Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Volume II Class … · 2018. 5. 3. · 24915-00-GPE-GGPT-00291 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Volume II - Class 3 Hazardous

24915-00-GPE-GGPT-00291

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Volume II - Class 3 Hazardous Waste

Storage & Treatment Permit Modification Request, Treatment of VX Munitions

for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant Blue Grass Army Depot, Richmond, Kentucky

Submitted to:

Energy and Environment Cabinet Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection

Division of Waste Management 300 Sower Boulevard

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

Submitted by: Blue Grass Army Depot

431 Battlefield Memorial Highway, Richmond, Kentucky 40475-5001 and

Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass 830 Eastern Bypass, Suite 106, Richmond, Kentucky 40475

(CDRL A010) Submitted 03 MAY 2018, Revision/Submission 0

This document has been reviewed for ITAR/EAR information and no ITAR/EAR sensitive information was found. This document has been reviewed and OPSEC-sensitive information has been removed.

mmathew

Rectangle

Volume II

Appendix D-4: Human Health Risk Assessment

Appendix K-1: Waste Minimization Plan

FRANKLIN engineering group, inc. 381 Riverside Drive, Suite 200

Franklin, TN 37064

615/591-0058 voice 615/591-8979 fax

www.franklinengineering.com

SCREENING-LEVEL HUMAN HEALTH

RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

FOR

BLUE GRASS CHEMICAL AGENT-DESTRUCTION PILOT PLANT

(BGCAPP)

Prepared for:

Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass

830 Eastern Bypass

Suite 106

Richmond, Kentucky

Prepared by:

Franklin Engineering Group, Inc.

Franklin, Tennessee

June 2011

This document has been reviewed for ITAR/EAR information and no ITAR/EAR sensitive information was found.This document has been reviewed and OPSEC-sensitive information has been removed.

jwhite4

Rectangle

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................... 1

2.0 COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN .............................................................. 3

2.1 Emission Sources ............................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Target Compounds .......................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Estimated Emission Rates ............................................................................................... 4

3.0 AIR DISPERSION AND DEPOSITION MODELING .............................................. 15

3.1 Computer Models.......................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Emission Source Characterization ................................................................................ 15

3.2.1 Stack Coordinates and Base Elevation ..................................................................... 18

3.2.2 Stack Height and Building Wake Effects .................................................................. 21

3.2.3 Stack Gas Temperature, Flowrate and Velocity ....................................................... 21

3.2.4 Modeled Emission Rate and Particle-Size Distribution ........................................... 21

3.3 Deposition Parameters .................................................................................................. 24

3.4 Meteorological Data...................................................................................................... 24

3.4.1 Dispersion Coefficients ............................................................................................. 28

3.4.2 Scavenging Coefficient.............................................................................................. 28

3.6 Site-Specific Air Modeling Results .............................................................................. 28

4.0 EXPOSURE SCENARIO IDENTIFICATION ........................................................... 41

4.1 Use of HHRAP Recommended Default Model Parameters ......................................... 41

4.2 Special Onsite and Offsite Considerations ................................................................... 43

5.0 TOXICITY DATA .......................................................................................................... 44

6.0 RISK RESULTS.............................................................................................................. 47

7.0 UNCERTAINTY IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT .............................. 51

7.1 Types of Uncertainty..................................................................................................... 51

7.1.1 Variable Uncertainty ................................................................................................ 51

7.1.2 Model Uncertainty .................................................................................................... 52

7.1.3 Decision-Rule Uncertainty........................................................................................ 52

7.1.4 Variability ................................................................................................................. 54

7.2 Qualitative Uncertainty ................................................................................................. 54

7.3 Quantitative Uncertainty ............................................................................................... 54

8.0 CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION ...................................................................... 56

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 COPCs from the MDB HVAC Stacks ..................................................................... 5

Table 2-2 COPCs from the SPB Exhaust Stack ....................................................................... 8

Table 2-3 COPC Emission Rates ............................................................................................ 12

Table 3-1 Source Characteristics Required for Air Modeling ............................................... 20

Table 3-2 Seasonal Categories ................................................................................................ 25

Table 3-3 Land Use Categories Sector ................................................................................... 26

Table 3-4 Modeling Run Types and Counts ........................................................................... 31

Table 3-5 Chemical Property Data for Air Modeling ............................................................. 32

Table 3-6 Symbols for Air Modeling Output Parameters ....................................................... 35

Table 3-7 Particulate AERMOD Output ................................................................................ 36

Table 3-8 Vapor AERMOD Output ........................................................................................ 37

Table 3-9 AERMOD Maximum Air Modeling Results and Locations .................................. 39

Table 3-10 Basis for AERMOD Maximum Air Modeling Results and Locations .................. 40

Table 4-1 Selected Exposure Scenarios and Associated Exposure Pathways ........................ 42

Table 5-1 Toxicological Parameters and Sources ................................................................... 45

Table 6-1 Summary of Results ............................................................................................... 48

Table 6-2 Estimated Exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ ........................................................... 49

Table 6-3 Results of Screening Level Human Health Risk Assessment…………………… 49

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1 BGAD Property Location ....................................................................................... 16

Figure 3-2 BGAD Source and Building Locations .................................................................. 17

Figure 3-3 BGAD Receptor Grid ............................................................................................. 22

Figure 3-4 BGAD Receptor Grid – Close View ...................................................................... 23

Figure 3-5 Facility Layout & Meteorological Station Locations ............................................. 27

Figure 3-6 Wet Scavenging Rate Coefficient as a Function of Particle Size ........................... 29

Figure 3-7 Air Modeling Results Plan ..................................................................................... 38

APPENDICES

Appendix I Risk Assessment Calculations

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Under Congressional directive (Public Law 99-145) and an international treaty called the Chemical

Weapons Convention (CWC), the U.S. Army is destroying the nation’s stockpile of lethal chemical

agents and munitions. In response to this directive, the U.S. Army has initiated the design,

construction, and limited duration operation of a facility to destroy the types of chemical munitions

stored at Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD) Kentucky. The BGAD stockpile consists of mustard

agent (type H) contained in 155-mm projectiles, nerve agent GB contained in M55 rockets and 8-

in. projectiles, and nerve agent VX contained in M55 rockets and 155-mm projectiles. As part of

the permitting process for this chemical agent destruction pilot plant, a Screening-Level Human

Health Risk Assessment was performed to estimate the potential impacts to human health in the

area adjacent to the facility.

This document is the second of two reports provided by Franklin Engineering Group, Inc. to

Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass. The first report (Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol Outline

for Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant) detailed the protocol used to conduct the

risk assessment, including the methodologies used, default parameters, exclusions, and the inputs

and outputs for the air modeling, used as a basis for the risk assessment. The second report, a

screening-level risk assessment (SLHHRA), provides the results of the screening level risk

assessment to include reiteration of some of the assumptions, inputs, and methodologies described

in the first report. The SLHHRA generally follows the U.S. EPA guidance document, Human

Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, Final (September

2005) and EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix W). Since this

guidance document was promulgated in 2005, U.S. EPA has recommended a new default air

dispersion model (i.e., AERMOD). The AMS/EPA Regulatory Model, AERMOD (version

09292) is a refined dispersion model used for State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for

existing sources and for New Source Review (NSR) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) programs. Because of this model’s acceptance by U.S. EPA and its widespread use for air

dispersion modeling, AERMOD was the air dispersion model utilized for this project.

AERMOD is a steady-state plume model that incorporates air dispersion based on planetary

boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of both surface and

elevated sources, and both simple and complex terrain. For stable atmospheric conditions

AERMOD treats the concentration distribution as Gaussian in both the vertical and horizontal. For

unstable atmospheric conditions the model treats the vertical distribution as non-Gaussian.

The first report (i.e., Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol Outline) describes AERMOD in

detail and it is not described further here.

2

The results of the SLHHRA are summarized in the table below.

Summary Results of Screening Level Human Health Risk Assessment

Effect Maximum

Calculated Value

Benchmark for

Comparison

Exposure with

Highest Value

Non-carcinogenic

Chronic Health Effect

HQ=0.0124 HI=0.25a Farmer Child

Non-carcinogenic

Acute Health Effect

AHQ=0.0256 HI=0.25 a Acute Riskb

Increased Carcinogenic

Risk

1.8x10-7 1.0x10-5 Adult Farmer

aU.S. EPA Region 6 recommends that a hazard index benchmark of 0.25 be utilized to account for COPCs (compounds

of potential concern) in areas with industrial activity. Although significant industrial activities do not exist near

BGCAPP, this very conservative benchmark was used for comparison to emissions ensure risks were not

underestimated. bThe acute risk assessment scenario evaluates short-term 1-hour maximum air concentrations based on hourly

emission rates. Inhalation is the route of exposure.

The results for both non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risk calculations are approximately one-

tenth or less of the established and generally accepted bench marks. The air modeling and risk

calculations clearly indicate that unacceptable non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic health effects are

not expected. This conclusion (i.e., health effects are not expected due to BGCAPP emissions) is

further strengthened by the use of very conservative assumptions which over-estimated the chronic

and acute health hazards while also increasing the cancer risks posed by BGCAPP air emissions.

Based upon the risk assessment results and the very conservative nature of the assumptions used,

further refinement of the model or risk evaluation is not needed nor is sampling recommended.

3

2.0 COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

2.1 Emission Sources

There are three emission points from the BGCAPP facility which were considered in the risk

assessment. These are the exhaust stacks from East and West Munitions Demilitarization Building

(MDB) heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and the Supercritical Water

Oxidation (SCWO) Processing Building (SPB) HVAC exhaust ducts.

2.2 Target Compounds

A list of possible Compounds of Potential Concern (COPCs) was developed based on the U.S.

EPA’s HHRAP and Risk Burn Guidance. Chemicals were grouped by “family“. Each chemical

family was then evaluated on a process unit-by-unit basis to determine the qualitative likelihood

of emissions of that family of compounds from a given process unit. For chemical families that

were likely to be emitted from a given process unit, specific compounds were then evaluated for

inclusion in the final COPC list.

The possible COPCs were grouped by chemical family as follows:

Chemical Warfare Agents processed at BGCAPP

Dioxins/furans

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Halogen gases

Metals

Volatile organics

Semi-volatile organics

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Nitroaromatics

Pesticides/Herbicides

Aldehydes / ketones

Cyanides/Isocyanates

The Pesticides/Herbicides category was immediately eliminated from consideration because they

are not present in the processed materials and are unlikely to be formed in the offgases from the

processes. While some sodium cyanide or other cyanide compounds may be formed as

intermediates during hydrolysis, no cyanides were reported in the SCWO offgases in data from a

SCWO demonstration test performed as part of the SCWO Engineering Design Studies (EDS) by

the U.S. Army’s Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) Program, even when

present in detectable quantities in the SCWO feeds. The Cyanides/Isocyanates category was

therefore eliminated from consideration. The remaining families were evaluated on a unit-by-unit

basis to determine if a mechanism for emitting that specific family of compounds existed.

4

The selected emission sources include the following process units:

SCWO Units

MDB Building Air

Metal Parts Treaters (MPT) and associated Offgas Treatment System (OTM), including

the Bulk Oxidizers

Based on the operating conditions (i.e., temperatures, pressures, etc.) and materials processed

(treated munitions carcasses, hydrolysate), it was determined that there was a low likelihood of

COPC emissions from any other potential sources.

The Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol Outline for the BGCAPP provides more information

on each of the chemical family groups.

The list of COPCs for evaluation in the risk assessment from the MDB HVAC exhaust stacks is

included at Table 2-1, while the COPC list for the SCWO is included in Table 2-2.

2.3 Estimated Emission Rates

Potential Products of Incomplete Combustion (PICs) were based on the process flow rates and

combustion temperatures and include dioxins, furans, PCBs, metals, mercury, light chlorinated

organic compounds, HCl, HF, and several other HAPs. The estimated emission rate for each of

the three stacks and each COPC are presented in Table 2-3.

The estimated COPC emission rates in Table 2-3 are not actual emission rates for the COPCs as a

number of very conservative assumptions were included to ensure that the overall toxicity and

magnitude of emissions could not be underestimated.

5

Table 2-1

COPCs from the MDB HVAC Stacks

Type CAS No. Compound Source

Chemical

Agents

107-44-8

GB Chemical Agent

(Isopropylmethylphosphonofluoridate) MDB room air

50782-69-

9

VX Chemical Agent

(O-ethyl-S-(diisopropylaminoethyl)methyl

phosphonothiolate) MDB room air

505-60-2

H Chemical Agent (bis (2-

chloroethyl)sulfide) MDB room air

PCBs

11097-69-

1 Arochlor-1254

MPT via OTM

from PCB-bearing

SFTs

Dioxins/

furans

1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM

40321-76-

4 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM

39227-28-

6 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM

57635-85-


19408-74-


35822-39-

4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM

3268-87-9 Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM

51207-31-

9 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran OTM

57117-41-

6 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran OTM

57117-31-

4 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran OTM

70648-26-

9 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran OTM

57117-44-


6

60851-34-


72918-21-


67562-39-

4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran OTM

55673-89-

7 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran OTM

39001-02-

0 Octachlorodibenzofuran OTM

7

Table 2-1

COPCs from the MDB HVAC Stacks (continued)


Halogen Acids 7647-01-0 Hydrogen chloride OTM

7782-50-5 Chlorine OTM

7664-39-3 Hydrogen fluoride OTM

Metals 7440-43-9 Cadmium MPT via OTM

7439-92-1 Lead MPT via OTM

Volatile Organics 71-43-2 Benzene OTM

75-00-3 Chloroethane OTM

67-66-3 Chloroform OTM

74-87-3 Chloromethane OTM

75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane OTM


75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene OTM

159-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene OTM

540-59-0 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene OTM

75-09-2 Methylene chloride OTM

108.88.3 Toluene OTM

71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane OTM


108-38-3 m-Xylene OTM

95-47-6 o-Xylene OTM

106-42-3 p-Xylene OTM

Semi-volatiles/PAHs 50-32-8 Benzo-a-pyrene OTM

91-20-3 Naphthalene OTM

198-55-0 Perylene OTM

85-01-8 Phenanthrene OTM

8

Table 2-2

COPCs from the SPB Exhaust Stack


Dioxins/furans 1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin SCWO

40321-76-4 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin SCWO

39227-28-6 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin SCWO



35822-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin SCWO

3268-87-9 Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin SCWO

51207-31-9 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran SCWO

57117-41-6 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran SCWO


70648-26-9 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran SCWO




67562-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran SCWO


39001-02-0 Octachlorodibenzofuran SCWO

Inorganics 7647-01-0 Hydrogen chloride SCWO

7664-39-3 Hydrogen fluoride SCWO

Metals 7439-97-6 Mercury SCWO

Volatile Organics 67-63-0 Isopropyl alcohol SCWO

108.88.3 Toluene SCWO

75-09-2 Methylene chloride SCWO

9

Table 2-2

COPCs from the SPB Exhaust Stack (continued)


Aldehydes/ketones 67-64-1 Acetone SCWO

123-72-8 Butanal SCWO

198-94-1 Cyclohexanone SCWO

50-00-0 Formaldehyde SCWO

Semi-volatiles/PAHs 91-20-3 Naphthalene SCWO

106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene SCWO

12

Table 2-3

Estimated COPC Emission Rates

Type

CAS No.

Compound

Source

East Stack

Emission

Rate

g/sec

West Stack

Emission

Rate

g/sec

SPB HVAC

Stacks

Emission Rate

g/sec

GB Chemical agent 107-44-8 Isopropylmethylphosphonofluoridate

ACS and/or

room air 8.68E-07 8.45E-07

VX Chemical agent 50782-69-9

O-ethyl-S-(diisopropylaminoethyl) methyl

phosphonothiolate

ACS and/or

room air 8.68E-08 8.45E-08

H Chemical agent 505-60-2 bis (2-chloroethyl)sulfide

ACS and/or

room air 2.60E-05 2.54E-05

PCBs 11097-69-1 Arochlor-1254

MPT via OTM

from PCB-

bearing SFTs 4.98E-12 4.85E-12

Dioxins/furans 1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM/SCWO 8.48E-12 8.26E-12 6.95E-13

40321-76-4 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM/SCWO 2.48E-11 2.41E-11 8.29E-13

39227-28-6 1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM/SCWO 1.36E-11 1.32E-11 8.20E-13



35822-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM/SCWO 7.79E-11 7.59E-11 2.64E-12

3268-87-9 octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM/SCWO 1.09E-10 1.06E-10 1.07E-11

51207-31-9 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran OTM/SCWO 3.14E-11 3.05E-11 2.28E-12

57117-41-6 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran OTM/SCWO 5.25E-11 5.11E-11 9.25E-13


13

Table 2-3

COPC Emission Rates (continued)

Type

CAS No.

Compound

Source

East Stack

Emission Rate

g/sec

West Stack

Emission Rate

g/sec

SPB HVAC Stacks

Emission Rate

g/sec

70648-26-9 1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran OTM/SCWO 7.14E-11 6.95E-11 1.06E-12




67562-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran OTM/SCWO 1.86E-10 1.81E-10 1.35E-12


39001-02-0 octachlorodibenzofuran OTM/SCWO 7.67E-11 7.46E-11 6.85E-12

Inorganics 7647-01-0 Hydrogen chloride OTM/SCWO 2.65E-02 2.58E-02 1.94E-03

7782-50-5 Chlorine OTM/SCWO 1.26E-04 1.23E-04 n/a

7664-39-3 Hydrogen fluoride OTM/SCWO 1.88E-02 1.83E-02 3.28E-05

Metals 7440-39-3 Barium MPT via OTM n/a n/a

7440-43-9 Cadmium MPT via OTM 6.99E-07 6.80E-07

7440-47-3 Chromium MPT via OTM n/a n/a

7439-92-1 Lead MPT via OTM 6.46E-12 6.29E-12

7440-02-0 Nickel MPT via OTM n/a n/a

7439-97-6 Mercury (assumed all oxidized) SCWO 6.69E-04

Volatile Organics 71-43-2 Benzene OTM 1.60E-05 1.56E-05

75-00-3 Chloroethane OTM 4.83E-06 4.70E-06

67-66-3 Chloroform OTM 4.21E-08 4.10E-08

74-87-3 Chloromethane OTM 3.97E-04 3.86E-04

75-34-3 Dichloroethane, 1,1- OTM 2.94E-06 2.86E-06


14

Table 2-3


Type

CAS No.

Compound

Source

East Stack

Emission Rate

West Stack

Emission Rate

SPB HVAC Stacks

Emission Rate

g/sec g/sec g/sec

75-35-4 Dichloroethene, 1,1- OTM 2.91E-06 2.83E-06

159-59-2 Dichloroethene, cis-1,2- OTM 5.75E-06 5.60E-06

540-59-0 Dichloroethene, trans-1,2- OTM 2.58E-06 2.52E-06

74-87-3 Methyl Chloride OTM n/a n/a

75-09-2 Methylene chloride OTM/SCWO 2.19E-05 2.14E-05 3.15E-05

108-88-3 Toluene OTM/SCWO 2.10E-05 2.05E-05 6.96E-06

71-55-6 Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- OTM 3.43E-06 3.34E-06


108-38-3 m-Xylene OTM 1.90E-06 1.85E-06

95-47-6 o-Xylene OTM 1.90E-06 1.85E-06

106-42-3 p-Xylene OTM 3.62E-07 3.52E-07

67-63-0 Isopropyl alcohol SCWO 6.70E-05

Aldehydes/ketones 67-64-1 Acetone SCWO 1.58E-05

123-72-8 Butanal SCWO 1.92E-07

198-94-1 Cyclohexanone SCWO 2.28E-07

50-00-0 Formaldehyde SCWO 4.25E-06

Semi-volatiles/PAHs 50-32-8 Benzo-a-pyrene OTM 5.85E-09 5.70E-09

91-20-3 Naphthalene OTM 1.59E-07 1.55E-07 4.13E-08

198-55-0 Perylene OTM 1.77E-09 1.73E-09

85-01-8 Phenanthrene OTM 5.56E-08 5.41E-08

106-46-7 1,4-dichlorobenzene 3.27E-07

121-82-4 RDX (cyclortrimethylenetrinitramine)

OTE (from

EBH) n/a n/a n/a

118-86-7 TNT (trinitrotoluene)

OTE (from

EBH) n/a n/a n/a

15

3.0 AIR DISPERSION AND DEPOSITION MODELING

Air dispersion modeling was performed by Liesa R. Elliott who assists Franklin Engineering

regularly as a consulting meteorologist. Methodologies and models utilized for this project are as

described in the following sections and are in accordance with common practice and regulatory

guidance. Any deviations from common practice or regulatory guidance are described in the

following sections.

3.1 Computer Models

The U.S. EPA air dispersion model, AERMOD, was used to approximate the physical processes

occurring in the atmosphere that influence the dispersion and deposition of gaseous and particulate

emissions from the BGCAPP treatment process stacks. The AERMOD air pollution dispersion

model is an integrated system for modeling the dispersion of air pollutants using three program

modules, which include:

1. a steady-state dispersion model designed for short-range (up to 50 kilometers) dispersion

of air pollutant emissions from stationary industrial sources;

2. a meteorological data preprocessor (AERMET) that accepts surface meteorological data,

upper air soundings, and optionally, data from on-site instrument towers and then

calculates atmospheric parameters needed by the dispersion model; and

3. a terrain preprocessor (AERMAP) that provides a physical relationship between terrain

features and the behavior of air pollution plumes.

AERMOD also includes PRIME (Plume Rise Model Enhancements) which is an algorithm for

modeling the effects of downwash created by the pollution plume flowing over nearby buildings.

Meteorological data for the years of 2004 through 2008 were used for the air modeling. Separate

vapor phase and particle phase air modeling runs were used for each of the five years of

meteorological data. This section presents the data sources for the AERMOD inputs and the

required air modeling parameters.

3.2 Emission Source Characterization

The construction site for the proposed Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant

(BGCAPP) is located within the Blue Grass Army Depot in Richmond, Kentucky and is shown on

Figure 3-1. Figure 3-2 presents the general arrangement of the BGCAPP building and equipment.

The emissions modeled come from a proposed process to demilitarize chemical agents. The

BGAD stockpile consists of mustard agent (type H) contained in 155-mm projectiles, nerve

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Air_pollution_dispersion_modeling

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Air_pollution

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Emissions&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Air_pollution_dispersion_terminology

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Meteorology

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Preprocessor&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Rawinsonde&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Terrain&action=edit&redlink=1


16

Figure 3-1

BGAD Property Location

Scale: 1” = 500m

Topographic Map: Moberly, KY

17

Figure 3-2

BGAD Source and Building Locations

MDB_E

MDB_W

SPB_BOTH

Zone 16, NAD27

18

agent GB contained in M55 rockets and 8-in. projectiles, and nerve agent VX contained in M55

rockets and 155-mm projectiles. The munitions are disassembled; agent is washed or drained from

the munitions, the energetics removed, and the munitions bodies sent to the metal parts treatment

unit for decontamination. Agent is collected in the Agent Collection System (ACS) and

neutralized in the Agent Neutralization System (ANS). Agent hydrolysate is transferred to the

Hydrolysate Storage Area (HSA) for storage. The energetics are hydrolyzed in the Energetics

Batch Hydrolyzer (EBH) and the energetics hydrolysate is further neutralized in the Energetics

Neutralization System (ENS) before storage in the HSA and removal of the aluminum in the APS

and AFS. Agent and energetics hydrolysate streams from the HSA and AFS are sent to the

supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) units for final treatment.

This assessment defined three emission sources, including two HVAC filter stacks and a third

emission source from the SPB. The two HVAC filter stacks from the Munitions Demilitarization

Building vent gases from the OTM, which collects and treats the emissions from the following:

1. MPT, MPT inlet and outlet airlocks

2. Agent Collection System Tanks

3. Agent Neutralization Reactors

4. SDS tanks

5. ENR

These dual stacks also vent the OTE which collects and treats the emissions from the EBH;the

agent hydrolysate storage tank in the HSA; and air from the MDB cascade ventilating system

which collects miscellaneous releases inside the MDB.

The third emission source to be modeled was actually two small horizontal stacks located in close

proximity to each other. This SPB Filter Stack vents the SCWO reactor gaseous effluent (from

the gas liquid separators), the Aluminum Precipitation Reactors, and includes air exhausted from

selected SPB areas.

3.2.1 Stack Coordinates and Base Elevation

Reference points for emission sources from the facility plot plan were determined using USGS 7.5

minute quadrant maps. The Kentucky State Plane – South Zone grid utilized for facility mapping

was converted to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), North American Datum 1927 (NAD27)

using the program Google Earth – Earth Point Program. Using two reference points, the stack

coordinates and locations of applicable buildings (i.e., for the calculation of downwash) were

19

determined in UTM NAD27. Table 3-1 presents the coordinates for the three emission sources

and other emissions source characteristics used as inputs to AERMOD.

20

Table 3-1

Source Characteristics Required for Air Modeling

Source Characteristics MDB-E MDB-W SPB

UTM Coordinate

Base Elevation m 278 278 276

ft 912 912 905.4

Height m 36.6 36.6 3.8

ft 120.0 120.0 12.58

Diameter m 2.19 2.19 0.51

ft 7.17 7.17 1.67

Temperature K 308.0 308.0 316.5

○F 94.7 94.7 110

Velocity m/s 11.6 11.3 9.08

ft/s 38 37 29.8

Emission Rate g/s 1 1 1

lb/hr 7.94 7.94 7.94

Mean Particle Size Microns 0.2 0.2 N/A

Mass Fraction (dimensionless

)

1 1 N/A

Particle Density g/cm3 1.0 1.0 N/A

21

The receptor grid for this project was designed according to HHRAP guidance. The grid includes

100-meter spacing out to three kilometers from the facility centroid and 500-meter spacing out to

10 kilometers. Figure 3-3 indicates the entire grid developed, including the 100-meter dense

receptor spacing and the 500-meter receptor spacing that extends to 10 kilometers from the

centroid of the three designated sources. Figure 3-4 provides a closer view of the receptor grid

map that also shows the three stacks and surrounding buildings.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) seamless digital elevation model (DEM) in the proximity

of the assessment site was downloaded and viewed using Dlgv32 Pro. The stack base elevations

were obtained from these data as the elevations at the stack coordinates.

3.2.2 Stack Height, Stack Diameter and Building Wake Effects

The applicable stack heights are design parameters that were selected based on an evaluation of

potential building wake effects and the “Good Engineering Practice” (GEP) stack height. As stated

in Section 3.4.3 of the Final HHRAP, “significant decreases in concentrations and deposition rates

will begin at stack heights at least 1.2 times the building height, and further decreases occur at 1.5

times building height, with continual decreases of up to 2.5 times building height (GEP stack

height) where the building no longer influences stack gas.”

The inside diameter for each of the stacks was used for calculations and air modeling.

Several of the plant buildings are “nearby”, meaning these buildings may have meaningful wake

effects. As described in Section 3.4.3 of the Final HHRAP, a building is “nearby” if the distance

from the building to the stack is within five times the lesser of building height or crosswind width.

The Building Profile Input Program (BPIP) was used to generate the AERMOD input data required

to model building wake effects.

3.2.3 Stack Gas Temperature, Flowrate and Velocity

The stack gas temperature and flowrate are design parameters obtained from Bechtel Parsons.

3.2.4 Modeled Emission Rate and Particle-Size Distribution

AERMOD air modeling was performed based on a unit emission rate of 1.0 g/s, instead of

compound-specific emission rates. The unitized air modeling outputs based on a unit emission

rate were multiplied by a compound-specific emission rate prior to use in the risk assessment.

The AERMOD model requires input of particle size distribution (PSD) and density data for

completion of the particle phase and particle-bound phase modeling. Site-specific data for these

22

Figure 3-3

BGAD Receptor Grid

UTM Coordinates - East (m)

UT

M C

oo

rdin

ate

s -

No

rth

(m

)

23

Figure 3-4

BGAD Receptor Grid – Close View

UTM Coordinates - East (m)

UT

M C

oo

rdin

ate

s -

No

rth

(m

)

24

parameters are not available. The MDB sources exhaust through a ventilation system including

high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters that remove 99.7% of particles greater than 0.3

microns in size. Thus, a single particle category with a mean size of 0.2 microns is used. With a

single particle size category, the mass fraction is set to 1 (100%), and only one model run is needed

to represent both particle and particle-bound phases of the risk assessment. A particle density of

1 g/cm3 is assumed for the MDB sources as recommended in HHRAP. Since particles are not

expected to be emitted from the SPB source, a particle/particle-bound phase run is not included in

the modeling analysis.

3.3 Deposition Parameters

The new deposition algorithms in AERMOD require land use characteristics and some gas

deposition resistance terms based on five seasonal categories, defined as:

Season Category 1: Midsummer with lush vegetation

Season Category 2: Autumn with unharvested cropland

Season Category 3: Late autumn after frost and harvest, or winter with no snow

Season Category 4: Winter with continuous snow on ground

Season Category 5: Transitional spring with partial green coverage or short annuals

The seasonal categories used for modeling were based on data for local conditions and are

summarized in Table 3-2. The nine land use categories required for deposition are entered for

each of the 36 wind direction sectors (every 10 degrees). The EPA program AERSURFACE

(08009) is used to calculate site-specific values used in the meteorological data processing.

AERSURFACE simplifies the modeling by consolidating/averaging sets of every three small

sectors into twelve large sectors of thirty degrees each. The 36 land use categories were estimated

from the AERSURFACE land use percentages, and are shown in Table 3-3.

3.4 Meteorological Data

AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data. Since the meteorological preprocessor, AERMET

(version 06341), requires additional parameters such as pressure, relative humidity and

precipitation, a complete on-site meteorological data set is important for this analysis.

Meteorological data is collected on-site at several towers and includes all the necessary

measurements of required parameters. This analysis utilized data from the closest location, Tower

1, designated as BG_1 on Figure 3-5 from which the data is provided in 15-minute records. The

current version of AERMET is unable to process the 15-minute data and correctly average it into

hourly records. Thus, the data were averaged into hourly records following EPA guidance before

processing.

25

Table 3-2

Seasonal Categories

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Season 3 3 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3

26

Table 3-3

Land Use Categories Sector

Sector: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Range:

0- 30º 30-60º 60-90º 90-

120º

120-

150º

150-

180º

180-

210º

210-

240º

240-

270º

270-

300º

300-

330º

330-

360º

AERSURFACE Land Use AERMOD Category % % % % % % % % % % % %

21 Low Intensity Residential

6 - Suburban areas,

forested

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 11% 11% 1% 0% 0% 2%

22 High Intensity Residential

1 - Urban land/ no

vegetation

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

23 Commercial/

Industrial/Transportation

1 - Urban land/ no

vegetation

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%

Total: 1 – Urban land/ no vegetation 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%

41 Deciduous Forest 4 – Forest 17% 26% 32% 44% 34% 39% 55% 50% 40% 13% 2% 12%

42 Evergreen Forest 4 – Forest 1% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%

43 Mixed Forest 4 – Forest 14% 13% 20% 14% 17% 7% 4% 9% 10% 9% 2% 13%

Total: 4 – forest 32% 41% 55% 58% 51% 46% 59% 59% 50% 23% 5% 26%

81 Pasture/Hay 2 - Agricultural land 56% 49% 39% 36% 36% 8% 0% 0% 2% 62% 92% 56%

82 Row Crops 2 - Agricultural land 11% 10% 5% 5% 6% 4% 1% 0% 0% 4% 1% 6%

Total: 2 - Agricultural land 67% 59% 44% 41% 42% 12% 1% 0% 2% 66% 93% 62%

85 Urban/Recreational

Grasses

5 - Suburban areas,

grassy

0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 30% 28% 29% 47% 10% 1% 9%

AERMOD Land Use: 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2

27

Figure 3-5

Facility Layout & Meteorological Station Locations

28

The 5-year period of on-site surface data for 2004 through 2008 was combined with the twice daily

upper air soundings in FSL format from Wilmington, OH (13841). Site-specific surface

roughness, albedo and Bowen ratio parameters were calculated using the AERSURFACE program

and used in AERMET to generate hourly data for the analysis. Since the AERMET program did

not correctly include the onsite precipitation and relative humidity in the processed surface file,

these parameters were added back into each year’s file using MS Excel. The five years of

processed data are combined into single, 5-year surface and profile meteorological files for input

into AERMOD.

3.4.1 Dispersion Coefficients

The 3-kilometer area around BGAD was reviewed on the 7.5 minute topographic map and Google

satellite maps to determine the correct land use type and corresponding dispersion coefficients.

Although there is some industrial/commercial land use around the facility, the predominant land

use categories in the 3-kilometer area are forest and agricultural land. Based on the Auer method

as described in EPA's "Guideline on Air Quality Models", these land use types are considered

rural. Thus, there is more than 50% rural, and the dispersion coefficients are set to rural.

3.4.2 Scavenging Coefficient

Figure 3-6 presents a best-fit curve developed by M. Jindal and D. Heinold1 for the wet (liquid)

scavenging rate coefficient versus particle size. From this curve, the liquid scavenging rate

coefficient of 4.0E-5 (s-1/mm-h-1) was obtained for a one micron particle size. The scavenging

rate coefficient for frozen precipitation (ice) was determined as one-third (1/3) of the liquid

scavenging coefficient. This gives an ice scavenging coefficient of 1.3E-5(s-1/mm-h-1) for a one

micron particle size.

The liquid scavenging coefficient for vapor phase compounds was determined based on a particle

size of 0.1 m, following the recommendations of the HHRAP Guidance. This gives the gas

scavenging coefficients of 1.68E-04 (s-1/mm-h-1) and 0.56E-04 (s-1/mm-h-1) for liquid and ice,

respectively.

3.6 Site-Specific Air Modeling Results

The unitized modeling results include concentration, dry deposition, wet deposition and total

deposition for short-term (1-hour) and long-term (annual). There are a total of 109 model runs.

Preliminary model runs indicate maximums will occur close to the facility within BGAD. The

1 Jindal, M. and D. Heinold, 1991: Development of particulate scavenging coefficients to model wet deposition from industrial combustion sources.

Paper 91-59.7, 84th Annual Meeting - Exhibition of AWMA, Vancouver, BC, June 16-21, 1991.

29

Figure 3-6

Wet Scavenging Rate Coefficient as a Function of Particle Size

(From Jindal and Heinold, 1991)

30

model run types and counts are summarized in Table 3-4. Chemical specific inputs to the air

dispersion model, along with model parameter indicators are shown in Table 3-5.

The results were averaged across the five years (i.e., prior to selecting the maximum value) to

determine the yearly air modeling output parameters for estimation of chronic health effects. For

the hourly air modeling output parameters, the maximum value from any of the five years was

selected. The use of maximum air modeling parameters regardless of location is a simplifying

assumption appropriate for a screening-level risk assessment. Results based on maximum air

modeling parameters are considered extremely conservative and overestimate the potential impact

of the plant. Although it was not modeled, particle-bound phase air modeling results would be

identical to particle phase since all particles were assumed to have a diameter of one micron.

When using AERMOD, some concentration and deposition parameters may be calculated on a

species specific basis, specifically unitized vapor phase hourly average air concentration (Chv),

unitized vapor phase annual average air concentration (Cyv), and unitized vapor phase annual

average total (i.e. wet + dry) deposition (Dytv). Particulate and particulate-bound concentration

and deposition values are calculated independent of emission chemical species. These output

parameter labels are shown in Table 3-6.

Table 3-7 presents the maximum unitized AERMOD particulate results and Table 3-8 presents the

analogous vapor results. In some cases, the risk assessment uses slightly lower values when taking

the emission rate weighted total over all three stacks, as the maximum impacts from each stack

sometimes occur in different locations than the maximum impact of the total plant emissions.

Results for vapor phase data vary by compound. For Chv and Cyv, the results do not vary much;

typical values are presented. Dytv is not presented as it varies over several orders of magnitude.

Additional detail is provided in Appendix I. The locations of receptors yielding the maximum

impact for various compounds and parameters are shown in Figure 3-7 and Table 3-9. Typically,

these maximum values were found at or near the BGAD fence line. Although these maximum

values were used to calculate the maximum receptor impacts, there are no residents near or at these

fence line locations. AERMOD yields an air concentration and deposition for each compound

modeled at each receptor. The locations (receptors) at which the maximum value for Chv, Cyv,

and Dytv for the 49 COPCs are shown in Table 3-10. The numbers shown for the listed receptors

for these three parameters represents the number of compounds with maximum values

demonstrated at that location. For example, 19 compounds were all maximized at the same

receptor node for Chv: 742650 Easting, 4178800 Northing.

31

Table 3-4

Modeling Run Types and Counts

Source Phase Type Model Run Count

MDB_E Vapor 40

Particle/Particle-Bound 1

MDB_W Vapor 40


SPB_BOTH Vapor 27

32

Table 3-5

Chemical Property Data for Air Modeling

COPC CAS No. Modeling

ID

Da

(cm2/s)

Dw

(cm2/s)

rcl

(s/cm)

H

(Pa-m3/mol)

MDB Stacks

Arochlor-1254 11097-69-1 AROC1254 4.93E-02 4.00E-06 3.30E+02 2.40E+01

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1746-01-6 2378TCBD 5.20E-02 4.39E-06 7.84E+00 3.34E+00

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran 51207-31-9 2378TCBF 5.27E-02 4.54E-06 9.67E+00 1.46E+00

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 40321-76-4 1237PCBD 9.90E-02 8.00E-06 2.23E+00 2.63E-01

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran 57117-41-6 1237PCBF 2.20E-02 8.00E-06 2.32E+00 5.07E-01

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 57635-85-7 1236HCBD 4.82E-02 3.63E-06 1.20E+00 4.51E-01

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran 57117-31-4 2347PCDF 5.06E-02 4.13E-06 3.99E+00 5.05E-01

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 39227-28-6 123HXCBD 4.82E-02 3.63E-06 1.20E+00 4.51E-01

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran 57117-44-9 1236HCBF 4.88E-02 3.75E-06 5.74E+00 7.41E-01

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 19408-74-3 1237HCBD 9.40E-02 8.00E-06 6.96E+00 1.11E+00

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzofuran 72918-21-9 1237HCBF 2.10E-02 8.00E-06 8.63E+00 1.11E+00

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 35822-46-9 123HPCBD 4.82E-02 3.63E-06 1.20E+00 4.51E-01

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran 70648-26-9 123HXCBF 4.88E-02 3.75E-06 1.11E+01 1.45E+00

octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 3268-87-9 OCBD 4.52E-02 2.97E-06 4.94E+00 6.84E-01


1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran 67562-39-4 123HPCBF 4.72E-02 3.41E-06 1.27E+01 1.43E+00

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorodibenzofuran 55673-89-7 1239HCBF 2.00E-02 8.00E-06 1.27E+01 1.42E+00

octachlorodibenzofuran 39001-02-0 OCBF 4.57E-02 3.08E-06 1.42E+00 1.91E-01

Hydrogen chloride 7647-01-0 HCL 3.00E-01 1.00E-05 1.00E+05 1.00E-12

Chlorine 7782-50-5 CL2 1.00E-03 1.00E-05 4.25E+25 1.20E-02

Hydrogen fluoride 7664-39-3 HF 3.00E-01 1.00E-05 1.00E+05 1.00E-12

Benzene 71-43-2 BENZENE 8.96E-02 1.04E-05 2.51E+04 5.57E+02

Chloroethane 75-00-3 CHLORETH 1.06E-01 1.22E-05 2.11E+04 1.81E+02

Chloroform 67-66-3 CHLOFORM 8.94E-02 1.07E-05 1.62E+05 3.81E+02

Chloromethane 74-87-3 CHLOMETH 1.28E-01 1.47E-05 1.89E+06 9.74E+02

Dichloroethane, 1,1- 75-34-3 DCHLOR11 7.40E-02 1.00E-05 1.37E+05 5.67E+02


Dichloroethene, 1,1- 75-35-4 DCHLRE11 9.28E-02 1.11E-05 5.78E+04 2.33E+03

33

Table 3-5

Chemical Property Data for Air Modeling (continued)


ID

Da

(cm2/s)

Dw

(cm2/s)

rcl

(s/cm)

H

(Pa-m3/mol)

MDB Stacks (Continued)

Methyl Chloride 74-87-3 METHYLCH 1.28E-01 1.47E-05 1.89E+06 9.74E+02

Methylene chloride 75-09-2 MTHLENCH 1.03E-01 1.23E-05 9.07E+04 1.69E+02

Toluene 108-88-3 TOLUENE 8.05E-02 9.10E-06 1.74E+04 6.80E+02

Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- 71-55-6 TRICL111 7.80E-02 8.80E-06 6.64E+04 1.72E+03


m-Xylene 108-38-3 MXYLENE 7.37E-02 8.05E-06 1.53E+04 7.28E+02

o-Xylene 95-47-6 OXYLENE 7.37E-02 8.05E-06 2.00E+04 5.65E+02

p-Xylene 106-42-3 PXYLENE 7.37E-02 8.05E-06 1.97E+04 5.79E+02

Benzo-a-pyrene 50-32-8 BENZAPYR 5.13E-02 4.44E-06 4.41E-01 4.60E-02

Naphthalene 91-20-3 NAPHTHAL 7.03E-02 7.75E-06 3.65E+02 4.30E+01

Perylene 198-55-0 PERYLENE 5.13E-02 4.44E-06 1.86E-02 3.00E-03

Phenanthrene 85-01-8 PHENANTH 5.98E-02 6.09E-06 2.33E+01 3.24E+00

SPB Stack
















34

Table 3-5



ID

Da

(cm2/s)

Dw

(cm2/s)

rcl

(s/cm)

H

(Pa-m3/mol)

SPB Stack (Continued)




Chlorine 7782-50-5 CL2 1.00E-03 1.00E-05 4.25E+25 1.20E-02


Mercury (elemental, oxidized, and particle bound) 7439-97-6 MERCURY 1.09E-02 3.01E-05 1.00E+05 1.50E+02



Acetone 67-64-1 ACETONE 1.20E-01 1.10E-05 7.60E+08 3.95E+00

Formaldehyde 50-00-0 FORMALDE 1.72E-01 1.85E-05 4.95E+01 3.20E-02


1,4-dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 14DCBENZ 7.24E-02 8.16E-06 5.04E+02 1.60E+02

Table Notes: Da – Diffusivity in air

Dw – Diffusivity in water

Rcl – Cuticular resistance to uptake by lipids for individual leaves

H – Henry’s Law Constant

35

Table 3-6

Symbols for Air Modeling Output Parameters

Parameter Averaging Units Vapor Phase

Vdv = 0.5 cm/s Particle Phase

Concentration yearly (µg-s)/(g-m3) Cyv(0.5) Cyp

Total Deposition yearly s/(m2-yr) Dytv(0.5) Dytp

Dry Deposition yearly s/(m2-yr) not used Dydp

Wet Deposition yearly s/(m2-yr) not used Dywp

Concentration highest hourly (µg-s)/(g-m3) Chv(0.5) Chp

Vdv ≡ Dry vapor deposition velocity

36

Table 3-7

Particulate AERMOD Output

Parameter Units MDB_E MDB_W SPB_B

Cyp µg-s/g-m3 5.2E-02 5.3E-02 N/A

Dytp s/m2-yr 7.1E-04 7.3E-04 N/A

Dydp s/m2-yr 7.0E-04 7.2E-04 N/A

Dywp s/m2-yr 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 N/A

Chp µg-s/g-m3 8.54E-00 8.53E-00 N/A

37

Table 3-8

Vapor AERMOD Output

MDB_E MDB_W SPB

Chv µg-s/g-m3 8.6E+00 8.6E+00 4.7E+02

Cyv µg-s/g-m3 5.1 E-02 5.2 E-02 5.6E-01

38

Figure 3-7

Air Modeling Results Plan

39

Table 3-9

Maximum AERMOD Results and Locations

Parameter

Value

Value

Value

Location

(meters)

Location

(meters)

MDB_E MDB_W SPB_B UTM E UTM N

Hourly particulate phase air

concentration (µg-s/g-m3) 8.54E+00 8.53 E+00 N/A

Annual particulate phase air

concentration (µg-s/g-m3) 5.21E-02 5.31E-02 N/A

Annual total particulate phase

deposition (s/m2-yr) 7.10E-04 7.30E-04 N/A

Annual particulate phase dry


Annual particulate phase wet


40

Table 3-10

Basis for Maximum AERMOD Results and Locations

Location

(meters)

Location

(meters)

Chva Cyva Dytva

UTM E UTM N

19

1

1

2

2

7 1

2

2

5 7

37 25

1

1

2

1

1

4

26

a The number of compounds for which the maximum value was demonstrated at each location is provided.

41

4.0 EXPOSURE SCENARIO IDENTIFICATION

Individual human receptors evaluated in the risk assessment have different potential direct and

indirect exposure to COPCs emitted from the plant, depending on age, activities, and location.

Location was eliminated as a parameter used to define exposure scenarios by utilizing maximum

fence line AERMOD results. This very conservative assumption is expected to significantly

overestimate potential risk assessment impacts, but was considered appropriate for this screening

level assessment. The differences between age and activity are used to define the applicable

exposure scenarios. Each exposure scenario defines a particular combination of exposure

pathways and the parameter values used to characterize risk and hazards. Table 4-1 presents the

exposure pathways and exposure scenarios considered in this risk assessment. The drinking water

and fish consumption pathways require site-specific data regarding water bodies and their

watersheds. For this risk assessment, the source of drinking water is the Upper Kentucky River

and the source for fish is Lake Vega.

4.1 Use of HHRAP Recommended Default Model Parameters

Although the model does use some site specific data, it uses HHRAP defaults for physical

constants, most agricultural parameters, soil loss parameters and many water body parameters.

Site specific data was obtained for evapotranspiration, irrigation, runoff, watershed area,

impervious watershed area, depth of water bodies, rainfall factor, river velocity, volumetric flow

of water bodies, and average wind speed.

Data for which default values were used:

Soil bulk density

Drag coefficient

Von Karman constant

Plant surface loss coefficient

Viscosity of air and water

Density of air, water and soil

Universal gas constant

Model start time (zero)

Ambient temperature,

Duration of deposition period

Soil water content

Soil mixing zone depth

Interception fraction, growth period for edible plant fraction, and yield, each for

aboveground plants, silage and forage.

42

Table 4-1

Selected Exposure Scenarios and Associated Exposure Pathways

Exposure Pathways

Exposure Scenarios

Farmer Farmer

Child

Adult

Resident

Child

Resident Fisher

Fisher

Child

Acute

Riskb

Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates X X X X X X X

Incidental Ingestion of Soil X X X X X X

Ingestion of Homegrown Produce X X X X X X

Ingestion of Homegrown Beef X X

Ingestion of Milk from Homegrown Cows X X

Ingestion of Homegrown Chicken X X

Ingestion of Eggs from Homegrown Chickens X X

Ingestion of Homegrown Pork X X

Ingestion of Fish X X

Ingestion of Breast Milka X X X

aInfant exposure to PCDDs, PCDFs, and dioxin-like PCBs via the ingestion of their mother’s breast milk is evaluated as an additional pathway, separately from the recommended

exposure scenarios identified in this table. b The acute risk scenario evaluates short-term 1-hour maximum pollutant air concentrations based on hourly emission

rates.

43

Empirical correction factor for forage and silage

Metabolism factor for BEHP

Daily consumption each of forage, silage, grain and soil by beef cows, dairy cows, pigs,

chickens for meat and chickens for eggs

Universal soil loss equation parameters: empirical slope coefficient, cover management

factor, erodibility factor, length slope factor and practice factor.

Bed sediment concentration

Depth of upper benthic sediment layer

Fish lipid content

Viscous sub layer thickness

Fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment

Temperature correction factor

Bed sediment porosity

Total suspended solids

Water temperature

Half life of dioxin in adults

Fraction of ingested dioxin and dioxin-like PCBs that is stored in fat

Fraction of mother’s weight that is fat

Fraction of mother’s breast milk that is fat

Fraction of ingested COPC that is absorbed

Infant body weight

Consumption rate of breast milk

For each exposure scenario (adult and child, resident, farmer and fisher):

o Body weight

o Consumption rate of soil, above ground produce, protected produce, below ground

produce, beef, milk, pork, egg, chicken,

o Fraction of each food raised in contaminated area

o Exposure duration, exposure frequency, exposure time

o Averaging time for cancer effects

4.2 Special Onsite and Offsite Considerations

Water bodies identified as relevant include Lake Vega Reservoir which is a dammed section of

Muddy Creek about 2 km southwest of the source, and the lower Kentucky River which most

closely approaches the source near College Hill about 11 km northeast of the site. To

conservatively predict the impacts of the emissions on these water bodies, the pollutant

concentration at the receptor grid point on each body of water that is nearest to the source was

utilized as the concentration for the entire water body.

44

5.0 TOXICITY DATA

Chemical toxicity data was collected based on EPA Superfund guidance, as documented in the

Regional Screening Levels User Guide. The RSLs are developed by Oak Ridge National Lab

(DOE) and EPA Regions 3, 6 and 9.

(http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/index.htm)

Omitting data sources not publicly available, the following hierarchy of toxicity data is

recommended for Inhalation Unit Risk Factor, Oral Cancer Slope Factor, Reference

Concentration, and Oral Reference Dose.

1. EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)

2. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) minimal risk levels

(MRLs).

3. The California Environmental Protection Agency (OEHHA) Office of Environmental

Health Hazard Assessment's Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (RELS) from December

18, 2008 and the Cancer Potency Values from July 21, 2009.

EPA recommends OEHHA as the preferred source for Acute Inhalation Exposure Criteria.

For the values used and their sources, see Table 5-1.

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/index.htm

http://www.epa.gov/iris/

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.html

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/index.html

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/risk/pdf/tcdb072109alpha.pdf

45

Table 5-1

Toxicological Parameters and Sources

CAS No. COPC Name AIEC TEF URFi CSFo RfC RfDo AIEC TEF URFi CSFo RfC RfDo

mg/m^3 -- 1/(µg/m^3) 1/(mg/kg/day) mg/m^3 mg/kg/day Data

source

Data

source

Data

source

Data

source Data source Data source

11097-69-1 Arochlor-1254 1.5E+0 5.7E-4 2.0E+0 7.0E-5 2.0E-5 RSL S RSL S IRIS

1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.5E-3 1.00 3.8E+1 1.3E+5 4.0E-8 1.0E-9 HB1 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA

OEHHA via

RSL

OEHHA via

RSL

51207-31-9 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2.0E-3 0.10 3.8E+0 1.3E+4 HB1 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA

40321-76-4 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2.5E-3 1.00 3.8E+1 1.3E+5 HB1 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA

57117-41-6 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran 7.5E-3 0.05 1.9E+0 6.5E+2 HB1 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA

57653-85-7 1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.5E-2 0.10 3.8E+0 1.3E+1 HB1 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA



57117-44-9 1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran 2.5E-3 0.10 HB1 HB1

19408-74-3 1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.5E-2 0.10 1.3E+0 6.2E-3 HB1 HB1 HB1 HB1

72918-21-9 1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzofuran 1.3E-1 0.10 3.8E+0 1.3E+1 HB1 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA

35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 5.0E-1 HB1


3268-87-9 octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.0E-2 0.0001 3.8E-3 1.3E+1

DOE

PAC-1 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA


67562-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran 1.5E-1 0.01 3.8E-1 1.3E+1 HB1 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA


39001-02-0 octachlorodibenzofuran 7.5E-3 0.0001 3.8E-3 1.3E+1 HB1 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA

7647-01-0 Hydrogen chloride 2.1E+0 2.0E-2 5.7E-3 OEHHA OEHHA

7782-50-5 Chlorine 2.1E-1 1.5E-4 1.00E-01 OEHHA ATSDR IRIS

7664-39-3 Hydrogen fluoride 2.4E-1 1.4E-2 4.0E-2 OEHHA OEHHA OEHHA

71-43-2 Benzene 1.3E+0 7.8E-6 5.5E-2 3.0E-2 4.0E-3 OEHHA IRIS IRIS IRIS IRIS

75-00-3 Chloroethane 2.5E+3 1.0E+1 4.0E-1 HB1 IRIS HB1

67-66-3 Chloroform 1.5E-1 2.30E-05 3.1E-2 2.5E-2 1.00E-02 OEHHA IRIS OEHHA ATSDR IRIS

74-87-3 Chloromethane 2.0E+2 1.8E-6 1.3E-2 9.0E-2 4.0E-3 HB1 HB1/K HB1/K IRIS K

75-34-3 Dichloroethane, 1,1- 1.3E+3 1.6E-6 5.7E-3 5.0E-1 2.0E-1 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA HB1

OEHHA via

RSL

107-06-2 Dichloroethane, 1,2- 2.0E+2 2.6E-5 9.1E-2 2.5E+0 2.0E-2 HB1 IRIS IRIS ATSDR IRIS via RSL

75-35-4 Dichloroethene, 1,1- 2.0E-1 5.00E-05 6.00E-01 2.0E-1 5.0E-2

K-

ACGIH K K IRIS IRIS

74-87-3 Methyl Chloride 1.0E+0 1.8E-6 1.3E-2 9.0E-2 4.0E-3 K HB1/K HB1/K IRIS K

46

Table 5-1

Toxicological Parameters and Sources (continued)


75-09-2 Methylene chloride 1.4E+1 4.7E-7 7.5E-3 1.1E+0 6.0E-2 OEHHA IRIS IRIS ATSDR IRIS

108-88-3 Toluene 3.7E+1 5.0E+0 8.0E-2 OEHHA IRIS IRIS

71-55-6 Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- 6.8E+1 5.0E+0 2.0E+0 HB1 IRIS IRIS

79-00-5 Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- 5.0E+1 1.6E-5 5.7E-2 4.0E-3 IRIS IRIS IRIS

108-38-3 m-Xylene 2.2E+1 1.0E-1 2.0E-1 OEHHA IRIS IRIS

95-47-6 o-Xylene 2.2E+1 1.0E-1 2.0E-1 OEHHA IRIS IRIS

106-42-3 p-Xylene 2.2E+1 1.0E-1 2.0E-1 OEHHA IRIS IRIS

50-32-8 Benzo-a-pyrene 6.0E-1 1.1E-3 7.3E+0 6.0E-3 1.7E-3 OEHHA IRIS

91-20-3 Naphthalene 5.2E-1 3.4E-5 3.0E-3 2.0E-2 K OEHHA IRIS IRIS

198-55-0 Perylene 7.5E+1 3.0E-3 2.0E-2 HB1 HB1 HB1

85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1.0E+0 3.0E-3 2.0E-2 HB1 HB1 HB1

7439-97-6 Mercury (elemental) 6.0E-4 3.0E-4 1.6E-1 OEHHA IRIS OEHHA

7487-94-7 Hg+2 (HgCl2) 1.1E-3 3.0E-4

22967-92-6 Methyl Mercury 3.5E-4 1.0E-4

67-64-1 Acetone 4.8E+2 3.2E+1 9.0E-1 HB1 ATSDR IRIS

50-00-0 Formaldehyde 5.5E-2 1.3E-5 1.3E-5 1.0E-2 2.0E-1 OEHHA IRIS ATSDR IRIS

107-44-8 GB, Isopropylmethylphosphonofluoridate 1.0E-4 1.0E-6 2.0E-5

50782-69-9

VX, O-ethyl-S-(diisopropylaminoethyl) methyl

phosphonothiolate 1.0E-5 6.0E-7 6.0E-7

505-60-2 H, bis (2-chloroethyl)sulfide 2.0E-5 9.4E-2 9.5E+1 2.0E-5 7.0E-6

7440-39-3 Barium Avail. Avail. Avail. Avail. Avail.

7440-43-9 Cadmium 3.0E-5 1.8E-3 3.8E-1 5.0E-4 1.0E-5 ATSDR IRIS HB1 IRIS ATSDR

7440-47-3 Chromium Avail. Avail. Avail. Avail. Avail.

7439-92-1 Lead 1.5E-1 1.2E-5 8.5E-3 1.5E-4 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA HB1

7440-02-0 Nickel Avail. Avail. Avail. Avail. Avail.

159-59-2 Dichloroethene, cis-1,2- 2.0E-3 IRIS

540-59-0 Dichloroethene, trans-1,2- 9.0E-3 RSL

121-82-4 RDX (cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine) 1.1E-1 3.0E-3 IRIS IRIS


67-63-0 Isopropyl alcohol 3.2E+0 7.0E+0 OEHHA OEHHA

123-72-8 Butanal

198-94-1 Cyclohexanone

106-46-7 1,4-dichlorobenzene 6.0E+2 1.1E-5 5.4E-3 8.0E-1 7.0E-2 OEHHA OEHHA IRIS ATSDR

47

6.0 RISK RESULTS

The equations in Appendix B and C of the Final HHRAP Guidance were used to estimate human

health risk and hazard using a combination of site-specific and default assumptions as described

previously. The results are summarized in Table 6-1, and the complete risk model output tables

are Appendix I. The typical benchmark for evaluation of estimated hazard from unit emissions is

1.0. U.S. EPA Region 6 recommended that a hazard index benchmark of 0.25 be utilized to take

background concentrations of COPCs into consideration in areas where significant industrial

activity takes place. Although the BGAD location does not represent an area of significant

industrial activity, hazard indices based on emissions from the BGCAPP facility were compared

against this very conservative benchmark. Incremental lifetime cancer risk from this source was

compared against a benchmark of 1 x 10-5.

Utilizing the HHRAP Guidance for evaluation of dioxin/furan compounds, a nursing infant’s

estimated daily intake of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ was also calculated based on its mother’s exposure,

for each adult chronic exposure scenario. A summary of these exposure estimates is provided in

Table 6-2. Based on the HHRAP Guidance, an average daily intake of 1 pg TEQ/kg-day or less

for adults, and 60 pg TEQ/kg-day or less for nursing infants do not pose a significant concern for

adverse health-effects. Since the highest average daily intake of 2,3,7,8-TCDD estimated in this

screening assessment was 0.010 pg TEQ/kg-day (i.e., approximately one six-hundredth of the

exposure that poses a significant risk), COPC emissions of dioxin-like PCBs, PCDDs, and PCDFs

from the SCWO are unlikely to cause adverse non-carcinogenic health-effects.

48

Table 6-1

Summary of Results

Exposure

Scenario

Scenario

Location

Cancer Risk

(Benchmark = 1E-05)

Total Hazard Index

(Benchmark = 0.25)

Oral Inhalation Total Oral Inhalation Total

Adult Resident Rmax 4.40E-08 1.05E-07 1.49E-07 0.00408 0.00084 0.00492

Child Resident Rmax 1.98E-08 2.09E-08 4.07E-08 0.00911 0.00084 0.00995

Fisher Rmax 4.43E-08 1.05E-07 1.49E-07 0.00413 0.00084 0.00496

Fisher Child Rmax 1.98E-08 2.09E-08 4.08E-08 0.00915 0.00084 0.00998

Farmer Fmax 3.92E-08 1.40E-07 1.79E-07 0.00536 0.00084 0.00620

Farmer Child Fmax 2.58E-08 2.09E-08 4.67E-08 0.01157 0.00084 0.01241

Acute

Exposure

Amax -- -- -- -- 0.0256 --

49

Table 6-2

Estimated Exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ

Exposure Scenario Benchmark I_teq I_bmilk

pg TEQ/kg/day pg TEQ/kg/day pg TEQ/kg/day

Adult Resident 1 3.63E-06 N/A

Child Resident 60 1.03E-05 1.06E-04

Fisher 1 1.39E-05 N/A

Fisher Child 60 1.75E-05 4.1E-04

Farmer 1 3.55E-04 N/A

Farmer Child 60 5.12E-04 1.04E-02

50

The results for both non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risk calculations are approximately one-

tenth or less of the established, generally accepted and recommended (i.e., for areas of industrial

activity) bench marks. The air modeling and risk calculations clearly indicate that unacceptable

non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic health effects are not expected. This conclusion (i.e., adverse

health effects are not expected due to BGCAPP emissions) is further strengthened by the use of

very conservative assumptions which over-estimated the chronic and acute health hazards while

also overestimating the cancer risks posed by BGCAPP air emissions. The results of the SLHHRA

are summarized in the Table 6-3 below.

Table 6-3

Results of Screening Level Human Health Risk Assessment

Effect Maximum

Calculated Value

Benchmark for

Comparison

Exposure with

Highest Value

Non-carcinogenic

Chronic Health Effect

HQ=0.0124 HI=0.25a Farmer Child

Non-carcinogenic

Acute Health Effect

AHQ=0.0256 HI=0.25 a Acute Riskb

Increased Carcinogenic

Risk

1.8x10-7 1.0x10-5 Adult Farmer

aU.S. EPA Region 6 recommends that a hazard index benchmark of 0.25 be utilized to account for COPCs

(compounds of potential concern) in areas with industrial activity. Although significant industrial activities do not

exist near BGCAPP, this very conservative benchmark was used for comparison to emissions ensure risks were not

underestimated. bThe acute risk assessment scenario evaluates short-term 1-hour maximum air concentrations based on hourly

emission rates. Inhalation is the route of exposure.

The uncertainties of the estimates in this SLHHRA are discussed in the following section, 7.0

UNCERTAINTY in HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT.

51

7.0 UNCERTAINTY IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

This section of the report includes a discussion on interpreting uncertainty associated with the risk

assessment. Since the potential for the introduction of uncertainty is evident in every process of

risk assessment, conservatism is utilized for many point values and assumptions. This reduces the

likelihood of understating risk or hazard. However, there is great potential for overstating risk and

hazard due to the integration of so many conservative approximations. In general, if a risk

assessment yields results that indicate greater than acceptable levels of risk or hazard, these

conservative assumptions are reevaluated. If using site-specific information can minimize this

uncertainty, the conservative assumptions may be replaced with site-specific data or conditions.

A screening level risk assessment generally includes more conservative approximations than a

complete multi-pathway site specific risk assessment. The SLHHRA for the Blue Grass Chemical

Agent Destruction Pilot Plant contains a number of these very conservative assumptions.

This section of the report discusses some of the types of uncertainty in any risk assessment, as well

as uncertainties introduced as a result of unknowns for this specific project. A thorough discussion

of the uncertainties inherent in the process enables the reviewer to more accurately evaluate the

conservative nature of the SLHHRA. The discussion includes the types of uncertainty, areas of

introduction, and methods for qualitatively and quantitatively addressing uncertainty in the risk

assessment.

7.1 Types of Uncertainty

The four types of uncertainty are:

1.) Variable uncertainty,

2.) Model uncertainty,

3.) Decision-rule uncertainty, and

4.) Variability.

Each of these uncertainties is addressed in the sections that follow.

7.1.1 Variable Uncertainty

Variable uncertainty involves the conservatism resulting from the assumption of equation variables

that cannot be measured with accuracy or precision. Variable uncertainty is discussed in

Appendices B and C of the HHRAP. In these appendices, variable uncertainty is addressed

specifically for many of the equations. For example, in Table B-3-9 from Appendix B to the

HHRAP guidance, the uncertainty associated with the variable Brforage, which is a plant-soil bio-

concentration factor for forage, silage, and grain, includes the following: “U.S. EPA OSW

52

recommends that uptake of organic COPCs from soil and transport of the COPCs to aboveground

plant parts be calculated on the basis of a regression equation developed in a study of the uptake

of 29 organic compounds. This regression equation, developed by Travis and Arms (1988), may

not accurately represent the behavior of all classes of organic COPCs under site-specific

conditions.”

7.1.2 Model Uncertainty

Model uncertainty includes a wide variety of uncertainty associated with the inaccuracies of using

surrogates for actual real-world data. Some examples are:

1.) Using animal surrogates for carcinogenicity in humans,

2.) Extrapolation of values in dose-response models,

3.) Estimation of fate and transport of COPCs by computer modeling, and

4.) Simplification of environmental processes due to modeling limitations.

Specific examples of model uncertainty include existing health problems of area residents. For

instance, lung function and susceptibility are altered by smoking and asthma. Because the model

does not account for this, risk from direct inhalation may be underestimated.

This risk assessment utilizes the widely-accepted AERMOD air dispersion model instead of

ISCST, which was historically used and has more direct guidance techniques for use as a

companion to the risk model. Although it is widely accepted that AERMOD much more accurately

predicts the behavior of pollutants in the atmosphere and their ground-level concentrations, the use

of this model also introduces new techniques that have not been as thoroughly tested for this

application.

7.1.3 Decision-Rule Uncertainty

Decision-rule uncertainty is related to the selection of compounds that are evaluated in the risk

assessment and the use of recommended default values for inhalation, consumption, body mass,

and health benchmarks.

Consumption Rate: The amount of vapors and particulates that a receptor inhales are influenced

by the relative amount of time that a receptor spends indoors. In this risk assessment it was

assumed that consumption of vapors and particulates are the same both indoors and outdoors. This

may overestimate risk, however, because particulate entering a building are more likely to settle

out and not be inhaled.

53

Exposure Frequency: Exposure to maximum annual air concentrations is assumed to be constant

24 hours per day, whether spent indoors or out, for 350 days per year. This assumption is based

on the conservative estimate that all receptors spend all but 2 weeks per year exposed to worst-

case concentrations in the affected area. This assumption may overestimate risk.

Averaging Time: Quantification of carcinogenic COPC exposure depends on the averaging time

used to distribute exposure over the individuals’ lifetime. The average human lifespan is generally

assumed to be 70 years; childhood represents only about 10 percent of the lifespan (6 years).

Exposure over this lifespan can vary greatly between individuals. Consider the likelihood of

residents moving out of the area or ceasing to operate a farm. The assumption of constant

maximum exposure will tend to overestimate risk/hazard, since it is unlikely that exposure would

be this significant. Since this value is used for chronic exposure, the effect of overestimating

risk/hazard over the duration of the exposure period (70 years for adult residents inhaling

carcinogenic COPCs) is notable. This overestimation for both the carcinogenic and non-

carcinogenic effects is significant since the BGCAPP operations are scheduled to be no more than

2-3 years in duration.

Body weight: In this risk assessment, the value of 70 kg (154 lb) that is recommended in the

HHRAP was used to evaluate risk to individuals. Average body weight may vary considerably

both between populations from different regions and between male and female receptors. Usage

of 70 kg may not adequately estimate risk to individuals in the assessment region.

Health benchmarks: Since all of these default values are single-point estimations, the variability

associated with the population in the assessment introduces uncertainty. Since the health

benchmarks used in this assessment are EPA-verified, the uncertainties associated with slope

factors, reference doses, and reference concentrations were not included in this discussion.

Hazard quotient benchmark: The HHRAP recommends the extremely conservative target health

quotient value of 0.25. Risk assessment guidance from other sources (i.e. Superfund) proposes a

higher value of 1.0. Evaluation of hazard index and hazard quotient values versus this conservative

benchmark greatly overestimates hazard from all COPCs.

Selection and Estimation of COPCs: Because this pilot plant has not been constructed, the

specific pollutants that will be emitted and the concentrations at which they will be emitted are

unknown. The process by which these compounds were selected and quantified is described in

detail in Section 2.0 of the Risk Assessment Protocol Outline for this project. Since much was

unknown regarding these compounds and their expected emission rate, many conservative

54

approximations were made in the development of the COPC list provided in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 of

the Outline, as well as the emission rates provided in Table 2-3. Each of these conservative

approximations introduced more conservatism which may significantly overestimate risk and

hazard for this risk assessment.

7.1.4 Variability

The use of Agency-verified cancer SFs, RfDs, and RfCs are considered under both Decision-Rule

Uncertainty and Variability. These health benchmarks are used as single-point estimates

throughout the analysis; and uncertainty and variability are both associated with them. U.S. EPA

has developed a process for setting verified health benchmark values to be used in all Agency risk

assessments. This process is used to account for much of the uncertainty and variability associated

with the health benchmarks. With the exception of the dioxin toxicity equivalency methodology,

health benchmarks can be found on EPA-recommended toxicity databases. These sources (IRIS,

in particular), have been verified through Agency work groups. Estimating the uncertainty in using

Agency-verified health benchmarks or the dioxin toxicity equivalency methodology is beyond the

scope of the HHRAP.

7.2 Qualitative Uncertainty

Many of the uncertainties associated with risk assessment can be discussed qualitatively, but not

quantitatively. Examples of qualitative uncertainty include: actual periods of exposure as

compared to default values, use of COPC with uncharacterized toxicity data, or a lack of data

related to a particular modeled parameter.

7.3 Quantitative Uncertainty

If a screening level risk assessment indicates that an unacceptable risk or hazard may result from

the equipment, an attempt is made to quantify the uncertainties associated with the risk assessment

that have known error levels. The following process is typically used to estimate the degree of

uncertainty introduced by these sources:

1) The measure of risk will be defined.

2) The mathematical relationships used to express risk in terms of defined components

will be specified.

3) An uncertainty distribution will be created for each target variable or component of

the equation.

4) Composite uncertainty distributions will be created from the individual

distributions for each target equation.

5) The composite distributions will be recalibrated by inferential analysis.

55

6) A summary will be presented in the report outlining the process and the

implications of the output on the application of the risk assessment.

Based on the availability of data, and the appropriateness of the specific process, one of two

procedures is used to develop a quantitative result. Either statistical values, as deemed appropriate

by sample type or size, will be used; or, a probability distribution will be created for this purpose.

The end result of the process will be a calculated distribution of exposure, risk, or hazard.

Probabilistic distributions will be presented in the risk assessment report, if appropriate, as

Cumulative Probability Density Functions (CPFs).

At this time, the screening level assessment does not indicate that such a thorough handling of

uncertainty is necessary so quantitative uncertainty estimates will not be performed.

56

8.0 CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION

No further refinement of air dispersion modeling parameters, nor additional risk evaluation, is

needed to characterize risk/hazard due to the overall favorable results of this screening assessment.

Calculations of risk/hazard developed using estimated facility emissions and the conservative

assumptions made in this screening level assessment also do not indicate that additional sampling

to refine the concentration of pollutants in air emissions is necessary.

FRANKLIN engineering group, inc. 381 Riverside Drive, Suite 200

Franklin, TN 37064

615/591-0058 voice 615/591-8979 fax

www.franklinengineering.com

HUMAN HEALTH

RISK ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL OUTLINE

FOR

BLUE GRASS CHEMICAL AGENT-DESTRUCTION PILOT PLANT

(BGCAPP)

Prepared for:

Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass

830 Eastern Bypass, Suite 106

Richmond, Kentucky

Prepared by:

Franklin Engineering Group, Inc.

Franklin, Tennessee

This document has been reviewed for ITAR/EAR information and no ITAR/EAR sensitive information was found.

This document has been reviewed and OPSEC-sensitive information has been removed.

June 2011

jwhite4

Rectangle

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN .............................................................. 4

2.1 Emission Sources ............................................................................................................ 4

2.2 Target Compounds .......................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Estimation of Emission Rates ......................................................................................... 8

3.0 AIR DISPERSION AND DEPOSITION MODELING .............................................. 15

3.1 Computer Models.......................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Emission Source Characterization ................................................................................ 15

3.2.1 Stack Coordinates and Base Elevation ..................................................................... 18

3.2.2 Stack Height and Building Wake Effects .................................................................. 20

3.2.3 Stack Gas Temperature, Flowrate and Velocity ....................................................... 20

3.2.4 Modeled Emission Rate and Particle-Size Distribution ........................................... 21

3.3 Deposition Parameters .................................................................................................. 24

3.4 Meteorological Data...................................................................................................... 24

3.4.1 Dispersion Coefficients ............................................................................................. 28

3.4.2 Scavenging Coefficient.............................................................................................. 28

3.6 Site-Specific Air Modeling Results .............................................................................. 30

4.0 EXPOSURE SCENARIO IDENTIFICATION ........................................................... 38

4.1 Use of HHRAP-Recommended Default Model Parameters ......................................... 38

4.2 Special Onsite and Offsite Considerations ................................................................... 40

5.0 TOXICITY DATA .......................................................................................................... 41

6.0 RISK THRESHOLDS .................................................................................................... 44

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 COPCs from the MDB HVAC Stacks ..................................................................... 9

Table 2-2 COPCs from the SPB Exhaust Stack ..................................................................... 11

Table 2-3 COPC Emission Rates ............................................................................................ 12

Table 3-1 Source Characteristics Required for Air Modeling ................................................ 19

Table 3-2 Seasonal Categories ................................................................................................ 25

Table 3-3 Land Use Categories Sector ................................................................................... 26

Table 3-4 Modeling Run Types and Counts ........................................................................... 31

Table 3-5 Chemical Property Data for Air Modeling ............................................................. 32

Table 3-6 Symbols for Air Modeling Output Parameters ....................................................... 35

Table 3-7 Particulate AERMOD Output ................................................................................ 36

Table 3-8 Vapor AERMOD Output ........................................................................................ 37

Table 5-1 Toxicological Parameters and Sources ................................................................... 42

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1 BGAD Property Location ....................................................................................... 16

Figure 3-2 BGAD Source and Building Locations .................................................................. 17

Figure 3-3 BGAD Receptor Grid ............................................................................................. 22

Figure 3-4 BGAD Receptor Grid – Close View ...................................................................... 23

Figure 3-5 Facility Layout & Meteorological Station Locations ............................................. 27

Figure 3-6 Wet Scavenging Rate Coefficient as a Function of Particle Size ........................... 29

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Under Congressional directive (Public Law 99-145) and an international treaty called the

Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the United States Army (U.S. Army) is destroying the

nation’s stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions. In response to this directive, the U.S.

Army has initiated the design, construction, and limited duration operation of a facility to destroy

the types of chemical munitions stored at Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD) Kentucky. The



rockets and 155-mm projectiles. As part of the permitting process for the Blue Grass Chemical

Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant (BGCAPP), a Screening-Level Human Health Risk Assessment

(SLHHRA) will be performed to estimate the potential impacts to human health in the area

adjacent to the facility.

This document is the first of two reports provided by Franklin Engineering Group, Inc. to

Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass. This outline details the protocol that will be used to conduct the

risk assessment, including the methodologies to be used, default parameters, exclusions, and the

inputs and outputs for the air modeling used as a basis for the risk assessment. The second report

will be a SLHHRA Report that provides the results of the screening level risk assessment to

include reiteration of some of the assumptions, inputs, and methodologies described in this

report. The SLHHRA will generally follow the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(U.S. EPA) guidance document, Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste

Combustion Facilities, Final (September 2005) and U.S. EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality

Models, which is codified as Appendix W to Part 51 of Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal

Regulations (40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix W). Since this guidance document was promulgated in

2005, U.S. EPA has recommended a new default air dispersion model (i.e., AERMOD). The

American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model,

AERMOD (version 09292) is a refined dispersion model used for State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revisions for existing sources and for New Source Review (NSR) and Prevention of

Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs. Because of this model’s acceptance by U.S. EPA and

its widespread use for air dispersion modeling, AERMOD will be the air dispersion model

utilized for this project.

AERMOD is a steady-state plume model that incorporates air dispersion based on planetary

boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of both surface

and elevated sources, and both simple and complex terrain. For stable atmospheric conditions

AERMOD treats the concentration distribution as Gaussian in both the vertical and horizontal.

For unstable atmospheric conditions the model treats the vertical distribution as non-Gaussian

2

Using a relatively simple approach, AERMOD incorporates current concepts about flow and

dispersion in complex terrain. Where appropriate, the plume is modeled as either impacting

and/or following the terrain. This approach has been designed to be physically realistic and

simple to implement while avoiding the need to distinguish among simple, intermediate and

complex terrain, as required by other regulatory models.

The model options for concentration, total deposition, dry deposition and wet deposition were

selected based on the Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) recommendations. All

other model options were set to the default range unless described otherwise. AERMOD differs

from the previously recommended model due to its integrated pre-processor components. There

are two input data processors that are regulatory components of the AERMOD modeling system:

AERMET, which is a meteorological data preprocessor, and AERMAP, which is a terrain data

preprocessor that incorporates complex terrain using United States Geological Survey (USGS)

Digital Elevation Data. Other non-regulatory, but helpful components of this system include a

screening version of AERMOD; a surface characteristic preprocessor, and a multi-building

dimensions program incorporating the Good Engineering Practice (GEP) technical procedures

for Plume Rise Model Enhancements (PRIME) applications.

The outcome of the risk assessment is the development of a maximum predicted chronic hazard

index (HI) (unitless), which is the total estimated hazard for all exposure scenarios, which

include adult resident, child resident, fisher, fisher child, farmer, and farmer child. The typical

calculated value for the HI benchmark is 1.0, and the adverse noncancer health effects are

expected if this HI is met or exceeded. However, U.S. EPA Region 6 recommends that a hazard

index benchmark of 0.25 be utilized to take background concentrations of Compounds of

Potential Concern (COPCs) into consideration in areas where significant industrial activity takes

place. Although the BGAD location does not represent an area of significant industrial activity,

hazard indices from BGCAPP emissions will be compared against this benchmark to include

consideration of background concentrations of pollutants. A maximum acute hazard quotient

(AHQ) will also be determined from modeling. This value will be compared to the AHQ

benchmark of 1.0, and noncancer adverse health effects due to short-term exposure to facility

emissions will be discussed.

A maximum cancer risk will be calculated from all inputs which will represent the highest

calculated value for any exposure scenario. This value will be compared to the cancer risk

benchmark of 1E-05, and this comparison is an indication whether cancer risk to individuals

from intake of the facility emissions are likely. Favorable comparisons to these three

3

benchmarks will indicate that no additional model refinement or evaluation is needed to more

closely characterize cancer risk or hazard.

4

2.0 COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

2.1 Emission Sources

There are three emission points from the BGCAPP facility to be considered in the risk

assessment. These are the exhaust stacks from East and West Munitions Demilitarization

Building (MDB) heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, and the Supercritical

Water Oxidation (SCWO) Processing Building (SPB) HVAC exhaust ducts.

2.2 Target Compounds

A list of possible Compounds of Potential Concern (COPCs) was developed based on the U.S.

EPA’s HHRAP and Risk Burn Guidance. Chemicals were grouped by “family“. Each chemical

family was then evaluated on a process unit-by-unit basis to determine the qualitative likelihood

of emissions of that family of compounds from a given process unit. For chemical families that

were likely to be emitted from a given process unit, specific compounds were then evaluated for

inclusion in the final COPC list.

The possible COPCs were grouped by chemical family as follows:

Chemical Warfare Agents processed at BGCAPP

Dioxins/furans

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Halogen gases

Metals

Volatile organics

Semi-volatile organics

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Nitroaromatics

Pesticides/Herbicides

Aldehydes/Ketones

Cyanides/Isocyanates

The Pesticides/Herbicides category was immediately eliminated from consideration because they

are not present in the processed materials and are unlikely to be formed in the offgases from the

processes. While some sodium cyanide or other cyanide compounds may be formed as

intermediates during hydrolysis, no cyanides were reported in the SCWO offgases in data from a

SCWO demonstration test performed as part of the SCWO Engineering Design Studies (EDS) by

the U.S. Army’s Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) Program, even when

present in detectable quantities in the SCWO feeds. The Cyanides/Isocyanates category was

therefore eliminated from consideration. The remaining families were evaluated on a unit-by-

5

unit basis to determine if a mechanism for emitting that specific family of compounds existed.

The potential for a chemical family to be emitted by each process is summarized below, along

with the rationale for inclusion or exclusion.

The selected emission sources include the following process units:

SCWO Units

MDB Building Air

OTM or Offgas Treatment System MPT (Metal Parts Treater)/ENR (Energetics

Neutralization Reactor) including the Thermal Oxidizers

Based on the operating conditions (i.e., temperatures, pressures, etc.) and materials processed

(treated munitions carcasses, hydrolysate), it was determined that there was a low likelihood of

COPC emissions from any other potential sources not listed above.

Chemical Warfare Agents

These compounds include Agents GB, VX, and H. These compounds will be hydrolyzed prior to

treatment of the hydrolysate in the SCWO. The only likely possible source of emissions is the

MDB building air from munitions handling activities. Agent collection, storage, and

neutralization vessels all vent to the OTM Thermal Oxidizer, which is expected to result in

Agent concentrations below detection.

Dioxins/furans

Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins/pentachlorodibenzofurans (dioxins/furans or PCDD/PCDF) are

not present in the materials processed at BGCAPP but are common products of incomplete

combustion (PICs) when chlorine is present, and are of particular concern in risk assessment.

Dioxins/furans may be formed as PICs in the OTM Thermal Oxidizer. Although they are

unlikely to form during oxidation in the SCWO, dioxins/furans may also be present in the

SCWO gaseous effluent. No other likely potential source of dioxins/furans was identified. The

17 dioxin/furan congeners which are chlorine substituted at the 2, 3, 7, and 8 locations of the

molecule were included for evaluation as COPCs because these are the congeners that have a

Toxic Equivalence Factor (TEF) associated with them. The TEF is used to determine the Toxic

Equivalence (TEQ) to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, which is then input to the risk model.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

PCBs are present in approximately 100 fiberglass shipping and firing tubes (SFTs) which are

known to contain rockets leaking nerve agent from the agent filled warheads. These leaking

rockets (“leakers”) are expected to have contaminated the SFTs with nerve agent. These

6

“leaker” SFTs will be processed in the MPT for decontamination and some fraction of the PCBs

may be released. The only specific PCB isomer identified in the SFTs is Arochlor-1254, and it is

the only PCB included for evaluation.

Halogen gases

The chemical warfare agents contain the halogens chlorine and fluorine. These will be converted

to hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) in the SCWO and in the OTM Thermal

Oxidizer. Chlorine gas may also be formed in trace quantities in the OTM Thermal Oxidizer

based on the design mass and energy balances developed from chemical process modeling. No

chlorine or fluorine gases were reported in data from a SCWO demonstration test performed as

part of the SCWO Engineering Design Studies (EDS) by the U.S. Army’s Assembled Chemical

Weapons Assessment (ACWA) Program.

Metals

While metals will be present in the materials processed at BGCAPP, it is expected that most of

these metals will remain in a phase and form that makes them unlikely to be emitted in

significant quantities. The only likely sources of metals emissions are the SCWO units and the

MPT (which exhausts to the OTM and then to the MDB HVAC system exhaust). The

temperatures and operations of the other material processing and handling units (i.e.,

hydrolyzers, agent handling and storage, etc.) are such that metals present in the materials will

not volatilize and there is no other mechanism for the metals to be emitted or entrained in the

exhaust from those units.

In the SCWO, most of the metals will be converted to non-volatile oxides and will be in a

suspended or dissolved solid state in the liquid effluent at the SCWO exit temperatures, which

are near ambient. These suspended and dissolved solids will remain with the liquid effluent and

be removed in the SCWO gas-liquid separators. The one exception is mercury, which has

sufficient vapor pressure to be considered as a possible emission in the SCWO exhaust.

The only other significant possible source of metals is the paint on the casings of the drained

munitions which are processed in the MPT. Because any energetic material or agent has already

been removed from the munitions, these casings will not contain appreciable quantities of any

metals contaminants that may have been present in the energetics or agent. The metals that have

been documented to be present in the paint on the munitions casings are:

Barium

Cadmium

Chromium

7

Lead, and

Nickel

The volatility of each of these metals was evaluated to determine if they are likely to volatilize in

the MPT. Because the metals are bound in the paint, volatilization is the only mechanism by

which the metals could be emitted from the MPT. The volatility of barium, chromium, and

nickel is such that those metals will remain in the solid phase and will not be emitted from the

MPT.

These conclusions (i.e., concerning metal emissions) are supported by U.S. EPA research data

performed for combustion systems in which metals volatility and concentration in the

combustion exhaust gas were examined. A simple evaluation can be performed using the

volatility temperature of a given metal. The volatility temperature is the temperature at which

the vapor pressure is equivalent to 1 ppm in the gas phase. The respective volatility temperatures

of barium, chromium and nickel (or their oxides) are 1560°F, 2935°F (as chromium oxide), and

1851°F. At a temperature of 1000°F in the MPT, the uncontrolled emission concentration would

be well below 1 ppm and would be further reduced by the OTM and subsequent High Efficiency

Particulate Air (HEPA) filters in the MDB HVAC system to a point that the emissions could not

be detected. The volatility of cadmium and lead are such that emission of those two metals from

the MDB warrants evaluation in the risk assessment.

Volatile Organics

Some volatile organics may be formed as PICs in the Thermal Oxidizer or may be emitted from

the SCWO. For the Thermal Oxidizer, specific volatile organics were included if they were

identified in the design mass and energy balances or if they were common PICs from combustion

of chlorinated organics, such as benzene, methylene chloride, or chloroform. For the SCWO,

compounds were included if identified either in the design mass and energy balances for the

SCWO or were identified in the ACWA Engineering Design Study (EDS) for the SCWO.

Aldehydes / Ketones

Aldehydes and ketones may be emitted from the SCWO in trace quantities. Specific aldehydes

and ketones were included if specifically identified in the design mass and energy balances or

ACWO EDS for the SCWO.

Semi-volatile Organics/ Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Although it is unlikely that semi-volatile organic and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)

PICs will result from the combustion of MPT offgases in the OTM Thermal Oxidizers or in the

SCWO, naphthalene and dichlorobenzene were included because they are common combustion

8

PICs, and were listed in the ACWA EDS for the SCWO. Additional compounds were included

for the Thermal Oxidizer as they can be common PICs from combustion.

Nitroaromatics

Although nitroaromatics, such as trinitrotoluene, are common components in energetic

compounds, they will be destroyed in the ENR and the Energetics Bulk Hydrolyzer (EBH) prior

to the hydrolysate being sent to the SCWO. Offgases from the EBH will be scrubbed in the

Offgas Treatment/EBH/ENS System (OTE) prior to exhausting into the MDB HVAC system.

Any residual energetics contamination of the munitions bodies will be treated in the MPT prior

to the offgases being sent to the OTM. These compounds are not common PICs from

combustion and are therefore unlikely to form in the OTM Thermal Oxidizer. It is expected that

these multiple treatment steps will result in nondetectable emissions, even before considering the

carbon filters in the MDB and SPB HVAC systems. These energetic compounds were not

detected in the gaseous effluent from the SCWO during the ACWA EDS. Additionally, they are

not typical drivers of risk or hazard. For these reasons, these compounds were not included for

evaluation.

The list of COPCs for evaluation in the risk assessment from the MDB HVAC exhaust stacks is

included at Table 2-1, while the COPC list for the SCWO is included in Table 2-2.

2.3 Estimation of Emission Rates

Potential PICs were based on the process flow rates and combustion temperatures and include

dioxins, furans, PCBs, metals, mercury, light chlorinated organic compounds, HCl, HF, and

several other HAPs. The estimated emission rate for each of the three stacks and each COPC are

presented in Table 2-3. The estimated COPC emission rates in Table 2-3 are not actual emission

rates for the COPCs as a number of very conservative assumptions were included to ensure that

the overall toxicity and magnitude of emissions could not be underestimated.

Compounds without fate and transport data in the companion database to the Final Human

Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) prepared by USEPA Region 6 were eliminated from

further evaluation.

9

Table 2-1

COPCs from the MDB HVAC Stacks


Chemical

Agents

107-44-8 GB Chemical Agent

(Isopropylmethylphosphonofluoridate)

MDB room air

50782-69-9 VX Chemical Agent

(O-ethyl-S-(diisopropylaminoethyl)methyl

phosphonothiolate)

MDB room air

505-60-2 H Chemical Agent (bis (2-

chloroethyl)sulfide)

MDB room air

PCBs 11097-69-1 Arochlor-1254 MPT via OTM

from PCB-bearing

SFTs

Dioxins/

furans

1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM

40321-76-4 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM

39227-28-6 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM



35822-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM

3268-87-9 Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM

51207-31-9 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran OTM

57117-41-6 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran OTM

57117-31-4 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran OTM

70648-26-9 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran OTM




67562-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran OTM

55673-89-7 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran OTM

39001-02-0 Octachlorodibenzofuran OTM

10

Table 2-1

COPCs from the MDB HVAC Stacks (continued)


Halogen Acids 7647-01-0 Hydrogen chloride OTM

7782-50-5 Chlorine OTM

7664-39-3 Hydrogen fluoride OTM

Metals 7440-43-9 Cadmium MPT via OTM

7439-92-1 Lead MPT via OTM

Volatile Organics 71-43-2 Benzene OTM

75-00-3 Chloroethane OTM

67-66-3 Chloroform OTM

74-87-3 Chloromethane OTM



75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene OTM

159-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene OTM

540-59-0 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene OTM

75-09-2 Methylene chloride OTM

108.88.3 Toluene OTM



108-38-3 m-Xylene OTM

95-47-6 o-Xylene OTM

106-42-3 p-Xylene OTM

Semi-volatiles/PAHs 50-32-8 Benzo-a-pyrene OTM

91-20-3 Naphthalene OTM

198-55-0 Perylene OTM

85-01-8 Phenanthrene OTM

11

Table 2-2

COPCs from the SPB Exhaust Stack


Dioxins / Furans 1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin SCWO

40321-76-4 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin SCWO




35822-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin SCWO

3268-87-9 Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin SCWO

51207-31-9 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran SCWO









39001-02-0 Octachlorodibenzofuran SCWO

Inorganics 7647-01-0 Hydrogen chloride SCWO

7664-39-3 Hydrogen fluoride SCWO

Metals 7439-97-6 Mercury SCWO

Volatile Organics 67-63-0 Isopropyl alcohol SCWO

108.88.3 Toluene SCWO

75-09-2 Methylene chloride SCWO

Aldehydes / Ketones 67-64-1 Acetone SCWO

123-72-8 Butanal SCWO

198-94-1 Cyclohexanone SCWO

50-00-0 Formaldehyde SCWO

Semi-volatiles / PAHs 91-20-3 Naphthalene SCWO

106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene SCWO

12

Table 2-3

Estimated COPC Emission Rates

Type

CAS No.

Compound

Source

East Stack

Emission

Rate

West Stack

Emission

Rate

SPB HVAC

Stacks

Emission Rate

g/sec g/sec g/sec

GB Chemical agent 107-44-8 Isopropylmethylphosphonofluoridate

ACS and/or

room air 8.68E-07 8.45E-07

VX Chemical agent 50782-69-9

O-ethyl-S-(diisopropylaminoethyl) methyl

phosphonothiolate

ACS and/or

room air 8.68E-08 8.45E-08

H Chemical agent 505-60-2 bis (2-chloroethyl)sulfide

ACS and/or

room air 2.60E-05 2.54E-05

PCBs 11097-69-1 Arochlor-1254

MPT via OTM

from PCB-

bearing SFTs 4.98E-12 4.85E-12

Dioxins/Furans 1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM/SCWO 8.48E-12 8.26E-12 6.95E-13

40321-76-4 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM/SCWO 2.48E-11 2.41E-11 8.29E-13




35822-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM/SCWO 7.79E-11 7.59E-11 2.64E-12

3268-87-9 octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin OTM/SCWO 1.09E-10 1.06E-10 1.07E-11

51207-31-9 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran OTM/SCWO 3.14E-11 3.05E-11 2.28E-12



13

Table 2-3



East Stack

Emission Rate

West Stack

Emission Rate

SPB HVAC Stacks

Emission Rate

g/sec g/sec g/sec







39001-02-0 octachlorodibenzofuran OTM/SCWO 7.67E-11 7.46E-11 6.85E-12

Inorganics 7647-01-0 Hydrogen chloride OTM/SCWO 2.65E-02 2.58E-02 1.94E-03

7782-50-5 Chlorine OTM/SCWO 1.26E-04 1.23E-04 n/a

7664-39-3 Hydrogen fluoride OTM/SCWO 1.88E-02 1.83E-02 3.28E-05

Metals 7440-39-3 Barium MPT via OTM n/a n/a

7440-43-9 Cadmium MPT via OTM 6.99E-07 6.80E-07

7440-47-3 Chromium MPT via OTM n/a n/a

7439-92-1 Lead MPT via OTM 6.46E-12 6.29E-12

7440-02-0 Nickel MPT via OTM n/a n/a

7439-97-6 Mercury (assumed all oxidized) SCWO 6.69E-04

Volatile Organics 71-43-2 Benzene OTM 1.60E-05 1.56E-05

75-00-3 Chloroethane OTM 4.83E-06 4.70E-06

67-66-3 Chloroform OTM 4.21E-08 4.10E-08

74-87-3 Chloromethane OTM 3.97E-04 3.86E-04



14

Table 2-3


Type

CAS No.

Compound

Source

East Stack

Emission Rate

West Stack

Emission Rate

SPB HVAC Stacks

Emission Rate

g/sec g/sec g/sec

75-35-4 Dichloroethene, 1,1- OTM 2.91E-06 2.83E-06

159-59-2 Dichloroethene, cis-1,2- OTM 5.75E-06 5.60E-06

540-59-0 Dichloroethene, trans-1,2- OTM 2.58E-06 2.52E-06

74-87-3 Methyl Chloride OTM n/a n/a

75-09-2 Methylene chloride OTM/SCWO 2.19E-05 2.14E-05 3.15E-05

108-88-3 Toluene OTM/SCWO 2.10E-05 2.05E-05 6.96E-06



108-38-3 m-Xylene OTM 1.90E-06 1.85E-06

95-47-6 o-Xylene OTM 1.90E-06 1.85E-06

106-42-3 p-Xylene OTM 3.62E-07 3.52E-07

67-63-0 Isopropyl alcohol SCWO 6.70E-05

Aldehydes/ketones 67-64-1 Acetone SCWO 1.58E-05

123-72-8 Butanal SCWO 1.92E-07

198-94-1 Cyclohexanone SCWO 2.28E-07

50-00-0 Formaldehyde SCWO 4.25E-06

Semi-volatiles/PAHs 50-32-8 Benzo-a-pyrene OTM 5.85E-09 5.70E-09

91-20-3 Naphthalene OTM 1.59E-07 1.55E-07 4.13E-08

198-55-0 Perylene OTM 1.77E-09 1.73E-09

85-01-8 Phenanthrene OTM 5.56E-08 5.41E-08

106-46-7 1,4-dichlorobenzene 3.27E-07

121-82-4 RDX (cyclortrimethylenetrinitramine)

OTE (from

EBH) n/a n/a n/a


OTE (from

EBH) n/a n/a n/a

15

3.0 AIR DISPERSION AND DEPOSITION MODELING

Air dispersion modeling was performed by Liesa R. Elliott who assists Franklin Engineering

regularly as a consulting meteorologist. Methodologies and models utilized for this project are

as described in the following sections and are in accordance with common practice and

regulatory guidance. Any deviations from common practice or regulatory guidance are

described in the following sections.

3.1 Computer Models

The U.S. EPA air dispersion model, AERMOD, will be used to approximate the physical

processes occurring in the atmosphere that influence the dispersion and deposition of gaseous

and particulate emissions from the BGCAPP treatment process stacks. The AERMOD air

pollution dispersion model is an integrated system for modeling the dispersion of air pollutants

using three program modules, which include:

1. a steady-state dispersion model designed for short-range (up to 50 kilometers) dispersion

of air pollutant emissions from stationary industrial sources;

2. a meteorological data preprocessor (AERMET) that accepts surface meteorological data,

upper air soundings, and optionally, data from on-site instrument towers, and calculates

atmospheric parameters needed by the dispersion model; and

3. a terrain preprocessor (AERMAP) that provides a physical relationship between terrain

features and the behavior of air pollution plumes.

AERMOD also includes PRIME (Plume Rise Model Enhancements) which is an algorithm for

modeling the effects of downwash created by the pollution plume flowing over nearby buildings.

Meteorological data for the years of 2004 through 2008 were used for the air modeling. Separate

vapor phase and particle phase air modeling runs were used for each of the five years of

meteorological data used. This section presents the data sources for the AERMOD inputs and

the required air modeling parameters.

3.2 Emission Source Characterization

The construction site for the proposed BGCAPP is located within the BGAD in Richmond,

Kentucky and is shown on Figure 3-1. Figure 3-2 presents the general arrangement of the

BGCAPP building and equipment.

The emissions modeled come from the process proposed to demilitarize chemical agents. The



http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Air_pollution_dispersion_modeling

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Air_pollution

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Emissions&action=edit&redlink=1


http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Meteorology

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Preprocessor&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Rawinsonde&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Terrain&action=edit&redlink=1


16

Figure 3-1

BGAD Property Location

Scale: 1” = 500m

Topographic Map: Moberly, KY

17

Figure 3-2

BGAD Source and Building Locations

MDB_E

MDB_W

SPB_BOTH

Zone 16, NAD27

18

rockets and 155-mm projectiles. The munitions are disassembled; agent is washed or drained

from the munitions, the energetics removed; and the munitions bodies sent to the MPT unit for

decontamination. Agent is collected in the Agent Collection System (ACS) and neutralized in

the Agent Neutralization System (ANS). Agent hydrolysate is transferred to the Hydrolysate

Storage Area (HSA) for storage. The energetics are hydrolyzed in the EBH and the energetics

hydrolysate is further neutralized in the ENR before storage in the HSA and removal of the

aluminum in the aluminum precipitation system (APS) and aluminum filtration system (AFS).

Agent and energetics hydrolysate streams from the HSA and AFS are sent to the SCWO units for

final treatment.

This assessment defined three emission sources, including two HVAC filter stacks and a third

emission source from the SPB. The two HVAC filter stacks from the MDB vent gases from the

OTM, which collects and treats the emissions from the following:

1. MPT, MPT inlet and outlet airlocks

2. ACS Tanks

3. Agent Neutralization Reactors (ANRs)

4. Spent Decontamination Solution (SDS) tanks

5. Energetics Neutralization Reactors (ENRs)

These dual stacks also vent the OTE which collects and treats the emissions from the EBH; the

agent hydrolysate storage tank in the HSA; and air from the MDB cascade ventilating system

which collects miscellaneous releases inside the MDB.

The third emission source to be modeled is actually two small horizontal stacks located in close

proximity to each other. This SPB Filter Stack vents the SCWO reactor gaseous effluent (from

the gas liquid separators), the APS, and includes air exhausted from selected SPB areas.

3.2.1 Stack Coordinates and Base Elevation

Reference points for emission sources from the facility plot plan were determined using USGS

7.5-minute quadrant maps. The Kentucky State Plane – South Zone grid utilized for facility

mapping was converted to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), North American Datum 1927

(NAD27) using the program Google Earth – Earth Point Program. The stack coordinates and

locations of applicable buildings (i.e., for the calculation of downwash) were determined in UTM

NAD27 using two reference points. Table 3-1 presents the coordinates for the three emission

sources and other emissions source characteristics used as inputs to AERMOD.

19

Table 3-1

Source Characteristics Required for Air Modeling

Source Characteristics MDB-E MDB-W SPB

UTM Coordinate

Base Elevation m 278 278 276

ft 912 912 905.4

Height m 36.6 36.6 3.8

ft 120.0 120.0 12.58

Diameter m 2.19 2.19 0.51

ft 7.17 7.17 1.67

Temperature K 308.0 308.0 316.5

○F 94.7 94.7 110

Velocity m/s 11.6 11.3 9.08

ft/s 38 37 29.8

Emission Rate g/s 1 1 1

lb/hr 7.94 7.94 7.94

Mean Particle Size microns 0.2 0.2 N/A

Mass Fraction (dimensionless) 1 1 N/A

Particle Density g/cm3 1.0 1.0 N/A

20

The receptor grid for this project was designed according to HHRAP guidance. The grid

includes 100-meter spacing out to three kilometers from the facility centroid and 500-meter

spacing out to 10 kilometers. Figure 3-3 indicates the entire grid developed, including the 100-

meter dense receptor spacing and the 500-meter receptor spacing that extends to 10 kilometers

from the centroid of the three designated sources. Figure 3-4 provides a closer view of the

receptor grid map that also shows the three stacks and surrounding buildings.

USGS seamless digital elevation model (DEM) in the proximity of the assessment site was

downloaded and viewed using Dlgv32 Pro. The stack base elevations were obtained from these

data as the elevations at the stack coordinates.

3.2.2 Stack Height, Stack Diameter and Building Wake Effects

The emission point stack heights are evaluated against the criteria of “Good Engineering

Practice” (GEP) stack height and building proximity to determine if nearby building wake effects

will significantly impact the concentration and deposition of COPCs. As stated in Section 3.3.3

of the Final HHRAP, “significant decreases in concentrations and deposition rates will begin at

stack heights at least 1.2 times the building height, and further decreases occur at 1.5 times

building height, with continual decreases of up to 2.5 times building height (GEP stack height)

where the building no longer influences stack gas.”

The inside diameter for each of the stacks was used for calculations and air modeling.

Several of the plant buildings are “nearby”, meaning that these buildings may have meaningful

wake effects. As described in Section 3.3.3 of the Final HHRAP, a building is “nearby” if the

distance from the building to the stack is within five times the lesser of building height or

crosswind width.

The Building Profile Input Program (BPIP) was used to generate the AERMOD input data

required to model building wake effects.

3.2.3 Stack Gas Temperature, Flowrate and Velocity

The stack gas temperature and flowrate are design parameters obtained from Bechtel Parsons

Blue Grass.

21

3.2.4 Modeled Emission Rate and Particle-Size Distribution

AERMOD air modeling was performed based on a unit emission rate of 1.0 g/s, instead of

compound-specific emission rates. The unitized air modeling outputs based on a unit emission

rate were multiplied by a compound-specific emission rate prior to use in the risk assessment.

22

Figure 3-3

BGAD Receptor Grid

23

Figure 3-4

BGAD Receptor Grid – Close View

24

The AERMOD model requires input of particle size distribution (PSD) and density data for

completion of the particle phase and particle-bound phase modeling. Site-specific data for these

parameters are not available. The MDB sources exhaust through a ventilation system including

HEPA filters that remove 99.7% of particles greater than 0.3 microns in size. Thus, a single

particle category with a mean size of 0.2 microns is used. With a single particle size category,

the mass fraction is set to 1 (100%), and only one model run is needed to represent both particle

and particle-bound phases of the risk assessment. A particle density of 1 g/cm3 is assumed for

the MDB sources as recommended in HHRAP. Since particles are not expected to be emitted

from the SPB source, a particle/particle-bound phase run is not included in the modeling

analysis.

3.3 Deposition Parameters

The new deposition algorithms in AERMOD require land use characteristics and some gas

deposition resistance terms based on five seasonal categories, defined as:

Season Category 1: Midsummer with lush vegetation

Season Category 2: Autumn with unharvested cropland

Season Category 3: Late autumn after frost and harvest, or winter with no snow

Season Category 4: Winter with continuous snow on ground

Season Category 5: Transitional spring with partial green coverage or short annuals

The seasonal categories used for modeling were based on data for local conditions and are

summarized in Table 3-2. The nine land use categories required for deposition are entered for

each of the 36 wind direction sectors (every 10 degrees). The U.S. EPA program

AERSURFACE (08009) is used to calculate site-specific values used in the meteorological data

processing. AERSURFACE simplifies the modeling by consolidating/averaging sets of every

three small sectors into twelve large sectors of thirty degrees each. The 36 land use categories

were estimated from the AERSURFACE land use percentages, and are shown in Table 3-3.

3.4 Meteorological Data

AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data. Since the meteorological preprocessor,

AERMET (version 06341), requires additional parameters such as pressure, relative humidity

and precipitation, a complete on-site meteorological data set is important for this analysis.

Meteorological data is collected on-site at several towers and includes all the necessary

measurements of required parameters. This analysis utilized data from the closest location,

Tower 1, designated as BG_1 on Figure 3-5 from which the data is provided in 15-minute

records. The current version of AERMET is unable to process the 15-minute data and correctly

25

Table 3-2

Seasonal Categories

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Season 3 3 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3

26

Table 3-3

Land Use Categories Sector

Sector: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Range:

0- 30º 30-60º 60-90º 90-

120º

120-

150º

150-

180º

180-

210º

210-

240º

240-

270º

270-

300º

300-

330º

330-

360º

AERSURFACE Land

Use

AERMOD

Category

% % % % % % % % % % % %

21 Low Intensity

Residential

6 - Suburban

areas, forested

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 11% 11% 1% 0% 0% 2%

22 High Intensity

Residential

1 - Urban land/

no vegetation

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

23 Commercial/

Industrial/Transportati

on

1 - Urban land/

no vegetation

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%

Total: 1 – Urban land/ no vegetation 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%

41 Deciduous Forest 4 – Forest 17% 26% 32% 44% 34% 39% 55% 50% 40% 13% 2% 12%

42 Evergreen Forest 4 – Forest 1% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%

43 Mixed Forest 4 – Forest 14% 13% 20% 14% 17% 7% 4% 9% 10% 9% 2% 13%

Total: 4 – forest 32% 41% 55% 58% 51% 46% 59% 59% 50% 23% 5% 26%

81 Pasture/Hay

2 - Agricultural

land

56% 49% 39% 36% 36% 8% 0% 0% 2% 62% 92% 56%

82 Row Crops

2 - Agricultural

land

11% 10% 5% 5% 6% 4% 1% 0% 0% 4% 1% 6%

Total: 2 - Agricultural land 67% 59% 44% 41% 42% 12% 1% 0% 2% 66% 93% 62%

85 Urban/Recreational

Grasses

5 - Suburban

areas, grassy

0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 30% 28% 29% 47% 10% 1% 9%

AERMOD Land Use: 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2

27

Figure 3-5

Facility Layout & Meteorological Station Locations

28

average it into hourly records. Thus, the data were averaged into hourly records following U.S.

EPA guidance before processing.

The 5-year period of on-site surface data for 2004 through 2008 was combined with the twice

daily upper air soundings in Forecast Systems Laboratory (FSL) format from Wilmington, Ohio

(13841). Site-specific surface roughness, albedo and Bowen ratio parameters were calculated

using the AERSURFACE program and used in AERMET to generate hourly data for the

analysis. Since the AERMET program did not correctly include the onsite precipitation and

relative humidity in the processed surface file, these parameters were added back into each

year’s file using MS Excel. The five years of processed data are combined into single, 5-year

surface and profile meteorological files for input into AERMOD.

3.4.1 Dispersion Coefficients

The 3-kilometer area around BGAD was reviewed on the 7.5-minute topographic map and

Google satellite maps to determine the correct land use type and corresponding dispersion

coefficients. Although there is some industrial/commercial land use around the facility, the

predominant land uses in the 3-kilometer area are forest and agricultural land. Based on the

Auer method as described in U.S. EPA's "Guideline on Air Quality Models", these land use types

are considered rural. Thus, there is more than 50% rural, and the dispersion coefficients are set

to rural.

3.4.2 Scavenging Coefficient

Figure 3-6 presents a best-fit curve developed by M. Jindal and D. Heinold1 for the wet (liquid)

scavenging rate coefficient versus particle size. From this curve, the liquid scavenging rate

coefficient of 4.0E-5 (s-1/mm-h-1) was obtained for a one micron particle size. The scavenging

rate coefficient for frozen precipitation (ice) was determined as one-third (1/3) of the liquid

scavenging coefficient. This gives an ice scavenging coefficient of 1.3E-5(s-1/mm-h-1) for a one

micron particle size.

The liquid scavenging coefficient for vapor phase compounds was determined based on a

particle size of 0.1 m, following the recommendations of the HHRAP Guidance. This gives the

gas scavenging coefficients of 1.68E-04 (s-1/mm-h-1) and 0.56E-04 (s-1/mm-h-1) for liquid and

ice, respectively.

1 Jindal, M. and D. Heinold, 1991: Development of particulate scavenging coefficients to model wet deposition from industrial combustion

sources. Paper 91-59.7, 84th Annual Meeting - Exhibition of AWMA, Vancouver, BC, June 16-21, 1991.

29

Figure 3-6

Wet Scavenging Rate Coefficient as a Function of Particle Size

(From Jindal and Heinold, 1991)

30

3.6 Site-Specific Air Modeling Results

The unitized modeling results include concentration, dry deposition, wet deposition and total

deposition for short-term (1-hour) and long-term (annual). There are a total of 109 model runs.

Preliminary model runs indicate maximums will occur close to the facility within BGAD. The

modeling run types and counts are summarized in Table 3-4. Chemical specific inputs to the air

dispersion model, along with model parameter indicators are shown in Table 3-5.

For the yearly air modeling output parameters, the results will be averaged across the five years

prior to finding the maximum value. For the hourly air modeling output parameters, the

maximum value from any of the five years will be selected. The use of maximum air modeling

parameters regardless of location is a simplifying assumption appropriate for a screening-level

risk assessment. Results based on maximum air modeling parameters are considered extremely

conservative and will tend to overestimate the potential impact of the plant.

Although it will not be modeled, particle-bound phase air modeling results would be identical to

particle phase since all particles were modeled as having a diameter of one micron.

When using AERMOD, some concentration and deposition parameters may be calculated on a

species specific basis, specifically unitized vapor phase hourly average air concentration (Chv),

unitized vapor phase annual average air concentration (Cyv), and unitized vapor phase annual

average total (i.e., wet + dry) deposition (Dytv). Particulate and particulate-bound concentration

and deposition values are calculated independent of emission chemical species. These output

parameter labels are shown in Table 3-6.

Table 3-7 presents the maximum unitized AERMOD particulate results and Table 3-8 presents

the analogous vapor results. The risk assessment may use slightly lower values when taking the

emission rate weighted total over all three stacks, as the maximum impacts from each stack may

occur in different locations than the maximum impact of the total plant emissions. Results for

vapor phase data vary by compound. For Chv and Cyv, the results do not vary much; typical

values are presented. Dytv is not presented as it varies over several orders of magnitude.

31

Table 3-4

Modeling Run Types and Counts

Source Phase Type Model Run Count

MDB_E Vapor 40


MDB_W Vapor 40


SPB_BOTH Vapor 27

32

Table 3-5

Chemical Property Data for Air Modeling


ID

Da

(cm2/s)

Dw

(cm2/s)

rcl

(s/cm)

H (Pa-

m3/mol)

MDB Stacks

Arochlor-1254 11097-69-1 AROC1254 4.93E-02 4.00E-06 3.30E+02 2.40E+01


















Hydrogen chloride 7647-01-0 HCl 3.00E-01 1.00E-05 1.00E+05 1.00E-12

Chlorine 7782-50-5 CL2 1.00E-03 1.00E-05 4.25E+25 1.20E-02


Benzene 71-43-2 BENZENE 8.96E-02 1.04E-05 2.51E+04 5.57E+02

Chloroethane 75-00-3 CHLORETH 1.06E-01 1.22E-05 2.11E+04 1.81E+02

Chloroform 67-66-3 CHLOFORM 8.94E-02 1.07E-05 1.62E+05 3.81E+02

Chloromethane 74-87-3 CHLOMETH 1.28E-01 1.47E-05 1.89E+06 9.74E+02



Dichloroethene, 1,1- 75-35-4 DCHLRE11 9.28E-02 1.11E-05 5.78E+04 2.33E+03

33

Table 3-5



ID

Da

(cm2/s)

Dw

(cm2/s)

rcl

(s/cm)

H (Pa-

m3/mol)

MDB Stacks (Continued)

Methyl Chloride 74-87-3 METHYLCH 1.28E-01 1.47E-05 1.89E+06 9.74E+02





m-Xylene 108-38-3 MXYLENE 7.37E-02 8.05E-06 1.53E+04 7.28E+02

o-Xylene 95-47-6 OXYLENE 7.37E-02 8.05E-06 2.00E+04 5.65E+02

p-Xylene 106-42-3 PXYLENE 7.37E-02 8.05E-06 1.97E+04 5.79E+02

Benzo-a-pyrene 50-32-8 BENZAPYR 5.13E-02 4.44E-06 4.41E-01 4.60E-02


Perylene 198-55-0 PERYLENE 5.13E-02 4.44E-06 1.86E-02 3.00E-03

Phenanthrene 85-01-8 PHENANTH 5.98E-02 6.09E-06 2.33E+01 3.24E+00

SPB Stack
















34

Table 3-5



ID

Da

(cm2/s)

Dw

(cm2/s)

rcl

(s/cm)

H (Pa-

m3/mol)

SPB Stack (Continued)




Chlorine 7782-50-5 CL2 1.00E-03 1.00E-05 4.25E+25 1.20E-02


Mercury (elemental, oxidized, and particle bound) 7439-97-6 MERCURY 1.09E-02 3.01E-05 1.00E+05 1.50E+02



Acetone 67-64-1 ACETONE 1.20E-01 1.10E-05 7.60E+08 3.95E+00

Formaldehyde 50-00-0 FORMALDE 1.72E-01 1.85E-05 4.95E+01 3.20E-02


1,4-dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 14DCBENZ 7.24E-02 8.16E-06 5.04E+02 1.60E+02

Table Notes: Da – Diffusivity in air

Dw – Diffusivity in water

Rcl – Cuticular resistance to uptake by lipids for individual leaves

H – Henry’s Law Constant

35

Table 3-6

Symbols for Air Modeling Output Parameters

Parameter Averaging Units Vapor Phase

Vdv = 0.5 cm/s Particle Phase

Concentration yearly (µg-s)/(g-m3) Cyv(0.5) Cyp

Total Deposition yearly s/(m2-yr) Dytv(0.5) Dytp

Dry Deposition yearly s/(m2-yr) not used Dydp

Wet Deposition yearly s/(m2-yr) not used Dywp

Concentration highest hourly (µg-s)/(g-m3) Chv(0.5) Chp

Vdv ≡ Dry vapor deposition velocity

36

Table 3-7

Particulate AERMOD Output

Parameter Units MDB_E MDB_W SPB_B

Cyp µg-s/g-m^3 0.052 0.053 N/A

Dytp s/m^2-yr 0.00071 0.00073 N/A

Dydp s/m^2-yr 0.00070 0.00072 N/A

Dywp s/m^2-yr 0.00001 0.00001 N/A

Chp µg-s/g-m^3 8.54 8.53 N/A

37

Table 3-8

Vapor AERMOD Output

Parameter Units MDB_E MDB_W SPB

Chv µg-s/g-m^3 8.6 8.6 470

Cyv µg-s/g-m^3 0.051 0.052 0.56

38

4.0 EXPOSURE SCENARIO IDENTIFICATION

Individual human receptors evaluated in the risk assessment have different potential direct and

indirect exposure to COPCs emitted from the plant, depending on age, activities, and location.

Location was eliminated as a parameter used to define exposure scenarios by utilizing maximum

fenceline air modeling results. This conservative assumption may significantly overestimate

potential risk assessment impacts, but is considered appropriate for screening level assessments.

The differences between age and activity are used to define the applicable exposure scenarios.

Each exposure scenario defines a particular combination of exposure pathways and the parameter

values used to characterize risk and hazards. Table 4-1 presents the exposure pathways and

exposure scenarios considered in this risk assessment.

The drinking water and fish consumption pathways require site-specific data regarding

waterbodies and their watersheds. For this screening level risk assessment, the assumed sources

are the Upper Kentucky River for drinking water and Lake Vega for fish.

4.1 Use of HHRAP-Recommended Default Model Parameters

Although the model does use some site specific data, it uses HHRAP defaults for physical

constants, most agricultural parameters, soil loss parameters and many water body parameters.

Data for which site specific data has been obtained includes evapotranspiration, irrigation,

runoff, watershed area, impervious watershed area, depth of water bodies, rainfall factor, river

velocity, volumetric flow of water bodies, and average wind speed.

Data for which default values are used:

Soil bulk density

Drag coefficient

Von Karman constant

Plant surface loss coefficient

Viscosity of air and water

Density of air, water and soil

Universal gas constant

Model start time (zero)

Ambient temperature,

Duration of deposition period

Soil water content

Soil mixing zone depth

39

Table 4-1

Selected Exposure Scenarios and Associated Exposure Pathways

Exposure Pathways

Exposure Scenarios

Farmer Farmer

Child

Adult

Resident

Child

Resident Fisher

Fisher

Child

Acute

Riskb

Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates X X X X X X X

Incidental Ingestion of Soil X X X X X X

Ingestion of Homegrown Produce X X X X X X

Ingestion of Homegrown Beef X X

Ingestion of Milk from Homegrown Cows X X

Ingestion of Homegrown Chicken X X

Ingestion of Eggs from Homegrown Chickens X X

Ingestion of Homegrown Pork X X

Ingestion of Fish X X

Ingestion of Breast Milka X X X

aInfant exposure to PCDDs, PCDFs, and dioxin-like PCBs via the ingestion of their mother’s breast milk is evaluated as an additional pathway, separately from the recommended

exposure scenarios identified in this table. bThe acute risk scenario evaluates short-term 1-hour maximum pollutant air concentrations based on hourly emission rates.

40

Interception fraction, growth period for edible plant fraction, and yield, each for

aboveground plants, silage and forage.

Empirical correction factor for forage and silage

Metabolism factor for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP)

Daily consumption each of forage, silage, grain and soil by beef cows, dairy cows, pigs,

chickens for meat and chickens for eggs

Universal soil loss equation parameters: empirical slope coefficient, cover management

factor, erodibility factor, length slope factor and practice factor.

Bed sediment concentration

Depth of upper benthic sediment layer

Fish lipid content

Viscous sublayer thickness

Fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment

Temperature correction factor

Bed sediment porosity

Total suspended solids

Water temperature

Half life of dioxin in adults

Fraction of ingested dioxin and dioxin-like PCBs stored in fat

Fraction of mother’s weight that is fat

Fraction of mother’s breast milk that is fat

Fraction of ingested COPC absorbed

Infant body weight

Consumption rate of breast milk

For each exposure scenario (adult and child, resident, farmer and fisher):

o Body weight

o Consumption rate of soil, above ground produce, protected produce, below

ground produce, beef, milk, pork, egg, chicken

o Fraction of each food raised in contaminated area

o Exposure duration, exposure frequency, exposure time

o Averaging time for cancer effects

4.2 Special Onsite and Offsite Considerations

Water bodies identified as relevant include Lake Vega Reservoir which is a dammed section of

Muddy Creek about 2 km southwest of the source, and the lower Kentucky River which most

closely approaches the source near College Hill about 11 km northeast of the site. The receptor

gridpoint that is nearest to the source was applied on each body of water.

41

5.0 TOXICITY DATA

Chemical toxicity data was collected in consideration of U.S. EPA Superfund guidance, as

documented in the Regional Screening Levels (RSL) User Guide. The RSLs are developed by

the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Lab (DOE ORNL) and U.S. EPA Regions

3, 6 and 9.2

Omitting data sources not publicly available, the following hierarchy of toxicity data is

recommended for Inhalation Unit Risk Factor, Oral Cancer Slope Factor, Reference

Concentration, and Oral Reference Dose.

1. U.S. EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).

2. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) minimal risk levels

(MRLs).

3. The California Environmental Protection Agency (OEHHA) Office of Environmental

Health Hazard Assessment's Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) from December

18, 2008 and the Cancer Potency Values from July 21, 2009.

U.S. EPA recommends OEHHA as the preferred source for Acute Inhalation Exposure Criteria.

For the values used and their sources, see Table 5-1.

2 http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/index.htm

http://www.epa.gov/iris/

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.html

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/index.html

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/risk/pdf/tcdb072109alpha.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/index.htm

42

Table 5-1

Toxicological Parameters and Sources


mg/m^3 -- 1/(µg/m^3) 1/(mg/kg/day) mg/m^3 mg/kg/day Data source Data source Data source Data source Data source Data source

11097-69-1 Arochlor-1254 1.5E+0 5.7E-4 2.0E+0 7.0E-5 2.0E-5 RSL S RSL S IRIS

1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.5E-3 1.00 3.8E+1 1.3E+5 4.0E-8 1.0E-9 HB1 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA OEHHA via RSL OEHHA via RSL

51207-31-9 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2.0E-3 0.10 3.8E+0 1.3E+4 HB1 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA

40321-76-4 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2.5E-3 1.00 3.8E+1 1.3E+5 HB1 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA





57117-44-9 1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran 2.5E-3 0.10 HB1 HB1

19408-74-3 1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.5E-2 0.10 1.3E+0 6.2E-3 HB1 HB1 HB1 HB1


35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 5.0E-1 HB1


3268-87-9 Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.0E-2 0.0001 3.8E-3 1.3E+1 DOE PAC-1 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA




39001-02-0 Octachlorodibenzofuran 7.5E-3 0.0001 3.8E-3 1.3E+1 HB1 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA

7647-01-0 Hydrogen chloride 2.1E+0 2.0E-2 5.7E-3 OEHHA OEHHA

7782-50-5 Chlorine 2.1E-1 1.5E-4 1.00E-01 OEHHA ATSDR IRIS

7664-39-3 Hydrogen fluoride 2.4E-1 1.4E-2 4.0E-2 OEHHA OEHHA OEHHA

71-43-2 Benzene 1.3E+0 7.8E-6 5.5E-2 3.0E-2 4.0E-3 OEHHA IRIS IRIS IRIS IRIS

75-00-3 Chloroethane 2.5E+3 1.0E+1 4.0E-1 HB1 IRIS HB1

67-66-3 Chloroform 1.5E-1 2.30E-05 3.1E-2 2.5E-2 1.00E-02 OEHHA IRIS OEHHA ATSDR IRIS

74-87-3 Chloromethane 2.0E+2 1.8E-6 1.3E-2 9.0E-2 4.0E-3 HB1 HB1/K HB1/K IRIS K

75-34-3 Dichloroethane, 1,1- 1.3E+3 1.6E-6 5.7E-3 5.0E-1 2.0E-1 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA HB1 OEHHA via RSL

107-06-2 Dichloroethane, 1,2- 2.0E+2 2.6E-5 9.1E-2 2.5E+0 2.0E-2 HB1 IRIS IRIS ATSDR IRIS via RSL

75-35-4 Dichloroethene, 1,1- 2.0E-1 5.00E-05 6.00E-01 2.0E-1 5.0E-2 K-ACGIH K K IRIS IRIS

74-87-3 Methyl Chloride 1.0E+0 1.8E-6 1.3E-2 9.0E-2 4.0E-3 K HB1/K HB1/K IRIS K

43

Table 5-1

Toxicological Parameters and Sources (continued)


mg/m^3 -- 1/(µg/m^3) 1/(mg/kg/day) mg/m^3 mg/kg/day Data source Data source Data source Data source Data source Data source

75-09-2 Methylene chloride 1.4E+1 4.7E-7 7.5E-3 1.1E+0 6.0E-2 OEHHA IRIS IRIS ATSDR IRIS

108-88-3 Toluene 3.7E+1 5.0E+0 8.0E-2 OEHHA IRIS IRIS

71-55-6 Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- 6.8E+1 5.0E+0 2.0E+0 HB1 IRIS IRIS

79-00-5 Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- 5.0E+1 1.6E-5 5.7E-2 4.0E-3 IRIS IRIS IRIS

108-38-3 m-Xylene 2.2E+1 1.0E-1 2.0E-1 OEHHA IRIS IRIS

95-47-6 o-Xylene 2.2E+1 1.0E-1 2.0E-1 OEHHA IRIS IRIS

106-42-3 p-Xylene 2.2E+1 1.0E-1 2.0E-1 OEHHA IRIS IRIS

50-32-8 Benzo-a-pyrene 6.0E-1 1.1E-3 7.3E+0 6.0E-3 1.7E-3 OEHHA IRIS

91-20-3 Naphthalene 5.2E-1 3.4E-5 3.0E-3 2.0E-2 K OEHHA IRIS IRIS

198-55-0 Perylene 7.5E+1 3.0E-3 2.0E-2 HB1 HB1 HB1

85-01-8 Phenanthrene 1.0E+0 3.0E-3 2.0E-2 HB1 HB1 HB1

7439-97-6 Mercury (elemental) 6.0E-4 3.0E-4 1.6E-1 OEHHA IRIS OEHHA

7487-94-7 Hg+2 (HgCl2) 1.1E-3 3.0E-4

22967-92-6 Methyl Mercury 3.5E-4 1.0E-4

67-64-1 Acetone 4.8E+2 3.2E+1 9.0E-1 HB1 ATSDR IRIS

50-00-0 Formaldehyde 5.5E-2 1.3E-5 1.3E-5 1.0E-2 2.0E-1 OEHHA IRIS ATSDR IRIS

107-44-8 GB, Isopropylmethylphosphonofluoridate 1.0E-4 1.0E-6 2.0E-5

50782-69-9 VX, O-ethyl-S-(diisopropylaminoethyl) methyl phosphonothiolate 1.0E-5 6.0E-7 6.0E-7

505-60-2 H, bis (2-chloroethyl)sulfide 2.0E-5 9.4E-2 9.5E+1 2.0E-5 7.0E-6

7440-39-3 Barium Avail. Avail. Avail. Avail. Avail.

7440-43-9 Cadmium 3.0E-5 1.8E-3 3.8E-1 5.0E-4 1.0E-5 ATSDR IRIS HB1 IRIS ATSDR

7440-47-3 Chromium Avail. Avail. Avail. Avail. Avail.

7439-92-1 Lead 1.5E-1 1.2E-5 8.5E-3 1.5E-4 HB1 OEHHA OEHHA HB1

7440-02-0 Nickel Avail. Avail. Avail. Avail. Avail.

159-59-2 Dichloroethene, cis-1,2- 2.0E-3 IRIS

540-59-0 Dichloroethene, trans-1,2- 9.0E-3 RSL

121-82-4 RDX (cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine) 1.1E-1 3.0E-3 IRIS IRIS


67-63-0 Isopropyl alcohol 3.2E+0 7.0E+0 OEHHA OEHHA

123-72-8 Butanal

198-94-1 Cyclohexanone

106-46-7 1,4-dichlorobenzene 6.0E+2 1.1E-5 5.4E-3 8.0E-1 7.0E-2 OEHHA OEHHA IRIS ATSDR

44

6.0 RISK THRESHOLDS

The equations in Appendix B and C of the Final HHRAP Guidance will be used to estimate

human health risk and hazard using default assumptions. The typical benchmark for evaluation

of estimated hazard from unit emissions is 1.0. U.S. EPA Region 6 recommended that a hazard

index benchmark of 0.25 be utilized to take background concentrations of COPCs into

consideration in areas where significant industrial activity takes place. Although the BGAD

location does not represent an area of significant industrial activity, hazard indices from SCWO

emissions may be compared against this very conservative benchmark. Incremental lifetime

cancer risk from this source will be compared against a benchmark of 1E-05.

Utilizing the HHRAP Guidance for evaluation of dioxin/furan compounds, a nursing infant’s

estimated daily intake of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ will also be calculated based on its mother’s

exposure, for each adult chronic exposure scenario. Based on the HHRAP Guidance, an average

daily intake of 1 pg TEQ/kg-day or less for adults, and 60 pg TEQ/kg-day or less for nursing

infants would not pose a significant concern for adverse health-effects.

Electronic documents, once printed, are uncontrolled and may become outdated. Refer to the electronic document in InfoWorks for the current revision.

prepared by

prepared for

Rev. Date Issued for Changes 1 17 August 2017 Use Resubmittal with RD&D Application 0 04 May 2010 Initial Issue

This document has been reviewed and no OPSEC-sensitive information has been found.This document has been reviewed and no ITAR/EAR-sensitive information has been found.

jwhite4

Rectangle


24915-00-G01-GGEN-00028 – WASTE MINIMIZATION PLAN

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Waste Minimization Background .................................................................................................... 5

BGCAPP Waste Minimization Policy .............................................................................................. 5

Definitions ......................................................................................................................................... 6

Roles and Responsibilities .............................................................................................................. 65.1 All BGCAPP Personnel ................................................................................................................... 65.2 Department Managers .................................................................................................................... 65.3 Environmental Manager or Designee ............................................................................................. 65.4 Environmental Compliance Representative .................................................................................... 75.5 Project Management ....................................................................................................................... 75.6 Waste Minimization Team Members ............................................................................................... 75.7 Waste Minimization Work Group .................................................................................................... 7

Process Outline ................................................................................................................................ 86.1 Assess Waste Stream .................................................................................................................... 86.2 Rank/Prioritize Waste Stream ......................................................................................................... 86.3 Evaluate and Select Options........................................................................................................... 86.4 Implement Selected Waste-Minimization Option ............................................................................ 86.5 Results/Progress ............................................................................................................................ 86.6 Review Cycle .................................................................................................................................. 9

Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 9

Records ............................................................................................................................................. 9

References ........................................................................................................................................ 9



1

2

3

4

5

6

7



1

2345

6

789

10111213

14

1516

1718

1920

21

22

23

24252627282930313233

34



1

2

345678

9

101112131415161718

19

2021

22

23

24

25

2627

28

2930



1

234567

8

910

11

121314

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2627

28

29303132



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011121314

15

16

1718

1920

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

29

30

31



1

23

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

1213

14

15

Documents

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Volume II Class … · 2018. 5. 3. · 24915-00-GPE-GGPT-00291 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Volume II - Class 3 Hazardous