12th North American Waste to Energy Conference

May 17-19,2004, Savannah, Georgia USA

NAWTEC12-2207

Multiple Pathway Health Risk Assessment and Multimedia Environmental Monitoring

Programs for a Municipal Waste Resource Recovery Facility in Maryland

Ramana K. Rao, Ph.D, Engineering Services Specialist, Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation, Division of Solid Waste Services, Rockville, MD 20850.

Brian L. Stormwind, Ishrat Chaudhuri, Ph.D., DABT and Marcus Garcia, ENSR International, Westford, MA 01886.

ABSTRACT Following a 1986 decision by Montgomery County in Maryland to construct a municipal waste resource recovery facility near the town of Dickerson, the local conununity expressed concern regarding the potential human health effects from air emissions of dioxins and trace metals released through the stack of the proposed facility. To address this concern, the County conducted health risk studies and ambient monitoring programs before and after the facility became operational. The purpose of the health risk studies was to determine potential cancer and non-cancer risks to the nearby residents from the operations of the

facility. The purpose of the ambient monitoring programs was to determine if any changes would occur in the ambient levels of certain target chemicals in the environmental media, and if such changes can be attributed to the operations of the facility.

Accordingly, the County conducted a multiple pathway health risk assessment in 1989 prior to the construction of the facility. The pre-operational health risk assessment was based on estimated stack engineering parameters and available stack emissions data from municipal waste resource recovery facilities that were operating in the United States, Canada and Europe during the 1980's. The health risk assessment used established procedures that were accepted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and many state agencies at that time. The Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) became operational in the spring of 1995. The facility is equipped with the state-of-the-art air pollution control (APC) equipment including a dry scrubber-fabric filter baghouse system to control organics and trace metals, anunonia injection

23

system to control nitrogen oxides, and activated carbon injection system to control mercury. In 2003, the County retained ENSR International to update the 1989 health risk assessment study. In the 2003 operational-phase update, as-built engineering data and measured stack emissions data from a total of eighteen quarterly stack emissions tests were used. The study was conducted in accordance with the U.S. EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities published in 1998 [1], and an Errata, published in 1999 [2]. Both the 1989 study and the 2003 study demonstrated that there is a very low chance (less than one chance in a million) for occurrence of cancer and no adverse non-cancer health effects to the nearby conununity as a result of exposure to facility-related emissions.

The multi-media ambient monitoring programs were conducted in abiotic and biotic environmental media. These programs included an air-monitoring component and a non-air monitoring component. The pre-operational phase of the air media and non-air media monitoring was conducted in 1994-1995. The pre-operational program was designed to produce baseline data for target chemicals in both air and non-air media. The operational-phase air media monitoring was conducted in 1997 and 2003. The operational-phase non-air media monitoring was conducted in 1997 and 2001. Target chemicals monitored in both air and non-air media included polychlorinated dioxins and furans (PCDDsIPCDFs) and selected toxic metals (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and nickel). The non-air media included crops, farm pond surface water and fish tissue, and cow's milk. The ambient levels of target chemicals monitored in the operational phase of the facility

Copyright © 2004 by ASME

(1997, 2001 and 2003) demonstrated no measurable difference from the ambient levels of these chemicals monitored in the pre-operational phase (1994-95) of the facility, in both the air media and non-air media.

The results of the health risk studies and ambient monitoring programs demonstrate that municipal waste combustion facilities that are equipped with the state-of-the-art air pollution control equipment pose no significant health risk to the population.

INTRODUCTION

In 1989, the County retained Roy F. Weston to conduct a multiple pathway health risk assessment for a solid waste resource recovery facility to be constructed near Dickerson Maryland [3]. The 1989 health risk assessment was based on a review of the literature on engineering (stack design) and emissions data for resource recovery facilities in the United States, Canada and Europe that were operating during the 1980's. The study also incorporated one year of onsite meteorological data collected from the Dickerson generating station of the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) which is located within half a mile northwest of the RRF. The health risk assessment focused on pollutants for which there were no established air quality standards, but for which there was a body of evidence that indicated potential effects on human health. The health risk assessment used established procedures that were accepted by the U.S. EPA and many state agencies at that time.

The County's RRF became operational in the spring of 1995. After seven years of operation, the County retained ENSR International to conduct an update of the 1989 study with measured stack emissions data from eighteen quarterly stack emissions tests conducted for the facility since 1995. The updated health risk assessment for the County facility utilized as-built stack engineering parameters, measured stack emission rates, recent onsite meteorological data, and updated air quality dispersion modeling methods recommended by the U.S. EPA [4].

The multimedia ambient monitoring programs were conducted in air media and non-air media prior to the operation of the facility and during the

24

operation of the facility. The objective of these sampling programs was to gather ambient data for emission constituents which may directly affect human health. The pre-operational programs were designed to produce baseline data for target chemicals in both air and non-air media.

The pre-operational phase of the air monitoring was conducted between February 1994 and February 1995 [5,6]. Subsequent to the facility becoming operational, operational phase air media monitoring programs were conducted from February 1996 to August 1997 [5,6], December 2002 to January 2003 and May 2003 to June 2003 [7]. The pre-operational phase of the non-air monitoring was conducted between May 1994 and April 1995 [8,9]. The operational phase non-air media monitoring programs were conducted between 1996 and 1998 [8,9], and November 2001 [10]. The pre-operational phase (1994-95) and first operational phase (1996-98) programs were conducted by Roy F. Weston and the second operational phase programs (2001-03) were conducted by ENSR International.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND THE FACILITY

The County's RRF is located approximately two miles southwest of the Town of Dickerson in Montgomery County, Maryland on a tract of land contiguous to the coal-fired electric power generating station that was owned by the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO). Currently, the PEPCO facility is owned by Mirant Corporation. The area surrounding the facility is rural. Within a IS-mile radius of the RRF, the majority of the area is used for a mix of residential and agricultural purposes. The remaining area is woodland with some open land and scattered small towns and residential housing. A few residences are located within two miles of the facility. Three townships (Beallsville, Barnesville, and Dickerson) are located within five miles of the RRF. Several recreational areas are located within ten miles of the facility. These include the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Park, the Dickerson Regional Park, the Monocacy Natural Area, and Sugarloaf Mountain. The Potomac River, located west of the facility, is also used for recreational activities. There are several farm ponds within 3 miles of the

Copyright © 2004 by ASME

facility where farmers are known to do recreational fishing.

The RRF consists of three units, each unit designed to combust 600 tons of solid waste per day and generate approximately 20 megawatts of electricity (see Fig. 1). Each unit has a separate flue and is equipped with the state-of-the art air pollution control (APC) equipment. The APC equipment consists of a dry scrubber and fabric filter baghouse for controlling acid gases, particulates and organics, direct lime injection into the furnace for additional acid gas control, ammonia injection at the top of the furnace for nitrogen oxide control and activated carbon injection at the scrubber inlet for mercury control. In addition, the combustion residue is treated with dolomitic lime for minimizing leaching of metals from the residue.

METHODOLGY

Multiple Pathway Health Risk Assessment The methodology for health risk assessment consists of selecting chemical compounds that are of potential concern from a public health perspective, conducting air dispersion /deposition modeling of these compounds to determine their ground-level mass concentrations, conducting exposure and toxicity assessments of these compounds, characterizing the health risk from each of these compounds and finally estimating the total health risk to individuals who may be exposed to these compounds.

Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling A total of nineteen (19) compounds of potential concern (COPCs) including PCDDs and PCDFs, Poly-Chlorinated BiPhenyls (PCBs), Poly­Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and several other carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic metals were selected for evaluation in this health risk assessment update. The selection of these 19 COPCs was based on the following criteria: these COPCs are a significant fraction of emissions from the facility and have the potential to pose health risks to people. All COPC emissions data were compiled from 18 stack tests conducted since the startup of the facility in 1995. The measured emission rates are expected to be representative of maximum-load operating conditions of the RRF . These COPCs and their emission rates are shown in Table 1.

25

The Industrial Source Complex Short-Term, Version 3 (ISCST3), model was used for air dispersion and deposition modeling in accordance with U.S. EPA guidance. One year of onsite meteorological data (1995) from a 10-meter tower adjacent to the RRF at the Yard Trim Composting Facility (yTCF) was used in the application of ISCST3. The results of the air dispersion modeling were used to evaluate potential human exposures via inhalation. Deposition modeling results were used to estimate the magnitude of deposition onto water, soil and vegetation surfaces. This information was used to evaluate potential human exposure via direct (inhalation of air) and indirect (ingestion of soil, vegetables, dairy products, beef products, chicken, eggs, or fish) pathways.

Exposure and Toxicity Assessment The potential human exposures evaluated in this update are: inhalation of particulate and vapor in air; incidental ingestion of soil; ingestion of vegetables from a backyard garden; consumption of milk, beef, pork, chicken and eggs from farms in the area; and ingestion of fish from the Potomac River. In addition, recreational fishing from several local ponds was also evaluated. Both children and adults were evaluated for potential exposure to facility-related COPC via all potential exposure pathways.

Two Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) scenarios (Scenarios A and B) were evaluated both in the 1989 Weston study as well as 2003 ENSR update. Under Scenario A, the MEl local resident was evaluated at the location of the maximum air concentration and maximum dry deposition of the RRF exhaust plume. Under Scenario B, the MEl local resident was evaluated at the location of maximum total deposition (dry + wet) and secondary maximum air concentration. In addition, several other potential scenarios were evaluated including residents near farm ponds closest to the facility (see Fig. 2). Residents near these ponds were assumed to be exposed to facility's COPC emissions through inhalation exposures; consumption of agricultural products (above and below ground vegetables) raised in a backyard garden; consumption of fish caught from the pond; and incidental ingestion of soil.

For each exposure scenario, toxicity assessment was conducted to determine the relationship between the magnitude of exposure (dose) for each

Copyright © 2004 by ASME

COPC, and the occurrence of specific health effects for a receptor (response).

Risk Characterization The results of the exposure assessment and toxicity assessment were combined in risk calculation equations to estimate potential risk to human health [1]. The potential risk to human health is a calculation of the chance of carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic adverse health effects occurring in humans for each scenario.

The predicted potential for adverse carcinogenic health effects is referred to as the Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR). The ELCR can be compared to u.s. EPA's target risk limit of 10 chances in 1,000,000 for combustion facilities [1]. The predicted potential for adverse noncarcinogenic health effects is referred to as the Hazard Index (HI), and is a ratio of the predicted intake of the compound and the tolerable dose of that compound. For most regulatory programs such as Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action risk assessments, the target HI is 1.0. When risk characterization results for all COPC are below or equal to the U.S. EPA's acceptable cancer risk limit and noncarcinogenic HI, no further analysis is presumed to be necessary.

Multimedia Ambient Monitoring Programs

Air Media Sampling Program

The air media sampling program was designed to measure a selected set of organic chemicals and metals generally associated with particulate and gaseous emissions from the combustion of municipal solid waste. The sampling and analytical methods are based on u.S. EPA's guidelines. In the pre-operational phase (1994-95) and first operational phase (1996-97) monitoring programs, stationary monitoring stations were erected at five sites. Among them are: Beallsville, MD (approximately 4.5 kilometers to the southeast of the RRF) in an area of peak modeled ground­level air concentrations ("impact" site) and Lucketts, VA (approximately 6.8 kilometers to the northwest of the RRF) where facility impacts were predicted to be insignificant (" upwindlbackground" site). In addition, two sites were selected in population centers within five miles of the facility. These are Poolesville High School southeast of the facility and Monocacy

26

Elementary School northeast of the facility. An urban background site was also selected at a fire station in Burtonsville, which is approximately 25 miles east of the facility. Stationary monitoring stations were also erected at these three sites. Figure 3 shows the locations of these sites with respect to the predicted maximum air concentrations as determined by air quality dispersion models. In the second operational phase monitoring program, sampling was conducted at only two sites. These are Beallsville (maximum Impact Site) and Lucketts (Background Site).

Because the Beallsville site is representative of RRF "maximum impact", air concentrations at this site could reflect a contribution from RRF air emissions based on dispersion modeling and wind patterns. Air samples collected at the other sites could provide representative "background" data for the area.

Analyses of the air samples from the monitoring sites were conducted for those potential emissions of most concern for human health risk, including PCDDsIPCDFs, and selected toxic metals (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and nickel). Data from the second operational phase (2002-03) of the program are used in conjunction with the pre-operational phase (1994-95) and first post­operational phase (1996-97) sampling programs to determine whether the operation of the RRF has a measurable impact upon the ambient air quality in the area.

Non-air Media Sampling Program The pre-operational phase (1994-95) sampling program was conducted over a period of twelve months before the facility was operational. The first operational phase sampling program was conducted over a period of eighteen months (1997-98) after full operations commenced, and again in November 2001, approximately six years after the RRF became operational. In the pre-operational (1994-95) and first operational phase (1996-98) sampling programs several sites were sampled that included five farm ponds. These sites are shown in Figure 4 . . In the second operational phase sampling (2001), only two sites were sampled that included only two farm ponds. Media evaluated include vegetation, cow's milk, pond waters, and fish. Chemicals monitored included

Copyright © 2004 by ASME

PCDDslPCDFs and selected toxic metals (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and nickel).

The purpose of these programs is to compare 2001 operational-phase data relative to earlier 1994-95 pre-operational and 1996-98 operational-phase sampling events for the chemicals in non-air samples to determine whether evidence exists that facility operations made a difference in the levels of any of these chemicals in the terrestrial or aquatic environment.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Health Risk Assessment

Potential Carcinogenic Risk As can be seen in Table 2, the total ELCR for the worst case MEl scenario (Scenario B adult resident) is predicted to be 0.4 chances in 1,000,000 in the 2003 ENSR update. In the 1989 Weston health risk study, the total ELCR for the same scenario was predicted to be 0.9 chances in 1,000,000. Thus, the ELCR in the 2003 update is less than half that predicted in the 1989 assessment. The lower value in the 2003 update is due to the use of actual stack emission data collected since the RRF became operational. The estimated emission rates used in the 1989 health risk assessment were higher than the measured emission rates used in this update.

In all cases summarized in Table 2, potential indirect exposure to PCDD and PCDF emissions is evaluated as total Tetra-Chloro Dibenzo Dioxins­Toxic Equivalents (TCDD-TEQs), which represents the greatest portion of predicted carcinogenic health risk.

The total ELCR for the adult subsistence farmer and the closest resident farmer (Resident Farm 02) is predicted to be 0.7 chances in 1,000,000. The total ELCR for the adult subsistence fisher is predicted to be 0.3 chances in 1,000,000; and the total ELCR for the adult recreational pond fisher (Pond 3) is predicted to be 0.06 chances in 1,000,000.

All predicted ELCR in the 2003 update are below the U.S. EPA's target risk limit for combustion facilities of 10 chances in 1,000,000. This indicates a very low likelihood that potential

27

carcinogenic health effects would occur under the range of exposure scenarios evaluated in this update of the health risk assessment.

Potential Non-cancer Hazard

As can be seen in Table 3, a non-carcinogenic hazard index (HI) of 0.03 is predicted for the worst case MEl scenario (Scenario B child resident) in both the 2003 update as well as the 1989 health risk assessment.

Because the actual COPC emissions from the RRF are lower than the COPC emissions assumed in the 1989 study, use of actual emission rate data in this update would lead one to expect that the predicted HI in this update would be lower than originally predicted in the 1989 study. However, substantial changes in the science underlying the prediction of exposure to mercury via ingestion of fish accounts for more than 90% of the predicted HI for the Scenario B child resident evaluated in this update. Potential exposure to mercury through all pathways other than consumption of fish (i.e., ingestion of soil, ingestion of backyard produce, and inhalation of vapors and particles) results in a predicted HI of 0.002 for the Scenario B child resident evaluated in this update. This is nearly a factor of 10 lower than the 1989 HI predicted for potential exposure of the Scenario B child resident to mercury in soil alone. As can be seen in Table 3, a HI of 0.002 is predicted for the child subsistence farmer, an HI of 0.38 is predicted for the adult subsistence fisher, and an HI of 1.04 is predicted for a child consuming fish from a local pond. These results are generally within or below the range of target HI identified by the EPA for general risk assessment (1.0).

These results of the updated noncarcinogenic risk assessment indicate that no adverse noncarcinogenic health effects are expected under the range of exposure scenarios evaluated in this update of the health risk assessment.

Ambient Air Monitoring

Figure 5 presents PCDDslPCDFs results from all three ambient air monitoring campaigns conducted to date in the vicinity of the RRF. As Figure 5 shows, the TEQs have fallen with each consecutive monitoring campaign, with pre-construction results showing higher TEQ values than those reported in

Copyright © 2004 by ASME

either post-operational monitoring campaign. This decreasing trend in ambient PCDDslPCDFs is consistent with open literature which has described a similar downward trend in PCDDslPCDFs levels at various locations around the world. Figure 5 also shows that the measured concentrations of PCDDslPCDFs at the Beallsville impact site are higher compared to the Lucketts background site for all three programs. This indicates that the local conditions that contribute to higher PCDDslPCDFs concentrations at Beallsville compared to Lucketts is consistent for all programs and existed prior to the construction of the RRF.

Figure 6 presents metals data from all three programs conducted to date including the pre­construction phase, first post-operational phase, and the second operational phase. Based on review of Figure 6, there are no obvious patterns or trends between pre- and post-operational monitoring. The data indicate that in general, concentrations measured during the second operational phase are similar to data measured during the first operational and pre-operational phases. Note that the lower beryllium concentrations reported in the data collected during the second operational phase are due to lower detection limits. Beryllium has never been detected during any of the air measurement programs and detection limits were much higher in the previous programs.

Ambient Non-Air Monitoring The results obtained in this program indicate that with the exception of chromium in fish tissue, metals concentrations, including mercury have not increased since the RRF became operational. Slight fluctuations in mercury concentration in fish tissue are observed, but are likely due to natural variations among individual fish (Tab. 4). The patterns of chemicals such as PCDDslPCDFs in fish, which are found as groupings of individual chemicals, did not change significantly from the pre-operational phase through the 2001 operational phase.

Metals in hay, with the exception of chromium, were lower in 2001 samples than in previous samples. TCDD TEQ in hay and milk were consistent with past concentrations, and lower than the background concentration.

CONCLUSIONS

28

Health Risk Assessment

The results obtained in the 2003 update indicate that the relative risk of harm to human health presented by the RRF, as is operating today, is very low. In fact, the health risks predicted in the 2003 update are lower than or consistent with the health risks predicted in the 1989 Weston study. The updated results indicate a very low chance (less than 1 chance in 1 million) for occurrence of potential carcinogenic health effects, and that no adverse noncarcinogenic health effects are expected as a result of exposure to facility related emissions.

A review of the accumulated stack emissions data will be conducted periodically (Once in 10 years) to determine any significant changes in the emissions of PC DDs, PCDFs and trace metals addressed in this study. If significant changes occur either in the stack emissions of organics and metals addressed in this study or EPA's protocol for conducting health risk assessments, an update to this study may be warranted.

Ambient Air Monitoring The program results indicate that the ambient air contains background levels of the target metals and PCDDsIPCDFs. The PCDDslPCDFs detected are typical of numerous combustion sources, including the coal-fired electric power generation, home wood burning and vehicle emissions. The levels of PCDDslPCDFs show a decreasing trend over time, with pre-construction PCDDslPCDFs levels exceeding those measured during two post­operational monitoring campaigns. In addition, relative PCDDslPCDFs levels between the impact and background site were consistent with those reported during pre-construction monitoring and first operational phase monitoring.

Because the facility is equipped with state-of-the­art air pollution control equipment, air emissions are extremely low and therefore, the modeling results indicate that incremental changes in the air media for most chemicals are several orders of magnitude below the background levels (Tab. 5). Any changes in concentration of these metals or dioxins/furans from the RRF at the levels predicted by the modeling would be within the normal variability of the sampling and analysis methods available, and therefore, not detectable. Therefore,

Copyright © 2004 by ASME

periodic ambient monitoring (once inl 0 years) is recommended to track any significant changes in the emissions of PC DDs, PCDFs and trace metals from the facility.

Ambient Non-air Monitoring The program results indicate no evidence of facility impact upon the presence or concentration of chemicals in the various sample types. The media evaluated in the program contain various metals and organic compounds as part of their native composition and from numerous anthropogenic sources. Anthropogenic sources include municipal waste combustion facilities, the coal-fired electric power generating station, home

wood burning and vehicle emissions. Therefore, periodic ambient monitoring (once inl 0 years) is recommended to track any significant changes in the emissions of PCDDs, PCDFs and trace metals from the facility.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The primary author expresses his appreciation to Art Balmer, Chief of the Division of Solid Waste Services for his encouragement. The authors also express their appreciation to Kristen Wandland and Tony Sacco for their work on the Non-Air and Air Media Sampling programs conducted by ENSR.

REFERENCES [1] U.S. EPA. " Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities", EPA-530-D-98-001A, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, July 1998. [2] U.S. EPA. " Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion

29

Facilities (peer Review Draft): Errata", Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, August 1999. [3] Weston, 1989, "Health Risk Assessment for a Resource Recovery Facility in Montgomery County, Maryland". [4] ENSR, 2003, "Draft Report - Update of Health Risk Study for the Montgomery County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility". [ 5] Weston, 1998. "Summary Report on Ambient Air Toxics Monitoring for the Montgomery County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Near Dickerson, Maryland". [6] ENSR, 2000. "Review of Roy F. Weston's Air Media Sampling Data for the Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility and Recommendations for Future Study". [7] ENSR, 2003. "Draft Report on the Second Operational Phase (Winter/Spring 2002-2003) Air Monitoring Program for the Montgomery County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Near Dickerson, Maryland". [8] Weston, 1998. "Final Report on Non-Air Media Monitoring for the Post-Operational Phase of the Montgomery County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Near Dickerson, Maryland". [9] ENSR, 2 000. "Review of Roy F. Weston's Non-Air Media Sampling Data for the Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility and Recommendations for Future Study". [ 10] ENSR, 2 001. "Final Report on the Second Operational Phase (November 2 001) Non-Air Media Monitoring for the Montgomery County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Near Dickerson, Maryland".

Copyright © 2004 by ASME

APPENDIX

TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1. RRF Compounds of Potential Concern and Emission Rates for Maximum Operating Conditions

for the Health Risk Assessment Update

Compound of Potential Concern Emission Rate (Ib/hr) (I) Emission Rate (g/sec) (I)

Inorganics/Metals

Antimony 7.23E-04 9.I2E-OS

Arsenic 7.20E-04 9.06E-OS

Beryllium 1.21E-04 1.53E-OS

Cadmium 4.74E-04 S.97E-OS

Chromium (Total) l.07E-03 1.3SE-04

Chromium (VI) S.19E-04 6.SIE-OS

Cobalt S.13E-04 6.4SE-OS

Copper 1.2SE-03 1.58E-04

Lead 2.7SE-03 3.48E-04

Manganese 1.8SE-03 2.33E-04

Mercury 1.66E-02 2.09E-03

Nickel 1.99E-03 2.SlE-04

Selenium 8.70E-04 1.lOE-04

Zinc 1.32E-02 1.66E-03

Organics

DioxinslFurans - EPA TEQ 3.42E-08 4.29E-09

PCBs 1.26E-03 1.59E-04

Carcinogenic PAR (as BAP-TE) S.40E-06 6.8IE-07

Total PAR 2.S2E-03 3.I8E-04

Formaldehyde 1.S7E-02 1.97E-03

(I) Emission rate from the RRF with all 3 units operating at maximum load.

30 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

w

(')

o

'0

�

OQ' go

©

IV

o

o

�

CT

'-< :>

{/}

�

tTl

Tab

le 2

. Tot

al E

xces

s L

ifet

ime

Can

cer

Ris

k (E

LC

R)

from

th

e R

esou

rce

Rec

over

y F

acil

ity

-E

NS

R 2

003

Up

dat

e

Com

pou

nd

s

Dio

xin

s an

d F

uran

s*

Bery

lliu

m

Cad

miu

m

Chr

omiu

m (C

r6)

Me

thyl

Me

rcury

M

erc

uric

chl

orid

e

Car

cin

oge

nic

P A

H**

T

otal

PA

H

Tot

al P

CBs

A

ll o

the

r c

ompo

unds

Tot

al:

* T

otal

TC

DD

-TE

Q

** T

otal

B(a

)P-T

E

Wor

st C

ase

Sce

nari

o (S

cen

ario

B)

EN

SR

(20

03)

Wes

ton

(1

989)

1.

79E

-07

6. 1

3E-0

7 1.

71E

-OS

2.62

E-1

2 l.

llE

-07

1.49

E-0

9 8.

9SE

-08

2.20

E-0

9 N

C

NC

N

C

NC

6.

S3E

-IO

S.S6

E-0

8 N

C

NC

3.

14E

-09

2.lO

E-0

7 S.

OOE

-09

1.60

E-0

8

4.5-

07

9.01

-07

Su

bsi

sten

ce F

arm

er

(Joh

nso

n D

airv

Far

m)

Ad

ult

C

hil

d

5.0S

E-0

7 S.

lIE

-OS

2.12

E-0

9

6.9l

E-l

O l.

09E

-OS

2.S7

E-0

9 1.

7SE

-07

4.67

E-O

S N

C

NC

N

C

NC

2.

0SE

-09

S.43

E-l

O N

C

NC

2.

S3E

-09

6.90

E-l

O 3.

lOE

-09

7.lO

E-I

O

7.07

E-0

7 1.

33E

-07

Res

iden

t Far

mer

02

Su

bsi

sten

ce F

ish

er

Ad

ult

C

hil

d

Ad

ult

C

hil

d

6.57

E-0

7 7.

2SE

-08

2.S1

E-0

7 3.

74E

-08

3.23

E-0

9 1.

49E

-09

7.4S

E-l

O 4.

66E

-IO

2.4S

E-O

S 6.

70E

-09

7.54

E-0

9 1.

S7E

-09

2.99

E-O

S 7.

3SE

-09

7.67

E-0

9 3.

07E

-09

NC

N

C

NC

N

C

NC

N

C

NC

N

C

3.36

E-I

O S.

33E

-ll

5.69

E-l

O S.

21E

-ll

NC

N

C

NC

N

C

2.49

E-0

9 4.

7SE

-IO

2.4S

E-O

S 3.

43E

-09

2.79

E-0

9 7.

S3E

-lO

3.39

E-0

9 l.

33E

-09

7.21

E-0

7 8.

93E

-08

2.96

E-0

7 4.

73E

-08

Rec

reat

ion

al F

ish

er

(pon

d 3

) A

du

lt

Ch

ild

3.96

E-O

S 1.

4SE

-08

l.lS

E=

09

l.l2

E-0

9 7.

33E

-09

2.46

E-0

9 S.

SSE

-09

3.38

E-0

9 N

C

NC

N

C

NC

9.

62E

-ll

3.26

E-l

l N

C

NC

6.

19E

-09

1. 8

7E-0

9 1.

61E

-09

6.6S

E-l

O

6.46

E-0

8 2.

40E

-08

W

N

(J

o

'"0

'<

..,

<iQ. g­ @

N

o

�

cr"

'< :>

r/l �

Tab

le 3

. Tot

al N

on-c

arci

nog

enic

Haz

ard

In

dex

(H

I) f

rom

th

e R

esou

rce

Rec

over

y F

acil

ity

-E

NS

R 2

003

Up

dat

e

Com

pou

nd

s

Dio

xins

and

Fu

rans

* B

eryll

ium

C

adm

ium

C

hrom

ium

(C

r6)

Me

thyl

Mer

cury

M

ercu

ric

chlo

ride

C

arci

noge

nic

P A

H**

T

otal

PA

H

Tot

al P

CB

s A

ll o

ther

com

pou

nds

Tot

al: * T

otal

TC

DD

-TE

Q

**T

ota

l B(

a)P

-TE

Wor

st C

ase

Sce

nar

io

EN

SR

(20

03)

Wes

ton

(1

989)

N

C

NC

2.

24E

-OS

NC

2.

37E

-07

8.66

E-O

S 4.

00E

-06

l.lO

E-0

6 2.

67E

-02

3.l7

E-0

2 l.

87E

-03

NC

N

C

NC

1.

29E

-OS

NC

3.

S2E

-04

NC

2.

00E

-04

2.04

E-0

4

2.92

-02

3.20

-02

Su

bsi

sten

ce F

arm

er

(Joh

nso

n D

airy

Far

m)

Ad

ult

C

hil

d

NC

N

C

2.S7

E-0

7 6.

33E

-07

6.80

E-0

8 l.

5IE

-07

2.S3

E-0

6 4.

4IE

-06

7.4S

E-O

S 1.

26E

-04

9.l

OE-0

4 l.

7IE

-03

NC

N

C

l.36

E-0

6 l.

98E

-06

l.50

E-0

4 2.

01E

-04

4.19

E-O

S 7.

8SE

-OS

1.18

E-0

3 2.

13E

-03

Res

iden

t Far

mer

02

Su

bsi

sten

ce F

ish

er

Ad

ult

C

hil

d

Ad

ult

C

hil

d

NC

N

C

NC

N

C

4.2S

E-0

7 1.

44E

-06

l.l3

E-0

7 3.

99E

-07

7.S7

E-0

8 1.

68E

-07

2.37

E-0

7 S.

26E

-07

4.23

E-0

7 7.

3SE

-09

l.09

E-0

7 2.

IIE

-07

1.3I

E-0

4 2.

23E

-04

3.80

E-O

l 2.

40E

-OI

l.ll

E-0

3 2.

19E

-03

6.29

E-0

4 2.

09E

-03

NC

N

C

NC

N

C

2.03

E-0

6 2.

84E

-06

2.60

E-O

S l.

81E

-OS

1.41

E-0

4 ) .

39E

-04

1.43

E-0

3 I.

OOE

-03

3.4l

E-O

S 7.

16E

-05

7.00

E-O

S l.

60E

-04

1.42

E-0

3 2.

63E

-03

3.82

E-0

l 2.

43E

-0l

Rec

reat

ion

al F

ish

er

(pon

d 3

) A

du

lt

Ch

ild

NC

N

C

2.08

E=

07

1.12

E-0

6 9.

67E

-08

2.IS

E-0

7 1.

47E

-07

2.89

E-0

7 7.

lOE

-OI

I.04

E-O

O 6.

78E

-05

2.2S

E-0

4 N

C

NC

l.

60E

-OS

2.3

7E-O

S 3.

62E

-04

S.46

E-0

4 2.

99E

-OS

S.6S

E-O

S

7.10

E-O

l 1.

04E

-00

w

w

n

o

'0

'<

...,

tiQ. go

(\]I

tv

o

o

.j>..

cr

'< >

lfJ

�

tTl

Tab

le 4

. Su

mm

ary

of

Mer

cury

Lev

els

in F

ish

Tis

sue

Pon

d 2

(Bu

chan

an P

ond

) -

DN

R P

IO

FD

A

DN

RI

Blu

egil

l L

ar

gem

outh

Ba

ss

Par

amet

er

Ac

tion

V

ER

SA

R

Fil

let

Wh

ole

Bo

dy

F

ille

t W

ho

le B

od

y

Lev

el

(199

3)

Pre

-O

per

atio

nal

-P

re-

Op

erat

ion

al-

Pre

-O

per

atio

nal

-P

re-

Op

erat

ion

al-p

has

e

op

erat

ion

al

ph

ase

op

erat

ion

al

ph

ase

op

erat

ion

al

ph

ase

op

erat

ion

al

Mer

cury

1

.0

0.0

8-

0.1

2·

1

99

4-9

5

19

96

2

00

1

19

94

-95

1

99

6

20

01

1

99

4-9

5

19

96

2

00

1

19

94

-95

1

99

6

20

01

ND

(O.

I)-

0.0

6-

0.0

9-

ND

(0

.1)

ND

0

.08

8 -

0.1

5

No

0

.18

-N

D (

0.1

) N

D

0.1

1-

0.1

3

0.1

2

0.1

4

(0.5

) 0

.09

5

Dat

a 0

.21

(0

.5)

0.1

4

Pon

d 3

(Ler

mon

d P

ond

) -

DN

R P

IS

FD

A

DN

RI

Gre

en S

un

fish

/Blu

egil

l L

arg

emo

uth

Bas

s

Act

ion

V

ER

SA

R

Par

amet

er

Lev

el

(19

93

) F

ille

t W

ho

le B

od

y

Fil

let

Wh

ole

Bo

dy

Pre

-O

per

atio

nal

-P

re-

Op

erat

ion

al-

Pre

-O

per

atio

nal

-P

re-

Op

erat

ion

al-p

has

e

op

erat

ion

al

ph

ase

op

erat

ion

al

ph

ase

op

erat

ion

al

ph

ase

op

erat

ion

al

Mer

cury

1

.0

0.0

3 -

0.2

*

19

94

-95

1

99

6

20

01

1

99

4-9

5

19

96

2

00

1

19

94

-95

1

99

6

20

01

1

99

4-9

5

19

96

2

00

1

0.1

4-

0.1

5*

*

No

Dat

a N

o

0.0

43

N

D (

0.1

) 0

.05

0

.00

95

-N

o D

ata

No

0

.23

5

No

Dat

a N

o D

ata

0.1

45

Dat

a -

5

0.0

45

D

ata

0.0

65

No

tes:

*

Ind

icat

es S

un

fish

or

Blu

egil

l S

un

fish

cau

gh

t b

y D

NR

**

In

dic

ates

Lar

gem

ou

th B

ass

cau

gh

t b

y D

NR

FD

A A

ctio

n L

evel

fo

r M

ercu

ry (

1.0

par

t p

er m

illi

on

) is

a l

evel

set

by

th

e U

.S.

Fo

od

an

d D

rug

Ad

min

istr

atio

n. T

he

val

ue

ind

icat

es t

he

con

cen

trat

ion

of

met

hy

l m

ercu

ry i

n fi

sh

assu

med

to

be

saf

e fo

r h

um

an c

on

sum

pti

on

.

All

co

nce

ntr

atio

ns

in p

arts

per

mil

lio

n;

mil

lig

ram

s to

tal

mer

cury

per

kil

og

ram

fres

h w

eig

ht

tiss

ue.

ND =

N

ot

det

ecte

d.

Val

ue

pre

sen

ted

in

par

enth

eses

is

the

det

ecti

on

lim

it.

No

Dat

a -

Fis

h n

ot

sam

ple

d.

Gre

en s

un

fish

wer

e ca

ug

ht

at L

erm

on

d P

on

d i

n 1

99

4-9

5 a

nd

19

96

. Blu

egil

l su

nfi

sh w

ere

coll

ecte

d i

n 2

00

1.

Fis

h b

elo

ng

to

th

e sa

me

gen

us (

Lep

om

is)

and

, b

ased

on

tax

on

om

y,

tro

ph

ic l

evel

, an

d s

ize,

lik

ely

co

nta

in s

imil

ar l

evel

s o

f co

nta

min

ants

.

Table 5. Modeled Concentrations From RRF Emissions Compared to Background Ambient Air Measurements

Modeled Air Measured Air

Concentration Concentrations Second EPA Region 9 PRG

Analyte (RRF Emissions) Operational Phase for Ambient Air (\)

�g1m3 (2002-03) �g/m

3

Background site

�g/m3

DioxinslFurans 5xl O-11 2000xl0-11 4.5xl O-8

TEQ

Arsenic l x l O-6 None detected 4.5xl O-4

Beryllium 2xl O-7 N one detected 8.0xl 0-4

Cadmium 7xl O-7 Non-detect to 3200xl O-7

1.1 X 10-3

Chromium 2xl 0-6 4600 to 6600x 1 0-6 NA

Lead 4xl O-6 2000 to 7600xl 0-6 1.5 (2)

Mercury 2xl 0-5 Non-detect to 70xl O-5 3.l x l O-1

Nickel 3xl 0-6 Non-detect to 2300xl 0-6 8xl0-3

(1) Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) are conservative, risk-based screening levels developed by U.S. EPA Region 9 (10/2002). The PRGs for ambient air are based on long-term residential exposure and consider both noncancer and cancer effects (if applicable).

(2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard

34 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

Figure 1. Montgomery County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility

35 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

Figure 2. Montgomery County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility - Receptor Locations

Key Receptor Locations

36 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

Figure 3. Air Media Sampling Locations

37

Air Sampling Locations and Modeled Air Concentrations

(microgram/cubic meter)

Copyright © 2004 by ASME

Figure 4. Non-Air Media Sampling Locations

Site Location o Sampled in 2001

Not Sampled 2001 USGS 1:111.0_ QUADRANGLE: frederick,. MIl

Fob,very 2002 Sc.te1:1 00,000

38

Montgomery County RRF

Locations Sampled

Proj-=t Number. MU ... 11

Copyright © 2004 by ASME

Fig

ure

5. P

CD

Ds/

PC

DF

s (T

EQ

s) f

or

Pr

e &

Po

st C

on

str

uct

ion

Air

Mo

nit

or

ing

Pr

og

ra

ms

W

\0

n

o

'0 �.

ag.

<Ol

IV

o

o

""'"

c:T

'< >

Ul �

0.1

0.0

9

0.0

8

0.0

7

0.0

6

TE

Q

(p

0

.05

g/

m

3

0.0

4

0.0

3

0.0

2

0.0

1 o

Mo

ntg

om

ery

Co

un

ty A

ir M

on

ito

rin

g P

rog

ram

PC

DD

s/P

CD

Fs

(T

EQ

s)

for

Pre

& P

os

t C

on

str

uc

tio

n P

rog

ram

s

__

__

·

_. _

__

•

• _

__

._H

_. _

_ .•••

H

.H .

•• H

••.• _

_ • _

__

•• _

__

_ • _

__

• ___

H.

�

.

__

_

.'

_'

_'

_

__

__

__ •

• ' • ._

•• N

.H

___

_ • _

__

__

_ •• _

_ .,. _

__

__

" __

•

_

__

�,,

� __

��

_ ••

___

_ ._

.... _

._

•••• _

••••

•••••

•••••••

••••• _

_ •• _

_ • _

__

_

•••

• ,

Pre

-Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Fe

b.

94

-Fe

b.

95

Bea

llsvi

lle ("

Impa

ct")

o L

ucke

tts ("

Bac

kgro

und"

)

Po

st-

Co

ns

ruc

tio

n

Fe

b.

96

-Au

g.

97

Po

st-

Co

ns

ruc

tio

n

Win

ter/

Sp

rin

g 2

00

2-2

00

3

�

0

(')

0

'0

�

ciQ' go

©

N

0

0

�

CT

'< >- [/)

3::

tT1 F

igu

re 6

. M

eta

ls R

esu

lts

for

Pre

& P

ost

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Air

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Pro

gra

ms

12

10

M

8

E

- C)

c

- c 0

6 ..

ca

... ...

c

Q)

CJ

C 0

0

4 2

0

Mo

ntg

om

ery

Co

un

ty A

ir M

on

ito

rin

g P

rog

ram

Su

mm

ary

of

Me

tals

Da

ta (

Pre

-op

era

tio

n,

19

96

-19

97

an

d 2

00

2-2

00

3)

-.-

--

-..

..

--

, ...

.. -

-.. -

-.-

..--

¥-

-.-

.--

--

-.

-..

-..... -

�.-

.-... -

.--

--

--

.--

.�,-

,,-

.-

-�

.--

-..

.

.-

--

.-

•.. "-....

..

..

...

-

.--

.•

. ---

.--.•..

---

---

-�

-

,�

,-1

111 H

g

As

- o B

ea

llsv

ille

"Im

pa

ct"

(P

re-o

p)

o B

urt

on

sv

ille

"B

ac

kg

rou

nd

" (P

re-o

p)

o B

ea

llsv

ille

"Im

pa

ct"

(96-

97)

o B

urt

on

sv

ille

"B

ac

kg

rou

nd

" (9

6-97

) o

Be

alls

vill

e "

Imp

ac

t" (

02

-03

)

13 L

uc

ke

tts

"B

ac

kg

rou

nd

" (0

2-0

3)

-,.-

,.-r-

"'""r-

r--

-f-

til

Be

C

d

Me

tal

Cr

-

� ,.-

--

C---Il

P

b

Ni