Human and Ecological Risk Assessment - Earthjustice

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section 4.0Risk Characterization4.4.3 Parameter Uncertainty and VariabilityParameter uncertainty occurs when (1) there is a lack of data about the values used in theequations, (2) the data that are available are not representative of the particular instance beingmodeled, or (3) parameter values have not been measured precisely or accurately because oflimitations in measurement technology. Random, or sample, errors are a common source ofparameter uncertainty that is especially critical for small sample sizes, as illustrated by the FBCwaste results discussed in Section 4.1.3.2. More difficult to recognize and address arenonrandom or systematic errors that can bias the analyses from sampling errors, faultyexperimental designs, or bad assumptions.Spatial and temporal variability in parameters used to model exposure account for thedistribution in the exposed population. For example, the rainfall or precipitation rates used tocalculate infiltration and recharge to groundwater are measured daily by the National WeatherService at many locations throughout the United States, and statistics about these parameters arewell documented. Although the distributions of these parameters may be well known, their actualvalues vary spatially and temporally and cannot be predicted exactly. Thus, the annual averageinfiltration rates used in the source model for a particular climate station provide information onaverage conditions appropriate for this analysis. Additionally, using data from multiple climatestations located throughout the United States can account for some, but not all, spatialvariability.4.4.3.1 Waste ConcentrationsThe CCW constituent database used to represent CCW total waste and waste leachateconcentrations is arguably the most important data set in terms of driving the risk assessmentresults. The constituent data are subject to two primary uncertainties beyond the normalsampling and analysis uncertainty associated with environmental measurements: (1) theappropriateness of the landfill leachate data used in the analysis and (2) high percentages ofnondetect analyses for some CCW constituents.Appropriateness of Leachate Data. The CCW leachate data were collected from avarying number of sites using a variety of methods. The available landfill data were largelyderived from the TCLP, a laboratory test designed to estimate leachate concentrations inmunicipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. The TCLP has been shown to both over- andunderpredict leachate concentrations for other waste disposal scenarios, so the use of the TCLPdata to represent CCW leachate is another source of uncertainty. However, as noted below, theTCLP data do appear to encompass the range of variability in CCW leachate concentrations thathave been measured in more recent studies.Surface impoundment leachate is represented by porewater measurements taken beneathactual impoundments, which should more closely represent the leachate seeping from the bottomof the impoundment than would bulk surface impoundment waste concentrations. The porewateris in direct contact with the waste, so these concentrations should typically be at least as great asconcentrations in the bulk surface impoundment. However, although these porewater dataarguably should better represent leachate concentrations, they are fewer in number than thelandfill data and therefore subject to uncertainty as to how representative they are of all CCWApril 2010–Draft EPA document. 4-46
Section 4.0Risk Characterizationwastes. Results for surface impoundments for antimony, mercury, and thallium are not presenteddue to the paucity of leachate data (1 or 2 sites, and 11 or fewer values).Since the CCW risk assessment was conducted in 2003, EPA-sponsored researchconducted by Vanderbilt University has improved the scientific understanding of the generationof leachate from CCW, in particular for mercury, arsenic, and selenium (U.S. EPA, 2006c; U.S.EPA, 2008c). Figure 4-2 plots the results from U.S. EPA (2006c) for arsenic and selenium,along with data from EPA’s Leach2000 database and EPRI (as provided in U.S. EPA, 2006c)against the data used for landfills and surface impoundments used in the CCW analysis.Arsenic1095th %1maxAs (mg/L)0.10.01Natural pHmin50th %5th %0.0010.0001BraytonPointPleasantPrairieSalem Facility C St. Clair Facility L CCW -HarborFacilityLFVanderbilt StudySeleniumEPRI -LFEPA - LF CCW -SIOther Data SetsEPRI - SI101maxNatural pHmin95th %Se (mg/L)0.10.010.00150th %5th %0.0001BraytonPointKey to data sets:PleasantPrairieSalem Facility C St. Clair Facility L CCW -HarborFacilityLFVanderbilt StudyVanderbilt = U.S. EPA (2006c)CCW = CCW Constituent Database (this analysis)EPRI = EPRI Leachate data (from U.S. EPA, 2006c)EPA = Leach 2000 data (from U.S. EPA, 2000)LF = landfillsSI = surface impoundmentsEPRI -LFEPA - LF CCW -SIOther Data SetsEPRI - SIFigure 4-2. Comparison of CCW leachate data with other leachate data inU.S. EPA (2006c).April 2010–Draft EPA document. 4-47
Page 2 and 3:
This draft document has been prepar
Page 5 and 6:
CCWTable of ContentsTable of Conten
Page 7 and 8:
CCWTable of ContentsList of Figures
Page 9 and 10:
CCWTable of Contents4-22. Summary o
Page 11 and 12:
CCWList of AcronymsAcronymDefinitio
Page 13 and 14:
CCWList of AcronymsApril 2010-Draft
Page 15 and 16:
Executive SummaryHuman and Ecologic
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Section 1.0Introduction1.0 Introduc
Page 27 and 28:
Section 1.0Introduction1.3.2 Exposu
Page 29 and 30:
Section 1.0IntroductionThis methodo
Page 31 and 32:
Section 1.0Introduction1.4 Document
Page 33 and 34:
Section 2.0Problem Formulationdata
Page 35 and 36:
Section 2.0Problem FormulationTable
Page 37 and 38:
Section 2.0Problem Formulationsmall
Page 39 and 40:
Section 2.0Problem FormulationFigur
Page 41 and 42:
Section 2.0Problem Formulationonsit
Page 43 and 44:
Section 2.0Problem Formulation2.3 S
Page 45 and 46:
Section 2.0Problem Formulationand C
Page 47 and 48:
Section 2.0Problem Formulationof dr
Page 49 and 50:
Section 3.0Analysisscale analysis.
Page 51 and 52:
Section 3.0Analysis• The RfD is a
Page 53 and 54:
Section 3.0Analysis3.1.2 Ecological
Page 55 and 56:
Section 3.0AnalysisEcological Risk
Page 57 and 58:
Section 3.0Analysisfor the screenin
Page 59 and 60:
Section 3.0AnalysisTable 3-5. Scree
Page 61 and 62:
Section 3.0Analysisapproximately 30
Page 63 and 64:
Section 3.0Analysisthose input file
Page 65 and 66:
Section 3.0AnalysisCCW Waste TypesC
Page 67 and 68:
Section 3.0Analysis• An in-depth
Page 69 and 70:
Section 3.0Analysisused to determin
Page 71 and 72:
Section 3.0Analysisconsolidation. A
Page 73 and 74:
Section 3.0Analysis3.4.4 Model Outp
Page 75 and 76:
Section 3.0Analysisclogged region o
Page 77 and 78:
Section 3.0Analysissurface impoundm
Page 79 and 80:
Section 3.0Analysisobtained from a
Page 81 and 82:
Section 3.0AnalysisIn the saturated
Page 83 and 84:
Section 3.0Analysis• The receptor
Page 85 and 86:
Section 3.0Analysissediment and por
Page 87 and 88:
Section 3.0AnalysisTable 3-11. Alum
Page 89 and 90: Section 3.0Analysischild was aged f
Page 91 and 92: Section 3.0Analysisa per kilogram b
Page 93 and 94: Section 3.0AnalysisNoncancer risk w
Page 95 and 96: Section 4.0Risk Characterization4.0
Page 97 and 98: Section 4.0Risk CharacterizationNot
Page 99 and 100: Section 4.0Risk Characterization90t
Page 103 and 104: Section 4.0Risk Characterizationbas
Page 105 and 106: Section 4.0Risk CharacterizationZer
Page 107 and 108: Section 4.0Risk Characterization4.1
Page 111 and 112: Section 4.0Risk Characterizationund
Page 113 and 114: Section 4.0Risk CharacterizationLin
Page 115 and 116: Section 4.0Risk CharacterizationRis
Page 117 and 118: Section 4.0Risk CharacterizationTab
Page 119 and 120: Section 4.0Risk CharacterizationThe
Page 121 and 122: Section 4.0Risk Characterizationin
Page 123 and 124: Section 4.0Risk Characterizationand
Page 129 and 130: Section 4.0Risk Characterizationdis
Page 131 and 132: Section 4.0Risk Characterizationana
Page 133 and 134: Section 4.0Risk Characterizationmay
Page 135 and 136: Section 4.0Risk Characterizationval
Page 137 and 138: Section 4.0Risk Characterizationars
Page 139: Section 4.0Risk CharacterizationTab
Page 143 and 144: Section 4.0Risk Characterizationche
Page 145 and 146: Section 4.0Risk CharacterizationMer
Page 147 and 148: Section 4.0Risk CharacterizationWat
Page 149 and 150: Section 4.0Risk CharacterizationEPA
Page 151 and 152: Section 4.0Risk CharacterizationEco
Page 153 and 154: Section 4.0Risk Characterization•
Page 155 and 156: Section 4.0Risk Characterization•
Page 157 and 158: Section 5.0ReferencesFinkelman, R.B
Page 159 and 160: Section 5.0ReferencesU.S. EPA (Envi
Page 161 and 162: Section 5.0Referenceshttp://www.epa
Page 163 and 164: Section 5.0ReferencesDisposal of Co
Page 165 and 166: Appendix AConstituent DataA.1 Data
Page 167 and 168: Appendix AConstituent DataA.2.1 Sel
Page 169 and 170: Appendix AConstituent Data2. Select
Page 171 and 172: Appendix AAttachment A-1: Sources o
Page 177 and 178: April 2010-Draft EPA document.[This
Page 179 and 180: Appendix AAttachment A-2: CCW Const
Page 191 and 192:
Appendix AAttachment A-2: CCW Const
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
April 2010-Draft EPA document.[This
Page 213 and 214:
Appendix A Attachment A-3Table A-3-
Page 215 and 216:
Appendix A Attachment A-3Cr IIIHgAg
Page 217 and 218:
Appendix A Attachment A-3NO3CNCd, C
Page 219 and 220:
Appendix BWaste Management UnitsWas
Page 221 and 222:
Appendix BWaste Management Units•
Page 223 and 224:
Appendix BWaste Management Units(e.
Page 225 and 226:
Log(capacity, cubic yards)Log(area,
Page 227 and 228:
Appendix BWaste Management UnitsB.7
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Appendix BAttachment B-1: CCW Dispo
Page 233 and 234:
Appendix BAttachment B-1: CCW Dispo
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Appendix BAttachment B-2: CCW WMU D
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Appendix CSite DataWMU and the wate
Page 249 and 250:
Appendix CSite DataFigure C-1. Exam
Page 251 and 252:
Appendix CSite Dataeach site, eithe
Page 253 and 254:
Appendix CSite DataBecause EPACMTP
Page 255 and 256:
Appendix CSite DataHydrogeologic Se
Page 257 and 258:
Appendix CSite DataFigure C-2. EPAC
Page 259 and 260:
Appendix CSite DataEPACMTP Climate
Page 261 and 262:
Appendix CSite DataRF1 Reach Types
Page 263 and 264:
Appendix CSite DataTable C-9. Regio
Page 265 and 266:
Appendix CSite DataHydrologicRegion
Page 267 and 268:
Appendix CSite DataClawges, R.M., a
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Appendix CAttachment C-1: Soil Data
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Appendix CAttachment C-2: Hydrogeol
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Appendix CAttachment C-3: Climate C
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Appendix CAttachment C-4: Waterbody
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Appendix DMINTEQA2 Nonlinear Sorpti
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Appendix EEquationsIf Cwctot > Csol
Page 339 and 340:
Appendix EAttachment E-1: Surface W
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Appendix EAttachment E-2: Fish Conc
Page 353 and 354:
Appendix EAttachment E-3: Intake Ra
Page 355 and 356:
Appendix FHuman Exposure Factorswer
Page 357 and 358:
Appendix FHuman Exposure FactorsBec
Page 359 and 360:
Appendix FHuman Exposure FactorsF.1
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Appendix GHuman Health BenchmarksG.
Page 369 and 370:
Appendix GHuman Health BenchmarksHu
Page 371 and 372:
Appendix GHuman Health BenchmarksU.
Page 373 and 374:
Appendix HEcological BenchmarksRisk
Page 375 and 376:
Appendix HEcological BenchmarksH.1.
Page 377 and 378:
Appendix HEcological BenchmarksCons
Page 379 and 380:
Appendix HEcological BenchmarksU.S.
Page 381 and 382:
Appendix ICalculation of Health-Bas
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Appendix JChemical-Specific Inputs
Page 391 and 392:
Appendix JChemical-Specific Inputs
Page 393 and 394:
Appendix KScreening Analysis Result
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Appendix LTime to Peak Concentratio
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409:
show all

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment - Earthjustice

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?