-steel vehicle bodies. 
Table 1 lists the chemical constituents reported on more than three of
the eleven facilities’ MSDS, along with their elemental composition,
when known.  For three constituents (ethoxylated soya amine, alcohols
C10-12, and alcohols C8-18, ethyoxylated propoxylated) we do not know
the exact elemental composition.



Table 1.  Constituents likely to be present in motor vehicle
manufacturing wastewater (zinc phosphate conversion coating)

Constituent	CAS#	Elements

acetic acid	64197	C	H	O

ethanol, 2-(2-butoxyethoxy)- 	112345	C	H	O

sodium carbonate	497198	C	Na	O

sodium gluconate	527071	C	H	Na	O

	calcium hydroxide	1305620	Ca	H	O

magnesium hydroxide	1309428	Mg	H	O

potassium hydroxide	1310583	K	H	O

sodium hydroxide	1310732	Na	O	H

ammonium bifluoride	1341497

H	N

sodium silicate	1344098	Na

O

hexanoic acid, 3,5,5-trimethyl	3302101	C	H	O

silicic acid, disodium salt	6834920	Na	Si	O

sodium tripolyphosphate	7758294	Na	O	P

sodium monohydrogen phosphate	7558794	H	O	Na	P

	sodium dihydrogenphosphate	7558807	H	O	Na	P

	trisodium phosphate	7601549	Na	O	P

silica	7631869	Si	O

	sodium nitrate	7631994	N	Na	O

sodium nitrite	7632000	N	Na	O

hydrochloric acid	7647010	H	Cl

	phosphoric acid	7664382	H	O	P

sulfuric acid	7664939	H	O	S

nitric acid	7697372	H	N	O

ferric chloride	7705080	Fe	Cl

	hydrogen peroxide	7722841	H	O

	tetrasodium pyrophosphate	7722885	Na	O	P

sodium tripolyphosphate	7758294	Na	O	P

tripotassium phosphate	7778532	K	O	P

phosphoric acid, monopotassium salt	7778770	H	K	O	P

	zinc nitrate	7779886	Zn	N	O

potassium acid fluoride	7789299	F	H	K

Poloxamer	9003116	C	H	O

polyethylene glycol dioleate	9005076	C	H	O

tergitol Np-40 (non-ionic)	9016459	C	H	O

Octyl phenol, ethylene oxide	9036195	C	H	O

phosphoric acid, manganese salt	10124546	H	O	P	Mn

	nitric acid, manganese (2+) salt	10377669	H	N	O	Mn

	phosphoric acid, nickel(2+) salt (2:3)	10381369	H	O	P	Ni

	nitric acid, Iron (3+) salt	10421484	Fe	N	O

nickel(II)nitrate	13138459	H	N	O	Ni

	chromium(III)nitrate	13548384	H	N	O	Cr

	phosphoric acid, zinc salt (2:1)	13598373	H	O	P	Zn

	potassium hexafluorotitanate	16919270	F	K	Ti

Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), alpha-(nonylphenol)-omega-hydroxy phosphate,
potassium salt	52503158	C	H	O	P	K

ethoxylated soya amine	61791240	unknown

Alcohols C10-12	68154972	unknown

Alcohols, C8-18, ethoxylated propoxylated	69013189	unknown

Because they are present at three or more motor vehicle manufacturers’
facilities, we believe that the Table 1 chemical constituents are those
most likely to be present in the initial wastewater stream entering
motor vehicle manufacturers’ wastewater treatment facilities (although
all of these constituents would not be found at all motor vehicle
manufacturers’ facilities).  Other chemical constituents may also be
present in a given manufacturer’s wastewater, but we believe the Table
1 constituents are likely to be found in most wastewater generated by
motor vehicle manufacturers using the zinc phosphate conversion coating
formulations.

3.2   Review of other contributing wastewaters

Information in some facilities’ delisting petitions indicates that
those facilities co-mingle other wastewater streams with the wastewater
from the conversion coating process.  Typically a motor vehicle facility
undergoing annual cleaning and maintenance activities would flush
wastewater from those activities into the wastewater treatment system. 
In addition, some facilities operating boilers for space heating and/or
process heat might flush boiler blowdown into the wastewater treatment
system.  Some facilities might have storm water drainage patterns that
allow storm water to enter the wastewater treatment system.  Some motor
vehicle manufacturers’ facilities may use water in the vehicle
painting process that ends up in the wastewater treatment system.

	

A review of eleven facilities’ (four different manufacturers’)
delisting petitions indicated that boiler blowdown, cooling water, and
factory cleanup water were co-mingled with process wastewater at three
or more facilities out of the eleven.  

3.3   Wastewater treatment and other process chemicals

A review of eleven facilities’ delisting petition information
indicated that several facilities use substances of unknown composition
during the wastewater treatment process.  Examples of substances
mentioned in three or more facilities’ petitions include “polymer”
and “filter aid.”  In addition, several facilities mention oil-based
and water-based drawing lubricants.  We currently have no additional
information on the chemical composition of these substances. 

3.4   Transformation of constituents during wastewater treatment

One purpose of wastewater treatment is to separate the solid phase
components from the water phase.  The separation is intended to capture
in the solid phase those substances that may cause adverse effects on
waterways and drinking water sources.  The separation process may
include:

- physical separation steps

- chemical separation steps that add compounds that cause chemical
reactions to occur and solids to settle out,

- biological separation steps that use microorganisms to change the
chemical and/or biological composition of the wastewater, or

any combination of the three steps.

The solids form a watery mass at the bottom of the wastewater treatment
units, and are removed periodically as wastewater treatment sludge.  The
sludge composition may vary due to differences in wastewater treatment
efficiency with different treatment techniques. 

During the wastewater treatment process, many chemical reactions occur
that would cause the constituents listed in Table 1 and other
constituents in the sludge to transform into different compounds, or to
break down into simpler molecules.  We expect that wastewater treatment
sludge would be likely to contain the metals and metalloids that were
present in the original wastewater, although once in the sludge they may
be present in a form that is different from the specific chemical
constituent listed on the MSDS.  We expect that the organic constituents
that were present in the wastewater entering the wastewater treatment
system may in some cases also be present in the sludge, while in other
cases (depending on the specific treatment steps employed) may have been
transformed into other compounds or may have evolved as gases and been
released into the atmosphere.

3.5   Expected chemical composition of sludge

Reviewing the elemental composition of Table 1 constituents yields a
list of metals and metalloids that are likely to be present in
wastewater treatment sludges from this particular industry.  These
metals and metalloids are calcium (Ca), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe),
magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), potassium (K), silicon
(Si), sodium (Na), titanium (Ti), and zinc (Zn).  Of these, calcium,
iron, magnesium, potassium, silicon, and sodium are typically not
considered to be of concern from an environmental standpoint, since they
are so widely present in the environment, while chromium, manganese,
nickel, titanium and zinc potentially would be of concern.  One
non-metal element of possible concern that may also be present in the
sludge is fluorine, expected to be present as fluoride.  The remaining
non-metal elements likely to be present are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur.  None of the non-metals are considered
to be of concern in their elemental forms (although sulfur present as
sulfide, and certain hydrocarbons, may be of concern).

In addition to these elements, the other co-mingled waste streams (such
as boiler blowdown, cooling water, factory cleanup water) and other
chemicals used at the facility (drawing lubricant, wastewater treatment
chemicals) may contribute other elements or constituents that could be
detected in the sludge. 

3.6   Sampling data on chemical composition of sludge

Because a wide range of chemical constituents may be present in the
sludge from motor vehicle manufacturing, a list of chemicals to look for
when analyzing sludge samples could include all of the Table 1 chemical
constituents and their expected breakdown (transformation) products, and
other chemical constituents as well.  In order to keep analytical costs
to a reasonable level, however, EPA Regions (and certain states) that
accept petitions to delist a facility’s F019 motor vehicle
manufacturing waste have developed lists of chemical constituents that
could be expected to be present in the sludge.  Based on these lists,
the facilities that have submitted delisting petitions have analyzed
their sludge samples for a range of constituents, including most of the
inorganic constituents of potential concern identified in section 3.5. 
Exceptions are the metals titanium and manganese, and the ten organic
(carbon-containing) chemical constituents listed in Table 1.  

The F019 sludge sampling and analytical data for twelve facilities that
submitted delisting petitions to EPA, and a thirteenth facility that
submitted a draft delisting petition, are available in a spreadsheet and
database format in the docket for this proposed rule.  The list of
chemical constituents for which these facilities analyzed their sludge
samples is shown in Table 2.

Table 2.  Chemical constituents analyzed in sludge from motor vehicle
manufacturers

	Constituent	CAS#	Constituent	CAS#	Constituent	CAS#

	formaldehyde	50000	dichlorophenol, 2,6-	87650	triethylphosphorothioate,
o,o,o-	126681

DDT	50293	hexachlorobutadiene	87683	methacrylonitrile	126987

benzo(a)pyrene	50328	pentachlorophenol	87865	chloro-1,3-butadiene, 2-
126998

dinitrophenol, 2-4-	51285	trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-	88062
tetrachloroethylene 	127184

famphur	52857	nitroaniline, 2-	88744	pyrene	129000

dibenz(a,h)anthracene	53703	nitrophenol, 2-	88755	naphthoquinone, 1,4-
130154

acetylaminofluorene, 2-	53963	butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol, 2-sec-	88857
dimethyl phthalate	131113

nitrosodiethylamine, n-	55185	naphthalene	91203	dibenzofuran	132649

carbon tetrachloride	56235	methylnaphthalene, 2-	91576	naphthylamine, 1-
134327

methylcholanthrene, 3-	56495	chloronaphthalene, 2-	91587	aramite	140578

benz(a)anthracene	56553	naphthylamine, 2-	91598	ethyl acetate	141786

nitroquinoline-1-oxide, 4-	56575	methapyrilene	91805	kepone	143500

cyanide	57125	dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'-	91941	dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-
156592

cyanide, (amenable)	57125	aminobiphenyl, 4-	92671	dichloroethylene,
trans-1,2-	156605

cyanide, (complexed)	57125	trichlorophenoxypropionic acid, 2,4,5- 	93721
benzo(g,h,i)perylene	191242

cyanide, (reactive)	57125	trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2,4,5- 	93765
inden(1,2,3-cd)pyrene	193395

chlordane	57749	safrole	94597	benzo(b)fluoranthene	205992

dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, 7,12-	57976	dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2,4- 
94757	fluoranthene	206440

hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma- 	58899	cresol, o- 	95487
benzo(k)fluoranthene	207089

tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-	58902	dichlorobenzene, 1,2-	95501
acenaphthylene	208968

chloro-3-methylphenol, 4- 	59507	toluidine, o-	95534	chrysene	218019

nitrosomorpholine, n-	59892	chlorophenol, 2-	95578	thionazin	297972

azobenzene, p-(dimethylamino)-	60117	tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5-	95943
disulfoton	298044

dimethoate	60515	trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-	95954	aldrin	309002

dieldrin	60571	dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1,2-	96128
hexachlorocyclohexane, alpha- 	319846

phenacetin	62442	trichloropropane, 1,2,3-	96184	hexachlorocyclohexane,
beta- 	319857

ethyl methanesulfonate	62500	ethyl methacrylate	97632
hexachlorocyclohexane, delta- 	319868

aniline	62534	acetophenone	98862	isodrin	465736

nitrosodimethylamine, n-	62759	nitrobenzene	98953	chlorobenzilate	510156

benzoic acid	65850	nitroaniline, 3-	99092	methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol, 2-
534521

methyl methanesulfonate	66273	trinitrobenzene, sym-	99354
dichloroethylene, 1,2-	540590

methanol	67561	nitro-o-toluidine, 5-	99558	dichlorobenzene, 1,3-	541731

acetone	67641	dinitrobenzene, m- 	99650	methyl tert butyl ketone	591786

chloroform	67663	nitroaniline, 4-	100016	dinitrotoluene, 2,6-	606202

hexachloroethane	67721	nitrophenol, 4-	100027	pentachlorobenzene	608935

hexachlorophene	70304	ethylbenzene	100414	nitrosodipropylamine, n-
621647

butanol, n-	71363	styrene	100425	tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2-	630206

benzene	71432	benzyl alcohol	100516	nitrosodi-n-butylamine, n-	924163

trichloroethane, 1,1,1-	71556	nitrosopiperdine, n-	100754
nitrosopyrrolidine, n-	930552

endrin	72208	bromophenyl phenyl ether, 4-	101553	heptachlor epoxide
1024573

methoxychlor	72435	dimethylphenol, 2,4-	105679	endosulfan sulfate
1031078

DDD	72548	cresol, p-	106445	cresols, m- & p-	1319773

DDE	72559	dichlorobenzene, 1,4-	106467	xylenes	1330207

bromomethane	74839	chloroaniline, 4-	106478	polychlorinated biphenyls
1336363

methyl chloride (chloromethane) 	74873	phenylenediamine, p-	106503
hexachloropropene	1888717

iodomethane	74884	dibromoethane, 1,2-	106934	diallate	2303164

dibromomethane	74953	acrolein	107028	tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate 
3689245

chloroethane	75003	allyl chloride	107051	chlorophenyl phenyl ether, 4-
7005723

vinyl chloride	75014	dichloroethane, 1,2-	107062	endrin aldehyde	7421934

acetonitrile	75058	propionitrile (ethyl cyanide)	107120	lead	7439921

methylene chloride	75092	acrylonitrile	107131	mercury	7439976

carbon disulfide	75150	vinyl acetate	108054	nickel	7440020

bromoform	75252	methyl isobutyl ketone 	108101	silver	7440224

bromodichloromethane	75274	cresol, m- (3-methylphenol)	108394	thallium
7440280

dichloroethane, 1,1-	75343	bis(2-chloro-methylethyl) ether	108601	tin
7440315

dichloroethylene, 1,1-	75354	toluene	108883	antimony	7440360

trichlorofluoromethane	75694	chlorobenzene	108907	arsenic	7440382

dichlorodifluoromethane	75718	phenol	108952	barium	7440393

pentachloroethane	76017	picoline, 2-	109068	beryllium	7440417

heptachlor	76448	dichloro-2-butene, trans-1,4-	110576	cadmium	7440439

hexachlorocyclopentadiene	77474	chloroethyl vinyl ether, 2-	110758
chromium	7440473

isophorone	78591	pyridine	110861	cobalt	7440484

isobutanol	78831	bis(2-chloroethyl) ether	111444	copper	7440508

dichloropropane, 1,2-	78875	bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane	111911	vanadium
7440622

methyl ethyl ketone (2-butanone)	78933	endosulfan I	115297	zinc	7440666

trichloroethane, 1,1,2-	79005	bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate	117817
selenium	7782492

trichloroethylene	79016	di-n-octyl phthalate	117840	toxaphene	8001352

acrylamide	79061	hexachlorobenzene	118741	dichloropropene, cis-1,3-
10061015

tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-	79345	dimethylbenzidine, 3,3'-	119937
dichloropropene, trans-1,3-	10061026

methyl methacrylate	80626	anthracene	120127	nitrosomethylethylamine, n-
10595956

pentachloronitrobenzene	82688	isosafrole	120581	fluoride	16984488

acenaphthene	83329	trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-	120821	sulfide, (reactive)
18496258

diethyl phthalate	84662	dichlorophenol, 2,4-	120832	sulfide	18496258

di-n-butyl phthalate	84742	dinitrotoluene, 2,4-	121142	hexavalent
chromium	18540299

phenanthrene	85018	dimethylphenethylamine, a,a-	122098	pronamide
23950585

butyl benzyl phthalate	85687	diphenylamine	122394	endosulfan II	33213659

nitrosodiphenylamine, n-	86306	dioxane, 1,4-	123911

fluorene	86737	dibromochloromethane	124481

The data include sludge samples that were analyzed as either
“totals” or “leachate” samples.  “Totals” samples are
analyzed in their entirety.  That is, the solids and liquids present in
the sludge sample are prepared for analysis and analyzed for their total
content of a particular chemical constituent.  “Leachate” samples
consist of only a portion of the sludge sample.  To create a leachate
sample, the laboratory analyst processes the sludge sample using the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), a method designed to
imitate the conditions the waste would undergo when disposed at a
municipal solid waste landfill.  The processing produces a liquid
portion that we expect would be similar in composition to the leachate
leaving the landfill and entering the soil and groundwater underneath
the landfill.  Both types of samples provide information needed to
evaluate how much of a particular chemical constituent is present in the
waste and how it is likely to move in the environment once it is
released from the landfill.

Table 3 shows the chemical constituents that facilities detected at
levels above the quantitation limit of the instruments used, in
descending order of frequency of detection in totals samples and
leachate samples.

Table 3.  Chemical constituents detected in sludge from motor vehicle
manufacturers

	Constituent	CAS#	% of totals samples	% of leachate samples

	Detected in both totals and leachate samples:

nickel	7440020	100	100

fluoride	16984488	100	100

zinc	7440666	100	99

barium	7440393	100	90

copper	7440508	100	83

chromium	7440473	100	55

tin	7440315	99	81

formaldehyde	50000	97	97

lead	7439921	89	38

cobalt	7440484	81	81

mercury	7439976	80	4

sulfide	18496258	80	62

xylenes	1330207	76	33

vanadium	7440622	61	38

arsenic	7440382	56	55

cyanide	57125	50	17

ethylbenzene	100414	56	41

hexavalent chromium	18540299	52	14

toluene	108883	49	17

butanol, n-	71363	49	31

acrylamide	79061	46	22

cadmium	7440439	39	27

bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate	117817	31	3

antimony	7440360	28	35

methyl ethyl ketone 	78933	26	8

beryllium	7440417	23	6

selenium	7782492	22	41

silver	7440224	19	31

thallium	7440280	13	25

butyl benzyl phthalate	85687	10	10

naphthalene	91203	8	29

cresol, p- 	106445	7	73

acetone	67641	7	54

trichloroethylene	79016	6	2

dichloroethane, 1,2-	107062	5	1

acetonitrile	75058	3	5

chlorobenzene	108907	1	3

methylene chloride	75092	1	7

trichloroethane, 1,1,1-	71556	1	1

dichloroethane, 1,1-	75343	1	1

	Table 3 (cont.).  Chemical constituents detected in sludge from motor
vehicle manufacturers

	Constituent	CAS#	% of totals samples	% of leachate samples

	Detected only in "totals" samples (not in leachate samples):

di-n-octyl phthalate	117840	23

	methyl isobutyl ketone	108101	10

	tetrachloroethylene 	127184	8

	styrene	100425	7

	acrolein	107028	7

	dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-	156592	6

	methyl chloride	74873	4

	carbon disulfide	75150	4

	chloroform	67663	2

	benzene	71432	1

	allyl chloride	107051	1

	Detected only in leachate samples (not in "totals" samples):

phenol	108952

53

acetophenone	98862

11

cresol, o-	95487

7

cresol, m- 	108394

7

di-n-butyl phthalate	84742

4

Note that several organic chemical constituents are found in more than
30% of the totals samples (formaldehyde, n-butanol, acrylamide,
ethylbenzene, toluene and xylenes).  The data in Table 1 do not suggest
that these would be found in either the wastewater or the sludge (except
possibly formaldehyde, which might occur as a breakdown or
transformation constituent from more complex hydrocarbons).  It seems
likely that n-butanol, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes, and possibly
formaldehyde are present due to other operations at the facilities.  For
example, they may arise from painting operations that occur after the
motor vehicle bodies are conversion-coated.  The acrylamide is likely to
be a result of wastewater treatment activities (acrylamide polymers are
sometimes added to wastewater as flocculating agents).   In addition,
certain constituents that would not be expected to be present are
reported as present, possibly due to contamination in either the
sampling or laboratory processes used (for example, phthalates are
common laboratory contaminants).

Note also that several metals and metalloids are found in more than 30%
of the samples (lead, mercury, tin, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, copper and vanadium); we would not expect to find these
constituents from a review of Table 1.  It seems likely that these
constituents could be present in water used in the conversion coating
baths, in the motor vehicle bodies (in solders, or in the steel or
aluminum) or in co-mingled boiler blowdown water, cooling water, and
factory clean-up water in the wastewater collection and treatment
system.  Cyanide compounds and sulfide are found in more than 30% of
samples as well.  Fluoride is found in 100% of totals samples.

In 2000, the Aluminum Association submitted to EPA analytical sampling
data from 39 automotive assembly plants, including 23 performing
conversion coating on steel-only vehicle bodies, and 16 performing
conversion coating on steel-plus-aluminum vehicle bodies.  The data set
did not identify the samples taken from plants performing steel-only
conversion coating vs. steel-plus-aluminum conversion coating.  In
addition, the Aluminum Association did not provide documentation on the
conditions under which the samples were taken, laboratory analytical
information, quality control, and quality assurance measures taken
during both the sampling and the laboratory analyses.  Thus, we
concluded that we could not rely on these data to indicate the identity
or levels of constituents in the waste.  These data are available in the
docket for review and inspection.

The 56 constituents in Table 3, identified in the delisting petition and
verification sampling from thirteen motor vehicle manufacturers’
facilities, form the basis for the risk assessment results described in
Sections 5, 6 and 7.  

4.  Exposure and Risk Assessment

People and ecological “receptors” (plants, animals, insects, and
other living organisms such as soil microorganisms) might be exposed to
chemical constituents that are present in the F019 waste.  People can be
exposed to the chemical constituents in the waste while it is
accumulated at the manufacturing plant, while it is transported to the
landfill, as it is being placed in the landfill, or when it is released
from the landfill.  Releases from landfills generally happen over long
periods of time.  However, unusual weather conditions such as major
floods can cause wastes and waste constituents to be released from the
landfill rapidly.  Ecological receptors generally could only be exposed
to the chemical constituents in the waste as it is being placed in the
landfill, or when it is released from the landfill, unless they use the
landfill as habitat.

Assessments of potential risk due to environmental exposures performed
to support EPA’s regulatory decisions typically consist of several
steps:

1) Identifying the likelihood that people or ecological receptors may
experience a particular exposure due to an activity such as a release of
a hazardous chemical constituent into the environment;

	

2) Evaluating the potential hazard(s) posed by the chemical constituent,
by identifying the chemical constituents of potential concern, and their
health effects; and

3) Combining the potential for people or ecological receptors to come
into contact with the chemical constituent, at the levels (or doses)
that are estimated to occur under various conditions, and calculating
the potential for adverse health effects that corresponds to those
doses.

Sections 4.1 to 4.3 describe how we perform the first step listed above
qualitatively: identifying the potential for environmental exposures to
chemical constituents in the F019 waste from motor vehicle
manufacturers.  Section 3 describes the second step, identifying the
chemical constituents of potential concern; some of the references
listed at the end of this document describe the constituents’ health
effects.  Section 4.4 describes the mathematical models we use to
perform the first and third steps quantitatively.  Sections 5, 6, 7 and
8 describe our use of the models and their results, as we perform the
second and third steps quantitatively.

The US Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and the corresponding state government
occupational safety and health agencies enforce worker training and
other requirements intended to protect workers from workplace hazards. 
We assume that the motor vehicle manufacturing plant workers who handle
the sludge, transportation workers, and landfill workers are covered by
worker protection requirements, and that those requirements protect the
workers’ health and safety.  The RCRA hazardous waste characteristics
regulations which focus on acute hazards (ignitability, corrosivity and
reactivity; see 40 CFR 261.21-261.23) address risks to workers handling
wastes.  However, for hazardous waste listing determinations, EPA has
usually not evaluated risks to workers from chronic exposures to toxic
constituents present in wastes.  Thus we exclude workers from the
description of possible human exposures in section 4.1 since no acute
hazards appear to exist, and we typically assume that the worker
protection requirements address chronic exposures to toxic constituents
present in wastes.

4.1   Human activities

4.1.1   Waste accumulation practices

The F019 wastewater treatment sludge is currently regulated as a
hazardous waste, unless that facility’s sludge has been
“delisted.” See the discussion in the preamble of the Federal
Register notice proposing the regulatory amendment.  As a hazardous
waste, the sludge must be stored in covered containers (except when
adding or removing sludge), or in tanks, and other requirements apply as
well.

If the F019 wastewater treatment sludge is reclassified as nonhazardous
waste, the motor vehicle manufacturers could accumulate it in uncovered
piles directly on the ground, or in uncovered containers or tanks,
unless state or local requirements prevent that kind of management
practice.  Depending on the distance between their residences and the
sludge handling and accumulation areas, nearby residents could be
exposed to the chemical constituents in the F019 waste while it is being
accumulated.

We do not evaluate the potential risk from environmental exposures that
may be experienced by residents near the manufacturing plant where the
sludge is generated, since we don’t know the exact locations of the
wastewater treatment and sludge storage operations at the manufacturing
plants and the distance and direction to nearby residences.  However,
these sludges, which are generated from wastewater treatment and have
relatively high moisture content, are unlikely to produce particulate
releases.   Generators who submitted delisting petitions also indicated
that they typically store dewatered sludges in containers or bins prior
to shipment offsite for disposal.   In addition, regulatory controls
under the Clean Air Act (and state or local restrictions on air
releases) are designed to address potential air releases from
manufacturing facilities.  Finally, we assume that local zoning
ordinances would provide an adequate buffer zone between the
manufacturing plant property and nearby residences, so that any
windborne dried sludge particles and volatilized gases from the sludge
accumulation would be negligible at the residences.

4.1.2   Waste transport practices

If the F019 continues to be classified as hazardous waste, the waste
must be transported in a vehicle that meets US Department of
Transportation (DOT) requirements for hazardous materials transport.  If
the F019 is reclassified as nonhazardous waste, the waste could be
transported in a vehicle that may or may not meet the DOT requirements. 
Whether or not the vehicle would be required to meet DOT requirements
would depend on whether the sludge would still be classified as a
hazardous material under DOT requirements, and whether the sludge was
destined for an out-of-state landfill.

People who live along the vehicle’s route, from the manufacturing
plant to the landfill, would be likely to have different levels of
exposure depending primarily on the vehicle’s travel speed.  Also, in
the event of a roadway or rail crash, people near the crash site could
be exposed to volatile gases or particulates released from the sludge
while the vehicle was stopped, and spilled sludge might be released from
the vehicle.

We do not evaluate the potential risk from environmental exposures that
may be experienced by people living along the transport route from the
manufacturing plant to the landfill site.  Such exposures would be
intermittent and could vary if transport routes change.  We are assuming
that prudent transporters would cover their waste loads to prevent dust
and nuisance complaints, even if there was no state or federal
requirement to do so, and would take measures to minimize leakage
(dripping) of the waste load.  Furthermore, transport costs are
typically based on the dewatered sludge’s weight, so we believe
generators have an incentive to keep containers covered or indoors prior
to shipment to prevent precipitation from entering the container.  To
the extent that containers may not be covered, omitting this potential
exposure leaves a gap in our understanding of the potential risks from
managing these wastes.  

4.1.3   Waste placement in landfill

If the F019 continues to be classified as hazardous waste, the waste
must be disposed in a permitted hazardous waste landfill.  If the F019
is reclassified as nonhazardous waste, the waste could be disposed in a
“Subtitle D” landfill that must have a cover placed over the waste
at the end of each day, and meet certain other requirements.

Nearby residents could be exposed to chemical constituents during waste
placement in a landfill.  They could be exposed to volatile gases
emitted from the sludge, as well as windblown dried sludge particles. 
They would be unlikely to experience direct skin contact with the
sludge.

4.1.4   Waste release from landfill

Nearby residents could breathe volatile gases from sludge that was
disposed of previously.  We expect that breathing volatile gases from
sludge disposed of previously is somewhat less likely for residents near
landfills that use a landfill gas collection system than for residents
near landfills that do not use a landfill gas collection system.  A
continuously operating landfill gas collection system would cause the
landfill to be under negative pressure compared to local atmospheric
pressure, and volatile chemical constituents would be collected in a
pipe system (usually to be combusted for energy recovery purposes)
rather than dispersed into the surrounding atmosphere.  A landfill gas
collection system that operates intermittently (for example, due to
frequent equipment breakdowns) would experience pressure fluctuations
relative to local atmospheric pressure and might result in nearby
residents’ exposures that are similar to a landfill that operates
without any landfill gas collection system at all. 

Nearby residents would be unlikely to be exposed to windblown dried
sludge particles from previously disposed sludge unless significant
erosion of the landfill’s cover occurred.  In the near-term timeframe,
such exposure would be unlikely for landfills containing municipal solid
waste, due to the criteria at 40 CFR 258.21 requiring landfill operators
to apply a cover of "earthen material" at the end of each day’s
operations.   For non-municipal solid waste landfills ("industrial
landfills"), federal regulations are limited.  Instead, there are
classification criteria at 40 CFR Part 257 that presume a facility poses
a reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the
environment, unless they periodically apply cover material to control
disease vectors (257.3-6) or for other safety reasons (257.3-8). 
Facilities that fail to satisfy these criteria are considered "open
dumps", which are prohibited under section 4005 of RCRA (see 40 CFR
Section 257.1(a)(1)).  In addition, states typically have regulations in
place for industrial landfills and require operating permits (ASTSWMO
1996).

  

Nearby residents would be unlikely to have direct skin contact with
previously disposed sludge unless there was a catastrophic release such
as from a flood. 

Nearby residents could be exposed to chemical constituents from the
sludge that have entered groundwater underneath the landfill, if the
groundwater moves toward the residents’ water wells and the residents
use the water for drinking, bathing and/or showering.

Nearby residents also could be exposed if volatile constituents from the
previously disposed sludge attach to windblown dust and fall onto soil,
gardens or cropland, and the residents inadvertently ingest the soil and
eat the garden produce or crops.

4.2   Ecological receptor activities

4.2.1   Waste accumulation practices

During waste accumulation, we believe that ecological receptors likely
would have little to no exposure to the chemical constituents in the
F019 waste.  We anticipate that the motor vehicle manufacturing facility
consists of paved areas with little vegetation, and storm water may
drain into the wastewater treatment facility.  In the event storm water
drains directly to nearby waterways, ecological receptors could be
exposed from precipitation coming into contact with accumulating sludge
and draining off, carrying chemical constituents into nearby waterways. 
We do not have any information at this time indicating that this
scenario is likely to occur.

4.2.2   Waste placement in landfill

Ecological receptors could be exposed to chemical constituents during
waste placement in the landfill.  Essentially all organisms in the
nearby vicinity that are downwind of the waste placement area could
experience exposures to the volatile gases emitted from 

the sludge during waste placement.  There may be some exposure of birds
and rodents/small mammals to the waste.  However, landfills generally
require operators to cover disposed solid waste daily, or at more
frequent intervals if necessary to control disease vectors, fires,
odors, blowing litter, and scavenging (40 CFR 258.21).  In addition,
municipal landfill units must control on-site populations of disease
vectors (rodents, insects, and other animals; see 40 CFR 258.22).

4.2.3   Waste release from landfill

Ecological receptors could be exposed to chemical constituents during
waste release from the landfill.  Previously-disposed F019 sludge would
continue to emit volatile gases for a period of time, and downwind
ecological receptors could be exposed to those chemical constituents. 
Precipitation that falls on the landfill and drains through the entire
landfill, picking up chemical constituents from the waste in the
landfill, and then enters the groundwater, eventually may flow into a
nearby body of surface water such as a stream or river.  Aquatic
organisms in the nearby surface water could then be exposed directly to
the chemical constituents, or exposed due to buildup of the chemical
constituents in sediments and aquatic organisms that are then consumed
by higher-level aquatic organisms.

4.3   Summary of Potential Exposures Assessed

Managing the F019 wastewater treatment sludge from chemical conversion
coating of motor vehicles creates some potential exposures for people
and ecological receptors.  As described above, the initial sludge
accumulation creates some potential for exposure by nearby residents,
and nearby stream-dwellers, while sludge transport creates some
potential for exposure for residents along the transport route, and
disposal creates some potential for exposure by residents living near
the landfill and nearby stream-dwellers.  In this analysis, we assess
the potential for adverse effects from the landfill activities.  We have
estimated the potential risks from environmental exposures that may be
experienced by people living near the landfills, and by ecological
receptors, both during waste placement and upon release over time from
the landfill.

4.3   Summary of Exposures Assessed

In this analysis, we assess the potential for adverse effects from many,
but not all, of the activities described above:

We do not evaluate the potential risk from environmental exposures that
may be experienced by residents near the manufacturing plant where the
sludge is generated, since we don’t know the exact locations of the
wastewater treatment and sludge storage operations at the manufacturing
plants and the distance and direction to nearby residences.  However,
these sludges, which are generated from wastewater treatment and have
relatively high moisture content, are unlikely to produce particulate
releases.   Generators who submitted delisting petitions also indicated
that they typically store dewatered sludges in containers or bins prior
to shipment offsite for disposal.   In addition, regulatory controls
under the Clean Air Act (and state or local restrictions on air
releases) are designed to address potential air releases from
manufacturing facilities.  Finally, we assume that local zoning
ordinances would provide an adequate buffer zone between the
manufacturing plant property and nearby residences, so that any
windborne dried sludge particles and volatilized gases from the sludge
accumulation would be negligible at the residences.

We do not evaluate the potential risk from environmental exposures that
may be experienced by people living along the transport route from the
manufacturing plant to the landfill site.  Such exposures would be
intermittent and could vary if transport routes change.  We are assuming
that prudent transporters would cover their waste loads to prevent dust
and nuisance complaints, even if there was no state or federal
requirement to do so, and would take measures to minimize leakage
(dripping) of the waste load.  Furthermore, transport costs are
typically based on the dewatered sludge’s weight, so we believe
generators have an incentive to keep containers covered or indoors prior
to shipment to prevent precipitation entering the container.  To the
extent that containers may not be covered, omitting this potential
exposure leaves a gap in our understanding of the potential risks from
managing these wastes.  

We have estimated the potential risks from environmental exposures that
may be experienced by people living near the landfills, and by
ecological receptors, both during waste placement and upon release over
time from the landfill.

4.4   Fate, Transport, Exposure, and Risk Modeling

4.4.1   Overall methodology for this risk assessment

This risk assessment’s overall methodology evaluates the potential for
adverse human health and environmental effects due to exposure to the 56
chemical constituents shown in Table 3.  These 56 chemical constituents
exist in a particular chemical structure for a certain period of time
after disposal in the landfill.  However, eventually, due to interaction
with water or with other chemical constituents, exposure to radiation or
light energy, or temperature changes, the chemical constituents change
into other forms (their “fate”).  A “fate and transport” model
uses variables that represent the many influences on a chemical
constituent

as it exists initially in the environment,

as it moves through the environment as a result of those influences, and

as it eventually changes into another form. 

The input to a fate and transport model is a specific quantity of a
chemical constituent that is released into the environment from a
source.  The output from a fate and transport model is an estimate (or a
distribution of estimates) of how much of the released quantity of that
chemical constituent exists at a specific place, at a specific point in
time.

Exposure models use the fate and transport model outputs, and combine
them with information on “receptors” to develop estimates of
receptors’ exposures to that chemical constituent.  Risk models take
the exposure model estimates to develop estimates of potential adverse
health effects that may result from those estimated exposures.  Often,
exposure and risk equations are combined together in the same model. 
Sometimes a model contains fate, transport, exposure and risk equations
all in one model (or in separate model components that are linked
together).

Because the 56 chemical constituents in Table 3 have different
environmental fate and transport patterns, and different toxicities, due
to their different physical and chemical characteristics, we need to
screen them using a tool that shows the likely transport routes that
they will follow, and to identify which ones are more likely to present
health risks of concern.  This screening consists of a primary analysis
of an unlined landfill scenario to estimate the possible exposures that
residents near that landfill, and organisms in a nearby stream, might
receive from each of those 56 chemical constituents.  The model we use
tracks movementunlined landfill scenario represents relatively little
containment of the 56 constituents either through the air, into
groundwater, or via precipitation runoff into surface water.  Thus it
serves to screen the , so that constituents by identifying where they
identified in this primary analysis are most likely to move, once
disposed into the landfill, and to indicate which ones those that are
more likely to pose a potential health threat.  Thus we use the unlined
landfill scenario to narrow the list of 56 constituents to a smaller
number that are the most likely to possibly cause adverse effects. 
However, it only models an unlined landfill scenario.

	

We perform an additionala secondary analysis of a lined landfill
scenario, in which we model disposal into a landfill that is designed
and built with technologies intended to contain or reduce emissions
(such as landfill gas collection systems, liners, leachate collection
systems, and covers).  This additional analysis also allows for the
comparison of different liner designs.  For movement into groundwater,
those constituents Constituents that do not appear to present a problem
in the primary screening analysis of the unlined landfill scenario are
even less likely to move away from the landfill if it is designed and
constructed with emission-reducing technologies.  Thus, in the secondary
analysis, we do not evaluate any of the 56 constituents that do not
appear to present a problem in the unlined landfill scenario.   In the
additionalsecondary analysis, we focus on the smaller number of chemical
constituents which the primary screening analysis indicated are more
likely to potentially cause adverse health effects.  The
additionalsecondary analysis evaluates the effectiveness of landfill
liners in containing leachate (and thus reducing potential human
exposures from contact with contaminated groundwater).  However, it only
models movement (and resulting potential exposure) via the groundwater
pathway.

We use three models in this risk assessment.  For the primary screening
analysis of the unlined landfill scenario, we use

the Delisting Risk Assessment Software, version 2.0 (DRASv2)

 For the additionalsecondary analysis of the lined landfill scenario, we
use

the Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM)

For the DRASv2 model and the IWEM model, the underlying fate and
transport equations for the movement of constituents in groundwater
underneath the landfill is

the EPA Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation
Products (EPACMTP)

We also used EPACMTP in a related analysis (the Dyes and Pigments
listing determination rulemaking risk assessment, described in more
detail in section 5).

We describe each model in the sections below, with references to the
user’s guides and technical background documents.  Appendix A lists
the main assumptions the model developers made when they decided how to
represent the landfill and its releases to the environment.

Finally, it is important to understand what each model provides as risk
estimate outputs.  Due to variability in natural systems (for example,
differences in ages, sizes, and genetic makeup among humans, or the wide
ranges of environmental conditions across the United States) the
“true” hazard or risk posed by disposing of F019 from motor vehicle
manufacturers in U.S. landfills is itself a range of values.  We call
this range of hazard or risk estimate values the “risk
distribution.”  Models can estimate hazard or risk at a given point
somewhere on this distribution, or they can be set up to provide outputs
that are themselves distributions of hazard or risk estimates.  We call
models that give risk outputs that are single-point estimates
“deterministic,” and those that give outputs that are distributions
of estimates “probabilistic.”  The difference between deterministic
model outputs and probabilistic model outputs results from the way that
the models try to represent reality – either with a single point value
for a given variable (deterministic), or by running many times
sequentially, and selecting variable values from a model input
distribution of data points for that variable, on a probabilistic basis
(probabilistic).  

DRASv2 and IWEM both provide single-point estimates of risk that
correspond to a particular chemical constituent concentration in waste. 
In contrast, EPACMTP was designed to be run as a probabilistic model
that provides as its output a distribution of groundwater concentrations
(that can then be used directly as input to a probabilistic risk model,
or a particular point estimate from the distribution can be used as an
input to a deterministic risk model).  Both DRASv2 and IWEM take
advantage of the EPACMTP probabilistic format, by selecting a single
point estimate (the 90th percentile estimated chemical constituent
concentration at the drinking water well) from the EPACMTP distribution
of groundwater concentrations to use in an input in the deterministic
DRASv2 or IWEM risk model, in order to develop single-point
deterministic risk estimates.

4.4.2   Delisting Risk Assessment Software, version 2.0

We use DRASv2 for the primary screening analysis of disposal in an
unlined landfill.  This model assesses potential human health risk or
hazards from many possible pathways by which the 56 chemical
constituents in Table 3 might move through the environment.  DRASv2
models movement of leachate from the waste, into the soil and
groundwater underneath the landfill, where constituents present in the
leachate mix with the groundwater.  DRASv2 also models the constituents
in the waste that become airborne, or are carried away from the landfill
by precipitation, during the process of placing the waste into the
landfill.

For movement in groundwater, DRASv2 models the constituents that are
present in the waste leachate that has mixed with the groundwater
underneath the landfill.  DRASv2 models the leachate/groundwater mixture
underneath the landfill as it moves toward a hypothetical residential
groundwater well that is located in the direction toward which the
groundwater would flow (“downgradient”).  If such a well is used at
a future point in time, when the constituents that were in the waste
have moved via the groundwater into the zone from which the well draws
its water, people using the well could be exposed to constituents from
the waste in the landfill when they use the groundwater for drinking,
bathing, and/or showering.  People could ingest constituents by drinking
the groundwater directly, or could be exposed to constituents by getting
them on their skin while bathing or showering with the groundwater. 
Some, but not all, of the constituents could become volatile (gaseous)
when heated, and so heating the groundwater and using it for
bathing/showering purposes may cause volatilized constituents to be
released into the house’s interior when the groundwater comes out of a
bath faucet or showerhead.  For these volatilizing constituents, people
would be exposed to them by breathing the air in the bath or shower
enclosure during the bath or shower, and also would be exposed to lower
levels of volatilized constituents while they are in other parts of the
residence.

For movement in air, or movement by being carried away from the landfill
by precipitation runoff, DRASv2 models “surface pathways” (so-called
because the movement occurs above the land surface rather than in
groundwater).  DRASv2 models three surface pathways by which people
would be exposed to constituents from the waste: 1) direct air
inhalation (breathing either particles that contain waste constituents,
or volatilized constituents from the waste by being downwind of the
landfill when the waste is being placed into the landfill), 2) soil
ingestion (ingesting soil that is contaminated with constituents from
the waste that moved by wind currents and were deposited on the soil in
the yard of a downwind residence), and 3) surface water
ingestion/ingestion of fish.  This third pathway, surface water
ingestion/ingestion of fish, occurs as a result of precipitation that
comes into contact with the waste when it is deposited into the
landfill, washes some of the constituents out of the waste and carries
them with the precipitation run-off to a nearby, downhill stream
(surface water body).  For this pathway, people would be exposed to the
constituents from the waste in two ways: by drinking the surface water
directly, and by ingesting fish that have absorbed the constituents once
they entered the surface water body.

The DRASv2 model assesses potential ecological hazards to aquatic
organisms in a freshwater surface water body.  DRASv2 models the
constituents’ movement as a result of precipitation that comes into
contact with the waste when it is deposited into the landfill, washes
some of the constituents out of the waste and carries them with the
precipitation run-off to a nearby, downhill stream (surface water body).

Table 4 shows the environmental media, exposure routes, receptors, and
receptor activities/behaviors that DRASv2 models:

Table 4.  DRASv2 exposure pathways, exposure routes, receptors and
activities

	Environmental Medium	Exposure Route	Receptors	Receptor Activity

 	 	Adult	Child	Aquatic 	 

	groundwater	Ingestion	(	(

drinking

groundwater	Dermal	(	(

bathing

groundwater	Inhalation	(

	showering

air	Inhalation	(

	breathing

air-to-soil	Ingestion		(

soil intake²

surface water	Ingestion	(

	drinking

surface water	Ingestion	(

	eating fish

surface water	ingestion/dermal

	(	habitat use

	Note 1: DRASv2 models cancer risk for a child age 0-6 who is modeled
further as an adult age 7-30.  DRASv2 

does not model noncancer effects for children via groundwater ingestion
(see discussion in section 5).

	Note 2: Some adults and some children ingest soil inadvertently only. 
Some adults and some children ingest

  soil inadvertently, and also ingest it intentionally.  See EPA 1997b
and EPA 2002b for further

  descriptions of soil ingestion behaviors.

Note that in using DRASv2, EPA has identified certain problems and is
developing version 3 to address these known problems. Version 2 can
still be used for its intended purpose by user over-rides.  In this risk
assessment, we perform all DRASv2 modeling in the forward-calculation
mode.

EPA 2002a in the references list is the model documentation and user’s
guide for DRASv2; it describes the assumptions underlying the model in
considerable detail.  Appendix A excerpts and paraphrases descriptions
of model assumptions from EPA2002a.

4.4.3   Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model

For the additionalsecondary analysis, of the scenario of disposal in a
lined landfill, we use the Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model,
or IWEM (see EPA 2002c and EPA 2002d for user’s guide and model
documentation and user’s guide).  IWEM has three different tiers, or
levels of complexity; we use Tier 1.  

IWEM assesses potential human health risk or hazards from groundwater
pathways only (a companion model, IWAIR, assesses risk or hazards from
air pathways.  Since the primary, screening analysis showed all
potential risks or hazards to be from groundwater pathways, we did not
evaluate air or surface water pathways in the additionalsecondary
analysis.)

Similar to DRASv2, IWEM models movement of leachate from the waste, into
the soil and groundwater underneath the landfill, where constituents
present in the leachate mix with the groundwater, as it moves toward a
hypothetical residential groundwater well that is located in the
direction toward which the groundwater would flow (“downgradient”). 

IWEM models the ingestion of groundwater as drinking water, and
inhalation of volatile constituents from groundwater during showering
(that DRASv2 also models).  However, IWEM does not model dermal exposure
from bathing/showering.

Table 5 shows the two groundwater exposure routes, receptors, and
receptor activities/behaviors that IWEM models for noncancer effects:

Table 5.  IWEM exposure routes, receptors and activities (noncancer)

	Exposure Route	Receptors	Receptor Activity

 	Adult	Child	 

	ingestion

(	drinking

inhalation	((

showering

	Note 1: IWEM compares the estimated air concentration (from showering)
to a reference 

    air concentration that should protect children as well as adults

    (see EPA 2002d, p. 5-11).

	

Here are the two groundwater exposure routes, receptors, and receptor
activities/behaviors that IWEM models for cancer risk:

Table 6.  IWEM exposure routes, receptors and activities (cancer)

	Exposure Route	Receptors	Receptor Activity

 	Adult	Child	 

	ingestion	((	((	drinking

inhalation	(

showering

	Note 1: The modeled individual is a child/adult age 0-29.  

EPA 2002c and EPA2002d in the references list are the model user’s
guide and model documentation, respectively, for IWEM.  Both documents
describe the assumptions underlying the model.  Appendix A excerpts and
paraphrases descriptions of some of the main model assumptions from EPA
2002c and EPA 2002d.

4.4.4   EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products

The last model that we use is EPACMTP (EPA's Composite Model for
Leachate Migration with Transformation Products) (see EPA 1997a, EPA
2003a, and EPA 2003b for model documentation and user’s guide). 
DRASv2 and IWEM use different versions of EPACMTP for the groundwater
fate and transport of the chemical constituents disposed in the modeled
landfills (DRASv2 uses the 1996/1997 version, while IWEM uses the
2002/2003 version, or version 2.0).  The dyes and pigments listing
determination risk assessment (EPA 2003c) also uses the EPACMTP model
(version 2.0).

EPACMTP models only fate and transport of the chemical constituents
underneath the landfill (in the unsaturated zone, it models vertical
(downward) movement; in the saturated zone, or aquifer, it models
movement in three dimensions).  Thus we cannot use EPACMTP by itself to
develop estimates of human health or environmental effects.  However,
EPACMTP is important to this analysis because it models the
constituents’ movement in the subsurface in both of the other models
that we use (DRASv2 and IWEM).

Appendix A includes many of the modeling assumptions in EPACMTP in the
descriptions excerpted from the DRASv2 and IWEM model documentation.

The dyes and pigments listing determination risk assessment, discussed
in more detail in sections 5 and 6, uses EPACMTP and the same risk and
hazard algorithms used in DRASv2 and IWEM (based on EPA 1991) to
calculate “allowable levels” of constituents in dye and pigment
production manufacturing waste.

4.4.5   Peer review of models

Each of these models has been peer reviewed, at a minimum with an
internal EPA peer review:

- U.S. EPA’s Region 6 Delisting Program, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division developed the DRAS software program (version 2). 
Region 6 provided a beta test version to EPA Regions and EPA
headquarters staff in September 1999. EPA’s Office of Research and
Development (ORD) provided internal peer review comments during the fall
of 1999.  One external (to EPA) reviewer provided review comments on one
aspect of the approach used in DRAS that affects the groundwater pathway
results.  Region 6 completed a Response to Comments package on Regional,
Office of Solid Waste (OSW) and ORD comments in June 2000. Region 6
revised the software code and the technical documentation in response to
Regional, OSW, and ORD comments.  

- IWEM was developed by U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste staff.  EPA held
an external peer review on a 1999 draft version of IWEM.  The peer
review summaries and individual peer review comments are available in
the electronic docket for the federal government at
http://www.regulations.gov, under docket identification number
EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0032, document identification number
EPA-HQ-RCRA-1999-0032-0017 (in .tif and .pdf format) in the docket for
an October 8, 1999 Notice of availability (Volume 64 FR No. 195, pp.
54889-54890).

- EPACMTP and its predecessors has been peer reviewed on numerous
occasions.  For example,Version 2.0, which is the same model used in
1995, EPA’s Science Advisory Board the IWEM and D&P analysis, was a
submodel that was reviewed the version that was available at that point
in time.  Version 2.0, developed in 2002, was a submodel as part of an
EPA Science Advisory Board review of a model called “3MRA” that was
reviewed by EPA’s Science Advisory Board (see EPA 2004a).  The dyes
and pigments listing determination risk assessment (EPA 2003c) also uses
the EPACMTP model (version 2.0).

5.  Potential noncancer hazard to humans

In order to determine whether there is a potential noncancer hazard from
constituents present in the waste, we use a criterion, or guideline, of
what an acceptable exposure is.  The acceptable exposure that we use in
this analysis is, in most cases,We estimate whether the Reference Dose
(RfD) or Reference Concentration (RfC) from daily exposure to a
particular constituent over a long-term timeframe would be "likely to be
without an EPA database of toxicity information (EPA 2005c).   The RfD
or RfC is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of
magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human population (including
sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime.."  In mathematical terms, we
represent this as the ratio of a person’s modeled, or estimated, daily
exposure to a particular constituent to the estimate of that person’s
exposure that should be likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime.  We call the ratio the “hazard
quotient.” 

If the estimated daily exposure is greater than the exposure that should
be without risk of deleterious effects, then the hazard quotient is
greater than one.  If the estimated daily exposure is less than the
exposure that should be without risk of deleterious effects, then the
hazard quotient is less than one.  We use the hazard quotient
calculation to sort out those constituent exposures that are unlikely to
be of concern from those constituent exposures that could potentially
pose concerns.  Because of uncertainties that are some degree of
inherent uncertainty in the data that EPA uses to develop the acceptable
exposure levels, a hazard quotient greater than one does not necessarily
mean that the individual’s exposure will result in adverse health
effects..  Similarly, a hazard quotient less than one does not
necessarily mean that the individual’s exposure will be without
adverse health effects.  

To be more certain that we do not ignore exposures of potential concern,
we use an initial criterion of a hazard quotient of one-tenth (0.1), so
that our first step captures the exposures that are most likely to be
within the range of concern.  Our initial calculations are to develop
the high end estimates of exposures – in other words, those exposures
that might occur at the high end of the range of circumstances that
could occur, or the high end of the risk distribution.  We first develop
high end hazard quotient estimates for all of the 56 constituents that
we are able to evaluate, and compare those high end estimates to the
hazard quotient level of 0.1.  Then we evaluate further those
constituents whose estimated high end hazard quotients are greater than
0.1, by reviewing the analytical data more closely to be more sure that
the analytical laboratory results actually reflect the quantities of
constituents in the waste.  Our second set of calculations are to
develop central tendency estimates for those constituents whose high end
estimates result in a hazard quotient greater than 0.1.  By using this
process, we narrow down the list of 56 constituents to a more manageable
list of constituents of potential concern that we can scrutinize more
closely.

5.1   Unlined landfill analysis

To calculate the hazard quotients for the scenario of disposal in an
unlined landfill, we use DRASv2 to represent the movement of chemical
constituents from the waste in the landfill toward human receptors, and
to develop high end estimates of the doses of those constituents to
which nearby human receptors would be exposed.  Appendix B shows the
specific model inputs that we used to develop these initial high end
estimates (including the toxicity values that we use as comparisons to
identify potential adverse health effects).  Note that, in some cases,
we adjust the default values found in the DRASv2 model to reflect newer
recommendations (for example, for toxicity research conducted since the
DRASv2 model was developed) or to reflect knowledge of certain minor
problems with the DRASv2 default values.  If you are interested in
running the DRASv2 model to see how we estimate the results shown in
this document, you can replicate our methodology by using our model
inputs.  If you use the default model inputs in DRASv2, instead of the
inputs shown in Appendix B, you will get results that will differ
slightly, for some constituents, from the results we present in this
document.  You must set the “carcinogen/noncarcinogen” field at
“noncarcinogen” in order to obtain the noncancer health effects
results in the output screens.  Note that for correct results you must
run DRASv2 in “forward-calculate” mode.  

Using DRASv2, we assess the potential non-carcinogenic hazards to humans
from 52 of the 56 constituents listed in Table 3.   (See the discussion
in section 8 on fluoride, sulfide, lead and trivalent chromium.)  

The human exposure variable settings that are built into the model
represent an adult who

weighs 72 kilograms,

drinks 2 liters of water per day,

eats 20 grams of fish per day,

breathes 20 cubic meters of air per day,

has a skin surface area of 20,000 square centimeters, and

showers for 15 minutes (dermal exposure) or 11.4 minutes (inhalation
exposure) on a daily basis

or a child who:

weighs 15 kilograms,

ingests 200 milligrams of soil per day, and

has a skin surface area of 7,900 square centimeters.  

The model assumes that both the adult and child reside at home 350 days
per year.  

For waste volumes disposed, we review the information contained in the
delisting petitions submitted and more recent data provided by
facilities in the motor vehicle manufacturing industry (see Appendix C
for a detailed description of these data and assumptions that we have
made regarding them.)  Combining the data from both sources for past
generation or disposal of this waste, we find volumes ranging from 426
to 3892 cubic yards per year (the median was 1,088 cubic yards per year,
and the 90th percentile ranked value was approximately 2,900 cubic yards
per year).  We use the total waste volume of 90,000 cubic yards disposed
for the initial high end estimates.  For the central tendency estimates,
we use the total waste volume of 21,760 cubic yards disposed., 

5.1.1.   High end results for unlined landfill

Table 7 shows the model-calculated high end estimated hazard quotients
for the 52 constituents, using the maximum waste concentrations shown in
the spreadsheet in the docket, along with the exposure pathways that
contribute to the estimated exposures.  

	

Table 7.  Chemical constituents' estimated high-end hazard quotients

at 90,000 cubic yards disposed

	 	 	estimated	exposure	exposure

	hazard	pathway	route

	Constituent	CAS#	quotient	of concern	 

	Detected in both totals and leachate samples:

nickel	7440020	2	groundwater	 ingestion

	zinc	7440666	0.5	groundwater	 ingestion

	barium	7440393	0.01	groundwater	 ingestion

	copper	7440508	0.0008	groundwater	 ingestion

	tin	7440315	0.4	groundwater	 ingestion

	formaldehyde	50000	0.6(0.005)	air 	 inhalation

	cobalt	7440484	0.0402	groundwater	 ingestion

	mercury	7439976	2 (0.005)	groundwater	 inhalation

	xylenes	1330207	0.1	groundwater 	ingestion, inhalation and dermal

	vanadium	7440622	0.04	groundwater	 ingestion

	arsenic	7440382	1(0.1)	groundwater	 ingestion

	cyanide	57125	0.0007	groundwater	 ingestion

	ethylbenzene	100414	0.02	groundwater	ingestion, inhalation and dermal

	hexavalent chromium	18540299	0.003	groundwater	 ingestion

	toluene	108883	0.005	groundwater	ingestion, inhalation and dermal

	butanol, n-	71363	0.02	groundwater 	ingestion and dermal

	acrylamide	79061	0.9 (0.002)	groundwater	 ingestion

	cadmium	7440439	0.2	groundwater	 ingestion

	bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate	117817	0.002	groundwater	ingestion and
dermal

	antimony	7440360	0.3	groundwater	 ingestion

	methyl ethyl ketone 	78933	0.0008	groundwater	 ingestion

	beryllium	7440417	0.001	groundwater	 ingestion

	selenium	7782492	0.1	groundwater	 ingestion

	silver	7440224	0.01	groundwater	 ingestion

	thallium	7440280	1(0.08)	groundwater	 ingestion

	butyl benzyl phthalate	85687	0.0003	groundwater	ingestion and dermal

	naphthalene	91203	0.2	groundwater	ingestion, inhalation and dermal

	cresol, p- 	106445	0.02	groundwater	ingestion and dermal

	acetone	67641	0.007	groundwater	ingestion, inhalation and dermal

	trichloroethylene	79016	0.002	groundwater	ingestion, inhalation and
dermal

	dichloroethane, 1,2-	107062	0.00008	groundwater	ingestion, inhalation
and dermal

	acetonitrile	75058	0.007	groundwater	 inhalation

	chlorobenzene	108907	0.03	groundwater	ingestion and dermal

	methylene chloride	75092	0.0009	groundwater	ingestion, inhalation and
dermal

	trichloroethane, 1,1,1-	71556	0.0000400006	groundwater	ingestion,
inhalation and dermal

	dichloroethane, 1,1-	75343	0.00008	groundwater	ingestion and dermal

Detected only in totals samples (not in leachate samples):

di-n-octyl phthalate	117840	0.046	groundwater	ingestion and dermal

	methyl isobutyl ketone 	108101	0.000007	groundwater	 inhalation

	tetrachloroethylene 	127184	0.001	groundwater	ingestion, inhalation and
dermal

	styrene	100425	0.0000009	groundwater	ingestion, inhalation and dermal

	acrolein	107028	0.00026	air 	 inhalation

	dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-	156592	0.002	groundwater	ingestion and
dermal

	methyl chloride 	74873	0.002	groundwater	 inhalation

	carbon disulfide	75150	0.00004	groundwater	ingestion, inhalation and
dermal

	chloroform	67663	0.00008	groundwater	ingestion, inhalation and dermal

	benzene	71432	0.0002	groundwater	ingestion, inhalation and dermal

	allyl chloride	107051	0.01	groundwater	 inhalation

Detected only in leachate samples (not in totals samples):

phenol	108952	0.01	groundwater	ingestion and dermal

	acetophenone	98862	0.00006	groundwater	ingestion and dermal

	di-n-butyl phthalate	84742	0.0002	groundwater	ingestion and dermal

	cresol, o-	95487	0.003	groundwater	ingestion and dermal

	cresol, m- 	108394	0.005	groundwater	ingestion and dermal

	Note 1: results rounded to one significant figure.

	Note 2: tin, cobalt and di-n-octyl phthalate used intermediate value
for oral reference dose; trichloroethylene and 1,1,1-trichloroethane
used intermediate value for 

inhalation reference; p-cresol used acute value for oral reference dose

Note 3: acrylamide, arsenic, mercury and thallium results presented for
nominal maximum leachate concentration; 

parenthetical results are for likely true maximum concentration (see
discussion of results in text)

Note 4: formaldehyde results presented for nominal maximum totals
concentration; parenthetical results are for

likely true maximum totals concentration (see discussion of results in
text)

Note 5: copper results presented using an oral reference dose of 0.03
mg/kg-day in effect in spring 2004.  Current ATSDR oral MRL for copper
is 0.01 mg/kg-day; using this current value would be expected to
increase the model result shown above by a factor of 3.

We have varying degrees of certainty regarding the degree of health
effects that may be experienced due to the human exposures that we
modeled.   See the discussion in section 9 on uncertainty in the
estimates shown in Table 7, and the discussion below that addresses some
of these uncertainties in more detail.

Thirteen constituents out of the 52 evaluated using DRASv2 appear to
have maximum waste concentrations that equal or exceed one-tenth of the
hazard quotient: antimony, arsenic, acrylamide, cadmium, formaldehyde,
mercury, naphthalene, nickel, selenium, thallium, tin, xylenes, and
zinc.  (Two equal one-tenth of the hazard quotient: xylenes and
selenium.  The other 11 exceed one-tenth of the hazard quotient.). 
Twelve of the thirteen (all except for formaldehyde) show exposures
occurring via groundwater pathways.  For the thirteenth (formaldehyde),
the exposure occurs via air pathways.  For the twelve that show
exposures occurring via groundwater pathways, most (all except for
mercury, naphthalene and xylenes) show exposures occurring via
groundwater ingestion only.  Mercury shows exposures occurring via
inhalation during showering, when using groundwater as shower water,
while both naphthalene and xylenes show exposures occurring as a result
of three groundwater uses: ingestion exposure from drinking the water,
dermal exposure from bathing, and inhalation exposure from using it as
shower water.

For the noncancer health effects calculations, the DRASv2 model accounts
for children’s exposures via some pathways and exposure routes, but
not all pathways/exposure routes included in the model.  DRASv2 accounts
for a child’s groundwater dermal exposure during bathing, and it
accounts for children’s exposure due to soil ingestion.   However, it
does not calculate noncancer health effects for a child’s groundwater
ingestion.  It also does not account for a child’s inhalation of
volatilized constituents during bathing or showering with contaminated
groundwater, nor does it account for children’s exposure due to direct
air inhalation or the surface water pathways.  Direct air inhalation and
surface water pathways did not appear to be significant pathways leading
to adverse noncancer health effects, for the adult exposures modeled
(except for formaldehyde; but see discussion in section 5.1.2 on
formaldehyde).  

The DRASv2 model was released in April 2002.  In September 2002, EPA
published a set of recommended children’s exposure factors.  These
recommended exposure factors were under development when the DRASv2
model was released.

To better reflect the potential noncancer health effects that children
could experience due to ingesting groundwater contaminated with
constituents from the F019 waste, we develop an adjustment factor that
reflects two of the differences between children and the adult that was
modeled using DRASv2: their body weights, and their drinking water
intakes.  The age ranges, body weights, and drinking water intakes of
the children who would be using the groundwater as a drinking water
source determine the magnitude of the adjustment factor.  We develop an
adjustment factor for a child who begins using the groundwater as
drinking water at the age of six months and continues drinking it until
just before his/her fourth birthday, has a mean body weight (during that
time interval) of 12.7 kilograms, and (at the 90th percentile level
drinking water intake) drinks 0.72 liters per day (compared to the
adult’s assumed body weight of 72 kilograms, and approximately 84th
percentile drinking water intake of 2 liters per day).  The ratio of the
child’s exposure to the modeled adult’s exposure (in other words,
the adjustment factor) is 2.04.  Different choices of age group, body
weight percentile, and/or drinking water percentile could affect the
numerical value of the adjustment factor in either an upward or downward
direction.

Thus, to reflect a young child’s exposure due to groundwater
ingestion, we must adjust upward by a factor of 2.04 the groundwater
ingestion portion of the estimated hazard quotients for the Table 7
constituents with estimated hazard quotients at or above 0.1.   

The DRASv2 model indicates that three of the constituents (out of the
thirteen with estimated hazard quotients at or above 0.1) cause other
groundwater exposures besides ingestion.  The three constituents are
mercury, xylenes and naphthalenes.   For these three, we cannot simply
multiply the Table 7 estimated hazard quotient by 2.04.  For naphthalene
and xylene, the groundwater inhalation pathway is responsible for the
majority of the modeled person’s exposure.  We apply the adjustment
factor of 2.04 for the groundwater ingestion portion of the total
modeled exposure, and the dermal exposure from bathing already accounts
for children’s exposure.  However, we cannot readily adjust the
modeled exposures to account for children’s exposure via inhalation of
constituents volatilized from groundwater used in bathing or showering. 
We anticipate that most children bathe, rather than shower, and there is
no model for bathing exposure that we are aware of.  Applying the
adjustment factor for the groundwater ingestion portion of the total
modeled exposure for these two constituents does not change the
estimated hazard quotient shown in Table 7 for naphthalene, because most
of the estimated hazard quotient reflects the adult’s exposure via
inhalation due to showering.  For xylene, although most of the estimated
hazard quotient reflects the adult’s exposure via inhalation due to
showering, adjusting the groundwater portion of the total modeled
exposure to account for the child age 0-4 changes the rounded estimated
hazard quotient from 0.1 to 0.2.  For mercury, we do not adjust the
estimated hazard quotient since it is due to groundwater inhalation
rather than ingestion.  

Table 8 shows the original (adult) hazard quotients for the eleven
constituents with groundwater exposures of concern, for which we
adjusted hazard quotients to reflect the young child’s exposure. 
These adjusted estimated hazard quotients reflect the exposure, via
ingestion of groundwater, of a 12.7 kilogram child who drinks 0.72
liters per day, and also the dermal exposure via bathing with
groundwater, and soil ingestion, of a 15 kilogram child with a skin
surface area of 7,900 square centimeters who ingests 200 mg soil/day.

Table 8.  Chemical constituents' high-end estimated hazard quotients

at 90,000 cubic yards disposed (adjusted for children's exposure

by a factor of 2.04)

Constituent	CAS#	Hazard quotient	Hazard quotient

 	 	adult	child

Detected in both totals and leachate samples:

Nickelnickel	7440020	1.7	3

Zinczinc	7440666	0.54	 1

Tintin	7440315	0.41	0.8

Xylenesxylenes	1330207	0.12	0.2

Arsenicarsenic	7440382	1.2(0.12)	2(0.2)

Acrylamideacrylamide	79061	0.94 (0.0023)	2(0.005)

Cadmiumcadmium	7440439	0.16	0.3

Antimonyantimony	7440360	0.31	0.6

Seleniumselenium	7782492	0.14	0.3

Thalliumthallium	7440280	.84(0.063)	2(0.1)

Naphthalenenaphthalene	91203	0.22	0.2

	Note 1: adult results shown at two significant figures for calculation
purposes;

 child results rounded to one significant figure.

	Note 2: tin used intermediate (rather than chronic) value for oral
reference dose 

Note 3: acrylamide, arsenic, and thallium results presented for

 nominal maximum concentration; parenthetical results are for

likely true maximum concentration (see discussion of results in text)

High end results discussion

The DRASv2 modeled movement for the 13 constituents identified in
section 5.1.1 as having high end estimated hazard quotients at or above
0.1 indicates that the hazard from most, if realized, would occur via
the groundwater pathway (constituents would leach from the waste into
groundwater underneath the landfill, and then be ingested or inhaled by
humans using the groundwater as a drinking water or bath/shower water
source).  In one case (formaldehyde), the modeled movement indicated
that the hazard, if realized, would occur via the air pathway.  The
DRASv2 model groundwater pathway results are influenced by the leachate
concentrations used as model inputs.  The DRASv2 model air pathway
results are influenced by the totals concentrations used as model
inputs.  Thus we undertook a more careful review of the analytical
laboratory procedures used to measure the leachate and totals
concentrations of these 13 constituents.

	

After performing this review, we conclude that the maximum detected
values used in this initial DRASv2 modeling were anomalous for a number
of these constituents.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 From the summary of
analytical data provided in the spreadsheets in the docket, we find that
the results for some constituents appeared to be more reliable when more
selective and/or sensitive methods were used.  The constituents most
affected by method choice were: acrylamide, formaldehyde, arsenic, and
thallium.  There were also some limitations in some of the data for
mercury (described below) and fluoride (described in section 8). 

Acrylamide.  As described in the final delisting for six facilities in
Michigan (68 FR 44652, July 30, 2003), samples of F019 sludge were
initially analyzed for acrylamide using Method 8316 (EPA 1994). 
However, the data validation report stated that this was not
sufficiently selective for acrylamide in these wastes.  (Acrylamide is a
potential trace contaminant in the flocculent-aide used in wastewater
treatment plants.)  Six facilities completed further analyses by a more
sensitive method, Method 8032A (EPA 1994) using Selected Ion Monitoring
and did not detect any acrylamide (in 28 samples analyzed at six
different plants).  The reported detection limits ranged from 0.0004 to
0.0007 mg/L.  Some facilities also submitted a detailed mass balance
that concluded that the maximum possible acrylamide that could be in the
sludge would be much lower than the reported detections.  Based on the
results for the facilities that analyzed for acrylamide use the more
selective method, EPA determined that the previous analytical results
were not meaningful; the initial method used was not selective and may
have detected chemicals other than acrylamide.  Using the higher of the
two detection limits, 0.0007 mg/L value as the maximum value (rather
than the 0.29 mg/L value that we used in the initial analysis), yields a
hazard quotient of 0.002 (shown in parentheses in Table 7).  

Arsenic and Thallium.  As described in the final delisting for six
facilities in Michigan (68 FR 44652, July 30, 2003), initial analyses of
samples of F019 sludge for arsenic and thallium yielded TCLP levels of
potential concern.   These analyses used method 6010B (EPA 1994).  
Samples were reanalyzed for these constituents using the more sensitive
Method 6020, and the results were below the delisting levels.  The
delistings were granted, based on the results from Method 6020 analyses.
 The analytical data submitted for these petitions were validated by an
independent third party using EPA data review guidelines.

Method 6020 (Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry) is more
sensitive and more specific than Method 6010B (Inductively Coupled
Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry).  The Inductively Coupled
Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry method measures the emissions from
different metal ions, which overlap for some elements.  Such overlap
requires correction for spectral interferences (e.g., aluminum may
interfere with measurement of arsenic and thallium).  The detector in
the Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry method measures the
molecular weight of the atoms produced, and therefore, determines their
identity.  Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry is also subject
to some interferences due to ions that have the same molecular weight as
the target mass ion (isobaric interferences).   However, the Inductively
Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry method is preferred for the analysis of
metals such as arsenic and thallium because it generally yields lower
detection limits, and its detection method provides a more definitive
identification through mass spectra information.

Many of the detections reported using Method 6010B were at or below the
detection limit and were attributed by petitioners to false positives
from interferences from the matrix or other analytes present.  In
addition, an industry group submitted a discussion of the merits of
Method 6020 over Method 6010B. In any case, EPA believes that the
results from Method 6020 are more reliable; Table 9 includes the
analytical results for samples that were analyzed by this method.  Table
7 includes, in parentheses, the calculated hazard quotients using
samples that were analyzed using Method 6020.  

Table 9.  Adjusted maximum concentrations for selected constituents

	Constituent	CAS#

maximum

adjusted 

	in docket

maximum

	spreadsheet

	mg/L

mg/L

Leachate:

acrylamide	79061

0.29

0.0007

arsenic	7440382

0.48

0.048

formaldehyde	50000

16

3

mercury	7439976

0.484

0.001

thallium	7440280

0.27

0.02

maximum

adjusted 

	in docket

maximum

	spreadsheet

	mg/kg

mg/kg

Totals:

formaldehyde	50000

19,100

142

	Note: acrylamide's adjusted maximum is the higher of two reported
detection limits

Formaldehyde.  The analytical data for formaldehyde generally showed low
totals levels in sludge samples (average 18.8 mg/kg), except for data
for two facilities (General Motors, Oklahoma City, OK and General
Motors, Lansing, MI).  For these two facilities, samples analyzed for
formaldehyde totals using a wet chemistry method yielded much higher
results (average 9,776 mg/kg).  The facility in Lansing, MI, did further
analysis using a more selective method (High Performance Liquid
Chromatography, Method 8315 (EPA 1994)), and the total formaldehyde
levels dropped 100-fold.  The Lansing, MI, petitioner noted that the wet
chemistry method is subject to significant positive interferences from
other chemicals and used the HPLC method in subsequent verification
testing.  The facility in Oklahoma City did not pursue a delisting, and
did not do any further analysis.  

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 We received additional information from a
representative of General Motors Corporation that described the
potential problems with the wet chemistry method.   The document notes
that, not only is the wet chemistry method less selective, this method
also requires that the sample be heated (~215o F) to distill off
formaldehyde.  Formaldehyde may be present in sludges if formaldehyde
resins are used in the automotive painting process.  However, the
formaldehyde-based resins may also be present in the waste sludge.  When
samples are distilled, the resins are heated and release significant
additional formaldehyde during the distillation.  This formaldehyde is
trapped with the distillate and is erroneously measured as free
formaldehyde.

Formaldehyde is extremely soluble in water, and is expected to partition
into wastewater, rather than concentrate in the sludge.  In addition,
formaldehyde should extract nearly completely into the aqueous phase in
the TCLP tests.  Thus, the total level measured in a solid sample should
be very close to 20 times the concentration measured in the TCLP extract
from the sample (the TCLP method requires extraction of solid samples
with 20 times the weight of the solids; see Method 1311 (EPA 1994)). 
The levels of formaldehyde measured in the totals analysis at the two
facilities with anomalous results yielded ratios of totals to TCLP
values that were much higher than the expected ratio of about 20 (1,000
to 3,600-fold at the Oklahoma City facility and 1,200 to 10,000-fold at
the Lansing, MI, plant).   Therefore, the Agency believes that the
totals analyses for formaldehyde at these two sites are not indicative
of the level of formaldehyde in the F019 sludge that is available for
release at normal temperatures.  Similarly, the leachate analyses for
several samples containing formaldehyde used the same wet chemistry
method.  Omitting the wet chemistry leachate values from the
observations shown in the spreadsheet in the docket yields a new
‘maximum” formaldehyde leachate value of 3 mg/L.

Table 9 shows that, by omitting the data from the wet chemistry method
at these two facilities, the maximum detected value for “total”
formaldehyde is 142 mg/kg.  Table 7 includes, in parentheses, the
calculated hazard quotient using this adjusted maximum total
formaldehyde result.

Mercury.  The sample with highest TCLP mercury value (0.484 mg/L)
appears to be anomalous.  The corresponding totals level of mercury in
this sample was 0.67 mg/kg (see data in the spreadsheet in the docket
for General Motors, Oklahoma City).  Using a conservative dilution
factor of 20 for the TCLP test, the maximum TCLP value would be < 0.0335
mg/L.  Thus, the reported TCLP data point appears erroneous, especially
in light of the nondetects seen in other TCLP results for wastes with
similar total mercury values.  Discounting this data point, there were
only 3 other detected TCLP values for mercury, the highest concentration
being 0.001 mg/L, which yields a hazard quotient of 0.005 (noted in
parentheses in Table 7).

With re-calculated estimated high end hazard quotients well below 0.1,
we drop acrylamide, formaldehyde and mercury from further analysis.  We
retain arsenic and thallium, however, with re-calculated estimates of
high end hazard quotients of 0.1 and 0.08, respectively.

Considering children’s exposure, and using the Tables 4 and 5 results
(including re-calculated results in parentheses for acrylamide, arsenic,
formaldehyde and thallium) of  

estimated high end hazard quotients that are above 0.1, yields a
narrowed list of 10 constituents of potential concern:  antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, naphthalene, nickel, selenium, thallium, tin, xylenes
and zinc).   Naphthalene and xylene are from Table 7, while the
remaining eight are from Table 8. 

For these ten constituents, two (nickel and zinc) equal or exceed a
hazard quotient of one.  For eight of the ten, the only exposure pathway
of concern was ingestion of groundwater.  Xylenes and naphthalene had
additional exposure pathways of concern (besides groundwater ingestion)
of dermal contact during bathing, and groundwater inhalation during
showering.  

5.1.3   Central tendency results and discussion

We use the narrowed list of 10 constituents from section 5.1.2 to
perform a central tendency analysis.  (The constituents with high end
estimates below the range of concern would have central tendency
estimates that are even lower than estimates for these ten constituents,
and thus, we need not analyze them.)  We use Table 10 analytical values
for median totals and leachate concentrations.  The remaining model
inputs are the same as shown in Appendix B.

Table 10.  Detection frequencies and concentrations for constituents of
potential concern (including

selected data sets based on particular analytical methods used)

	Constituent	CAS#	 	leachate	 	 	 

90th

detection 	median	mean	percentile	maximum

	 	 	frequency	mg/L	mg/L	mg/L	mg/L

nickel	7440020	163/163	17	22	47	83

	zinc	7440666	143/145	4.6	17	52	270

	tin	7440315	79/98	6.9	11	21	82

	xylenes	1330207	44/138	0.054	0.2	0.22	4.5

	arsenic - all data	7440382	81/146	0.025	0.098	0.29	0.48

	arsenic - method 6020	7440382	21/21	0.011	0.015	0.025	0.048

	cadmium	7440439	37/136	0.008	0.017	0.021	0.16

	antimony	7440360	36/104	0.035	0.064	0.14	0.29

	selenium	7782492	46/112	0.22	0.2	0.39	0.56

	thallium - all data	7440280	25/99	0.062	0.086	0.2	0.27

	thallium - method 6020	7440280	8/8	0.0065	0.0087	0.019	0.02

	naphthalene	91203	34/117	0.0035	0.016	0.021	0.29

	Constituent	CAS#	 	totals	 	 	 

90th

detection 	median	mean	percentile	maximum

	 	 	frequency	mg/kg	mg/kg	mg/kg	mg/kg

nickel	7440020	106/106	1300	1600	3400	5720

	zinc	7440666	89/89	7100	7900	15000	17600

	tin	7440315	82/83	240	490	930	2310

	xylenes	1330207	68/89	2.2	5.4	14	42

	arsenic - all data	7440382	47/84	7.9	8.5	18	25

	cadmium	7440439	41/105	1.1	4.1	20	21.5

	antimony	7440360	25/88	5.5	15	30	174

	selenium	7782492	18/83	2.5	5.1	14	21

	thallium - all data	7440280	11/84	1.1	1.6	1.5	7.1

	naphthalene	91203	7/84	21	22	32	34

	Note 1: means, medians and 90th percentiles calculated from detected
values only

Note 2: means, medians and 90th percentile rounded to two significant
figures

Note 3: The 90th percentile value is calculated from a rank order 

  of the available data (using Excel® PERCENTILE formula).

  

Table 11 shows the results from running DRASv2 at the central tendency
settings of 1088 cubic yards/year for 20 years.  However, the results
shown in the column headed “raw results” are at the high end
drinking water intake of 2 liters/day (approximately the 84th
percentile).  To better reflect a central tendency drinking water
intake, we apply an adjustment factor of 0.75 to the raw results, in
order to represent an adult with average body weight (72 kilograms) who
drinks water at the mean drinking water intake of 21 milliliters per
kilogram of body weight per day, or 1.5 liters per day (EPA 1997b, Table
3-30).  To estimate a child's drinking water intake, we apply an
adjustment factor of 0.9 to the raw results, in order to represent a
child aged 6 months to <4 years with average body weight (12.7
kilograms) who drinks water at the mean drinking water intake (on
average during that 3 1/2 year period) of 0.32 liters/day (EPA 2002b, p.
4-16).  We only apply these adjustment factors to the results for
antimony, arsenic, cadmium, nickel, selenium, thallium, tin and zinc,
because the DRASv2 model indicates exposures via the groundwater
ingestion route only.  The majority of the groundwater pathway exposure
from naphthalene and xylenes is from inhalation during
bathing/showering, and thus even adjusting the small contribution to
total exposure that the DRASv2 model indicates occurs via groundwater
ingestion would not make a significant difference in the central
tendency estimates for these two constituents.  In addition, we do not
adjust any of the variable settings for groundwater inhalation or
groundwater dermal exposure to represent central tendency values,
because the extra effort to do so would not have any significant effect
on the central tendency estimates.

Table 11.  Estimated central tendency hazard quotients for constituents
of potential concern

  at 21,760 cubic yards disposed

	Constituent	CAS#	 	adjusted for	adjusted for

raw	mean drinking	mean drinking

results	water intake	water intake

 	 	(adult)	(adult)	(child)

nickel	7440020	0.1	0.09	0.1

zinc	7440666	0.003	0.002	0.003

tin	7440315	0.01	0.009	0.01

xylenes	1330207	0.0007

arsenic	7440382	0.01	0.008	0.009

cadmium	7440439	0.003	0.002	0.003

antimony	7440360	0.01	0.01	0.01

selenium	7782492	0.02	0.02	0.02

thallium	7440280	0.01	0.007	0.009

naphthalene	91203	0.001

Note: estimates rounded to one significant figure

Table 11 estimates reflect exposures of the 72-kilogram adult described
in section 5.1, and the exposure, via ingestion of groundwater, of a
12.7 kilogram child who drinks 0.32 liters per day, and also the dermal
exposure via bathing with groundwater, and soil ingestion, of a 15
kilogram child with a skin surface area of 7,900 square centimeters who
ingests 200 mg soil/day.

5.2.   Lined landfill analysis

Section 5.1.2 identifies 10 constituents of potential concern, or COPCs,
of .  After performing the DRASv2 evaluation, we reviewed the DRASv2
modeled scenario and the pathways by which one (nickel) had an estimated
the DRASv2 high end hazard quotient that exceeded one.  The DRASv2
modeled scenario indicates that nickelevaluation indicated the 10 COPCs
would move and affect human health via the groundwater pathway.  The
DRASv2 high end evaluation indicates that all of the potential adverse
human health effects would occur as a result of movement of nickel from
the waste in the landfill into groundwater underlying the landfill. 
Thus, we examine the DRASv2 modeled scenario of unlined landfill
conditions more closely.  Specifically, we are interested in knowing
whether modeling lined, rather than unlined, landfills would affect
estimates of potential health effects posed by these 10 COPCs.

	Changes to landfill requirements in the United States (e.g., the
promulgation of federal regulations that require municipal solid waste
landfills to meet certain leakage prevention requirements; see 40 CFR
258.40), have caused substantial changes in landfill practices.  The
majority of municipal solid waste landfills, and probably many landfills
that accept nonhazardous industrial solid waste but not municipal solid
waste, now

We review two analytical schemes that incorporate information about the
effectiveness of landfill liners in reducing “infiltration,” or
water that flows downward through the bottom of the landfill and enters
the groundwater system beneath the landfill.  The two schemes are
designed, built, and operated with liner systems that typically include
composite linersthe Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM),
and leachate collection systems.  The potential risks found by the DRAS
version 2.0 modeling were all from groundwater exposure pathways.  As a
result, current landfills with liner systems and leachate collection
systems should dramatically lessen impacts on local groundwater
conditions.  DRAS does not have an option to model the impact of liners
on landfill releases.  Therefore, we examine the potential impact of
liners using other tools.

We review modeling results that incorporate information about the
effectiveness of landfill liners in reducing “infiltration,” or
water that flows downward through the bottom of the landfill and enters
the groundwater system beneath the landfill.  We used the Industrial
Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM) tothe analysis performed for a
recent EPA rulemaking that listed certain wastes from the dyes and
pigments industry as hazardous, under certain conditions (dyes and
pigments analysis, or D&P).   These two analytical schemes show the
impact of landfill liners on infiltration, and thus the effect that
landfill liners have on slowing the downward movement of constituents
from the landfill into the groundwater system underneath the landfill. 
Slowing the downward movement has the practical effect of reducing the
rate at which chemical constituents enter the groundwater system.  A
reduced entry rate results in less chemical constituent moving in the
groundwater (over a given time interval), and thus lower constituent
exposures (and reduced hazard and risk estimates) for the groundwater
users.  We also examine the results of the risk analysis completed for a
recent EPA rulemaking that listed certain wastes from the dyes and
pigments industry as hazardous, under certain conditions (dyes and
pigments analysis, or D&P).   

5.2.1   Results of IWEM Tier 1 Evaluation

We use Tier 1 of the IWEM model (EPA 2002c, EPA 2002d) to evaluate the
impact of landfill liners on predicted human health effects.  Tier 1 is
a very simple screening mode in which users enter the chemical
constituents of interest, together with their leachate concentrations in
the waste, and receive output regarding the “allowable” levels in
the waste that correspond with the same risk management criteria that we
used in the DRASv2 evaluation for noncancer health effects, along with
an indication of whether the landfill scenario is protective of human
health at the modeled leachate concentration.

	

For comparison purposes, we use the same maximum leachate concentration
that we use in the DRASv2 high end evaluation.

Unlike DRASv2, IWEM’s groundwater ingestion equations We are able to
use IWEM to model the exposures only nine of the 10 constituents of
potential concern (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, naphthalene, nickel,
selenium, thallium, xylenes and zinc).  We use the same maximum leachate
concentrations that we use in the DRASv2 high end evaluation.

Unlike DRASv2, the individual IWEM models for groundwater ingestion
exposures is a child from birth to age 6 who drinks 42.6 milliliters of
water per kilogram body weight per day during that time interval.  IWEM
models the exposure that adults have via inhalation of mercury and
organic constituents that volatilize from groundwater used as shower
water.  The modeled adult weighs 71.8 kilograms, and breathes 13.25
cubic meters of air per day.   

Disposing of waste containing nickel these nine constituents at the
their maximum leachate valuevalues in an unlined landfill would not be
protective of human health, according to the assumptions and the
reference doses and reference concentrations used in the IWEM Tier 1
software.  

Table 12.  IWEM Tier 1 input leachate concentrations and unlined
landfill protectiveness

	Constituent	CAS#	Input leachate concentration	Protective?

 	 	mg/L	Yes/No

	antimony	7440360	0.29	no

arsenic	7440382	0.048	See Note 1

cadmium	7440439	0.16	no

naphthalene	91203	0.29	no

nickel	7440020	83	no

selenium	7782492	0.56	no

thallium	7440280	0.27	no

xylenes	1330207	3.7	no

zinc	7440666	270	no

	Note 1: arsenic's controlling effect is listed as cancer rather than
non-cancer effects

	IWEM Tier 1 also shows results as “allowable levels” in the waste
leachate samples, that correspond to the risk management
criterioncriteria used in the IWEM model (the same noncancer risk
management criterioncriteria used in DRASv2).  DRASv2 also calculates
allowable levels.  Thus, comparing the allowable levels of IWEM Tier 1
(unlined) for noncancer effects to the DRASv2 allowable levels (unlined)
for noncancer effects indicates numerically how the assumptions used in
IWEM Tier 1 compare to the assumptions used in DRASv2.  According to the
IWEM Tier 1 model, 

Table 13.  IWEM Tier 1 unlined landfill allowable levels,

DRASv2 high end allowable levels, and ratio of IWEM to DRASv2 allowable
levels

Constituent	CAS#	IWEM	DRASv2	Ratio:

allowable	allowable	IWEM/

level	level	DRASv2

 	 	mg/L	mg/L	 

antimony	7440360	0.023	0.46	0.05

arsenic	7440382	N/A	0.19	N/A

cadmium	7440439	0.027	.49	0.055

naphthalene	91203	0.042	1.2	0.035

nickel	7440020	1.1	24.5	0.045

selenium	7782492	0.3	1.9	0.16

thallium	7440280	0.0058	0.12	0.049

xylenes	1330207	3.1	27	0.115

zinc	7440666	16	250	0.065

Note 1: arsenic's controlling effect is listed as cancer rather than

noncancer effects.  N/A means Not Applicable.

	

Note that, in the allowable level of nickel in leachate from Table 13
comparison, we adjust the waste, disposed in an unlined landfill, would
be 1.1 mg Ni/liter of leachate.  According toDRASv2-calculated allowable
levels for antimony, arsenic, cadmium, nickel, selenium, thallium and
zinc to reflect the DRASv2 model,child’s groundwater ingestion;
however, we do not adjust the allowable level of nickel in leachate
fromDRASv2 allowable levels for naphthalene and xylenes since those
constituents cause exposure via the waste, disposed in an unlined
landfill, would be 24.5 mg Ni/litergroundwater inhalation route as well
as groundwater ingestion (see discussion of leachate. this point in
section 5.1.1).

The IWEM Tier 1 results for a single-lined landfill and composite-lined
landfill are not comparable with the DRASv2 results, since the DRASv2
evaluation models an unlined landfill.  The IWEM Tier 1 results indicate
that disposing of waste containing nickelxylenes and selenium at the
maximum leachate value (83 mg Ni/liter of leachate)values in a
single-lined landfill would not be problematic, since (while the
allowable level in leachate calculated by IWEM Tier 1 is 3.3 mg Ni/liter
of leachate.  The IWEM remaining seven constituents would be); the IWEM
Tier 1 results indicate that disposing of waste containing nickelall
nine constituents at the maximum leachate valuevalues in a
composite-lined landfill would not be problematic, since the allowable
level in leachate calculated by IWEM Tier 1 is 1000 mg Ni/liter of
leachate.  Thus, according to the IWEM model, the protection afforded by
a composite-lined landfill is sufficient to alleviate concerns about
potential adverse health effects that could occur due to the presence of
these nine constituents in F019 waste, at the maximum leachate
concentrations that were modeled.  

Table 14.  IWEM Tier 1 input leachate concentrations

and single/composite lined landfill protectiveness

	Constituent	CAS#	 	 	 

Input	Single	Composite

Leachate	Liner	Liner

Concentration	Protective?	Protective?

 	 	mg/L	Yes/No	Yes/No

antimony	7440360	0.29	No	Yes

arsenic	7440382	0.048	N/A	N/A

cadmium	7440439	0.16	No	Yes

naphthalene	91203	0.29	No	Yes

nickel	7440020	83	No	Yes

selenium	7782492	0.56	Yes	Yes

thallium	7440280	0.27	No	Yes

xylenes	1330207	3.7	Yes	Yes

zinc	7440666	270	No	Yes

Note 1: arsenic's controlling effect is listed as cancer rather than

noncancer effects.  N/A means Not Applicable.

	

Comparing the allowable levels of the IWEM Tier 1 single liner scenario
to the IWEM unlined scenario indicates numerically what is the impact of
a single liner on the infiltration rate, and the resulting reduction in
chemical constituent exposure to the groundwater user.  For nickel, the
IWEM single liner allowable level of 3.3 mg Ni/liter of leachate is a
factor of 3 greater than the IWEM unlined landfill allowable level of
1.1 mg Ni/liter of leachate.  :

Table 15.  IWEM Tier 1 single liner landfill allowable levels,

	IWEM Tier 1 unlined landfill allowable levels, and ratio of 

	IWEM single liner to unlined allowable        levels

Constituent	CAS#	IWEM single liner	IWEM unlined	Ratio:

allowable	allowable	IWEM single liner/

level	level	IWEM unlined

 	 	mg/L	mg/L	 

antimony	7440360	0.068	0.023	3

arsenic	7440382	N/A	N/A	N/A

cadmium	7440439	0.083	0.027	3

naphthalene	91203	0.12	0.042	3

nickel	7440020	3.3	1.1	3

selenium	7782492	1	0.3	3

thallium	7440280	0.019	0.0058	3

xylenes	1330207	8.6	3.1	3

zinc	7440666	51	16	3

Note 1: arsenic's controlling effect is listed as cancer rather than

	noncancer effects.  N/A means Not Applicable.

Comparing the allowable levels of the IWEM Tier 1 composite liner
scenario to the IWEM unlined scenario indicates numerically what is the
impact of a composite liner on the infiltration rate, and the resulting
reduction in chemical constituent exposure to the groundwater user:

Table 16.  IWEM Tier 1 composite liner landfill allowable levels,

IWEM Tier 1 unlined landfill allowable levels, and ratio of IWEM 

	composite to unlined allowable levels

Constituent	CAS#	IWEM composite	IWEM	Ratio:

liner	 unlined	IWEM composite

allowable	allowable	 liner/

level	level	IWEM unlined

 	 	mg/L	mg/L	 

antimony	7440360	1000	0.023	43478

arsenic	7440382	N/A	N/A	N/A

cadmium	7440439	1	0.027	37

naphthalene	91203	1000	0.042	23810

Nickel	7440020	1000	1.1	909

selenium	7782492	1	0.3	3

thallium	7440280	1000	0.0058	172414

xylenes	1330207	1000	3.1	323

Zinc	7440666	1000	16	63

Note 1: arsenic's controlling effect is listed as cancer rather than

	noncancer effects.  N/A means Not Applicable.

5.2.2   Results of D&P Evaluation

The analysis of landfill liners for the “dyes and pigments” (D&P)
listing (EPA 2003c, p. 2-4) indicates that clay-lined, synthetic-lined,
and geomembrane/geocomposite-lined landfills afford additional
protection from chemical constituent exposures via the groundwater
pathway, compared to the unlined landfill scenario.  We examined the
modeling performed for lined landfills in the recent listing rule for
dye and pigment production wastes (February 24, 2005, 70 FR 9138).  In
the D&P rule, EPA established a conditional exemption for wastes
disposed in landfills meeting liner design requirements, similar to the
exemption proposed for F019 sludge from motor vehicle manufacturers.

The D&P analysis used the same risk management criteria as in the DRASv2
evaluation and the IWEM Tier 1 analysis.  The D&P modeling results for a
landfill with a composite liner (i.e., a liner consisting of a synthetic
liner overlying some type of clay liner) yielded significantly lower
risks from potential groundwater releases compared to an unlined
landfill.  The D&P analysis calculated allowable levels that were higher
(i.e., lower risk) than the allowable levels obtained from modeling an
unlined landfill or a landfill with a simple clay liner.  Table 1617
illustrates the added protection afforded in a landfill with a composite
liner compared to a landfill with no liner for the four inorganic
constituents that we modeled in both the DRASv2 and the D&P analysis.

Table 12.17.  Ratio of D&P analysis composite lined landfill allowable
levels

to D&P unlined landfill allowable levels

Constituent	CAS#	Ratio:

	D&P composite liner/

	D&P unlined

	 	 	 

Barium	7440393	149

	Copper	7440508	133

	Lead	7439921	269

	Zinc	7440666	183

Data from EPA 2003c, Table 2-1b, page 2-4 for results for no liner
(“NL”) 

	and synthetic composite liner (“SL”)

	

5.2.3 Discussion of IWEM and D&P analyses

ComparingTable 13, which compares the results of the IWEM Tier 1
allowable levels for disposal in an unlined landfill with the results of
the high-end DRASv2 allowable levels for disposal in an unlined
landfill, indicates that some of the IWEM Tier 1 assumptions cause a
consistently more stringent interpretation of allowable constituent
levels than the DRASv2 assumptions.  It is likely that many differences
between the IWEM Tier 1 and DRASv2 models affect the differences in the
results.  For example, the DRAS model uses waste volume as a specific
input to the model, while the IWEM results rest on an assumption that
the entire landfill’s waste volume is composed of the waste under
study.  Other examples of reasons for the numerical differences in the
ratio of IWEM Tier 1 to DRASv2 are:

- differences in the well location (IWEM Tier 1 models a well located
150 meters from the landfill while DRASv2 models a well located at
varying locations within one mile downgradient from the landfill)

- for naphthalene and xylenes, the exposure routes evaluated (IWEM Tier
1 does not evaluate dermal exposure from showering or bathing, while
DRASv2 does)

- for naphthalene and xylenes, differences in the
inhalation-from-showering equations used

- differences in for xylenes, the inhalation reference concentrations
used

concentration for xylenes is 0.4 mg/m3 in IWEM Tier 1, while it is 0.1
mg/m3 in DRASv2.

For nickel, 

Table 15 shows that IWEM Tier 1 indicates that a landfill with a single
liner (defined in IWEM as “a layer of compacted clay three feet thick,
with a hydraulic conductivity of 1x10-7 meters per second”) affords
protection over an unlined landfill by a factor of three, for the nine
COPCs modeled.

Table 1216 shows that IWEM Tier 1 indicates that a landfill with a
composite liner (defined in IWEM as a one to 1.5 millimeter thick
geomembrane flexible membrane layer made from HDPE (high density
polyethylene), overlying a geosynthetic (bentonite) clay layer 6
millimeters thick, with two geotextile outer layers (one above and one
below the bentonite)), affords a widely varying margin of protection
(ranging from a factor of 3 to more than 170,000) over an unlined
landfill, for most of the nine modeled COPCs.  Note that the allowable
levels for cadmium and selenium for a composite liner were capped at
their TC levels (1 mg/L for selenium and cadmium; see 40 CFR 261.24);
therefore the smaller ratios for these chemicals reflect this limit.

Table 17 shows that the D&P analysis of certain metal constituents
indicates that composite-lined landfills afford a significant factor of
protection, compared to unlined landfills.  The table shows that the
ratios of the allowable constituent levels for composite-lined landfills
to allowable constituent levels for unlined landfills ranged from 133 to
269 for the metals evaluated in both the DRASv2 and the D&P analyses. 
In modeling a synthetic composite liner, the D&P analysis used
infiltration rates collected from municipal landfills.  The composite
liners for these landfills consisted of geomembrane liners overlying a
compacted clay liner or a geosynthetic clay liner. A compacted clay
liner  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  is composed of natural mineral materials, a
bentonite-soil blend, and other materials placed and compacted in layers
(typically at least two feet thick).  A geosynthetic clay liner is a
relatively thin layer of processed clay (typically bentonite) fixed
between two layers of geotextile.  The IWEM Tier 1 model also uses
infiltration rates collected from landfills; however, IWEM uses
infiltration rates from a more limited set of the composite liner
systems, i.e., a geomembrane overlying a geosynthetic clay liner.

Eight of the ten COPCs for F019 sludges are metals or metalloids.  While
the only metal COPC in the DRASv2 evaluation that was also modeled in
the D&P analysis is zinc, the ratios for the other metals are similar
and are a further indication of the protective effect resulting from a
composite liner.

6.  Potential carcinogenic risk to humans

In order to determine whether there is a potential carcinogenic risk
from constituents present in the waste, we use a criterion, or
guideline, of what an acceptable exposure is.  We estimate whether a
person’s exposure to a particular constituent for thirty years would
be likely to result in that person’s developing cancer.  In
mathematical terms, we represent this as the probability of an
individual developing cancer.  The criterion, or guideline, that we use
is to evaluate whether the constituent levels in the waste would cause
an individual’s lifetime risk to exceed a probability of one in one
hundred thousand. Mathematically, this is shown as 0.00001, 10-5, or
sometimes, 1E-05.

	

6.1   Unlined landfill analysis

To calculate the cancer probability, we use DRASv2 to represent the
movement of chemical constituents from the waste in the landfill toward
human receptors, and to develop estimates of the doses of those
constituents to which nearby human receptors would be exposed.  Appendix
B shows the specific model inputs that we used.  If you are interested
in running the DRASv2 model to see how we estimated the results shown in
this document, you can replicate our methodology by using our model
inputs.  If you use the default model inputs in DRASv2, instead of the
inputs shown in Appendix B, you will get results that will differ
slightly, for some constituents, from the results we present in this
document.  You must set the “carcinogen/noncarcinogen” field at
“carcinogen” in order to obtain the cancer probability results in
the output screens.  Note that for correct results you must run DRASv2
in “forward-calculate” mode.

For cancer effects, the numerical indication of a constituent’s
potency as a carcinogen when ingested orally is the oral cancer slope
factor, or oral CSF.  When inhaled, the numerical indication of a
constituent’s potency as a carcinogen is the inhalation cancer slope
factor (sometimes referred to as Inhalation CSF, or Inh CSF).  12 13 of
the Table 3 constituents have either an oral or an inhalation CSF (or
both).  Thus, it was only possible to evaluate these 1213 constituents
for potential cancer risk.  

Table 13 18 shows the oral and inhalation cancer slope factors we used
in our evaluation.  The DRASv2 model requires that the cancer potency
values be input with the same units that cancer slope factors typically
have.  If inhalation unit risk factors (an alternative way of showing
cancer potency) are the only numerical indicators of cancer potency
available, we convert them to inhalation cancer slope factors using an
assumed body weight of 50.6 kilograms and an assumed daily inhalation
volume of 12.2 cubic meters of air.

Table 13.18.  Carcinogen slope factors (CSFs) and Inhalation unit risk
factors (URFs)

Constituent	CAS#	Oral CSF	URF	Inhalation CSF

Carcinogens detected in both totals and leachate samples:

	nickel (refinery dust)

	0.24	1

formaldehyde	50000

0.013	0.054

cobalt	7440484

2.8	11.6

arsenic	7440382	1.5	4.3	18

hexavalent chromium	18540299

0.12	0.5

acrylamide	79061	4.5	1.3	5.4

cadmium	7440439

1.8	7.5

bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate	117817	0.014

beryllium	7440417

2.4	10

dichloroethane, 1,2-	107062	0.091	0.026	0.11

methylene chloride	75092	0.0075	0.00047	0.002

Detected only in totals samples (not in leachate samples):

	chloroform	67663	Note 2	0.023	0.095

benzene	71432	0.015 to 0.055	0.0022 to 0.0078	0.021

Note 1: units for Oral CSF are (kilograms body weight - day)/(milligrams
of constituent)

Note 2: exposures below the non-cancer Oral Reference Dose not expected
to cause

   cancer (see EPA 2005c2004c entry for chloroform)

Note 3: units for URF are (cubic meters air)/(milligrams of constituent)

	Note 4: units for Inhalation CSF are (kilograms body weight -
day)/(milligrams of 

   constituent).  Inhalation CSF derived by converting URF for 50.6 kg
body weight

   individual breathing 12.2 cubic meters air per day.

Using DRASv2, we assess the potential carcinogenic risk to humans from
these 1213 constituents.   For the high end estimates, we use the total
waste volume of 90,000 cubic yards disposed (equivalent to 3000 cubic
yards disposed per year, for 30 years, or 4500 cubic yards disposed per
year for 20 years), together with the maximum totals and leachate
concentrations.

6.1.2   High end results

Using DRASv2 to evaluate the 13 carcinogenic constituents listed in
Table 13 18 yields the high end cancer probabilities shown in Table
1419.  According to the model calculations, only three of the 12 13
constituents appear to have a maximum concentration in the sludge that
potentially could cause an exposed person to experience a probability of
cancer, due to that exposure, that would be greater than one in one
hundred thousand.  These three constituents of initial concern are
arsenic, acrylamide, and formaldehyde. 

Table 14.19.  Individual excess cancer risk probabilities calculated

 at 90,000 cubic yards disposed

	Constituent	CAS#	 	Cancer probability

	Carcinogens detected in both totals and leachate samples:

	Nickel

	0.00000005

formaldehyde	50000

0.00005(0.0000003)

ArsenicCobalt	74403827440484

0.0003(0.00003)0.000000001

arsenic	7440382

0.0003(0.00003)

hexavalent chromium	18540299

0.000000009

acrylamide	79061

0.0004(0.000001)

Cadmiumcadmium	7440439

0.000000001

bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate	117817

0.0000001

Berylliumberyllium	7440417

1E-10

dichloroethane, 1,2-	107062

0.000001

methylene chloride	75092

0.0000002

	Detected only in totals samples (not in leachate samples):

	chloroform	67663

3.00E-12

Benzenebenzene	71432

4E-13

Note 1: results rounded to one significant figure.

	Note 2: acrylamide, formaldehyde, and arsenic results presented for

 nominal maximum concentration; parenthetical results are for

 the likely true maximum concentration (see discussion of results in
text)

	

6.1.3   High end results discussion 

For the same reasons described in section 5.1.2 for acrylamide, after
reviewing the laboratory analytical procedures that were used to
quantify the maximum detected values that we used in this analysis, we
conclude that acrylamide should be dropped from the list.  For
acrylamide, we use the 0.0007 mg/L (higher of two detection limits)
value as the maximum value (rather than the 0.29 mg/L value that we use
to develop the results shown in Table 1419.).  The corresponding
recalculated high end cancer probability from acrylamide, at this lower
waste concentration (at 90,000 cubic yards total disposal volume) is one
in one million.

	

For formaldehyde,Formaldehyde.  Table 9 contains a summary of the
analytical results for formaldehyde obtained by omitting the data from
the wet chemistry method at the two facilities described in section
5.1.2; these results show that the maximum detected “total”
formaldehyde was 142 mg/kg.   The corresponding recalculated high end
cancer probability from formaldehyde, at this lower waste concentration
is three in ten million (3E-7), due to breathing formaldehyde as the
waste is being placed in the landfill.  In addition, although we used
the IRIS slope factor for formaldehyde, there continues to be
considerable controversy in the scientific community regarding
formaldehyde's carcinogenicity by the inhalation route.

Therefore, we perform no further analysis of potential cancer risk
caused by acrylamide or formaldehyde, leaving arsenic as the only
constituent of concern for potential cancer risk.  Using the most
reliable data for arsenic, the maximum concentration of arsenic (at
90,000 total cubic yards disposal volume) corresponds to a high end
estimated cancer probability of three in one hundred thousand (3E-05).

Adult and child exposure.  The modeled movement for arsenic indicates
that the risk from arsenic, if realized, would occur via the groundwater
pathway (constituents would leach from the waste into groundwater
underneath the landfill, and then be ingested or inhaled by humans using
the groundwater as a drinking water or bath/shower water source).   

To reflect the potential cancer health effects that children could
experience due to ingesting groundwater contaminated with constituents
from the F019 waste, the DRASv2 model includes an adjustment factor for
body weight and drinking water intake within the cancer probability
calculations.  The adjustment factor included within the model
represents a child from birth to age six, weighing 15 kilograms and
drinking 1 liter of water per day (and then an additional 24 years of
exposure as a 72-kilogram adult drinking 2 liters of water per day).  As
with the noncancer adjustment factor, different choices of age group,
body weight percentile, and/or drinking water percentile could affect
the numerical value of the adjustment factor in either an upward or
downward direction.  However, the results shown in Table 1419 reflect
the exposure of a 15 kilogram child exposed from birth to age six who
drinks one liter of water per day, and then is exposed an additional 24
years at a body weight of 72 kilograms and drinking water intake of 2
liters per day.

6.1.4   Central tendency results and discussion

We perform our central tendency analysis on only the single constituent
identified from the high end analysis (arsenic).  (The constituents with
high end estimates below the range of concern would have central
tendency estimates that are even lower than the high end estimates, and
thus, we need not analyze them.)  We also use the Table 10 analytical
value from the method 6020 results, for median leachate concentration
(0.011 mg/L).  As with the noncancer central tendency estimates, we use
a median value (1,088 cubic yards per year) for the disposed waste
volume and an assumed disposal period of 20 years.  The central tendency
estimate of an individual’s cancer probability due to exposure to the
arsenic in groundwater, from the disposed F019 sludge (running DRASv2 at
the central tendency settings of 1088 cubic yards/year for 20 years) is
2E-06, or two in one million.  

Application of an adjustment factor for the drinking water intake is
more complicated than for the noncancer estimates, because the DRASv2
model includes both the child and adult life stages in the exposure
equations.  The DRASv2 model assumes a drinking water intake of 1 liter
per day for the child, ages 0-6, and 2 liters per day for the adult,
ages 7-30, which results in a higher amount of ingested arsenic from the
groundwater than would be ingested at a central tendency drinking water
intake.  Thus the central tendency cancer risk in the previous paragraph
is actually an overestimate of the central tendency cancer risk.  We do
not adjust the central tendency cancer risk estimate to reflect mean
drinking water intakes for the child and adult.

6.2 Lined landfill analysis

As with the noncarcinogen assessment described in section 5.2.1, we
perform an IWEM Tier 1 evaluation for arsenic (the sole constituent of
potential concern for cancer risk).  We reviewed the dyes and pigments
rule (D&P) analysis; however, the D&P analysis did not model arsenic as
a constituent of potential concern.  

Results of IWEM Tier 1 Evaluation

Due to the conservative assumptions in IWEM when compared to the DRAS
model, IWEM Tier 1 indicates that neither an unlined landfill nor a
single-lined landfill is protective for human cancer risk (at the
adjusted maximum arsenic in leachate concentration of 0.048 mg/L) from ,
due to ingesting arsenic in groundwater that has flowed from underneath
the landfill to the well located 150 meters downgradient from the
landfill.  IWEM Tier 1 indicates that a composite-lined landfill would
be protective for human cancer risk, as a result of exposure to
groundwater contaminated with arsenic from the landfill.  IWEM Tier
1’s results for arsenic, based on an individual’s excess lifetime
cancer probability of one in one million, indicate that in an unlined
landfill, the allowable level of arsenic in leachate would be 0.0002
mg/L; in a single-lined landfill, the allowable level of arsenic in
leachate would be 0.001 mg/L, and in a composite-lined landfill, the
allowable level of arsenic in leachate would be 5 mg/L.

6.2.2   Discussion of IWEM analysis for cancer risk

The risk management criterion in IWEM Tier 1 (in other words, the target
risk level that the model developers set for users) were an individual
excess cancer risk not to exceed one in one million.  This risk
management criterion is one order of magnitude more protective than the
risk management criterion we used in the DRASv2 evaluation (one in one
million individual probability of developing cancer in IWEM, versus one
in one hundred thousand individual probability of developing cancer in
the DRASv2 evaluation). 

The individual modeled in IWEM for potential cancer risk from drinking
water is a person age 0-29 years (inclusive), whose drinking water
intake rate, 25.2 milliliters per kilogram of body weight per day,
represents the time-averaged body weight and drinking water intakes of
both children and adults up to age 30.

7.  Potential ecological effects

In order to determine whether there is a potential ecological risk from
constituents present in the waste, we have evaluated the potential
exposures of the ecological receptors described in section 4.3.  The
DRASv2 model scenario, and its documentation in the RCRA Delisting
Technical Support Document (EPA 2002a), pertains to a community of
freshwater aquatic organisms that live in a second-order stream, or
surface water body.

 7.1  Unlined landfill analysis

We use the DRASv2 model to estimate the concentrations of a particular
constituent in the surface water body.  Those concentrations represent
the levels of exposure of the members of that aquatic community.  Then
we calculate the ratio of those exposure levels to the level of that
particular constituent that should be without adverse effects (the
toxicity reference value for that constituent).  If the ratio is less
than one, we infer that the aquatic community should be protected. 
According to the RCRA Delisting Technical Support Document (EPA 2002a),
the analysis afforded by the DRASv2 model can allow inferences about the
level of protection of ecosystems from the effects of chemical
stressors, but the toxicological data (the toxicity reference values)
are insufficient to reflect all of the complexities of an ecosystem’s
functioning.

The DRASv2 model does not yield an actual calculation of the ecological
hazard ratio we describe in the previous paragraph.  It performs the
calculations and only indicates that an ecological hazard is posed when
the waste constituent concentrations are estimated to cause the surface
water body constituent concentrations to exceed the toxicity reference
value.  Thus, in this document, we present the calculated ratio and call
it a “toxicity reference value exceedance ratio”, or “TRV
exceedance ratio.”  It is similar in concept to the hazard quotient
ratio for the human noncancer health effects estimates.

DRASv2 was intended to run in backward-calculation mode, and yield waste
concentrations that correspond to a given “acceptable” exposure
level.  However, EPA learned that some of the backward calculations in
DRASv2 do not operate correctly, and thus, in this analysis (both for
human health effects and environmental effects), has used DRASv2 in
“forward” calculation mode exclusively.  The practical significance
of this, for the ecological hazard analysis, is that model users provide
the values for a particular chemical constituent’s concentration in
the waste leachate and totals samples, run the model in
forward-calculation mode, and review the model outputs to see if the
model flagged that concentration as presenting a potential ecological
risk.  The model only provides the flag when the concentration in the
surface water body exceeds the toxicity reference value.  Thus, DRASv2
users must run the model in forward-calculation mode using varying waste
constituent concentrations, to determine the waste constituent
concentration that corresponds to the toxicity reference value level
(indicating an acceptable exposure level).

The ecological effects modeled are those that occur by surface pathways,
not those that occur due to movement of constituents mixed with
groundwater.  The DRASv2 model estimates surface pathway effects based
on the level of constituent that is present in the “totals” sample. 
If there is no detected level of constituent in the totals sample, but
it is detected in leachate samples, then EPA can assume that it is
present in the totals samples below the detection limit of the totals
samples.  For this analysis, EPA is assuming that constituents detected
in leachate, but not in totals, are present in the totals samples at
one-half of the highest reported detection limit (of the samples taken
at the thirteen facilities whose data we used for this analysis).

In general, we use the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (EPA
2004b) as our toxicity reference values.  In cases in which there were
no national water quality criteria, we use corresponding state water
quality criteria.  Of the 56 constituents in Table 3, we are unable to
model the potential ecological effects of fluoride and sulfide for the
reasons explained in section 8.  Of the remaining 54 constituents, five
(acetophenone, allyl chloride, cobalt, tin, and n-butanol) do not have
national recommended water quality criteria, nor were we able to locate
equivalent state water quality criteria for them.  Thus we are only able
to evaluate 49 of the 56 constituents known to be present in the waste. 

The high end estimates are from running the DRASv2 model in
forward-calculation mode using 90,000 cubic yards as the total waste
quantity disposed.  We also use the maximum reported value (for totals
samples) for each constituent.  The central tendency estimates are from
running DRASv2 using 21,760 cubic yards as the total waste quantity
disposed, and median totals sample results for detected values.  

7.2 High end results

Table 1520 shows the results of this analysis.

Table 15.20.  Results from ecological risk analysis

Constituent	CAS#	 	Concentrations 

soil	TRV	maximum

saturation	exceedance	in waste

 	 	(mg/kg)	(mg/kg)	(mg/kg)

Detected in both totals and leachate samples:

Nickel	7440020

400,000	5,700

Zinc	7440666

900,000	18,000

Barium	7440393

30,000	4,300

Copper	7440508

60,000	1,500

Chromium	7440473

1,000,000	1,800

formaldehyde	50000

1,000,000	20,000

Lead	7439921

20,000	11,000

Mercury	7439976

10,000	0.71

Xylenes	1330207	400

40

Vanadium	7440622

140,000	44

Arsenic	7440382

1,000,000	25

Cyanide	57125

40,000	20

ethylbenzene	100414	200

7

Hexavalent chromium	18540299

80,000	22

Toluene	108883	500

20

Acrylamide	79061

1,000,000	6

Cadmium	7440439

2,000	22

bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate	117817

300,000	100

Antimony	7440360

200,000	170

Methyl ethyl ketone	78933	30,000

30

Beryllium	7440417

40,000	1.3

Selenium	7782492

40,000	21

Silver	7440224

20,000	5.5

Thallium	7440280

30,000	7.1

butyl benzyl phthalate	85687	900

300

naphthalene	91203

100,000	30

cresol, p- 	106445

900,000	20

Acetone	67641	100,000

6

trichloroethylene	79016	1,000

0.04

dichloroethane, 1,2-	107062	3,000

0.02

Acetonitrile	75058	200,000

5

chlorobenzene	108907	900

0.03

methylene chloride	75092	2,000

2

trichloroethane, 1,1,1-	71556	1,000

0.02

dichloroethane, 1,1-	75343	2,000

0.02

Detected only in totals samples (not in leachate samples):

	di-n-octyl phthalate	117840	10,000

90

Methyl isobutyl ketone	108101	20,000

0.4

tetrachloroethylene 	127184	400

0.2

Styrene	100425	2,000

0.02

Acrolein	107028

2,000	0.1

dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-	156592	1,000

0.3

Methyl chloride	74873	4,000

0.8

Carbon disulfide	75150

100,000	0.06

Chloroform	67663	4,000

0.01

Benzene	71432

300,000	0.01

Detected only in leachate samples (not in totals samples):

	1/2 DL:

Phenol	108952	20,000

300

cresol, o- 	95487

1,000,000	300

cresol, m-	108394

900,000	300

di-n-butyl phthalate	84742	2,000

300

Note 1: We removed fluoride and sulfide from the list of Table 3
constituents; see text.

Note 2: We removed acetophenone, allyl chloride, cobalt, n-butanol, and
tin from the

  list of Table 3 constituents due to lack of an available toxicity
reference value.

Note 3: results rounded to one significant figure; maximum detected
values

  Roundedrounded to two significant figures (metals/metalloids) 

	  or one significant figure (carbon-containing).

For 22 of the 49 constituents that we evaluate, the DRASv2 model
indicates that the soil becomes saturated at a constituent concentration
that is higher than the maximum constituent concentration used in the
analysis, and does not provide any results.  

For the remaining 27 constituents that we evaluate, the DRASv2 model
predicts water concentrations and generates ecological receptor exposure
results.

In Table 1520, the column labeled “soil saturation” represents the
waste concentration that DRASv2 estimated as causing soil saturation
conditions, and the column labeled “TRV exceedance” represents the
waste concentration that DRASv2 estimates as causing surface water body
water concentrations to equal or exceed the toxicity reference value. 
We round these model-calculated values to one significant figure.  The
column labeled “maximum in waste” shows the maximum concentrations
reported as detected in totals samples.  We round the maximum reported
waste concentrations to two significant figures (metals/metalloids) or
one significant figure (carbon-containing constituents).  

7.3 High end results discussion

In most of the 22 cases of soil saturation, the model indicates that
soil saturation would occur when the constituent concentration in the
disposed sludge is an order of magnitude, or more, higher than the
maximum constituent concentration observed in the sludge.  The only
exceptions are xylenes, butyl benzyl phthalate, and di-n-butyl
phthalate.  For these 22 constituents, the model is unable to predict
the water concentrations to which the ecological receptors would be
exposed (due to soil saturation conditions uphill from the surface water
body).   However, we can use the waste concentration that DRASv2
estimates to result in soil saturation as a surrogate for a waste
concentration that we do not want to see exceeded (because soil
saturation conditions would result).  Soil saturation conditions mean
that “the adsorptive limits of the soil particles and the solubility
limits of the available soil moisture have been reached.  Above this
concentration, pure or free-phase compound is expected in the soil.”

	

In the case of xylenes, butyl benzyl phthalate, and di-n-butyl
phthalate, the DRASv2 model predicts that soil saturation conditions may
occur at waste constituent concentrations that are in the range of a
factor of 3 (for butyl benzyl phthalate) to 10 (for xylenes and
di-n-butyl phthalate) greater than the maximum waste concentration
reported in the data for the 13 facilities that we reviewed for this
analysis.  

We believe it is unlikely that these conditions would occur, for a
number of reasons.  Butyl benzyl phthalate does not appear to be a
frequently-occurring constituent in this waste; based on 77 samples
reported from 11 facilities that analyzed their samples for it, it was
detected in only 10% of totals and leachate samples.  In the case of
di-n-butyl phthalate, the model result relies on an assumed totals
concentration that is one-half of the greatest detection limit used by
any of the facilities whose data we reviewed for this analysis. 
Di-n-butyl phthalate was not detected in any of the totals samples that
we reviewed.  Xylenes are far more frequently found in the waste (in 74%
of totals samples).   However, the maximum reported xylene concentration
(at two significant figures, it is 42 mg/kg) is one order of magnitude
below the waste concentration predicted to result in soil saturation
conditions (at two significant figures, 440 mg/kg), and the average
reported xylene concentration (at two significant figures, 5.4 mg/kg) is
almost two orders of magnitude below that concentration.  Thus we
believe that soil saturation conditions due to xylene present in the
waste are unlikely to occur, based on average xylene concentrations in
the waste.

To identify the constituents that appear to pose the greatest potential
for ecological harm, we convert the DRASv2-calculated waste
concentrations that correspond to surface water body exposures that are
at the toxicity reference value level into a hazard-quotient type of
ratio, using the maximum detected waste constituent concentration in the
numerator and the DRASv2-calculated surface water body water
concentration in the denominator.  This calculation illuminates those
constituents that have maximum detected concentrations that are far
below the levels expected to cause problematic exposures in the surface
water body, and those that are closer to the level that may cause
problematic exposures (ratios between 0.1 and 1).  After performing this
calculation, all 27 constituents for which DRASv2 estimates waste
concentrations for surface water body ecological receptor exposures show
hazard quotient ratios below one (in other words, none of the 27
constituents appears to have maximum detected waste concentration that
we infer may cause ecological risk).  Only two of the 27 constituents
have a hazard quotient ratio over 0.1 (or one-tenth of the level at
which we infer ecological risk).  Lead’s calculated hazard quotient
ratio (using the maximum detected value) is 0.6 and barium’s is 0.2.  

Table 1621 shows the ratio of the maximum detected waste concentrations
to the waste concentrations predicted to result in soil saturation (in
the column labeled “soil saturation ratio,”) and the ratio of the
maximum detected waste concentration to the waste concentrations from
which we infer potential ecological harm (in the column labeled “TRV
exceedance ratio”).  We show the unrounded DRASv2 results and the
unrounded maximum detected values, for the purpose of calculating these
ratios, which are shown rounded to one significant figure.  Note that
the five constituents for which the unrounded TRV exceedance waste
concentrations are shown as 999,000 mg/kg actually represent cases in
which the model indicates that a waste constituent concentration of
1,000,000 mg/kg will not result in an exceedance of the toxicity
reference value.

Table 16.21.  Ratios of maximum detected waste concentrations to soil
saturation

 and toxicity reference value exceedance concentrations

Constituent	CAS#	 	Concentrations	Ratios

TRV

	TRV

soil	exceed-	maximum	soil	exceed-

saturation	ance	in waste	saturation	ance

 	 	(mg/kg)	(mg/kg)	(mg/kg)	ratio	ratio

Detected in both totals and leachate samples:

Nickel	7440020

370,000	5,720

0.02

Zinc	7440666

850,000	17,600

0.02

Barium	7440393

28,000	4,280

0.2

Copper	7440508

64,000	1,490

0.02

Chromium	7440473

999,000	1,820

0.002

formaldehyde	50000

999,000	19,000

0.02

Lead	7439921

18,000	10,800

0.6

Mercury	7439976

11,000	0.71

0.00006

Xylenes	1330207	430

42	0.1

	Vanadiumvanadium	7440622

140,000	43.9

0.0003

Arsenicarsenic	7440382

999,000	25

0.00003

Cyanidecyanide	57125

38,000	18

0.0005

ethylbenzene	100414	230

7.2	0.03

	hexavalent chromium	18540299

78,000	22

0.0003

Toluene	108883	520

18.7	0.03

	acrylamide	79061

999,000	5.8

0.000006

Cadmiumcadmium	7440439

1,800	21.5

0.01

bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate	117817

250,000	100

0.0004

Antimonyantimony	7440360

220,000	174

0.0008

Methyl ethyl ketone	78933	34,000

25	0.0007

	Berylliumberyllium	7440417

37,000	1.3

0.00004

Seleniumselenium	7782492

36,000	21

0.0006

Silver	7440224

23,000	5.5

0.0002

Thalliumthallium	7440280

29,000	7.1

0.0002

butyl benzyl phthalate	85687	930

290	0.3

	naphthalene	91203

145,000	34

0.0002

cresol, p- 	106445

860,000	23

0.00003

Acetoneacetone	67641	100,000

6	0.00006

	trichloroethylene	79016	1,300

0.044	0.00003

	dichloroethane, 1,2-	107062	2,900

0.02	0.000007

	acetonitrile	75058	190,000

5	0.00003

	chlorobenzene	108907	870

0.025	0.00003

	methylene chloride	75092	2,300

1.7	0.0007

	trichloroethane, 1,1,1-	71556	1,400

0.018	0.00001

	dichloroethane, 1,1-	75343	2,300

0.015	0.000007

	Detected only in totals samples (not in leachate samples):

	di-n-octyl phthalate	117840	10,000

91.5	0.009

	methyl isobutyl ketone 	108101	17,000

0.41	0.00002

	tetrachloroethylene 	127184	370

0.21	0.0006

	Styrenestyrene	100425	1,700

0.017	0.00001

	Acroleinacrolein	107028

1,600	0.14

0.00009

dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-	156592	1,200

0.33	0.0003

	methyl chloride	74873	4,000

0.84	0.0002

	carbon disulfide	75150

145,000	0.059

0.0000004

chloroform	67663	3,500

0.013	0.000004

	Benzenebenzene	71432

330,000	0.01

0.00000003

Detected only in leachate samples (not in totals samples):

	1/2 DL:

Phenolphenol	108952	23,000

294	0.01

	cresol, o- 	95487

999,000	294

0.0003

cresol, m- 	108394

920,000	250

0.0003

di-n-butyl phthalate	84742	2,300

294	0.1

	Note 1: We removed fluoride and sulfide from the list of Table 3
constituents; see text.

Note 2: We removed acetophenone, allyl chloride, cobalt, n-butanol, and
tin from the list of Table 3

constituents due to lack of an available ecological toxicity reference
value.

Note 3: results rounded to one significant figure.

7.4 Central tendency results and discussion

To compute central tendency estimates of potential ecological hazard, we
use the median disposed waste volume of 1088 cubic yards, for 20 years. 
We use calculated median, rather than maximum, totals concentrations for
barium and lead (neither of which appear to exceed the level of concern
in the high end estimates, but both of which were within one order of
magnitude of that level of concern in the high end estimates).  Using
these central tendency variable settings, we obtain TRV exceedance
ratios of 0.004 for barium and 0.006 for lead (in other words, the
DRASv2 model estimates that barium and lead concentrations in the nearby
stream are at levels more than two orders of magnitude below the levels
that could cause harm to the organisms living in the stream).  Thus at
central tendency conditions we confirm that there do not appear to be
potential adverse effects on aquatic organisms living in a stream
downhill from the landfill.

8.  Special cases: fluoride, sulfide, trivalent chromium, lead and
cyanide

8.1 Human health effects

Due to DRASv2 model limitations or a lack of health toxicity values, it
is difficult to assess the potential noncancer human health hazards that
may be posed by exposure to fluoride, sulfide, trivalent chromium, and
lead in the F019 sludge.  We are able to evaluate cyanide’s potential
to cause noncancer human health effects using DRASv2, and present those
results in section 5.  

Fluoride 

Fluoride is not entered in the database of chemical constituents that
DRASv2 models.  We can develop an approximate high end hazard quotient
for potential groundwater exposure from fluoride, by performing hand
calculations using the same equations in the DRASv2 model, and making an
assumption about fluoride’s dilution/attenuation factor.  The specific
equations used for this calculation are shown as equations 2-3, 2-5, 2-6
and 4-86 in the RCRA Delisting Technical Support Document (EPA 2002a).  
For the high end estimate, we assume a waste disposal volume of 90,000
cubic yards, and a dilution/attenuation factor of 10.  Using equation
2-3, the DAF scaling factor is 1.7956.  Thus the assumed DAF of 10 is
adjusted for volume to be 17.956 (volume-adjusted DAF).  We use the
maximum detected fluoride in leachate concentration of 1.75 mg/L, the
default exposure assumptions in DRASv2, and the IRIS Oral Reference Dose
of 0.06 mg/kg-day.  We obtain a hand-calculated approximate high end
hazard quotient of 0.04.  Applying the child exposure factor described
in section 5.1.1 increases the hazard quotient to 0.08.  Therefore,
using this approach, fluoride does not appear to be a constituent of
potential concern. 

Sulfide

Sulfide is also not entered in the database of constituents that DRASv2
models.  We do not attempt to develop estimates of the noncancer human
health hazards potentially posed by sulfide in the F019 sludge.  Sulfide
has no toxicity value in the sources of toxicity data that we used,
except for air exposures to hydrogen sulfide.  Since the F019 sludge
totals and leachate waste concentration data do not include hydrogen
sulfide levels, a toxicity value for hydrogen sulfide is not relevant.

Trivalent chromium

Chromium is entered in the database of chemical constituents that DRASv2
models.  We can evaluate chromium in two valence states: trivalent
(sometimes written as Cr+3 or Cr (III)) and hexavalent (Cr+6, or Cr
(VI)).   The DRASv2 model contains two entries for chromium in its
constituent database: hexavalent chromium, listed as “Chromium (+6)”
under Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number 18540-29-9, and
“Chromium,” listed under CAS # 7440-47-4 (which is in error; it
should be listed as 7440-47-3).   

In order to run the DRASv2 model for both valence states, we need four
types of model inputs:

1)	totals and leachate values for trivalent chromium in the sludge
samples

2)	toxicity reference values for trivalent chromium

3)	totals and leachate values for hexavalent chromium in the sludge
samples

4)	toxicity reference values for hexavalent chromium

We have the model inputs to satisfy 3) and 4) above, for hexavalent
chromium, so we are able to evaluate potential human health effects of
hexavalent chromium exposure (described in sections 5 and 6).  Our
evaluation showed that potential exposure to hexavalent chromium does
not present significant risk.

To satisfy 1) above, for trivalent chromium, we have no laboratory
analytical data for trivalent chromium in the sludge samples.  Rather,
the analytical results for “chromium” measure the total level of
chromium present, regardless of valence state.  When a laboratory
reports a chromium result for a sample, and also a hexavalent chromium
result for the same sample, we could infer the concentration of
trivalent chromium by subtracting the hexavalent chromium value from the
corresponding chromium value.  In the chemical constituent concentration
spreadsheet/database in the docket, we have numerous instances in which
laboratories reported results for chromium, and corresponding results
for hexavalent chromium, in “totals” samples.  We have only four
instances in which laboratories reported results for chromium, and
corresponding results for hexavalent chromium, in “leachate” samples
(hexavalent chromium was not detected in the other 24 leachate samples).
 Thus we have numerous observations from which we could infer
concentrations of trivalent chromium in “totals” samples, and four
observations from which we can infer concentrations of trivalent
chromium in leachate samples.  Because most of the chromium reported, in
either the totals or the leachate samples, is not in hexavalent form,
for simplicity (and also to impart further precaution in the risk
estimates) we can simply assume that all chromium reported in these
laboratory results is in the trivalent, rather than the hexavalent,
state (rather than subtracting the hexavalent concentrations from the
corresponding reported chromium concentrations, as described above).

To satisfy 2) above, for trivalent chromium, there is a toxicity value
for oral ingestion of insoluble salts of trivalent chromium (1.5 mg
chromium III insoluble salts per kilogram of body weight per day (EPA
2006)), but no corresponding toxicity value for oral ingestion of
soluble salts of trivalent chromium.  Because we expect trivalent
chromium present in groundwater to be present in soluble forms, it is
unclear how appropriate this insoluble-salts toxicity value is for
estimating potential human noncancer health effects from trivalent
chromium ingested from groundwater used as a drinking water source.  

Currently, there are no cancer slope factors for trivalent chromium due
to “inadequate data to determine the potential carcinogenicity of
trivalent chromium.” (EPA 2006, entry for “Chromium (III), insoluble
salts (CAS # 16065-83-1)”).

Nevertheless, to develop an estimate for potential human health effects
from trivalent chromium, we use this toxicity value for oral ingestion
of insoluble salts of trivalent chromium in the DRASv2 entry for
chromium (CAS # 7440-47-4; note that this entry is in error; the correct
CAS # for chromium is 7440-47-3).  We also use the maximum reported
concentrations of chromium in totals samples (1820 mg/kg) and the
maximum reported concentrations of chromium in leachate samples (0.53
mg/L), and assume that all of the chromium is present in trivalent,
rather than hexavalent, form.  For the high end estimate for trivalent
chromium, we assume a 90,000 cubic yard disposal volume, and use DRASv2
to estimate a hazard quotient of 0.0000014, well below our level of
concern.

Lead

	

Lead is also entered in the database of chemical constituents that
DRASv2 models.  However, at the time of this document (2006), lead does
not have a recommended human health noncancer toxicity value (toxicity
information that is needed to run the model and develop estimates of
potential human health hazards).  Using the same hand-calculation
technique that we used for fluoride in order to develop the estimated
groundwater lead concentration at the drinking water well, the maximum
reported waste leachate concentration of 1.33 mg/L, and the DRASv2
default dilution/attenuation factor (5000), adjusted for the 90,000
cubic yard disposal volume to be 8978, gives an estimated drinking water
well concentration of 0.0001 mg/L (using equations 2-3, 2-5 and 2-6 from
EPA 2002a).  This estimated drinking water concentration is below
EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level of 0.015 mg/L published as the
National Primary Drinking Water Standard at 40 CFR Part 141.  Also, the
leachable concentration of lead in the sludge is regulated, because the
sludge remains subject to the Toxicity Characteristic limit of 5 mg/L
for lead (D008, see 40 CFR 261.24).

8.2 Ecological effects

For the same reasons described above, we were unable to evaluate the
potential ecological effects of fluoride and sulfide.  However, we were
able to evaluate the potential ecological (non-explosive hazard) effects
of chromium, lead and cyanide (described in section 7.2).

	

8.3 Potential explosive hazard

Sulfide and cyanide present special considerations, because some forms
of these compounds can cause an explosion or violent chemical reaction
under certain conditions.  This potential for explosions or violent
chemical reactions is a basis for the characteristic of reactivity that
defines certain wastes as hazardous (see 40 CFR 261.23).  Sulfide and
cyanide are present in most samples analyzed either for total sulfide or
total cyanide.   However, EPA has granted delistings to many motor
vehicle manufacturing facilities, and considered the potential for
reactivity as one criterion for granting delistings.  Furthermore, the
sludges are generated from wastewater treatment, and such residuals are
not expected to be reactive.  We are not aware of any information that
suggests that the F019 sludges from motor vehicle manufacturing cause
violent reactions or explosions.

9.  Sources of uncertainty in risk and hazard estimates

This risk assessment describes the estimated potential human noncancer
health hazard, potential human cancer risk, and potential ecological
risk associated with a specific waste management method (landfilling)
for the F019 wastewater treatment sludge from motor vehicle
manufacturers.  It does not address all potential human or ecological
exposures to F019 wastewater treatment sludge described in Section 4.  

The estimates of human and environmental health effects in this document
are not exact or precise predictions of what would happen if F019 waste
from motor vehicle manufacturers was disposed in unlined landfills. 
Instead, they are estimates that are based on the best available
information that we have, using models which, of necessity, represent a
simplified version of real-world conditions.  In this section, we
describe the sources of uncertainty that we are aware of, along with our
assessment of the direction that our imperfect knowledge influences the
risk assessment results in sections 5, 6, and 7 (causing either
underestimates or overestimates).  In section 9.4 we provide an overall
assessment of how we think the risk assessment estimates are affected by
these uncertainties.

There are at least three major types of uncertainty: measurement
uncertainty; model uncertainty; and the impact of future and past
states.  Measurement uncertainty results from errors in measurements. 
We also use this term to refer to uncertainty that results from inherent
variability in natural systems (when we try to represent that
variability with a single value instead of reflecting the entire range
of values), and to refer to uncertainty that results from lack of
research, or “knowledge gaps.”   Model uncertainty results from
using a tool to represent real-world conditions, when that tool (the
model) is of necessity a simplified version of those real-world
conditions.  The impact of future and past states on our uncertainty
results from a lack of perfect knowledge of past or future conditions
that influence the estimates we obtain using the model. 

9.1 Measurement Uncertainty

We divide our descriptions of sources of measurement uncertainty into
four categories: 1) waste characteristics; 2) fate and transport
variables; 3) exposure assumptions; and 4) toxicity of chemical
constituents. 

Waste characteristics.  While we completed an extensive review of waste
data, and had a large database of analytical data available, there may
be other chemicals in the waste that could be of concern.  We know, from
the Material Safety Data Sheet review described in section 3, that it is
likely that there is some quantity of titanium and manganese present in
many facilities’ sludge due to their use in the original conversion
coating formulations.  However, we do not have analytical data for these
constituents in our database.  There may also be other chemical
constituents present, due to commingling the conversion coating
wastewater with other wastewaters.  However, we know neither the
identities nor the exact quantities of these constituents.  Thus
omitting these constituents from the risk assessment may underestimate
total potential health effects.

For the constituents that we do know are present, the analytical
procedures used (the sampling and sample preparation techniques, the
specific analytical instruments, materials, and methods used) and other
constituents or substances present in the sample “matrix” all
contribute to measurement errors regarding the exact quantities present
in the F019 sludge.  In sections 5 and 6, we describe those situations
where we believe that analytical procedure measurement errors may have
caused overestimates of the constituent concentrations, and we attempt
to account for them when possible.

The “matrix” that the laboratory analytical sample is composed of
can affect the accuracy of the laboratory’s analytical results.  In
general, samples that are composed of relatively clean water, such as a
sample of drinking water, are easier to analyze with greater accuracy
than samples that have more contaminants present.  Samples that are
composed of difficult-to-analyze matrices, in general, include
wastewater treatment sludge samples, especially those with contaminants
such as oil and grease present in the sample.

Some of the samples from the thirteen facilities whose wastewater
treatment sludge chemical constituent data we present in the
spreadsheet/database in the docket have high total oil and grease
levels.  As a result, for some of these samples, the laboratories
reported elevated detection limits for organic analytes in the totals
analysis.  The TCLP leachate samples derived from the same samples used
in the totals analysis typically had much lower detection limits,
because the matrix, which is primarily water, is much cleaner than the
original sludge sample.  In a limited number of cases, this led to the
detection of some constituents in leachate samples, but not in the
totals analysis. However, the reported detection limits in most samples
(especially the TCLP samples that served as the critical component in
the risk evaluation in most cases) were adequate, and we believe that
the entire data set is sufficiently robust to support our waste
characterization.  To the extent that the elevated detection limits in
the totals samples may have masked the presence of some constituents,
these results may have caused underestimates of the totals
concentrations of organic constituents.

Our analysis also assumes that the TCLP test accurately quantifies
leaching that occurs in real landfills.  However, the TCLP test only
approximates the actual composition of real-world leachate.  In the TCLP
test the waste sample is shaken vigorously with a low pH extraction
solution for 18 hours.  In real landfills, infiltrating water percolates
through the landfill’s contents over many years.  We do not know
whether the TCLP test results cause an overestimate or an underestimate
of chemical constituents that leach from landfills.  There is research
underway to better understand the influences of real-world conditions on
landfill leachate.

For the high-end estimates, this analysis uses the maximum constituent
concentrations (both TCLP and totals) that were reported in the waste
characterization data set located in the docket.  These concentrations
may reflect a “worst case” scenario with respect to the quantities
of chemical constituents present in the F019 sludge.

Uncertainty associated with the waste characterization also arises from
uncertainty in the waste volumesvolume potentially disposed.  For our
analysis, we use a total waste volume of either 90,000 cubic yards (for
high end estimates) or 22,000 cubic yards (for central tendency
estimates).  The 90,000 cubic yard total waste volume is equivalent to
disposing 4,500 cubic yards per year for 20 years (the usual disposal
time assumed for a landfill in the DRAS model), or 3,000 cubic yards per
year for 30 years (a disposal time period used in recent EPA hazardous
waste listing determination analyses).  The 22,000 cubic yard total
waste volume is equivalent to disposing 1100 cubic yards per year for 20
years.  If the actual volumes of F019 waste from motor vehicle
manufacturers are smaller than these cubic yardages, then our analysis
may overestimate risk; if the actual volumes are greater, then our
analysis may underestimate risk.

The previous paragraph deserves elaboration, since the disposal volume
is likely to be one of the key variables influencing the magnitude of
the risk estimates.  The volume of sludge disposed, together with the
concentration of constituents in the sludge, determines the mass input
into the landfill that we model in the risk analysis.  The mass input
ultimately drives the estimates of constituent quantities to which both
the human and ecological receptors are exposed.  Thus the sludge volume
is an important variable for determining the results of the analysis. 
The DRASv2 model uses the model input of annual waste disposed, in cubic
yards, and multiplies it by the model input of number of years of
disposal, and calculates a total waste volume that is the quantity of
constituents available for dispersion.  Thus the total quantity of F019
sludge disposed in the landfill is more important for the model results
than an annual waste generation rate or the total number of years in
which waste is disposed in the landfill.  Reviewing several
facilities’ delisting petitions revealed that motor vehicle
manufacturers sometimes dispose of different facilities’ F019 sludge
in the same landfill (“co-disposal”).  Thus, for the model to
reflect actual practices, we represent the total quantity of motor
vehicle manufacturers’ F019 sludge disposed in the same landfills.

  Appendix C compiles information on known motor vehicle manufacturer
F019 sludge generation rates and co-disposal patterns, expressed as F019
cubic yards, either generated or disposed, for a given year.  The data
in Appendix C are from delisting petition submissions from several of
the same facilities whose sludge analytical data we use for waste
characterization purposes, and additional sludge volume data from these
facilities from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (in the docket,
and reproduced in Appendix C).  We combine F019 sludge generation
quantities from different assembly plants for the co-disposal situations
in which we are aware that the assembly plants’ F019 sludge was
disposed together with other assembly plants’ F019 sludge in the same
landfill.

There is an alternate, secondary, source of data for F019 sludge
quantities from individual assembly plants.  EPA’s Biennial EPA’s
Biennial Report System (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport" 
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport ) contains data
from RCRA hazardous waste generators on the quantities of hazardous
waste generated and managed, on an every-other-year basis.  Motor
vehicle manufacturers’ F019 sludge generation quantities are reported
in this data system on either a mass or volume unit of measure basis and
are converted into consistent units of short tons (2,000 pounds) in the
national database (using the reporting facility’s stated waste density
when reported in volume units).

This secondary data source presents difficulties with respect to its use
as the source of F019 sludge quantity information.  For example, the
Biennial Report data cover F019 generation on an every other year basis.
 Vehicle production rates at the assembly plants are likely to vary on a
year-by-year basis, and so too might F019 sludge generation; thus the
delisting petition and supplemental data that we present in Appendix C,
and use in the risk analysis, provide a more complete picture of F019
sludge quantities on an annual basis.  

In this risk analysis, we use the delisting petition submissions and
supplemental data from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, because
these data are explicitly identified by the submitters as being the
quantities of zinc phosphate chemical conversion coating sludge that are
the subject of the delisting petitions.  Note that, for the Economics
Background Document prepared for this proposal (EPA 2007, available in
the docket), the economic analysis requires zinc phosphate conversion
coating sludge quantities to be expressed on a mass basis, because the
waste management cost factors are expressed in units of dollars per ton.
 Thus, we use the Biennial Report F019 tonnages in the Economics
Background Document analysis.  

Fate and transport.  Once placed into the landfill, the sludge becomes
subject to environmental influences (such as temperature and atmospheric
pressure changes, and precipitation) that cause the constituents to
begin moving into different environmental “compartments” (air, water
and soil).  The default values used in the model for the many different
environmental fate and transport variables (such as the solubility, soil
saturation level, or Henry’s Law Constant) can contain measurement
errors.  We do not know whether these measurement errors cause
overestimates or underestimates.  It is likely that, for some
constituents, the fate and transport variable measurement errors
combined cause an overall overestimate, while for others, the errors
cause an overall underestimate.

Exposure assumptions.  For human health effects, the DRASv2 model
developers made certain assumptions about the body weights and body
surface areas, and intake rates of air, water and soil.  For the
groundwater pathway, for example, the DRASv2 model used a drinking water
intake set approximately at the 84th percentile for adults, (we used the
90th percentile value for children’s drinking water intake in our
adjustment of the results to reflect risk to children). Model inputs for
each of these variables are subject to measurement error.  However, the
data that these variables are based on are relatively robust, and thus
for some variables, the measurement errors are likely to be small
relative to other sources of error in the analysis.   For ecological
effects, an example of a variable subject to measurement error is the
bioaccumulation factor that the model uses to account for the amount of
the chemical that a fish takes up either from the water in the stream,
or from the food that it takes in.  EPA 2002a (Appendix A-1, pp. A-1-11
to A-1-14) gives a lengthy explanation of how the model developers have
addressed this particular area of uncertainty.  We do not know whether
the ecological effects exposure assumptions cause overestimates or
underestimates.

Another common issue related to exposure assumptions is the duration of
exposure – in other words, how long the modeled nearby resident
actually lives at that location.  The U.S. Bureau of the Census provides
estimates of residential duration that, recently, indicated more than
93% of U.S. residents move from their residence within 30 years.  This
statistic indicates that assuming an exposure duration of 30 years would
generally overestimate exposures from the landfill source.  The exposure
duration issue is only of concern for the cancer probability estimates,
since for noncancer health effects, the 30-year exposure duration is
averaged over 30 years, effectively canceling out the assumption. 

Toxicity.  For both human health and environmental effects, the toxicity
information for each constituent of potential concern can vary in its
completeness and quality.  Incomplete information on a constituent’s
toxicity via a particular exposure route has the practical result that a
value of “0” is entered as the model input, and thus the model does
not generate any estimates for exposure pathways that rely on that
exposure route (in other words, the model’s output is “0” or a
blank screen).  Thus incomplete toxicity information can result in an
assumed lack of health effects when health effects may actually occur,
but were not modeled.  The result is an underestimate of potential
health effects. 

In this risk assessment, we used a hierarchy of data sources for human
health toxicity information.  Most of the human health toxicity values
used in this risk assessment are in EPA’s Integrated Risk Information
System database (EPA 2005c2004c).  If toxicity values were unavailable
in IRIS, our secondary source was EPA’s Provisional Peer Reviewed
Toxicity Values database (EPA 2004c2004d).  Our tertiary source was
Minimal Risk Levels published by the United States Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR 20062004).  All three data sources develop their
toxicity values using the same general approach by groups of
toxicologists who review the available toxicity information and arrive
at consensus toxicity estimates.  All three sources include peer review
as part of the process.  The ATSDR Minimal Risk Levels also have a
public comment period.

Regarding the quality of toxicity information for human noncancer health
effects, the toxicologists and other scientists at EPA, ATSDR and other
organizations who develop toxicity values that represent acceptable
exposures to toxic constituents, often present those values together
with “uncertainty factors,” “modifying factors,” and assessments
of their confidence in the data and/or method underlying the toxicity
value.  Sources of uncertainty in toxicity values include one or more of
the following: extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans,
variability of response within the human population, extrapolation of
responses at high experimental doses under controlled conditions to low
doses under variable environmental conditions, and adequacy of the
database (number of studies available, toxic endpoints evaluated,
exposure routes evaluated, sample sizes, length of study, etc.) 
Uncertainty factors are applied to address the limitations of the
available toxicological data and are used to ensure that the Reference
Dose or Reference Concentration protects individuals in the general
population.  The use of uncertainty factors is based on long-standing
scientific practice.  Uncertainty factors, when combined, often range
from 10 to 1000 depending on the nature and quality of the underlying
data.

Tables 22, 23, 24 and 24 25 show, where available, the uncertainty
factors, modifying factors and confidence ratings for the IRIS Reference
Doses, IRIS Reference Concentrations, Agency for Toxic Substance and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimal Risk Levels, and EPA’s Superfund
Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV) that we used in this
analysis.  When values were unavailable for chronic (long-term, such as
more than one year) exposures, we used the value that was available for
a shorter time period.  For example, we use ATSDR Minimal Risk Levels
for subchronic (14 to 365 day) exposures if no chronic exposure values
were available. 

Table 18.22.  Uncertainty factors, modifying factors, and confidence
ratings

	for IRIS oral Reference Doses

Constituent	CAS#	uncertainty	modifying	confidence

 	 	factor	factor	rating

Detected in both totals and leachate samples:

	Nickel	7440020	300	1	medium 

Fluoride	16984488	1	1	highHigh

Zinc	7440666	3	1	medium

Barium	7440393	3	1	medium

Formaldehyde	50000	100	1	medium

Xylenes	1330207	1000	1	medium

Arsenic	7440382	3	1	medium

Cyanide	57125	100	5	medium

Ethylbenzene	100414	1000	1	lowLow

hexavalent chromium	18540299	300	3	lowLow

Toluene	108883	3000	1	medium

butanol, n-	71363	1000	1	lowLow

Acrylamide	79061	1000	1	medium

Cadmium	7440439	10	1	highHigh

bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate	117817	1000	1	medium

Antimony	7440360	1000	1	lowLow

methyl ethyl ketone 	78933	1000	1	lowLow

Beryllium	7440417	300	1	low-medium

Selenium	7782492	3	1	highHigh

Silver	7440224	3	1	lowLow

Thallium	7440280	3000	1	lowLow

butyl benzyl phthalate	85687	1000	1	lowLow

Naphthalene	91203	3000	1	lowLow

Acetone	67641	1000	1	medium

Chlorobenzene	108907	1000	1	medium

methylene chloride	75092	100	1	medium

Detected only in "totals" samples (not in leachate samples):

tetrachloroethylene 	127184	1000	1	medium

Styrene	100425	1000	1	medium

Acrolein	107028	100	1	medium-high

carbon disulfide	75150	100	1	medium

Chloroform	67663	1000	1	medium

Benzene	71432	300	1	medium

Detected only in leachate samples (not in "totals" samples):

Phenol	108952	300	1	mediumMedium/high

Acetophenone	98862	3000	1	lowLow

cresol, o-	95487	1000	1	medium

cresol, m- 	108394	1000	1	medium

di-n-butyl phthalate	84742	1000	1	lowLow

Note 1: Factors and ratings for nickel are for the IRIS entry for
"nickel, soluble salts"

Note 2: Factors and ratings for thallium are for the IRIS entries for
the thallium species

Note 3: Factors and ratings for fluoride are for the IRIS entry for
"fluorine (soluble fluoride)" with 

  CAS# 7782-41-4 (elemental fluorine).  When measured in a laboratory,

	  fluorine species are ionized as fluoride and are given the CAS #
16984-48-8.  

	  The IRIS entry indicates that fluorine was measured as fluoride in
the ingestion studies

  (that is, the analytical method measures the fluorine used to develop
the Reference Dose).

Table 19.23.  Uncertainty factors, modifying factors, and confidence
ratings

for IRIS inhalation Reference Concentrations

Constituent	CAS#	uncertainty	modifying	confidence

 	 	factor	factor	rating

Detected in both totals and leachate samples:

	Mercury	7439976	30	1	medium

Xylenes	1330207	300	1	medium

Ethylbenzene	100414	300	1	low

hexavalent chromium	18540299	300	1	medium

Toluene	108883	10	1	high

methyl ethyl ketone	78933	300	1	medium

Beryllium	7440417	10	1	medium

Naphthalene	91203	3000	1	medium

Acetonitrile	75058	100	10	medium

Detected only in "totals" samples (not in leachate samples):

methyl isobutyl ketone (4-methyl-2-pentanone)	108101	300	1	low-medium

Styrene	100425	30	1	medium

Acrolein	107028	1000	1	medium

methyl chloride (chloromethane) 	74873	1000	1	medium

carbon disulfide	75150	30	1	medium

Benzene	71432	300	1	medium

allyl chloride	107051	3000	1	low

Table 20. Uncertainty factor and confidence rating

Table 24. Uncertainty factors and confidence ratings

for PPRTV reference doses and reference concentrations

	Constituent	CAS#	reference	reference

dose	dose

uncertainty	confidence

 	 	factor	rating

	Detected only in "totals" samples (not in leachate samples):

	dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-	156592	3000	low

Table 21.  Uncertainty factors and confidence ratings

Constituent	CAS#	reference	reference	reference	reference

dose	dose	concentration	concentration

uncertainty	confidence	uncertainty	confidence

 	 	factor	rating	factor	rating

	Detected in both totals and leachate samples:

cobalt	7440484	10	low-medium	100	medium-low

antimony	7440360

	100	medium

trichloroethane, 1,1,1-	71556

	90	medium-low

	Detected only in "totals" samples (not in leachate samples):

	di-n-octyl phthalate	117840	1000	medium

dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-	156592	3000	low

Table 25.  Uncertainty factors and confidence ratings

	for ATSDR Minimal Risk Levels

Constituent	CAS#	Minimal Risk	Minimal Risk

Level (oral)	Level (inhalation)

uncertainty	uncertainty

 	 	factor	factor

	Detected in both totals and leachate samples:

	nickel	7440020

30

copper	7440508	10

	tin	7440315	100

	formaldehyde	50000

30

cobalt	7440484	100	10

vanadium	7440622	100	100

cresol, p- 	106445	100

	acetone	67641

100

trichloroethylene	79016

300

dichloroethane, 1,2-	107062	300	90

methylene chloride	75092

30

trichloroethane, 1,1,1-	71556	100	100

	Detected only in "totals" samples (not in leachate samples):

di-n-octyl phthalate	117840	100

	tetrachloroethylene 	127184

100

chloroform	67663

100

	Note 1: the oral Minimal Risk Level for copper is based on intermediate

	Note 1: the Reference Concentration for trichloroethylene is based on
intermediate

  (>14 to <365 day) exposures

	Note 2: the oral Minimal Risk Level for tin is based on intermediate 

	  (>14 to <365 day) exposures

	Note 3: the oral Minimal Risk Level for cobalt is based on intermediate

  (>14 to <365 day) exposures

	Note 4: the oral Minimal Risk Level for vanadium is based on
intermediate

  (>14 to <365 day) exposures; the inhalation Minimal Risk level is
based

  on acute (14 days or less) exposures

	Note 5: the oral Minimal Risk Level for p-cresol is based on acute

	   (14 days or less) exposures

	Note 6: the inhalation Minimal Risk Level for trichloroethylene is
based on intermediate

  (>14 to <365 day) exposures

	Note 7: the oral Minimal Risk Level for 1,2-dichloroethane is based on
intermediate

  (>14 to <365 day) exposures

	Note 8: the oral and inhalation Minimal Risk Levels for
1,1,1-trichloroethane are

  based on intermediate (>14 to <365 day) exposures

	Note 9: the oral Minimal Risk Level for di-n-octyl phthalate is based
on intermediate

  (>14 to <365 day) exposures

We believe that for most constituents, the general direction of
influence is to overestimate the potential for adverse health effects. 
The overestimates occur because the Reference Doses, Reference
Concentrations, and Minimal Risk Levels are often derived using data
from studies of laboratory animals, assumptions that humans are more
sensitive to adverse effects caused by a constituent than are the
laboratory animals studied, and assumptions that some humans are
particularly sensitive.  In general, when EPA’s Reference Doses and
Reference Concentrations and ATSDR’s Minimal Risk Levels are based on
studies of humans, then the numerical uncertainty factors are lower (and
confidence ratings are higher).  However, for antimony,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene and vanadium (inhalation
pathways), and cobalt, copper, p-cresol, 1,2-dichloroethane, di-n-octyl
phthalate, tin, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and vanadium (oral pathways), the
model’s estimated health effects may be underestimates because we used
Reference Doses or Reference Concentrations that were appropriate for
shorter-term exposures than the long-term exposures we modeled in the
risk assessment.

Regarding the quality of toxicity information for human cancer effects,
the toxicologists and other scientists at EPA and other organizations
who develop toxicity values for acceptable exposures are faced with the
challenge of putting a numerical value on an acceptable exposure when
the exact biological mechanisms of cancerous growths are less than fully
understood.  Under EPA’s 1986 carcinogen risk assessment guidelines,
EPA classified constituents as “known,” “probable,” or
“possible” human carcinogens, based on human or animal data, or
“unclassified” (due to a lack of data or no evaluation performed) or
“no evidence of carcinogenicity.”  Arsenic is classified as a known
human carcinogen.  (Newer carcinogen risk assessment guidelines
published in 2005 (EPA 2005a) have not yet affected arsenic’s IRIS
classification.)   Arsenic’s cancer slope factor is based on studies
of humans exposed to arsenic.  Regarding uncertainty about the cancer
probability estimates, we cannot state the direction of influence that
perfect knowledge of arsenic’s carcinogenic potential would have on
the risk assessment results.  We note that numerous issues relating to
arsenic’s carcinogenicity are under review by EPA’s Science Advisory
Board.  

In early 2005, EPA published new guidelines for evaluating potential
cancer risk (EPA 2005a and EPA 2005b).  EPA 2005b addresses
potentialWith respect to the cancer probability estimates for the nearby
residents who are exposed as children, the cancer potency measures
(slope factors or inhalation unit risk factors) are not adjusted for a
child’s potential additional susceptibility to carcinogens due to
being in the early- stages of the life exposures by advising adjustment
of cycle.  During early life stages, certain body functions that could
serve to protect the child from carcinogenic effects may not yet be
mature.  In early 2005, EPA published new guidelines for evaluating
potential cancer risk (EPA 2005b).  These guidelines are for addressing
potential susceptibility to carcinogens due to early-life exposures
advise adjusting cancer potency factors upward to address early-life
susceptibility when carcinogens have a mutagenic mode of action. 
Certain forms of arsenic may operate by a mutagenic mode of action.  EPA
has not yet evaluated howThe DRAS version 2 model results do not reflect
these new guidelines may impact arsenic cancer risksrecommended
adjustments, and thus, may underestimate the cancer probability for a
nearby resident who is exposed during childhood. 

Regarding the quality of toxicity information for ecological effects,
EPA’s Current National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, found at  
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcriteria.html" 
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcriteria.html , give detailed
explanations of how the freshwater “CCC” (Criterion Continuous
Concentration, for chronic exposures) values (that we used for many of
our toxicity reference values) were derived.  Many of these values were
derived using methods described in EPA 1985, Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic
Organisms and Their Uses.  This document indicates that factors such as
the water’s hardness, salinity and pH can affect the actual toxicity
experienced by an aquatic organism due to exposure to the particular
constituent.   We have no quantitative estimates of the uncertainty
(such as the uncertainty factors used in IRIS) for the ecological
toxicity reference values used in this risk assessment.  For the
Illinois water quality criteria used for several constituents’
toxicity reference values, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
states that some of the water quality criteria “have been derived from
a less than ideal data set yet we include these values because we find
it desirable to have some numeric indication of toxicity.  These values
may not be suitable for use in a regulatory setting, however.” 
Similar caveats likely are appropriate for the two toxicity reference
values used from the Kansas water quality regulations (Kansas 2004a and
Kansas 2004b).

9.2 Model Uncertainty

All models are simplified versions of very complex real-world
conditions.  Thus all models are subject to a certain degree of error,
because of the simplification of real-world conditions.  

	

One source of model uncertainty arises from the DRASv2 model’s use of
variables that are “point estimates” represented by a single numeric
value.  DRASv2 is an example of a deterministic model that uses point
estimates for variables that, in reality, can possess a range of values
under different conditions (such as temperature fluctuations,
precipitation conditions, or wind patterns). For example, a
constituent’s solubility may vary depending on water temperature.  A
constituent’s volatility may vary depending on both air temperature
and wind speed.  The model’s inability to reflect variability in the
variable values contributes to uncertainty in the model results, since
the model does not perform calculations using the entire range that the
variable values might encompass.  It is possible that the model’s use
of point estimates for variable values results in overestimates of
national-scale adverse effects, for some constituents, and results in
underestimates of national-scale adverse effects for other constituents.
 The difference between “deterministic” and “probabilistic”
models explained in section 4.4 illustrates how increasing the
complexity of a model (moving from “deterministic” to
“probabilistic” modeling) can mitigate this source of model
uncertainty, provided the data used in a probabilistic model’s input
distributions is accurate.

Another source of model uncertainty results from simplification of the
actual disposal conditions.  The model does not account for the impact
of other wastes that are “co-disposed” along with the F019
wastewater treatment sludge.  The composition of other waste that is
co-disposed along with the F019 waste could have two important
influences on the behavior of the constituents in the F019 waste. 
First, if the same constituents are present in the other co-disposed
waste, in significant enough quantities, their additional effect on
emissions to air and groundwater from the landfill is not accounted for
in the DRASv2 modeling.  Second, if other constituents are present in
the other co-disposed waste, which could either adsorb or react with
some of the constituents in the F019 waste, the adsorption or other
chemical reactions could affect whether, and if so, how quickly, the
F019 constituents are emitted from the landfill.  Third, information
from EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory database suggests that, in some
situations, motor vehicle manufacturers may send their F019 sludge for
“stabilization” prior to landfill disposal.  The information in this
database does not reveal what stabilization practices are used, but it
is possible that chemical constituents or materials are added to the
waste that may serve to adsorb hazardous constituents present in the
F019 sludge, and thus alter the chemical reactions that occur within the
landfill after disposal.

Regarding co-disposed waste, omitting other waste with the same
constituents present could underestimate exposures.  The magnitude of
the underestimates probably varies by constituent.  For example, a rough
comparison (using a single landfill) of the quantity of mercury present
in the F019 with the quantity of mercury present in ordinary municipal
solid waste found that the quantity of mercury present in municipal
solid waste was far greater than the quantity present due to the F019.  
For other constituents, the F019 may be the greatest source of that
constituent in the landfill by a large margin, and thus omitting other
waste with the same constituents would not underestimate exposures by
very much.  

Regarding co-disposed waste that may react chemically with the F019, we
believe that the model may either overestimate or underestimate
exposures.  The state of knowledge of the chemical composition of the
waste disposed in a given landfill, over time, is such that predictions
of the chemical reactions that could occur would be virtually impossible
to make.  However, we can say that some chemical reactions will take
place; the waste, once deposited into the landfill, is not inert but
will undergo various reactions with other wastes with which it comes
into contact.  The result of the reactions that do take place could
either increase or decrease the quantity of a specific chemical
constituent that is available to be emitted into air or groundwater,
relative to what the model assumes.  We can provide bounds on the
magnitude of our uncertainty on this point, by using the two theoretical
extremes: either no constituent is emitted in a given timeframe (total
adsorption), or the entire mass of constituent is emitted in a given
timeframe (total release).  The rate of release over time is something
that we cannot put similar bounds on, and the rate of release over time
governs the exposure that a given receptor (nearby resident, or
stream-dwelling organism) would experience.

Another potential source of model uncertainty relates to changes in
landfill practices since the original model algorithms were developed. 
In the 1990s, requirements imposed on most U.S. municipal solid waste
landfills for both leaking and air emissions, caused many changes to
landfill design and operation.   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) regulations required most landfills to meet a leak prevention
standard; Clean Air Act regulations required most landfills to collect
and burn methane to prevent harmful ground-level ozone from forming due
to emissions of volatile organic constituents.  Neither of these
relatively recent developments in landfill design and operation is
reflected in the basic landfill scenario that DRASv2 represents (an
unlined landfill with no leachate recovery system, and no landfill gas
recovery).  Note, however, that at the federal level, industrial
nonhazardous waste landfills are not required to meet either of these
standards (and in some cases, municipal waste landfills are not required
to meet one or both of these standards).  Thus the DRASv2 modeled
scenario does reflect current landfill disposal practices in certain
limited situations.

 

Whether the model adequately reflects environmental effects is another
question.  As noted in EPA 2002a (p. 5-7), the equations used to
estimate chemical concentrations in surface water bodies may be
particularly conservative because they do not account for decay, nor do
they account for sorption processes.  These equations do not account for
dilution of chemical concentrations in water and sediment.  Thus the
DRASv2 model may overestimate aquatic organisms’ exposures to
chemicals in surface water.  Also, the model only represents impacts on
aquatic organisms and may not fully represent environmental effects.  We
believe that aquatic organisms may be those organisms most likely to be
adversely affected by the waste (when it is disposed in a landfill near
a stream).  However, it is possible that in some situations or
localities (for example, the landfill affects habitat of an endangered
species), the model does not represent the most significant or important
environmental impact.  The risk assessment likely underestimates the
impact on organisms that use the landfill itself as habitat (since it
does not account for direct exposure of those organisms to the
constituents in the waste).  It may also underestimate the impact on
sensitive populations such as endangered or threatened species with
members whose habitat range includes the landfill.  

There also are limitations to the air, surface transport, and
groundwater fate and transport models that are used in DRASv2, because
of the assumptions that those model developers made.  For example, for
groundwater fate and transport, the model should not be used if the soil
and aquifer underlying the landfill does not have a uniform porous
media, each consisting of a single layer, since the model does not
account for preferential groundwater flow pathways such as solution
cavities or fractures, or layering in the subsurface saturated or
unsaturated zones.  Another example is in situations in which a
non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) is present.  In these situations
significant contaminant migration might occur which is not accounted for
by the model.  EPA 2002a and EPA 2002d2002b describe the groundwater
model’s limitations in greater detail.  Regarding the limitations of
the groundwater model, the two most important limitations could result
in an underestimate of risk if the F019 waste were disposed in a
landfill that was located in an area with nonhomogeneous subsurface
layers, or if a NAPL plume was present in the groundwater underneath the
landfill.  The underestimates would result from the fact that the model
assumes that the constituents released from the waste spread out in the
groundwater underneath the landfill in a fairly uniform way, whereas in
nonhomogeneous terrain or in the presence of a NAPL plume, the
constituents could move more quickly, and might spread out less
(resulting in higher groundwater concentrations).

Our analysis assumes that the residents near the landfill have no other
source of drinking water besides the groundwater from their wells.  If
the nearby residents use other sources of drinking fluids, such as
bottled water or water from other sources, our exposure assumptions may
overestimate exposure to constituents via groundwater ingestion.

To better illustrate the way that our use of the DRASv2 model may affect
the estimates that we obtain in this risk assessment, we review the
equations that represent movement of constituents in groundwater
underneath the landfill, and the resulting estimated exposures from
groundwater ingestion.  For the noncancer groundwater ingestion risk,
there are (effectively) six variables: leachate concentration, drinking
water intake, DAF (which includes waste volume and numerous other
variables), body weight, number of days per year at home, and toxicity
value.   In the high end estimates four of the six are set high – the
leachate concentration (set at the maximum value), the drinking water
intake (set approximately at the 84th percentile for adult, 90th
percentile for child), and the DAF (includes both high end waste volume
assumptions and the choice of the 90th percentile well concentration
from probabilistic modeling performed using the EPACMTP; see EPA 2002a
pp. 2-7 to 2-14 for explanation).  For nearby residents who work or
attend school at a location outside the home, the assumption that they
are present at the residence 24 hours per day, for 350 days out of 365
is also high.  (For nearby residents who are homebound individuals,
however, this may accurately reflect their presence at the residence.)).
 Setting so many variables near the higher end of the range of possible
variable values could very well overstate risk in the high end
estimates.

In the central tendency estimates – we set as few as possible at the
high end of the range.  A true central tendency analysis would set all
variable values at central tendency (such as mean (average) or median
values).  However, we are not able to adjust the DAF in DRASv2 without
rerunning the EPACMTP model, so for this analysis we have continued to
use the default DRASv2 DAFs, which represent a 90th percentile, or high
end, DAF.  As with the high end estimates, the assumption of presence at
the residence 350 days per year, 24 hours a day, also is a higher-end
value for populations that work or attend school outside the residence. 
Thus even the central tendency results presented in this risk assessment
are likely to overstate the actual central tendency risk and hazard
estimates.

Finally, there are additional sources of potential exposure to the
constituents of potential concern that we do not include in our model
results.  CertainAlso, certain constituents in motor vehicle
manufacturers’ F019F109 sludge may already be present in the
environment as a result of both natural processes and anthropogenic
activities.  For example, constituents of potential concern that are
present in an individual’s diet are separate from the exposures that
we model in this analysis, and omitting them may understate risks. 
Under these circumstances, receptors potentially receive a
“background” exposure that may add to the exposure resulting from
release of contaminants from the waste.  For a national analysis like
this assessment, the inclusion of background concentrations as part of
the analysis is difficult because of the limited data on national
background concentrations for each constituent and the potential high
variability of background concentrations. In past listing decisions, we
have not factored in such background exposures in our hazardous waste
assessments.  Not including the background exposure an individual may
already have to a constituent of concern does not change the
“marginal” increase in risk a person may have as a result of
possible exposures to constituents in these wastes, and that our modeled
estimates presented in this document represent.  However, if such
background exposures are significant for a constituent, excluding them
leads to an underestimate of the total risk to exposed individuals.

9.3 Past and Future States

The timeframe in which the risk assessment results apply is sometimes
unclear from the DRASv2 modeling.  Questions 4 and 10 in section 1
pertain to the time period in which the expected effects will occur. 
The DRASv2 modeling does not indicate the timeframe in which the risk
assessment results apply.  The DRASv2 model estimates that ecological
effects occur in approximately the same year in which the disposal
occurs, since they result from precipitation coming into contact with
the disposed waste when it is exposed to the atmosphere on the day of
disposal.  The precipitation runs off of the landfill surface and
eventually affects the nearby stream.  Thus, for question 10, the answer
is, effectively, “right now.”  However, for question 4, the time
period in which the expected effects will occur varies depending on the
pathway that the constituents take before they encounter the nearby
resident.  The direct air inhalation pathway, which was the primary
pathway responsible for the estimated cancer risk from formaldehyde
exposure, also affects nearby residents with exposures that occur
“right now” (since the volatilized constituentsformaldehyde would be
emitted from the landfill immediately, and be breathed by the nearby
resident on the same day that the disposal occurred).  The risk
assessment assumes the nearby resident lives at the residence for 30
years; the estimated cancer risk is the cumulative risk probability from
the entire 30 years of exposure.  Thus, the formaldehyde cancer risk
estimates are for current exposures that would have adverse health
effects in a timeframe extending at least 30 years beyond the initial
exposure.  However, for the groundwater pathways (which the model found
were responsible for the majority of the potential noncancer effects,
and for the arsenic cancer risk), the best answer we can give to
question 4 (using DRASv2) is “in the future.”  A more involved and
detailed analysis, using a model called EPA Composite Model for Leachate
with Transformation Products (EPACMTP) would be needed to estimate the
timeframe more precisely.  It is possible that this analysis would
result in answers to question 4 ranging from tens to hundreds (and
possibly thousands) of years for the various constituents of potential
concern.  For example, use of the EPACMTP for modeling in a listing
determination for wastes from chlorinated aliphatics production yielded
a timeframe of 8,800 years for exposure to arsenic from a landfill
release (see 65 FR 67068, November 8, 2000).

There is considerable uncertainty in predicting the movement of
contaminants over long periods of time.  The DRASv2, IWEM Tier 1, and
dyes and pigments analyses all use the EPACMTP to assess groundwater
pathway movement over a time period of up to 10,000 years.  There are
likely to be significant changes in environmental conditions over this
period of time, yet the modeling methodology maintains constant
assumptions over this entire 10,000 year period.  

Finally, there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of liner
systems in containing landfill leachate over long periods of time.  This
uncertainty does not affect the DRASv2 model results, since those
results are for releasesemissions from an unlined landfill.  However,
both the IWEM Tier 1 analysis (and the risk analysis performed for the
dyes and pigments rulemaking) used analyses are based on infiltration
rate data obtained from closed and operating landfills.  Landfill owners
and operators in the U.S. have only used liner systems for a relatively
short period of time (generally, two to three decades at the most). 
Long-term performance of these liner systems in real-world conditions
remains to be documented in future years.  Since liner systems are
engineered structures, and would be susceptible to chemical degradation
as well as the possibility of physical disruptions (from circumstances
such as equipment use that disrupts the liner’s continuity, flooding,
or burrowing animals), they can be expected to fail eventually at
containing the waste leachate inside the landfill.  To the extent that a
leachate collection and removal system is installed and operated, over
the period that the constituents within the waste remain inside the
landfill, then liner failure would not be as significant an issue due to
the removal of leachate by the collection and removal system.

9.4 Summary of Overall Uncertainty

Assessment

Regarding the overall uncertainty in the human noncancer, human cancer,
and ecological risk estimates provided in sections 5, 6 and 7, we
believe that the risk assessment provides reasonably good information
regarding certain constituents that are known to be present in the
waste, and that our best available tools indicate could potentially
cause adverse human health effects under certain circumstances.  The
tool that we use in our primary analysis, the DRASv2 model, probably
tends to overestimate potential adverse human health effects due to
groundwater ingestion due to the setting of most variables to high end
values.  In some situations (nonhomogeneous subsurface conditions at the
landfill, or presence of a non-aqueous phase liquid in the groundwater)
it might underestimate potential adverse human health effects due to
groundwater ingestion.  DRASv2 may overestimate ecological effects on
aquatic organisms as well.  However, it does not address adverse
ecological effects on nonaquatic organisms that use the landfill as
habitat or that are sensitive or vulnerable populations.  The main tool
that we use in our additionalsecondary analysis, the IWEM Tier 1 model,
also probably tends to overestimate potential adverse human health
effects due to groundwater ingestion (insofar as the IWEM Tier 1 model
presumes a groundwater well located only 150 meters from the landfill). 
However, like DRASv2, it might underestimate potential adverse human
health effects due to groundwater ingestion in situations where the
landfill is located above nonhomogeneous subsurface conditions, or in
the presence of a non-aqueous phase liquid.

Thus it is apparent that there are numerous assumptions regarding past,
present and future conditions that affect the magnitude of the
estimates.  Many of the assumptions could cause overestimates, while
others could cause underestimates.  We believe that the assumptions that
we made that could cause overestimates are necessary because of the
incomplete information that we sometimes have, that could cause
underestimates.

As a result of these uncertainties, we have rounded all estimates to one
significant figure.  Portraying hazard and risk estimates with more than
one significant figure could imply a greater degree of precision than is
warranted.  Users of these hazard and risk estimates are best served by
considering the order of magnitude represented, rather than focusing on
the magnitude of a given integer that we present as the estimate.

10.  Conclusions

For the human and ecological receptors whose exposures we model in this
risk assessment, we draw the following conclusions:

Human noncancer health effects.  We use DRASv2 to model an unlined
landfill scenario receiving motor vehicle manufacturers’ F019 waste. 
The high end model results represent conditions that may or may not
actually occur at a future point in time, at a given landfill, including
disposal of large volumes of F019 waste for many years, at very high
concentrations of chemical constituents.  These high end model results
indicate that:

future residents near the landfill could experience adverse noncancer
health effects from certain constituents present in the waste, due to
ingesting groundwater contaminated with constituents from the waste.

the residents most at risk are children with average body weights, ages
6 months to 4 years, who drink greater-than-average quantities of water
from a well located within one mile downgradient from the landfill.

the constituents most likely to cause potential adverse health effects
for these children are likely to be nickel (present in virtually all
samples of F019 from motor vehicle manufacturers; toxicity uncertainty
factor of 300) and zinc (present in virtually all samples of F019 from
motor vehicle manufacturers; toxicity uncertainty factor of 3).

other constituents that may be, but appear less likely to be, of concern
to the nearby child resident include tin, arsenic, cadmium, antimony,
selenium, thallium, naphthalene, and xylenes (from ingesting groundwater
and bathing with it).

nearby adult residents with average body weight who drink
greater-than-average quantities of well water are potentially at risk
due to exposure to nickel in the drinking water.

other constituents that may be (but appear less likely to be) of concern
to the nearby adult resident include tin, arsenic, cadmium, antimony,
selenium, naphthalene, and xylenes.

The central tendency model results represent conditions that are
somewhat more likely to occur at a future point in time, at a given
landfill, since they represent disposal of median waste volumes at
median concentrations of chemical constituents.  These central tendency
model results indicate that:

nearby child and adult residents are unlikely to experience adverse
health effects from exposure to chemical constituents in their
drinking/bathing water, when those chemical constituents have moved from
the motor vehicle manufacturers’ F019 waste disposed in the landfill
to the nearby residents’ well. 

We use the IWEM Tier 1 model to model a landfill receiving motor vehicle
manufacturers’ F019 waste, when the landfill has a composite liner
system (several layers of material at the bottom of the landfill,
installed in order to prevent downward flow of water from the bottom of
the landfill into the subsurface, and groundwater, beneath the
landfill).  When the composite liner system is made up of a geomembrane
flexible membrane layer made from HDPE (high density polyethylene), on
top of a geotextile layer which in turn is on top of a geosynthetic
(bentonite) clay layer 6 millimeters thick, with another geotextile
layer underneath it, the IWEM Tier 1 model indicates that the potential
adverse health effects of the high end estimates using the DRASv2 model
would be alleviated for nickel.most of these constituents.

Finally, we use the analysis from the dyes and pigments listing
determination to extend the same logic regarding composite liners that
the IWEM Tier 1 modeling shows.  When the composite liner system is made
up of geomembrane liners overlying a compacted clay liner or a
geosynthetic clay liner, the dyes and pigments analysis also shows
similar reductions in constituent concentrations in groundwater.

Human cancer health effects.  We use DRASv2 to model an unlined landfill
scenario receiving motor vehicle manufacturers’ F019 waste.  The high
end model results represent conditions that may or may not actually
occur at a future point in time, at a given landfill, including disposal
of large volumes of F019 waste for many years, at very high
concentrations of chemical constituents.  These high end model results
indicate that:

future residents living near the landfill in which the F019 waste is
disposed could experience exposures that may lead to cancer health
effects from arsenic present in the waste, due to ingesting arsenic in
contaminated groundwater.

the residents at greater risk are children from birth to age six, whose
weights average 15 kilograms during that period, who continue to drink
the groundwater until age 30. 

The central tendency model results represent conditions that are
somewhat more likely to occur at a future point in time, at a given
landfill, since they represent disposal of average volumes of waste at
average concentrations of chemical constituents.  These central tendency
model results indicate that:

nearby residents have a probability of approximately two in one million
of developing cancer from exposure to arsenic from F019 disposal in
groundwater used as their drinking water source.  

We use the IWEM Tier 1 model to model a landfill receiving motor vehicle
manufacturers’ F019 waste, when the landfill has a composite liner
system (several layers of material at the bottom of the landfill,
installed in order to prevent downward flow of water from the bottom of
the landfill into the subsurface, and groundwater, beneath the
landfill).  When the composite liner system is made up of a geomembrane
flexible membrane layer made from HDPE (high density polyethylene), on
top of a geotextile layer which in turn is on top of a geosynthetic
(bentonite) clay layer 6 millimeters thick, with another geotextile
layer underneath it, the IWEM Tier 1 model indicates that the potential
cancer risk from arsenic exposure is less than one in one million.

Ecological effects.  Under the high end conditions that we model using
DRASv2 (large waste volumes and high chemical constituent
concentrations), we infer that present and future aquatic organisms
living in a stream near the landfill, and downgradient from it, would
not experience adverse effects from the constituents known to be present
in the F019 waste from motor vehicle manufacturers.   Lead and barium
are the two chemical constituents with the highest hazard quotients in
the high end results.  Under more typical central tendency conditions,
the water concentrations of lead and barium are well below the toxicity
reference values, indicating that the motor vehicle manufacturers’
F019 waste would not cause a significant impact on the nearby stream
organisms.

Uncertainty in results.

For the human health results, our overall assessment is that the models
we use probably overestimate the potential adverse effects of disposing
of the F019 waste in either unlined or lined landfills.  The risk
analysis evaluates high-end risks, and is designed to be protective of
human health and the environment.  In spite of this, the possibility
that in some circumstances the models might underestimate potential
adverse effects means that landfill liner performance is relevant to
mitigating potential risks.  Note that, as engineered structures,
landfill liners will eventually cease containing the leachate at their
peak efficiencies.  However, even as a less-than-perfectly-efficient
leachate containment device, the liner system’s presence (compared to
the condition of no landfill liner at all) should serve to retard, or
diminish, the downward flow of leachate through the bottom of the
landfill, and thus actual exposures that would be experienced by future
residents near the landfill should be lower than those estimated using
the DRASv2 model.

For both the human health and ecological results, all of the model
results described above (DRASv2, IWEM Tier 1, and the results from the
dyes and pigments analysis) are subject to uncertainty.  We describe the
sources of uncertainty in more detail in section 9.

11.  References

AOAC 1990.  Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official
Analytical Chemists, 15th ed. Vol. 2.  Association of Official
Analytical Chemists.  Arlington, VA.  1990.

ASTSWMO 1996.  “Non-Municipal, Subtitle D Waste Survey,” Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.  Washington,
D.C.  March 1996.

ATSDR 20062004.  ATSDR Minimal Risk Levels.  Database updated at varying
intervals, accessible at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html"  http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html
.  U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. 
20062004.

Commerce 1998.  U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Economics
and Statistics Administration, Current Population Reports: Household
Economics Studies: Seasonality of Moves and Duration of Residence. 
Report No. P70-66.  Washington, D.C. October 1998.

EPA 1985.  Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses.  
PB85-227049.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development.  January 1985.

EPA 1994.  Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste.  Publication Number
SW-846, Revision 2.  September 1994.

EPA 1996.  Ecotox Thresholds.  ECO Update 3(2):1-12.  EPA/540/F-95/038. 
Publication 9345.0-12FSI.  PB95-963324.   U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, D.C.  January 1996.

EPA 1997a.  EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products EPACMTP: User’s Guide.    U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office
of Solid Waste.  Washington, D.C.  1997.

EPA 1997b.  Exposure Factors Handbook.  U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.  Washington, D.C.  1997.

EPA 2002a.  RCRA Delisting Technical Support Document.  EPA906-D-98-001.
 Interim Final.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste.  Prepared by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX.  April 2002.

EPA 2002b.  Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (Interim Report). 
EPA-600-P-00-002B. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington Office.  Washington, D.C.  September 2002.

EPA 2002c.  Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM) User’s
Guide.  EPA530-R-02-013.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste. 
Washington, D.C.  August 2002.

EPA 2002d.  Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM)
Technical Background Document.  EPA530-R-02-012.  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office
of Solid Waste.  Washington, D.C.  August 2002.

EPA 2003a.  EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products (EPACMTP) Technical Background Document. 
EPA530-R-03-006.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste.  Washington, D.C. 
April 2003. 

EPA 2003b.  EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products (EPACMTP) Parameters/Data Background Document. 
EPA530-R-03-003.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste.  Washington, D.C. 
April 2003.

EPA 2003c.  Risk Assessment Technical Background Document for the Dye
and Pigment Industry Hazardous Waste Listing Determination.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste.  Washington,
D.C.  November 2003.

EPA 2004a.  EPA’s Multimedia, Multipathway, and Multireceptor Risk
Assessment (3MRA) Modeling System: A Review by the 3MRA Review Panel of
the EPA Science Advisory Board.  EPA-SAB-05-003.  U.S Environmental
Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board.  Washington D.C.  November
2004.   

EPA 2004b.  National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. 
EPA822-R-02-047.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
 Washington, D.C. 2004.

EPA 2004c.  Integrated Risk Information System.  Database updated at
varying intervals, accessible at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/iris/intro.htm"  http://www.epa.gov/iris/intro.htm .
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development.  Washington, D.C.  2004.

EPA 2004d.  Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values.  Database updated
at varying intervals, accessible to EPA and state/tribal environmental
agency staff at   HYPERLINK "http://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/" 
http://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/ .  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.  Washington, D.C.  2004.

EPA 2005a.  U.S. EPA, Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. 
EPA/630/P-03/001F.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development.  Washington, D.C., 2005.

EPA 2005b.  U.S. EPA, Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility
from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens.  EPA/630/R-03/003F.   U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. 
Washington, D.C., 2005.

EPA 2005c.  Integrated Risk Information System.  Database updated at
varying intervals, accessible at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/iris/intro.htm"  http://www.epa.gov/iris/intro.htm .
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development.  Washington, D.C.  2004.

EPA 2007.  U.S. EPA, Economics Background Document: Estimate of
Potential Economic Impacts for USEPA’s Proposed Amendment to the RCRA
Hazardous Wastecode F019 to Exclude Certain Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Industries.  Washington, D.C., 2007.

Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006.  Title 35, Environmental
Protection.  Part 302, Water Quality Standards.  Subpart B.  General Use
Water Quality Standards.  Sections 302.208(e) and 302.210(a).  Illinois
Pollution Control Board.  Chicago, IL, 2006.

Illinois EPA 2006.  Derived Water Quality Criteria.  Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.  Springfield, IL, 2006.

Kansas 2004a.  Amended Regulation.  Article 16.  Surface Water Quality
Standards.  Section 28-16-28(e)(d).  Kansas Department of Health and
Environment.  Topeka, KS, 2004.

Kansas 2004b.  Kansas Surface Water Quality Standards: Tables of Numeric
Criteria.  Kansas Department of Health and Environment.  Topeka, KS,
2004.

APPENDIX A

Fate, Transport, Exposure and Risk Models

References cited in Appendix A are listed at the end of Appendix A. 
Because the references are listed separately from the references cited
in the main text, some of the reference numbers here may be different
than the reference number for the same document when it is cited in the
main text of this document.

Delisting Risk Assessment Software, Version 2.0 (DRASv2)

Model documentation: EPA 2002a 

Main DRASv2 assumptions:

Waste quantity (for groundwater pathways)

The quantity of the waste disposed in the landfill, together with the
chemical constituent concentrations in that waste, determines the total
mass of contaminant that is available for release.  DRASv2 contains
equations that represent the relationship between the amount of disposed
waste that is the waste being evaluated, and the total quantity of waste
in the landfill (see EPA 2002a, pp. 2-14 to 2-18).

Fate and transport in groundwater

The main model assumptions of the groundwater fate and transport part of
the DRASv2 model (which is the version of the EPACMTP model that existed
in the mid-1990s; see EPA 1996 and EPA 1997a), are excerpted from EPA
2002a, pp. 2-4 through 2-7, and summarized here:

the landfill acts as a “finite source” of contamination.

the landfill is above an unsaturated zone, which is above the water
table (aquifer).  

contaminants in the waste move downward through the landfill, then move
downward through the unsaturated zone to the water table.

the soil and aquifer media are uniform, porous media; flow and transport
are described by Darcy’s law and the advection-dispersion equation,
respectively.

flow in the unsaturated zone is steady-state, one-dimensional, vertical
flow from beneath the landfill toward the water table.  The lower
boundary of the unsaturated zone is assumed to be the water table.  The
flow in the unsaturated zone is assumed to be predominantly
gravity-driven, and, therefore, the vertical flow component accounts for
most of the fluid flux between the source and the water table.  The flow
rate is assumed to be determined by the long-term average infiltration
rate through the landfill.

Flow in the saturated zone is simulated as flow in an unconfined aquifer
with constant saturated thickness.  The model assumes regional flow in a
horizontal direction with vertical disturbance resulting from recharge
and infiltration from the overlying unsaturated zone and landfill,
respectively.  The lower boundary of the aquifer is assumed to be
impermeable.  Flow in the saturated zone is assumed to be steady-state. 
The model assumes that groundwater “mounding” underneath the
landfill is small relative to the thickness of the saturated zone.

Contaminant transport in the unsaturated zone is assumed to occur by
advection and dispersion.  The unsaturated zone is assumed to be
initially contaminant-free, and contaminants are assumed to migrate
vertically downward from the landfill.

Contaminant transport in the saturated zone is assumed to be a result of
advection and dispersion.  The aquifer is assumed to be initially
contaminant-free, and contaminants are assumed to enter the aquifer only
from the unsaturated zone immediately beneath the landfill, which is
modeled as a rectangular, horizontal plane source. 

The model assumes that the dissolved phase is the only mobile phase and
disregards interphase mass transfer processes other than adsorption onto
the solid phase.

The model does not account for volatilization in the unsaturated zone.

The model does not account for the presence of a nonaqueous-phase liquid
(such as oil) or for transport in the gas phase.   When a mobile oil
phase is present, significant contaminant migration may occur within it,
and the model may underestimate the movement of hydrophobic chemicals.

The model computes chemical reactions involving adsorption.  The model
assumes that sorption of organic compounds in the subsurface can be
represented by linear adsorption isotherms in both the unsaturated and
saturated zones.  It is assumed that adsorption of contaminants onto the
soil or aquifer solid phase occurs instantaneously and is entirely
reversible.  For metals, the model uses either pH-dependent,
empirically-derived isotherms, or sorption isotherms generated by a
geochemical speciation model called MINTEQA2 (Allison et al. 1991).

The model accounts for transformation processes as first-order decay
processes.

Fate and transport in air

The air fate and transport part of the DRASv2 model consists of several
air source estimation techniques and dispersion models.  Particulates
from wind erosion of soil-waste surfaces and from vehicular traffic and
waste loading and unloading are modeled using Rapid Assessment of
Exposure to Particulate Emissions from Surface Contamination Sites (EPA
1985a) and Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I:
Stationary Point and Area Sources (EPA 1985b).  The DRASv2 model then
uses the Ambient Air Dispersion Model (EPA 1985c) for the dispersion of
the particulates, with source unit dimensions modified to more closely
resemble a landfill’s dimensions.  The main assumptions in the Ambient
Air Dispersion Model, listed in EPA 2002a, are:

the emission rate is constant over time

the emissions arise from an upwind virtual point source with emissions
occurring at ground level, and

no atmospheric destruction or decay occurs.

Other assumptions that EPA makes with respect to the deposition of
particulates from the landfill disposal activities onto the soil of the
neighboring residence are described in EPA 2002a, pp. 2-30 through 2-32.

For the fate and transport of volatile constituents, DRASv2 uses a
modified version (EPA 1984) of the equations in Land Disposal of
Hexachlorobenzene Wastes: Controlling Vapor Movement in Soils (Farmer et
al., 1978) together with the AADM model for dispersion (EPA 1985c,
modified as described in EPA 1994a).  Other assumptions that EPA makes
with respect to the dispersion of volatiles from the landfill disposal
activities are described in EPA 2002a, pp. 2-33 to 2-35.

Fate and transport to surface water

For the fate and transport of constituents that erode from the landfill
and are washed by precipitation to nearby surface water, DRASv2 uses the
Universal Soil Loss Equation, or USLE (Wischmeier and Smith 1965). 
Other assumptions that EPA makes with respect to the fate and transport
of constituents from the landfill to the nearby surface water body and
the resulting dilution in that surface water body, and sorption onto
soils and sediments, are described in EPA 2002a, pp. 2-41 to 2-47.

Human exposure, cancer and noncancer effects

The DRASv2 human exposure and hazard/risk equations for soil and water
ingestion and direct air inhalation are generally adapted from EPA’s
Superfund program risk assessment guidance (EPA 1988 and EPA 1991).  The
DRASv2 human exposure/hazard/risk equations for shower inhalation are
from EPA 1997b and the DRASv2 human exposure/hazard/risk equations for
dermal exposure are from EPA 1992.

Ecological receptor exposure and effects

The DRASv2 ecological receptor exposure equations for the aquatic
organisms living in the stream near the landfill are described in EPA
2002a, pp. 2-47 to 2-48, and Appendix A-1 to EPA 2002a.  The hazard
equations are essentially a comparison of the estimated surface water
concentration with a toxicity reference value that represents a water
concentration that should not adversely affect population viability of
an entire freshwater aquatic community (EPA 2002a, pp. 4-24 through
4-27).

Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM)

Model user’s guide and documentation: EPA 2002c2002b and EPA
2002d2002c.

One distinction between IWEM Tier 1 and DRASv2 results, for the
groundwater ingestion and inhalation (via showering) exposures, is that
DRASv2 provides a summed health effects estimate that includes both
types of exposure (ingestion and exposure from inhalation of
constituents from the groundwater used as shower water).  The DRASv2
model outputs allow the model user to see the relative contribution from
groundwater ingestion vs. inhalation via showering. However, IWEM Tier 1
apparently does not sum the two exposures, but rather, separately
calculates health effects based on each type of exposure (see EPA
2002d2002c, p. ES-8).

Main IWEM Tier 1 Assumptions:

Waste quantity (for groundwater pathways)

IWEM Tier 1 assumes that the entire quantity of waste in the landfill is
composed of the waste being evaluated (see EPA 2002d2002c, p. 4-9).  It
does not contain equations that represent the relationship between the
disposed quantity being evaluated and the entire quantity of waste in
the landfill.

Fate and Transport in Groundwater

IWEM Tier 1 models closed landfills with an assumed 2 foot thick cover
layer, then the waste, then one of three liner systems.  The leachate
concentration that the model user enters as the model input is the
initial leachate concentration that is assumed to leach from the waste;
the model assumes that no losses occur during the active life of the
landfill (such as volatilization).  The practical effect of these
assumptions is that the model assumes that all of the waste in the
landfill begins leaching when the landfill closes.  The leaching is
modeled as a depleting source scenario (until all waste that is
originally present has been depleted).  

IWEM uses a more recent version of the EPACMTP model than the 1996/1997
version that DRASv2 uses (see EPA 2003a and EPA 2003b for documentation
of the EPACMTP version used in IWEM.  The IWEM User’s Guide and the
IWEM Technical Background Document cites 2002 draft versions of the
EPACMTP documents that are listed in this Appendix as EPA 2003a and EPA
2003b).

The main model assumptions of the groundwater fate and transport part of
the IWEM model are similar to those listed above for DRASv2, since the
fundamental design of the EPACMTP model remained the same between the
1996/1997 version and the 2002/2003 version.  However, the IWEM User’s
Guide also mentions these other assumptions (see EPA 2002c pp. 3-4, 3-18
to 3-20):

Infiltration rates from the bottom of unlined and single-lined landfills
to the vadose zone are calculated using the Hydrologic Evaluation of
Landfill Performance (HELP) model (Schroeder et al., 1994).

Groundwater flow is not affected by groundwater sources such as
injection wells, or groundwater sinks such as pumping wells.

Matrix diffusion processes are not accounted for (when the aquifer
formation is comprised of zones with widely varying permeabilities, and
constituents move in and out of low permeability zones by diffusion).

Complex geochemical interactions in soil and groundwater are equilibrium
sorption processes (sorption occurs instantaneously).

The soil-water partition coefficient for organic constituents is
constant and equal to the product of the mass fraction of organic carbon
in the soil or aquifer and a constituent-specific organic carbon
partition coefficient.

The soil-water partition coefficient for metal constituents in the
unsaturated zone is a nonlinear sorption isotherm developed from the
MINTEQA2 geochemical speciation model.

The soil-water partition coefficient for metal constituents in the
saturated zone is assumed to be in a range where the isotherm is
approximately linear (which may not be valid when the metal
concentrations in the leachate are high).

The geochemical environment at a site is constant and not affected by
the presence of the leachate plume.

Colloidal transport or other forms of facilitated transport are not
accounted for.

Constituent transformation is represented by a first-order degradation
reaction that is uniform throughout the unsaturated zone and is uniform
(but may be a different value) throughout the saturated zone.

Human Exposure, Cancer and Noncancer Effects

Like DRASv2, the IWEM Tier 1 human exposure and hazard/risk equations
for water ingestion are adapted from EPA’s Superfund program risk
assessment guidance (EPA 1991).  For cancer effects from inhalation via
showering, IWEM Tier 1 also uses risk equations adapted from EPA 1991. 
For noncancer effects from inhalation via showering, IWEM Tier 1 uses a
simple comparison with a reference air concentration.  IWEM Tier 1 uses
the same methodology as DRASv2 for the inhalation via showering, but
cites original references (McKone 1987 and Little 1992) and provides a
detailed description in Appendix E to EPA 2002d2002c.

EPA Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products
(EPACMTP)

Model documentation: EPA 2003a and EPA 2003b. 

Main EPACMTP assumptions:

Waste quantity (for groundwater pathways)

EPACMTP models the infiltration of the leachate from the bottom of the
landfill, into the subsurface.  Waste quantity is accounted for
according to assumptions of the particular analysis in question (see
above for assumptions for analyses performed using the DRASv2 model, or
for assumptions for analyses performed using the IWEM Tier 1 tool).

Fate and transport in groundwater

The main model assumptions of the groundwater fate and transport are
described above.  EPA 2003a and EPA 2003b describe the specific model
equations, assumptions, and cautions to the user in more detail.

References for Appendix A

Allison et al. 1991.  Allison, J.D., D.S. Brown, and K.J. Novo-Gradac. 
MINTEQA2/PRODEFA2, A Geochemical Assessment Model for Environmental
Systems: Version 3.0 User’s Manual.  EPA/600/3-91/021.  U.S. EPA
Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory,
Athens, GA. March 1991.

EPA 1984.  Evaluation and Selection of Models for Estimating Air
Emissions from Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facilities.  EPA-450/3-84-020.  Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.  December.

EPA 1985a.  Rapid Assessment of Exposure to Particulate Emissions from
Surface Contamination Sites.  EPA/600/8-85/002.  Office of Research and
Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington,
D.C.  February.

EPA 1985b.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I:
Stationary Point and Area Sources.  Fourth Edition.  EPA Publication
AP-42.  Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.  September.

EPA 1985c.  “Transport to the Air – Ambient Air Dispersion Model
(AADM).”  In: “Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusions and Proposed Organics
Model.”  Federal Register, 50(229): 48963-48967.  November 27.

EPA 1988.  Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume 1:
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A).  Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response.  Washington, D.C.  EPA/540-1-89/002.

EPA 1991.  Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume 1:
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based
Preliminary Remediation Goals).  Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response.  Washington, D.C.  Publication Number 9285.7-013.

EPA 1992.  Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications,
Interim Report.  Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. 
Washington. D.C.  EPA/600/8-91/011B.

EPA 1994a.  Docket Report on Evaluation of Contaminant Releases to Air
from U.S. DOE Hanford’s Petitioned Waste.  May 27.

EPA 1996.  EPACMTP Background Document.  Office of Solid Waste. 
Washington, D.C. September.

EPA 1997a.  EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products, EPACMTP: User’s Guide.  Office of Solid
Waste, Washington, D.C.

EPA 1997b.  Supplemental Background Document: NonGroundwater Pathway
Risk Assessment: Petroleum Process Waste Listing Determination.  Office
of Solid Waste.  Research Triangle Park, N.C.  March 20.

EPA 2002a.  RCRA Delisting Technical Support Document.  EPA906-D-98-001.
 Interim Final.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste.  Prepared by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX.  April 2002.

EPA 2002b.  Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM) User’s
Guide.  EPA530-R-02-013.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste. 
Washington, D.C.  August 2002.

EPA 2002c.  Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM)
Technical Background Document.  EPA530-R-02-012.  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office
of Solid Waste.  Washington, D.C.  August 2002.

EPA 2003a.  EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products (EPACMTP) Technical Background Document. 
EPA530-R-03-006.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste.  Washington, D.C. 
April 2003. 

EPA 2003b.  EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products (EPACMTP) Parameters/Data Background Document. 
EPA530-R-03-003.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste.  Washington, D.C. 
April 2003.

Farmer et al. 1978.  Farmer, W.J., M.S. Yang, and J. Letey.  Land
Disposal of Hexachlorobenzene Wastes: Controlling Vapor Movement in
Soils.  In: Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes: Proceedings of the Fourth
Annual Research Symposium.  Held at San Antonio, TX on March 6, 7 and 8,
1978.  EPA/600/9-78-016.  U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.  August.

Little 1992.  Little, J.C.  “Applying the two resistance theory to
contaminant volatilization in showers.”  Environmental Science and
Technology 26(7): 1341-1349.

McKone 1987.  McKone, T.E.  “Human Exposure to Volatile Organic
Compounds in Household Tap Water: The Indoor Inhalation Pathway.” 
Environmental Science and Technology 21: 1194-1201.

Schroeder et al., 1994.  Schroeder, Paul .R., et alT.S. Dozier, P.A.
Zappi, B.M. McEnroe,  J.W. Sjostrom, and R.L. Peton.  The hydrologic
evaluation of landfill performance model (HELP): Engineering
Documentation for Version 3.  EPA/600/R-94/168b1686.  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.  1994.

Wischmeier and Smith 1965.  Wischmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith.  Predicting
Rainfall-Erosion Losses from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains.  USDA
Handbook, No. 282.  Agricultural Research Service.

APPENDIX B 

DRASv2 Model Inputs

This Appendix contains the model inputs used in a screening human health
and ecological risk assessment performed

	for chemical constituents detected in samples of F019 hazardous waste
from the motor vehicle 

	manufacturing industry from 1996-2003.

The model is the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) Version 2.

We use the default values in DRAS Version 2 for cancer slope factors
(CSF (o) and CSF (i)) and reference doses

	(RfD(o) and RfC (i)), except for two instances: 1) the DRASv2 model
developers applied a 

route-to-route extrapolation to create the default values, in which case
we do not use those default values, or 2) a more

	recent value has been published in either EPA's IRIS (Integrated Risk
Information System) database, EPA's PPRTV

	(Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values) database, or ATSDR's
(Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

	Registry) MRL list. When we use a more recent value from a source other
than the DRASv2 model

	documentation, we show it in the table below as an 'alternate value.'

DRAS Version 2 default values for ecological effects ("Aquatic TRV") are
listed together with alternate values from

	EPA's 2002 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC),
criteria continuous concentration for

	freshwater aquatic life (from EPA-822-R-02-047), where available, and
where not available, the Illinois (and

	in two cases, Kansas) equivalents.  We use the alternate values from
these NRWQC or state sources if

	they are lower than the DRAS Version 2 default values, except for
naphthalene (for which we are unable to determine the default value’s
source).  The Illinois equivalents are from Illinois Pollution Control
Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006; the Kansas equivalents are from Kansas
2004a and Kansas 2004b (see references for main text).

Conversions to common units are included in the Model Inputs (example:
acetone's

RfC of 13 ppm from ATSDR MRL has been converted into units of mg/m3
required by the model, at an assumed

	temperature of 25 degrees Celsius and 1 atmosphere of pressure.  The
formula for this

conversion is X ppm = (Y mg/m3)(24.45)/(molecular weight). 

Also shown are the maximum observed leachate and "total" concentrations
in waste samples.  Observed values for

	organic constituents are rounded to two significant figures and
observed values for inorganic constituents are

	rounded to three significant figures.  In some cases observed values
were qualified in laboratory reports as estimates

	or were qualified in some other manner.  Refer to the Summary Totals
and Summary TCLP spreadsheets, and

	individual manufacturing plant spreadsheets, for more information on
the specific sample that is the basis for the

	value reported on this spreadsheet.  See the original delisting
petitions and verification data submissions

	for information on specific sampling procedures and sample
preparation/laboratory analyses performed.

The entry under "Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen" reflects the constituent's
status as either having carcinogenic human

	health effects, noncarcinogenic human health effects, or both.  For
constituents that have both carcinogenic and

	noncarcinogenic human health effects, the DRASv2 model must be run once
with the "Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen" 

	flag set at "Carcinogen" status with values entered for the cancer
slope factors, in order to obtain carcinogenic risk

	results, and must be run once with the "Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen" flag
set at "Noncarcinogen" status

	with values entered for the reference doses, in order to obtain
noncarcinogenic health effects results.  In two cases

	(chromium and lead) the DRAS Version 2 model is run only to evaluate
ecological effects; in these cases the entry

	in the spreadsheet reads "ecological risk" rather than "Carcinogen,"
"Noncarcinogen," or "Car. & Noncarc."

	Abbreviations

alt.: alternate	Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient

	Aquatic TRV: Aquatic Toxicity Reference Value	L: liter

atm: atmosphere	m3: cubic meters

	ATSDR: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry	MCL: Maximum
Contaminant Level

	B: Bunge Coefficient	mg: milligram

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor 	midpt: midpoint

	BCF: Bio-concentration factor	mol: mole

Car.: Carcinogen	MRL: Minimal Risk Level

	cm2: square centimeters	MW: Molecular Weight 

	CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation	NA: Not analyzed

	CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral	Nonc.: Noncarcinogen

	Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air 	PPRTV: Provisional Peer Reviewed

	DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor	     Toxicity Value

	DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor	protect.:
protection

	DRASV2: Delisting Risk Assessment Software, Version 2	refin.: refinery

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water	RFC: Reference Dose - Inhalation

	gm: gram	RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral

	H: Henry's Law Constant	SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level

	HEAST: Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables	SOL: Solubility

	hrs: hours	T: Tau 

int.: intermediate	T*: Time to Reach Steady State

	IRIS: Integrated Risk Information System	TC: Toxicity Characteristic
Level

	K: Kelvin	val.: value

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient	Vp: Vapor Pressure

	kg: kilogram

Conversions:

ATSDR MRL	RfC

	Constituent	(ppm)	(mg/m3)

	acetone	13	31

	chloroform	0.02	0.1

	1,2-dichloroethane	0.6	2

	formaldehyde	0.008	0.01

	methylene chloride	0.3	1

	tetrachloroethylene	0.04	0.3

	trichloroethylene	0.1	0.5

	1,1,1-trichloroethane	         0.7	           3.8

	Acetoneacetone

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	67-64-1
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	8.3
8.30E+00

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	6.0	6.00E+00

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.1	1.00E-01

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/kg-day	0.9
9.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (ATSDR MRL)	mg/m3	31
1.70E+01

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	0.4	4.00E-01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	100,000	1.00E+05

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.0000288	2.88E-05

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000115
1.15E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.12	1.20E-01

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	1,000,000	1.00E+06

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	3.9	3.90E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.47	4.70E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.00057
5.70E-04

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.2	2.00E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.000058	5.80E-05

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	1.5
1.50E+00

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	50.08	5.01E+01

MW: Molecular Weight - alternate value (MERCK INDEX 9th ed.)	gm/mol
58.08	5.81E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.299	2.99E-01

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless
0.0713	7.13E-02

	acetonitrile

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	75-05-8
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	1.5
1.50E+00

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	not
detected²	not detected

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0.06	6.00E-02

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	0.325	3.25E-01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	190,000	1.90E+05

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.000024	2.40E-05

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.000015
1.50E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.13	1.30E-01

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	1,000,000	1.00E+06

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	3.9	3.90E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.37	3.70E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.00061
6.10E-04

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.16	1.60E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.000046	4.60E-05

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0
0.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L	30
3.00E+01

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	41.05	4.11E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.12	1.20E-01

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless
0.0576	5.76E-02

	¹Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

	²0.000001 assumed for model input

acetophenone

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	98-86-2
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.007
7.00E-03

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	not
detected¹	not detected

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.1	1.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	10.4	1.04E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	1,700	1.70E+03

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.0000103	1.03E-05

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000873
8.73E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.06	6.00E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	6,130	6.13E+03

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	4.2	4.20E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	1.1	1.10E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.0051
5.10E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.47	4.70E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.0044	4.40E-03

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0
0.00E+00

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	120.5	1.21E+02

MW: Molecular Weight - alternate value (Merck Index 9th ed.)	gm/mol
120.15	1.20E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.00052	5.20E-04

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	2.02
2.02E+00

	¹0.000001 assumed for model input

acrolein

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
107-02-8	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	not
detected²	not detected

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	0.14
1.40E-01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.02	2.00E-02

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/kg-day	0.0005
5.00E-04

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0.00002	2.00E-05

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	0.58	5.80E-01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	48,000	4.80E+04

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.0000934	9.34E-05

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000122
1.22E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.11	1.10E-01

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	213,000	2.13E+05

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless
1,430,000	1.43E+06

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	1,400,000	1.40E+06

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.46	4.60E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.00085
8.50E-04

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.19	1.90E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.000098	9.80E-05

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.0021
2.10E-03

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L
0.00022	2.20E-04

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	56.06	5.61E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.35	3.50E-01

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless
0.105	1.05E-01

	¹Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

	²0.007 assumed for model input

acrylamide

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	79-06-1
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.29
2.90E-01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	5.8	5.80E+00

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	1	1.00E+00

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - alternate value (MCLG)	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	4.5
4.50E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS)
kg-day/mg	4.6	4.60E+01

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.0002	2.00E-04

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.000000001
1.00E-09

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000106
1.06E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.097	9.70E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	640,000	6.40E+05

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	23
2.30E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	13	1.30E+01

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.57	5.70E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.00015
1.50E-04

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.24	2.40E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.000011	1.10E-05

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0
0.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L	2.4
2.40E+00

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Car. & Nonc.	Car. & Nonc.

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	71.08	7.11E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.0000092	9.20E-06

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless
0.009	9.00E-03

	¹Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

allyl chloride

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
107-05-1	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	not
detected¹	not detected

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	0.067
6.70E-02

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.05	5.00E-02

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/kg-day	0
0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0.001	1.00E-03

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	3.7	3.70E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.010996033
1.10E-02

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000108
1.08E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.08	8.00E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	3,370	3.37E+03

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	0
0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - alternate value	unitless
18	1.80E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	0	0.00E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.62	6.20E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.007	7.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.26	2.60E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.0028	2.80E-03

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0
0.00E+00

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	76.53	7.65E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	48	4.80E+01

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	2.02
2.02E+00

	¹0.0034 assumed for model input

antimony

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7440-36-0	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.29
2.90E-01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	12.6 (174
grit)	1.26E+01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.006	6.00E-03

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.0004	4.00E-04

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (PPRTV subchronic)
mg/m3	0.0004	4.00E-04

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	40	4.00E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000896
8.96E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0773
7.73E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless
34.3	3.43E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	13.6	1.36E+01

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.16
1.60E-01

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value²	mg/L	0.03
3.00E-02

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	121.75	1.22E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	45
4.50E+01

	²Kansas 2004a and Kansas 2004b

arsenic

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7440-38-2	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.48
4.80E-01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	25	2.50E+01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.05	5.00E-02

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - alternate value (MCL as of 1/2006)	mg/L
0.01	1.00E-02

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	1.5
1.50E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	15.1	1.51E+01

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.0003	3.00E-04

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	20	2.00E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	5	5.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000124
1.24E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.107	1.07E-01

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless
19.21	1.92E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	7.7	7.70E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.15
1.50E-01

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Car. & Nonc.	Car. & Nonc.

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	74.92	7.49E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	29
2.90E+01

	barium

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7440-39-3	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	1.68
1.68E+00

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	4280
4.28E+03

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	2	2.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.07	7.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0.0005	5.00E-04

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/m3	0
0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	100	1.00E+02

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000826
8.26E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0714
7.14E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless
27.83333	2.78E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	11.1	1.11E+01

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.0039
3.90E-03

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	137.33	1.37E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	41
4.10E+01

	benzene

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	71-43-2
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	not
detected¹	not detected

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	0.01
1.00E-02

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.01	1.00E-02

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - alternate value (MCL)	mg/L	0.005
5.00E-03

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg
0.029	2.90E-02

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - alternate value (IRIS
midpoint)	kg-day/mg	0.035	3.50E-02

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0.029	2.90E-02

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS
midpt)	kg-day/mg	0.0175	1.75E-02

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.001	1.00E-03

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/kg-day	0.004
4.00E-03

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0.009	9.00E-03

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/m3	0.03
3.00E-02

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	24.8	2.48E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	900	9.00E+02

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.5	5.00E-01

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.00549	5.49E-03

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000102
1.02E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.117	1.17E-01

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	1,750	1.75E+03

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	18
1.80E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	5.9	5.90E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.63	6.30E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.021	2.10E-02

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.26	2.60E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.013	1.30E-02

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.046
4.60E-02

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Car. & Nonc.	Car. & Nonc.

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	78.11	7.81E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.125	1.25E-01

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	4.65
4.65E+00

	¹0.0005 assumed for model input

beryllium

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7440-41-7	CAS in DRASV2 incorrect

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.016
1.60E-02

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	1.3	1.30E+00

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.004	4.00E-03

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	8.4	8.40E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.002	2.00E-03

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0.00002	2.00E-05

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	42	4.20E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000508
5.08E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.439	4.39E-01

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless
104	1.04E+02

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	41.4	4.14E+01

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.0051
5.10E-03

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Car. & Nonc.	Car. & Nonc.

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	9.01	9.01E+00

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	790
7.90E+02

	bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
117-81-7	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.01
1.00E-02

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	100	1.00E+02

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.006	6.00E-03

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg
0.014	1.40E-02

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.02	2.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	120	1.20E+02

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	31,000	3.10E+04

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.00000011
1.10E-07

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000422
4.22E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0132
1.32E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.334	3.34E-01

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	210,000	2.10E+05

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	100	1.00E+02

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.033	3.30E-02

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	21	2.10E+01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	13	1.30E+01

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.032
3.20E-02

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Car. & Nonc.	Car. & Nonc.

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	390.54	3.91E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.00000000849	8.49E-09

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	8320
8.32E+03

	butanol, n-

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	71-36-3
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	1.9 (2.8
in grit)	1.90E+00

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	22	2.20E+01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.1	1.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1.2	1.20E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	11,000	1.10E+04

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.00000881
8.81E-06

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000093
9.30E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.08	8.00E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	74,000	7.40E+04

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	3.9	3.90E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.59	5.90E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.0025
2.50E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.25	2.50E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.00063	6.30E-04

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0
0.00E+00

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	74.12	7.41E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.0086	8.60E-03

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless
0.458	4.58E-01

	butyl benzyl phthalate

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	85-68-7
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	.003 (.013
grit)	3.00E-03

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	79 (290
grit)	7.90E+01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.2	2.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	0	0.00E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	930	9.30E+02

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.00000191
1.91E-06

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000517
5.17E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0165
1.65E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	2.69	2.69E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	20
2.00E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	130	1.30E+02

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	34	3.40E+01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.065	6.50E-02

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	7	7.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	6.9	6.90E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	2350	2.35E+03

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.019
1.90E-02

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	312.39	3.12E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.0000000158	1.58E-08

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	1030
1.03E+03

	cadmium

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7440-43-9	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.16
1.60E-01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	21.5
2.15E+01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.005	5.00E-03

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	6.3	6.30E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.0005	5.00E-04

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	250	2.50E+02

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	1	1.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000945
9.45E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0816
8.16E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	30
3.00E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	12	1.20E+01

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.0022
2.20E-03

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value³	mg/L
0.00025	2.50E-04

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Car. & Nonc.	Car. & Nonc.

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	112.41	1.12E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	4.5
4.50E+00

	³2002 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria

carbon disulfide

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	75-15-0
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken²	mg/L
nondetect²	nondetect

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	0.059
5.90E-02

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.1	1.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0.7	7.00E-01

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	19.5	1.95E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	720	7.20E+02

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.0303	3.03E-02

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000129
1.29E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.104	1.04E-01

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	1,190	1.19E+03

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	4.6	4.60E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.61	6.10E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.017	1.70E-02

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.25	2.50E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.01	1.00E-02

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	1
1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L	0.02
2.00E-02

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	76.14	7.61E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.447	4.47E-01

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	3.86
3.86E+00

	¹Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

	²0.00295 mg/L assumed for model input

chlorobenzene

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
108-90-7	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.4
4.00E-01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	0.025
2.50E-02

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.1	1.00E-01

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.02	2.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0.06	6.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/m3	0
0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	77.6	7.76E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	870	8.70E+02

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	100	1.00E+02

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.00438	4.38E-03

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000949
9.49E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0635
6.35E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	472	4.72E+02

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	6.8	6.80E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	1	1.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.042	4.20E-02

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.43	4.30E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.072	7.20E-02

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.13
1.30E-01

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L	0.079
7.90E-02

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	112.56	1.13E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.0159	1.59E-02

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	16.8
1.68E+01

	¹Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

chloroform

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	67-66-3
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	not
detected²	not detected

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	0.013
1.30E-02

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.1	1.00E-01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - alternate value	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg
0.0061	6.10E-03

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - alternate value (IRIS)
kg-day/mg	0; noncancer	provides pub health protect.

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0.0805	8.05E-02

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.01	1.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (ATSDR MRL)	mg/m3	0.1
3.00E-02

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	3.6	3.60E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	3,500	3.50E+03

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	6	6.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.00403	4.03E-03

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000109
1.09E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0517
5.17E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	7,920	7.92E+03

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	18
1.80E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	5.7	5.70E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	1.1	1.10E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.0083
8.30E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.47	4.70E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.0083	8.30E-03

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.289
2.89E-01

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L	0.15
1.50E-01

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Car. & Nonc.	Car. & Nonc.

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	119.39	1.19E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.269	2.69E-01

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	3.98
3.98E+00

	¹Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

	²0.00065 assumed for model input

chromium

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7440-47-3	CAS in DRASv2 is wrong

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.53
5.30E-01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	1820
1.82E+03

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.1	1.00E-01

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	1.5	1.50E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (IRIS RfD for CAS #
16065-83-1)	mg/kg-day	1.5	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	283	2.83E+02

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	5	5.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.000008
8.00E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.08	8.00E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless
3850	3.85E+03

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	1530	1.53E+03

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.074
7.40E-02

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	ecological risk	ecological risk

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	52	5.20E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless
1,800,000	1.80E+06

	chromium, hexavalent

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
18540-29-9	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.008
8.00E-03

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	22	2.20E+01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.1	1.00E-01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - alternate value	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	41	4.10E+01

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS)
kg-day/mg	42	4.20E+01

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.003	3.00E-03

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0.0001	1.00E-04

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	3	3.00E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	5	5.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000158
1.58E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.136	1.36E-01

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless
15.46	1.55E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	6.2	6.20E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.011
1.10E-02

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Car. & Nonc.	Car. & Nonc.

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	52	5.20E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

	cobalt

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7440-48-4	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.25
2.50E-01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	12.8
1.28E+01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF (i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor –- Inhalation – DRASV2 default-
alternate value (PPRTV)	Kgkg-day/mg	011.6	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.06	6.00E-02

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (ATSDR MRL Int.)PPRTV)
mg/kg-day	0.0102	2.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (ATSDR MRL)PPRTV)
mg/m3	0.000100002	2.00E-05

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.000008
8.00E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.08	8.00E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	0
0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - alternate value	unitless
10	1.00E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	0	0.00E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0
0.00E+00

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Car. & Nonc.	Car. & Nonc.

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	58.93	5.89E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0
0.00E+00

	copper

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7440-50-8	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	10.7
1.07E+01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	1490
1.49E+03

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	1.3	1.30E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.04	4.00E-02

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (ATSDR MRL int.)¹
mg/kg-day	0.03	3.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.000008
8.00E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.08	8.00E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless
7006.56	7.01E+03

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	2786	2.79E+03

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.009
9.00E-03

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	63.55	6.36E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	22
2.20E+01

	Note 1: value of 0.03 mg/kg/day from ATSDR MRL list in effect in spring
2004 (draf MRL for public comment).  ATSDR modified the value to 0.01
mg/kg/day in fall 2004.

cresol, m-

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
108-39-4	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	.26
assumed	2.60E-01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	14 assumed²
1.40E+01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.05	5.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	18.1	1.81E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	200	2.00E+02

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.000000893
8.93E-07

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000093
9.30E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.093	9.30E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	22,700	2.27E+04

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	4.2	4.20E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.96	9.60E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.01	1.00E-02

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.4	4.00E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.0093	9.30E-03

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0
0.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L	0.13
1.30E-01

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	108.13	1.08E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.00019	1.90E-04

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	3.58
3.58E+00

	¹Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

	²14 assumed for model input

cresol, o-

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	95-48-7
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.16
1.60E-01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	not
detected²	not detected

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.05	5.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	20.2	2.02E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	200	2.00E+02

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.00000162
1.62E-06

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000941
9.41E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0688
6.88E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	26,000	2.60E+04

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	4.2	4.20E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.96	9.60E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.011	1.10E-02

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.4	4.00E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.0098	9.80E-03

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0
0.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L	0.37
3.70E-01

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	108.13	1.08E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.000416	4.16E-04

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	4
4.00E+00

	¹Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

	²0.000001 assumed for model input

cresol, p- 

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
106-44-5	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	1.3
1.30E+00

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	23	2.30E+01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.005	5.00E-03

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (ATSDR MRL acute)¹
mg/kg-day	0.05	5.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	17.5	1.75E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	200	2.00E+02

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.000000799
7.99E-07

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000093
9.30E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0693
6.93E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	21,500	2.15E+04

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	4.2	4.20E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.96	9.60E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.01	1.00E-02

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.4	4.00E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.0089	8.90E-03

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0
0.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value²¹	mg/L
0.12	1.20E-01

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	108.13	1.08E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.00017	1.70E-04

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	3.46
3.46E+00

	¹value of 0.05 mg/kg-day from ATSDR MRL list in effect spring 2004. 
ATSDR modified the MRL list in fall 2006 (draft for public comment) to
0.01 mg/kg-day (intermediate exposure)

²Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

cyanide

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	57-12-5
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.017
1.70E-02

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	18	1.80E+01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.2	2.00E-01

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.02	2.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	633	6.33E+02

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.000021
2.10E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.548	5.48E-01

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	18
1.80E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	2.3	2.30E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0	0.00E+00

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.0052
5.20E-03

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	26.02	2.60E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.0182	1.82E-02

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0
0.00E+00

	dichloroethane, 1,1-

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	75-34-3
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.0087
8.70E-03

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	0.015
1.50E-02

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.1	1.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0.5	5.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/m3	0
0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	13.6	1.36E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	2,300	2.30E+03

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.00575	5.75E-03

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000105
1.05E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0742
7.42E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	5,060	5.06E+03

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	1
1.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - alternate value	unitless
18	1.80E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	0	0.00E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.84	8.40E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.0089
8.90E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.35	3.50E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.0062	6.20E-03

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	1.58
1.58E+00

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	98.97	9.90E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.3	3.00E-01

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	3.98
3.98E+00

	dichloroethane, 1,2-

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
107-06-2	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.013
1.30E-02

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	0.02
2.00E-02

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.005	5.00E-03

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg
0.091	9.10E-02

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0.091	9.10E-02

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (ATSDR MRL int.)
mg/kg-day	0.2	2.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (ATSDR MRL)	mg/m3	2
8.00E-01

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	7.61	7.61E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	2,900	2.90E+03

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.5	5.00E-01

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.000979	9.79E-04

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.000011
1.10E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0719
7.19E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	8,520	8.52E+03

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	1
1.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - alternate value	unitless
18	1.80E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	0	0.00E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.84	8.40E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.0052
5.20E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.35	3.50E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.003	3.00E-03

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	2
2.00E+00

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Car. & Nonc.	Car. & Nonc.

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	98.96	9.90E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.107	1.07E-01

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	1.47
1.47E+00

	dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
156-59-2	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	not
detected¹	not detected

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	0.33
3.30E-01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.07	7.00E-02

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.01	1.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	18.9	1.89E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	1,200	1.20E+03

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.00451	4.51E-03

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000113
1.13E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0736
7.36E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	3,500	3.50E+03

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	4.2	4.20E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.82	8.20E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.01	1.00E-02

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.34	3.40E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.0072	7.20E-03

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	5.72
5.72E+00

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	96.95	9.70E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.23	2.30E-01

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	2.85
2.85E+00

	¹0.0165 assumed for model input

di-n-butyl phthalate

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	84-74-2
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.0054
5.40E-03

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	not
detected¹	not detected

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.1	1.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	0	0.00E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	2,300	2.30E+03

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.00000143
1.43E-06

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000786
7.86E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0438
4.38E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	11.2	1.12E+01

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	20
2.00E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	180	1.80E+02

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	22	2.20E+01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.072	7.20E-02

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	4.4	4.40E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	4.1	4.10E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	5580	5.58E+03

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.03
3.00E-02

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	278.34	2.78E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.0000000555	5.55E-08

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	118
1.18E+02

	¹0.000001 assumed for model input

di-n-octyl phthalate

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
117-84-0	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	not
detected¹	not detected

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	91.5
9.15E+01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.02	2.00E-02

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (ATSDR MRL Int.)PPRTV)
mg/kg-day	0.04	4.00E-0102

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	0	0.00E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	10,000	1.00E+04

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.000000768
7.68E-07

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000042
4.20E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0132
1.32E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.02	2.00E-02

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	27
2.70E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	350,000	3.50E+05

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	99	9.90E+01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	4.2	4.20E+00

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	21	2.10E+01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	11,000	1.10E+04

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	3,880	3.88E+03

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	1.99
1.99E+00

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	390.56	3.91E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.0000000059	5.90E-09

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless
67,800,000	6.78E+07

	¹0.05 assumed for model input

ethylbenzene

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
100-41-4	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	1.1
1.10E+00

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	7.2	7.20E+00

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.7	7.00E-01

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.1	1.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0.286	2.86E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/m3	1
1.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	139	1.39E+02

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	230	2.30E+02

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.00773	7.73E-03

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000078
7.80E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.075	7.50E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	169	1.69E+02

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	12	1.20E+01

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	1.3	1.30E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.073	7.30E-02

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.39	3.90E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.14	1.40E-01

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.453
4.53E-01

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L	0.014
1.40E-02

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	106.16	1.06E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.0126	1.26E-02

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless
0.153	1.53E+00

	¹Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

fluoride

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
16984-48-8	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	1.75
1.75E+00

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	778	7.78E+02

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	4	4.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	not
applicable	not applicable

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	not applicable	not applicable

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	not applicable
not applicable

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/kg-day	0.06
6.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	not applicable
not applicable

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	not applicable	not
applicable

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	not applicable	not
applicable

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	not applicable
not applicable

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	not applicable	not
applicable

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	not
applicable	not applicable

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	not applicable
not applicable

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	not applicable	not applicable

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	10
assumed	1E01 assumed

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	not applicable	not applicable

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	not applicable	not
applicable

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	not applicable
not applicable

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	not applicable	not applicable

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	not applicable	not
applicable

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	not applicable	not
applicable

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	not
applicable	not applicable

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L	not
applicable	not applicable

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	not applicable	not
applicable

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	not applicable	not applicable

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	not
applicable	not applicable

	formaldehyde

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	50-00-0
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	16
1.60E+01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	19,000
1.90E+04

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0.046	4.60E-02

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.15	1.50E-01

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/kg-day	0.2
2.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (ATSDR MRL)	mg/m3
0.01	1.00E-02

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1.07	1.07E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.000000337
3.37E-07

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000174
1.74E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.18	1.80E-01

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	550,000	5.50E+05

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	3.9	3.90E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.32	3.20E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.0012
1.20E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.13	1.30E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.000089	8.90E-05

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	49.6
4.96E+01

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L	0.39
3.90E-01

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Car. & Nonc.	Car. & Nonc.

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	30.03	3.00E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	5.1	5.10E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless
0.197	1.97E-01

	¹Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

lead

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7439-92-1	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	1.33
1.33E+00

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	10,800
1.08E+04

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.015	1.50E-02

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	0	0.00E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	5	5.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000628
6.28E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0543
5.43E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless
5000	5.00E+03

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	2000	2.00E+03

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	8	8.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.0025
2.50E-03

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	ecological risk	ecological risk

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	207.2	2.07E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	900
9.00E+02

	mercury

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7439-97-6	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.484
4.84E-01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	0.71
7.10E-01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.002	2.00E-03

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.0001	1.00E-04

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/kg-day	0
0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0.000086
8.60E-05

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/m3	0.0003
3.00E-04

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	0	0.00E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.2	2.00E-01

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.0071	7.10E-03

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000301
3.01E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0109
1.09E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.0562	5.62E-02

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless
74.5	7.45E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	29.6	2.96E+01

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1,020,000	1.02E+06

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.00077
7.70E-04

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	200.59	2.01E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.00000263	2.63E-06

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless
100,000	1.00E+05

	methyl chloride

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	74-87-3
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	not
detected¹	not detected

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	0.84
8.40E-01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg
0.013	1.30E-02

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - alternate value (IRIS)
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0.0063	6.30E-03

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS)
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0.3	3.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/m3	0.09
9.00E-02

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	2.86	2.86E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	4,000	4.00E+03

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.0452	4.52E-02

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000139
1.39E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.13	1.30E-01

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	5,330	5.33E+03

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	0
0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - alternate value	unitless
18	1.80E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	0	0.00E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.43	4.30E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.0042
4.20E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.18	1.80E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.00081	8.10E-04

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	5.5
5.50E+00

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	50.49	5.05E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	5.68	5.68E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.45
4.50E-01

	¹0.042 assumed for model input

methyl ethyl ketone

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	78-93-3
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.6
6.00E-01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	25	2.50E+01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.6	6.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	1	1.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/m3	5
5.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	0.961	9.61E-01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	34,000	3.40E+04

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	200	2.00E+02

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.0000361	3.61E-05

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000103
1.03E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.081	8.10E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	223,000	2.23E+05

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	3.9	3.90E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.58	5.80E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.0011
1.10E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.24	2.40E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.00019	1.90E-04

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0
0.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L	26
2.60E+01

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	72.1	7.21E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.12	1.20E-01

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless
0.176	1.76E-01

	¹Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

methyl isobutyl ketone

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
108-10-1	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	not
detected²	not detected

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	0.41
4.10E-01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.08	8.00E-02

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/kg-day	0
0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/m3	3
3.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	4.73	4.73E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	17,000	1.70E+04

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.000125	1.25E-04

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000836
8.36E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0859
8.59E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	19,000	1.90E+04

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	3.9	3.90E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.86	8.60E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.0033
3.30E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.36	3.60E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.0015	1.50E-03

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0
0.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L	1.4
1.40E+00

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	100.16	1.00E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.025	2.50E-02

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.9
9.00E-01

	¹Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

	²0.02 assumed for model input

methylene chloride

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	75-09-2
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.053
5.30E-02

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	1.7	1.70E+00

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.005	5.00E-03

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg
0.0075	7.50E-03

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0.00164	1.64E-03

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.06	6.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0.857	8.57E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (ATSDR MRL)	mg/m3	1
4.00E-01

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	5.3	5.30E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	2,300	2.30E+03

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.00238	2.38E-03

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000125
1.25E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0869
8.69E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	13,000	1.30E+04

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	18
1.80E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	5.8	5.80E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.69	6.90E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.0045
4.50E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.29	2.90E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.0018	1.80E-03

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	1.93
1.93E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L	1.4
1.40E+00

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Car. & Nonc.	Car. & Nonc.

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	84.94	8.49E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.487	4.87E-01

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.75
7.50E-01

	¹Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

naphthalene

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	91-20-3
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.29
2.90E-01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	.1 (34 in
grit)	1.00E-01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.02	2.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0.003	3.00E-03

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	215	2.15E+02

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	380	3.80E+02

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.000482	4.82E-04

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000892
8.92E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.059	5.90E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	31	3.10E+01

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	14	1.40E+01

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	2.4	2.40E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.077	7.70E-02

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.53	5.30E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.23	2.30E-01

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.062
6.20E-02

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value²	mg/L	0.62
2.00E-02

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	128.16	1.28E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.000117	1.17E-04

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	89.2
8.92E+01

	²Kansas 2004a and Kansas 2004b

nickel

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7440-02-0	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	83
8.30E+01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	5720
5.72E+03

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - alt. val. (IRIS for
refin. dust)	kg-day/mg	0.84	8.40E-01

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.02	2.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (ATSDR MRL)	mg/m3
0.00009	9.00E-05

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	308	3.08E+02

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000146
1.46E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.126	1.26E-01

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless
37.62857143	3.76E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	15	1.50E+01

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.052
5.20E-02

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Car. & Nonc.	Car. & Nonc.

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	58.69	5.87E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	65
6.50E+01

	phenol

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
108-95-2	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	4	4.00E+00

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	not
detected¹	not detected

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.6	6.00E-01

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/kg-day	0.3
3.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	7.81	7.81E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	23,000	2.30E+04

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.000000595
5.95E-07

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000103
1.03E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0827
8.27E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	82,800	8.28E+04

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	4.2	4.20E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.79	7.90E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.0057
5.70E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.33	3.30E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.003	3.00E-03

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.256
2.56E-01

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	94.11	9.41E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.000574	5.74E-04

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	1.65
1.65E+00

	¹0.000001 assumed for model input

selenium

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7782-49-2	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.56
5.60E-01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	21	2.10E+01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.05	5.00E-02

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.005	5.00E-03

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	129	1.29E+02

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	1	1.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.000012
1.20E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.103	1.03E-01

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless
11.59	1.16E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	4.6	4.60E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.005
5.00E-03

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	78.96	7.90E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	4.3
4.30E+00

	silver

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7440-22-4	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.09
9.00E-02

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	5.5	5.50E+00

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.005	5.00E-03

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	204	2.04E+02

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	5	5.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000971
9.71E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0838
8.38E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless
20.45	2.05E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	8.2	8.20E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.12
1.20E-01

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value³	mg/L
0.0032	3.20E-03

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	107.87	1.08E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	8.3
8.30E+00

	³2002 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria

styrene

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
100-42-5	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	not
detected²	not detected

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	0.017
1.70E-02

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.1	1.00E-01

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.2	2.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	1	1.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	99.1	9.91E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	1,700	1.70E+03

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.00333	3.33E-03

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000877
8.77E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0773
7.73E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	310	3.10E+02

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	9.1	9.10E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.91	9.10E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.054	5.40E-02

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.38	3.80E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.087	8.70E-02

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0
0.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L	0.2
2.00E-01

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	104.14	1.04E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.00821	8.21E-03

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless
0.684	6.84E-01

	¹Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

	²0.00085 assumed for model input

tetrachloroethylene 

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
127-18-4	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	not
detected¹	not detected

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	0.21
2.10E-01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.005	5.00E-03

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg
0.052	5.20E-02

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - alternate value (IRIS)
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0.002	2.00E-03

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS)
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.01	1.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (ATSDR MRL)	mg/m3	0.3
5.00E-02

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	50.6	5.06E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	370	3.70E+02

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.7	7.00E-01

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.0184	1.84E-02

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000082
8.20E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.072	7.20E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	200	2.00E+02

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	5.1	5.10E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	2.2	2.20E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.015	1.50E-02

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.9	9.00E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.047	4.70E-02

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.12
1.20E-01

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	165.85	1.66E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.0242	2.42E-02

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	19.9
1.99E+01

	¹0.0105 assumed for model input

thallium

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7440-28-0	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.27
2.70E-01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	7.1	7.10E+00

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.002	2.00E-03

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.00008
8.00E-05

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1400	1.40E+03

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000634
6.34E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0548
5.48E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	44
4.40E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	16.7	1.67E+01

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.004
4.00E-03

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	204.38	2.04E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	71
7.10E+01

	tin

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7440-31-5	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	82.4
8.24E+01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	2310
2.31E+03

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.6	6.00E-01

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value - (ATSDR MRL int.)
mg/kg-day	0.3	3.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.000008
8.00E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.08	8.00E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	0
0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - alternate value	unitless
10	1.00E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	0	0.00E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0
0.00E+00

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	118.69	1.19E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	8
8.00E+00

	toluene

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
108-88-3	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.3
3.00E-01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	18.7
1.87E+01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	1	1.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.2	2.00E-01

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/kg-day	0.08
8.00E-02

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/m3	5
5.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	62.7	6.27E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	520	5.20E+02

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.00613	6.13E-03

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000823
8.23E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0972
9.72E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	526	5.26E+02

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	5.9	5.90E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.77	7.70E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.047	4.70E-02

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.32	3.20E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.056	5.60E-02

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.13
1.30E-01

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	92.13	9.21E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.0371	3.71E-02

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	10.5
1.05E+01

	1,1,1-trichloroethane

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	71-55-6
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.045
4.50E-02

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	0.018
1.80E-02

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.2	2.00E-01

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.035	3.50E-02

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value - (ATSDR MRL int.)
mg/kg-day	20	2.00E+01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0.286	2.86E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (ATSDR MRL
int.)PPRTV)	mg/m3	3.82.2	3.80E2.20E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	40.8	4.08E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	1,400	1.40E+03

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.0186	1.86E-02

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000956
9.56E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.078	7.80E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	1,330	1.33E+03

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	7	7.00E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.21	2.10E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.11	1.10E-01

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.087	8.70E-02

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.03	3.00E-02

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.53
5.30E-01

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L	0.39
3.90E-01

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	133.42	1.33E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.163	1.63E-01

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	10.1
1.01E+01

	¹Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

trichloroethylene

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless	79-01-6
not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.0053
5.30E-03

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	0.044
4.40E-02

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.005	5.00E-03

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg
0.011	1.10E-02

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - alternate value (IRIS)
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0.006	6.00E-03

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS)
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.006	6.00E-03

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value - (ATSDR MRL int.)
mg/m3	0.5	1.00E-01

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	41.6	4.16E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	1,300	1.30E+03

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.5	5.00E-01

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.0074	7.40E-03

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00001
1.00E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0427
4.27E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	1,100	1.10E+03

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	4.8	4.80E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.21	2.10E-01

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.16	1.60E-01

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.087	8.70E-02

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.051	5.10E-02

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.35
3.50E-01

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	131.4	1.31E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.0948	9.48E-02

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.94
9.40E-01

	vanadium

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7440-62-2	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	0.631
6.31E-01

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	43.9
4.39E+01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.007	7.00E-03

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value - (ATSDR MRL int.)
mg/kg-day	0.003	3.00E-03

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value - (ATSDR MRL acute)
mg/m3	0.0002	0.0002

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.000008
8.00E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.08	8.00E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless
80.3333333	8.03E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	31.9	3.19E+01

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.019
1.90E-02

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	50.94	5.09E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	50
5.00E+01

	xylenes

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
1330-20-7	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	3.7 (m-
and p-)	3.70E+00

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	42	4.20E+01

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	10	1.00E+01

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	2	2.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/kg-day	0.2
2.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - alternate value (IRIS)	mg/m3	0.1
1.00E-01

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	75	7.50E+01

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	430	4.30E+02

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0.00605	6.05E-03

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.00000849
8.49E-06

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0769
7.69E-02

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	185.9578154	1.86E+02

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless	19
1.90E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	13	1.30E+01

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	1.3	1.30E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.076	7.60E-02

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0.39	3.90E-01

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0.15	1.50E-01

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
1	1.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	2.7
2.70E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - alternate value¹	mg/L	0.36
3.60E-01

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	106.16	1.06E+02

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0.0106	1.06E-02

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	23.3
2.33E+01

	¹Illinois Pollution Control Board 2006 and Illinois EPA 2006

zinc

	Model Input	Units	Value 	Value (scientific notation)

	CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number	unitless
7440-66-6	not applicable

Maximum Observed Leachate Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/L	270
2.70E+02

Maximum Observed Total Concentration in Samples Taken	mg/kg	17,600
1.76E+04

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

CSF(o): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Oral - DRASV2 default	kg-day/mg	0
0.00E+00

CSF(i): Carcinogenic Slope Factor - Inhalation - DRASV2 default
kg-day/mg	0	0.00E+00

RfD(o): Reference Dose - Oral - DRASV2 default	mg/kg-day	0.3	3.00E-01

RfC: Reference Dose - Inhalation - DRASV2 default	mg/m3	0	0.00E+00

BCF: Bio-concentration factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	654	6.54E+02

SOILSAT: Soil Saturation Level - DRASV2 default	mg/kg	0	0.00E+00

TC: Toxicity Characteristic Level - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

H: Henry's Law Constant - DRASV2 default	atm-m3/mol-K	0	0.00E+00

Dw: Diffusion Coefficient in Water - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.0000136
1.36E-05

Da: Diffusion Coefficient in Air - DRASV2 default	cm2/sec	0.117	1.17E-01

SOL: Solubility - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0	0.00E+00

DAFLF: Landfill Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default	unitless
24.9	2.49E+01

DAFSI: Surface Impoundment Dilution Attenuation Factor - DRASV2 default
unitless	9.9	9.90E+00

T*: Time to Reach Steady State - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

Kpw: Skin Permeability Coefficient - DRASV2 default	cm/hr	0.001	1.00E-03

T: Tau - DRASV2 default	hrs	0	0.00E+00

B: Bunge Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	0	0.00E+00

Organic/Inorganic - DRASV2 default: 1 = organic, 0 = inorganic	unitless
0	0.00E+00

BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor - DRASV2 default	L/kg	1	1.00E+00

Aquatic TRV: Chronic Ecological Threshold - DRASV2 default	mg/L	0.12
1.20E-01

Carcinogen/Noncarcinogen	unitless	Noncarcinogen	Noncarcinogen

MW: Molecular Weight - DRASV2 default	gm/mol	65.38	6.54E+01

Vp: Vapor Pressure - DRASV2 default	atm	0	0.00E+00

Kdsw: Surface Water Partition Coefficient - DRASV2 default	unitless	6.2
6.20E+00



APPENDIX C

Waste Volumes and Physical Characteristics

The waste quantity information that EPA considered in this analysis is
limited to data from 12 motor vehicle manufacturing facilities.  These
facilities, their locations, and their annual F019 generation and/or
disposal quantities are listed in Table C-2 below, along with the source
of the data.  Regarding the units in which the quantity data are
presented: data from delisting petitions are either in tons or cubic
yards, and data from the November 7, 2005 Automobile Alliance letter are
in tons. 

To convert all data into consistent units of cubic yards, we should have
specific gravities of the sludge, which are not always available.  In
the instances in which they are available, we used them; in the
instances in which they were not, we assumed a specific gravity of 1.0
g/cm3.  To convert tons into cubic yards (the volume metric required by
the DRASv2 model),

1 ton = 2000 pounds						2.2046 pounds = 1000 grams (g)

1 cubic centimeter (cm3) = 0.000001 cubic meters (m3)	1 cubic meter (m3)
= 1.31 cubic yards (yd3)

For 2000 pounds (one ton) of sludge:

X cubic yards = (2000 pounds)/[(2.2046 pounds/1000 g)*(1 cm3/0.000001
m3)*(1 m3/1.31yd3)*(specific gravity in g/cm3)]

Simplifying,

X cubic yards = (2000 pounds)/[1683 cm3/g]*(specific gravity in g/cm3)]

Simplifying further,

X cubic yards = 1.188/(specific gravity in g/cm3)    per ton of sludge

Table C-1 shows the average specific gravities and average reported
solids contents of various sludge samples from the 12 facilities:

Table C-1.  F019 sludge specific gravities and solids content

	facility/city	average specific gravity	average solids content	data
source

 	(g/cm3)	(percent by weight)	 

BMW/Greer	1	30	June 2000 delisting petition

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North/Detroit	No data; “1” assumed	No data

	Ford/Wayne	No data; “1” assumed	No data

	Ford/Wixom	No data, “1” assumed	No data

	GM/Flint	1	No data	June 9, 2003 amended delisting petition

GM Hamtramck/Detroit 	1.41	53	June 9, 2003 amended delisting petition;
February 1999 delisting petition for GM Lordstown

GM/Lansing	1.22	44	November 1998 delisting petition; February 1999
delisting petition for GM Lordstown; November 2001 verification data;
October 2002 verification data

GM/Lansing Grand River	1	No data	June 9, 2003 amended delisting petition

GM/Lordstown	1.19	48	Specific gravity inferred from February 1999
delisting petition; solids content from February 1999 delisting petition

GM Orion Assembly/Lake Orion	0.96	No data	Inferred from January 1996
delisting petition

GM/Pontiac	1	No data	June 9, 2003 delisting petition

Nissan/Smyrna	1.25	37	October 2000 delisting petition

Table C-2 shows the various annual F019 (and corresponding delisted
sludge) generation and/or disposal volumes, converted into cubic
yardages using the specific gravities and conversion equation described
above, for these twelve facilities, where available.  In some instances
(usually in delisting petitions), facilities reported the quantities of
sludge generated, while in other instances (usually when reporting
results of delisting verification sampling) facilities reported the
quantities of sludge disposed.  We use either of these reported
quantities (generation and/or disposal) for a given facility for a given
year, in the sludge volume data presented in tables C-2 through C-4.  We
use the sludge volume data as one of the model inputs to the DRASv2
model (quantity disposed in the unlined landfill):

Table C-2.  F019 sludge quantities by individual facility

facility/city	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003
2004	data source

	BMW/Greer

	698	540	563	426	November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
letter

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North/Detroit

470	November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

Ford/Wayne

	1057	1031	970	1088	November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers letter

Ford/Wixom

	893	782	554	658	November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
letter

GM/Flint

1759	2385	2119	2419	2543/2704	3714	2775	June 9, 2003 amended delisting
petition, p. 23; November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
letter

GM Hamtramck/Detroit 

680	912	801	618	344/619	351	284	June 9, 2003 amended delisting petition,
p. 23; November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

GM/Lansing

	1076	805	725

	648	578	358	November 1998 delisting petition, p. 2-2; November 7, 2005
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

GM/Lansing Grand River

	314	171/286	178	221	June 9, 2003 amended delisting petition, p. 24;
November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

GM/Lordstown

682	535	568

497	452	265	February 1999 delisting petition, p. 2-2; November 7, 2005
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

GM Orion Assembly/Lake Orion	445	1111

	778	828	707	700	343	307	January 1996 delisting petition, Table 2-1;
December 1999 delisting verification cover letter; March 2001 delisting
verification cover letter; December 2001 delisting verification data
cover letter; January 2003 delisting verification cover letter; November
7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

GM/Pontiac

1045	1286	1383	932	263	1068	814	June 9, 2003 amended delisting petition,
p. 24; November 7, 2005 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers letter

Nissan/Smyrna

950

	October 2000 delisting petition p. 3-4

	Note on GM Flint 2002: 2543 cubic yards is from June 2003 amended
delisting petition; 2704 cubic yards is from Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers’ letter.

	Note on GM Hamtramck 2002: 619 cubic yards is from June 2003 amended
delisting petition; 344 cubic yards is from Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers’ letter.

	Note on GM Lansing Grand River 2001: value of 78 cubic yards for a
three-month period in 2001 multiplied by 4 to yield estimated 2001 value
of 314 cubic yards. 

 For 2002: 171 cubic yards is from Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers’ letter; 286 cubic yards is from June 2003 amended
delisting petition.

	

For two reported values for the same facility in the same year in the
table above, we use the average of the two reported values.  

Several of the General Motors delisting petitions, and in one case, a
delisting verification data cover letter, stated that, if successfully
delisted, the waste formerly classified as F019 from one motor vehicle
manufacturing facility would be disposed at the same landfill as former
F019 waste from another motor vehicle manufacturing facility.  We call
this situation “co-disposal.” Co-disposal has an impact on the total
amount of F019 waste from motor vehicle manufacturers that is disposed
in the landfill, and thus has an impact on the quantity of chemical
constituents that would be released from the landfill.  

Table C-3 shows the co-disposed volumes, according to these delisting
petitions and the delisting verification cover letter described above,
along with an assumption that General Motors’ Lake Orion, Hamtramck,
and Pontiac facilities all use the same landfill:

Table C-3.  F019 sludge quantities for single facilities and
co-disposing facilities

 	 	 	 	single-facility	all	all

generation/	single-facility	contribution to	contributors	contributors

facility/city	year	disposal	co-disposal	Co-disposal	co-disposal
co-disposal

volume	observation	Volume	observation 	volume

 	 	(cubic yards)	number	(cubic yards)	number	(cubic yards)

BMW/Greer	2001	698

BMW/Greer	2002	540

BMW/Greer	2003	563

BMW/Greer	2004	426

DCJN/Detroit	2004	470

Ford/Wayne	2001	1057

Ford/Wayne	2002	1031

Ford/Wayne	2003	970

Ford/Wayne	2004	1088

Ford/Wixom	2001	893

Ford/Wixom	2002	782

Ford/Wixom	2003	554

Ford/Wixom	2004	658

GM/Flint	1998	1759

GM/Flint	1999	2385

GM/Flint	2000	2119

GM/Flint	2001	2419	1	2419	1	2733

GM/Flint	2002	2624	2	2624	2	2853

GM/Flint	2003	3714	3	3714	3	3892

GM/Flint	2004	2775	4	2775	4	2996

GM/Hamtramck	1998	680	10	680	5	1487

GM/Hamtramck	1999	912	11	912	6	1260

GM/Hamtramck	2000	801	12	801	7	1145

GM/Hamtramck	2001	618	13	618	8	1030

GM/Hamtramck	2002	482	14	482	9	623

GM/Hamtramck	2003	351	15	351	10	1725

GM/Hamtramck	2004	284	16	284	11	2976

GM/Lansing	1995	1076

	12	3012

GM/Lansing	1996	805	5	805	13	2257

GM/Lansing	1997	725	6	725	14	1445

GM/Lansing	2002	648	7	648	15	1762

GM/Lansing	2003	578	8	578	16	1405

GM/Lansing	2004	358	9	358

GM/LGR	2001	314	1	314

GM/LGR	2002	229	2	229

GM/LGR	2003	178	3	178

GM/LGR	2004	221	4	221

GM/Lordstown	1996	682	5	682

GM/Lordstown	1997	535	6	535

GM/Lordstown	1998	568

GM/Lordstown	2002	497	7	497

GM/Lordstown	2003	452	8	452

GM/Lordstown	2004	265	9	265

GM/LakeOrion	1993	445

GM/LakeOrion	1994	1111

GM/LakeOrion	1999	778	11	778

GM/LakeOrion	2000	828	12	828

GM/LakeOrion	2001	707	13	707

GM/LakeOrion	2002	700	14	700

GM/LakeOrion	2003	343	15	343

GM/LakeOrion	2004	307	16	307

GM/Pontiac	1998	1045	10	1045

GM/Pontiac	1999	1286	11	1286

GM/Pontiac	2000	1383	12	1383

GM/Pontiac	2001	932	13	932

GM/Pontiac	2002	263	14	263

GM/Pontiac	2003	1068	15	1068

GM/Pontiac	2004	814	16	814

Nissan/Smyrna	2000	950

Note: DCJN/Detroit is DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North, Detroit

	

Table C-4 shows the entire distribution of motor vehicle
manufacturers’ F019 sludge generation or disposal volumes, composed of
single-facility generation/disposal volumes when a single facility
disposes at a given landfill, and the combined generation/disposal
volumes for those facilities which appear to be co-disposing at the same
landfill.  This distribution has 37 data points:

Table C-4.  Distribution of single-facility and co-disposing facility
F019

 sludge quantities with calculated average

 	 	rank-ordered	 	percentile	 

	sequence

generation or

of

number

disposal volume

rank-ordered

 	 	(cubic yards)	 	value	 

	1

426

2.7

2

445

5.3

3

470

8.0

4

540

10.7

5

554

13.3

6

563

16.0

7

568

18.7

8

623

21.3

9

658

24.0

10

698

26.7

11

782

29.3

12

893

32.0

13

950

34.7

14

970

37.3

15

1030

40.0

16

1031

42.7

17

1057

45.3

18

1076

48.0

19

1088

50.7

20

1111

53.3

21

1145

56.0

22

1260

58.7

23

1405

61.3

24

1445

64.0

25

1487

66.7

26

1725

69.3

27

1759

72.0

28

1762

74.7

29

2119

77.3

30

2257

80.0

31

2385

82.7

32

2733

85.3

33

2853

88.0

34

2976

90.7

35

2996

93.3

36

3012

96.0

37

3892

98.7

	average:	1426

The median waste volume is approximately 1088 cubic yards, the average
is approximately 1426 cubic yards, and the 90th percentile of the ranked
values is approximately 2900 cubic yards.

 a chemical reaction with oxygen from air

 In some cases the wastewater might be discharged to a body of surface
water such as a river or stream, rather than to a municipal wastewater
treatment system.  

 referred to as “filter cake” in many of the delisting petitions

 Although iron sometimes causes adverse health effects when excessive
amounts are consumed, and silicon can present human health concerns if
particles containing it are inhaled.

 Depending on the oil and grease content of the waste, the laboratory
analyst might perform the Oily Waste Extraction Procedure instead.

 RCRA does not regulate the exposure levels of workers to toxic
chemicals, but hazards to workers from waste during handling,
transportation, and disposal have been the basis for classifying waste
as hazardous.  OSHA Permissible Exposure Levels have in fact been used
by EPA in some cases in implementing the hazardous characteristics.  See
40 CFR §§ 261. 21 – 261.23; 45 FR 33108-33110, May 19, 1980; the
technical background support documents to the May 19, 1980 FR  for the
hazardous characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity,
available in the RCRA docket; the July 12, 1985 RCRA guidance memo at  
HYPERLINK
"http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/0c994248c239947e85256d090071175f/D
E154C56809559D28525670F006C2B35/$file/11091.pdf_" 
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/0c994248c239947e85256d090071175f/DE
154C56809559D28525670F006C2B35/$file/11091.pdf   and the April 21, 1998
memo at    HYPERLINK
"http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/0c994248c239947e85256d090071175f/1
C580639372378C985257067006D94CE/$file/14177.pdf_" 
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/0c994248c239947e85256d090071175f/1C
580639372378C985257067006D94CE/$file/14177.pdf  .  

 Regulations governing delisting are found in 40 CFR 260.22.

 In visits to manufacturing plants receiving delistings, we also found
that sludge dewatering equipment and sludge containers were kept inside
buildings, which would further reduce any potential for releases. While
these management practices may reflect the fact that the delisted
sludges were previously hazardous waste, we assume that these practices
would not substantively change.  We have no information from any source
suggesting that facilities store wastes in piles on the ground.

See Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 263 for the federal
regulations for hazardous waste transporters and Title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, Parts 172, 173, 178 and 179 for US DOT requirements
for hazardous materials transport.

See Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 264 and 265 for the
federal regulations for hazardous waste disposal in landfills, and Part
268 for requirements for treatment before land disposal.

See Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 258 for the federal
regulations for nonhazardous waste disposal in landfills.  State and
local, or tribal, requirements would apply as well.

 States can approve use of alternate non-earthen materials that do not
present a risk to human health or the environment.

 In these criteria, “Periodic application of cover material” means
the application and compaction of soil or other suitable material over
disposed solid waste at the end of each operating day or at such
frequencies and in such a manner as to reduce the risk of fire and to
impede vectors access to the waste.

 In visits to manufacturing plants receiving delistings, we also found
that sludge dewatering equipment and sludge containers were kept inside
buildings, which would further reduce any potential for releases. While
these management practices may reflect the fact that the delisted
sludges were previously hazardous waste, we assume that these practices
would not substantively change.  We have no information from any source
suggesting that facilities store wastes in piles on the ground.

 A fate and transport model usually does not represent all of the
influences that might affect the chemical constituent’s fate and
transport, since each influence imposes additional complexity on the
model’s structure and operation.  Model developers and users must
often sacrifice complexity in the interest of feasibility, due to data
limitations, lack of scientific knowledge in particular areas, hardware
and software limitations, etc.  Model developers make simplifying
assumptions as part of this trade-off between complexity and
feasibility. 

 EPA posted a “User Alert” description of the known problems with
DRASv2 on the Internet at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/f019/pdf/0038-2.pdf" 
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/f019/pdf/0038-2.pdf  in June
2005.  The correction needed in forward-calculate mode is changes to the
default DAFs for certain chemical constituents (shown in the model
inputs in Appendix B).  The “User Alert” referred to a possible unit
conversion error with the air volatiles emission calculations that may
be present in the documentation but not in the actual model code.

 Review of EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products.  EPA-SAB-EEC-95-010.  July, 1995.

 See the discussion of uncertainty in section 9.

 Usually called Reference Doses and Reference Concentrations for human
health effects, and toxicity reference values for ecological effects

 Enter a waste volume, risk and hazard quotient values, the number of
years disposed, and leachate and totals concentration, adjust the
default DAFs if specified in the User Alert, run the model, and review
the output screens for hazard quotients.  Ignore the limiting pathways
and “maximum allowable” output screens. 

 Note that these variable settings are only for the groundwater dermal
exposure during bathing, and soil ingestion exposure routes.  For the
groundwater ingestion exposure route, see the discussion in section
5.1.1 of the adjustment factor applied to account for children age 0-4.

 equivalent to 3000 cubic yards disposed per year, for 30 years, or 4500
cubic yards disposed per year for 20 years

 Equivalent to 1088 cubic yards disposed per year, for 20 years.  1088
cubic yards is roughly the median value of a distribution of annual
waste volumes that were either generated at, or disposed by, twelve U.S.
motor vehicle manufacturing facilities.  20 years is the default
disposal time period in DRASv2, and is also typically used by EPA
Regional Offices in performing delisting analyses.

 Note that the results described as “central tendency” here only
reflect changes in these two variables (annual waste volume and disposal
time), and drinking water intake.  The remaining variables, such as the
dilution/attenuation factor, remain at high end settings.

 We discount the calculated hazard quotient for di-n-octyl phthalate,
reported in Table 7 as 0.6, because it is based on an assumed maximum
leachate value of 0.05 mg/L.  Twelve facilities analyzed samples of
their F019 sludge for di-n-octyl phthalate; none was actually detected
in leachate, out of 93 leachate samples.  The maximum estimated
detection limit for these 93 samples was 0.05 mg/L at two facilities
(Nissan-Smryna and GM-Lordstown); detection limits at the remaining 10
facilities ranged from 0.04 mg/L (GM-Lansing) down to 0.002 mg/L
(Daimler/Chrysler-Jefferson North). 

 

 Calculated as a time-weighted average of the 90th percentile drinking
water intakes presented for <1-year-olds and 1 to 3-year-olds in Table
12 of Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook.

 The slight differences in body weights are due to the DRASv2 model’s
built-in assumption that the child who bathes using groundwater and
ingests soil weighs 15 kilograms, while our adjustment factor for
groundwater ingestion is for a 12.7 kilogram child (the time-weighted
average body weight of 6-month-olds to 4 year olds).

 See the letter from the Terry Behrman, Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers to James Michael, EPA dated November 7, 2005 in the
docket.

 See Method 931.08 in Official methods of analysis of the Association of
Official Analytical Chemists, 15th ed. Vol. 2, Arlington, VA,
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC 1990).

 See the message and attached information from Dr. William Miller,
General Motors Corporation, to James Michael, EPA, dated February 17,
2006 in the docket.

 Also see SW 846 analytical method 8315, which shows that extracting a
solid sample with an aqueous extraction effectively partitions the
formaldehyde to the water phase for analysis.

 noncancer hazard quotient equal to one.

 Tin is not included in the database of chemical constituents that IWEM
models.

 A one to 1.5 millimeter thick geomembrane flexible membrane layer made
from HDPE (high density polyethylene), overlying a geosynthetic
(bentonite) clay layer 6 millimeters thick, with two geotextile outer
layers (one above and one below the bentonite).

 noncancer hazard quotient of one

 IWEM models inhalation occurring in the shower enclosure and bathroom
only, while DRASv2 models inhalation occurring in the shower enclosure,
bathroom and the rest of the house.

Other than xylenes, the human health toxicity values used in the DRASv2
analysis and the IWEM Tier 1 analysis are identical for the nine COPCs
modeled.

 For acetonitrile, acrolein, acrylamide, carbon disulfide,
chlorobenzene, m-cresol, o-cresol, p-cresol,  ethylbenzene,
formaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, methylene
chloride, styrene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and xylenes we used Illinois
aquatic life criteria for general use waters (Illinois Pollution Control
Board 2006, Illinois EPA 2006); for antimony and naphthalene we used
chronic aquatic life use criteria from the Kansas Administrative
Regulations (Kansas 2004a and Kansas 2004b).

The ecological risk estimates depend solely on totals concentrations,
not on leachate concentrations.

 EPA2002a, page 4-13.

 For barium, there were 105 detections out of 105 totals samples; the
calculated median concentration was 390 mg/kg.  For lead, there were 93
detected values out of 105 totals samples; the calculated median
concentration of the 93 detected values was 340 mg/kg.

 A “dilution/attenuation factor,” or DAF, is the ratio of the
concentration of the constituent in the waste leachate to the
concentration of that constituent at the modeled drinking water well. 
It is a mathematical representation, for that constituent, of all of the
fate and transport processes that the groundwater model simulates.

 The analytical data for fluoride included a total of ten TCLP data
points from the GM Lansing, MI site that were calculated rather than
measured values.  That is, the totals results for fluoride in these
samples were simply divided by 20 to estimate the TCLP values.  While
this approach will give an estimate of the maximum TCLP values expected,
this appears to have significantly overestimated the levels of leachable
fluoride.  The ratio of the totals to measured TCLP values that were
determined in other samples from the Lansing plant shows an average
ratio of 400 (median value 360).  This ratio for measured values is
significantly higher than the factor of 20 used to estimate TCLP results
for fluoride.  Therefore, EPA believes that the ten “calculated”
TCLP values overestimate the actual fluoride concentrations in the TCLP
samples.  Without including these ten TCLP data points, the maximum
fluoride TCLP concentration was 1.75 mg/L, compared to the maximum value
of 33 mg/L generated from the estimated results.

 As noted earlier, the levels of leachable cyanide were low, and were
not of concern for human noncancer health effects via the groundwater
pathway.

 see constituents listed in Table 3 as “Detected only in leachate
samples (not in “totals” samples).

 For example, EPA 2003c, p. 4-19.

 For the groundwater pathways, the underlying model, EPACMTP, that is
used as the basis of the DRASv2 groundwater results, converts a waste
volume model input into a mass using either a user-supplied or default
assumption of waste density.  The DRASv2 model does not allow the user
to supply a waste density; thus apparently DRASv2 applies a default
waste density to convert the user-supplied waste volume into a mass
quantity.  The DRASv2 documentation does not specify what waste density
is built into the DRASv2 model.

except for soil intakes and body surface areas

 Commerce 1998.  U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Economics
and Statistics Administration, Current Population Reports: Household
Economics Studies: Seasonality of Moves and Duration of Residence. 
Table 5.

 Available on the Internet at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/iris/intro.htm"  http://www.epa.gov/iris/intro.htm 

We used toxicity values available as of early 2004.

 This database is not available to the general public.

 Available on the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html

 However, not all mutagens that EPA reviewed when developing the 2005
guidelines show higher cancer risks.  

 See EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database, entry
for inorganic arsenic, under “Carcinogenicity Assessment: Supporting
Data for Carcinogenicity.”

 Each constituent may migrate from the landfill at a different rate, due
to differences in soil sorption rates, solubility, and other variables. 
The cumulative effect of these differences can mean vastly different
rates of subsurface transport.

 Although we could not model tin using IWEM Tier 1, the same engineering
features that prevent downward flow of water in the composite-lined
landfill should also reduce exposures to tin.

 A compacted clay liner is composed of natural mineral materials, a
bentonite-soil blend, and other materials placed and compacted in layers
to (typically at least two feet thick).

 A geosynthetic clay liner is a relatively thin layer of processed clay
(typically bentonite) fixed between two layers of geotextile.

 Note that we could use an additional data source, the Biennial Report
data required under 40 CFR 262.41 for hazardous waste generators, to
corroborate some of the data shown here.  We have elected not to do for
several reasons: 1) Biennial Report data are converted in the Biennial
Report database to be exclusively in tonnages, and we would introduce
additional uncertainty by assuming specific gravities in order to
convert them into cubic yards, the units needed for the DRASv2 model
input; and 2) querying the Biennial Report database requires some
interpretation of query results, further increasing our uncertainty in
the volumes disposed.

 Delisting petitions for General Motors’ Lansing Car Assembly and
Lordstown plants stated an intention to dispose of delisted F019 waste
at a landfill in East Carbon, Utah; delisting petitions for General
Motors’ Hamtramck and Pontiac plants stated an intention to dispose of
delisted F019 waste at a landfill in Wayne, Michigan; and delisting
petitions for General Motors’ Lansing Grand River and Flint plants
stated an intention to dispose of delisted F019 waste at a landfill in
Lennon, Michigan.

 A verification data cover letter for General Motors’ Orion Assembly
plant stated a change in landfill disposal from East Carbon, Utah to a
landfill in Northwood Ohio.  The Hamtramck and Pontiac plants’
delisting petitions had stated an intention to dispose of delisted F019
at this same Northwood, Ohio landfill, but an amended petition submitted
later on stated a revised intention to dispose of delisted F019 at the
Wayne, Michigan landfill.

DELIBERATIVE DOCUMENT – DO NOT RELEASE - 6/8/2006

 PAGE   

Attachment 2

 PAGE  ii