The hetght at wb.ich wind measurements are talcen must be input to the lSCST3 model, in order 

to detennine the wind speed and wind direction at the top of the stack. Given that the source for 

the meteorological data (St. Louis Larnben Tntemational Airport) is a National Weather Service 

measurement site, the wind data. is recorqed at • height of 6.096 meters (20 ft). This height was 

input to the JSCST3 ntodel as the anemometer height. ISCST3 then calculated the wind speed at 

the top of the stack, based on that measured at the 6.096 meter height. This calculation assumes 

that wind speed exponentiaUy increases as the height increases. The ISCST3 model also 

assumes that the wind direction at the stack height is the same as that measured at the 

anemometer height. 

3.4.1.2 Dry Bulb 1'emperature 

T he dry bulb temperature, also known as the ambient temperature, is used by the ISCST3 model 

in conjunction with the stack gas temperarure to detennine the buoyant plume rise from the 

stack. The HHRAP states that the buoyant plume rise is not largely affected by small variations 

in the ambient temperature. However, plume rise is largely affected by changes in the stack gas 

temperature. As tbe slack gas temperature increases, the buoyant plume rise will be greater. 

T his will result in low concenu·ations and depositions because tlte plume will travel further, and 

provide greater dilution of the constituents before they t·each the surface. All temperatures used 

in the ISCST3 model are input in degrees Kelvin, as recommended by HHRAP. 

3.4.1.3 0pdque Cloud Co""r and Cloud Ceiling Height 

The opaque cloud cover, a measure of the trao.~parency of the clouds, and the cloud ceiling 

height nrc used to determine atmospheric stability. The greater the stability of the atmosphere, 

. the less mixing of the air, and the less dilution of tho emitted constituents of potential concern 

(COPC). Atmospheric mixing is largely dependent on heat fluxes in the Earth.'s heat balance. 

Tbe height of the cloud cover and the opaqueness of the clouds affect the amount aod rate of heat 

penetration and escape to and from the tanh. Consequently, these parameters directly affect the 

amount of mixing that occurs in the atmosphere. The opaque cloud cover and cloud ceiling 

height measurements were used by the PCRAJ\4MET program to detenni.ne the stability category 

for input into the JSCST3 meteorological files. 

3.4.1.4 Surface PreJSUre 

The values of surface pressure reported. in the meteorological data sets arc llSed by the ISCST3 

model to determine the dry particle deposition. Surfoce pressure values were included as hourly 

millibar values in the JSCST3 input meteorological files. 

32 

VES 007800 
3. 4 I 5 Precipiurtkm Amount mrd Type 

Precipilation amount and l)'pe affect rbe amount of wet deposition lhat will occur at the 

assessment sire. Wei deposirion occurs rhJ·oug.b. a process called scavenging. Scavenging is 1be 

process by whicl! particles and vapor are captured by falling precipitation. The lSCST.l model 

uses values called scavenging coefficients to calcula1e lbe wet deposition of vapor and particles. 

These coefficients., which are discussed more in Section 3.6.2 of the Onyx Protocol, vary based 

on the type of precipitation (liquid or frozen). Therefore, both the observations of precipitation 

amount and 1ype are required to successfully deremtinc the we1 deposition tha1 occurs. These 

values, which are recorded one meter {3 fi) above l.he ground level, were input to the ISCST3 

model as hourly observations in inches. 

3.4.2 Upper Air Data 

Upper air, or mixing height, data for the risk assessment was obtained from the U.S. EPA 

Support Center for Regulatory Air Models (SCRAM) website. This web site provides surface 

data from 1984 lbrough 1991 for various airports and National Weather Service (NWS) stations 

throughout the United Stales. The data on the SCRAM website contains input parameters for the 

morning and afternoon (twice daily) mi<ing heights, which are then translaled into an hourly 

mixing height using meteorological preprocessors. 

The upper air data from tbe Monett, MO NWS station (003946), located al 36° 52.98' N 

Latitude, 93" 54.000' W Longitude, wero used for· lhis. risk assessment. Data from 1986 is 

unavailable for this weather station. Therefore, the 1985 and 1987 through 1990 upper air dala 

was used to coincide with the Lambert airport surface data. The NWS station (003946) is 

appt'Oximately 378 km (235 miles) from tho source. 

3.4.3 Froussing of Meteorological Data 

The Personal Computer Version of the Meteorological Preprocessor for the RAM Program 

(PCRAMMBn was used to create an ASCll meteorological file to use in ISCST3 to calculate air 

concentration and wet and dry deposition. Onyx used the "wet deposition" option in the 

PCRAMMET tnlnsformation so that all required parameters were available to ISCST3 for all 

modeling scenarios. In addition to the surface and upper air data discussed above, PCRAMMET 

incorporated other values, specified by the modeler, into the ASCD meteorological file. These 

parameters include: 

• Monin-Obukhov Length 

• Anemometer Height 

• Surface Roughness Height (al measumnent site) 

33 

VES 007801 
• Surface Roughness Height (at awlication site) 

• Noon· time Albedo 

• Bowen Ratio 

• Anthropogenic Heat Flux 

• Fraction of Net Radiation absorbed at the surfuce 

3.4.3.1 Monin-Obukhov Length 

The Monin-Obukhov Length is a measure of atmospheric stability used to calculate urban 

stabilicy p&lllmders. PCRAMMET requires OJl actual value (other than null) for this parameter 

even if the area bein.g modeled is rural. Since Onyx modeled the assessment area using both 

rural and urban setrin.gs, the default values for both rural and urban were used. When modeling 

using rural settings, the default value for the rural exposure setting was set to 2 meters, as 

recommended by the HHRAP guidance. When modeling using urban settings, the HHRAP 

guidance recommends that a value of 50 meters be used fot compact residential and industrial 

areas and a value of 100 meterS for com'mercial areas (19 to 40-story building$). Since the urban 

areas within 3 km of the faeility are a mixture of commereial, industrial, and compact housing, a 

va.lue of75 meters wns used when modeling "~th urban settings. 

3.4.3.2 At~emometu Height 

As discussed earlier in this section, the anemometer height is the height at which the wind speed 

and wind direction· measurements are made. For the NWS station located at St Louis Lambert 

IDtemational Airport, the "ind speed is measured at a height of 6.096 meters. This value was 

used for the anemometer height in the PCRAMMET program. 

3.4.3.3 Surface Rouglr11~JS Height 

Surface roughness height is a measure· of the height of obstacles to \\ind flow. The surf.tce 

roughness value determines how close " particle must be above the ground before it is 

"captu1ed" for deposition at the ground- 'The value of the surfuce roughness is cypically defined 

by individual elements on the landscape, snch as rrees and building$. 

Surface roughness for this risk assessment consists of two separate values: 1) surface roughness 

at the measurement site (St. Louis Lambert International Airport), and 2) surface roughness at 

the application site (Onyx). Because the souree of meteorological data is a Natio1111l Weather 

Service Station (Lambert, Station 13994), lhe measurement site surface roughness is defaulted to 

0.10 m, per liHRAP recommendntions. The surface roughness at the Onyx site was detcnnined 

to be 0.62 m (2.03 ft). This value corresponds to the height above the ground at the assessment 

sire, ai which a particle will be "captured" for deposition at the ground. 

34 

VES 007802 
Surface roughness at lhc application site was determined by assessing lh.e area withln a 3 Jon 

rodius of lhe source center. The assessment area was !hen classified according to tlie 

PCRAMMET categories in Table 3-5 using USGS I :250,000 NLCD maps. Once tlte 

PCRAMMET umd Use Classification Map, shown in Figure 3-6, was developed, the following 

additional steps were necessary, per the HHRAP guidance: 

I. A wind rose plot, shown in Figure 3-7, was prepared from meteorological data gathered 

at lhe St. Louis Lambert International Aiipon between 1985 and 1987 through 1990. The 

.EPA WRPLOT progrnm from the SCRAM bulletin board system was used 10 generate 

the wind rose. This program, recommended by the HHRAP, uses meteorological data to 

determine wind speed, 'frequency and direction for a given assessment site. 

2. The PCRAMMET Classification Map, Figure 3-6, was divided into 16 see«>rs, 

correspondh>g to lhe wind rose directions identified from the wind rose plot, which are 

spaced at 22.5 degree-int.en~als. This is shown ill figure 3-8. Each sector was saved as 

bitmap llllage filt. 

3. A program written in MathCAD was utilized to detennine the percentage of each 

PCRAMMET land ll~e type wi1hin each sector. A built-in function in the MathCAD 

software allows a bitmap file to be read as numerical data. Each pixel in a bitmap image 

is defined by three integers ranging from (0-255). These numbers spectfy the red (R), 

green (0), and blue (B) components of the pixel's color. MothCAD generates three 

matrixes of identical sire for the red, green, and blue data representing the bitmap image. 

The location of a pixel in the image corresponds with the address of its numerical data 

with.in these matrices. A program written in MolhCAD identifies each unique R, 0 , B 

nwnerical combination and counts the total number that each of lhese combinations occur 

within r:he file. Each unique R, 0, B numerical combination represents a color that can 

be matched with a NLCD ciassificatioo. Tho MathCAD program WliS utilized for each 

sector. This program is shown in Appendix C. 

4. A representative surface roughness height for each sector, presented in Table 3-6, was 

identified from the area-weighted average of the PCRAMMET land use within the sector. 

5. A site surface roughness height was then determined by averaging surface roughness 

height weighted with the frequency of wind direction. Tho results of thls calculation are 

shown in Table 3-7. 

The resultant weighted surface roughness height calculated for the Onyx site was 0.62 m (2.03 

£\). Tllis value corresponds to the height above the gi'Ound at the assessment site, at which a 

panicle will be "captured" for deposition at the ground. 

35 

VES 007803 
TAllLE3-S 

SEASONAL SURFACE ROUGEL'IESS HEIGHTS FOR PCRAM1>1ET 

l.ANJ) USE CLASSIFJCA TlONS 

PCRAMMET Lltnd Use Type Spring Summer Autumn Winter 

Water Surf~e 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 

Deciduous Forest 1.00 1.30 0.80 o.so 

Coniferous Forest 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 

Swamp 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.05 

Cultivated Land 0,03 0.20 0.05 O.QI 

Grassland 0.05 0.10 O.QJ 0.001 

Urban 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Dese" Shrubland 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.15 

36 

Average 

0 .0001 

0.90 

1.30 

0.16 

0.07 

0.04 

1.00 

0.26 

VES 007804 
~ 

"' ':-! 

~ :;; 1-

"' 

_, ;-,";, 

:•1 .;, to; u 

~ · "- ·-· 

·:· " -. " 1.:1 ~ =-~ .:. ·~ ;.: I !I " ; 

:;; 

.0 .... ;.1 ... ,:;, 

;:- 3 1!1 o. ,__, =· 

' I 

·. ,. - ""' . i .. 

~ 

•. 

"' ~- ::" I 

·=· < :... :1, ' -. .:::. .• -. ~~ '· c.. 

~ ~ ~ . :: ·r. :t :::: ., 

"' ' . ;:.-

I I 

I .. ,. 

Q: 

;;_ 

'I: J,,. 

.... 

.. .. ' . "' ,_ 

~ 

;: 

';J;, 

!:: 

·-.·, 

r:. 

€:! 

It) 

0 

Cl) 

1:; 

0 

II) 

~ 
FIGllllE 3-7 

WI ND 1\0SE FOH ~~$ A:"IJ l'>ll7- 19'>0 NWS 11 139 ~ METEOROLOGICAL 

Oi\TA 

: 

: • • r 

...... ~·· · .. ~· 

. .. 0! 

,., ... ~ 

·. 

·, 

..... .... 

... 

.. . 

........ ······ ... 

.... · ... ••;'ill ······ 

... • '" · J- ..,. 1-:-, ~.-:.c: .. =,.::,-::,.:- ----'~,"•"w"'":ll:::,.:- ----1 

• ~6 ""' • .co;~ 

,, 

' .... 

•· . 

: 

.• 

•.• _,_.,. ~ ..... =,.:c.c:,...-,.:----- ~.::-::,,.,,. .. "'•"'•·•~ .. = .. ::,--- -t.,.,..= .. :-::-, .. =.,:-:k::-•. - ------- - -1 Jl ow'f~ ,,., ryn 1 .. 1335 1!»0 

(bh)Y<'InQIO) J¥Ot · 0.C: I 1 <U t · llO 

IAcSr>ogtt • 'It I'M 

38 

VES 007806 
FICURE3-8 

PCRAMMET CLASSIFICATION MAP FOR 3 KM ASSESSMENT AREA DIVIDED INTO WI.NO RO~E SECTORS 

N 

NN NN 

WN 

w 

WS 

ssw SSE s 

39 

EN 

E 

ES 

I'CRAMMt:T LAND l:SE CLASSES 

LEGI!::-IIJ 

URBAN 

CULTIVA I ED I.AM> 

MIXED I'ORI"ST 

11\illil GRASSl./\ ND 

&ll!lfi DECIDUOUS FOREST 

- CONifEKOJ;S FORF.S I 

- WATER SURFACES 

SWt\ MI' 

UESERl SHKUEll.!\ND 

® POINT SOURCE 

VES 007807 
TADL'EJ-6 

AREA WEIGHTED SffitFACE ROUGHNESS HEIGHT FOR EAC H SECTOR 

Section (Correspondini to Wiod Rose Directio~ } I 

PCRAMMET Snfoce N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE s SSW sw WSW w WNW NW NNW I 

Land Use Roughness % of o/. of •,4 of % of o/. of % of "~• of % of %of % of % of % of % of % of •,4 of %of j Classitkation Height' Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Aren Area 1 

Urban I.OC 80.S 20.6 19.9 57.1 48.5 65.~ 46 ~ 43A 59.6 4 1.0 23. 7.9 48.4 78.5 79. 79.~ 

Cultivated 0.0, 0.( 0.1 2.8 1.4 28.3 3.8 12.2 18.1 5.3 7.8 15.4 8.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 O.ti 

.and 

Grassland 0.04 3.2 8.5 34.1 27.1 18.8 2H 36.5 32.7 25.0 39. 37.6 19.1. 3.7 8.6 10.6 10.0 

' Deciduous 0.~ 2.5 !OJ 39.4 13.9 3.4 5.1 5.0 

?ores! 

4.2 5.1 10. 19.2 32.1 4.5 o.s 1.3 1.~ 

Coniferous 

f'orest 

1.3 0. 1 OJ 1.2 o.c 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 o.c 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.c 0.1 0.~ 

Water Surfaces 0.0001 12.5 55.6 1.2 o..s 0.0 1.9 0.3 I. s.o 0.7 1.9 31.06 41.4 11.1 8.2 9.1j 

Swamp 0. 16 0.3 4.1 1.4 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.7 1.7 0.9 0.2 0.51 

Dcsen 0.26 0.( o.c 0.0 o.c 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shrubland o.c 0.0 O.C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ 

Weighted 0.44 0.38 I 

Surface 0.83 0.32 0.59 0.71 0.54 0.72 O.S3 0.5C 0.66 0.53 O.SJ 0.8C 0.81 0.81: 

toughness i 

I. Seasonal overage surfaGe rou&flness height for given land usc classification. 

40 

VES 007808 
TABL£3-7 

DETICRliUNATJON OF Sl1'E SURFACE ROUGHNESS HEIGHT 

USING WlND OCCURENCk:S FOR EACH SECTOR 

Normalized 

Sector Wind and 

!WeJgbted 

Frequency of 

Area Weighted Sector Wind 

Is ector 

Surface Occurrences' Surface Roughness 

iRou"bn""'S Heil!bt 

N 0.83 10.01% 0.084 

NNE 0.32 5.22% 0.017 

NE 0.59 5.71% 0.034 

ENE 0.71 7.42% 0.053 

E 0.54 6.81% 0.037 

ESE 0.72 9.21% 0.066 

SE 0.53 7.22% 0.038 

SSE 0.50 4.36% 0.022 

s 0.66 4.01% 0.026 

ssw 0.53 3.690/o 0.019 

sw 0.44 3.S9o/o 0.016 

WSW 0.38 3.04% 0.012 

w 0.53 3.95% 0.021 

WNW 0.80 6.19% 0.049 

NW 0.81 6.95% 0.056 

NNW 0.81 8.22% 0.066 

lsite Surface Roughness Height 0.62 

I. Tbe sulllllled frequency of occurrence for aU sectots is 95.6%. The additional 4.4% of 

winds are calm wind&, not oriented with a particular sector. 

41 

VES 007809 
3.4.3.4 Nooll·Time Albedo 

The noon-time albedo (NT A) reflects lbe portion of incoming solar radiation that is reflected 

hack to the atmosphere at the time of day (noon) wben the sun is directly overhead. This value is 

used by ISCST3 in delennining the hourly net heal balance at the Earth's swface. The HHRAP 

states that it is desirable to spectfy a single value for noon-t1me albedo instead of specifying 

several values that vary by seasons. Given that the ISCST3 modeling results bave not shown to 

be sensitive to changes in the NT A value, specifying a single value should not largely skew the 

results of the model. 

1be NT A for the assessment site was detennined from the percentage of total area occupied by 

Cllcb PCRAMMET land use type on the PCRAMMET land use classification map and from the 

seasonal average NT A values for each land use type. The following procedure was used: 

• The percentage of total area occupied by each PCRAMMET land usc type on the 

PCRAMMET land . use classifi.cation was determined during the surface 

roughness determination. Tbese values were tabulated in Table 3-8. 

• A seasonal average NTA for each PCRA.MMET land use type was determined 

from the seasonal NT A values presented in the HHRAP. These values, both 

seasonal and average NT As, are presented in Table 3·9 for each PCRAMMET 

land use type. 

Area weighted NT A values were determined for each PCRAMMET land use type. Area 

weighted values for each la.od use type were summed to determine a single NT A value for the 

IISsessmeot site. Table 3· 1 0 presmts the results of these calculations. 

The noon-time albedo for the assessment site was determined to be 0.22. This value indicates 

that approximately 22% of the incoming solar radiation at the assessment site is reflected back to 

the atmosphere. The NTA value of 0.22 was used as the 1\'TA input for the PCRAMMET 

program. 

3.4.3.5 Bo>W!II Rati<J 

1be daytime Bowen ratio for. a given site, a reflection of the amount of moisture at the surface, 

affects the amount of evaporative cooling that occurs, and consequently, impacts the heat 

balance. This value varies on a seasonal basis, by land use type, and by precipitation trends. For 

example, an area classified as cultivated land can experience daytime Bowen ratios rangjng from . 

0.2 to 2.0 depending on the season and precipitation conditions (i.e. dry, average or wet) 

42 

VES 007810 
TABLE 3-8 

FRACTIOl'\ OF PCRAMMET ASSESSMENT AREA OCCUPIED BY EACH 

PCRAMMEf LAND USE CLASSlFlCA TION TYPE 

PCRAMMET Land Use Classifkation %of Total Asseument·Area (3 km r adius) 

Urban 49.9 

Cultivated Land 6.6 

Grassland 21.1 

Deciduous Forest 10.0 

' 

Coniferous Forest 0.2 

Water Surface 11.3 

Swamp 0.9 

Desert Sluubland 0.0 

43 

VES 007811 
TABLE 3-9 

SEASONAL NOON TIME ALBEDOS FOR PCRAMMET LAND USE 

CLASSIFICA TlONS 

PCRAMMET Land Spring Summer Autumn Winter A'·erage 

Use Type 

Urban 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.35 0.21 

Cultivated Land 0.14 0.20 0.18 0.60 0.28 

Grassland 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.60 0.29 

Deciduous Forest 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.50 0.22 

Coniferous Forest 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.1 8 

Water Surfaces 0.12 0.10 0.14 0.20 0.14 

Swamp 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.30 0.18 

Desert Shrubland 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.45 0.33 

44 

VES 007812 
TABLE3-IO 

DETERMINATION O.F SITE NOON TIME ALBEDO 

Seasonal Frnctlou of Weighl ed 

PCRAMMET A veragc 'oon PCRAl\fMET NoonTime 

aud UseTvoe Time Albedo Area Albedo 

Urnan 0.2 1 49.96 0.105 

Cultivated Land 0.28 6.55 O.QI8 

Grassland 0.29 2 1.13 0.061 

Deciduous Fm"eSt 0.22 9.95 0.022 

Coniferous Fores 0.18 0.1 7 0.000 

Vater Surfaces 0.14 11.34 0.016 

Swamo 0.18 0.90 0.002 

besert Shrobland 0.33 0'.00 0.000 

Noon Time Albedo 0.224 

45 

VES 007813 
According to the HHRAP, for areas where annual rainfall is greate1· than 20 inches; U.S. EPA 

OSW recommends a single Bowen ratio value of 2.0 for wban areas and 0. 7 for rural foresiS, 

grasslands, and cultivated land. -The average annual rainfall for this urban assessment area 

during 1985 and 1987-1 990 WllS 99.94 em (39.35 inches). When performmg air modeling for 

urban se.ttings, the Bowen ratio used as the input for the PCRAMMET program was 2.0. When 

performing air modeling for rural settings, lhc Bowen ratio used as the input for the 

PCRAMMET program was 0.7. 

3.4.3.6 A11thropogenic Heat Flux 

The anthropogenic beat Oux is d1e heat exchange caused by llurnan actiVllles, such as 

amomobilcs and energy production. This value is assumed to be 0.0 Wans/ol for rural areas and 

quite larger (-20 Wattslm2

) for urban areas. When modeling using urban settings, the HHRAP 

recommended value of 20.0 Wnttslm2 was used as the input for the PCRAMMET prognlm. 

When modeling usiog rural settiogs, the HHRAP recommended value of 0.0 Wattslm2 was used 

as !he input for the PCRAMMET program 

3.4.3. 7 Fraction of Net Radi.atlot~ Absorbed at tl1e Surface 

Yet another component of !he beat balance equation, !he fraction of net radiation absorbed at the 

surfucc is dependent on the land use characteristics of the assessed area. This value represeots 

the amouot of the solar radiation that is absorbed by the ground. The HHRAP_recommends that 

the modeler use a value of 0.1 S for rural arellS, and 0.27 for urban areas. When modeling using 

urban sertinll!l. it was assumed that 27% of the net radiation is absoroed by the ground. The 

haetion of oct radiation input to the PCRAMMET program was 0.27. When modeliog usins 

rural settings, it was assumed that IS% of the oet radiation is absoroed by the ground. The 

fraction of net radiation input to the PCRAMMET prognun was 0. IS. 

3.5 Slte-SpeciRc Modeling Results 

Each air modeling run was conducted lor one phase (vapor, particle, or particle-bound) usiog one 

year of meteorological data. With 3 phases and S years of meteorological data, IS air modeling 

runs were required. To facilitate the end use of site-spocific air modeling results, four 

classifications of receptor grid node locations were identified. These classifications are lake, 

Jake watenhed, rivec, and IB.ncl All a.ir modeling runs were performed on these groups 

sepruately, which generated 60 air modeling output files. All air modeling runs were conducted 

for two land usc scenarios, urban .and ruraL The .resulting 120 air modeling output files are 

provided in Appendix U. For each receptor grid node location, results corresponding with the 

five years and two land use scenarios were averaged. These values are referred to as composite 

air modeling results. This section contains a discussion of the results predicted by the ISCST3 

model. 

46 

VES 007814 
3.5./ Air Moddl11g Resultsjor Land Receptors 

"l'rom the composite results, the OUlJ<imum value of each annual avernge air modelmg p:trnmeter 

was selected for use in the risk model. The locations of these maximum values were not 

evaluated to confirm that they coincide with potential residential laJld use. The maximum values 

selected do not coUtctively correspond with a single n:Geptor. Thcref01e., exposure scenario 

locations for potcmially maximum exposed residents were not identified. Maximum values, 

although exlrelllcly over~nscrvative, were used to expedite risk modeliog. Since this basis did 

not cause risk and hazard estimates to exceed their respective benchmarks, there was no need to 

refine this overly conservative basis. 

Similarly, exposure scenario locations were oot identified for the acute exposure scenario. Tite 

bigbest hourly average air concentrations were not averaged prior to selecting a maximum value. 

"Titerefore, each air modeling value used in tbe acute risk scenario corresponds wtth the worstcase year and land use scenario. Table 3-11 presents the maximum land based air modeling 

output values from the vapor phase, particle phase, aod particle-bound phase runs of!SCST3. 

3.5.2 Air Modeling Results for ,\{/ssissippi River and Water.• /ted Receptors 

Risk to all inhabitants from drinking water consumption was assessed using composite air 

modeling results avemgcd over all river recepton. Table 3·12 presents the Mississippi River air 

modeling results from the vapor phase, particle phase, and panicle-bound pbase ISCST3 runs. 

In lieu of averaging air modeling results for the river watershed receptors, the maximum land 

besed values presented in Table 3-11 \Verc used. Maximwn values, abbougb extremely overcanservative, were used to expedite risk modeling. Since this basis did not cause risk and hazard 

estimates to exceed their respective benchmarks, there was no need to refine this overly 

canservative basis. 

3.5._] Air Modeung Rwdts for tile Frank Bolten Lakes and Wat .~hed 

Risk to recreational fishers due to the ingestion of fish caught from the Frank Holten Lakes wen:: 

assessed using composite air modeling results averaged over all lake receptol"S and composite air 

modeling results average over all the lake watershed receptors. Table 3-I 3 presents the !alee and 

lake watenbed air modeling results from the vapor pbase., particle phase, and particle-hound 

phase JSCfC3 runs. 

47 

VES 007815 
TABLE 3-11 

AIR MODELING RfSULTS FOR MAXIMUM EXPOSED RESIDENT 

Air Model 

Output Description Value 

Variable 

Vopor Phase Air Modeling Output 

Cbv Unitized Hourly Average Air Concentration 61.1 

Cyv Unitized Yearly Average AM Concentration 0.997 

Dywv Unitized Yearly Avemge Wet Deposition 0.604 

Particle Phase Air Modeling Output 

Cbp Unitized Hourly Average Air Concentration 61.0 

Cyp Unili~ed Yearly Average Air Concentration 0.903 

Dydp Unitized Yearly Average Dry DepoSitiOn 1.57 

Dywp Uniti1MI Yearly Avernge Wet Deposition 0.685 

Panidt Bound Air Modeling Output 

Chpb Unitized Hourly Avernge Air Concentration 60.9 

Cypb Unitized Yearly Avenge Air Concentration 0.957 

Dydpb ·Unitized Yearly Avemge Dry Deposition 0.749 

Dywpb Unitized Yearly Avemge Wet Deposition 0.470 

48 

VES 007816 
TABL£3-12 

AIR MODELING RESULTS FOR i\fiSSISSIPPl RIVER 

Air Model Description Value OUIPUI Variablt 

Vapor Phase Modeling Output 

Cywv Unitized Yearly Average Air Concenlnltion 

0. 108 

Dywv Unitized Yearly Avornge Wet Deposition 0.0105 

Particle Phase Modeling Output 

D)1p Unitized Yearly Average Total (Wei and Dry) Deposition 0.0669 

Pa.rtide-Bouod Phase Modeling Output 

Dytpb Unitized Yearly Average Total (Wet and Dry) Deposition 

0.0338 

49 

VES 007817 
TABLE 3-13 

AlR MODELING RESULTS FOR FRANK HOLT£N LAKE ANO WA TERSliED 

Air Model Oestriprion Lake l-ake 

Ou tput Variable Watershed 

Vapor Phase Modeling O utput 

Cywv Unitized yearly average air concentration 5.64E-04 NA 

Dytv Unitized Yearly Average Total Deposition 0.0493 0.0427 

Particle Pbase ModeliJJg Output 

Dytwp Unitized Yearly Average Total Deposition 0.0152 0.0149 

Particle-Bound Pbase Modeling Output 

Dytwpb Unitized Yearly Average Total Deposition 0.00940 0.00798 

so 

VES 007818 
4.0 EXPOSURE SCENARIO ID.EI\'TfFICATION 

Exposure to the incinerator emissions was evaluated for direct inhalation and indirect intnke, 

through ingestion of water, sod, vcgcrotion, and animals that are ccntannnared by the polluumt(s) 

through the food chain. This risk assessment evaluated bnth types of exposure by examining a 

combination of e<posure pathways. 

4 .1 Exposure Setting Characterization 

To characterize the exposure setting, both non-wort<er related bw:nan activities and receptors in 

the assessment area tbat bad potential impact from the sources' emissions were considet·ed. 

Identifying these activities and receptors began with an C\•alwnion of the current and reasonable 

potential human activities Md land uses within the assessment area. For the purpose of the 

asseS$111enl, this evaluation was broken down into the follo\ving areas: 

• General land usc and human activity assessment within a 10 km area of the 

facility. 

• Site verification of specific land uses and human activities within a 3 km area of 

the facility. 

• Wattr body and watershed identification within a 10 km area of the facility. 

All specified dislanccs originate from the souroe center and include both facility and non-facility 

property. Since a general evaluation within a 10 km area of the facility indicated highest effects 

closest to the source, a more spoeific cvalu.1tion was not necessruy to further quantify the risk. 

For water bodies, the submitted protocol SIJ!ted tbat receptors would be placed on lh.e Mississippi 

River ro evaluate risk frotn consumption of driuking water and on the lakes at Frank Holten State 

Park to evaluate risk from consumption of fish. 

Tite following discussion provides information on me assessment conducted for current and 

reasonable potential future land use, water bodies and the associated watershed, and special 

subpopulations. 

4.L.J Cu"enJ and Reasonable Potential Future Land Use 

Current and reasonable potential future IMd use were evaluated to select the appropriate_ 

exposure scenarios which should be evaluated, and to pinpoint the location of each exposure 

sceoario. 1l1ose exposure scenarios are presented in Table 4- 1. For cutre11t and reasonable 

potential future land use, a survey of USGS 7.5 minute maps Md land use/land cover maps was 

conducted for M area extending out ro I 0 km from the source center. 

51 

VES 007819 
TABLE 4-1 

SELECTED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AND EXPOSURE SCENARIOS 

... 

] 

{,) 

.. .. tl ... £ ~ 

~ ~ ii: 5 !l " .., Oi :;;! • ;; = .. "' '" !! 0 0 

~ ~ :;: :;: ~ ~ .., ; !! .. = :a .. .. ... Ex o~ure Patltways < u 0: ~ < " 

Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates X X X X X 

Incidental Ingestion of Soil X X X X 

Ingestion of Drinking Water from Surface Water Sources X X X X 

Ingestion of Homegrown Produce X X X X 

IJlgestion ofFish X X 

52 

VES 007820 
Using the sources referenced above, an exposure scenario map was created. This map identified 

areas most mdicanve of a particular exposure. scenario. For exomple, the map identifies areas in 

which an adult resident and child resident would most likely Jive. In this Analysis, the land use 

was evalUAted to determine if it was i11dicative of a specific exposure scenario. The followmg 

steps were taken to create the exposure setting map: 

I. A 20 km x 20 lun square, centered about the source center was created from the National 

Land Cover Oiltaset (NLCD) from the USGS for Missouri and !Uinois (Figure 4-1). 

2. Land use/land cover (LU/LC) classes used in the NLCD map were combi11ed into 

exposure sccnruios (Figure 4-2). Table 4-2 shows which LU/LC cla:<Ses were combined 

into which exposure scenarios. (Note: Not all LUILC classes were representative of a 

)ianicular exposure scenario). 

3 . . The receptor grid array generated previously was overlaid over this exposure map. The 

receptors are spaced at intervals of 100 tn. The exposure map wilh a grid overlay is 

shOwn in Figure 4-3. 

The resulting exposure map was examined in relation to pollutant air concentrations and 

depositions on the JSCST3 model. Only areas outside of the plant boundary, which are shown 

on the exposure maps in Figures 4-2 and 4-3, were considered. 

4.1.2 Idemijicati()n of Water Bodies 

Water bodies within the assessment area could indicate the potential for COPC exposures from 

the ingestion of fish and from drinking water from those water bodies lhat are used for a drinking 

water so\lrce. A more detailed djscussion on the selection of exposure scenario locations 

associated with these water bodies, and tbe methods for evaluation of air paramete.r 

conccnt:nltious at receptors within the water bodies is provided in Sectiob 4.2. 

The use, area, and location of wnter bodies within the watershed wet·c identified using vatious 

resources. The location and area of the targeted water bodies were identified using 3-0 

TopoQuads. 3-D TopoQuads provides adequate detail for evaluating major and minor warer 

bodies within lhe assessment area. 

Because the possibility of recreational fishers on the lakes at Ftsnk Holten State Park hns been 

discussed with U.S. EPA Region 5, the recq>tors located at Frank Holten State Park were used to 

determine risk to lhe recreational fisher. Risk to all inhabitants from drinking water consumption 

was asse$Scd using .the highest modeled parameters from the Mississippi Rivez. 

53 

VES 007821 
f'IGURE 4-1 

LAND USE/LAND COVER MA.P CROPPED TO 20 KM X 20 1<.\f ASSESSMENT AR£). 

f . •,' ;'l-- ~ .. ~ _. · _ -~ ·' • l '• • ~ .. :··:: 

;--!-~-',;;:.4 )C.> 

• __:;;,'*" ' ;,· j, 

... Jf~ --

' - ' t: ~~; ·.~~j~::~·~ :· ::· t~·: 

.- .. : ·· . .-:.::.-,.. "' .. - ··· ::"!~:~ , .. ~_!,\\;! ¥ . 

1' :1"•\-.- ·'S:.,, -~-'., "" 

; ...... ' '.~; lt" ·;;.:;. . --~'. 4. · ... ! ,.\.• ,-• -;;:, - • , ~; . 

54 

LF.GI<;NI.l 

National Land Cover Oatnset Classification 

Svstem Legend 

Colen Key Class Name 

;ti'i!i Open Water 

c::J Perennial lc: eJSnow 

Low 1ntonsilv Rcs•rlrmtial 

f.\i9h lntcnsrt'y Residential 

~ Comme,icaVImhtstl~tllfT•a s,>o~t~ttDI\ 

Bare Rock/San~ /CI•y 

QuarrieS/Strip Mine~. Gravel Pi1s 

- Transb>nal 

&:;;;;;i 

G!! 

09ciduous Fores1 

Everqreen Forest 

MiJCed Forest 

Shrubland 

Orc~~rds/Vtneya ds 

Gras:sl.andsJHerbatoous 

Pasture!Ha¥ 

Row C.rop.s 

Smail Grams 

Fallow 

UrbaotRecreational Grasse::. 

Woody w~n•ods 

Emetgent Herbacf.ous Wcllltnds 

VES 007822 
.., 

N 

co 

,._ 

0 

0 

1/) 

~ 

v ~ 

~ ·~ 

" t &--

r. ;;:; ~ 

·

" ;;; ~ 

-

.~ c '> f ~ ·;::: c 00: ... ~ 

z. 

w :E t " .~ ~ 

;:; ~ a e 1:! "' ~ ;;; ...J -- v a ::0 " ::: &. "' <"' " "" z .. 

tl.) 

'~ 

·~ r 

::.. 

< 

~ 

0 

N 2 0 

-T < z ~ l<l 

•' 

{) ;:) "' () l<l -

1:. :::: 

;:) 

"' 0 

0.. 

X 

l<l 
TABLE 2 

L \ '\0 l1SE I I...\ NO CO\"I::R CUSSES ASSIGNI':l> TO I::X I'OSUIU' CI NA IOS 

56 

VES 007824 
FIG RI~ 4-3 

EXPOSURE SCENARIO MAP WITH RECEPTOR GRID LA Y 

~J 

1m 

57 

LEGEND 

/\dull / Child Rcsiclonl 

Recrent10CH'I Fishi!r ! Fisher Child 

Not characl¢rislic of J spccHic 

exposure scenario 

VES 007825 
4.2 Seleded Exposure Scenarios 

The following exposure seenarios were considered in the human health risk assessment: 

• Adult Resident 

• Child Resident 

• Recreational Fisher 

• Recreational Fisher Child 

• Acute Risk 

For each exposure scenario identified and. shown in Table 4-1, various OJ<posure pathways were 

evaluated to detennine the risk associated with the exposure scenario for each COPC. Both 

indirect risks and direct int-.ahnion risks were evaluated at all receptors. 

4.21 Adult and Child Rtsid~nt 

The adult and child resident scenarios are designed to evaluate the risks to an individual (adult or 

child) living in an urban or rural (non-farm) exposure setting. The evaluation of exposure 

through the following pathways will detennine the extent of exposure from bioaccumulation of 

polhlt30ts in homegrown food: 

• Diroct inhalation of vapors and particles 

• Incidental ingestion of soil 

• Ingestion of homegrown produce 

• Ingestion of drinking water 

Twenty-five perecnt of the produce consumed by the adult and child residents is asswned to be 

grown by tl1e adult resident The ingestion of fish exposure pathway was not included as part 'of 

the adult and child resJdent scenarios. 

4.2.2 RecreatiotiiJI Fisher and RecreaJionnl Fl.•her Child 

The recreational fisher and recreational fisher child scenarios are designed 10 evaluate the risks to 

an individuuJ (adult or child) living· in an w·ban or rural exposure setting where fish is a 

component of the receptor diet. The potential for bioaocurnulation of pollutants in the food chain 

for recreational fishers and fisher children are primarily through the fish ingestion pathway. The 

evaluation of exposure through the following pathways will determine the extent of exposure: 

• Direct inhalation of vapors and particles 

• Incidental ingestion of soil 

58 

VES 007826 
• Ingestion of homegrown produce 

• Ingestion of drinkmg water 

• lngoslioo of fish 

1\venty-fivc percent of the produce consumed by the recreational fisher and recreational fi·sher 

child is assumed to be grown by r.he recreational fisher. 

4.1.3 Acute Risk Scenario 

The acute risk scenario is designed to evaluate the short-term risks associated witb maximwn Ihour concentrations of COPC emissions through the dtrect inhalation of vapon and particles. 

The maximum !-hour coneeruration from the entire assessment area was used io this evaluation. 

Considel.1ltion of the entire assessment area differs from the other scettarios. In an ~te setting, 

a reeeptor may be in an urban or rural setting where human activity or land use supports any of 

the other scenarios. The only area that was excluded from this evaluation i.• that area located 

within plant boundaries. Workers within the facility are protected uuder other guidance and 

regulations for occupational exposure to baurdous waste lll1d hazardous waste combustion 

emissions. 

4.3 fdenlification of Land·BIISed Receptors 

11te identification of receptors within each area was determined by those receptors that have the 

highest yearly average concentration for each ISCST3 modeled air parameter identified below: 

• Highest modeled unitiz;ed vapor phase air concentration 

• Highest modeled unitized vapor phase wet deposition rate 

• Highest modeled unitized particle phase air concentration 

• Highest modeled unitized particle phase wet deposition rate 

• Highest modeled unitized particle phase dry deposition rote 

For each exposure scenario, the highest modeled unitized vapor phase and particle phase air 

conc:eottations were used in the risk assessment for each e>q>osure scenario. 

4.4 Jdentifkatloo of ~eptors for Water Bodies 

Because the possibility of recreat.ional fishers on the lakes at Frank Holten State Park was 

discussed with US EPA ReQion 5, the receptors located at Frank Holten State Park wore used to 

determine risk to the recreational fisher. Risk to all inhabitants from drinking water consumption 

was assessed using the air modeling results for tbo Mississippi River and its watershed. Risk to 

59 

VES 007827 
uU inhabitnnts from fish consumption was assessed using the air modeling results for the Frank 

Holten Lakes and its watershed. 

Ftgure 4.-4 shows the results of lhe watershed delineation using water body .and elevation d.ata. 

'Three sub-areas were delineated and sununed that contribute to the lake watet·sbed area: Main 

Lake 325 km2

, Lake No.3 1.95 krn2, and the feeder stream to Lake No.3 3.07 km'. Subtracting 

the acrual lake areas from this total yields the overaU lake waten;bed m~ of7.55 lan2

• 

60 

VES 007828 
FIGU!l E -1--1 

FllANK UOLTEN STA'I'F. PAll I< LAJ.:E ANO LAI<E WATERSHED AHL\ 

~·# -'" \ 

' 

-.. -...... -........ . .-

61 

VES 007829 
5.0 CHARACfERJZA TlON OF RISK AND l:IAZARD 

This section of the Onyx risk assessment report discusses and describes the infom1atioo and 

methods that were utilized to quantify the exposure receivtd under eaoh of the rttommended 

exposure scenarios previously described Tite calculallon of Compound of Potential Concern 

(COPq specific e~po urc rates for each exposure pathway involved: 

(I) estilllnted cor e media concentr.nions, 

(2) consumption rate, 

(3) receptor body weight, and 

( 4) frequency and duration of exposure. 

This calculation was repeated for each of the COPes and for each exposure pathway included in 

an exposure scenario. The exposure pathway-specific equations presented in Appendix C, Risk 

Characteri2ation E<Juations of the HHRAP were used to quantify risk. These equations were 

provided in the risk assessment protocol and are not duplicated in this report The following 

sections dC$cn1>e exposure rate calculations and tl1e exposure patbway-speciflc variables, which 

affect these calculations. Acute exposure resulting from direct inhalation was evaluated 

independently and tbe results are also presented in Ibis section. 

5.1 Gtnerlc E¥posure Rate Equation 

To calculate an avecage e~posure per unit of time, tbc total exposUre was divided by the time 

period. Average exposure is also expressed in terms of body weight. All CKposures quantified in 

tile risk assessment were: 

(I) unitized for time nod body weight, 

(2) presented in units of millignun.s per kilogram of body weight per day, and 

(3) tenned "intakes." 

The following equation is the generic equation used to calculate chemical intake. 

Where: 

I = C"'. ·CR · EF ·ED ·-""'-B-W_·_A_T _ _ 

I • Intake is the amount of COre at the exchange boundary (mg/kg!day); for 

evaluating exposure to noncarcinogenic COPCs, the intake is referred to as 

average daily dose (ADD); for evaluating exposure to carcinogenic compounds, 

lbe intake is refen·ed to as lifetime ayernge daily dose (l..ADD) 

62 

VES 007830 
C... = Generic COPC concentration in media of concern (e.g., mg/kg for soil or mg!L 

for surface water); 

CR = Consumption rate 1S the amount of contnminated medium consumed per unit of 

ttme or event (e.g., kg/day for soil and U day for water) 

EF Exposure frequency (days/year) 

EO = Exposure dWlltion (years) 

BW Average body weight of tho receptor over t11e cJ<posure period (kg) 

AT = Averaging time- the period over which exposure is averaged (days}; for 

carcinogens, the averaging time is 25,550 days, based on a lifetime exposure of 

70 years, for noncarcinogens, averaging time equals ED (years) multiplied by 

365 days per year. 

5.2 Consumption Rate 

Consumption .rate is recognized as the amount of contaminated media constuned per unit of time 

or event. Consumption rates are assumed to be the HHRAP recomm~ed fraction of the total 

dietaty intake for this food type, wi(b the exceptions noted in the following paragraphs. 

This risk assessment was ptrformed using many recommended default parameter values. Any 

modifications in default values not proposed in the approved risk assessment protocol are 

discussed in Ibis repon. The following subsections describe exposure palbway-specific 

considerations regarding coDSllmption rate. 

5.2.1 Air Exposure Pallrways 

Direct inhalation of v&pors and particulate emissions from combustion sources is a potential 

pathway of exposure. Section 2 of this repon discussed variables and conditions that can affect 

the rate, type, ODd quantity of combustion emissions. Section 3, Air Dispersion and Deposition 

Modeling, presented the dispersion and deposition modeling techniques used to estimate airborne 

concentrations of vapors and particulates. 

The factors that affect exposure from vapor and paniculate inhalation as a result of normal 

respiration, include vapor and particulate COPC concentrations, respiration rates during the 

period of exposure, and lengths of exposure. 

As noted in the HHRAP, a single default inhalation rate is provided for use across all adult 

receptor scenarios. As previously noted, intake related 10 direct inhalation of vapors and 

particulates are calculated based on variations of the generic equation presented.· 

Noncarcinogenic hazards aod carcinogenic risks associated with direct inhalation Cl<posures were 

preferentially characterized using toxicity filctors (inhalation unit risk factors [URF)) and 

63 

VES 007831 
reference concentranons { Rtt:] based on data collected under, or nonnalized to, a partJcular set 

of respiratory and body wei,gbt parameters (e.g,, 20 cubic meters per day [m3/day) ond 70 kg). 

lllhalation of vapors and pa•ticulates a1·e influenced by tlte relative amount of time that a receptor 

speod,s indoors. Although vapors entering buildings and residences as a result of air CJ(cbange 

are likely to remain airborne and, therefore, may be inhaled, paniculates entering these same 

buildings are more likely to settle out nod not be inhaled. For rhe purpose of the risk assessment, 

it was assumed that vapor and particulates may be inhaled throughout the day, both mdoors and 

outdoors. 

5.2.2 Food Exposure PatllwaJI$ 

Plants and animals impacted by emission sources may take up emitted COPCs in the air or 

deposited COPCs in soil. Humans aro exposed to COPCs via the food chain when they consume 

these plants and '!Jlimals as a food source. Human intake of COPCs is determined on the basis 

of: 

I) the types of foods consumed, 

2) the amou.nt of food consumed per day, 

3) the concentration of COPCs in the food, and 

4) the percentage of the diet contaminated by COPCs. 

Equations provided in the risk assessment protocol bave previously described procedures for the 

dclenn.ination of the concentration of COPCs in food, as well as and concentration of variations 

in exposure resulting from food preparation methods and type of food item (e.g., protected 

versus unprotected produce). Other variables, which may also affect the estimation of exposure, 

are described below. 

5.2.2.1 Types of FoO<Is Consumed 

The typeS of foods consumed affect exposure because different plant and arumnl tissues take up 

COPCs at different rates. COPC concentrations in food are determined, in part, by the type of 

food, as well as by the types of food in the diet. 

5.2.2.2 Food Consumplio11 Ra1e 

The amount of daily food consumption varies with age, sex, body weigh~ and geographic region, 

and it also varies within these categories. Consumption f!~te infonnation presented in Appendix 

C of the HHRAP were used for the assessment evaluation as follows: Appendix C, Table C-1-2 

(produce); and Appendix C, Table C-1-4 (fish), with the exception of the modification to 

recreational fisher i.ntake as descn'bed below. 

VES 007832 
The consumption rate specified for fishers in the HHRAP was based on data presented in Table 

13-23 of the Exposure Factors Handbook, Consumer Only Intake of Home Cnught fish. This 

· consumption rate is based on the mean amount consumed among people ingesting fish during n 

short-term period. This fails to address the frequency at whtch fish is consumed. As stated in 

the Exposure Factors Handbook, "[lhe wnsumption rates) are based on short-term dietary recall 

and tlte intake distributions generated from them may not accurately reflect long-term intake 

panems.'' The fishing reports for Frank Holten lake indicate there are periods during which 

fishing activities are extremely slow and lll8t incidence of fish caught are slow, spotty, or 

sporadic. further, there are periods when fishing is restricted in the spring and fall. Therefore, 

using the default consumption mte greatly ove!1:$1imates the avenge daily consumption rote 

likely to be sustained for the 30 year exposure duration. 

Twenty-five glday is the 95th percentile consumption rdte for recreational freshwater anglers, as 

given in section I 0.1 0.3 of the Eltposure Factors Handbook. This value does not exclude the 

consumption of non-locally caught fish and therefore IS conservative. Consistent with the 

HHRAJ> methodology, the 2.5 glday consumption rate was adjusted for forty-one percent cooking 

and preparation losses. Because the 95th percentile number applies to all anglers, it was 

necessary to extrapolate the consumption rate for children. The ratio of adult cooswnption rate 

to child conswnptioo rate for recreational fishers is assumed to be the same as for subsistence 

fishers, as presented in the HHR.AP. The calculations below show the convenioos performed to 

determine the adult recreational fisher consumption rote of 2.11 E-04 kg/kg-day FW and the 

child recreational fisher consumption rote of 1.48E-04 kgllcg-day FW. 

First, the Exposure Facton Handbook eoosumptiou rate was divided by the HHRAI' 

recommended adult body weight, to determine the consumption rate in g/kg-day: 

25- 8--- 1- : 3.57 t:~l-:--"-g-:-- day ?Okg kg -day 

This consumption rate was lheu converted to kg/kg-day: 

3.57£~1 g --~- =3.578-{)4 kg kg - day lOOOg kg - tlay 

As specified io the HHRAP, the consumption rate was adjusted for a cooking and preparation 

loss of 41 percent: 

65 

VES 007833 
3.57E-IJ4 kg (1 -0.41)~ 2.JJE-M kg kg- day kg - dayFW 

As stated above., the ratio between the subsistence fisher consumption rates from the HHRAP 

was utilized to calculate the chi!<! consumption rate based on the 95th percentile consulllj)tion 

rate (CR in equations below): 

Child CR from HllRAP 

Aduh CR from HHRA.P 

A.dult Calculated CR = Child Calculated CR 

O.BBE . OJ. 2.106E-{)4 kg i.48E-{)4 kg 

1.15E-03 kg - dayFW kg- day'FW 

5.2.2.3 Percentage of Contaminated Food 

The percentage of homegrown food consumed by the individual also affects exposure, because 

not all of an imlividual's dietDry intake is contaminated. The following assumptions are made in 

developmem of the risk assessment regarding the percentage of contaminated food: 

• With regard to aboveground and belowground produce, it is assumed that 25 percent of 

the produce consumed by receptors for the following exposure scenarios (adult resident, 

child resident, and recreational fisher, and recreational fisher child) is contaminated 

(HHRAP Appendix C, Table C..!-2, COPC Intake from produce). 

• With regard to fish, it is assumed that I 00 percent of tbe fish consumed by the 

recm~rional fisber and rec.n:ational fisher child are contaminated (HHRAP Appendix C,. 

Table C-1-4, COPC Intake f:rom fish). This assertion overestimates the quantity of 

potentially contaminated fish consumed, due to the regular stocking of farm-raised ftsh 

into these lakes. Typically, the lakes are stocked twice yearly with thousands of powtds 

of trout and catfish. Since tbe overall results of the risk assessment indicate that risk and 

1UIZ8td are below benchmark Je,•els, it was not necessary to re6ne this input to the model 

No other recq>tors are assumed to collSume contaminated 6sh. 

5.2.] Soil ExpoJure Path,.,ays 

Ex.posure to contantinants in 8oil can oocur through soil ingestion, dermal exposure to soil, and 

inhalation of resuspended dust. Based on air dispersion modeljng aod deposition of COPCs, 

emission concentrations in soil varies with distance from the source. Potential routes of 

exposure were detennined by the way in which the soils in the area are used. Soil used for 

66 

VES 007834 
famting or recreation were included as pathways of human exposure that differ from those of soil 

on roadways or in urban areas. 

5.2.3. I Soil Ingestion 

Children and adults are directly exposed to COPes in soil when they consume soil that bas 

adhered to their hands. Fac10rs tbat influence exposure by soil ingestion include soil 

concentration, the rate of soil ingestion during the time of exposure, and the length of time spent 

in lhe vicinity of contaminated soil. Ingestion rates for adults were based on assumptions about 

e)\posed surface area and frequency of hand-to-mouth consumption. Indoor dust and outdoor 

soil also contribute to the total daily ingestion. E.xposure levels are also influen.ced by the 

amount of time that 1l1e individual spends in the vicinity of soil exposed to deposition of emitted 

pollutants. Soil ingestion assessment was based on the recommended values found in Appendix 

CoftheHHRAP. 

II is recognized that some yoiU.lg chlldren-referred to as "pica• children-may intentionally eat 

soil. The HHRAP does not recommend addressing pica behavior as ·part of risk assessments, and 

therefore was not included in the evaluations for the risk assessment. 

5.2.3.2 Dermal Exposw·e to Soil 

The IDIRAP does not recommend the use of the pathway of dermal exposure to COPCs through 

contact with tbe soil in the evaluation of recommended exposure scenarios. TherQfore, demtal 

exposure to soil Wl!S not consideced for the RF AAP assessmenL 

5.2.3.3 Sci/Inhalation Resultingfrom Dust Resttspension 

The guidance does not recommend the use of the soil inhalation exposure pathway resulting from 

dusr resuspension in the evaluation of recommended exposure scenarios. Dust resuspension was 

not included for evaluation in the risk assessment. 

5.2.4 Water Exposure Pathways 

Water exposure pathways arc used to deten:nine COPC concentrations in drinking water obtained 

from surface water or collected precipitation (e.g., cisterns). Water exposure pathways are also 

used to detemtine the COPC concentration in fish. Daily exposure of individuals osing these 

water sources for various purp0ses, such as fiShing and drinking water, can be cstimmed by using 

various models. 

The HHRAP guidance does n.ot recommend the use of the pathways of drinking water exposure 

from ground water sources for the purpose of evaluations of exposure scenarios. Application of 

67 

VES 007835 
the methodology to combustion units has indicated that this is not a significant exposure 

pathway. Ground water sources were, therefore, not constdered applicable to !be assessment. 

The HHRAP guidance does not recommend !be use of the dermal. water exposure pathway in 

risk assessments for combustion sources. i bercfore, dermal exposure associated with water 

e•posure pathways was not considered applicable to the assessment except for those Wllter 

bodies with quantifiAble recreational use. 

Fish ingestio.n rntes wen: used as described in Appendix C of the HHRAP, for inclusion in the 

risk assessment, with the exception of t·educed consumption rate for recreational fishers, as 

opposed to subsistence fishers. 

5.3 Exposure Frequency 

For the risk assessment, the receptors in each recommended exposure scenario were assumed to 

be exposed to all of the exposure scenurio-specific exposure pathways 350 days per year. This 

assumption is based on the conservative estimate that all receptors spend a tnini!llurn of 2 weeks 

at a location other than dte exposure scenario location. 

5.4 Exposure Duration 

Exposure duralion is the length of time tbat a receptor is exposed via a specific exposure 

palhway. Although a receptor is no longer e>']JOSed to COPCs via the direct inhalation exposure 

pathway aller an emission source ceases operation, a receptor is exposed via the indirect 

exposure pathway for as long as the receptor remains in the assessment area. Therefore, default 

values were used to estimate exposure duration for specified receptors. The delimit values 

applicable to the risk assessment receptors are summarized in Table 5-1, Exposure Duration 

values. 

5.5 · Averaging Time . 

for noncarcinogenic COPCs, 1he averaging time for exposure was calculated by multiplying the 

exposure duration specified in Table 5-l for a given receptor by n factor of 365 days/year. 

Carcinogenic exposures for different receptor ages were evaluated separately, because the d.1ily 

activities of these receptors vary, by. 

1) the amounts of food consumed, 

2) the types of food consumed, and 

3) the amount of exposed skin surface. 

68 

VES 007836 
TABLE 5-1 

ExPOSURE U\JRATJON VALUES 

Exposure Scenario Value 

Child Residen1 6 years 

Adult Residen1 30 years 

Recreational f•sher 30 years 

Recrea1ional fisher Child 6years 

(i9 

VES 007837 
Recommended health-based critena vary for children and adults. 

Quantification of carcinogenic COPC exposure depends on the duration of exposure. The 

average human lifespan is generally assumed to be 70 years; childhood "''Presents only, about 10 

percent of the lJfesprut (6 years). .Expo$11l'e ov.cr this hfespan can vary greal!y between 

individuals. Consisteot with HI·IRAP recommendations, this risk assessment was conducted 

using u conservative approach. For carcinogenic COPCs, a longe-r ave-raging time and an adult 

body weiSJll was nsed to calculate the risk resulting from air or water exposure. 

Averaging times used in the assessment for carcinogens omd non-carcinogens for Resident Adult, 

Resident Child, Recreational Fisher, and Recreataonal Fisher Child are those specified in the 

HHRAP gu.idancc. 

5.6 Body Weight 

The choice of body wciglat for use in the risk cbaracterization equations dcpeuds on the 

definition of the receptor at risk, which in tum, depends on exposure and susceptibility to 

adverse effects. Consistent with recommendations in the HHRAJ>, the assessment utilized I S 

kilograms for average child weight and 70 kilogJamS for average adult weight. 

70 

VES 007838 
6.0 ASSESSt.ffiN'T RESm :rs AND DISCUSSION 

The risk assessment detailed in this report focuses on incremenwl C11rcinogenic nod non· 

carcinogenic effects from tncincr11tor emisstons on individuals (receptors) defined in previous 

chapters of Ibis repo11. This scchon discusstS the rationale for quantitative application of data 

collected and calculations performed based on site-specific and unique exposure, modeling, and 

toxicity assumptions . . Tbc process used estimates lifetime cancer risk (hereinafter referred to as 

risk) and non-carcinogenic risk (hereinafter referred to as hazard). These estimations were 

c..Jculated for each receptor, across all applicable e.tposure palhways, and summed ttl obtain an 

estimate of ttlllll individual risk and hazard for receptors specified in Section 4. 

Risk and hazard from exposure to combustion emissions are calculated or estimated differently. 

1\ slope factor is a compound-specific value used in risk assessment to yield an upper-bound 

lifetime probability of an individual developing c:u>cer as a result of exposure ttl o specific level 

of the target compound. Hazard is quantified as the potential for developing non-carcinogenic 

henllh effect• resulting from exposure, expressed as a ratio of the receptor's exposure to a 

slalldard exposure level. The standard exposure eve~ designated as a Reference Dose tRfD) or 

Reference Concentration (RfC) for a compound is based on a similar exposure period !hat results 

in no appreciable likelihood of adverse health effectS. 

6.1 Estimation of Individual Risk and ll32.11rd 

Since the HHRAP guidance recommends that human health risk assessments address ouly 

individual risks and hoz.ards, mther than population risk, the risk assessment was performed to 

only evaluate individual risk and hazards. This risk assessment bas evaluated !he following 

effects: 

• Estimates of risk and hazard associated with COPC exposw·e, and 

• Evaluation of acute exposure from direct inhalation. 

6.2 Quantitative Esti•nation of Caueer Risk 

Estimation of risk for can:inogenic chemicals WM calculated as tile lifetime average doily dose 

multiplied by tbecompound-spccific cancer slope factor. 

Where: 

Cancer Risk c LADD x CSF 

LADD; Lifetime average daily dose tmglkg-day) 

CSF ~Cancer slope factor (mg/lrg-day)"1 

71 

VES 007839 
For each COPC and exposure scenario, the cancer risk was calculated for each exposure pathway 

evaluated in this rislc assessment. The risk associated with emissions from fugitive sources 

would have boon added to this final value, had ihe effects from fugitive enussions been 

significant. Since the resulis of fugitive emissions modeling indicated that minimal emissions 

occur (rom this source, these minimal emissions were determined to ha ve no effect on the overall 

cancer risk values. 

The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) was used as the authoritative source for oral 

cance,· sl!lpe fuctors and for inhalation unit risk factors for each carcinogenic COPC. Chromium 

(VI) is classified as Group A, known human carcinogen by the inhalation route of exposure. 

Cadmium is classified as Group B I, probable human carcinogen. Carcinogenicity by the oral 

route of exposure is classified as Group D and cannot be detennined for either cadtnium or 

chromium (VI). Therefore, oral cancer slope factors are not available. The HHRAP 

recommends assuming rout&-to-routc eX1111polation by calculating an oral cancer slope factor 

from rbe inhalation unit risk. Due to the following statements from the U.S. EPA database on the 

To>ticology Infonnation Nerworlc, IRIS (1996a), route-to-route extrapolation is not appropriate, 

and the 11ral cancer slope factot·s for cadmium and chromium (VI) have been set equal to zero. 

• "No data were located in the available literature that suggested that Cr(Vl) is 

carcinogenic by the om! route of exposure." 

• "Seyen studies in rats and mice wherein cadmium salts (acetate, sulfate, chloride) were 

administered orally have shown no evidence of carcinogenic respome." 

• "There are no positive studies of orally ingested cadmium suitable for quantitation." 

The cancer risk estimations for Recreational Fisbcr, Recreational Fisher Child, Adult Resident, 

and Child Resident are provided in Tables 6·1, 6·2, 6·3, and 6-4, respectively. The health 

benclun4rk for cancer risk is 1.0 x 10'

5

• For each exposure scenario and COPC evaluated, the 

sum of cancer risks across aU oral c~posuro pathways and cancer risk due to direct exposure do 

not exceed this benchmark. Therefore, the HWC MAC'r limits for these COPCs are sufficiently , 

protective of hwnan health in tem1s of cancer risk. 

72 

VES 007840 
TABLE 6-1 

CAi'IICER RISK FOR RECREATIONAL FlSJ:fER 

(Cancer Benchmark 5 LE-05} 

Cancer Risk Cancer Risk 

COPCN•me from Oral from 

In~es tion lnbalatlon 

Arsenic O.OG6E-05 0.123E-05 

Beryllium 0.069E·OS 

Cadmium 0.128E·05 

Chromium 

Chromium (Vf} o.344E·05 

Lead 0.0009E-05 0.0009E-OS 

Elemental Mercury 

Mercuric Chloride 

Methyl Mercury 

TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 0.00008E-OS 

TABLE6-2 

CANCER RISK FOR RECREA TJONAL FISHER Cffil D 

{Cancer Benchmark • lE-05} 

Cancer Rlsk Cancer RJsk 

COPCName from Oral from 

Ingestion ln.b.alation 

Arsenic O.OJSE-05 0.025Jl.05 

Beryllium 0.014£.05 

Cadmium 0.026B-05 

Chromium 

Chromium (VI) 0.0691!.()5 

Lead 0.0003E·OS 0.0002E-05 

Elemental Mercury 

Mercuric Chloride 

Methyl Mercury 

TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8· 0.00002E·OS 

73 

VES 007841 
TABLE6-3 

CANCER RISK FOR ADULT RESlOENT 

(Cancer BenebmArk = lE-05) 

Cancer Risk Caneer Risk 

COPCName from Oral from 

Inucstlon Inhalation 

1\rsalie 0.065£-1)5 0.123E-OS 

Beryllium 0.069E-OS 

Cadmium 0.128E.OS 

Chromium 

Chromium (VI) O.»oE--05 

Lead 0.0009E-OS 0.00091:-0S 

Elemental Mt~reury 

Mercuric Chloride 

Melhyl Mercury 

TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 0.00004E·OS 

TABLE6-4 

CANCER RISK FOR CHILD RESIDENT 

(Cancer Benchmark= 1 E-05) 

Cancer Risk Cancer Risk 

COPCName from Oral from 

lastestion lnhalatfoo 

Arsenic 0.01.8E-05 0.025E-OS 

Beryllium 0.014E-OS 

Cadmium 0.026&05 

Chromium 

Chromium (VI) 0.0691:-0S 

0.0003E-05 O.OOO:!B-05 

Elemental Mercury 

Mercuric Chloride 

Methyl Mercury 

TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- 0.00002£-05 

74 

VES 007842 
6.3 Quantitative Estimation of Noo-Caucer Effects 

Non-carcmogenic effects were estimated based on the standat"d assumption that below a 

threshold level of exposllfe, no adverse effects nre observed. Non-carcinogenic health effects 

were !b-sessed by: 

• Comparing estimated CO.PC intake to the RJD for oral exposure, and 

• Comparing an estimated chemical-specific air concentration to the RIC for direct 

inhalatJOn exposure. 

The exposw·e durations used were specified in the risk assessment protocol. Chronic RIDs and 

RfCs were used, if available, to eVllluate all exposure pathways. R1Ds and RfCs were obrained 

from Appendix A-3 of tbe HHRAP. Hazard quotients (HQs) were calculated as the average 

doily dosage (or the total COPC air concentration) divided by the RfD or RIC, respectively. 

Therefore, an HQ of 1.0 is indication that estimated exposure to the COPC is nt the threshold 

level. For conservatism, the HHRAP recommends the benchmark for HQs be set at 0.25, which 

is one-fourth of the threshold level of e:cposure. Additional discussion on this default hazard 

benchmark is addressed in Section 7 .0. 

Consistent with U.S. EPA guidaooe (Section 7.3 of the HHRAP) and the protocol for this risk 

assessment, a detailed analysis was performed for COPC-specific hazards according to major 

bealth effects and target organs or systems "to determine whether the potential for 

noocan:inogenic health effects [was] accurately estimated by the ·toto! tU because the 

toxicological effects associated with cxpo•-ure to multiple chemicals, oftett through different 

exposure pathways, may not be additive; therefore, the total HI may overestimote the potential 

for noncarcinogemc health effects." Segregated hazard indices have been developed based on 

target organs for adverse health effects summarized io this section. Per the HHRAP, "if the 

segregated Hl is less than the target hazard level, the total HI of aU COPC-specific results likely 

' is too conservative, aod noncarcinogenic health effects are not likely to result from exposure to 

COPCs. Table 6-5 presents target organs and critical effects associated with oral or inhalation 

exposure to COPCs as specified in the HHRAP database. 

lt should be noted that segregated Hls are exposure route specific. For a gjven exposure route, 

oral or inhalation, none of these COPC.s share tbe same uuget organ and/or critical effect. 

Therefore, the HQs presented in this risk assessment are equivalent to the segregated His 

calculated per the HHRAP equations in Table C-1-10 for oral exposure and Table C-2-4 for 

inhalation exposure. ft should also be noted again that this assessment evaluates potential risk 

for the emission of each COPC at the allowable HWC MACT limit. Utilization of the MACT 

75 

VES 007843 
TABLE6·5 

TARGET O RGANS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETERMINATION OF NON-CARCINOGENIC HAZARD 

CAS COPCName Exposure Route Target O rgan Cr itical Effects 

7440-38·2 Arsenic Inhalation cardiovascular 

7440-38-2 Arsenic IJlbalat ion Developmental 

7440-41-7 Beryllium lnhalntion Lung Beryll ium sensitization and progression to CBD 

7440.38-2 Arsenic Inhalation Nervous System 

l8S40.29·9 Chromium(VI) luhalntion Respiratory Tract N3$1SI septum atrophy 

7440-47-3 Chromium Oral .. No effects observed 

18540.29-9 Chromium(Vl) Oral - None reported 

1746-01-6 TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8· Oral Developmental 

7440-41-7 Beryllium Oral Gastrointestinal Small intestinal lesions 

7487-94-7 Mercuric chloride Oral Immune System Autoimmune effectS 

7440-43-9 Cadmium Oral Kidn.ey Significant proteinuria 

22967-92-6 Methyl Mercu.ry Oral Nervous System Developmental neuropsychological impairment 

7440·38-2 Arsenic Oral Sk.in Hyperpigmentarioo, keratosis and possible 

vascular complications 

Note: There is no entry in tbe HH.RAP database for target organs or critical effects of lead exposure. 

76 

VES 007844 
emission limit as an estimate of long-term emissions of a single COPC is very conservative. 

Regardless oflhe target organ and crillcal effect evaluation, summing the hazard estimates across 

multiple COPG$ !hat arc derived from thts coMervativc emissions assumption is unrealistic and 

inappropriate. 

The HQs for each COPC and expos•u-e pathway are provided for the Recreational Fisher, 

Recreational Fisher Child, Adult Resident, and Child Resident exposure scenarios in Tables <Ki, 

6· 7, 6-8, and 6·9, respoctively. Also presented in tbese tllbles are the sununations ofHQs across 

all of the oral exposure pathwnys. BliScd on these results, compliance with the HWC MACT 

limits emissions of arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, total chromium, lead, mercury aod dioxiolfuran 

TEQ emissions from the Onyx incinerators does not result in u~ ble levels of hazard 10 

human health. The results indicate thai long·tenn emissions of pollutants al the HWC MACT 

limit are unlikely to impose adverse non-carcinogenic eO'ects. 

6.3.1 Mereu f)• Fate a11d Transport Algorithms 

The mercury fine and transport algorithms provided m Appendix B-4 of the Draft HHRAP 

Guidance included the followil•g significant ertors: 

• Data applicable to dissolved mercury species in tbe water column (i.e., epilinmion) was 

inappropriately npplied as the basis for the methylation of the total <~rcvry load to the 

water body. 

• For the caleulation of melhylmen:ury concentration in ftSb, the total dissolved mercury 

concentration in the water cohmm was multiplied by a bioaccnmulation factOt derived 

from methylmercury concentration only and not 1otal mercury concentration. 

Botb of these errors were addressed by the final HHRAP; however, the revised mercury fate and 

transport algorilhms fail to observe a mass balance and are in apparent contradiction of chemicalspecific data provided by tbc HliRAP database. 

Methyl mercury is assumed to be 2% of the estimated total mercury in watershed soils. If the 

mercury care and transport algorithms are applied IISSllllling no additional methylation of divalent 

mercury, the dissolved methyl mercury in the water column is mote than double the default 

assumption of 15% of total dissolved mercury. This observation means either that the 

methylation rate of2% in soil is overly conservative or that there arc fundamental flaws in the 

algorithms and/or cbemlcal-specific data for methyl mercury. To avoid these contradictions the 

HHRAP algorithms simply ignore the amount of methyl mercury introduced to the water body 

from watershed soil and model the fate and transport of total mercury using the properties of 

77 

VES 007845 
TABLE6-6 

NONCANCER IlEAL TH HA7.ARD FOR RECREATIONAL FISl iER 

(HQ Benchm•rk • 0.2$) 

CQPC Name RQfoU llQproduco rlQdw IIQfisb llQLnb Sum of oral 

8 0• 

Arsenic 7.071>-09 0.00338 1.47E~S J.66E·OS 0.022:) 0.0034) 

Scryllium l.48E-06 5.07£-04 2.20E-06 lJ3£~ 0.033-> 5. ~ 

CadmiU.ID 3.371l-07 0.00251 J.09E-OS 9.77E-OS 0.00827 0.00262 

Ch.rornium 1.05E-07 7 .2lE-<l7 4.02£.09 2.7SE-07 l.26E-07 l.l0£.06 

Chromium (VI} 5.23E~ 3.60£.04 2.0lE-06 2.28E-OS 0.00669 4.38.1!-04 

Lead 1.17E-05 0.00587 2.53£-05 222E-08 O.OOllO o.oom 

El<m<fnal MetQIT)' 2.94£.06 

Mete:uric: Olloride 0.00730 O.OllS 4 2lE-06 S.62E-04 0.0188 

Methyl Memuy 4.32E-04 0.00!68 2.23£.06 O.l?l 0.173 

TetraCDO, 2,3,7.8- 6.89E-06 4.07E-06 S.S9E-09 S.22E·06 !.62E-OS 

TABLE6-7 

NONCANCER HEALTH HAZARD FOR RECREATIONAL FISHER CHILD 

(HQ Benchmark= 0.25) 

COPCName HQsoil IIQprod• .. HQdw HQfiJb 8Qinll Sum of oral 

HOt 

Arsenic l.6SE..08 '0.00473 3.29E-OS 1.17£-0S 0.0223 0.00478 

Beryllium 3.46E-06 7.10E·04 4.90E-06 9.35£-07 0.0034 7.20£.()4 

Cadmtum 7.861l-07 0.00052 2.44E-OS 6.88£-05 0.0083 0.00361 

Olromi\1m· 2.44E-07 1.01£-06 S.98E-09 1.93£,.()7 1.26£.00 1.46£~ 

Ouomium (VI) l.22E-04 5.04£.04 4.49E-06 1.61£-0S 0.0067 6.47£.04 

Lead 2.73E..QS 0.00822 S.6SE-OS 1.56£-08 0.00110 0.00830 

Elc:mcolll Mo-cwy 2.94E-06 

Mercuric Chloride 0.0170 0.0164 9.411!-06 5.621!-04 0.0334 

Methyl MU<'.uy 0.00101 0.00240 986~ 0.120 0.124 . 

T<0'3C00, 2,3,7,8- 1.61E-OS 5.71£.06 l.lSE-08 3.68£-06 2.55£,.05 

78 

VES 007846 
TABLE6-8 

NONCANCER HEALTH flAZARJ) FOR ADULT RESIDENT 

(HQ Benchrnark = 0.25) 

COPC Namt HQsot.l HQproduce HQdw HQfish HQink Sum of oral 

Arstnic 7.07£-09 0.00338 1.~7E-OS 0.0223 

BeJ)·Ilium 1.48£.06 5.07£·04 2.20E-06 0 0334 

Cadmium J.m:-07 0.00251 1.09&05 0.00827 

Ouomium 1.05£-07 7.21E-07 4.021!-09 1.26£-07 

Chromium (VI) 5.23&05 3.60£-04 2.01E-06 0.00669 

Lead 1.11E-OS 0.00581 2.53£-0S 0.00110 

Elemental Mercwy 2.94£-06 

MCf(;uric Chloride 0.007:W 0.0115 4.21E-06 5.62&04 

M«byl Mercury 4321!~ 0.0016$ 2.23£-06 

TetroCDD, 2.3,7 ,8- 6.89£-06 4.07£.06 S.S9E-09 

TABLE6-9 

NONCANCER HEALTH HAZARD }'OR CHILD RESIDENT 

(HQ Benchmar k ~ 0.25) 

HOs 

0.00340 

5.11 £-04 

0.00252 

8.29£-07 

4.1SE-04 

0.00591 

0.0188 

0.00211 

l.lOE-05 

COPCNamt HQso8 IJQprodlte HQdw .BQI!sb llQiob S•m of oral 

no. 

Arxnic 1.65E-08 0.00473 3.29E-OS 0.0223 0.00477 

Beryllium 3.46£-06 7.10£-04 4.90E-06 0.0334 7.19£.04 

Cadmium 7.86£.07 0.00352 2.44£-0.S 0.00827 0.00354 

Ou-omium 2.44E-07 J.01E-06 8.98£-09 1.26£-07 1.26&06 

Chromium (Vl) 1.221!-04 S.04J!-04 4.~9E-06 0.00669 6.31E-04 

Leod 2.73£-0.S 0.00822 5.65£-05 O.OOIJO 0.00830 

Elemental Mor<ury 2.94&06 

M=uric Chloride 0.0170 0.0164 9.41£.06 5.621!-04 O.OJ.:J4 

Modlyl Mercury 0.00101 0.00240 4.98£-06 0.00342 

TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8- l.61E-OS 5.77£-06 1.25£-08 2.19£-0S 

79 

VES 007847 
l))ercuric chloride. Onyx cannot ju.wfy this disregard for a portion of the total mercury 

load to the water body. 

Tbe dissolved mercuric chloride concentration in the water column is a function of the 

equilibrium parritioning of mercuric chloride between bed sediments and sediment pore 

water Kd~o) and betwec:n suspended sediments and surface water (.Kd..,). Table B-4-24 

apportions total mercuty as 85% divalem and 15% mct11ylated. Tbis basis is applied with 

complete dtsregard to the sbtfl in the equilibrium partitioning of these mercury species. 

Thtrcfore, the final predicted values for the fraction of mercu.ric chloride and methyl 

mercury in the water 'column (fw,), contradict the values obtained using the equation in 

Table B-4-16. 

The Mercury Study Report to Congress' (MSRC) pres~nts data ranging from 0.046 to 

0.15 for the "ftaction of total dissolved mercury in the epitimoion existing as the 

methylated species." In lieu of providing a predictive fate and transport model for methyl 

mercury, EPA bas selected the most conservative and m&.'<imum value ofO.lS from these 

data. If the fate and transport model for total mercury is to be intercepted in order to 

force agret!'leot with demonstrated data, Onyx contends that it is more appropriate to 

apply the mercury concentration in flSh harvested from the Frank Holten Lake rather than 

apply this worst-case mercury methylation rate. 

For the Frank Holten Lakes and watershed, Onyx has applied the mercury fate and 

transport algorithms for total mercury using ihe properties of mercuric chloride. The 

methylation of dh•alent mercury is not applied to these calculations. The MSRC provides 

the data nocessary to relate the methyl mercury content in fish as a function of the total 

dissolved metcury concentration in the water column. The methyl mercury concentration 

in fish was calculated using ~~e (ollowing equation: 

Where, 

Total mercury conceolnltion in the · fresh weight (FW) fish tissue 

divided by tbe total dissolved mercury (TD Hg) concentration in 

1 Mercury Study Rtport to Congre.u, Volume III: Fate and Transport of Mercury In th' Ln.;ronment. 1997 

(EPA/4S21R·97.001), Table D-15 

80 

VES 007848 
the water column. (mg Hg I kg FW tissue) per 

(mg TD H,g I L water column). 

fmmf • Fraction of toUll rnercury in fish tissues existiJl8 as the methylated 

form, (mg MHg I kg FW tissue) per (mg Hg I kg FW tissue). 

The MSRC presents the technical basis for assigning a value of 1.0 to fmmf. This is 

consistent with the HHRAP Guidance text in Table .B-4·27, which states, "All mercury in 

fish is assumed to exist or be converted to methyl mercury (orgll!lic) fo1m after uptake 

into Jhe fish tissue" . Section D.3.5 of the MSRC presents data and discussion supporting 

point estimates of BAF values based on toial dissolved mercury. These values were 

estimated from field data which were "somewhat more epresentative~ than the 

comparable data used to estimate the BAF values based on dissolved methylmercury. 

6.3.2 Appli~11tion ofSitwpecific Fislt Tt'Qphlc e•~l 

The HHRAP suggests a default trophic level of 4.0 for fish caught and eaten from the 

water bodies in the assessment area utilized by local fishers. Onyx has detennined that 

this conservative default value is not appropriate for the Fronk Holten Lakes. Initially, 

site observations of shoreline fishers and the types of fish caught indicated that the fish 

primarily caught are bluegill and catfi!lb. None of these fish is categorized as Trophic 

Level 4. 

Interviews were also conducted with residents of East St. Louis, a fomer resident of E. 

St Louis, and regulatory personnel who have knowledge of fishill8 and consumption 

practices in the area. The majority of fishing at Frank Hohen State Parle is accomplished 

by fishing with a cane pole from the banks and using live bait (worms). These practices 

primarily yield bluegill, carp, buffalo, and catfish. Convenations with the Frank Holten 

State Park Ranger indicates tbat the lake is overrun with carp and buffalo and weekly 

BelleviUe News-Democrat fishing reports indicate that the primary fish being caught is 

catfish al1hough ~fi shing continues to be extremely slow." This is consistent with the 

type of fish that were observed in the fisherman nets during site visits. 

Local fishing reports were published weeldy in the Belleville News·DemOC<al from June 

2005 through the presenL Reports were not published in previous years. The results of 

these reports have been compiled in Table 6-10 to show fishing practices for this 

particular site. The fishing reports summarized in Table 6·10 indicate several things: 

81 

VES 007849 
TABLE 6-10 

BELLEVILLE NEWS-DEMOCRAT FISHING REPORTS SUMMAR\' 

Month Overall Comments Cuugbt Fish Indication Indicatioll of 

Condition• of T rophic Trophic 

' ~vtl3 Level 4 Fis h 

Fish 

Juoc Fishing Not many Bluegill and fair slow -

extremely people catfish- fnir spomdic 

slow casting Bass - slow, 

sporadic 

Trout -

sporadic at best 

July Fishing Fishing Bluegill and fair sporadic 

exiremely likely to pick catfish - fa~r, 

slow, 7,000 up after spotty 

cal1ish stocked stocking Bass- sporadic 

Crappie· 

spotty 

August Fishing Bluegill - spotty, only none 

extremely spoUy species 

slow Crappie - biting 

spotty 

Catfish - only 

species biting 

September Fishing Catfish - only only species none 

extremely species biting biting 

slow 

October Fishing Stocked No info no info none (prior to 

extremely trou1 average available available stoeking) 

slow, 2,000 lb !0-J2iJL, 

farm-raised stocked trout 

trout stocked are culled 

out fairly 

quickly and 

do not 

survive !he 

snmmer 

82 

VES 007850 
I. Coldwater fish species such as bass account for the Trophic Level 4 fish found even 

sporadically in these lakes. Fisltiug at Frank Holten is almost exclusively from the shore. 

These types of fish are not typically caught from the shallower, wanner waters near the 

shoreline. 

2. The slocked game fish " ... are culled ouc f~irly quickly. TI1ey do not survive the summers 

in these lakes." " ... 75 to 80 percent are caught. You may have some mortality on some, 

but most of them are harveslcd." Tbe.qe statements from the fishing reports indicate that 

these game fish do not survive long enough in the Jakes to be affected by long-term 

exposure of pollutants or to propagate. 

3. Catfish and, to a lesser degree, bluegill are the predominat-e species caught in the lakes. 

These fish are representative of Trophic Level 3 species. Funher, stocked catfish are a 

significant source of the fish caught in the summer months. 

:Based on these results, Trophic Level 4 fish that are J>Ot stocked are an insignificant categoty of 

fish caught in the Frank Holten Lakes. Therefore, Onyx has utilized the more appropriate sitespecific designation of Trophic Level 3 for the affected fish in this assessment. The Trophic 

Level 3 bioaccumu!ation factor based on total mercury was used to calculate the methylmercury 

ooncenttation in fish. 

6.3.3 Mercury ConCI!IIIration in Fis/o 

The fish mercury concentration predicted by the fate and transpOrt model is 84.5 parts per billion 

(Pi>h). This concentration rcOects the future fish mercury con.centration attributable only to 

mercury emissions from the Onyx incin.erators after 30 years of operation. Additionally, it 

should be noted that this assumes that all Onyx incinerators are operating at the HWC MACT 

emission level for 24 hours/day, 365 days/year for 30 consecutive years. These assumptions, 

oombined with the conservatism built in to the fate and uanspon model, yield a predicted 

tncrcury concentration·io the fosh that is considerably overstated. 

During execution of the HHRA project Onyx quantified the mercury concentration of fish 

collected from the Frank Holten Lake. These samples yielded an average mercury concentration 

in the fish of 14.4 ppb. This measured fish mercury concentration is essentially an order of 

tlUlgoitude less than that predicted by the fate and transport model. Onyx contends that 

utilization of a fish mercury concentration, with some exlrapolation to predict· the future 

concentration attributable to mercury emissions from the Onyx incinerators, would provide a 

more realistic evaluation of the incremental risk associated with these emissions. 

83 

VES 007851 
6.3.4 Averag~ Daily Dou of Dioxin/Furan TEQ 

As recommended by !he HHRAP Guidance, !he average daily dose of2,3,7,8-TCDD due to om I 

exposure was estimated for adults and for nwsing infants. The estimated average daily doses of 

2,3,7,8-TCDD for tbe Reere3tioJ>al Fisber aJ>d Aduh Residem are 1.8 x 10·S and 1.2 >< 10·S 

pglkglday, respectively. The average daily dose for nursing infants of lbese receptors was 

calculated per the equations provided in Appendix C-3 of the HH.RAP Guidance. The estimated 

average daily dose of 2,3,7,8-TCDD for a nursing infant of a Rocreational Fisher is 0.19 

pglkglday. The estimated average daily dose of 2,3,7,8-TCDD for a nursing intimt of an Adult 

Resident is 0.13 pglkglday. These values, compared to the background exposure levels of I pg 

TEQ/kglday for adults and 60 pg TEQJkglday for nursing infants, are insignificant. "111erefore, 

dio~in fumn emissions from the Onyx incinerators arc unlikely to increase non-cancer health 

effects. 

6.4 Acute Exposure (Direct lnbalatioo) 

Acute effects were comidered from direct inhalation of vapor-phase and particle-phase COPC 

ec:rissions. Acute e1Tects were evaluated using sbort-tenn (maximum I hour) inhalation of 

. vapors and particulate exposure scenarios. The hierarchal approach presented in ~ HHRAP 

was utilized for Ibis purpose. 

This approach is bQsed on -existing acute inhalation values !bat do not require tbe use of arbitrary 

safety factors. This approach was developed 10 establish a level of.proteclion for the general 

public from discomfort or mild adverse health effects over 1-hour exposure periods. The 

approach includes three primary guidelines with supplementary applicaaion of two toxicity-based 

guidelines. The guidelines, in order of preference aie: 

Primary guidelines: Level I acute inhalation exposure guidelines (AEGL-I) 

Level I emergency respon.o;e planoiog guidelines (ERPG-1) 

Level I acute toxicity exposure levels (A TEL-l) 

Supplementary guidelines: DOE temporary emergency exposure limits (TEEL-1) 

DOE lethal dose nnd concentration information (SCAPA) 

To characterize the potential for advm e health effects from acme COPC exposure, abe acute air 

concentration (AC) resultiug from maximum emissions over a 1-bour period was compared to 

the COPC-specific AlEC. A hazard quotien1 applicable 10 acute effects (ABQ) was calculated 

from this relationship. This calculation was performed as shown: 

84 

VES 007852 
Where: 

AHQ = 

c'IICI,lll¢ • 

AlEC 

0.00 1 c 

AHO ,. C900 ·0.00l - AlEC 

Acute hazard quotient (unitless) 

Acute air concentl'ation (flglm'} 

Acute inhalation exposure criteria (mglm3

) 

Conversion factor (mgfflg) 

The Acute Ha nrd Qootient for non-<;arcinogenic effects from incinerator emissions was 

detennined. The Hazard Quotient for acute effects is below the accepted benchmark. Therefore, 

selected ·coPes from incinerator operations are unllkely to impose adverse acute noncarcinogenic effects. The results of this calculation are presented in Table 6-1 1. 

85 

VES 007853 
TABLE 6-ll 

TOTAL ACUTE H AZARD QUOTIENT 

(lfQ Benchmark - 1.0) 

COPC Name Maximum Ail· AHQ_Inh Concentratiou 

(f.lg!m) 

AJSenic 0.0411 0.248 

Beryllium 0.0471 0.00941 

Cadmium 0.116 0.00388 

Cbromiwn 0-0471 3.J4E.-OS 

Cbromiwn (VI) 0.0471 

Lead O. ll 6 7.76E·04 

Elemental Mercury S.64E-OS 3. 13£.05 

Mercuric Chloride 0.0378 3.02E-04 

Methyl Mercury 

TetraCDO, 2,3,7,8- I.~E 10 130&10 

86 

VES 007854 
6.5 Estimates of Health Effects Associated with Lead 

Onyx has applied ~1 c Integrated Expnsure Uptake Biokinetie (IEUBT<) Model for Lead in 

Ouldren. This model predicts the probability di:<tribution of blood lead levels based on potential 

fend uptake via air, diet, water, soil, nod dust. The benchmark for this evaluation is that no more 

than five percent of children are predicted to exceed 10 microgram of lead per deciliter blood (10 

].lg/dl). 

Stnndaid default values of the IEUBK model were applied as the "background" lead 

concentrations in soil, air, and water. Each of these concentrations was increased by the lead 

concentrations predicted by this risk asses~ment. Default values for daily dietary intake were 

also attributed to background exposure and were increased by the predicted inlake of lead for the 

Recreational Fisher Child S«nario. 

Based on this approach, the predicted geometric mean blood lead concontration is 3.419 f.lsldl. 

Only 1.120 percent of children were predicted to exceed 10 )lg/dl. Therefore, lead emissions 

lium inc inerator operntions arc unlikely to impose adverse effects. The IEUBJC model output for 

this evaluation is provided in Appendix IV. 

87 

VES 007855 
7.0 UNCERTAINTY IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 

This section of the reporl includes a discussion on inteo·preting une<:rtaint)' associated witlt the 

nsk =sment. Uncertainties associated with modeling are mcluded as pan of Section 3.0 of 

tbis repo11. Smce the potential for the introduction of uncertainty as evident in every process of 

risk assessn>ent, conservatism is utilized for many point values and assumptions. This reduces 

the likelihood of understating risl< or hazard. However, this lead• to poteotial for overstating risk 

11nd hazard due to the integration of so many conservative approximations. 

Areas of uncertainty are discussed in the following paragraphs of this section. Some- uncertainty 

issues related specifically to air dispersion modeling are also included in Section 3.0 of this 

report . 

. Estimated cmissious: The mass emission rate for each of the constituents evaluated in this risk 

assessment was calculated based on the cnmulative stack gas flowrate from the three OnyX 

incineratOrs and the applicable HWC MACT allowable concentration. Therefore, these results 

do not represent estimated risk or hazard based on actual metals emissions, or even anticipated 

emissions, but rather on the consmvative nssumption that stack emissions are at all times at the 

maximum allowable concentration under the Interim HWC MACT limits. This area of 

conservlltism is mentioned previously in this report and sbould be considered as a significant 

source of uncertainty in the results. 

Metals: The emission rate utilized for cadmium is based on the HWC MACT emission limit for 

all semi-volatile metals. This llSsumes thnt all semi-volatile metal emissions are attributed to 

cadmium, which is a conservative asstm>ption. Likewise, the emission rate utilized for 

chromium is based on the HWC MACT emission limit for all low volatility metals. This 

assumes that all low volatility metal emissions are attributed to chromium, which is. a 

conservative assumption. 

Hexa.valent chromium is assumed to make up d1e total chromium emitted from the source, since 

tbe determination of the form of chromiun> is difficult to evaluate using standard laboratory 

analytical methods. Typically, chromium tends 10 filvor the trivalent state when in the presence 

of organic materials and it is generally estimated that most of the chromium fed to combustion 

devices is converted to the trivalent fonn through the combustion process. Since hexavalent 

chromium is carcinogenic, the assumption that all chromium is in the hexavalent form is very 

conservative and will tend to greatly overestimate risk for carcinogenic metals. 

88 

VES 007856 
Additionally, as Slated pre,•iously, lhe calculated emissions of target metals at the HWC MACT 

emisston limits are higher than those anticipated under nornial operating conditions. 

Consequently, demonstration of risk based on t11e extrapolated metals emissions over l011g·term 

periods of exposure, as opposed to demonstration at nomtal operating conditions, may 

significantly overestimate the risk from these units. 

Designation of maximum air model outputs for resident -exposure: Air modeling output 

parameters. have \teen selected based on maximum air modeling outputs without regard for tho 

aeruaJ location of residents. lu the previous version of this report, a maximum exposed resident 

was located based on the specific resident at a verified location near the facility. Air modeling 

outputs for land, water body, and watershed receptors were selected mote conservatively in this 

revision since ove.rall risk and hazard did not necessitate further model refinement. The selection 

of air rnodeling output parameter values are described in de1ail in Section 3.5 of this report. The 

selection of ma>timum impacts, rather than selection of maximum intpact on n verified receptor 

from the air model results in a source of uncenainty in the overall risk and hazard results. 

Exposu re duration: Exposure to mox.imum nrutual 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 conservnnve estimate that all receptors spend all but 2 weeks per year exposed to wontcase concentrations in the affected area. 

Quantification of carcinogenic COPC exposure depends on the duration of exposure. The 

average human lifespan is generally assumed to be 70 years; childhood represents only about I 0 

percent of the lifespan (6 years). Exposure over dtis lifespan can vary greatly between 

individuals. Consider the likelihood of residents moving out of ibe area or ceasing to operate a 

farm. The assumption of constant maximwn exposure will tend to overcsthnate risk/hazard; 

since it is unlikely that exposure would be this significant Since this value is used for chronic 

exposure, the effect of overestimatiug risk/hi!Zard over the duration of the exposure period (70 

years for adult residents) is notable. 

Benchmark for assessiug methyl mercury hazard quotient: Daily ingestion of methyl 

mercury, avemged over the chronic exposure duration, is anticipated 1o be without adverse bealth 

effects if it is less than or equal to the reference dose (RID) of 0,0001 mglkglday. The potential 

for ndve~ health effects due to chronic exposure tQ methyl mercury above this RtD is uncertain. 

One objective of this screening-level risk assessment is to ensure that cbronie human exposuro to 

the Ony» incinerator emissions is unlikely to increase daily intake of methyl mercury above the 

RfD. The methyl mercury hazard quotient (HQ) is the estimated daily intake of methyl mercury 

89 

VES 007857 
expressed as a fraction of the RID. Therefore, an HQ of 1.0 or less is equivnlent to daily intake 

at or below the RfD. The HQs provided in this repon arc estimates for the daily intake attributed 

solely to 1114Ximum (i.e., biased high) exposure to Onyx incinerator emissions. Tbe purpose of 

this sectiOII is to address the uncertainty in daily intake of methyl mercury from sources other 

than the Onyx incinerator emissions. 

Region 6 Risk Management Addendnm (EPA-R6-98-002, July 1998) addresses the uncertainty 

of cumulative intake of COPCs by arbitrarily assuming that chronic daily intake from 

unspecified sources is 75% of the RID. Since this ''background" COPC intake has been assigned 

anunsub,tantiated HQ of0.75, the HQ benclunark of0.25 is recommended by EPA for assessing 

incrc1nental exposure. The obJective is to ensure that cumulative intake does not exceed an HQ 

of 1.0. The difficulty in quantifying cumulative exposure creates the need tor applying an 

unsubstantiated and COnseiV ti e HQ benchmark for assessing incremental exposure. However, 

due to the nature of methyl mercury exposure and the availability of data provided by the 

Met·cury Study Repon to Congress (MSRCi, the assessment of potential cumulative intake of 

methyl mercury is greatly simplified. Onyx contends tllat the following approach for assessing 

potetttial daily intake of metltyl mercury from otber sources is more site-specific and reasonable 

than EPA's overly conservative and unsubstantiated default assumption. 

As stated in the MSRC, "(!)isb consumption dominates the putbway for human and wildlife 

exposure to metltylmcrcury." This ob5ervation is substantiated by this risk assessment where 

fish ingestion accounts for 99"/o of the sum of methyl mercury HQs from all exposure pathways 

evaluated. Additi nally,~ ... the typical U.S. consumer eating f!Sb from restaurants and grocery 

stores is not in danger of consuming hanDful levels of methylmercury from fish and is not 

advised to limit fish consumption. Tb.e levels of methylmercury found in the most frequently 

consumed commercial fish are low, especially compared to levels thai might be found in some 

non-commercial fish from fresh water bodies that have been affected by mercury pollution." 

Based on tltese conclusions provided by the MSRC regarding tbe nature of methyl mercury 

exposure, it is reasonable to assume that: (I) methyl mercury exposure via exposure pathways 

other than the consumption of fish are negligible and (2) the consumption of commercial fish and 

otl!er non-locally caught fish pose an insignificant increase in methyl mercury intake compared 

to the consumption of fish from Frank Hollen Lake. It is recognized that there may be short-term 

methyl.met'cury exposures that depan from these simplifying assumptions; however, the 

infrequency of such instances over a 30 year exposure duration is assumed to reasonably offset 

tbis uncenainty. 

2 U.S. EPA. Mercury ~)udy Report to Congms. Volumes I thrr>ugh VIII. Offie<: of Aii Quali1y Pbwlins and 

Standards and ORD. El'N4521R-97-ooJ. December 199?. 

90 

VES 007858 
The MSRC provides an inventory of anthropogenic releases of mercury from industrial and 

combustion sourtes in the United States as well as bacl\ground concentrations of mercury from 

riatuml and globnl sources. The Regional Lagrangian Model of Air Pollution {RELMAP) was · 

used to simulate mercury impact from th<:se sources. Section 5.1 of the MSRC Volume m 

presents the resulting air concentration and deposition flux of men:ury species for the continental 

tJnited States. The minimum, I Oth percentile, 50th percentile, 90th percentile, and maximum 

values of predicted air concentration and deposition rates are reported over the full geographical 

area as well as Western and Eastern sub-areas. The Western and Eastern areas have a common 

boundary at 9() degrees west longitude. 

The Eastern area's RELMAP results provide a basis for evaluating mercury impact from other 

sources. Although the most eastern Onyx incinerator stack (90° 10' 58"W) is in the Western 

area, the data for the Eastern area are the most representative of Onyx's risk asse=ent area. 

Since the MSRC compares RELMAP simulated results to measured field data, it could be argued 

tbat these data are potentially inclusive of the mercury emissions from the Onyx incinerators. 

Instead of this argumem, Onyx considers the RELMAP data to be a conservative Msis for the 

potential impact over the lake m•d watershed areas ftom 2!lw; local and non-local mercury 

sources. 

The RELMAI' data can be applied to the site-specific mercury fate and transport model for the 

Frank Holten Lake. By substituting the RELMAP data into the HHRAP eql!ations, the 

background methylmercury HQ can be estimated. The methyl mercury HQ determined in this 

manner would replace the assumed default value of 0.75. An estimated background 

methylmercury HI that is less than 0. 75 increases tbe beochmarlc for incremental methylmercury 

ha7..ard attributed to Onyx. incinerator emissions. 

COPC soil loss: Bteause COPC loss from soil and other media depends on many complex 

factors, it may be difficult to model the overall rate of loss. COl'Cs are removed from soil via 

numerous physical :md chemiC31 processes. Since COPC soil loss was estimnted empirically for 

the risk asseS$1'11Cnt, it is unlikely that the numerous processes involved are estimated aocurately. 

In addition, because the pbenomenn that cause COPC loss can occur simulumeously, the use of. 

the recommended equation way overestimate loss rates for each of the pathways for loss, which 

may overestimate or underestimate risk/h828rd values. 

COPC loss from aboveground produce: The HHRAP recommended value of the plant surface 

loss coefficient is set at 18 yr·•. The range of potential values for this constant is 7.44 w 90.36. 

Using a value too small will tend to underestimate the rate at which COl'Cs are removed from 

91 

VES 007859 
the produce surface, thus overestimatiJlg risk. Using a value too large will tend to overe$timate 

the rate at which COPCs are removed from the produce surface, thus underestimati ng risk. 

Aboveground produee consumption is an imponant int.Xe palhway for this risk assessment 

Building Wake Effec.ls on Air Modeling Results: Flow lines IIJ'Ound buildings in the vicinity 

of soutce(s) can cawe plumes from ·the stack to be forced down co the ground sooner thaD they 

would be if the buil~i hgs were not there. These effects are referred co as building wake effects, 

or buildjug downwasb. During the ·development of this site-specific risk assessment, numerous 

assumptions from earlier revisions were evaluated to ensure relevance, accuracy and 

completeness. One of those assumptions was the presence of buildjngs in the ,;cinity of the 

incinerators that had the potential to aft'ecl downwash. Although the methodology for 

determining building wake effects is discussed in Section 3.2.1 of this document, the air 

modeling pet>fonned did not include this analysis, typically performed using the Building Profile 

luput Progtam (BPlP) computer model. After building charncteristics were reviewed and 

determined to potentially affect the results of air modeling, a quantitative uncertainty analysis of 

the overall effect of building downwash on fmal risk and hazard was performed. 

Characteristics of the buildings that were considered to detemti.nc the building wake effects are 

their height in relation to the stack, and their distance from the stack. As specified in the 

HHRAP, two conditions must be satisfied for a building to be considered in downwasb 

detenninations. 

• Building Height - Only buildings whoso height is equal co or greater than 2/5 tbe height of 

the stacks (0.40 • Stack Height) should be included. 

• Distance from Stacks - Only buildings tbal are "nearby" the incinerator stacks should be 

included for determination of building wake effects. 

Tbe HHRAP defines "nearby" as "five times the Jesser of the building height (H) or the 

crosswind width (L)." In other words, only buildings that are at a dis12nce closer than five times 

the height of the building, or five times the crosswind length of the building should be included 

in building wake effect determinations. 

As sbown in Table 7-1, the only building meeting the requiremenu for analysis of building wake 

effects based on height is the Bulk Feed Building near Unit4. It is greater than 2/5 the height of 

the Unit No. 4 stack. figure 3-I also sbows that this building is located at a distance from the 

stack that is less than five times the builcling height. Satisfying these two conditions, this 

building should be modeled for downwasb. Since this building wM not considered in the 

92 

VES 007860 
TABLE 7-1 BUILDING DIMENSIONS lN INCINERATOR AREAS 

93 

VES 007861 
analySIS of wake effects, tbc impact of the exclusion of this building from modeling is discussed 

in the following paragraphs. 

After risk and luwu:d modeling was performed, BPll' modeling was initiated with selected 

receptor group files. Doe to the utilization of average values from ruroJ and Uiban settings, it 

was necessary to perform modeling for both rural and urban settings. Lake receptor files were 

used 10 demoosu·nte the impact ofhuilding downwasb, because: 

I. the smaller size of the ftles simplified modeling effortS, and 

2. the COPC concentrations estimated at the lake were important in the estimation of hazard 

from mercury emissions. 

Table 7-2 provides re.-ults of ISCSTI modeling on lake receptors that include BPIP modeling 

and that do not include BPlP modeling. Also, a comparison of the air parameter results for each 

is shown. The following air parameters: Cyv, Dytv, and Dytpb all show either a lower value 

with building downwasb ( .0.03 %and .0.02%) or an insigoi6cant increase (0.4%). 

The only significant increase (15%) is for Dytp, which is only relevant to the particle phase 

COPCs (As, Be, Cd, Ci', Cr(Vl), and Pb). 

Tite maximum cancer estimate for particle phase COPCs is 0.344E-5 for oral exposure to 

C.r(fV). Tbe maximum lut7.ard quotient for panicle phase COPCs. is 0.0334 for inhalation 

exposure ro Be. Both of these estimates are well below the default benchmarks. Therefore, a 

15.2% increase in total deposition of panicle phase COPCs would not raise any of the exposure 

estintates above a default benchmark. Based on these comparisons, the exclusi'ou of building 

downwasb effects for the bulk feed building located near Unit 4 would not have a significant 

effect on the overall JeSUits of the project. 

Percent of Coutarnioated Food: Human intake of COPCs is determined on the basis of seveml 

factors. One ~ignificant consideration is tbe percentage of the diet contaminated by COPCs. In 

this risk assessmen~ detailed evaluations of fishing p111Ciices and fish consumed from the Frank 

Holten Lakes have been performed. One area of uncertainty that has not been addressed 

quantitatively in this assessment is th<! percentage of fish in the lakes contaminated witlt 

mercury. The estimations of mercury in fiSh are dependtlllt on the fate and transport of mercury 

in the water body and the long-term effects on fish in the lake. Since a portion of fish consumed 

from these lakes are stocked from fium·roised non-local enviroDillcnts, and culled quicldy from 

the lakes, it is overly conservative to assume that 100% of fiSh caught in the lakes are 

oontaminated. This area of over-conse~Vatism was not addressed quantitatively because risk and 

hazard estimates made using this conservative approximation were below benchmark values. 

94 

VES 007862 
TABL£7-2 

BUILDING DOWNWASH IMPACT ON FRANK HOLTEN LAKE AIR MODELING 

. RESULTS 

Urban/Rurol Urban/Rural Percent 

P:tramelcr Uni ts Average without Average with 

Change Dowuwasb Downwasb 

Cyv (Jtg·s)/(g-m3) 5.64E-04 5.64E-04 -0.03% 

Oytv stm2/yr 0.0493 0.0493 -0.02% 

])ytpb s!m2/yr 0.00940 0.00944 0.4% 

Dytp stm2

fyr 0.0152 0.0175 15.2% 

95 

VES007863 
APPENDIX I 

RISK CALCULATION DATASHEETS 

VES 007864 
RISk Modd l'al'8lllelllrs 

. 

.. ,~ 

· D ... rluli""' IRA '· '' llbJt. Co!!gorY . ·'' A t. ~~ • \' ·. .. ' \ Jii'Ol • > I ' · .. -. 

. ·. ~<~<liVIIM'~ Ocil ' SiAl l'Ai~dedsi ~ ConllUU\l' ·;l "&.I·J 04 '.4 ... - ~lli'Mvol.llll>lllOCI'o<O<>r C:::nsc.~m\1 

Cd ··:---· - .Dil!.l cotffocic!i\ ~" sv ... ctrWr A~ .. ftlte llliuual~tWpjmtion Ccnstai!U 

' · ....... :'~ ·' c.mfn; A~M~ t.lli\lal'lf!!goi!COI ~ICMII 

·,· . k',;. ~.·.:-· .. .. - .. . ~l<•nnnn i:CJUI!Int, Olnat:n\lf . '' ,.. -... ;·· )?JI .;,: . . ,. ' ' liw ' PIAAt'' " "'C(dll<ient CMAi.\I'IU 

·• •I ""'"'"''' .:· . . ll(crr/J Yli'IIO!ri!Yoh i• : Ct"Jnstanf• -~'. 

, P. . . . . CI!1W M:inl;e -uoi~Plla!IOO Ccru<ants ' lt. . lUll-m"31ii:Joi-K ~~ .. "'"'"'""' .. Con:oWI .. •. tllctio.'..' pJCin"3 J;)eruilyQ( li.ii ct\ICAlllS 

, illouail'· . ~/cr!l"l DensitY ., &w ClllliS\ttnM 

', ill~. iii' • ::. g(crir'3 Drilli!ty Of wati>r· ' ~~ &\11 :·C 

Q.Q;· :·:.· c;nV'yr !W• OIU\\Jll,61ll'f1101>.1:Un<6 &em pero;..,. .,. ... C0l~•111HII 

Tt' . ..:.. ... ~ '!lC1:1oitit'(be • or~ Const>n\J '. . ~ 11: IA!iJI>It:nt a!t temiior:•tuco Ccmi!Olts 

:' E)' . }'".& '' ~'lo'l)l,cl! .. 

""""" Oxui::"J'\t& 

I Q1t:(,i;J'lfr. .nit.l<:m•s SOil1191UIJJOii1e Waltif a:lllrio't CQlRtMI!t 

, 

I Z,' -· " cui · SOli tnlxblf.ztl(tculi;i~ ConStDtll! 

RI>A .. tnu.<:epci"' lnai<lll ol d.-.. odlt'e jJ<lr11l>o rS ~ g;ttmd proc~:>ee CUlSlanU 

11>-lli }t lalp c;/, plMl e.<poiUIC IO dopo<i<loo pol' b...-tt U10 tdtbie 

loc>1ion o1 ihe ilh_l>i.,.._ Conlit-tdUS 

Yll ojl ' tcsl>Wlm'2 Yield or tl'"<lini <riJp lliunw• of tl•• t<!ible porucn of' lll• pl•ol Ooos!Anta - . ~vlt.Y) !i.L'!Cn .. ; d&% • of dfbxln ll!Q illll(lullo CmWl!ll:< 

. li .. - !'r1lctla!. rli11Eest«< dil>lCin O>.t-1$ stored io fot C<ni1Cttl 

12 . - l'ntaion. (J{ ~· ,..;Jlbt lbat ;. m CmsU!nl• 

f3 .. l'ntctlon or,_.~ .. , milk that i• fot Ccns\a..~ u 

: flf .. !'raclllln o( init!ified CO~ !h Uuh..no<~ OnslSI\\.& IL&Ju .·· ks Bodi' wcli!hl. El<fi('JOllro.llAAi£ 

IR . ks ll I fii' .isif on l B""< lll"31br Inboi.Uoa me Bos!O 

QSciJ kc.aJI<IaY Ccol.._ton·rate of .scU l!l>tPO"II:'ft 81Ul< ~4 ' lcSI D'IV iion~Ji:L BW-!lu\1 · Consumption rat»«-~1na Pto<I\>Ce .!~lb,is 

.· ~ . . J<it>W 1llonllkr:ll'Wid4y ~12!:J!IM ~O<J. . . udm&OO!>- o t~l~ 

·leRliit'• . ' ' . $', kli' OW ntaJI.Uk!lllW41l!Y .. tic7.5-i\te tifi .. ci Otdd~ Eb~clluf"e R A:J.t .. 

Ofrti 1!~ Beal1b JijSk l\ta£Jimt41 Mcxltl _ Po&• I c;/,3/i lotr112005 

VES 007865 
IUs!< Model PanutJeters .~.: . 

~ t~h=~ ... ~ · :;:i : 'lc;R&f- '' i .' .;, ' . - .. .,:_;;;. 

. lilnits 

. .~ .. ' ; : . C~iilll.::; ...• ,. .·..:.~-

;. ' 

·w~Y 

- ·16• ~~<~~"" ot l!oilu..~ ~< 

Fli'~tk:o.l • 

~ 

·: ;:\ Nw. ' /~ J .. . J1r.ialico:• ·· " . . , ... ' lt'U ·•" ·~ ....,&.. _, 

~ '"'· ... \ C!'Ji'o, ~ ···,-:h • ~-~:: ,I _ l.il'lf ._ •. 

~ .. a;tt ';·!r~" ... ~ 

···~ Ill). · .• , .. . ~ 

=:; Ti>oo~ ~ :~::.:r.:~ -J• .: . • ••• .,.=-.~ ~ ,: ;;: ' -)'C8L 

;~~~.,;~_. -~ )1'1!-i-tf-:-_,.f , . • ¥"'!.~:·• - ,. 

iliot• 

• !:':;:---;: ~ ' lk ·~ -;... mtr"'~ ~ 

~~:" AL njA"' 101 

·."'\. 

.-::~-~ .. ~ IAJv: ·' .. ml 

'". Uuil""r .. ~ 

... -·::·~ . . ,_ .. en~;·.';'·:; , . . . · .tJc..m-'-3 _ ...J.! ~--,•···-r,'' db. , .. :. ·· · m D '-tJf · 

L.8 

: m Q~orw 

iii 1'lltol ....., ,._r:; 

lli1>fd · · - Pi<~> ~d .OOtiin 

·' W. Dc:nUif~ burial. l'it<: 

: .:~; ... ·, ~~ lalfoa'• . USlEcrl@.l\ll~<i ·: .. ·· . C ' - Dimcilc!onl"'' meow : ~ .! ~ml.e.-: - ~1:1!'1 'L " -

mu 'lr gJcro.-c '!iiC!OIIil. 

ac.ii! -· Fn<:lkxl ' 

~'\lile •· USL!l.!! · R.P. \'rrle ' · t!lr U.SLS t.tinh\u .(or C 

:::: :_.t 

Slif· .. 

~ 

~1>< B<dtcC 

lSSc moiL TOR<l $ll 

~ K Wa~~ 

m!s CI!ITMt vc/OC)[)' . ~fx rrJ>3/yc . ,· 

_, fl W I 

Ony.t.Humlll Ho.\l.d1 Rl<k "-1 Model Poge2 ol36 

. I 'O!ai.. 

. h ... lltd 

r cancer ri$k 

tCOPC 

L1&vet 

~ (0 018U'I' I 

1B11r.is 

~ 

luis 

Wa>i.'bodV~ WaiectKJ/ 1D Wot.<rbcxJ~ 

Wa.ttrbol 

WfiUwtiCII 

"-1ate:boc!y !npuL 

_.. . . ~r:: 

~ 

t:: !P~Jl 

_n";)lJt 

!:!C!... 

lnf'i\.\l 

012712 ~ 

VES 007866 
'. 

~ 

- ·~ C))) . 

if,;ii;' 

"'ttiit 

.l'g-&IJ-m"3 

Risls Modell'ar.nuctcrs 

\ln)t 

th\1~ · 

-

!!!\ I Wind >pood 

!cu 

~:lit j 

• 1•-!x •V<:f•E"} 

•rnoarlvc 

lVhit.i.z:cd pMdCI..,tnaAd phate air ~ceatratlon {)'eA.t1Y A"«ag~) 

ICattg.ory 

W~vlnJNt 

'mi)Ut 

I I 

~- .,~ -~~~n ·. \tv.e~ j • 

~ ~~,~· : . . .... -. =· sim•:!,.)~ 11'1 ( 

l""'fi:>'l,• 

f""Por ~ 1 

, ,.. . . . I ()early I 

LVj:{¢ty:-;;====~ • ('l'eult avtrogo) 

Air Ml).1c.l 

Air Modal 

AlrM:xkl 

l'J!'M~) 

,,, 

< 

. . . . Dl'!lb a. -:- ... 

'!-'i. 

c;;, 

~;', .;c \ ·; • ;,· 

,,:,. Ch'" .. - .. ·a..pb 

.. 

·'~. ~ ! rt 

\ 

6t' 

j(g-E/g-m"3 

:J!.. 

l!:.. 

'Yr 

ml!lla! 

'(\'OAI'Iy' 

I PI'~ t.otJ1 ~ 

dep9si 1 ():cady 

loh,...d:v!l.< 

t &!oo!;ili"" 

~p!Wo'ir c 

ial«ai>.l?!l\"" lilt ' 

aui\ilyi 

... 

,,. 

lA: 

lo.:b 

[A i(;; 

.pACI!d.,.bJuodphose.U<:XlllCin!nl<ioo (boorlym.axiJtJJm} Ail· Modal 1 

>rote I nu -I "'"" COPC Dola I 

~ ·~s ccnstlil duo-10 3GiJ aosim COPC ~·• 

1 «ll>ai&Dl dill) 10 rWloli' COPC Dol• 

"1Ci5iieloss CCII.ItlftC,dl"' lo loacilino COPC Doto l 

.J.COI'IC lou""""'""' dtoo o 'IQ!u!ili"'liloo COK: lllll• '~"' ..... n ..._st CtJn.llU&nf'<Sue to iiU m oce.rm COPe Ditta 

!) Cic£e COPC 011.tn 

COPCI>at& { 

IC?J'CDOU. 

:cif.C 

:ope 

COR 

~ 

t!!.. 

)~tln 

·;oc• - • Pltnt4oil bioor.mCC:Oti'AliOU fnaor for ·Yezi) ·- PIM.t-soil bioconccl'ltrtttipn factor f'or g . 

l!M&. 

w.:- c;mAo2i§ 

~ .l!url'.an Heal!l>·Rbk AIMi$monl Mocfel 

i'C r faCltt fllr gjVto I 

l'aJle 3 of 36 

- )a.u: 

'CDala 

--);;" 

J0-'2"1f.!l"Q) 

VES 007867 
... } J:Usk MOdel P~riW.l.e ers 

" 

IJ>•~•r- Uliits. m=;· C.t.ion 

DW".. em.l!lJc . . , · ~ _ !lfCO'f(; In w&t.,. OJ!'(; Data 

I~ ' 

- . . et'COPC In v..ma-oo""' COPCO.U .Ill' - . , - . o.rmm!'3itnol. ~rbaw--t O)I'COoUI 

c, XUI>o ,,.,. - ' ' . • II'O'I')WioWJ~ bo.Chtdim<nt ~~V~t 'tlQI'e-«'ltor w<itiOn cooffio~<ut COPCD<ro ' 

., - 5d. " ,. .--·; • · . . . c.....:a'W:Itertll·•on ISQi!~ I ' \. "'"l!iei~t COl'<: D•a ; .... . f~ ~,~.., ;~ :- . . ~ ' . iJ!tW!Il~ll:l! J\tll1l0li!~t ' ISitl - '. I• d rrlaQI!cwaiq niii'Jiti"'l OOefliCJil[ll CO.I'C 0•111 

::-, ::~- .. IKnjq< , . • • -. : .• -c ' - · - .• o .. - OCiilllbl;qut iii!Mtili:ti ·c<iohfeimi COPC. Outu ~ .. -;_ .. ' 

.. ' tJ~ .•. , ... ' 1~ . · Cb1!e'O:il1"".oceiolmlt·!loolb b!alc an<1 alXllllc <le~m~dJI.dcn COl'C l'>"• 

.'{'Ill' .. ' IT!>':tie!N. eilcivnlel\cy .f6Ctilr . COPC[!•t• 

~ .. - of OOI'C 'ol'<t"""""•UIXl.dlat O'dJiQ-cs to olont Sllrfaoos COPCOala 

'IBR' . . . 

- lSUf azddic;t:D{ rifio COPCD1t0 

11!<1 .... ..-· ciDh g · ·!tial voloc:ltv COPCD<I:a 

" ~JO g/s J!Uj"ion rate Ofelemwt•l ~ (incllldln& poniOil cnt<rmt Mercury lup<;t . · .. } I moo.! C\<Cl•l 

• '-. - '~ . flmlssl<m rat~ or·v"fll' pll .. e <><!diU<! meroury (lnctuding pot!ion g/8 mlaflluJObal c'wie) Mm'IJf)' l.n]llll 

~ 

., 

.. , 

,. 

.. - !Jli!li~ t&te orper\lcl ... bcom6 pn..., mert>ll')' (lnc:!udiug portion ~ g/t jMm:ury Input "'"'*-'·· .W..l "'do) 

' Q'Hg'l g/l t;ml;sfao r-of diYolocu """""Ymodeied u meroudcdll<:ri& ~1-ry b'.p<U . incllldiAi PO<!lM <nterlnl! •Jobol."'-"lel 

· OliO .. . .. Ft-.. oC olemenu l ""'cun-<O'lJ•(Jl-IA.d M.,..,,... lnn-.u 

. Pakl: ~ -- Pntcrion C1! """"" llh11S6 Olddi;ed lbOr<'Jry (O'lfii2 Vi dc:oo<ited Mer-L'L't~~' J~n t 

.IJ:Tt4b -- Fctl<tion of particle-IJQm<l "ddlzed mercury (Q'Hgl_J"') rt.-.posilcd Mercury Input 

' .. - l"r&ctim cf diVAlent ,.,....,.,..Y (Q'H!I2) cki'JOOitod Mt:n:\Jf'\1 bmu\ 

p.~ · - jne.rtectioo ofdivah:cot mercury lroptwng tile n•k ...... mmt ·- .,...ln lbe v"""'llb""' Mri'O'J!}' [Jlput 

IMR'__i.«lil - l'r.laial d l(lW """"''" U>elh\1<ted in soil& ~!D.OOi 

[IMH&-"" -- Ftac!loo ofll\6 diOIOIW>CI CA:UI1 ""'"'-'Y ro<'lb)'10Uid In "....,. oo..'l:rnn McrC1:!}' lr.pu' 

fnJh&, plMt -- Fra«ioo of the tO!AI !l)t'l.'cury fr.:rn depcxiti.., lilld vopor lnl!lSf<r Mt.J..:ur)' Input u>db)'lrrU<lln plan!S m RIA CQPCJl(g S<l!liYr Dooooitioo: term. Water F~te & 'fratl~tU l. 

. C'ltd- .ntit·COPC'IkJtcoil S<lilo::lu:wttotion ut dmolD Wot<: l'•te & Tra:~s,;.,., ' ' . WI!!> g/)T 

T"'al (""" and dt1') pnrti<:lc pliAs.e Md ,.,.. v>p<:r pb.~ c:oPC Wale:< l'•te & Tr<!131'Q't direa &.:a.iUat lOIId to waJtt txxlv 

r.o .mhr 'Oat~ u-.. <hoffi"""t Wat.c: l-~e- &.. TumSDCJt\ 

<lll)'llilllnonH~tti.Risk AlleaM<I!t Modol P<lg6~ of ~ IM.7/ZOOS 

... 

VES 007868 
.... ~. '''" 

!"'"~ ' 

, ........ 

~-- . 

~-,.:. .·• 

~ :,. 

~f,~i 

, .... 

"' ~--.. 

> 

·:_-r# 

'· 

* 

.. 

<na COPC!I:t o\11 Soil 

BfYr 

lliJ COTC'i<3 DW 

"'8 <.:oPCJ\:g ww 

"'' O">PCII<g ow 

llle COPCJkg l>W 

1118 <Xll'Cikg DW 

~ Rc:ollb ru.J< ........ "lloat MOOel 

Risk Mo.det l'al'ao:lcters 

PogeSd36 10/27/W)j 

VES 007869 
IU.$k Mo<l d l' rumetc.rs: 

.. 

Oft)'IC lban.tn BealO. Risk A-•t Mlxlcl h&o6 ol36 IM712005 

VES 007870 
P~lf:ll!Mf r 

ll.l)· 

»• 

Cd 

l!v 

I 

k 

lp 

"'"-" 

'P 

It 

ttOJ 

Jjlo.J;Oil 

rbo_w 

1<0 

71 

J'a 

tD 

lbe'ta_aw 

Zs, 

l't~.'.-'t 

TPJ3 

YP "t 

h,.lQ) 

fJ 

fl 

0 

1'4 

·• 

l1'F~Sl'ECJF1C AI\J> UEFAlil.'f CONS1'Al'\l'S 

Unn.S 

r}all"3 

-

.. 

<'TIJ!yr 

crntyr 

.. 

l.J)• 

f;/cml6 

csolyr 

..,.I'Q'YD'iOI-)( 

.g(t,Dt"3 

flaa"3 

g!CII"'3 

<:mlyt 

y<M 

K 

}'f 

mh'Cirl'3 

. .,. 

-

yr 

lt&'m"2 

dan 

-

-

-

-

. • _ .. ·,· ... .: ~. -~~ -of 

Vti lllt 

l.7 

I 

(HIOH 

~ 

125 

0.4 

IS 

!.8 ~.-<)4 

999 

8.20SE-OS 

0.00120 

:1.10 

1.00 

L1..S 

0 

298 

so 

oa 

2 

0.39 

0.1.64 

1.23 

2,S$S 

0.90 

0.:!0 

0-04 

0.90 

Poiw b;l~6 :, f ,, 

'·· ' ,• 

' ' ' ' ~ ·.,. 

'';t ; ' . .: ; ... ~· ~ ~.-;· ,_. ~~':' :~·;·: 

:. r. < 

' ' ' r ,. "'' 

~ .. ~ ~· 

~ .. :-·-,. .· ~·-. 

·1. ' " 

r v '.' :~.~;~~Jf ' 

, 10(2?121)(» ' I , '• .. ; ' _ ' ''"~'" t_ • ,!,_ 

I k_ ;. ' 'c,' 

"l ·''· ; ;(', ; • • ,_ ..... •)1;• 

VES 007871 
6:"'J'OS1...'R.E SCENARJO Sl'ltCUilC DATA 

'Pa. nur~rc ~ Uftlt$ ~t~U.'\J'iol S<:t nrrrl<>l Scenar(()3 Si'ttttlTi()~ 

Scenarto Child ecr~~,; cuual Adul1 e.::c~:iOni l .. ~jdcz;t Fisl>er Child R?-(1dent Fis.he.r 

BW "' IS 15 ;o 70 

aw_infanl l& J() tO 

!R ... l'bt 0.3 0.3 0.63 0 .63 

~ &'<loy 0.0001 QOOOI C.0002 0.(1002 

CRog t~.IJ<afd.1y 0.0004:2 . 0.00042 0.0003 O.OIJO:l 

Cll.pp ksil:&ldaY 0.0«>77 0.110017 o.uoo:n 0.00(1$7 

(l~bg tgil<~idly 0.00022 0.00022 0.00014 O.CfJ014 

<Rdlll IJ<Iuy 0.67 0.67 L4 !.4 

()fls.b lrg/kyday 0 l..:SB-04 0 2.1 tB.Q4 

I<Rbmill: Jca!Uo1 0 0 O.B o.s 

JOojJ - l l I l 

FprodDce - 0.25 0.2S O.lS 0.2.'1 

~"' - I I I 1 

!'fish - 0 I 0 J 

Er. ht~ 24 24 24 24 

fEI' tlo)ll:n: 350 ~so 350 3SCi 

m Yl 6 6 30 JO 

AI'~ yr '4 6 30 30 

A1'~ yr iO ?0 70 '70 

ij{ - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

llwf - UXl ).(X) 1.00 1.00 

;i.'{. - 0.95'9 0 .. 959 G.9S9 0.959 

«lf...n~ - J I l I 

<>i£-.c .. 0.0857 0.0857 0.4286 OA286 

<!~(.otlf>ing . .. J l 

ltv271200S 

,.. 

VES 007872 
WAl'ERBODY ANDWATER.<;mtn Sl'l<.ClFlCUA'l'i\ 

P"'l'd(I).CIU Uolrt '\\ nr ~r xl) 1 

·-· W•rtrl"'tly 2 

N!ur.e - :FJ~n.k fk•ltc;. is.~t Sl iP i 

W at:rilody -IYP< .. \..o\e lliVC7 

.. O.l?S Ol'lS 

AJ m"2 U 4&r<Jb 2,0S£>()7 

IAL lll"2 1551M5 4% :~m 

IJI.;. 111"1 716.293 I.:~ .q) 

C_,ullc - 0.1 0.) 

CBS cm"l I I 

dbc m om 0-0) 

td.wc m 2 1.61 

d:& m 2.03 1.65 

li\ip;d - 0-07 0.01 

~ V:rr 0.1&7 0..000 

K_uale lon/l!tl'e 0.39 O.l9 

IIUIII)d._z - 4 4 

ILS ~ .. 1.$ 1.$ 

llii...W g/cll! .. 0.01(>9 0J)J69 

OCoad - 0.\)4 0.(}1 

[PF_usle - I I 

RF_wle li)Y 210 ,.o 

S'Ji) .. 0.193 0,131 

~ .. 1.0'26 1.026 

if>eca....l>l - 0.6 0.6 

tt6$. mt/L 10 10 

Tv. it K l98 298 

• ""' 1.62 

I:Vtx 111"3/:Yr )34,998 l.$4l!l?IJ.> II 

\v Jll1s 4.S5 4.55 

~ ~yr 2.75 2.1S 

, .. ( 

. \ .' . -,._ " ... ' ~· ... ~ .I!Pnw> lltailit )!,(~ .Nocauitc:lit Mockl . ,. 

VES 007873 
• ;,; i 

'· 

.. 

• ..., .. - ~: ;.;;.. ,1, 

.. ,._.,.. . .. --,. 

~;. ,. 

.. 

'·• ~~- \, .:- -~; . 

'T~d. r 

~i.-~r~~: .. ........ ~ 

;•·:i: .• 

'' :: .. 

' 

.: · 

_-t~ • 

• '".t:~·;-. 

' ····--- ... _' -t 

~r:n~. ~-

'7.i" 

·:<:· 

-- .. 

Cr• ' ~ . 

'. 

D)~ll(~!l) 

);i')-)IIV'I· , ' .. ' .. t&iil ' I ., "'- ol• 

):l)'lli6 .• , .. 

·- ~ 

I7ydpb - !l)<wp, - .. 

'P..r+ilb . 

~;,·. 

c.:I!P 

I~ 

AlR MODEUN.G RESULTS 

OuUs Maxtlllllll> L.iw·J-ru Waletbo<ly.l Wawsne<IJ 

P&·lls·"'·3 o,cm 5.648-04 

pg-&'£•m"3 0.903 

. ~a...rt-m'>3 0.951 

o'm"i-yt 0.0493· 0.007 

¥ .. ~)> 0.61)4 . 

s/n>"2·yr 2.26 Cl0152 0.01~9 

J/rr/•'1,-yr 1.%2 0.00940 O.oo!911 

tlm"'1-YT 1.51 

Jlm"l-)T 0.7"9 

1/!ll"l-yt 0,655 

&im'2·;yr 0.4?0 

pg.Yg-mi-3 61.1. 

~&-s(l·m"3 61.0 

l'a....Jtc-m"l 6(1.9 - ---- --- - - -- - --- - -- - -

' ~HjOnlln)lea.'<I>Rbl< ~MMel Pop 10o06 

-. -~ 

WsttrbOdyl 

0.!08 

().0105 

0.0669 

0.0338 

·-·-·-

- - ___ j 

10127J:U};l5 

VES 007874 
.:~·,-.. i r~ .( .'" )'·~~ ._ ... 

;v:·' 

·~ '. 

··-· . 

·~; .. : .. 

: C!ASHo. C()I'CNome COi'C Cta,P Q kH 

'(/$ 1/yr 

7~38.1, !Anent• M•r.l ?.t.ill-04 

744001 : ii'F'1111ulll Me111 piE-Oi 

. '1~~· c;:~l.ill'!N in . Mmt ~191 

44().17~; !l~{tlt~m ·· ~illl i.72'B-04 

I~Wl . : · ' mi~ " (V() . . . 

l\!etJI • ':. 7.721! ~ 

1~~21 · !Wd' lli~tal o.ootvl 

7i)~6' lll•m•tot>l 4,1<fl'Ul'Y Mettl 92}1!.()? 

~)181947 ~r.le ClJI<>iliiD· Meuj'' 6.!8!l-04 

!22~~ b,ierhyi' "" . . '' Meul· 

l7 ¢~f>. l!!;raeo.D. 2.3~ .8• Dt!' tSB- 12 -

0 1\Y¥ Ho..U.. He4llh Ruk A..seo..-Model 

COPC-sPEOEIC DATA 

!cor ksl u. b Rn>o R!C (."Slfo 

1/yr ~.,.,. 1/yr 1/yr m~r"1fday ~~~~.,., JJ(mglke'o•;-) 

2~ 0.467 66,'23& ()6,239 3-00£-04 3.00E.05 1.')0 

0.0()1165 . 0.0110 47.4 47.4 0.00200 2.00E-1)5 .. 0.0489 0.179 l,03l ,~1 001~'0 ~.OOE-04 

0.192 0.700 D.S\IS 1.50 ~. 11) 

O.f92 \).703 0.$95 0.00300 1.00ll·04 

0.0040$ 0.0149, 69.3 69.3 4.29Ii·04 0.00150 0.00850 

1).00368 0.0134 2.SO 2.S2 3.00F,04 

6.34ll.OS 2.32-E-04 1.?9£-0S 9~1!·0• ).C>OIJ-()4 0.001~ 

$.256-04 1).001!12 I.!SE-« 0.00256 I OOE.04 

~~ll-0~ ~ASE.o< ~ 0.0333 I 00809 !50,000 

Page U of36 I 0/7'1/200.5 

VES 007875 
COPC.SPECIFlCDATA 

~~S N<>. · G;OI'C Ntm<> URF; ME<: JlA F .s~n•h IISAFI'ioh R~ .llrroo< Bvos Do Ow r:,. 

.. !I(Jiglm"3) mwrn•J ~ 1.11<g cmll.2/s cm"~/l 

4!l,Q3~. Ar'I'Jii<: 0.05430 I.Voe-64 Jl 4 0.006:>3 0.00300 !)0772 ?.37E·Ofi 1100600 

17440417 Bety1~Jm> ~ MO$!lll 62.0 OeCOZ~ 0.00150 00772 9.57F...Q6 0 WlOO 

7440439 Cadmion. 0.00180 0.0300 9117 0. 123 0.06-40 0.0172 9 Hl.!-06 0-00900 

7«0!173 " \ltn l..SO 19.0 0.()0483 0.004$0 c. ~z; 141C.OS 0.00900 

J85o&Om Oinimium (VI) 0.0120 3.16 0.00488 0.00450 

74l9!1ZI l.4>od .. 1.2oa.os 0.150 0.0900 0.0136 0.00900 o.arn 9.57B·06 O.OU700 

74~9976 . Bk~ta!M : O.OQljiO 0.0109 3.0!P. O.~ i.OO 

Hli'194'lo' M""'!ir.i<: OYlo:td.O ' ·O. l2S O.Ol'-t:S 0.0l6(J . !.800 ().0453 5.23ll-06 0.95() 

~2~~~ M"!f!YI Mercury. . 0.031)(), . 12®00 . ~ 0.0990 0.0$28 6.11 e<l6 

. 1A~b\~ · ~~~i?D. 2.~;1~8,. ' O.OOJsO . 34,400 0.0900 0.00455 1.0) 65.500 0.11)4 5.601!·06 0664 

Ooyx•H•manlt ... llh Risi<Ass=mel•l MDdol PoJo lloUtl 100712C0.5 

VES 007876 
. COJ•C·S!'IiCJFIC DATA ,, 

~ ·:. ·: .. J~~.1 · COP.C tfolil<> I ll l ~ I ',Kao I l<:dsw I Xcrw I .sg I 'rFJI I 1111· I RR I Vtlv I 

';•,. 1. . . I ~on·m"3fmoll cm•Jig I em"3/g 'I I.Jlcg' I I Jlyr • ,.. ··M 

. ···~ ' -:· 

...... -... · 

.. -~-

;,_. 

,.: ...... 

·~ 

' !". ,; ••• 

;!;;,: :. . ' . 

·~i{;r-i~~~f·~i :~ . ; .. ~; F: ~·,;::-t,; 011)':\ lt~H(lallbR~AU'*m..;rt.IO(J<J 

........... -

·~ . 

Pasc 13 <>f 36 10127/;Wo.» 

VES 007877 
MERCURY Ellti5.'>10N AN'l.l SPEClA.110N Di\TA 

PnrflbWC~ .l)nit& Valut• 

~' l,&i) "' 9.2:lE·05 

Q'F.sl_v r/1 8.540..04 

Q"F.gl.J>b at• 359E.05 

l<r111J2 w• 9.50£4: 

lfftO - O.QlOO 

l'ii£2_ v .. 6~0 

ftiJCl..J>b .. 0.360 

Dlal - Cl6;J 

{,.Jig! - C.950 

llnhg_soil .. 0.0200 

!olhjO_we - O.ISO 

llrll'IU>Iant .. 0.220 

O.y.:. Homo" RoOkh Rlslc ~ Mocld '". ~ 

~J4o( 6 .. . ' , . •\o' 

VES 007878 
C.UCULA TIONS FOR li:STIMA TING FISH CONCKNTRA 'fl ONS 

· ·· • • :: ~~o , COPC'ri:omt: D$ O;tD LD.Ei>" KG Kl, K• o..e"rllll Ldlf LRJ fire Ills in· kwt I •. ~/1~1J1,,_ • '' 't .-.,~ '-,.. . _ -

· . : ; .. · ." ml/k'I(Yt •·lf<~ !fyr m/.yr mlyr trlyr glyr rJyr 1/yr ll)lr 

~. "·;:;~ ;7~3~~. ~ : .· . J-35p,;04 ·S.!Oll-.09 SAJ . 561,364 2.03 231 . <6.9 o.693 0.301 llol 1S.'l 

,.,._, ;, 1~17 IJ\tl'yi}iom . ,, · 3.~~~ 13E ~ 8.41 · S61J64 20J 231 26.9 0.0783 0.92l JIJ 9.02 1 

. 1A.404,, Cadmitmr. ': s.~ Uo&o?. 21t.8. 561..360 203 231 66.5 0.-'69 0.531 114 53.4 I 

0 04'l.5 

' (1.{)42.' 

, _, . ~1 · Wd· ' .... :~;; • S.~~Gt 1,21~ :IO.s 561.364 2Q3 23~ 66.5 1 O.O<i% J 0.931 I ~ IJ I 3-0t 

·'; ·• · , .: • · 61..CUrieCit!Ori<!c· • 1 . I . :~;. '148J9•7,. (9":'t...,.,~ti> 7.-!4.6-04 o.pn:z zo.1 ln.m 136 o.ot30 o.106 s9.2 o.oozGG 1 o?~n 

l mT~-~ ... ~: ~~ !'0 'f~'T OO!i, l.~.~·!!>· 2.901!-li ' 5.5\q-H 7MJF.;os 68S,414 142 140 8.S8E·l I 2.3111·0'1 I 0.00168 

... ·~~:·::-'~~;.! '·~: : .... . ·.~: .,'(!"'''~~ -___ ....... . ( " 

\~- . 

fl.. .. ,-. 

. ' . . . . - ·-~·-r..,- f'. ~ 

:f ~-:; 

:.~ •I I 

·~: . 

'{-

,._,., 

~ 

-~ :;. 

~- -~ . 

~.\-~.: 

' 

.. . . . . . ; ' . , Qfiy., FI\Jm•.n !J~Illi Risk& ... •ment Modo! 

'''-'; ...... ' 

0.998 

Pa,o lSof36 

oom;9 

IM 

0.186 

21~ 

J 01?.7 !2LV>S 

VES 007879 
.. 

I o.,• 

t- ~ ~ • - >< 

... ;.o~-., 

... •!·.; 

.. 

. ; . ; ·' .. ' 

; l •• 4 "' 

. . 

.. 

<:OPCNaux 

CALC1JLA'FlONS FOR ESTIMATING FISH CONCF;NTRATIONS 

(Noncnncer Health Effects) 

Ort1> Hllmln-fl .. lib 111: l\!li<OSn>Cbt ~.od.J Pap 16 of 36 

" ., 

or.nn~ 

VES 007880 
.1 

~ P• 

"· ~~ 

' ~;;. .. : ·,. .~)l . • •• 

:•>: 

~·~ .... 

..... 

.... :~. 

r. 

CALCULATIONS FOR ESTJMATING FLSB CONC~'TRATlONS 

(Canter Risks) 

MS'i!to. COPC NQ•IC· CS LR LE LT Cotto! C.,.clot Co" <'A~ Cf'llh 

·• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m~ ~ ~ 

-~ 1.~4,\l~$1. . J.YW)IC .. . ..5.!9fl-!l\l ·. !,i4E·Oi1 l•Aii!-05 3,S} 3.(}?E.W '2.lC)e..()1 1~E-07 6.2Sll-ll6 2.461!-0S 

~ ).4~011 •, (~j~ry(l lo l>l . ·. :i, (2'Bo!l6'. :OfOQ.ss'i Ml!n'~ 3S.3 2.69:&.06 ·l,l4S.Qo1 2.t21?, cn 1.671:..()4 t.31E·OS 

• ~44oif39 :. · ~!1'lb111 ' "• ~7. '·~(!)!)702 . · j),CXI'(.?A _$ .~ i~:06 5o.33tl-07 5.31)3.07 4.008-0S 4 S3E-Q4 

'l~Pifi:$. .: ~fP.'~r~in•, · · · 3.63Jtilll ·,2,4 too 4&.7 LiSB-<14 .661!.-~ s.o6B.Q4 o.O(nOz o.oo.w2 

m~Q2$9 1.'0!11lum(YI) 3:6ji!-o4. . . 112.4 1.00 4&.7 t.35E-04 L06J.l.04 t.OIIE·!>I 0.00'202 3j d 

7{:!9r.t£ ·: ~lead 1.20:S.Os 0.0 0.03 S7 .3 7 ~ S.'EI.FAYI 5:~31!..07 0.0004i 70E-'J~ 

41!~1 i-,0:~!":.,.~ t.ue.-w o.12S " 111 o.0004.i J.I()E.06 s.si6-0? o.o;m 

~ffl26 yt Mc:n;ury v.066 

4001~ ,.., r@D,2~ 1,8> 3.~1L _5,31il!-IO _ 2.675-07 5.73.1!.(17 1.82&12 3.f»S-15 7.9QE.I6 I ZJE-10 l.~~~F~!..!:_ 

: ~ ::.; ~ ... 

. ' ~; . ~ .. 

'! I 

'· ... ,;.:.•. 

On'yl ,f!wn-.n l(ealtb Rill: ,..,..."""'' Modcl P~ol7 of36 IQ!27nOO~ 

VES 007881 
·cALCULA.'tiONS FO~ ESTIMA'l'ING PlUNKING 'WATER CONCENT.RA TIONS 

' ,. -. ·~. 

• •. -.~ ~ :. 

.. _, ... ... -

; . ~- ' 

A~ NO, l.!,pi>C-Na'm• ,. . . D• c .. n LD!iir I>G KL .Kv.,..tt'Wt'rll0 f..lflf I,Nf ' f'wc -fu< 

"" ln:"f 

. . . ... .. : m!JIIt~~' . . "'~k' gtyr "~1' mlyr on/yr gtyr r}yr 1/yr f/YT 

7:e,4oo~~: AriF.oic MSI_3 i.1G!rl' 700 36:.00 ;\<\9 SIO 36.Z74· 0.896 O.Jtl.l M 7 S9.7 

"'-· ·- · ; _ ~ ~17 lliq-yiJiu# .. o.osq o.oo·!os 700 - 36,500 ·~9 500 36.Z14 0.245 0.755 64.9 !5.9 

)']I Cadwtfum o.m ~-2JS.O.I 1.731 . :!(1,500 449 . 5Ci6 .744 o.n1 O.l29 G6.0 :'(19 

~13. ~ O.(lSIJ O:OS73 '700. )6-,500 S4S 36.Z74 0.928 .(J7 ~ I 

~~ Oro~Ul'!JII--(Vti O,o$11 - 0~3 100 • 36.500 '36.274 0-928 0.11716 

7'!~ ' lad 0.127 0.00181 1.731 36,SOO "49 S04 &9,744 o.= 0.7111 65.3 u s • , '! Mcl'c1Jrie O.t«<l!e . 7~?: (u Total M_el),"'l Y.) . 0.011.:! 0.343 871 36,500 332 0.00!21 35.7 19.) 13 o.o:ot 0.9'!!0 U6F..·~ 7.921::-IJ? I It •, 

--- J~·~c;,,, 'I;ot ... Ct>Q.t.n.t- J.3p~IO 2.S?Jl~ E3~ 36,500 ) 43 . 48.9 !.t21N17 9.38~$ , MOti'\5 0.994 1.<13 0.0104 L__ -- -- _ , ____ ~ --- ---------

,. 

;: -~ ( 

Onyx II!MO>~ltll Risk A,. .. smo!ll Model P~,e 18or36 w:m:oos 

VES 007882 
,., 

···"'-

~ 

" . 

Name. 

CALCU ~TlONSFORFSI;IM INGd>)UJIIKING WATER CONCENTJWfJONS 

(Noncancel" Hooltb 'Efrects) 

Onyx Humon He>IJh Ri ~ Ao>eosme•\1 Model l':lge 19 of 36 J{JI271200S 

VES 007883 
.,. 

, ... ' . 

... 

'- :;; ._, __ ., 

~ ~ ;:.__.. ~ 

'-•c; 

CALCULA 'J;l.ONS FOR ESTIMA Tll-<G DRJNl<lNG-W A 'l'F.R CONCli:Nt'RA TIOXS 

(Cuncer Risks) 

~!ill) ,: ~C:i-1~ Cs LR J;,E L'r Cwlol Cw<tot Cdw :·. . l mwJ<s rhT ~)' f/'/r llfm"l rr<SfL mg!L. 

~s! ""''''* 1.1A-M'I 0.0955 , 0.00799 36.973 Z~£.01 2.J!lE.()7 2.301!-07 

7(4Qol~? ~ 8cn'1Jiom .. .. 0.00106 4.91 ll.2 36.989 9AC&07 2.31EA>7 '1.,92-07 

7440439' Cadtniin'' _1<236-44- S.&& 1:%7 !11.43 ~TE-01 S.70P..07 5.70S.07 

744017-l ~ 

. . . . O.llS$.1 1!>.369 $58 47.901 3.3SE-07 l .Ull-07 3.12ll-07 

1 . . em . O.Jl.S$1 10.3.® 568 47,90J 3-J$-Oi l.IZB-07 3.121!-07 

7~~1 : t,i>Od • o.o6l83 1.'JIJ 19.(1 91..50~ 2.571:-06 ~-11C.07 3.661!--07 

1~81947 . ~C{<1lti~ -CP1071do. ·. (._.~<¥>.1M~). 0.173 10.7 1,791 l2,0ZI l.42Jl.OS I.A-31!.-(17 6.09E-OO 

11A'00 ~ fe)nicilD 3. .S. L45E-09 l.lSE-07 4-SSl!,OS' l.43Jl' Ool t.4SE·.J3 9.2l!E· 16 2.37FA.6 . . 

Ony<Rwn•" ll<llfth Riolo Asse.•monc Model hgo 20 ot: 36 10127/'-005 

VES 007884 
~ .. ~ 

:o-l:" t ... ··- ~ ~ ,-

..; .. . 

.... __ 

: ~r;;.~ "' • '- ··~f . .. , ... ···-·--·-· ~/2:::~_u ~·~ ... .t ... _ :.:.~. ~, . 

;;-!; -~" :t_.,, ..... 

' ··~ 

:~·::}.: ;·;J 

... ~;.; 

... -

CALC\JLA TIONS FOR LAND BASED MEDIA C"ONCBNTRt\ TLONS 

VC1g VCb~ I'Y a~ 

l!li/1(3 

Ooft Humall H'"'llh lU•k A,.e>om<•ll Model Pa(IG21 of36 

....... ,, _

.: .. :·,-~ ... --

lW27flC0' 

VES 007885 
CAI.C'ULA'l'JONS FO.R l.ANO UASIW MJ'illlA CONCENTHA TIONS 

(Noll-Cancer Hr.•lrb k"f ~lS) 

0\S Nu; COJ>C Nnruo C$ Pt~.D-& r~b-:: I)Ag 

n¢~ n~'kg '"lllki ru~'kg 

• 17440382 Atsenic 7.14EAJ! 4,90£-C9 1119f;.()Jl 0.01• 1 

7140417 &I)Oitr.> 0.00103 2.79&06 1.62&06 O.Ol4l 

71.4043? C•dmtum 1.231541 1.54£-0S 7871!(16 0.0349 

7440473 ruon)i~m o OS'T:! 2.79£41 25WA4 0.0144 

.t5 299 CI\IQmium (Vl ) 0.051'3 2.79E-04 2l!E.Q.I 0.0!44 

~39921 Lead 0.001&3 2A9Ji1.()5 1.651'-05 0-03'19 

7439976 Elr:m<· nUll Mml"l' 

7.48794,7 Met~uric Chlorid• 0.199 0 .. 011 6 omss 0.0'125 

2196 92~ }o(ell)yi.Mcn:uty 0.015& 4 .638-04 ll.il0156 7.2 !~ 

1.1460!6 T•mCDD. 2,3,7 ,i- 2.S2B.()9 Ll4E-Jl 2.59&11 2.27E-1J 

. Oij)C<ltm, eaHhRisl:~~ ~f~' . . . ' -· ~ • 1# 

• ~ - -· I 

1007120!)$ 

VES 007886 
(:A_$ No. 

!• 440:)3~2 

'·:•40111 

7441)439 

iM0473 

18 540~9 

7n992J 

74399'/6 

1<8194'1 

~792! 

1Wi0l6 

CALCULATIONS FOR LAND BASEl> Mr:J>B. CO!'<CE.l\l'lU TIONS 

lCaJJcer Risks) 

l:Ol'C Nam• c. Pu•g Pr_l>g Pt1g 

u>g,lkg, ~$/.1<3 .W ~ m,gt"l4:; 

ft,t6'=".1)iL' 7.74£-.07 490JHI9 {>. J9E-O'J 0.0J4i 

lk7yl.l:ium O.OOlCoS 2.79f.-06 l.62E-% Q.l}l4l 

Cadmium 1.23£-01 J.5-4S.OS 7.&7);!-06 ().0:!4~ 

t ·hromium 0.0551 269E-04 ·?ASE-iH Q.OI44 

Chroruiom (VI) O.O,S5l 2.69E-04 2.4SE-04 0.0144 

l.eod 0.00183 2.49E-05 1.65.&{15 0.034!) 

Elero,e:nta! Mor.::ury 

r;~<v<a;ic Chl<>ridc 0.400 0.00580 O.OJ~4 0.006'Jl 

Me!llyi.Me«w-y 0.00798 2.3$-04 7.90)!;1)4 4.91FM 

TettaCD.b, 2,),7 .S- 1.46E-o9 6.66E-J2 l.StE-11. 'I.SOE-U 

., . 

VES 007887 
- · : 

, 

. . ; 

COI'C 1NT An AND C\ NCER RlS'K F.STIMA TnS 

(Citlld Resident) 

14\$ N~. , . C _OP.C r<'!l'll' rlllQ 1 tJi,roduet (fish Id!¥ J_nral I U•b I Q>nl't.'r_o,•ol l Cnoccr_inh 

m81JciJ<I•y 

~ : 161\.l; I . UA"-"'< 

~ 

ll>Btm IG!lrotnlum (Vl} 

lt;oo4 1.1~o$ 

74~7JI!I'I . l>'Ofeutlo Chtcm:dc. " .2.47Jl..o6 

).671'<'06 

' (S!E-06 

1 <;";1:'.-N;. 

-aliw. ~~<t<t~rr J~ I J.IIOW7 

nu .... ,.~ "'"~"'"" s;·, ._· 9.76£- ~ 1 4.00E-is 

O_a)'xHuman Hc.aJtbRlsk Atse$$ment Modc:l 

mg/l<l$1~•.)' ruJ!Ikg/day met'kg/day 

t OUU'\~ I d.OPA:lti 1.8:4&07 

1 ~.l".,. r .,. '7"{1Ul~ 

'l. <.\J)..fdt ~·n~ ., ,'\f!~ 

-· 

~-= [ ~~ .; , . .,_.,. ' I i71!'M I .SOF.~S I 2.59U·09 I I.1Qil.()9 

l.631Hi 

2.94&09 . 5.26&06 2.431J.OS 

1.9.ffi.07 

f .. 1.31!8-_!~ _ 4.23lH_6 !.70Pr_IO 

Ptae24 oJ 36 j0/Z."i 2\£J~ 

VES 007888 
~·:-:~~=; 

4~: ~ 

-

~-.... 

..: . . · 

~~~ 

" 

.... ' 

., . ~ :...- ._,,. 

.~-,. 

:;;._. 

,· 

~t' 

~-· .. .. - ...... ... 

' 

C().PC tla!"e lwll . 

"· . ·:. !"1¥". flu!"•~ ~fi~J!isk i.s.e&smec1 Modtl - •· • ,_I <-:-..... ,, ..... 

~ ... i ~· ' ; lj 

-· ·,;.•_.,,.-,.·· ... ;; J .• ,,. •t ' ._....,_,>1/'o· i 

(X)pc IN'l'AKE A~ Ck"iC'Ek.RlS'K EST1MA TES 

(Rccrc:tllonal J.i~ Child) 

)fish ldw Lora! Unb 

Pa~ 2.S or36 

Conct-r _oral I Cau.ce.r _ioh 

10127120a5 

VES 007889 
~ .... 

-. 

" 

.' , · 

. 

-' 

. ;,. ...,.,. 

' . ~ ... 

• 

!ll~S.Ho, 

... 144Q:w,l' 

7,'1~11 

: )4~ilm· 

Ut)P,.:t~, 

. .9~~ 

m 'Yf:l??7i 

. 7.ilml'7 

~7 

)74i>ol! 

Co1'CN- Lloll 

~fild>.Y. 

IJI.t1i~ol4> -. ~,2JE-J;J, 

qccy»llfll) ,r.m.w ~truUDI ' J..SIS:.IO 

~lll<'Pil!i!'1 .. 'ts$E-Q1 

Ghro1"l11ro (Vl) I.SSBm 

I!Jstd S.231}jlp 

~•?tatMmury , 

IMete~a~e Qllo_ri<lo 1.1~ 

~Ill,! M«ouzy 2.2SSoQ8 

!.~t::I)D i-3.7 .8- 4jSE-JS 

·Onyx H<imllft Ho.,l<h RJsk ... ......,.,.,.,!Model 

.. 

COPC JNTAJ.<E Al\'l> CANCER RISK ~TIM.41'ES 

(Adult .l«!sident) 

lprocluoe lftsb ldw ,_....,, UJih 

1l)g/1<3{day mallcafd>y msJqlday mglkglday m!VkJI<I•Y 

I.:Ot>S.o6 4.(>1£.()9 : l .OOl-06 6.1911-08 

-· h06E-06 4.581!-()1) 1.07E·06 6.198-()8 

162E-06 !.I olE-()~ '2..63E.()6 tS3l.l-07 

'i:.(ll!-llC U9ti-O!I' 1.29l.l,()6 6.19l.l-()8 

1.12E-06 6.298-0!1 J.29E-06 6.19Jl.08 

2.6iB-06 ~..13~ 1..611'&06 1.53&07 

ltt61!-ll 

1.83"2-06 • J .32ll-O!I 2..9~ $.46l.l-()S 

9.80£.()1 2-nE-10 1.2.1£.07 

z.&m-15 S.SlE-18 · 7.QIE-IS 2.781;.16 

PogcZ6of36 

Can«t·_ o raf cancer_inh 

MSE.OO 1.2'3E-06 

6.8SS.07 

I.!SE-06 

3.44)!..06 

9.22E-09 s.su;.w 

4.l21l-IO --- ·--

.JO/l"lf2005 

VES 007890 
.... - ... ..; ,, ;; , 

!!AS N.O. 

-· 

1~~~2 

~~1ri, 

ii'l~~ 

COPC NoJile 

-

n_ie . 

l\clciDl~p1 · 

~lidrn(um 

rsoa _ mP(i<~day 

l,lf£: 12. -

3.091:)-lJ? ' - . MJJ>-lO 

COPC IN'1' AleE-AND CANCER RISK ES'tThfA TES 

(Recrea!IGnalFisba-J 

.'l)l ni~ua lllsh ldw I_ oral. Ltnh 

•_!>Yt.U<IAy n•cll:l:i<l»y fflSik!rldty rnr/<1!/JIAY mglk$fday 

.1•.9¢06 > 5.181!-00 4.6113 ~ l..O'Te-06 6. 191l-OS 

' . di61l-()(\ 2.'!71'-ll!l 4.5$1!>09 I.07E-06 6.1!11>-08 

'l.ii(I'L-66. l.Qll>-07' Ll4E·08 " 2.73['-06 S~E-07 

.~·:ir~~ .. :: . ii MG.il1 •. <7i• ' ' <ll11;1>t\liu.m ' ~.SSE-07 .. ,, l2iv.J6 4,JOE-oJ 629:£:~ .Tl~ 6.19F.,.OS . -,.: 

.,_ -· l$.~ ~hl<Jrtti m Nll. ~~ 1~[>,1)6 7.151!-0S 6.l9E·O? 1.~{)6 6. 19£-0S 

\;' . ~4;'.992) t.~. . 5.~5,()9 2,.6ie.Q6 9.911l· l2 t.131l-08 .l.64E-06 1.3lP..07 

f.'i45m6. T:len..t.u,t M<JCu!1 8.16S.Jl 

79~'~ ~ .... ~ pliolld!' U4E.o6 1.83~ 1.32E-09 1..9&E-06 S.46E-OS 

z~.;a1 M.a.YI~ 2.2SE4 -. 9 .J;OS.()8 1.781!-0$ 2.3-:!B-10 1.79&<'.15 

Jl,_~l6 t-coo. u.1.s; .4.-188-IS Z.S IS SASS-IS S.S$-1.8 1.2-.<l!-14 2.7&&16 

' -

- ;. ' : •-.. ~····· 

'l 

. Ony• Hon)an llolllh. Rlsl< ..........,.., Model Pa&•Z7 of36 

Otnu::r_onl Cunar-_tnh 

G.58E-07 ~.z.~ 

6.88.E<7/ 

1.2SE-06 

lA•F.-06 

9.2'1.8-(19 &.51E-09 

7.6SE-10 

t cr.n r..oo.o; 

VES 007891 

~ - ~·-·; 

•• --.-: -'!· ., 

-. ..: . -.. ~- _.. . 

~--. _,. c-.•.--. 

---- ~. 

;?~~-" ·~ 

-" --. -·~·: 

·~- ... -· -~~-· 

··i~I~-~~- p~ .;-:~~ -~~~-i :~:~:; :·,,_ :" ·~- ot);"'>-" • 

~f.D~r; ~.: :· -::!· ·;-

:~[~~~::;2 ' ' ~~ .. i H · .... . ~-:: .,. ... 

-~ , 

--;"' 

--~;J, ~ 

COl'C INTAKE AND NONCANCJ;:R HAZARD ESTTMAT~S 

(Child Residllnl) 

HQJli'I)CliJCe RQdw BQfi<b H.Qinh SuUl 

9T.K"''!"" Health Rl&k ~"'Model Poael<~ of36 .~ ,... .. ... -_, ;..-._ • •I . - "'":' "'' ' ~;<~· .... ~::::{'~:''I !01271200S 

VES 007893 

' '' ' 

. -.~' 

.. 

~· .. ~ ' ~ '. 

CO.l'(: 1NT~KE AND Not(43AN(:E"R J{AZA,RD ESTrMA TES 

(Recreattona·l ~hllr Child) 

~p~r ¢()l'C'Name. I ll~ I lfQp:rolfiott:l' 'JJ(ldw I HQ&L t HQlnb I Sum of OrolflQ$1 

,( .... - .. 

'~· ;~ ... 

w·• 

,_ 

,_,. ~- ' 

i' .... ~-i.-~~-;·. ' .• ~-I .. .. 

"'~.~ ~· 

-··· ; ,, ...... ~ 

'. ~- ·-· .l-o .. - , 

(;.: ' 

"i ~ :.:···· :~:: .. :- ... :; ·:: ... ;. 

(; ;; -~·! :> ·~: • ' .. 

·:.':: . ..:.:.-'.'!' . ~ ~ ... t ~ :-_ ·r· •: 

.. ::""-

·-:-; . ., .. •·: ...... 

:. > ' ~-

-~~:!; .: •• 

. , •. ;. -~· 

I ~- ,;;.:;-: • ,.,_ -·-··-.':. ~-- ,. ::"''·"·· . • ·;:, i·-;; • ~~Pil:t~\ll-IOatJh R\SJ< A'!Sesstn~>nt Mo.t..i ~· ..... ~ •• ~-; ·-·~ "~':· 'o MO 0 ,, 

?"::'~i: .... •: ·_ ... ~·· .. :.:.:~ .. •.' , . • -.... ,p 

Pago-3l ·Qq6 10.1.2712005 

VES 007895 
·-

-; 

--.. 

-· ... 

~ 

·-

.. ~· -! 

.. r:;::.. ~ ~ 

:...:,~: ~--

~:~/-, 

··>i-;.;c 

~.. '" ;; 

····; .. 

. . ; .. , ;·· 

. 

·- · .} 

-:- . ... 

CASNo. t:QPCNJllie 18011 

CO!>C lNT>\KE t\ND NONCANCER HAZARD ESTIM:A TES 

(Adult llsidont) 

lp1oduct lfub ldw I_ oral Unh 

mcti<J/dAy m;ll(pday •111Vksfday ~clay rnrfq/day ~clay 

1~2. ~ 11!-1 2 ~1(.06 4-.61i!-ll9 ~ 1.448-l~J 

~4'<\0417' SeryiH"'!l 3.091!.09 ~~ 4.58P.-®_ 1.078-06 I.«Mn 

~ ~om J.SIF-!0 1.6'1!>46 1.14£-08 2.611>-06 3.S7FAi7 

1~~ 1.646.(.1'/ 1.131\-06 6Z9E-o9 1.3QE.06 1.<14E-m 

~-?1!101 : ~I>I(Vl) 1.641!.07 1.13~06 6.29&09 i.30E.Q6 1.4.;&07 

.U3Ji9,2t. ~d 5,23.241 2:621!.06 1.13&08 2.64E-06 3.S7EAJ7 

~6 ~merwll J>f..eury 1.906-10 

f(4~?~ IM<r#i.• ~lq;ijc 2.28£.06 ~-!19l>-~ 1.321!-09 S.SSB-06 . !.2:7E.(.l'; 

lz-~1 ~et!JY! . ~-03 t.iSI>o7 23JS.:l0 2.2d!>oi 

• i~4'6W'ii: ~c;oo.~.3.7.8• 1~1:1-IS 4.24£.15 s.lti~;.J f 1.14£...14 ~ABE.-16 

• 

011)"t 'll'wi>an flc.&ldt Rid< ~Model Pa&e 32 ot .34 

U"' Cbntlllc t_bmllk 

·~d.y P!'ft<8 p~oy 

1.14(:>14 ll.1Z? ,,,..11..()4 

1(11271200.1 

VES 007896 
,_. 

• 

.;...-A "'""-

~..;; 

., .... · 

,. ~. - ., l <•·· ·-···i:l 

, l:;·_ 

.. "" .- ' f '.·_ .... 

..-:·<· ~-;_ 

. _ ..... . 

~-· .. 

r ';~ 

-~-r,-;. . . ; .. ::·:·: 

~1·1· 

,;. '"~" 

, .. . -., 

CQPC lNT A1<.E AND NONCA.NCI<:;Q. HAZARD ESTIMA'I'ES 

(AdPJL Resident) 

H~ I .KQjlrodUDO I HQdw UQ!isb HQiah I Sum otoralllQ. 

·-. 

"~- . ·:;. ()up; Hum'" Rtalitt llir~ ·A!UIImeort Model l'•33op6 1()127/Wi1S 

VES 007897 
~ . . ,;, _, 

.. 

.... 

:;_;,;~: ~·~ 

~'~ · 

;.::~"::;~ ,. '~ . . . - ~-, 

'- -··•. 

,, 

. ~~ .... .. ;.~.· :_·.· 

.. _.. ' 

: cis.l'io:. t ....... '"" •• 4. d. 

• ~.ii(Qs'ff 

d14<1~j1 

• ·~9. 

:~\~: 

. :~~:r 

; 'iMQ.t-,: 

J~' ~~ . ' 7'f!l9'?l.f 

t ~4:'1,99'l6 . 

~ -~~ 

"' ' . ..~~ . 

-~~~..._ 

. &48'194-j· 

• ~~ . ... '-· 

. r:l.l6lllli f· ~ ... 

:;:: ~ :~.7'. "'~.­

! ·' • .. 

f\~-i/-:·~~ J 1\1 

Cpl'CNlllM . 

An<Jlic. 

llei).lllllm 

~·~~~ 9!lrW<•m 'tJ!i?mill!ll (\'I) .. ' 

~ 

!ilO.'noo!al Met=Y 

M<Jturle 0!19ridls 

~Mo(curj ' 

o .. p~;~ 

-

;<~i~l':!i -~ ~-;; ... ,. it-.... :·~ .... -.. .... ~ .... J ... ~ • '' ·. . .... ....... ~ 

,I .I ._<" ... .- '' :- . ·.~" ~ .. :~: ~~~r-~·~:~~ :. ,~ . '\,._., ........ ,.._ ... . ·'· ::.~::·. •:;.: 

' 

'- -~ .. _ .:..'!; •. ' 

COPC JN'l' AK.E AND N()NCAN:CERIJAZAIID F.STIMA TRS 

(Recr.mtiongl~) 

I soU lprodu"" msb ld'l' I_ oral Unb 

m~day •mll''q/dOy mallir/doy ~day mglq,'!lay "'~J 

l.liB-12 J.06&-0G S. l~ 4.6 · 1.0'1&015 1448-07 

3.09(1.09 1.06£.06 2.7?];.09 4.5~ . 1.~ 1.448-07 

3.SIS.JO Ul£.06 I.Q2E,.(J'I 1..1.4Z..OS l.73B.oo 3~ 

l.OoiB-07 .q~ 4.301i!·O'I 6.29E-09 J.73E-06 • IMB-07 

l.Ool~ 1.13£.06. M5&ds 6.'l9fl.Q9 !.31&16 IA4&01 

5.23~ U211-06 9.91B-12 l.l.t~ l .64&06 3.Si~ 

1.901!-10 

l.28E-06 3.S9&QCS 1.3~ 5.88E-06 1.618-01 

4.$!1&06 J.7SB.o1 I. 7_81>-0!i l.l3B-HI !.806-0!i 

· 7.191!-IS 4.14$<15 S.4SJ!.IS S-83~18 l.69l!.J<! 6.'8E-16 

.-:. ,'<' ' .Qrip Huaw\Hcallh Rjoj; ...._,_ Modo! .... "-"'!-... _ ...... I'~:!<! t>f36 

·;:;;·- ~.:~ "' 

... ~ ~~- .-_.; .- _; .; .. 

LL•'l C.'bnrilk Uutdlk ! m@l'.llfd~ t>fll<& Pir~~~ i 

1.69S.l4 0.187 S.38e.04 

0fl7l'~ 

VES 007898 
· .

......... . ·tr ... ::· , .. .. · .. :.:;,:,~ ~-·~.::-· 

. .,,;:., ,,,,. ~ 

\~~·iz ;. ~~\ .. .<;,. -:·; 

•• ~·:<:··-~¥;. 

' . -"• ~ ... :•; ·~; : __ ·(:.·~ 

\ ;· . ~:: ,.---

.... 

, 

COPCJl\CTA-KE M!ll NCAN~ JIAZARD ESTlMATES 

(Ro.cr ... b<>n.td Hsh<:r) 

.II'Qiilb su ~J I!ftl 

; ' Q~ !Ji;Jil•M~ J< OKMO<!ei "': ··· ·:• . : . ;, 

Page~o 36 

i·l: ...... ~ ... ~ ., . . ! :, ~:: · . 

!M 7f.'<OO:i 

VES 007899 
.~s No. OJ'CN~""' 

1<1-t03S2 .'\iSel:\.ic 

1440417 Berylfiurn 

1'440439 ,r.,ad,mil)tl) 

7$173 ~hro.miom 

U E<-01 Chn.arUt!m fVl} 

'/4399~ 1. ..00 

743,9976 emenul Meti:osy 

1487947 Mercuric Chloride 

UE.01 ~ethyl Mercosy 

1746019 !f"""CDP, 2.3.7.8-

··.·· 

.. ·. 

.. ' . ,_ 

NONCANCRR HAZARD l:?.S .l1MAl}~ 

FOR AClfl'E INHALATION EX}'OSUR£ 

C:'ie ~ AffQ)»hl ' 

;t&1I'I'''3 I 

0.04'11 0.248 

CM7l 0.00941 

O.ll6 o.oo:, s~ 

0.0471 3.141!.·05 

0.0471 

0.116 7.76l\·04 

5.641J.05 3.13£-.()5 

0.0) 78 3.0.2E~ 

1.94T.,.IO ! .3QE-IO 

. . ' :·. . · .·' 

VES 007900