The hetght at wb.ich wind measurements are talcen must be input to the lSCST3 model, in order t o detennine the wind speed and wind direction at the top of the stack . Given that the source for t h e meteorological da t a (St . Louis Larnben Tntemational Airport) is a National Weather Service mea s uremen t si t e, t h e wi nd da t a . i s recorqed a t • h e ight of 6.096 meters (20 ft) . This he ight was i np ut t o t he JSCST3 ntode l as th e anemo m eter h e i g h t. ISCST3 t hen ca l c u late d the w in d s peed a t the top of the stack, based on that meas ured a t t he 6.096 meter hei gh t. This ca l c ula tion ass um es that wind speed exponentiaUy increases as t he 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'emperatur e T h e dry bu lb tem perature , also known as the ambient t emperature, i s u sed by th e ISCST3 model in conjunction with the stack gas temperarure t o detennine th e buo yant plume rise from the stac k . The HHRAP states that the buoyant plume rise is not largel y affected by small variations in the ambient temperature. However, p l ume rise is large ly affected by changes in the stack gas t emperature. As tb e s lack gas temperature increases , the buoyant plume rise will be greater. T hi s will resul t in low co n ce n u·ations and dep osi ti ons because tlte plume will tra v el further, and provide greater d il uti on of th e co n s tituents before t h ey t ·eac h the surface. All temperatures used in the I SCST3 mo del are i nput in degrees Kelvin, as recommen ded b y 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 heig h t nrc used to d e termin e atmosphe ri c sta bi lity. The greater the stability of th e atmosph ere,

. th e l ess mixing of the air , an d the less dilution of t h o emitted cons tituents o f potential concern (COPC). Atmospheric mi x ing is l arg ely dependent on heat flux es i n the Earth.'s heat bal ance. Tbe height of the cloud cover and the opaqueness of the c l ouds affect 

### the amount aod rate of h eat penetration and escape to and from 

### the tanh. Consequently, these parameters directly affect the amount of mixing that occurs in the atm osphere. The op aqu e c l o ud cover and cloud ceiling h eigh t m easuremen ts were used by the PCRAJ\4MET program to detenn i . ne the stability category for input in to the JSCST3 m e t eorolog ical files. 3.4 . 1.4 Surface PreJSUre The values of 

### surface pressure reported . in the meteorological data sets arc llSed by the I SCST3 model to determine the dry partic l e deposition. Surfoce pressure val ues we r e inc l uded as hourly milli bar values in the JS CST3 input meteo r ological fi l es.

32



### VES 0 0 78003 . 4 I 5 Precipiurtkm Amount mrd Type 

### Precipil ation amount and l)'pe affect r be amount of wet depositi on lhat will occur at the a ssessment sire. W e i dep os iri o n occurs r hJ·oug.b. a process called scave nging. Scave nging is 1be process by whicl! particles and vapo r are captured by 

### falling p r ecipitation. T h e lSCST.l mode l uses 

### valu es called scavenging coefficients to calcula1e lbe we t deposition of vapor and particles. These coeffici ent s . , which are d iscussed m o r

e i n 

### Section 3.6 .2 

### of th e On yx P rotoco l, vary based on the typ e of pr eci pita tion ( l iqu id or f r oze n). Th erefore, both th e o b s ervation s o f p recip i tation amount and 

### 1 ype are required 

### to successfully deremtinc the we1 deposition tha1 occ urs . These val u es, which a re reco rd ed one meter {3 fi) 

### above l.h e ground 

### l eve l , w ere input t o the 

### I SCST3 m

odel as hourly obs ervati ons in inches . 3.4.2 Upper Air Data 

### Upper air , or mixing heig ht , data f or th e ris k asse ssment was obtain ed from t h

e U. S . EPA Support Center for Regu l atory A ir Model s (SCRAM ) webs ite . T his web site prov i des surf ace data 

### from 1984 lbrough 1 991 for various airports 

### and National W eather Servi ce (NWS ) stations thro ughout the 

### Un ited S tales . The 

### data o n the 

### SCRAM website co n tains input parameters for the 

### morni ng and aft e

rnoon (twi ce dai l y) mi <in g height s, whi ch are th en translaled in to an hourly mixing height using meteorologica l prep rocesso rs. Th e upper air data from t b e Monett, MO NWS s t ation (003946), l ocated al 36° 

### 52 .9 8' N 

### Latitude, 93" 54.000' W Lo n g i

tu

de

, we r o 

### used for· l his. ris k ass e ss ment. Da ta from 19 86 i s unavailable f or 

### this weather station. Therefore, the 1 9 85 and 

### 1987 through 

### 1 990 upper air dala was 

### us ed to 

### coincide with the Lambert airport surface 

### data. The NWS station (00 3946 ) i s appt'Oxim atel y 378 km (235 mil es) from th o so urce. 3.4.3 Fr oussing of Met eorological Data The 

### Personal Compu ter Version of the 

### Me t eo rol ogica l Prepro cesso r for the 

### R A

M Program (PCRAMMBn was used to cre ate an AS C ll me teor o l

og ical file to 

### us e in ISCS T3 t o calculate air co n cen tration and wet and dry 

### deposi tio n . Onyx used the 

### "wet depo s iti o n " optio n in the 

### PCRAMMET tnlnsfo rm ation so that 

### all requ ired parameters were availab le to ISC ST3 for all 

### m

ode ling scenarios . In 

### additi o n to the surface and upper air data 

### di scuss ed abo ve, PCRAMM E T in corpo rated other values, specifi ed by th e modeler , in to the ASCD meteorol ogica l file. Th ese 

### parameters include:
• Monin-Obu khov Length • Anemo meter Heig h t • S urface Roughness He ight 

### (al measumnent si te ) 

### 33

VES 007801• Sur face Roughness He i ght (at awlication si t e) • Noon · time Albed o • Bowen Ratio • An thropogen i c Heat F l ux • Fract i on of Net Radiation ab so rbed a t t he surfuce 

### 3 . 4.3.1 Monin-Obukhov Length The M onin
- Obukhov Leng th is 

### a measure 

### of a tmosphe ri c s tabi li ty us ed to calcu late u r b

an stabilicy p&lllmders . PCRAMMET requires OJl actual v alue (other than null) for this parameter eve n i f th e area b ei n . g mode l ed is rural. Since Onyx mode l ed the assessment area using both rura l an d urban setrin.gs , the defau lt valu es fo r both rura l an d urban w ere used. When mode ling using rural settings , the default value for the rural exposure setting was set to 2 meters, as recommended b y the HHRA P g u i d ance . When modeling us i ng urb an settings, the HHRAP g u

i dan ce reco mm ends that 

### a val u e o f 50 meters be used 

### fo t c o m pac t r eside ntia l 

### and in d u s tria l areas and a value of 100 meterS f o r com ' merc ial areas ( 19 to 40-story bui l ding$). Since the urb an areas within 3 km of the faeility are a mixture of commereial, industrial, and compact housing, a v a

. l ue o f75 m et ers w ns us ed whe n mod e lin g**"~th** urb a n set tings . 

### 3 . 4.3 . 2**At~emometu** Height As d i s c u sse d ear lie r 

### in t his s e c ti on, t he a nemom eter hei gh t is the hei g h t a t wh i ch the wi n d spe ed and wind direction · measurements are made. For the NWS st ati on l ocat ed at St Lou is 

### Lam bert I Dtema t iona l Airport, the "ind speed is measured at a height of 6 . 096 m eters. This value was u s ed fo r th e ane mo m et er heig h t in th e PCRAMMET program. 

### 3 . 4 . 3 . 3 Surface**Rouglr11~J S**  He i ght S u rf

ace roug hne ss heigh t i s a measure · of the hei g h t of obs t ac l es t o \\i nd fl ow. The s urf.tc e ro ughn ess value determi nes h ow c l ose " pa rti cle must be abo v e th e ground b ef ore it is "captu1ed" for 

### deposition at the ground- 'The value of the surfuce 

### roughness is cypically defined 

### by in di v i d u a

l elements on the l andsc ap e, 

### snch as rre e s and bui l di n g$. 

### Surface roughness for 

### this ris k assessment 

### consists of 

### two separate values: 1) surface 

### roughness at the measurement si t e (St. Louis Lam be rt In t ernational Airport), an d 2) surface roughness a t th e appli cation s i te (O n yx) . B ecaus e the so u ree 

### of m et eorol og ica l d ata is 

### a N atio1111 l W ea ther Serv i ce Station (Lambert, Station 13994) , lhe measurement si t e surface ro u ghness is defaul t ed to 0. 1 0 m , per 

### liHRAP recommendntions. The surface 

### roughness at 

### the Onyx site w as detcnnine d to be 0.62 m (2. 03 

### ft). This v al u e co rre spo nd s to th e hei ght a bov e the groun d at th e a ssess ment sire , ai which a particle will be "captured" for deposition at th e gro u nd. 34



### VES 0 07802Surface roughness at lhc application site was determined by assessing lh . e area withl n a 3 Jon rodiu s of lhe so ur c e center . The a ssessment a r ea was !hen c lassified a ccordi ng to tlie PCRAMMET c a teg o ries i n T able 3
- 5 u si ng US GS I : 250 ,000 NLCD m a p s . On ce tlte PCRAMMET umd Use Classification Map , shown in Figure 3-6, was developed, the f ollowing add ition a l ste ps were neces sary, per the HHRAP guidance: I. A wind rose p l ot, shown 

### in F igu re 3-7, was pr epared fro m meteorological data gathered at lhe St . Louis Lambert Internat ional Aiipon betw een 1985 and 1987 through 1990. The 

### .EPA WRPLOT progrnm 

### from the SC RAM bulletin board syste m was used 

### 10 

### generate the w i nd rose. This program, rec omme nde d by the HHRAP , uses met eo rological da ta to determin e wind speed , 'frequency and directi o n for a given a sse ssment site. 2. The P C RAMMET C l assification Map, Figure 3-6, w as divided i nt o 16 

### see«>rs, correspon dh>g to lhe wind rose di rec tions identified from the wind ro se plot, which are spaced at 22. 5**degree- int.en~** **als .**  Thi s is shown ill figure 3-8. Each secto r was saved as bitmap llllage filt. 3. A program written in MathCAD was utilized to detennine the percentage of eac h PCRAMMET land**ll ~e**  t ype wi1h in each sector . A built-in function in the MathCAD software allows a bitmap file to be read as numerical data. Each pixel in a b i tmap image is defined by three integers ranging from (0-255). These numbers spectfy the red ( R) , 

### green (0), 

### and blue (B) components of 

### the p i xel's co l or. MothCAD generates 

### three matrixe s o f identical s i re for the re d , 

### green, and b l ue dat a representing the bitmap image . 

### The location of a pixel in the image corresponds with the address of it s numerical data 

### with.in these matri ces. A program written in MolhCAD identifies each unique R, 0 , B nwnerica l combination and counts the total number that each of lhese combina tions 

### occur within 

### r: h e file. Eac h unique R, 

### 0, B numerical combination represents 

### a colo r that can be matched with a NLC D ciassifi cati oo. Tho MathCAD program WliS utilized for each sector . This program is shown in Appendix C . 4. A representative surface roughness height for each sec t or , presented in Table 3-6 , was identified 

### from the area - we igh ted 

### average of the 

### PCRAMMET land u se within th e sector . 5. A site surface roughness height was then determined b y averaging surface roughness height weighted with the frequency of wind di rection. Tho results of thl s calculation are shown in Table 3-7 . Th e resultant weighted surface roughnes s hei ght calcu l ated for th e 

### Onyx s ite was 0 . 62 m (2 . 03 

### £\). Tllis valu e corresponds to the height above th e 

### gi'Oun d at the assessment site, at wh ic h a panicle will be "ca ptured" f or deposition a t 

### the ground .

35



### VES 007803TAllLE3-S SEASONAL S URFAC E ROUGEL'IESS HEIGHTS FOR PCRAM1> 1E T l. ANJ) U SE CLASS I FJCA TlO NS P CRAMMET Lltnd Use Ty p e Spring Summer 

### Autumn Winter 

### Wat er**Surf~e** 0 . 0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 

### Deciduous Fore st 1.00 1.30 0. 80 

## o.so Coniferous For est 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 

### Swamp 0.20 0 . 20 0.20 0 . 05 

### Cultivated L and 0,03 0.20 0.05 

### O.QI Grassland 0.0 5 0 . 1 0 O.QJ 0 . 001 

### Urban 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

### Dese" Shrub lan d 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 .;, t o ; 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)

## ~F IGll llE 3
- 7 WI N D 1\0SE FOH**~~$** A:"IJ l'>ll7
- 1 9'>0 NWS**11 139** **~** MET E OROLOGICAL 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 (b h

)Y

<'InQIO ) J¥Ot · 0.C: I 1 <U t · llO IAcSr>ogtt • ' It I'M 38



### VES 007806F I CURE3
- 8 PC RAMMET CLASS IFI CA TIO N MAP FOR 3 KM ASSESSMEN T AREA D I V I DED I NTO WI .NO**RO ~E**  SECTORS N 

### NN NN

WN



### w

WS



### ssw SSE 

## s

39 EN

E


### ES I 'CRAMM t : T LAND l : S E CLAS SE S LEGI!::-IIJ
U

RBAN CULTIVA I ED I.AM> MIXED I ' OR I " ST 

### 11\illil G RAS S l. /\ ND 

### &ll!lfi DECI D UOU S F OREST

- CONifEKOJ;S FORF.S I

- WA T ER SU RF ACES SWt \ MI' U

E S ERl S HKU El l.!\ND 

# ® POINT SOURCE



### VES 007807TADL'EJ-6 A REA WE I GHTED SffitFA CE ROUGHNE S S HE I GHT FOR EA C H SECTOR Sec t io n (Correspondini 

### to W i od 

### Rose**Di rectio~** **}** I PCRAMME T Snfoce 

## N NNE NE ENE E ESE S E SSE 

## s S S W 

### s w WSW 

## w WNW NW N N W 

### I Land U se 

### Rou g hness % of o/. of •,4 of % o f o/. of % of**"~ •**  of % of %of % of % o f % of % of % of •,4 o f %o f j Cl ass itkat ion H e i g ht ' A rea A r ea Area A rea A r ea Area Area Area A r ea Are a Area Area Area Area Aren Area 1 U

rban I. OC 8 0.S 2 0.6 1 9.9 5 7 . 1 48 .5**65 .~** **46 ~**  43A 59.6 4 1.0 23 . 7.9 48.4 78.5 79 .**79.~** Cu l tiv a ted 0 . 0, 0 .( 0 .1 2. 8 1.4 2 8 .3 3. 8 12 . 2 1 8 . 1 5. 3 7 . 8 15.4 8.1 0 .3 0 . 1 0 . 1 

### O.t i .and Grass la nd 0 . 04 3 .2 

### 8 .5 3 4 . 1 27.1 

### 18 . 8 2H 3 6 .5 32 . 7 25 .0 3 9 . 3 7. 6 19 .1 . 3 .7 8 .6 10
. 6 1 0 . 0 ' Dec id uous**0.~** 

### 2.5 !OJ 39.4 

### 13 . 9 3 . 4 5 . 1 5 . 0 

### ? ores ! 4.2 5.1 1 0. 19 .2 32.1 

### 4 .5 

## o . s 1.3

## 1.~ Coniferous 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.~ f ' orest Water Surfaces 0 . 000 1 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 9.1 j 

### Swamp 0. 1 6 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 .5 1 

### 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 Surfac e 0 . 8 3 0.32 

### 0.5 9 0.71 

### 0.54 0.72 O.S3 0.5C 0 . 66 0.53 O.S J 0.8C 0.81 0 . 81 : toughness i 

### I. 

### Sea so nal overag e s urfaGe 

### rou&flne ss heig h t fo r gi v en land 

### u sc cl assificat i on .



### 4

0

V E S 0 07808TABL£3-7 

### D

ETICRli UNATJO N OF Sl1'E SURFACE 

### ROUGHNE SS HEIG H T USING WlND OCCURENCk:S FOR 

### EACH SECTOR No rmalized Sector Wind and !WeJgb t ed F r equency of Area Weighted Secto r Wind 

## Is ector S urfa ce Occurrences ' S urface R oug hnes s iRou"bn""'S Heil!bt N 0.83 10.01% 0.084 

### NNE 0.32 5 . 22% 0.0 1 7 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% 0.03 8 

### SS E 0 .50 4.36% 0.022



## s 0.66 4 . 01% 0.026 

# ss w 0.53 3 .690/o 0 . 019 

# s w 0.44 3 .S9o/o 0.0 1 6 WSW 0.38 3 . 04% 0 . 012



## w 0.53 3 . 95% 0.02 1 WNW 0.80 6.19% 0.049

NW 0.81 6 .9 5% 0.056 NNW 0 . 81 8 .22% 0.066 

### lsite S urfa ce Roughness 

### Height 0.62 I. Tbe sulllllle d frequency o f occurrence for aU s ectots is 95.6%. The ad diti onal 4.4 % of winds are calm wind&, not orien ted with a particular sector.

41



### VES 0078093.4
. 3.4 Nooll·T i me Albedo The n oo n - tim e albed o (NT A

) reflects lbe portion of incoming solar radia t ion tha t is refl ec ted hac k to the a t mosp h ere a t the time o f day (noon) wben the s u n i s direct l y o verhead . This value i s used b y 

### ISCST3 in delenn in ing th e hourly net h ea l ba l ance at th e Ear th ' s swface. T h e 

### HHRAP s t

ate s t hat i t is desirable to s p ectfy 

### a sing l e value for noon - t 1 me albedo ins t ead o f specifying se

veral v alues that vary by 

### seasons. Given that the 

### ISCST3 modeling 

### results bave n o t sh own t o be sensi tive t o ch ang es in t h e NT A valu e, specifying a s ingle value sh o ul d not largely skew the r e sul ts o f the mod e l. 

### 1be 

### NT A for the asse s s ment site was detennined from 

### the p erce nta ge o f total area occupied b y Cllcb 

### PCRAMMET lan d 

### use type on the 

### PCRA M MET land 

### u se c las sificat i on map and from th e seasonal average NT A v alues for each land use type . The fo ll owing procedure was used:
• The percentage of total 

### area occupied b y each 

### P C RAMMET l and 

### usc type on the 

### PCRAMMET l and . 

### use cl assifi . ca tio n was determin ed during the surface roughness determination. Tbese values 

### were tabulated in T able 3 -8 . • A seasonal average NTA for each 

### PCRA.MMET land us e type 

### was determin ed from the 

### seasonal NT A values presented 

### in the 

### HHRAP . These v alu es , both seaso n a l a n d average NT A s, are present ed in Tab le 3·9 fo r eac h 

### P C RAMMET land use type . Area we ighted NT A values were determined for each PCRAMMET land use type. Area weighted values f or eac h la . od use type were summed t o determin e a s ing l e NT A val u e for the IISsessmeo t s ite . Table 3 · 1 0 presmts the results ofthese calculations. T he n oon-time albed o for th e assessm en t si te was determined to be 0 .22. This value indicates that app ro ximate l y 22% of t h e incoming s olar radiation a t the assessment sit e is re fl ect ed back to the 

### atmosphere. The NTA value of 0.22 was used 

### as the 

### 1\'TA input for the PCRAMMET pro gram . 3

. 4.3
. 5 Bo>W!II R ati<J 

### 1be daytime Bowen ratio for . 

### a given site, a refl ectio n of the amount of moisture at the surface, 

### affects th e amount of ev aporative cooling that occurs, and 

### c onsequently , impacts th e heat balan ce. This value varies o n a seasonal basis, by land use type, a nd by precipitation trends . For examp l e, an area cl assifi ed as cultivated land can ex perience daytime Bowen ra tio s rangjng from . 0.2 to 2.0 depen din g on t he s eason an d precip i tation co nd itions (i.e. dry, av erage or we t )



### 4

2

VES 007810T ABLE 3-8 

### FRACTI Ol'\ OF P CRAM M ET ASSE SS M ENT AREA OC C U PI E D B Y EAC H P C R AMMEf L A N D 

### USE C LA SSlFl CATIO N TYPE PC R AMMET Land U se Classifk ation %o f Total As seu ment · A r ea (3 km r adius ) Urban 4 9 .9 Cultivated Land 

### 6. 6 Grassland 2 1.1 Deciduous For est 10. 0 ' Coni fe ro us Forest 0.2 Water Surf ace 11. 3 Swam p 

### 0.9 Desert Sluubland 0.0



### 4

3

VES 007811TA B LE 3-9 SEASO NAL NOON TIME ALB E DOS FOR P CRAMMET L AND USE C L ASSIFICA TlONS P CRAMMET Land S prin g Summer Autumn Winter A' ·erage Use T ype Urban 0.14 0.16 0 . 1 8 0.35 0. 2 1 Cultivated Land 0 . 14 0.20 0.18 0.60 0.28 Gra ssland 0 .18 0.1 8 0.20 0.60 0 .2 9 

### D eciduous F orest 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 . 1 8 Desert Shrubland 0.30 0.28 0 . 28 0.45 0.3 3



### 44

VES 00 7 8 1 2T ABLE3
- IO 

### DE T E RM I N A

T I ON O . F SITE NOON TIM E AL B EDO
Se a sonal F r nc tlou of W e i g hl ed PCRAMMET A veragc 'oon P CRAl\fMET Noo nT ime

a ud Use T v o e T i me A l bed o Ar ea Albe d o 

## Urnan 0 . 2 1 49.96 0.105 Cu ltivated Land 0 .2 8 

### 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 0.0 1 6 Swamo 0.18 0 .90 0.002 besert S hrobland 0.33 0'.00 0 . 000 

## Noon Time Albedo 0.224

45

V ES 

### 0078 1 3According to the HHRAP, for areas where an n ual rai n fall is g reate 1 · than 20 inches; U.S. EPA OSW recommends a single Bowen ra tio value of 2.0 for wban areas and 0 . 7 for rural foresiS, grasslands, and cultivated land . -The average annual rainfall fo r this urban a ssess men t area du

ri ng 1985 an d 1 98 7 -1 990 WllS 99 . 9 4 em (39.35 inches). When performmg air modeling for urban se . ttings, the Bowen rati o used as the input for the PCRAMMET program was 2.0 . When performing air mode l ing fo r rura l setti ngs, lh c B owen ratio used as the inp u t for the PCRAMMET program was 0.7. 3.4.3.6 A11thropogenic Heat Flux The anthropogenic beat Oux is d1 e heat exchange ca u sed by llurnan actiVl ll es, suc h as amomobilcs and energy prod u ction . This value is assumed to be 0 . 0 Wans/ol f or rural areas and quite larger (-20 Wattslm 2 ) for urban areas . When modeling using urban settings, the HHRAP recom m ended v alue of 20.0 Wnttslm 2 was used as the input for the PCRAMMET prognlm. When modeling u siog rural settiogs , the HHRAP recommended value o f 0 .0 Wattslm 2 was u sed as !he input fo r the PCRAMMET program 3

.4

.3 . 7 Fra cti on of Net**Radi.atlot~** A bsorbed at tl 1 e Surface Yet another component of !he beat balance equation, !he fraction of net radiation absorbed a t the 

### surfucc is dependent on the land use char a cter isti cs of the assesse d area . This v alue rep r eseots th

e amouot of the so l ar radiation that is absorbed by the ground. The HHRAP

_ recommends that the modeler use a value of 0.1 S fo r rural arellS, and 0 . 27 fo r urban areas . When mo de li ng using urban sertinll!l . it was assumed that 27% of the net radiation i s absoroed by th e ground. The haetion of oct radiation inpu t to the PCRAMMET program was 0.27. When mode li og 

### us i ns rural s et ti n gs, i t wa s assumed that IS% of the oet radiation is absoroed by the ground. The fract io n of net radiation input to the PCRAMMET prognun was 0. IS. 3 . 5 Sl te-Spec iR c M o d eling R es u lts Each air modeling run was conducted l or one ph a se (vapor, partic l e, or p artic l e-bound) u siog one year of meteorologica l data. With 3 phases and S years of meteorological data, IS 

### air modeling runs were required. To facilitate the end use of s i te-spocific air modeling res u l ts, four cl a ss i fications of receptor grid node l ocations were identified . These classifications are lake, Jake watenhed, rivec, and IB.ncl All a . ir modeling runs were performe d o n th e se gro u ps sepruately, w hic h generated 60 

### air modeli ng outpu t fil es. A ll air m odeling runs were conducted for two land usc 

### scenarios, urban
. and ruraL The .resulting 

### 120 air modeling outp ut files are provid ed in A ppendix U. For each recep t or grid nod e l ocation, r esults correspondin g wi th the five years and two land u se scenarios were averaged. These values are referred to as composi te air mod el ing results. This section contains a disc u ss i on ofthe resul t s predi cted b y th e ISCS T 3 m

odel. 

### 46

VES 00 7 8 1 43.5./ Air Moddl11g R esu ltsj or Land Re ceptors " l'rom the composite results, t he OUlJ<imum value of each annual avernge air modelm g p:trnmeter was se lected f or use in the risk model. The locations o f these maximum v alues were not evalua ted t o confirm that they coi nc ide wi th potential re si dential laJld use. The max i mum values selected d o not co Utcti ve l y co rrespond with a s ingle n:Gep t o r . T hcref01e., exposure scena r io locations for po t cmially max i mum exposed residents were n ot identified. Max i mum value s, although exlrelllcly**over~nscrvative ,**  were used to expedite risk modelio g . Since this basis did 

### not cause risk and hazard estimates t o exceed their respective benchmark s , there was no need to refine this ov erly co nserv ative basis. S i

mi lar ly , expos ure scenario l ocations were oot i dentified fo r the acute exposure scenario. Tite bigbest hourly a verage air concentrations were not averaged pr io r t o selecting a maximum value. "Titerefor e , each a i r modeling value used in tbe acute risk scenario correspo nds wtth the worst

### case y ear and land 

### use scenario . Table 3-11 presents the 

### maximum l and based air modeling output values from the vapor phase, particle phase , aod particle
-boun d phase runs of! S CST3. 3.5.2 Air Modeling Results for ,\{/ssissippi Ri ver and Water.• /t ed R ece ptors Risk to all inhabitants from drinking water consumption was assessed using compos ite air modeling results avemgcd over all ri ver recepton. Tab l e 3·12 presents the Mississippi River air modeling res ul ts from the vapor pha se, particle phase, and pan icle-bound pbase IS CST3 

### runs. In lieu of averag ing ai r modeling re s ults for the river watershed recept ors, the maximum land besed values presented in T able 3-11 \Verc used. Maximwn values, abbougb extremely ove rcan serv ative, were used t o expedite risk modeling. Since this basis did not cause risk and hazard estimates t o exceed their respective benchmarks , there was no need t o refine thi s overly canservative basi s . 3.5._] Air Modeung Rwdts for til e Fr an k Bolten Lakes and**Wat .~** **hed** R i

sk to re creational fishers du e to the ingestion of fish caught from the Frank Holten 

### Lakes wen:: assessed using composite air modeling r esults averaged o ve r all lake receptol"S an d composite air modeling results average over all t he lak e water shed receptors. Table 3
- I 3 presents the !alee and lake watenbed air modeling results from the vapo r pbase., particle phas e, and particle-hound phase JSCfC3 runs.



### 4 7

VES 007815TABLE 3 -11 AIR MOD EL ING RfSU L TS FOR MAXIMUM EX PO S ED RESIDEN T Air 

### Model Output Description Va lue Variable Vopor Phase A ir Modeling Outpu t Cbv 

### Uni t ized H ourly Average Air Concentratio n 61.1 

### Cyv Unitized Yearly Average 

### AM Con centration 0.997 Dywv Unitized Yearly Avemge Wet Deposition 0.604 Pa rticle Pha se Air M o delin g Output Cbp 

### Uniti zed Hourly Average Air Concen tr ation 61.0 Cyp**Uni li~ed**  

### Ye arly Average Air Concentration 0.903 Dydp Unitized Yearly Average Dry DepoSiti On 1.57 Dywp Uniti1MI Yearly A vern ge Wet Deposition 0.685 Pan idt Bound Air 

### Modelin g Output Chp b Unitized Hourly Avernge Air Co ncentratio n 60 .9 Cypb 

### Unitized Yearly Avenge Air Concentration 0.957 Dydpb · Unitized Yearly Avemge 

### Dry Deposition 0 .7 4 9 Dywpb Unitized Yearly Avemge Wet Deposition 0.470



### 48

VES 007816TA BL £3 - 12 AIR MO D EL IN G RE SULTS FOR i\fiSSISS IPPl RIVER Ai r Mo d el D e s cri p tion Va lu e OUIPUI V ariabl t Vapo r Ph ase Mo delin g Output Cywv Unitized Y ea rly A vera ge Air Co n c enlnltio n 0. 1 08 Dywv Unitized Y ea r l y Avornge Wet D eposition 0.0105 Pa r t icle P hase Mod e li ng Output D) 1p Uni tized Yearl y Average Total (Wei and Dry ) Deposition 

### 0.0669 Pa . rtide-B o uod Pha se Modelin g Output D ytpb Un itized Y early Average To tal (Wet and Dry) Depo s i ti o n 0.0338



### 4

9

VES 007817

### TAB LE 3- 13 AlR 

### MODELIN G RESU L TS FOR FRANK HOL T£N LAKE A N O WA TER SliED
Air Model O estri prion 

### Lake l
- ake O u tput Variable Wa t ershed Vapor Phas e Mod e lin g O utput Cywv Unitized yearly average air concentration 

### 5.64E-04 

### NA D ytv Unitized Yearly Averag e T o tal Deposition 

### 0 .04 93 0 . 042 7 Particl e Pba se ModeliJJ g Output Dytwp Unitized Yearl y Average Total Deposition 

### 0.0 1 52 0.0149 Particl e-Bo und Pbase Modeling Output Dytwpb Unitized Yea rl y Average Total Deposit io n 

### 0.00940 0.00798



# so

VES 0078184 .0 E XPO SU RE S CENARIO ID .EI\ 'TfFICATIO N 

### Exposure to th e in cinera tor emi ss i ons was eva l ua t ed for d irec t i nhal ati on a n d indirect i n tnke, t hrough ingest io n of wa ter, sod, vc g crotio n, an d animals that are ccntannnared by the polluumt(s) through the food chain . This risk assessment eva l uated bnth 

### types of expos ur e by e xamin ing a co mb ina ti on of e <po sure pathways . 4 . 1 

### Expos ur e Sett in g C ha racterizati on T o characterize t h

e exposure setting , both non -wort<er related bw:nan activities and recep tors in the 

### assessment area tbat 

### bad potential impact from the sources' e mis sions were co nsid et·ed . I den t ifying these activities and receptors began 

### with an C\•al wnion of the current an d reasonab le potential human activ iti es M d lan d uses w it

hin the assessment ar ea. For th e purpo s e of the a sseS$111e nl, thi s evaluation was broken down i nto the follo\ving areas:
• General land u sc and hu man acti vity asse s sment wi t hi n a 1 0 km 

### area of the facility. • Site verificatio n of spe cifi c lan d us es and hum a n activities w i thin a 3 km 

### area of th e facility. • Wattr body and watershed identifica t io n withi n a 10 

### km area of t h

e facility . All specified dis lan ccs origina t e from the souroe center and include both facility and non -fa cility property. Since a ge neral eval u a

tion within a 10 km 

### are a of the fa cil ity i nd i cated highest effects cl os es t to the so urc e, 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 Miss i ssippi River ro ev aluate risk frotn 

### consumption of dri uking water and on th e lak es at Frank H o lten State Par k t o evaluate risk from consump t ion of fish. Ti te f ollowing d i scu ss ion pro vide s information o n 

# me assessment conduc ted for current and 

### reasonable potential future land 

### use , water bodies and the associate d watershed, and special subpopulations. 4.L.J Cu"enJ an d Reaso nab le P oten t i a l Fu ture L an d Use 

### Current and reasonab l e potential future IMd u se were evaluated to 

### se l ect the appropriate _ exposure scenarios which shou ld be 

### ev aluated, an d to 

### pinpo int th e location of each expo su r e sceoario . 1l1 o se exposure scenarios are p rese nted in 

### Table 4
- 1. Fo r cutre11t and reasonable pote n tial futur e land use, a survey of USGS 7 . 5 minute 

### maps Md land use/land cover maps 

## was conducted for M area ex tending o ut ro I 0 km 

### from the source center . 51



### VES 007819TA BLE 4
- 1 S E L E C TED EXP O SURE P ATHW AY S AND EXPO S URE SC EN ARIOS



# ... ] {,) 

# .. tl 

# .. ... 

# £**~ ~** **~** 

### ii: 

### 5 !l 

# " Oi 

# .., :;;! 

### • ;; 

# = 

# .. "' '" !! 0 0

## ~**~ ~**  :;: :;:**~** 

# .., 

# ; !! 

# .. = 

# :a 

# .. 

# .. ...**~** "**Ex o~** **ure** 

### P a tltw ays 

### < u 0: 

### < I nh a lat i o n of Vapors and Particu l a t es X X 

### X X 

### X I nc i dent al I nges t ion o f So i l 

### X X X 

### X I nge st i o n of D ri nk ing Wat er fro m S urfa ce Water Sou rc e s X X 

### X X 

### Ingesti o n o f Homegrown P r oduce X X X 

### X IJlg est i o n of F is h X X

5 2



### VES 007820

### Using the sources r efe r enced above, an exp os u r e scen ari o map was creat ed . This map ident i fied areas most mdicanve of a partic ular exposure . scenario. Fo r exomple , the 

### map identifies areas in which an adult resident an d chi ld resident wo uld most likely J ive . In t h

is A nalysis , the land u s e wa s ev a l UAted to determine if i t wa s i 11dicative of a spe ci fic exposure scenario. The followmg step s were t a ken to 

### create the exposure s ettin g map: I. A 

### 20 km 

### x 20 lun 

### square, centered about t he source center was created from the National Land Cover Oilta s et (N L CD) fro m the USGS fo r Missouri and !Uino is (Figu re 4 -1). 2. Land 

### use/land cov er ( LU / LC) classes used in the NLCD map were com b i11ed into exposu r e sccnrui os ( Fi g ure 4
- 2 ) . Table 4- 2 sh ow s which LU/LC c l a:<S es were combined in t o which exposure scenarios. (No te: Not 

### al l LUILC classes were representative of a )ian ic ular exp o sure scenario ). 3 . . The recepto r gr i d arra y ge n erated previously was ov erla i d over this exposure map . The receptors are spaced 

### at intervals of 100 t n. Th e exposure map w i lh a grid overlay i s shOwn in Figur e 4-3. The 

### resul tin g exposure map was examined in relation to pollut a

nt air concentrations and depositions on t he JSC ST3 m ode l. Only areas outs ide of the plant bo undary , 

### which are shown on the exposu re maps in Figures 4
- 2 an d 4- 3, we re cons idered. 4.1. 2 Id e miji cati()n of Water Bodie s 

### Water bo dies wi th in the asses s ment area coul d indicate the potential fo r COP C exposures fr o m the 

### ingesti on of fish and 

### from drinking water from those water bo di es lhat are used fo r a drinking water s o\lr ce. A 

### more detailed dj sc ussi on on the s election o f ex po sure scenario locations associated wi th these 

### water bodies, and 

### tbe methods for ev a luation of air 

### paramete.r concc nt:nlti ous at receptors wi t hin t he water bodies i s provided in Sectiob 4.2 . The use, area, and 

### locatio n of wnter bodies withi n the watershed wet·c identified using vati o u s resources. The l oc ati on an d area o f th e targe ted wate r bodies were identified using 3 -0 

### T opoQuads . 

### 3-D TopoQuad s pro vi des adeq uate detail for eval uating maj o r and minor war e r bodie s w i th i n lhe assess ment area . Bec ause th e pos si bility of rec reation a l fish ers o n the lakes at Ftsnk Ho l ten S tate Par k hns b een discus s ed wi th U.S. 

### EPA Regi on 

### 5 , the recq>tors located at Frank H olten State P ark were used 

### to de termine risk 

### to lhe r ecreationa l fisher. Ri sk to all inhabitants from drinkin g water consumption was ass e $Scd using . the highest modeled parameters from the Mississippi Rivez .
53



### VES 

### 007821

### f ' IGUR E 4-1 LAN D USE/LAN D COV E R M A.P CRO P PED T O 20 KM X 20 1<.\ f ASSES S MENT AR£).



### f

. •

,' ;'l
--**~** 

### ..**~** _

. _

·**-~** ·'
• l '• •**~** .. :··

::

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

## • __:;;,'*" ' ;,· j,



### ...**Jf~ --**  

### ' 

### - 

## '**t: ~~;** **·.~~j~::~·~ :·** **::· t~·:** 

.- .. : 

## · · . 

### .-: .::. -,.. "' 

### .. - 

# · · ·**::"!~ :~** **,** 

# . .**~_!,\\; !**  ¥ . 1' :1"• \-.- ·'S:.,,**-~-'., ""**  ' lt" ·;;.:;. .**--~ ·**  ... ,.\. ,- -;;:, • ,**~; .**  ; . .....**'.~;** ' . 4. ! • • -



### 5

4 L F.GI <; N I.l N at io na l L a nd C over O atnset Clas s ification Svstem Legend Colen Key Class N ame

;ti'i!i O pe n Water 

### c::J Perennia l lc: eJSnow Low 1nto n silv Rcs•r lrmtia l f.\ i 9h lntcnsrt'y Re sidential**~ Comme,icaVImhtstl~tllfT•a** **s,>o~t~ttDI\** Bare**Rock/San~ /CI•y**  Qua rr ieS/Str ip**Mi ne~.**  Grave l P i1s

- Transb>nal &:;;;;;i

G!! 0 9ci d uous Fo res1 E ver q reen Forest MiJCed Forest Shrubland**Orc~~rds/Vtneya ds**  Gras:sl.andsJHerba toous Pas t u

re!H a¥ Row C. r op.s Smail Grams Fallow Urba ot R ecreatio n al Gra sse::. Woody**w~n•ods** Em etge n t Herbacf.ous Wcllltnds



### VES 007822

# .., N 

### co 

# ,._ 0 0 1/)

## ~ v**~ ~** **·~** 

## " 

# t &-- r. ;;:;**~** 

## " 

# - · ;;;**~ .~**  c '> 

## f**~** ·;::: 

### c 00: 

# ...**~** 

### z. :E t 

## " w

# .~ ;:;

### ~**~** 

# a e 1:! 

# "'**~** ;;; ...J 

# -- a v ::0 

## " ::: &. 

# "' "' " < 

# "" z 

# ..
tl.) 

# r**·~ '~** 
::.. 

### <**~** 0 N 

### 2 0 

### < -T 

## z**~** l<l • ' {) ;:) 

# "' () l<l 

# - 1:. 

### :::: ;:) 

# "' 0 0.. X l<lTA BL E**2** L \ '\0 l 1 SE I I... \ N O CO\"I: : R CUSSES A SS IGN I ': l> TO I::X I' OSU IU '**CI NA** **IO S** 



### 56

V E S 00782 4F I G**RI ~**  4-3 E XPO SU RE S C E N A R IO M A P WITH R E CE PTOR GRID**LA** Y**~J** 

## 1m

5 7 

### LEGEN D
/\d u ll / C h ild R c s i cl o nl R ecrent10CH' I F i s h i!r ! Fis h er Child Not characl¢rislic of J spccHic 

### e x

pos u re scena rio

VES 0078254.2 Sel e ded Exposure Scenario s The fo llo wi ng exposure se ena rios were co n sidered i n the human health risk a ssessment :
• Adult R es ide nt 

### • Child Resident • R ec reati o nal Fisher • Recreational Fisher Child • Acute Ri sk For each exposure scenario i dentified and . shown 

### in Table 4
- 1 , various OJ<posure pathways we re evaluated t o detenn in e the ri s k ass oci ate d wi th the ex pos ure scenario f or each COPC . B oth indirect ris k s and direct int-.ahni on risks were eval uated a t all receptors. 4.21 Adult and Child**Rtsid ~nt**  Th e adul t and child resident scenarios are design ed t o evalua t e the risk s to an individual (adul t or c hi l d) livin g in an urba n or rural (no n-farm) exposure setting . The evaluation of exposure through the following pathways will detenn i ne the extent o f ex posure from b i oaccumulation of po l hlt30 ts in hom e grown food:
• Di roct inhalation of 

### vapors and particles • Inci dental ingestion 

### of soil • Ingestion o f h omegrown pr oduce • Ing esti o n 

### of 

### drinking water Twen t y-five perecnt of the p roduce co nsumed by the adult and child residents is asswned to be grown by tl1e adult resident The in gesti on of fish exposure pathway was not inc l uded a s part 'of the adult an d child resJdent scenarios. 4

. 2.2 R ecrea ti o tiiJI Fis h e r a nd R ecreaJion nl Fl . •he r Child The rec r eati onal fisher and recreational fisher child scenarios are designed 1 0 evaluate th e 

### risks t o an indiv i duuJ (adult or chi ld ) living · in an w·ban or rural exposure setting where fish is a component of the receptor di et. The 

### po tential for bioaocurnulation of pollutants in 

### the food chain fo r recreational fishers and fisher children are primarily through the fish ingestion pathway . The evaluation o f exposure through the following pathways 

### will determin e the extent ofexposure:
• Direct inhalation of vapor s and parti c les • Incidental ingestion of so il 

### 58

VES 007826• Ingestion of homegrown produce • In ges ti on of drin k mg water • lngoslioo of fish 1\venty-fivc percent of the produce consumed by the recreational fisher and recreational fi · s h er child is assumed t o be gr ow n b y r.h e recreational fis her . 

### 4.1. 3 Acute Risk Scenario The acute risk scena ri o is designed to eva luate th e s ho rt- term risk s a ssoci ated witb ma xi mwn I
hour concentrations of COPC emis s ions through the dtr ec t inhalation of vapon an d particles . Th e maximum !- ho ur coneeruration from the enti re assessment area w as used io this evaluati o n . C ons idel.1lti o n of the entire assessm en

t area diff ers from t he other scettarios . I n an**~te** setting, a reeepto r may b e in an urban or rural s etting where human activity or land us e s upports any of the o ther scen ari os. The o nly area that was ex cluded from th is eval uatio n i.• that area located within plant boundaries . Workers within the facility are protected uuder o ther guidance and regu la tio ns for occ upati onal exposure t o baurd ous waste lll1d ha zardous was te comb u stion 

### emissions . 4.3 f denli fi ca tion of Land·B IISe d R ece ptor s 11te id entifi catio n of receptors within each area was det ermined by th ose receptors that have the highest yearly average con c entration for eac h ISCST3 modeled air parameter identified b el ow :
• Highest modeled u nitiz;ed vapor phase air co ncentration • Highest model ed unitized vapor phase wet depo s iti o n rat e • Highest modeled unitized partic l e phase air concentration • Highest modeled unitized particle phase wet depo si tion rate • Hi ghest modeled unitized particle phase dry depo si tion rote For each exposure scenario, th e highe s t modeled unitiz ed vapor phase and particle phase air 

### conc:eottations were used 

### in the ri s k 

### assessment fo r each e>q>osure scenario. 4.4 Jd entifka tl oo of**~eptors** for Water Bodies Be cause the possib i lity of recreat.ional fishers on the lakes at Frank Holten State Park was discussed wi th US EPA ReQion 

### 5 , the receptors located at Frank Holten State Park wore used to determine 

### risk t o th e recreational fisher . Risk to all inhabitants from drinking water consumption was assessed using the air modeling resul ts for tb o Mi ssiss ippi River and its waters hed . Risk to


### 59

VES 00782 7uU i nhabi t nn t s fr o m fi s h consumpti on was assessed using t he air m od el ing results for th e Frank Holt en Lakes and its watershed . Ftgure 4 .-4 s how s th e resul ts of l h e watershed de li neation u s ing water body 

### .and elevation d.ata . 'Three sub-areas were delineated and sun un ed that con t rib ute to th e lak e watet · s bed a rea: Main Lake 325 km2 , Lake No.3 1 . 95 krn 2 , an d the feeder stre am t o Lake N o .3 3.07 km'. Sub tractin g the acrual la k e areas fro m this tota l yields th e overaU lake waten;bed**m~** of7.55 lan 2 •



### 60

VES 007828F I GU !l E -1 - -1 FllA N K UOLT EN S TA'I'F. P A ll I < LA J .:E ANO LAI<E WATER S HE D AHL \**~·#** 

## -'" 

# \ '



# - .. 

# - ...... 

# - ....... . . . -

6 1



### VES 007829

### 5. 0 CHARACfERJZA TlON OF R I SK AN D l:IA ZARD This secti o n of the Onyx ri sk a s sessment report d i scusses and describes the inf o m1ati oo and meth o ds that were utilized to quantify the ex p osu re receivtd und e r eao h of the rtto m me nd ed exposu re s c en arios pr ev iou sly de sc ribed Tite calculallon o f Compound of P otential C o ncern (COPq specific**e~po urc**  rates f o r each expo s ure pathway invo l ved: 

### ( I ) es tilllnted 

### co r e media concen t r.ni o ns , (2 ) co nsumption rate , (3) recep t or b ody weight, and 

### ( 4

) frequency and du ration o f exposure . Thi s calculation was repeated for each of th e C OPes and for eac h exposure path w a y included in 

### an exposure scenario . 

### Th e exposure pathw a y-specific equations presented in Appe nd ix C , 

### Risk Characteri2ation E<Juations o f the 

### HHRAP were used t o qu a ntify risk . These equation s were provide d i n the risk ass essment prot ocol an d are not duplicated in this report The following 

### sections dC$cn1>e exposure 

### rate calcula tions 

### and tl1e ex posure patbway
- spec ifl c vari ab l es, whi ch affect th ese c a lculati ons. Acute 

### exposure res ul ting 

### from direct inhal ation was evaluated independently and tb e results are also presen ted in Ibis section . 5.1 Gtne r lc E¥ po s ure Rat e E quation To calcula te an avecage**e~posure** per uni t of time, tbc t o tal exposUre was divided by the time period. Average exposure i s also expressed in term s of body we i ght. All CKposures quantified in tile risk ass e ssment were: ( I ) uni tized for tim e n od body weight, (2) pres ented in u nits of millignun.s per kilogram o f body weight per day , and (3 ) tenned "intakes . " The following equation is the generic 

### equation used to cal culat e chemica l intake .



### Where : I = C"'. 

### · CR · EF · ED

· -"" '- B-W_ ·

_

A

_

T

_ _
I • Intake is the amount o f 

### CO re at the ex c hange boundary (mg/kg!day); for evaluating ex posure to noncarcin ogenic 

### COPCs, the intak e is referred to as average daily dose (ADD); for evaluating exposure to carcinogenic co mpounds , lbe intake i s refen·ed to as l ife t ime ayernge daily dose (l..ADD ) 

### 62

VES 007830

## C... = Generic COPC concen tr ation in me dia of concern (e . g., m g/kg for soil or mg!L for surface water) ; CR = Co nsumption rate 1S the amount of contnmina t ed medium co nsumed p er unit of ttme or even t (e. g., k g/day for soil and U day for water) EF Exposure frequency (days/ye ar) 

### EO = Exposure dWlltion (years) BW Average body weight o f th o receptor over t11e cJ<posure period (kg) AT = Averaging time- th e period over which exposure is averaged (days}; for carcinogens, the averaging time is 25 , 550 da ys, based on a lifetime exposure of 70 years, for noncarcinogens, averaging tim e equals ED (ye ars) multiplied by 365 days per year . 5.2 Consumption Rate Consumption . rate is recognized as the amount of con ta minated media constuned per un it of time or eve nt. Consump tion 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 modificatio ns in default values not prop os ed in the approved ri s k assessment protocol are discussed in Ibis repon. The following subsections d escri be exposure palbway-specific considerations regarding coDSllmption rate. 5.2.1 Air Exposure Pallrway s Dire c t 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 t echniques used to estimate airborne concentrations of vapors and particulates. The factors that affect ex po sure from vapor and pani cul ate inhal ation as a result of normal respiration, include vapor and particulate COPC concentrations, respiration rates during the period of exposure, and lengths of exposure. As no ted in the HHRAP, a single default inha l ation rate is provided for use across all adult receptor scenarios. As previously noted, intake related 10 direct inhalation of vapors and parti cula t es are calculated based on variations of the generic eq uation presented . · Noncarcinogenic hazards aod carcinogenic ris ks associated with direct inhalation Cl<posures were preferentially characterized using toxicity filctors (inhalation unit risk factors [URF)) and 

### 63

VES 00783 1

### reference concentranons { Rtt: ] based on data 

### collec ted under , or nonnalized to, 

### a partJcular set of respiratory and body wei , gbt parameters (e . g,, 

### 20 cubi c met ers per day [ m 3 

### /day) ond 70 

### kg) . lllhalation of vapors and 

### pa•ticulates 

### a1·e influenced by tlte 

### relative amount of time that a 

### receptor speod , s indoor s . Although vapors entering buildings and 

### residences as a 

### result of air CJ(cbange are likely to 

### remain airborne and, 

### therefore , may be 

### inhaled , pa ni culates entering these same 

### buildings are more like l y to settle ou t 

### nod not 

### be inhaled. For rhe purpose of the risk assessment, it was assumed that vapor and particulates may be 

### inhaled throughout the day, bo th mdoors and outdoors . 5.2.2 Food Exposure PatllwaJI$ 

### Pl

ants and animals i mpacted by emi ssi on sou rces 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 d e termined 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) th e percentage of the diet contaminated by COPCs . Equati ons provided in the risk assessment protocol bave previously described procedures for the dclenn . ination of the concentration of CO PCs in f ood, as well as and 

### concentrati o n of variations in exposure resulting from food preparation methods and type of food item (e.g., protected versus unprotected produce). Other variables, whi ch may a l so affect the estimation of expos ure, 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 ra tes. COPC concentratio n s in food are determined, in part, by the type of food , as well 

### as by 

### the types 

### of fo o d in the 

### diet. 

### 5.2 . 2 . 2 Food Co nsumplio11 Ra1e The amount of daily food consumption varies with 

### age, sex, body**weigh~** 

### and geographic region, and i t 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 0078 3 2The consumption rat e s pec ified for fishers in the HHRAP wa s based on data presented in Table 1 3
- 23 o f the Exposur e Fa ctors Handbook, Consumer Only I nta ke of Home Cnught fish. This

· co nsumpti o n rat e i s based on th e mean amount consumed among people inge s ting fish du ri ng n

s hort
- t erm period. Thi s fails to address th e frequency at whtch 

### fish is co nsumed. As stated in the Exposure 

### Factors Handbook, 

### "[lhe wnsumption rates) 

### are based on short -term dietary recall and tlte intake distri butions generated from them may not acc urately reflect long
- term intak e panems.'' The fis hing reports for Frank Holten lake indicate there are periods during which fishing activities 

### are ex tre mely slo w and lll8t in cide nce of 

### fish caug ht are slow, spotty, or sporadic . further, there are periods when fishing is restricted i n the spring and fall. Therefore, using the default consumption mte greatly ove!1:$1imates the avenge daily consum pt

ion rote likely to be sustained f o r the 

### 30 year 

### exposure duration. Twenty-five glday is the 95th percentile consumption rdte for recreational freshwater anglers, as give n in section 

### I 0.1 0.3 of the Eltposure Factors 

### Handbook . Thi s value does not exclude 

### the consumption of non-locally caught fish and th erefore IS conservative. Consistent with the 

### HHRAJ> methodology , the 2.5 glday consumptio n rate was adjusted for forty-one percent cooking and preparation losse s. Because the 95th percentile number applies to all anglers , it wa s necessary to extrapo late 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 fisher s, as presented in the HHR.AP. The ca lc ulations below show th e convenioos performed to determine the adult recreational fisher co nsumpti on 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 wa s divided by the HHRAI' recommended adult body weight, to determine the consumption r ate 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 of41 percent:



### 65

VES 007833

### 3.57E-IJ4 kg

### (1**-0.41)~** 2.JJE-M kg k g- day kg
- dayFW A s stated above., th e rati o between th e subsistence fisher consump ti on rates from th e HHRAP 

### was utilized t o calculate the chi!<! c onsumption rate ba s ed on t he 95 th percentile consulllj)tion r a t e (CR in 

### equations bel ow): Child CR 

### fr om HllRAP 

### Aduh CR 

### from HHRA.P A.dult Calculated C R = Child Calculated CR


### O

. BBE
. OJ. 2
. 106E-{)4 kg i.48E-{)4 kg 1.15E- 03 kg
- da y FW k g- da y 'FW 5 .2. 2.3 Percentage of Contaminated Food 

### The percentage of h o megrown food consumed 

### by the individual al so affects exposure , because not 

### all of 

### an imlividual ' s dietDry intake is contaminated. The following assumptions 

### are made in developmem o f the risk assessment regarding the percentage o f contaminated food :
• With regard to abov eground and belowground produce, it is assumed that 25 percent of the produce consumed 

### by receptors for th e following expos ur e scenarios (adult res id ent, c hil d resident, and recreational fisher, and recreati o nal fisher child) is contaminated 

### (HHRAP Appendix C, Table C..!-2, CO P C 

### 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:ati o nal 

### fisher child 

### are contaminated (HHRAP 

### Appendix C ,. Tab l e C -1-4 , 

### COPC Intake f:rom fish) . This assertion overestimates the quantity of potentia lly contaminated fi s h cons umed, due to the regular s tocking of farm-raised ftsh into these lakes. 

### Typically, the lakes are stocked twice 

### yearly with thou sands of powtds o f trout and c atfish . S i n ce t be overall results of the risk assessment indi cate that risk and 

### 1UIZ8td are bel o w benchma rk 

### Je,• els, it 

### was not necessary to re6ne this input to the model 

### No other r ecq>tors are assumed 

### to collSume contaminated 6sh . 5.2.] Soil ExpoJure Path,.,ays Ex.posure to con t antinants in 8oil can oocur through soil ingestion, dermal exposure to soil, and inhalati on of resuspended dust. Based on air di s persion modeljng aod deposition of 

### COPCs, emission concentrations in soil v aries with distance from the source . Potential routes of expos ur e were det ennined by the way 

### in which 

### the soils in the area are used. S oi l used for


### 66

VES 007834famting or recreation were included as pathways of human exposure th at differ from those of soil on roadways or in urban areas . 

### 5. 2 . 3. I Soil Ingestion Chil d ren and adul t s are directly exposed to COPes in soil when they consume soil that bas adhered to their hands. Fac10rs tbat influe nce exposure by soi l ingestion i nclude soil co ncentratio n , the rate of soil ingestion du ring t h e time of exposure, and the leng th of time spent in lhe vicinity of contaminated soil . Ingesti on rates for adults were based on assumptions about e)\posed surface area and frequency o f hand-to-mou t h con sumption . Indoor dust and outdoor soil also contribute to the t otal daily ingestion. E.xposure levels are also influen . ced by the amount of time that 1l 1e individ u al spe nds in the vicinity of soi l exposed t o deposition of emitted pollutants. Soil ingestion assessment was based on the reco mmended values found in Appendix Cof theHHRAP. II is recognized t hat some yoiU.lg chl l d ren-ref e rred t o as " pi ca • chi l dre n - m ay i ntentionally eat soil. The HHRAP does not 

### recommend addressing pica behavior 

### as · part of ri sk 

### assessments , and the r efore w a s not inc l uded in the eval uations for the r is k assessment. 

### 5 . 2 . 3 . 2 Der m

al Exposw·e to Soil The 

### IDIRAP does not recommend the 

### use of the pathway of dermal exposure to COPCs through contact with tbe so il in the ev al uation of recommende d exposure scenarios. TherQfore, demtal exposure to soil Wl!S not consideced for the 

### RF AAP 

### assessmenL 5.2.3.3 Sci/Inhalation Resultingfr om 

### Dust Resttspension The gu i dance does not recommend the use o f the so il inhalation exposure pathway r esulti ng from dusr r esuspension in the evaluation of recommended exposure scenarios. 

### Dust resuspension was not include d for evaluation in the risk assessm ent. 

### 5.2. 4 W ate r Ex po su r e Pathway s Water exposure pathways 

### arc used to deten:nine CO PC concentrations in 

### drinking water obtained from surface water or collected precipitation (e.g., cisterns). Water exposure pathways a r e also used to detemtine 

### the COPC concentration in fish. 

### Daily exposure of individuals osing these water sources for vari o us purp 0 ses , such as fiShing and drinking water, can be cs t immed by u s in g 

### various mode l s. The H HRAP guidance does n . o t recommend the use of the pathways of drinking water exposure from ground water sources for the purpose of evaluations o f exposure scenarios. Application of


### 67

VE S 0 07 83 5

### the methodo lo gy t o com bu stio n un its ha s i n di ca ted tha t th i s is no t a s ign i fi ca nt ex posure path way . G rou n d water so urc es were, theref ore, not constdered ap plicable to !be 

### assessment . The 

### HHRAP guidance does no t r ecommend !be 

### use of the dermal. water exposure pathway in risk 

### assessme nts fo r comb usti o n sources. i be rc f ore, de rmal ex p osure a ss oc iated with wa ter e•posu re 

### pathway s wa s no t consi d ered applicable to the 

### assess m

ent ex cep t for those 

### Wll ter bodies with quantifiAble recreational 

### use. Fish ingestio. n rntes wen: used 

### as described i n Appendi x C 

### of the HHRAP , 

### for i nc lusi on i n the 

### ri sk ass essment, wi th t h e ex cep ti on of t · educed co n sum pti o n rate for recrea ti o nal fishers, as o ppo sed to su bsistence fishers. 5 . 3 

### E xpos u re Frequ enc y For th e 

### ri s k assessment , the receptors in each recommended exposure scenario we r e as sumed to be 

### ex p osed to all of th e 

### exposu re scenuri o-specific exp os ure pathways 35 0 

### days per yea r. Thi s 

### assumption 

### is based on the conserva t ive estim ate tha t all recep t ors 

### spend a tnini!llurn of 2 weeks at a 

### l oc a t ion other than dte 

### expo sure sc enari o l ocati on . 

### 5. 4 Expos ure Dur ati on Exposure dural ion is 

### the length of time tbat 

### a recep to r is 

### ex posed via a 

### specific exposure palhway . Although a re ce p to r is no l ong e r e> ']JOSed to COPCs via th e direct inhal ation expos u re pathway aller an emission source ceases o peration, a recept or is 

### expo s ed via 

### th e in dir ec t exposure pathway fo r as l ong as the receptor remains in the as se ssment area . Therefore , default value s were u sed to estima t e expos u re duration for specifi ed receptors . The delimit v alues applicable to the risk asse ss ment receptors are summarized in Tabl e 5
- 1 , Ex p os ure Duration values. 5.5 · 

### Averagi n g Time . 

### for noncarcinogenic COPCs , 1h e a vera ging time 

### for exposure was 

### cal culated b y mu ltipl ying th e expo sure d uratio n s pecified in T a bl e 5
- l for a given rece ptor by n 

### fa ctor of 365 da ys/y ea r. Carcinogenic exp o sures for differen t receptor a g es were ev alu ated sep arately, beca use th e d.1i ly a cti vities of these r eceptors vary, by. 1) 

### the am ou nts of food co n s umed, 2) the types 

### of food consumed , and 3) the am o unt of e xpo s ed skin surface.


### 68

VES 007836TA B LE 5- 1 ExP O S URE U\JRA TJ O N V ALU ES E xposure Scenario Value Chil d R esi den1 6 y ear s Ad ult Resi de n1 30 y ear s R

ecreat io nal f• s her 30 y ear s Recrea1i o na l fis her C h i ld 6yea rs

(i9



### VE S 0 07 8 37Recommende d health
- based critena vary for children and adults . Quantification of carcinogenic COPC exposure depends on th e duration of exposure . The average human lifespan is generally assumed to be 70 years ; childhood "''Presents only , about 1 0 percent of the lJfesprut (6 years) . .Expo$11l'e ov.cr thi s hfespan can vary greal!y between individuals. Consisteot with HI·IRAP r ecommendations, thi s risk assessment wa s conducted usi n g 

### u conservat i ve 

### approa ch. Fo r carcinogenic COPCs, a l o nge-r ave-raging time and an adu lt body 

### weiSJll was nsed t o cal c ulate the risk r es ulting from air or water exposure. Averaging times used in the assessment for 

### carcinogens omd non-carcinogens for Resident Adult, Resident C hi ld , Recre a tional Fisher, and R ec reataonal Fisher Child are those specified 

### in the 

### HHRAP gu . idancc . 5.6 Bod y Wei g h t The choice of body wciglat for use in the risk cbaracterization equations dcpeuds on the definition of the receptor at risk , which in tum , dep ends on exposure and su sceptibil i ty to adverse effects. C o nsisten t with recommendations in th e 

### HHRAJ>, the assessment utilized I S kilograms for a verage child weight and 70 kilogJamS for average adult weight.

70



### VES 007838

### 6.0 ASSESSt. ffi N 'T R ES m : r s AN D DI S C USS I ON The ri sk assessment detailed in th i s r eport focuses on i nc remenw l C11 rc inogen i c nod non· carcinogenic effec t s from tncincr11tor emisstons on individuals (receptors) defined in p r evious chapt ers of Ibis repo11. This scchon discusstS the ra ti onal e for qu antitative appli c at ion o f data co llecte d and calcul a tion s performed based on site-s p ecific and unique exposure, modeling, and toxicity assumptions . . Tbc process used estimates lifetime cancer risk ( h ereinafter referred to as r i sk) and non-carcinogenic risk ( h erei nafter referred t o as hazard). These estima ti ons we re c.. J cu l a t ed for each receptor, across all applicable e.tposure palhways , and summed ttl obtain an estima t e ofttllll l indivi dua l risk an d hazard fo r recep t o r s speci fied in S ection 4 . Risk and hazard from exposure to combustion emi ss ion s are ca lcu l ated or es t imated differently. 1\ s lope factor is a co mpound- s pecifi c value used 

### in 

### risk assessment t o yield an upper -boun d lifetime probability of an individu al developing c:u>cer as a r esult o f exposure ttl o specific l eve l of the target co mpound . Hazard is quantified a s the potential for develop i ng non-carcinogenic h en llh effec t • resulting from expos ure, expressed as a ra tio of the receptor 's exposure to a slalldard exposure level. The standard exposure**eve~** desig n ated as a R efe ren ce D ose tRfD) or R

ef

eren ce Con c entration ( RfC) fo r a com p oun d is based o n a si mi l ar exposure period !hat r esults in no appreciable likelihood of adverse health 

### e ff ectS. 6.1 Estimation o f I ndividual Risk an d ll 32.11rd Since the HHRAP guidance recommends that human health risk assessments address ouly indiv idual ri sks and hoz.ar ds , mther than p o pulation risk, the risk assessment was performed t o o nly e val uat e individual risk and hazards. This risk assessm ent bas evaluated !he fo ll owing effect s:


### • Estimates ofrisk and hazard associated with COPC exposw·e, and • E va l uation o f ac ute ex posu re f rom direct inhal ation. 6.2 Quan t ita tive Esti • nati on o f Ca u eer R i sk Estimation of risk for can:inogenic chemicals WM calculated as tile lifetime average doily dose multipli ed b y tbecompound-spccific c ancer s lope fa ctor .
Where : Cancer Ri s k c LADD x CSF LADD; Lifetime average dail y d ose tmglkg-day ) C SF**~Can cer**  slope factor (mg/lrg-day)" 1

7 1



### VES 007 8 39Fo r eac h C OP C and exposure scenario, th e ca n cer risk was calculated for eac h exposure pathway evaluated in this rislc assessment. The risk associa t ed wi th emissions from fu gitive sourc e s wo u ld have 

### boon add ed to this final value, h a d ihe e ffec ts from fugitive enus sions bee n significant. Since the resuli s of fu gitive emissions m ode lin g indicat ed that minimal emissio ns occ ur ( ro m thi s so u rce, t h ese minimal em issio ns w e re determi n ed t o ha ve no effec t on the ove rall cancer 

### risk values. The Integrated Risk Information System (I RI S) w as used as th e authorita t ive source for o ra l cance , · s l!lpe fu cto rs an d fo r inha l a ti o n uni t risk fact o rs f o r each carcinog eni c C OPC . C hr omi um (VI) is c lassified as Group A, kn own human carcinogen by the inhalation route of exposure . Cadm iu m is c l ass ifi e d as G ro up B I , pr obab le human carcinogen. Carcinogenici ty by the oral route of exposure is c lassified as Gro up D and cannot be detennined f o r either cadtnium or chrom ium (VI) . Therefore , oral c an ce r s lop e fact ors ar e not availab le . The HHRAP reco mm e nds assuming rout&-to-routc eX1111polation by calculating an o ral can cer slo p e fac tor fro m rb e inhala tio n unit risk. Due to the f o ll o win g statements fro m the U. S . E PA database o n the To>ticology Infonnation Nerworlc, IRIS (1996a), ro u te- t o -route extrapolation is not appropri ate , and th e 11ral cancer slope fa c t o t

·s for cadmium and c hrom i um (VI) hav e b een set equal to z ero.
• " N o d ata were locat ed in the available liter a ture t hat suggested that C r(Vl) is carcinog enic by the om! route o f exposure ." • "S eyen s tud ies in ra ts and mice w h e rein c admium salt s (acetate , sulfate, chloride) were a dmini s tered orall y ha ve sh ow n n o evidence of carc in ogenic respome. " • " There are no pos iti ve studies of ora lly inges ted cadmium su i table for quantitation . " The cancer ris k estimations fo r R ecrea ti o nal Fisbcr , R ecreationa l Fishe r Ch ild, Adult Re s i de nt , and Child Resi den t are p rovi ded in Table s 

### 6· 1 , 6 ·2 , 6·3, and 6 -4 , respectively . Th e health benclun4rk for cancer risk i s 1.0 x 10 ' 5 • Fo r each exp os ure sce nario and CO PC eval uat ed, the sum of c ancer ris ks a c ross aU o ral**c~posuro** pathways and can ce r risk due t o direct exposure do not e xceed this benchmark. Therefore, th e HW C MAC'r limit s for these C O PCs a re suffi c iently , protective of hwnan health in te m1 s of cancer risk .

72



### VES 00 7 840TAB L E 6-1 

### C A i'IICE R RI SK FOR RE CREAT I ONAL Fl SJ:fER (Cancer B e nchmark 5 LE-05} Cancer 

### R isk Can cer Risk 

### COPCN•me from O ral from**In~ es** **tion** 

### lnbalatlon Arsen i c O.OG6E-05 0.123E-05 

### Beryllium 0. 069E·OS 

### Cadmium 0. 12 8E·05 

### Chr omium Chromium (Vf} o.344E · 05 Lead 0.0009E-05 0 . 0009E-OS 

### Elemental Mercury Mercuri c Chloride Methyl 

### Mercury TetraCDD, 2,3 , 7,8
- 0.00008E-OS
TABLE6-2 CANCER RI SK 

### FOR RECREA 

### TJ ONAL FI SHER C ffil D {Cancer Be n chma r k • lE-05} Cancer Rl s k 

### C ancer RJ sk 

### C OPCName fr om O ral fr om 

### I ngestion ln.b.alation 

### Arsenic O . O

JSE-0 5 0.025Jl.05 Beryllium 0.014£.05 

### Cadmium 0.026B-05 

### Chro miu m 

### Chromium (VI) 0 .0691!.()5 

### Lead 0 .0003 E · OS 0.0002E-05 Elemental 

### Mercury Mercuric Chloride Methyl M ercury TetraCDD, 2 , 3 ,7, 8 · 0.00002E · OS


### 73

VES 007841TABLE6-3 CA NCER R I SK FOR ADULT RE S lOENT (Cancer BenebmArk 

### = lE-05) Cancer R isk Caneer Risk C OP CN ame from Oral from I nucstlon I nhalati o n 1\rsalie 0.065£-1)5 0 .1 23E-OS Beryllium 0.069E-OS Cadmium 0 . 128E .OS Chromium Chromium (VI) O. »oE--05 Lead 0 .0009E-OS 0.00091:-0S Eleme n ta l**Mt~reury** Mercuric Chloride Melh y l Mercury TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8
- 0.0000 4E · OS
TABLE6-4 C ANCER RI SK F OR CHILD RES ID ENT (C ancer Benchmark = 1 E-05) Cancer Risk Cancer Risk COPCNa m e from Oral fr om lastestion lnhalatfo o Arsenic 0.01 . 8E

- 05 0.025E-OS Beryllium 0.01 4E-OS Cadmium 0 .026&05 Chro mium Chromium (VI) 0.0691:-0S 0.0003E-05 O . OOO:!B-05 

### E

lemen tal Mercury Mercuric Chloride Met hyl Mercury TetraCDD, 2 , 3, 7, 8- 0 .00002£-05


### 74

VES 007 8 4 26.3 Quantitative E stimation of Noo-Cauce r Effect s Non
- carcmogenic effects were estimated ba s ed o n the standa t "d as s ump t ion tha t be low a th re shol d leve l of exposllfe, no adverse effects 

### nre observed . Non-carcinogeni c health effec t s 

### were !b-sessed by:

• Compa rin g estimated CO.PC intake t o the 

### RJD for oral exposure, and • Comparing an estimated chemical
- s pecifi c a i r con centra ti on t o th e 

### R IC for direct inhalatJOn e xposure. Th e expo s w ·e durati o ns u s ed 

### were sp ec ified in the ri s k as sessment protocol. Chronic 

### RIDs and RfC s were u sed, if available, t o eVllluate all exposure pathways. R1Ds 

### and R fCs were obrained fr o m A p pendix A - 3 of tb e HHRAP. Ha z ard qu o tient s (HQs) were calculated as th e average do ily d os age (or th e total COP C air co ncentrati on) divided by the RfD or RIC, respectively. Therefore, an HQ o f 1.0 is indicatio n that estimated exposure t o the COPC is n t the threshold level. For conservatism, the HHRAP recommends the benchmark for HQ s be set at 0.2 5, which i s o ne-fourth of the threshold leve l of e:cposure. Additional discussion o n this default hazard benchmark is addre ssed in Section 7 .0. Consis t e nt wi th U . S . EPA guidaooe (Sec ti on 7 . 3 of the HHRAP) and the pro t oco l for t h is risk assessment, a detailed analys i s was performed for COPC-specific hazards a cco rding to majo r bealth effects and target organs or systems "t o determin e whether the potential for n oocan:i nogenic health e ffects [was] a cc urately estimated by the · t oto ! tU because the toxicological effects associated with cxpo•-ure t o multiple chemicals, oftett through d i fferent exposure pathways , may no t be additive; therefore, the total HI may overestimote the potential for noncarcinogemc health effects." Se gregated hazard indices have been developed based on target organs fo r ad v ers e health effects summarized io this sec tion . Per the HHRAP , "if the segregate d Hl is le ss than the target hazard leve l , the t otal HI of aU C OP C-specific resu l ts 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 expos u re to COPCs as specified in the H H RAP database . lt should be noted that segregated Hls are exposure route spec i fic . For a gjven exposure route, oral or i nhalati on, none of the s e COPC.s share tbe same uuget organ and/or critical effect. Therefore, the HQ s pres en ted in thi s risk assessment are equivalent to the segregated His ca

lculated per the HHRAP equ a tio ns in Tab le C-1
- 10 for oral exposure and Table C-2-4 for inhalati o n exposure . ft should also be no t ed 

### again that this assessmen t evaluates potentia l risk for the emission of each COPC at the allowable HWC MACT limit. Utilization of the MACT
75



### VES 007843

### T ABLE6·5 TARGET O RGAN S AND S YSTEMS FOR DETERMIN A TI O N OF N O N-CAR C IN O GE NI C H AZA RD CAS COPCName Expos ure Ro ute Targe t O rgan C r iti c a l Effects 7440-3 8·2 Arsenic Inhalati o n cardiovascular 7 440 -3 8
- 2 Arsenic I Jlbal at io n D evelopmental 7 4 40-41 -7 Beryllium lnhalntion Lung B ery ll ium se nsitization and pro g re ssion to CBD 7440.38
- 2 Arsenic Inhalation Nervous System l8S40.29·9 C hromi um(VI) luhalntion Re spirato r y T ract N3$1S I septum atrophy 7440-47-3 C hromium Oral 

## .. No effects observed 18540.29-9 Chromium(Vl) Oral 

## - None reported 1746-0 1
- 6 Tetr a CDD, 2,3,7, 8· Oral Deve l opmental 7440-41-7 Beryllium Oral Gastrointe stin al Small intestinal l esions 7487
- 94-7 Mercuric c hl ori de Oral Immune System Autoimmune effectS 7440-43-9 C adm iu m Ora l Kidn .ey Si g ni ficant p r ote inu ria 22967-92-6 Methyl Mercu . ry Oral Nervous Syst e m Developmental n e urop sychological impairment 7440·3 8- 2 Arsen ic Oral Sk.in Hyperp igme ntari oo, keratosis and pos s i ble vascular complica t ions Note: There is no entry in tbe H H.RAP database for target organs o r critical effects o f lead exposure.

76



### VES 007844e mi ss i on l imi t as an es timate o f l on g- t erm e miss ion s of a sin g l e COP C is very co n serv a tiv e. Regardless oflhe target organ and crillcal effect eva l uati o n , summing the hazard est imates across mu l ti p l e COP G$ !hat a rc deri ve d fro m t ht s co Merv ati v c emis s i ons as s umpti on i s unr e alis tic and inappropriate . The H Qs f or eac h COPC an d ex po s•u-e p a th way are p ro v i d ed f o r the R ec r eational Fis her , R ecreation a l Fis h e r Child, Adult R e s i d ent, and Child R esid ent expo sure scenarios in Tables <Ki, 6 · 7 , 6
- 8 , and 6 · 9, resp oct ivel y . Also pres ented i n tbese tllbles a re the sununat i on s o fHQ s ac ross all of th e oral exposure pathwnys. BliScd on these r esu l ts, comp lian ce wi th the HWC M A CT limits e mission s of ars eni c , b e r y llium , ca dmiu m , t o ta l c hromium , lead, m ercury a o d dio x i ol furan TEQ emissions from the Onyx inc in erato rs does n ot resul t in**u~ bl** **e** l eve l s o f hazard 1 0 human health. The re s u l ts ind icat e thai long·te nn emi ssio ns of po ll utan ts al th e HWC MACT limi t are unl ikel y t o impose ad verse n o n -carcinogeni c eO'ects. 6.3.1 Mereuf)• Fate a11d Transport Algo rithm s The m ercury fine a nd transport algorithms p rovi ded m A p pendix B -4 of the Draft HHRAP Guid a nce included th e fo ll ow il •g s i gnifi c ant ertors:
• Data applicable to diss o lved mercury s pe c ie s in tbe water column (i.e., ep i linmi o n ) wa s inapp ropri ate ly n p p lied as th e 

### basis for th e meth y lation o f the t ota l**<~rcv ry**  l o ad to the water body . • Fo r the caleulation of me l hylmen:ury co ncentra tio n in ftSb, the t o tal disso l v ed mercury concentration 

### in the w a ter cohmm wa s multiplied by a b i oac cn mulatio n factOt d eri v ed fro m m eth y lmercury conc entratio n o nly an d not 1 o tal mercury co n ce ntrati on. Botb of these errors w ere addre ssed by the fin a l HHRAP ; h o wever , the r e vised m ercury fate an d transpo rt a lgo ri lhms f a il t o o b serv e a ma ss balance and are in a ppa rent con tradi ction of c hemi cal
spec i fi c data p ro vided by tbc Hl i RAP databa s e. Methyl mercury is as s umed to be 2% o f the e s timated t o tal mercury in watershed s oils . If th e m

er

cury care and trans port alg ori thms are app lied IISSlllllin g no ad dition a l m e th y l a

tion of divalent m

ercury, the dis so l ved methy l mercury in th e water co lumn i s mote than d o uble th e default as su mptio n o f 15 % o f t otal di s so l v ed merc ury. This ob s ervation means ei ther that the methylat io n ra t e of2 % 

### in s oil i s ov erl y co nservati v e or that there ar c fundam en tal fla ws in th e algorithms and/ o r cb e m

l cal-spe c ific data for methyl mercury . To avoid these co ntradictions the HHRA P alg ori thm s simp l y i gno re the amo unt o f meth y l me rcury in trod u ced to th e wat er body from w a tershed soil and model the fat e and transport of t ota l mer c ury using the propertie s o f 77



### VES 007845TABLE6-6 NONCANC ER Il EAL TH H A7.ARD F OR R ECREATIONAL FIS l iER

(H Q B e nchm•rk • 0.2$)
C QPC Name R QfoU llQproduco rlQdw IIQfi sb llQLnb Sum of o ral 8 0• Arsenic 7.071>-09 0.0 0 338**1. 47E~S**  J.66E · OS 0.02 2:) 0 .0034) Scryllium l.48E
- 06 5.07£
- 04 2.20 E-06**lJ3£~** 0.033->**5. ~**  Cad miU.I D 3 .3 71l-07 0.00251 J. 09E
- OS 9.77E
- OS 0 .00827 0 .00262 C

h.r o r n ium 1.05E -07 7 .2lE-<l7 4 .02£.09 2 .7SE-07 l .2 6E-07 l.l0£.06 Chromium (VI}**5.23E~** 3 . 60£.04 2.0 l E-06 2.28E-OS 0.00669 4.38. 1!-04 Lead 1.1 7E-05 0.00587 2.53£-05 222E-08 O . OOllO 

## o.oom El <m<fnal MetQIT)' 2.94£.06 M

ete:u ri c: Ol lori de 0.00730 O.OllS 4 2lE
- 06 S . 62E -04 0 .0188 Meth yl 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
T AB L E6-7 N ON CA N CE R HEALTH HAZARD FOR RECREATIONAL FISH E R CH I LD (HQ Benchmark= 0.25) COPCNam e H Qsoil IIQ prod• .. H Qdw HQfiJb 8Qinll Sum of o ral HOt Arsenic l.6S E..08 ' 0 .00473 3 . 29 E-OS 1.17£-0S 0.02 2 3 0.00478 Beryllium 3.46E-06 7 .1 0E·04 4 . 90E-06 9.35£-07 0.0034 7.20£.()4 Cadmtum 7 . 861l-07 0.00052 2.4 4E-O S 6 . 88 £-05 0.0083 0.00 361 Olro mi\1 m · 2.44 E-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 2.7 3E..Q S 0 . 00822 S . 6SE-OS 1.56£-08 0.00110 0.00830 Elc:mcolll Mo-cwy 2.9 4 E-06 Mercuri c Chlori de 0.0 1 70 0.0164 9. 411!-0 6 5.62 1!-04 0.0334 Methyl MU<'.uy 0 .00 101 0.00240**986~** 0.120 0. 1 24 . T<0'3 C00 , 2,3,7,8- 1.61E-OS 5. 71 £.06 l.l SE-08 3 . 68£-06 2.55 £,.0 5


### 78

VES 007846T AB L E6- 8 N O NCAN C E R HE A L T H fl AZA RJ) FOR A D U L T RES ID E N T (HQ Benc h rnar k 

### = 0.25) CO PC N amt H Q s o t.

l H Q p ro duce HQdw H Q fi s h H Q in k S u m of ora l Arstnic 7.07£-09 0.00338**1.~7E-OS** 0.0223 B eJ)·Ilium 1.4 8£.06 5.07£ · 04 2. 20E-06 0 0334 Cadmium 

## J .m:-07 0.0025 1 1.09 &0 5 0. 0082 7 Ouom ium 1.05£-07 7.21E-07 4 . 021!-09 1.26£-07 Chro m ium (V I ) 5 . 23&05 3. 60 £
- 04 2. 01E-06 0 .00669 Lead 1.11E -O S 0.00581 2.53£-0S 0.00110 Elementa l Mercwy 2 .94£-06 M Cf(; u ric Ch l oride 0.007:W 0.0115 4.21E-06 5 . 62&04 M«b yl M ercury**43 21!** **~** 0.0016$ 2 . 23£
- 06 TetroCDD , 2.3, 7,8- 6 .89£
- 06 4.07£.06 S .S9E-09
T A BLE6- 9 NON C AN C E R HEALTH HAZARD } ' OR CH ILD RESIDENT (HQ Be n chma r k**~** 0. 25) HO s 0.00340 5 .11 £
- 04 0.002 52 8 .29£ -07 4 . 1SE
- 04 0.00591 0.01 88 0.00211 l.lOE
- 05

COPCNam t H Q so8 IJQprod lte HQdw . B QI!s b 

### llQiob S• m o f oral 

# no. Arxnic 1.65E-08 0 .004 73 3.29 E-OS 0. 0223 0 .00477 Beryllium 3. 4 6£
- 06 7.1 0 £-04 4.90E-06 0 .0334 7 .19£.04 Cadmi u m 7.86£.07 0 . 00352 2. 44£-0 .S 0.00827 0 .00354 Ou-omium 2 . 44E -07 J. 01E-06 8 .9 8£-09 1.26£-07 1.26&0 6 Chrom ium (Vl) 1. 221!-04 S.04J!-04**4.~9E-06** 0.00669 6.31E-04 Leod 2 .73£-0 .S 0. 0082 2 5.6 5£-05 O. OOIJO 0.00830 Elemental Mor<ury 2.94&06 M=uric Chloride 0.0170 0.0 164 9 .41£.06 5.621!-04 O.OJ . :J4 Modlyl Mercury 0.0010 1 0.00240 4.98£-06 0 .00 342 T

etraCDD, 2,3,7 , 8- l.61 E-OS 5.77£-06 1.25£-08 2. 19£-0S

79



### VES 007847l))ercuric c hloride. Onyx canno t ju.wfy this disregard for a portion of the total me rc ury load to the water 

### body . Tbe dissolved mercuri c chloride concen trati on in the water co l umn is a function o f th e equilibrium parritioning of mercuric chl o ride between bed s ediments and sedi me nt pore water**Kd ~o)**  and betwec:n suspended sediments and s urfa ce water ( .Kd ..,). Table B-4-24 apportions to ta l mercuty as 85% divalem and 15% mct11ylated. Tbis bas is i s a pplied with complete dtsregard to the sbtfl in the equilibrium partitioning o f these mercury s pecies . Thtrcfore, the fina l predicted values for the fraction of mercu . ric chloride and methyl mercury in the water 'co l u mn ( f w,) , contradi ct the values ob tained using the equat io n in Tabl e B -4- 1 6. 

### The Mercury Study Report to Congress ' 

### ( M SRC)**pres~nts** data ranging 

### from 0.046 to 0 .15 for the "ftaction of t otal dissolved mercury in the epitimoion e xisting as the methylated species." 

### In lieu ofproviding a pr edictive fate and trans p ort mod el for methy l mercury, EPA bas selected the mo s t conservative and m&.'<imum val ue o fO.lS from these data . 

### If the fate and transport model for total mercury is to be intercepted in order to force 

### agret!'leot wi th demonstrated data, Onyx contends that it is more appropriate t o apply the mercury concentration in flSh harvested from the Frank Holten Lake rather than apply this worst-case mercury methylation 

### rate. For the Fran k Holten Lake s and watershed , Onyx has applied the mercury fate and transport algorithms f or total mercury using ihe pr o perties of mercuric chloride. The methylation of dh • alent mercury is not applied to these ca l culations. T he MSRC provides the data nocessary t o relate the methyl mercury content in fi s h as a function of the total dissolved metcury concentration in the water column. The methyl mercury concentra ti on in fi s h was calculate d us in g**~~e** (ollow in g equation:

Where, Total mercury conceolnltion in the · fr e sh weight (FW) fish tissue divided by tbe total dissolved mercury (TD Hg) con c entration in
1 Me rcury Study Rtport to Co ngr e.u, Volume III : Fate and Transport of Mercury In th' Ln .;ro nment . 1997 (EPA/4S21R· 97 .00 1), Tabl e D-15 

### 80

VES 007848t he wate r column. (mg Hg I kg FW tissue ) per (m g 

### TD H ,g I 

### L water co l umn ) . fmmf • Fractio n of toUl l rnercury in fish ti ssues exi s tiJl8 as the meth y lated f orm , (m g MHg I kg FW tissu e ) per (mg H g I kg FW ti ssue) . The MSR C pres ents the technical basis fo r assi gnin g a value of 1. 0 to fmm f. Th is i s con s i stent with th e HHRAP Guid ance tex t in Ta ble .B-4·27, which sta tes, " All mercury in fish is assumed t o exis t 

### or be converted t o methy l mercury (orgll!lic) f o 1m a fter upt a

k

e into J h e fish t iss ue " . Se c t ion D . 3.5 of th e MSR C pres ents data and discuss i on suppo rtin g poin t estimates of 

### BAF values 

### based on toial di sso l ved mercury. T hese va l u es w ere estimated 

### from fiel d da ta wh i ch were "som ewhat m ore**epresentative~** than t he comparable data used to estimate the BAF values based on dissolved methylmercury. 6.3.2**Appli~11tion** ofSitw pe c ific Fislt Tt'Qphlc**e•~ l**  Th e HHRAP sugg e sts a default trop hi c l eve l o f 4.0 for fi s h caught and eate n from the water bodies in the assessment area utilized by local fishers . On yx has detennined that th i s conservativ e defa ult valu e is not appropriate for t he Fro nk Hol ten Lakes . Initiall y , si te observa tions o f shoreline fishers and the types of 

### fish caugh t indicated that the fish primari l y ca ught are b l ue gill and catfi!lb . None of these fish is c ategori z ed as Trophic Level 4. Interv iews were also conducted with residents of 

### East St. Lou i s, a 

### fomer resident of E . St Louis, and r egulatory p er so nnel who have know ledg e o f fishill8 and c onsumption practic es in the area. The maj ority of fis hing at Frank Hohen Stat e Parle is accomplished by fis hing with a cane p o l e from the banks and using live bait (worms) . These practices prim ari l y yie l d b l uegill, 

### carp, buffa l o, an d catfish. Convenations wi th the Frank Holte n State Park Ran ger indicates tb a t the lake is o verrun with 

### carp and buffalo and weekly B elleviUe News-Democrat fishing r eports indicate that the primary 

### fish be ing caugh t is ca

tfis h al 1hough**~fi shin** **g** co ntin ues to be extremely s low ." This is con s istent with the type of fi sh that w ere observed 

### in the fisherman net s during si te visits. Local fish ing reports were pub lis hed weeldy in the B elleville News·DemOC<al from June 2005 through th e presenL R eports were not pub l ished in previous years . The re s ults of the s e repo rts ha ve b een compiled in Ta bl e 6
- 10 to sh ow fish ing practices for th is particular site . The fishing reports summarized in Tab le 6·1 0 indicate several thing s:

81



### VES 007849TABLE 6- 10 B E L LEV I LLE NEWS-DEMOCRAT FISHING REPORTS SUMMAR\' Mont h O verall Comment s Cuugbt Fis h Indi cation Indicatio ll of Conditio n • o f T roph i c Tro phi c 

## '**~vtl3** L evel 4 Fi s h Fi sh 

### Juoc Fis hin g No t many Bl uegi ll and fair s low
- extreme l y people catfi s h - 

### fnir spomdi c s l

ow cast i ng Ba s s - s l ow, sporadic Tro ut - sporadic at best Ju l y Fis hing Fishing B luegi ll and 

### fair sporadic exiremel y like l y to pick catfish
-**fa~r,** s low , 7,000 

### up aft er spo tty c al1ish st o c k ed stocking B ass - sporadic Crappie· spotty August Fis hin g Bluegill
- spotty, only 

### none extremely spoUy spec i es s l ow Crappie
- bitin g spotty Catfish
- o nl y species biting September F i shing Catfi s h
- o nly only species none ex tremel y species biting 

### biting slow October Fishing Stocked No info no info none (p ri or t o extremely trou1 average available av ail able 

### stoek ing) slo w, 2,000 lb !0- J 2iJL , farm
- raised stocked trout tr o ut sto cke d 

### are culled out fairly 

### quickly and do no t survive !h e snmmer 

### 82

VES 00 7850

### I. Coldwater fish species such as bass account for the Trophic Level 4 

### fish found even sporadicall y in these lakes . Fi s l t i

ug a t Frank Holten i s almost excl usive ly from th e s hore. These types 

### of fish are no t typically caught from the 

### shallower, wanner waters near the shoreline . 2. The s locked game fish " . . . are cu ll ed ouc**f~irly** 

### q u ickly. TI1 ey do n o t survive the summers in these lakes." " ...75 to 80 percent are caught. You may have some mortality on some, b

u t mos t o f t he m are harv e slc d ." Tbe.qe s tatem ents from the fi shi ng reports in d icate t hat these game fish do not survive long enough in 

### the Jakes to be 

### affected by lon g- term exposure of pollu t ants or t o propagate. 3 . Catfis h and , t o a lesser degree , bluegill are the predominat -e spec i es c aught in t h

e lakes. These fish 

### are rep resentative o f Trophic Lev el 3 spec ies . Funher , stoc ked catfish are a s i

gnific a nt sourc e o f t he fish caught i n th e summer months . :Ba sed o n thes e resul ts, Trophic Lev el 4 fish that a re J>O t st ocked are an insignificant cat egoty of fish 

### caught in the Frank Holt en Lakes . Ther efo re , Onyx has utilized the more a ppro priate s itespecific de sign ation of Trophi c Level 3 for the affected fish in this 

### assessment. The 

### Trophic Level 3 bioacc umu!ation f ac tor based on total mercury was used to 

### calculate th e m e th y l me rcury ooncenttation in 

### fish. 6.3.3 Me r c u ry ConCI!IIIration 

### in Fis/o The 

### fish mercury concentration predicted by the fat e and 

### transpOrt model is 84 . 5 parts per 

### billion (P i

> h) . T h i s concentration rcOects t h

e future fis h me rcu ry con . cen trati on attributable only to mercury emissions fro m the Onyx incin . erators after 30 years of operation . Additionally , it 

### shou ld be noted t hat this 

### assu mes that a ll On yx incinerators are o pera ting a t the HWC MACT emiss ion l evel for 24 hours/day, 365 days/year for 3 0 consec utiv e years. Thes e as sumpt ions, oombined w i th the conservatism built in to the 

### fate and 

### uanspon model, yield a predi cted tn crc ury concen tration · io the fosh tha t is considera bly overs tated. D

u

ring execution of the HHRA p roject Onyx quan tified the mercury conce ntration of fish 

### co ll ec ted from the Frank H o l te n Lak e. Thes e samples yield ed an average mercury co ncentrati o n in 

### the fis h of 14 .4 

### ppb. This measured fish mercury 

### concentration is essentially an order of t lUl goitud e less than that predicted 

### by the fate and transport model. Onyx co n tend s that utilization of a fish mercury concentration, with some exlrapolation t o p redict · the fu ture concentration attri buta ble to 

### merc ury emis si ons from the On yx incinerators, would pr ovide a mo r e re alis ti c evaluation of th e incremental risk associated w i th these emi ssions.



### 83

VES 0078516.3.4**Averag~** Daily D ou of Dio x in /

Furan TEQ As r ecomm ended by !he HHRAP Guidance, !he average daily dose of2,3,7,8- TCDD due to om I exp osu re wa s es tim a te d fo r adult s and fo r nwsi ng i nfants . The es tima t ed average dai ly doses of 2,3,7 , 8- TCDD for tbe Reere3tioJ>al Fisber aJ>d A duh Residem are 1.8 x 10 · S and 1.2 >< 10·S pglkglday, respective l y. The average daily dose for nursing infants of lbese r eceptors was calc ulated per th e equations provid ed i n Appendix C
- 3 of th e HH.RA P Guidance . The estimated average daily dose of 2,3,7,8
-TCDD for a nursing infan t of a Rocreational Fisher is 0.19 pglkglday . Th e es timated average daily do se of 2,3,7,8-TCDD for 

### a nursing intimt of an Adu lt R

esident is 0 . 1 3 pglkglday. These valu e s, compar ed to the backgrou nd exposure l eve l s of I pg TEQ/kglday for adults and 60 pg TEQJkglday fo r nurs i ng infants, are insignificant . " 111erefore,**dio~in fumn**  emis s ions from th e Onyx incinerators a rc u nlikely to i ncrease non-cancer heal th effe cts. 6 .

4 A c u te Ex posure (D i rect lnb alatioo ) A

c ute effects were comidered from direct inhal ation o f vapor -p hase a nd partic le-p hase COP C ec:rissions . A cu te e1Tects we r e evaluated using sbort-tenn (maximum I hour) inhalation of

. vapo rs and particula te exposure sce nari o s. The hierarchal app roac h pre sent ed in**~** HHRA P was utilized for Ibis purpo se. Thi s approach is bQsed on 

### -existing acu te i nhalation values !bat d o not r equire t be use of arb i trary safety factors. This approach was developed 10 establish a level o f.proteclion for the general publi c from discomfort or mild adverse health eff ects over 1
- ho ur exposure p eriods. The approa c h include s three primary guidelines with s uppl ementary applica a i on of two tox ici ty-based guidelines. The guidelines, in order of preference aie: Prima ry guidelines: Level I acute inhalation exposu re guid elines (AEGL- I) Level I emergency respon.o;e planoiog guidelines (ERPG-1) Level I acute tox ic ity e xpo sure leve ls (A T E L-l ) Supp l ementary guidelines: DOE temporary emergency exposure limits (TEEL-1) DOE l ethal dose nnd concentration in form ati on (SC APA) To charac teri ze the potential fo r adv m e health effect s from acme COPC expos ure, abe acute air concentration ( AC ) resultiug from maximum emissions over a 1
- bour p e ri od was com par ed to the COPC-specific AlE C. A hazard quotien1 applicable 10 acute effects (ABQ) was calculated from this r elati o n s hip . Thi s calculat ion was perfo rmed as shown:

84



### VES 007852Where: 

### AHQ 

### = c'IIC I,lll¢ • AlE C 0.0 0 1 c 

### A HO ,. 

### C 900 

### · 0 . 00 l

- AlE C Acute h a zard q u oti ent (uni t less) Acute air con c en t l'atio n (fl gl m '} Acute i nha latio n ex posure cr it

eria (mglm 3 ) Con vers ion fa c t o r ( mgffl g) The Acute**Ha nrd**  Qo o t i ent for n o n-<;arc i nogenic effec ts fr om incinerator e m i ss i o ns wa s detennined . 

### The Hazard Quotient f o

r 

### acute effects is below the accepted benchmark . Therefore , selected 

## · coP es from incinerator operations are un llkely t o i mpo se a d v erse acute n on carcinogenic effects . The results of this calculation are presented i n T a b le 6-1 1 .



### 85

VES 007853

### TABL E 6-ll TOTAL ACU TE H AZA RD QU OT IENT ( lf Q Ben chmark - 1.0 ) 

### COP C Name M axi mu m A il

· AHQ_In h 

### Co ncentr a tiou ( f.l g!m) AJSenic 0.0411 0.248 

### Beryllium 0 .0471 0.0094 1 

### Cadmiu m 0.116 0 .00 388 Cbromiwn 0-0471 3.J4E.-OS C bromiwn (VI) 0.04 7 1 

### Lead O. ll 6 7 .76E · 04 

### Elemental Mercury S.64E-OS 3 . 13 £.05 

### Mercuric Ch lorid e 0.0378 3.02E-04 

### Methyl Mercury TetraCDO, 2,3,7,8-**I.~E 10**  130&10



### 86

VES 007854

### 6.5 Estimates of H ealth E ffects A sso ciated with Lead Onyx ha s a pplied**~1 c**  

### Int egrated Expnsure U p t ake B i ok i neti e 

### (IE UBT<) Mo d e l for Lead i n Ouldren. 

### This model predi cts 

### the probability di:<tribution 

### ofblood lead leve l s based 

### on potenti al f end up t ak e 

### via air , die t, w a t er, s oil, nod dust. The ben c hmark for thi s evalua t ion is th a t no mo re 

### t han five p ercen t 

### of chil dren are 

### pre di cted t o 

### exceed 10 

### microgram o f l ead per 

### deciliter blood ( 10 ].lg/dl). Stnndaid default values of the 

### IE UB K model were 

### applied as the "bac k grou nd " lead concentrations in soi l, a i r , and wa t er. Each of these concentrations was inc reas ed by the lead 

### conce ntrati ons predicted b y this risk**asses~ment.** D efault v alue s 

### fo r daily d i e t ary 

### i ntak e were al so attribut ed to background expos ur e and were 

### i ncreased by the predicted inlake of lead for the R ec reational Fisher 

### C hil d S«nario. Based 

### o n th is 

### app roac h, th e predicted 

### geometric mean bl ood lead co n contration is 3 .4 19 f.l sldl. Only 1.1 20 percent 

### o f children 

### were predic ted 

### to excee d 1 0 )l g/ dl . 

### Therefore, lead 

### emi ssions lium in c inerat o r operntions arc unlik ely to im pose adverse e ffect s. The IEUBJC model output for thi s 

### eval u ation i s provid e d in Appen d ix IV .



### 87

VES 00 7 8557.0 UNCERTA INTY I N HUMAN HEALTH RI S K AS SE SSM E NT This section of t he reporl i nclu des a discu ssio n on int eo ·

preting une<:rtaint) ' associated witlt the nsk =sment. Uncertainties associated with modeling are m c lu ded as pan of Section 3.0 of 

### tbis re po11 . Smce the poten t ial for the introduction of uncertainty 

### as ev i dent in every process 

### of risk asses s n>ent, conservatism is utilized for many point values and assumptions. This reduces the likelihood ofunderstating risl< or hazard . However , this lead• t o poteotial for overstating risk 11nd hazard due to the integration o f so many cons ervative approximations . Areas of uncertainty are discussed in the following paragraphs of this section. Some- uncertainty i ssues related specifically t o air dispersion modeli n g are also included in Section 3 .0 of this 

### r eport .

. E stimat ed cmissious: The mass emission rate for each of the constituents evaluated in this risk assessment was calculated ba sed on the cnm ulative stack gas flowrate from the three OnyX incineratOrs and the applicable HWC MACT allowab l e concentration. Therefore, these results do not represen t estimated risk or haza r d based on actual metals emissions, or even antic i pated 

### emissions , but ra t her 

### on the consmvative nssump tio n t hat stack emissions are at all times at the maximum all owab le concentration under the Interim HWC MACT limits. This area of conservlltism is mentioned previously 

### in this report and sbould 

### be considered as 

### a significant so urce of uncertainty i n the results. Me tals : The emiss io n rate utilized for cadmium is based on the HWC MACT emission limit for all semi-volatile metals. Thi s llSsumes thnt all semi -volatil e metal emissions are attributed t o cadmium, wh ich is a conservative asstm>ption. Likewise, the emiss i on rate utilized for chromium is based on the HWC MACT emission limit for all low volatility metals. This assumes that all low volatility metal emiss i ons are attributed to chromium, which is . a conservative assumption . Hexa . valent chro mium is assumed to make up d1e total chromium emitted from the sou r ce, since t be determination of 

### the form of chromiun> is difficult to evaluat e 

### 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 chro mium fed to combustion dev ice s 

### is co nverted to the trivalent fonn through th e combustion process. Sin ce h exavalent chromium is carcinogenic, the assumption that all chromium is in the hexavalent form is very con serv ative and 

### will t end to greatly overestimate risk for carcinogenic metal s.



### 88

VES 0 0 7856

### Add itionally, as Slated pre,•ious ly , lhe ca lc ulated emis sions of target meta l s a t the HW C MACT emi ssto n limit s are highe r than those anticipa ted under norni a l operating co nditions . Cons eq uently , de mon st rati o n of ri sk ba s ed on t11e 

### extrapo l ated metals emissio ns over l 011g·term peri ods o f exposure, as opposed to d emonstration a t nomtal opera ti ng condit io n s, may s ignificantly overe sti mate th e risk from these uni t s. D esignation of maximum air model outputs for resident -e xpo s ure: Air modeli ng output pa rame ters. hav e \teen selected based o n m aximum air m o

de ling outpu ts w i th o ut regard for th o a e

ruaJ l ocation of residents. lu the previ ous vers ion o f thi s report , a maximu m expo s ed residen t 

### was located based on the specific resident at a verified location near the facility. Air modeling output s for l and , water body, 

### and waters hed receptors were selec ted mote conserv ati vely in 

### thi s revi s i on since ov e.rall risk a nd hazard d id not necess itate further m odel r efinemen t. Th e selec ti on of air r nod elin g ou tput parameter values are described in d e1ail in 

### Sectio n 3 . 5 o f this 

### report. The se l ecti on of ma >tim um i mpacts , rath e r than se lection of maximum intpact on n verified recep tor from the air model resu l ts in a sou r ce of un cenainty in the overal l risk and hazar d re s u lts . Expo su r e duration: Ex p os ur e to mox.imum nrutual air conc en trations is assumed t o be constant 2 4 hOurs. 

### per day , whether spen t indoors or out, for 35 0 days per year. This as sumpti on is based on th e conservnnve estima te that a ll receptors s pend all but 2 weeks per year exposed to wontcase conce ntrations in the affected a rea. Quan tification of carc ino geni c COPC expo sure depends on th e durati o n of exposure . The avera ge h uman lif espan is generally ass umed to b e 70 years ; childhood repres ents only about I 0 percent o f the li fespan (6 years ). Ex posure ov er dti s lifespan can vary greatly between individuals. Consider the l ikelihood of r esi dents mo ving ou t of ibe area or ceasing to o perat e a farm . 

### The as su mption of co nsta nt maximwn ex posure 

### will tend to overcsthnate risk/hazard; sinc e i t is unlikely that expo sure w o uld be 

### this significant S ince this 

### v alue is used 

### for chr onic expo s ure, the e ffect of ov e restimatiug ri sk/hi!Za rd over the durati o n of the exp osure period (70 years for adul t reside nts ) is notab le. B enc hm a rk for assessi ug m ethyl m e r c ury haza rd q uoti en t: Dai l y i nge stion of methyl mercury , avem ged over the 

### chro ni c exposure duration, is anticipated 1o be 

### wi th o ut ad verse bealth eff ects if 

### it is l ess than or equ a l to th e referen ce dose (RID) of 0,000 1 mglkgl day . The potential for**ndve~** 

### h eal th effects due to 

### chron i c expo s ure tQ 

### me t hy l mercury above this 

### RtD is 

### uncertain . O ne objective of this screening -level ris k assessment is 

### to ensure that cbroni e human exposuro to the Ony» incinerator emi ss ions i s unlikely to increase d aily intake of methy l mercury above the RfD . The methyl mercury hazard quotient (HQ) is 

### the est imated dai l y intake of m et

h yl mercury 

### 89

VES 00785 7e x pres sed as a frac tion of the RID. The ref o r e, a n HQ of 1.0 o r l ess is equ ivnl ent to d ai l y intake at o r below the RfD. The HQs prov i ded in this repon arc esti mate s fo r th e dai ly intake attributed so l e l y to 1114X i mum (i . e ., b iased hi gh ) expos u re to On yx in c inerato r em issio ns. Tb e purpo se o f thi s s ect i OII i s to address th e uncertainty i n dai ly intake o f me thyl mer cu r y from so urces o th e r t han the On y x incinerator em is sions . R

e gion 

### 6 Risk Management Ad dendnm 

### (EPA
- R6
- 98-00 2 , Jul y 

### 1998) addresses th e uncertainty of c umul a t ive int a k e of C OPCs b y arbitraril y assuming that chronic dail y intak e from unspecified sources is 75 % of the RID . S i n ce this ''background " C OPC intake has been assi gn ed anunsub , tantiated HQ of0. 7 5 , the HQ benclun a rk of0.25 is recommended by 

### EPA for assessing in c rc1nental exposure. The o b J ecti v e is t o ensure that cumulative intake d oes not ex c eed an HQ of 1.0. The difficulty in qu antifying c umu lat i ve exposure creates the need tor applying an un s ubstantiated and**CO nseiV** **ti e**  HQ benchmark for assessing incremental exposure . However , du e to the nature of methyl mercury exposure and the availability of data provided by the Met·cury S t udy Repon to C ongress (MSRCi , the assessment of potential cumulative in t ake of methyl mercury i s greatly si mplified . Onyx co ntends tllat the f o llowing approach f o r assessing pote tttial daily in t ake of metltyl merc ury from otb er sources is more site
- specific and reasonable than EPA' s o verl y co nservative 

### and unsubstanti a ted default assumption. As s tated i n the MSRC, " ( !)isb con s umption dominates the putbway for 

### human and wildlife 

### exposure t o metltylmcrcury ." This o b5ervati o n is su bs tantiated by 

### thi s risk assessment wh ere fish ingestion accounts for 

### 99"/o of the sum of methyl mercury 

### HQs from all exposure pathw ays evaluated .**Additi nally** **,~** .. . the typical U.S. co nsumer eating f!Sb from restaurants and grocery stores is not in danger of consuming hanDful levels o f methylmercury from fi s h and i s not advised to li mit fish co n sumption . Tb.e levels of meth ylmercury found in the most frequ en tly co nsumed co mmercial fish are low , especiall y co mpared to lev els thai might be f o und in so me non-commercial 

### fish from 

### fresh water bodies that have been affected by mercury pollution." 

### Based on 

### tltese con c lusions provided b y the MSRC 

### regarding tbe nature of methyl m ercury exposure, it is reasonable to assume that: (I) methyl mercury exposure via exposure pathways other than the consumption of fish are negligib l e and (2) the consumption of c ommercia l fish and o tl!er non - l ocall y ca ugh t 

### 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 meth y l.met'cury exposures that depan from these simplifying assumptions; however , the i nfrequency of such instances over a 3 0 year expo sure 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 007858The MSRC provides an inventory o f an thropogenic releases of mercury from indu s trial and com b u s tion sourtes in the U nited Sta tes as well as bacl\ground conce ntrati ons of m er cury from riatuml and globnl source s. The Regional La grangian Model of Air Pollu tion {RELMAP) wa s · used t o simulate mercury impact from th<:s e sources. Sec ti on 5 . 1 of the MSRC Volume 

## m present s the resulting air co ncentrati o n and deposition flux of men:ury species for the conti nental tJnited Sta t es . The m i nimum , I Oth pe rcentile , 50th p ercentile, 

### 90th perc e ntile, and maximum values of predi c ted air concentration and deposi tio n rates are reported over the full geographical 

### area as well 

### as Western and Eastern sub- are as . The Western and 

### Eastern areas have 

### a common bound ary at 9() degrees west longitude . The Eastern area's RELMAP result s provide a basis for ev aluating mercury impact from other sources . Alth ough the mo st eastern Onyx in c inerator stack (90° 10' 58"W) is i n the Western area, the data for the Ea s tern area are the m ost representative o f Onyx 's 

### risk asse=ent area. Since the MSR C compares RELMAP s i mu l ated results to measured field data , i t could be argued 

### tbat th ese 

### data are potentiall y in clusive of 

### the mercury emissions from the Onyx incinerators. Inst ead of this argumem , 

### Onyx co nsiders the RELMAP data to be a conservative 

### Msis for the poten tial impac t over the l ake m•d wate r shed 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. B y substituting the 

### RELMAP data into the 

### HHRAP eql!ations, 

### the backg roun d methy lmercury HQ can be est imated. The me t hyl mercury HQ determ ined in this mann er would replace the assum ed default value of 0.75. An estimated background methylmercury 

### HI that is less than 

### 0. 75 increases tbe beochmarlc f o r incremental meth y lmercury ha7..ard attributed to Onyx . incinera tor emission s. C OP C soil lo ss : Bteause 

### COPC loss from soil and o ther media depends on many complex factors , it may 

### be difficult to model the overall rat e of loss. COl' Cs are removed from soil via numerous phy si cal :md 

### chemiC31 processes . 

### Since COPC soil lo ss was estimnted empirically for the ri s k asseS$1'11Cnt, it i s unlikely that the numerous processes involved are estimated aocurate l y. In addit i on, because t h e pbenomenn t hat cau se COPC loss can occur simulumeously , the use of . the recommended equatio n way overestimate loss rates for each of the pathways for l oss, which may overestimate or underestimate risk/h828rd values. COP C loss fr o m aboveground p rod u ce: The HHRAP recommended v alue of the plant surface loss coeffi cient i s set at 

### 1 8 

### yr ·• . Th e range of potential v alues for this constant is 7 . 44 

### w 90 . 36 . Using a value t oo small will tend t o underestimate the rate at wh i ch COl'Cs are removed from 91



### VES 007859the produ ce surface, thus overest i matiJlg ri sk. Using a va lue t oo large w i ll t end to overe $timate the ra t e at which CO PCs are removed from the produ ce surfa ce, thus un dere stima ti n g risk . Aboveground produee consumption is an imponan t int.Xe palhway f or this ri s k assessment Buildi ng Wake Effec .ls on Air Modeling Results: F l ow lines IIJ'Ound bu i ld i ng s in the vicini ty o f so utce( s) can cawe plumes fro m ·the stack to be forced down 

### co the ground sooner thaD th ey would be if the**buil~i hgs**  were not there. These effects are referred 

### co as building wake e ffects , o r buildju g downwa sb. During th e · development of thi s s ite-specifi c risk asse ss ment, numerous assu mpti ons from earlier revisions were ev a l uated to ensure rele vance, accurac y and co mpleteness. 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 di scuss ed in Section 3.2 . 1 of thi s document, the air modelin g pet>fonned did no t include this analysis, typic a lly perf o rmed using the Building Profile lup ut Prog tam (BPlP) computer mode l. Afte r building charncteristics were rev iewed and determined to potentiall y affect the results of air modeling , a quantitative un c ertainty analysis o f the overall effect ofbuilding downwash on fmal risk and hazard was performed . Characteristics of the buildings that were considered to detemti.nc the building wake effects are their h eight in r elati o n to the stack, and their distan ce from the stack. As specified in the HHRAP, two conditions must be satisfied fo r a bui l ding t o be cons idered in downwasb detenninations.

• Buil d ing Height
- Only bui l ding s 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 building s tbal are "n earby" the incinerat o r stacks should be included for dete rmination of building wake effects . T be HHRAP defines "nearby" as "five times the Jesser of the building height (H) o r the crosswind width (L)." In other words, only buildings that are at a di s12n ce c l oser than five times the height o f the building , or fiv e times t he crosswind length of the building s hould be i ncluded 

### in building wake effect determinations . As sbown in Tab le 7-1 , the only buildi n g meeting th e require men u for analysis o f building wake effects based on height 

### is the Bulk Feed Building near Unit4. It i s 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 l ess than five times the builcling height. S ati sfying these two conditions, this bui lding s hould be mode l ed for downwasb. Since th is building wM not considered in the 

### 92

VES 007860TABLE 7- 1 B U ILD I NG DIMEN S I O NS lN I N C I NE RAT O R A REAS



### 93

VES 007861

### analySIS of wake effects, tbc impact of the exclusion o f this building from modeling is discussed in t h

e followi ng paragraphs. After risk 

### and luwu:d 

### modeling was 

### performed, BPll' 

### modeling was 

### initiated with se l ected receptor group files. Doe to the utilization of average values from ruroJ 

### and Uiban 

### settings, it 

### was n ece s sary to pe rform mo de ling for both rural and urban settings . Lake recep t or files were used 10 

### demoos u ·nte the impact ofhuilding downwasb, 

### because: I. 

### the smaller size of the 

### ftles simplified modeling effortS, and 2. 

### the COPC co ncentration s esti mated a t 

### the la k

e were i mportant in the estima t ion of hazard fr

om me rcury emissions. Table 7 - 2 

### provides re.-ults of ISCSTI modeling on lake recep tors that include BPIP 

### modeling and 

### that do 

### not i nclude BPl P modeling . Also, a comparison of th e air parameter results for each is shown. T h e fo ll o wing air parameters : Cyv, Dytv , and Dytpb all s how either a lower value with building downwasb ( .0 . 03 %and .0 . 02%) or an insigoi6cant increase (0.4%). T

h e onl y signi fi can t increa se ( 1 5%) is for Dytp, which is on l y relevant to th e particle pha se COPCs 

### (As, B e, Cd, Ci', Cr(Vl) , and Pb). Tite maxi mum cancer estimate fo r pa rticle phase COPCs is 

### 0.344E-5 for oral exposure to C.r(fV). Tbe maximum lut7.ard qu oti en t for panicle phase COP Cs. is 0 .033 4 for inhal atio n exposure r o 

### Be. Both of th ese estima t es 

### are well be l ow the default benchmarks . Therefo re, a 15 . 2% increase in total deposition ofpanicle phase COPCs would not raise 

### any of the 

### expo sure estintates above a def ault benc hmark. Based o n the se com paris ons, the exclusi'ou of buildi n g downwasb effec t s fo r th e b u lk feed bu i ld ing l ocated near Unit 4 would not hav e a significan t effect on the 

### overall JeSUits 

### of the 

### project. Per ce nt of Cou tarn i oated Foo d : Human intake of COPCs is d e termined on the basis of s ev eml fac t ors. On e**~ignificant** 

### considera tion is tbe perce nta ge of the diet co ntami nated by COPCs. In 

### this risk**assessmen~** 

### detailed evaluations of fishing 

### p111Ciices and 

### fish consumed from the Frank Holten Lake s have b een pe rformed. One area of u n certa inty that has not bee n addres sed quantitativ e l y in 

### th is assessment is th<! percent age of fis h in t h

e lakes co nt a minated witlt mercury. The estimations of mercury in fiSh are d ependtlllt on th e fate and 

### transport ofmercury in 

### the water body and th e long-term effects on fish in the lake. Since a portion of fish consumed from these la kes are stocked fro m fium · ro ised non -local enviroDillcnts, and culled quicldy from the l akes, it i s overly co n servative to assume that 100% of fiSh caught in the lak es are oontaminated. This area of**over-conse~Vatism** 

### was not addressed quantitatively because 

### risk and hazard est imates made usin g this conservative approxim atio n were below benchmark valu es. 

### 94

VES 0 07862TABL£7-2 B U ILDI NG D OWNWAS H I M P ACT ON FRANK H OLTEN LAKE AIR MODELING



### . RESULTS Urban/Ru ro l Urban/Rural Percent P :tr amelcr Uni ts Average w it h o ut Average with C han ge Dowuw as b D o w nw asb Cyv ( Jt g · s)/(g -m3 ) 

### 5 . 64E -04 

### 5 . 64E-04
-0 .03 % Oytv st m2 /yr 

### 0 . 04 93 0. 0493 -0 .02 % ])ytpb s!m 2 / yr 

### 0.00940 0 . 00 94 4 0. 4 % 

### Dytp 

### stm2 f yr 

### 0.0152 0.0 1 75 1 5.2%

95



### VES00 78 63

## APPENDIX I RISK CALCULATION DATASHEETS

VES 007864RI Sk Modd l' al'8lllelllrs



### .

..**,~** · D ...

rl u li""' I RA '· '' 

### llbJt. Co!!gorY 

# . ·'' A t.**~~** • \' · . 

### ..

' \ Jii 'O l • 

# > 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 'l f!!go i!COI**~ICMII**
· , · 

## . k ',;.**~.·.:- ·**  .. 

# .. 

# - .. .**~l<•nnnn i:CJUI!Int** **,** Olnat:n\lf 

# . ''
,. . -



### ... 

### ;·· )?JI .;, : . . ,. ' ' liw ' PIAA t' ' " "' C(dll<ient C MAi.\I'I U ·• •I 

# ""'"'" ''' .:· 

## . ll(crr/J Yli'IIO!ri!Yo h i• : Ct"Jnstanf• 

# .**-~'.** , P. . . CI!1W M:inl;e**-uoi~Plla!IOO** Ccru<an ts . 

# . ' lt
. . lUll-m"31ii:Joi
- K

### ~~ 

# .. "'"'"'" "' Con:oWI .. 

# .. •. tllctio. '..' pJCin"3 J;)eruilyQ( li.ii ct\ICAlllS

, illo uai l' · .**~/cr!l"l** Densi t Y ., 

### &w ClllliS\ttnM ',**ill ~.**  

### iii ' • ::. g(crir'3 Drilli!ty Of w ati>r · '**~~ &\11**  :·C Q.Q;· 

### : ·: .· c;nV'yr 

# !W• OIU\\Jll , 61ll'f1101> . 1:Un<6 &em 

### pero;..,. .,. ...**C0l~ •1** **11H II**  Tt ' . ..:.. 

### ...**~** '!lC1:1oitit'(be •**or ~**  C onst>n\J

'. . 11: IA!iJI>It:nt a!t temiior:•tuco Ccmi!Ol ts**~** : ' E)'

. }'".& ''**~'lo'l)l,cl!** .. 

# """"" Oxui::"J'\ t& I Q1t:(,i;J ' lfr

. 

### .nit.l<:m•s SOil1191UIJJOii1e 

### Waltif a:lllrio't CQlRtM I!t 

### ,

I Z, ' 

# -· " cui · SOli**tnlxblf. ztl(tculi;i~**  ConStD tll! 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 I O dopo<i<loo pol' b...- 

### tt U10 tdtbie 

### loc>1ion o1 ih e ilh_l>i.,.._ Conlit-tdU S**Yll ojl** **'** tcsl>W l m'2 Y ield or tl'"<lini <riJp lliunw• of 

# tl•• t<! i ble porucn of' lll• pl•o l Ooos!A nta 

# - 

# .**~vlt.Y)** !i.L'!Cn .. ; d&% • of df bxln ll!Q illll(lullo CmWl!ll:< 

# . li
.. 

## - !'r1lctla!. rli11Ees t«< dil>lCin O>.t-1$ stored i o fot C<ni1Ct tl 12 . l'ntaion. (J{**~·** 

### ,..;Jlbt lbat ;. 

### m CmsU!nl• 

# - f3 

### .. l'ntctl on**or,_.~** 

# .. , milk that i • fot**Ccns\a..~ u**  : f lf 

# .. !'racl l ll n o( in it!ified**CO~ !h** **Uuh..no<~** On slSI\\.& 

# IL&Ju .·· k s Bodi' wcli!hl . E l<fi('JOllro.llAAi£ ks ll I fii'
. isif on l**B""<** IR
. lll"31br Inboi.Uoa me Bos!O QSciJ kc.aJI<IaY Ccol.._t on

· rate of .scU l!l>tPO"II:'ft 81Ul<**~4 '**  lcSI D'IV**ii on~Ji:L**  BW- !lu\1 · Consumption rat»«-**~1n a**  Pto<I\>Ce**.!~lb, is** **.· ~**  

### . . J<it> W 1llonllkr:ll'Wid4 y**~12!:J!IM ~O<J** **.** . . udm& OO!>- o**t~l~** · leRliit' • . ' '
. $', k li' OW n t aJI.Uk!lllW41l!Y .. tic7.5-i\te tifi ..**ci Otdd~** **Eb~ clluf"e**  R A:J.t

..**Ofrti 1!~**  Beal1b JijSk l\ ta£Jimt41 M

_ cxltl Po&• I c;/,3/i lotr1 12005



### V E S 0 0 7865IUs!< Model PanutJe ters**.~.:** 

## .

# ~

# ...**~ t~h=~** **·** 

# :;:i : ' lc;R&f- '' i
. ' .;, '
. - .. ., :

_ ;;; . . liln its**.~** .. . ' ; : .**C~iilll.::;** ...• 

## ,.**.·..:.~-** ;. 

## '**·w~Y** 

# - · 16•**~~<~~""** ot**l!oilu..~ ~<** **Fli'~tk:o.l** •

# ~ . J1r.ialico :• 

### · : ;:\ Nw. '**/~** 

### J ..**·· "**  

## . . 

# , ... '**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 •

• !:':;:---;:**~** ' l k**·~** -;...**mtr"' ~** **~ ~~:"**  AL nj A "' 1 01 ·."'\.**.-::~-~** ..**~** IAJv : ·'
.. ml '". Uui l "" 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'• .**USl Ecrl@.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. \' rrl

e ' · t!lr U . SLS t.tinh\u .(or C :::: :_.t Slif · ..**~ ~1><**  B<dtcC lSSc moiL T OR<l $ll**~** K**Wa~~** m!s CI!ITM t vc/OC)[)' . rrJ>3/yc

## ~fx**.** 

# ,·
_,**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 1B 11r.i s**~** luis

### Wa>**i.'bodV~** W

aiectKJ/ 

### 1D**Wot.<rbcxJ~** Wa.tt rbol WfiU wtiCII "-

1 ate:boc!y !npuL



# _

.. . .**~r::**

# ~ 

# t ::**!P ~J** **l** _n";)l Jt 

### !:!C!... lnf'i\.\l**012712 ~** 


### VES 00 78 66

# '.**~**



## -**·~** C))) . 

### if,;ii;' 

### "'ttiit

. l'g-&IJ-m"3 

## Risls Modell' ar. nuctc rs

\ln)t**th\1~ ·**  

# - !!!\ I Wind > pood !cu**~:lit** j 

### • 1•-!x •V<:f•E"} 

### •rno arlvc lV

hit.i.z:cd pMdCI..,tnaAd phate ai r**~ceatr atlon**  {)'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

m l!lla! '(\'OAI'Iy' I**PI'~** t.otJ1**~** dep9si 1 ():cady loh,...d:v!l.< t &!oo!;il i""**~p!Wo'ir c**  

### ial«ai> . l?!l\"" 

### lilt ' aui\i l yi 

# ... ,,. l A: l o.: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.Itlft C , dl"' lo loacilin o 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 D itta !) 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
- soi l 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

-- );;" J 0-'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~<u t**  COPCD<ro '
., 

### - 5d. " ,. 

### .--·; • · . . . c.....:a'W:Itert ll ·

•on**ISQi!~** I ' \
.**"'"l!iei~t** COl'<: D•a ; ....**. f~** **~,~ ..,** **;~** :- 

# . .**~** ' .**iJ!tW!I l~** **ll:l! J\** **tll1l0li!~t** ' ISitl
- '. I • d rrlaQI!c waiq niii'Jiti"'l OOefliCJil[ll CO . I'C 0•111 ::-,**::~-** 

# . . I Knjq< , . • • -. : .• - 

### c

' - · - .• o .. - OCiilllbl; qut 

### iii!Mtili:ti · c<iohfeimi COPC . Outu**~** .. -;_ 

# .. '


## .. '**tJ~** .•. , 

### ... '**1~ .**  · Cb1!e ' O:il1"" . oceiolmlt · !loolbb!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 Ofe lemw t•l**~** (incllldln& poniOil cnt<rmt Mercury l u p<;t 

## . · .. } 

### I moo.! C\<Cl• l 

## '-. 

# - •**'~ .**  flml ss l<m**rat~** or ·v"fll' pll .. e <><!diU<! m eroury (lnctuding pot!ion g/8 mlaflluJObal c'w ie ) Mm'IJf)' l.n ]llll**~**


## ., 

# .. , ,.



# .. -**!Jli!li~** t& t e orper\lcl ... bcom6 

### pn..., mert>ll')' (lnc:!udiug portion jMm:u ry Input

### ~ g/t 

# "'"'*-'· · .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."'-"le l

· OliO 

### .. Ft-.. oC olemenu l ""'cun- <O'lJ•(Jl-IA.d 

## M.,..,,... lnn-.u 

## . ..

. Pakl:**~** 

# -- Pntcrion C1! """"" llh11S6 Olddi;ed lbOr<'Jry (O'lfii2 V i dc:oo<ited**Mer-L'L't~~' J~n**  t



### . IJ:Tt4b 

# -- Fctl<tion of particle -IJQm<l "ddlz ed mercury (Q' H gl_J"') rt.-.posilcd Mercury Inpu t ' 

## .. 

# - l"r& ctim cf diVAlent ,.,....,.,..Y (Q 'H!I2) cki'JOOitod Mt:n:\Jf'\1 bm u\**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«i oo of the tO!AI !l)t'l.'cury fr.:rn depcxiti.., lilld vopor lnl!lSf<r Mt.J..: ur)' Inpu t u>db)'lrrU<lln plan!S**m** RIA CQPCJl(g S<l!liYr Dooooitioo: term. Water**F~t e**  &**'fratl~tU l.** 

. C'l td
- .ntit · COPC'IkJtcoil S<lilo::lu:wttotion ut dmolD Wot<: l'•te &**Tr a:~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 t o 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 <.:o PCJ\:g 

### ww "'' O">PCII<g 

### ow llle COPCJkg l>W 1118 <Xl l'Cikg DW**~** Rc:ollb ru.J<
........ "lloat MOOel 

### Risk Mo.det 

### l'al'ao:lcters

PogeSd36 10/27 /W)j



### VES 007869IU .$k Mo< l d**l' rumetc** **.rs:**



# ..

Oft )'IC lban.tn BealO. Ri s k A-•t Mlxlcl h& o 6 ol36 IM712005



### V E S 007870**P~lf:l l!Mf** **r** l l.l) · 

## »• Cd l!v I k lp 

### "'"-" 'P It ttOJ Jjlo .J;Oil rbo

_

w 

### 1<0 71 J'a tD lb e'ta_a w Zs ,**l't ~.'.-'t**  TPJ3**YP "t**  h,.lQ) fJ fl 0 1'4



## ·•**l1 'F~Sl'ECJF1C**  AI\J> U EFAl i l.'f CON S1'Al'\l'S Unn.S r}all"3



## -

.. <'TIJ!yr crnty r

. . 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 V t i lll t l.7

I (HIOH**~**

1 25 0.4 IS**!.8 ~.-<)4**  999 8.20SE-OS 0.00 1 20 :1 . 10 1.00 L1..S

0 298 

## so 

## o

a 2 0 . 3 9 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 SCENAR JO Sl'ltCUil C D ATA**'P a.** **nur~ rc** **~** Uft lt $**~t ~U.** **'\J'iol** S<: t n rrrl<> l Scenar(()3**Si'ttttlTi ()** **~** Scenarto Child**ecr~~,; cuual**  Adul 1**e.::c ~:i** **Oni l**  

# ..**~jdcz;t** Fisl>er Child R?-( 1dent Fis. h e.r BW 

# "' IS 1 5 

## ;o 70 aw_inf an l 

### l& J() tO !R ... l'bt 0 .3 0.3 0.63 0 .63**~ &'<loy**  0.000 1 QOOOI C .0002 0.(1002 CRog**t~.IJ<afd.1y** 0 .0004:2 . 0.00042 0.0003 O.OIJO:l Cll.pp k sil:&ldaY 0 . 0«>77 0.11001 7 

## o . u

oo:n 0 . 00( 1$7**(l~ bg** **tgil<~idly** 0.00022 0 . 00 022 0.00014 O.CfJ014 <Rdlll IJ<Iuy 0 . 67 0.67 L 4 !.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 2 4 

## 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 '7 0 ij{ 

# - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

### llwf 

# - UXl ).(X) 1. 00 1.00 ;i.'{

. 

# - 0.95'9 0 . . 9 59 G.9S9 0
. 9

59**«lf...n~** 

# - J I l I 

### <>i£-.c 

# .. 0.0857 0.0857 0. 4286 OA286**<!~(.otlf>ing .**  

# . . J l

ltv271200S

,.. 

### VES 00787 2WAl'ERBODY ANDWATER.<;m tn Sl'l <.C lFlCUA'l'i\
P"' l ' d (I).C I U Uo l r t**'\\ nr** **~r xl)**  1 

## ·-· W• r trl

"' tly 2 N ! ur. e 

# -**:F J~n.k**  f k •lt c ;.**is. ~t** **Sl iP** **i** W at:rilody -IYP< 

### .. \..o\e lli VC7



## . . 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

_,ul l c 

# - 0 . 1 0 . ) 

### C

BS**cm"l** I I dbc m 

## om 0-0) t d
. wc m 2 1 . 61 d :& m 2.03 1 . 6 5 

### li\

i p;d 

## - 0-07 0.01

### ~ V:rr 0. 1&7 0..000 K_ua le l on/l!tl'e 0 .39 O.l9 I IUIII)d. _z 

# - 4 4**ILS ~**  

## .. 1 .$ 1.$ llii...W g/cll! .. 0 .01(>9 0J) J 69 OCoad 

# - 0 . \)4 0.(}1 

### [PF

_

usle 

# - I I RF

_

w

le li)Y 21 0 

## ,.o S'Ji) 

### . . 0. 193 0, 131**~** 

### .. 1 .0'26 1.026 

### if>eca.... l>l 

# - 0 . 6 0.6 

## tt6$
. mt/L 1 0 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 Mock l . , .



### VES 0 07873• ;,; 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 MODE UN.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



## - .**-~** Ws ttr bOdyl 0.!08
().0105 0.0669 0.0 338



# ·-·-·-

- - ___ j

10127J:U};l5



### VES 007874**.:~·,-** 

# .. i**r~** .( .'"**)'·~~** ._ ... ;v:·'**·~** 

### '.



### · ·-· .**·~;** 

## .. : 

### .. : C!AS H o

. C() I'CN o m e COi' C Cta ,P Q kH '(/$ 1/yr**7~3 8.1,**  

### !Anent• M• r. l ?.t.ill-04 

### 744 00 1 : ii'F '1 11 1u lll M e11 1 

### pi E- Oi

.**'1~~ ·** **c;:~l.ill'!N in**  . Mmt**~191 44().1** **7~ ;** **!l~{tlt~m ··** **~illl** 

### i. 72'B-04

### I~**Wl** 

## . : · '**mi~ "**  (V() . . . l\!e tJ I 

### • ':.**7.721! ~** **1~~ 21** **·** 

# !W d '**lli ~ta** **l** 

### o. oot v l**7i)~6 '**  lll•m • tot> l 4,1 <fl'Ul'Y Mettl 92} 1! .()?**~)181947 ~r.le**  ClJ I <>iliiD · Meuj '' 6. ! 8!l-04**!22~~** b,i e rhyi ' "" . . '' M eul ·**l7 ¢~f>.**  

### l!!;ra eo.D.**2.3~** 

### .8• Dt!'**tSB- 12** 
-

0 1\Y¥ Ho ..U.. He4l lh Ru k 

### A..seo..- Mod el 

### COP C-sP EOEIC D A T A !cor ksl 

### u. b R n>o R!C (. "Slf o 1/yr**~.,.,.** 1/yr 1/yr**m~r"1fday ~~~~.,.,**  JJ( mg lke'o•;- )**2~** 0 . 46 7 6 6 ,'23& ()6,239 3-0 0£ - 04 3 .00E.05 1 . ')0 0.0()1165
. 0.0110 4 7 .4 47.4 0.00200 2.00E -1)5



### .. 0.0489 0.179 l , 0 3l**,~1 001~'0** **~.OOE-04** 0.192 0 .700 D. S \IS 1. 5 0**~. 11)**  O. f 92 \) . 70 3 0 . $95 0.00 3 00 1.00ll · 04 0 . 0040 $ 0.01 49, 69.3 69.3 4 . 29Ii · 04 0 .00 1 50 0.00850 1).00368 0 .0 134 2.SO 2.S2 3. 00F ,04 6 . 34ll.OS 2.3 2-E- 04 1. ?9£-0S**9~1!·0 •**  ).C>OIJ-()4**0.001~** $.256-04 1).001!12 I.!SE-« 0.00256 I OOE.0 4**~~ll-0~ ~A** **SE .o<** **~** 0 .0 333 I 00809 ! 5 0,000

P ag e U of36 I 0/7'1/200.5



### VE S 00 787 5

### C OP C.SPECIFlC DATA**~~S N<>.**  · G;O I'C Ntm<> URF; 

### ME <: JlA F**.s~n•h** IISAFI'ioh**R~** .llrroo< B v os Do Ow 

### r:,.

.. ! I(Ji glm" 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 1 100600 

### 17440417**Bety 1~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. l 2S O.Ol'-t:S 0.0l6(J . !.800 () . 0 453 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. 0045 5 1 . 0) 65.500 0.11)4 5.601! · 06 0664

Ooyx • H•manlt .. .

llh Risi<Ass=mel•l MDdol P o Jo l loUtl 100 712C0.5


### VES 007876. CO J •C·S!'IiCJFIC DATA 

## ,,

# ~ 

# ·:. ·: ..**J~ ~.1**  

# · COP.C tfo lil<> 

# I ll 

# l**~** 

# I ' ,K

a o 

# I l<:dsw 

# I Xcrw 

# I**.sg** 

# I ' rFJI 

# I 1111 · 

# I R R 

# I Vtl v 

# I ';•,. 1 . . . I**~on·m"3fmo ll**  cm•Jig I em"3 /g ' I I.Jlcg ' I I Jlyr • ,.. ··M

.**···~** ' -:·

... .

..

- 

## ... ·

..**-~-**

;,_. 

### ,.: 

## ......**·~**

' !". ,; •••



### ;!;;,: :. 

## . ' 

# .

# ·~i{;r-i~~~f·~i**:~** 

# . ; . .**~;** 

# F:**~·,;::-t,;** 01 1 )':\

### lt~H(lallbR~AU'*m..;rt.IO(J<J



## ........... -**·~** . Pasc 1 3 <>f 36 10127/;W o .»


### VES 007877

### MERCURY Ellti5.'>1 0N AN'l.l S P EC lA.110 N Di\TA**PnrflbWC~** . l) ni t& Valut•**~' l,&i)**  

# "' 9 .2 :lE · 0 5 Q'F.sl_v r/1 8.540..04 

### Q"F.gl.J>b 

## at• 359E.05 

### l<r111J2 

# w• 9.50£4: l fftO 

# - O.QlOO 

### l'ii£2
_ v 

# ..**6~0** ftiJCl ..J>b 

## .. 0 . 360 

### D

lal 

# - Cl6; J {,.Jig! 

# - C.950 llnhg_soil 

### .. 0.0200 !olhjO_we 

## - O.I SO llrll'IU> I ant 

# .. 0 . 220

O.y.:. Homo" RoOkh Rlslc**~** Mocld '"
.**~ ~J4o(** **6** 

# ..

. ' , 

# . •\o' 

### VES 007878C.UC ULA TIO N S FO R li:ST I MA TING FIS H CO NCKNTRA 'f l O N S

· ·· • • ::

## ~~o**,** CO P C ' ri:omt: D $ O; tD LD.Ei>" KG Kl , K • o ..e" r ll ll L d l f LRJ fi re Ills i n · k wt I •.**~/1~1J1,,_** • '' 't**.-.,~** '-,..
. _ - 

### · . : ; .. · ." ml/k 'I(Yt**•· lf<~**  !fyr m/. yr mlyr trlyr glyr rJyr 1/yr ll)l r

### ~.**"·;:;~ ;7~3~~.** **~** 

## : . · . J-35p,; 04 · S. ! O l l-.0 9 SAJ . 

### 56 1 ,364 2.03 23 1 . <6.9 o.693 0.301 llol 1S. 'l

,.,._, ;,**1~17** 

### IJ\tl'yi}iom . ,, ·**3.~~~ 13E** **~** 8.4 1 · S6 1 J64 20J 231 26.9 0.0783 0.92l JIJ 9.02 1

. 1 A

. 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!O ri<!c · • 1
. 

### I



### .**:~;.** 

### '148J9 • 7 ,.**(9":'t...,.,~ti>** 7 .-! 4.6-04 o.pn:z 

### zo . 1 ln.m 136 o. ot 30 o. 1 06 

### s9.2 o.oozGG 1**o?~n** l

### mT~-~ 

# ...**~: ~~** **!'0 'f~** **'T OO!i,** **l.~ .~·!!>** **·** 2.901!
- ' li 

### 5.5 \ q- H 7 MJF. ; os 68S, 414 142 140 8.S8E· l I 2.3111·0' 1 

### I 0.00 1 68

...**·~~:·::-'~~;.! '·~:**  : .... .**·.~: .,'(!"'''~~**  ( " 

### - ___ 

## ....... .**\~-** 

## . fl.. .. ,- .



# . ' 

# . . 

## . 

# . -**·-~·-r..,-** f'.**~ :f** **~-:; :.~**  •I I**·~:** . '{-

,._,.,**~ -~**  :;.**~-** 

### -**~** .**~.\-~.:** 

### '



# .. . 

# .

. . . ; ' . , Qfiy ., FI\Jm • . n**!J~ Illi**  R isk&... •ment Modo ! '''-'; 

## ...... ' 0 . 998

Pa,o lSof3 6 oom;9 I M 0 . 186**21~**

J 01?.7 !2L V>S



### V E S 0 07879

# ..

I o.,• t-**~ ~**  •

- ><

...**;.o~-.,**

... •!·.;



# ..

. ; . ; 

## ·'

.. ' ; l •• 4 "' 

# . 

# .

. . <:OPCNaux 

### CALC 1JLA 'FlONS FOR EST I M A

TING FISH CONC F; NTRA TI O NS (Noncnncer Heal th Eff ects )



## 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 EST J MATING FLSB**CONC~'TRATlON S**  ( Canter Risks ) MS'i!to. COPC NQ•IC · CS LR LE LT Cotto! C.,.clot C o"**<'A~** Cf' ll h ·•**~ ~** **~ ~** **~ ~** **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 '. 

### : O

f OQ.ss'i**Ml!n'~** 3S . 3 2.69:&. 06 ·l , l4S.Qo1 2 .t 21?

, c

n 1.671: ..()4 t.3 1E·OS •

### ~44oif39**:.** ·

### ~!1'lb1**11** ' "•

### ~7.**'· ~(!)!)** **702** . · j), CXI'(.?A

### _$**.~ i~:06**  5o . 33tl-07 5.31)3.07 4 . 008-0S 4 S3E-Q4**'l ~P** **ifi:$. .:** **~fP.'~r~in •,**  

## · · · 3.63Jt illl · ,2 ,4 

## t oo 4& . 7 LiSB-<14**.661!.-~** 

### s.o6B.Q4 o .O(nOz o.oo.w2**m~Q2$9 1.'0!11l** **um(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 0.0 3 S7 . 3 7**~** S .'EI

. FAYI**5:~31!..0 7**  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.' tiO NS**FO~** ESTIM A'l'IN G PlUNKING 'WATER CO NCENT . RA TIO NS

' ,. 

# -.**·~.** • •.**-.~ ~**  :.



## ..
_

, ... -

# ... ; .**~-** '

### A~ N O, l.!,p i>C-Na ' m• ,. . . D • 

## c .. n L D!iir I>G KL .Kv.,..tt 'Wt'rll0 f ..l flf I ,N f ' f'w c -fu< 

# " " l n:"f



# . . . 

## ... . . :**m!JIIt~~ '**  

## . .**"'~ k'**  gtyr**"~1'** m lyr on/ yr gtyr r}y r 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-y i Jiu# 

## .. 

## o.osq 

# o.oo · !os 700

- 36,500**·~ 9**  5 00 3 6.Z 14 0 .245 0. 755 64 .9 !5 .9**)']I** Cadwtfum 

## o.m**~- 2JS.O.I**  1 .731 . :!(1,500 449 . 5Ci6**.744** 

### o .n 1 O.l29 G6 . 0 :'(19**~13 .** **~** O.(lSIJ O:OS73 

### ' 700. )6- ,500 S4S 36.Z74 0.92 8**.(J7 ~**  

### I**~~ Oro~Ul'!JII--(Vti**  O,o$ 11 -**0~ 3**  

### 1 00 • 36.500 '36.27 4 0-92 8 0.1171 6**7'!~ '**  

### lad 0 . 127 0.00181 1. 731 36,SOO "49 S04 &9,7 44 

## o.= 0.7111 65 .3 

### u s
• , ' ! Mcl'c1J rie O.t «<l!e 

# .**7~? :**  ( u To t al**M_el),"'l Y.)**  . 0. 0 11. :! 0.343 871 36,5 00 3 32 0.00!21 35 . 7 19. ) 1 3 

### o . o :o t 0 .9 '!! 0**U6 F..·~**  7. 92 1 ::-IJ? I It •, 

## -- -**J~ ·~** **c;, ,,**  'I;o t ...



## Ct> Q . t . n.t-**J.3p~ IO** **2.S?Jl~ E3~**  36 , 500 ) 4 3 . 48.9 !.t 2 1

N17**9.38~$** , MOti'\5 0 . 994 1. <13 0.01 04**L__ --**  -- _ , ____**~** -- - --------- 

### ,. ; :**-~** 

### (

Onyx**II!MO>~ltll Risk**  A,.
.. smo!ll Model**P~ ,e**  1 8or36 

### w : m: oo s

VES 007882

### ,.,
· ··"'-**~**

" . 

### Name .**CALCU ~TlONSF** **ORFSI;IM INGd>** **)UJIIKING** 

### WATER C O NC E NTJWfJONS 

### (No ncancel" Hoo l tb ' Efrects)

Onyx Humon He>IJh**Ri ~**  Ao>eosme •\1 Mod e l l':lge 19 of 36 J{JI271200S



### VES 00788 3

## .,. , 

# ... ' .



# . ..
'- 

### :;; ._, __ .,**~ ~**  ;:.__..**~** '-•c; 

### CAL CULA 'J;l.ONS FOR ES TIMA T l l-<G DRJNl<lN G- W A 'l'F.R CONCli:Nt'RATIOX S (Cunce r R i sks)**~!ill) ,:** 

### ~C:**i-1~** 

### C s LR J;,E L'r C wlol Cw<tot C dw :·. . l 

### mwJ<s 

### rhT**~)'** f/'/ r llfm"l 

### rr<SfL mg!L.**~s !**  

# ""'''' * 1.1A-M'I 0 . 0955 , 0.00799 36 .9 73**Z~£.01** 2.J!lE .()7 2. 301!-07**7(4Qol~? ~**  8cn'1Ji om .. 

## .. 0 .00106 4 . 91 ll.2 36.989 9AC&07 2.31EA>7 '1.,92-07 

### 7440439' 

### Cadtniin ''

_ 1<236-44- S. && 1:%7 !11.4 3**~TE-01** S .70P..07 5.70S.07 744017-l**~** 

## . . 

## . O . llS$.1 1!>.369

. $58 4 7.901 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-0 7 3 . 121!-07**7~~1 :**  

### t,i>Od • 

### o . o6l83 1
. 'JIJ 1 9 . (1**91..50~** 2.571:-06**~-11C.0 7**  3.661!--0 7

### 1~81947**. ~C{<1lti~** **-CP 1071** 

### do. ·.**(._.~<¥>.1M~) .**  0 . 173 10.7 1 ,791 l2,0ZI l.42Jl.OS I.A- 31!.-(17 6
. 09E-OO**11A'00 ~** **fe)nici lD** **3. .S.**  L45E-09 l.lSE
- 07 4- SSl!,OS' l. 43Jl ' Ool t. 4SE·.J3 9.2l!E · 16 2 .3 7FA . 6 

# . .

Ony<Rw n •" ll<llfth Riolo Asse.•monc M odel hgo 20 o t : 36 1 0127/'- 005



### VES 007884**~** 

## ..**~** :o-l:" t ... ··-**~ ~**  ,-

..; 

## .. .



## .... __ 

# :**~r;;.~** "' • '-**··~f** . 

# .. , 

# ... 

# · ··- ·--·- ·**~/2:::~_u ~·~** 

...**.t** _ ...**:.:.~. ~,** **.** ;;-!;**-~ "**  : t_.,, ..... '**··~ :~·::}.:**  ;·;J

...**~;.;**



## ... - 

### CALC\JLATI ONS FOR LA ND BASED M E D IA C"ONCBNT Rt\ TLONS VC1g**VCb~ I'Y** **a~** l!li/1(3

Ooft Humall H'"'ll h lU•k A,.e>om<•ll Model Pa(IG2 1of36

....... _

,, .: ..**:·,-~** ... -- lW27flC0'



### VES 007885

### CAI.C'ULA'l'JO N S F O .R l. AN O 

### UAS IW MJ'ill l A CONCENT H A

TIONS (N oll- C an cer H r.• lrb**k"f ~lS** **)** 0\S N u ; CO J> C Nn ru o C$**Pt ~.** **D- &** **r~b-::** I) Ag**n¢ ~** **n~'kg** '"lll ki**ru~'kg** 

### • 17440382 Atsenic 7.14EAJ! 4 , 90£-C9 111 9f ;.()Jl 0. 0 1

• 1 71 404 17 &I)Oitr.> 0.00 103 2.79&06 1.62&06 O.Ol4l 7 1 .

4043? C•dmtum 1.23 15 41 1.54£- 0S 7 871!(16 0.0349 74404 73**ru on)i~m**  

### oO S'T:! 2.79£41 25WA 4 0.014 4**.t5 299**  CI\IQm i um (V l ) 0.05 1'3 2.79E
- 04 2l !E.Q.I 0 . 0 !44**~3 9921**  L ead 0 . 001&3 2A9Ji1.()5 1 . 651'
- 05 0-03 '19 7439976 Elr:m<· n Ull Mml"l' 7.4 8 794 , 7**Met~uric** C hl orid• 0.1 99 0 . . 011 6 

## omss 0.0 '12 5**2196 92~**  }o(ell)y i.M cn:uty 0.0 1 5 & 4 . 638-04 l l.il0156**7.2 !~**  1 . 1460! 6 T • mCDD . 2,3 ,7 ,i- 2.S2B.()9 Ll4E-Jl 2.59&1 1 2.27E-1J

.**Oij)C<ltm, eaH** **hRisl:~~ ~f~** **'**
. . 

# . ' 

# -·**~** • 1

# •**~** 

### - 

## -· I 1 007 12 0!) $



### VES 007886( :A_$ No.**!• 440:)3~2**  ' · : •40 111 7 441)439 iM04 7 3**18 540~9**  7 n992 J 74399 ' /6 1< 8194'1**~792 !**  1W i0l 6 

### 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 Pt1 g u >g, lkg,**~$/.1< 3** **.W ~**  m,gt " l4:; ft,t6'=".1)i L' 7.74£-.07 4 90J HI9 {> . J9E-O'J 0.0 J 4i lk7yl.l :ium O . OOlCoS 2 .7 9 f.-06 l.62E- % Q.l} l4l Cadm i um 1.23£-01 J .5-4S.O S 7.&7);!-06**().0: !4~**  t ·hromium 0.0551 26 9E
- 04 · ?ASE- iH Q . OI 4 4 Chro r u

i om (VI) O. O,S5 l 2.69E-04 2.4SE-04 0.0 144 l.

eod 0.00 183 2.49E
-05 1.65.&{15 0.034!) Elero,e:nta ! Mor.::ury**r;~<v<a;ic** Chl<>r i dc 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
- J 2 l.StE-11. ' I. SOE-U

., .



### VES 0 07 8 8 7

### -**·** :



### , 

## . 

# . ; 

### COI'C 1NT

### An AND C\

### NCER RlS 'K F.STIMA 

### TnS (Citl ld R es i dent) 

# 1 4\$**N~. ,**  C
. _

OP.C r<'!l'll' r lllQ 1 t Ji,roduet (fish Id!¥ J

_ nral 

## I U•b 

## I Q>nl't.'r _o , • ol l C no ccr_i n h 

### m81JciJ<I•y**~ :**  161\.l; 

### I
. UA"-"'<**~** ll>Btm IG!lrotnlum (Vl} l t;oo4**1.1~o$ 74~7JI!I'I** **.** l>'Ofeutlo Ch tcm:d c . " .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$$men t Modc:l**mg/l< l$1~•.)'**  ruJ!Ikg/day met'kg/day t**OUU'\~** I d.O PA: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.63 1H i 2.94&09 . 5.26&06 2.431J.OS 1 .9.ffi.07 

## f
..**1.31!8- _!~**  _ 4.23lH

_ 6 !.70Pr

_ IO

Ptae24 oJ 3 6**j0/Z. "i** **2\£J~**


### VES 0 07 888**~·:-:~~=; 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 . R l S'K EST1MA TES (Rccrc:tllonal**J.i~** 

### Child )

)fish ldw Lora! Unb**Pa~** 2.S or36 Conct-r

_

oral 

### I Cau.ce.r

_

ioh

1 01 2 712 0a5


### VES 00 788 9**~** 

## . .. . - . 

### "
' · 

### . , 

# . -'



# . ;,. ..., . , . ' 

# .**~** ... 

### •**!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**~truUD I**  ' J..S I S:.IO**~lll<'Pil!i!' 1**  

### .. ' ts$E-Q1 Ghro1"l11ro (V l) 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



# . . CO P C JNTAJ.<E Al\ 'l> CANCER RISK**~TIM.4 1'ES**  (Adult . l«!siden t ) 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 .0 7E · 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£.0 7 z.&m-15 S . SlE-18 · 7.QIE-IS 2 . 781;. 1 6

PogcZ6of36 Can«t·_ o raf cancer

_ inh MSE.OO 1 .2 '3E-06 6.8SS.0 7 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 No Jile

-**n_ie .** **l\clciDl~p1 ·** **~lidrn(um** 

## r soa

_**mP(i<~da y**  l,lf£ : 12 . - 3 . 091:)-lJ? '



### -
. MJJ> -lO C OPC IN'1' 

### AleE- AND CANCER RISK ES't Th

fA TES ( R ecrea!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$fda y

. 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>-0 8 

### 'l.ii(I'L-66 . l.Qll>-07' Ll4E·08 " 2.73 [ '-06**S~E-07 .~·:ir~~** 

# .. :: ii •. 

## < 7i '

. MG.il1 • ' <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. 1 6S.J l

### 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

.5 8E-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"''!"" H ealth Rl&k**~"' Model** **Poael<~** of36**.~** ,... 

## .. ... -_, ;..-._ • •I

. 

# - "'":' 

## "'' '**~;<~·** ....**~::::{'~:''I** !01271200S



### VES 007893' '' '

.**-.~'** 

## ..**~·** ..**~** '**~** '. 

### CO.l'(:**1NT~ KE**  

### AND Not(43AN(:E"R J{A ZA,R D 

### ESTrMA TES (Recreatto n a · l**~hllr** Chi l d)

## ~p**~r** ¢() l' C'Name . 

# I**ll~** 

# I lfQp:rolfio tt:l' ' JJ(ldw 

# I HQ&L 

# t HQlnb 

# I Sum of OrolflQ$1

,( .... - 

## ..**'~· ;~**  ...

w·• ,_ , _,.**~-** '



### ' i'
....**~-i.-~~-;·.** .•**~-I** .. ..**"'~.~ ~·** 



## -··· ; ,, ......**~** '.**~-** ·-· .l-o

.. - , (;.: ' "i**~ :.:····** **:~::** ..:- . .. :; ·:: ... ;. (; ; ;**-~·!** :>**·~:** • '
.. ·:.':: . ..:.:.-'.'!' .**~ ~**  ... 

### t**~** 

### :-_ ·r· •:

.. ::""- ·-:-;

. ., 

## .. •·: 

# ......

:. > '**~- -~~:!;**  .: ••

. 

## , 

# •. ;.**-~·** I**~-** ,;;.:;-: • ,.,_ -·-··-. ' :.**~--** ,. ::"''·"·· . • ·

;:, i·-;; •**~~Pi l:t~\ll-IOatJh** **R\SJ< A'!S** **esstn~>nt** 

### Mo.t..i**~·** ... ..**~** ••**~-; ·-·~** **"~':·** 'o MO 0 ,,**?"::'~i:** 

# .... •: ·_...**~··** 

# ..**:.:.:~** 

# .. •.' , . • - .... ,p P ago- 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 l dw 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!.0 7**1.1 3~06**  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 ~merw** **ll** 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£. 1 5**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**

1.1 4 (:> 14 ll . 1Z? ,,,..11. .()4

1(11271200 .1



### VES 007896

## ,_. 

## • "'""- .;...-A**~..;;** 

### ., 

## ....**·** ,.**~.** -



### ., l 

## <•··

·-···i:l
, l:;·_



## .. "" 

### .- '



# f '.·_
.... ..-:·<·**~-;_**



# .
_ 

### . . ... .**~-·** 

## .. r**';~ -~-r,-;.**  . . ;


### .. ::·:·:**~1·1·**

,;.**'"~"** , . . . -. , CQPC l NT A1<.E AND NONCA.NC I<

:;Q. HAZARD ESTIMA'I'ES (AdP JL Resident )**H~** 

### I .KQjlrodUDO 

### I HQdw UQ!isb HQiah 

### I Sum otoralllQ.



# ·-.**"~- .**  · :;. ()up; 

### Hum'" Rtalitt**llir~** · A !UIIm e ort Mod el l'•33op 6 1()127/Wi1S



### VES 007897**~** . . ,;, _, 

# ..

....**:;_;,;~: ~·~** **~'~ ·** 

### ;.::~"::;~



## ,.**'~** 

## . 

# . . 

## -**~-,** '- -··•. 

### ,,

.**~~** 

## ....

..**;.~.·** :_·.· 

# .. _.. ' 

## : cis
. l'io:. t ....... '""

•• 4. d. •**~.ii(Qs 'f** **f 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"" 

### ms b ld'l' I_ oral Unb**m~day** • mll''q/dOy mallir/doy**~day** mglq,'!lay**"'~J** l.l iB-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-0 7**l. Ool** **~** 1 . 13£.06. M5&ds 6.'l9fl.Q9 !.31&16 IA4&0 1**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.7 SB.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~ Pir~~** **~** 

## i t>fll<&

1.69S.l4 0.187 S .3 8e.0 4**0fl7l' ~** 


### VES 007898· .


### ......... 

# . · tr ... ::· , ..

.. ·



## ..**:.:;,:,~ ~-·~.::-·** 

. .,,;:., ,,,,.**~ \~~·iz**  ;.**~~\** .. .<;,. -:·; • •**~·:<:··-~¥;.** ' 

# . - "•**~** 

# ...

:•;**·~; :**  __**·(:.·~** \ ;· .**~::** 

### ,.--- 

# .... , CO PCJl\CTA-KE M!ll**NCAN~ JI** **AZA RD**  

### ESTlMATE S (R o.cr ...

b <>n.td Hsh<:r) .II'Qiilb**su ~J** **I!ftl**



### ; '**Q~ !Ji;Jil•M~** **J< OK** **MO<! ei**  "': 

# · ·· · :•
. : . ;,**Pag e~o** **36** i·l: ......**~** 

### ...**~** ., 

# .

. ! :,**~:: ·**  . ! M 7 f.'<OO:i



### VES 007899**.~s** No.**OJ 'CN** **~""'** 1<1-t03S2 .'\ iS el:\.ic 1440417 Berylfiurn 1'44043 9 ,r. ,ad,mil)tl) 7$173**~hro.miom** U E<- 01 Chn.arUt ! m fVl }**'/4399~ 1.**  ..00 7 4 3 , 9976**emenu l**  Meti:osy 1487947 Mercuric Chloride UE.0 1**~ethyl** Mercosy 1 7 4 6019 !f"""CDP, 2.3.7.8-

· ·.··



# .. · . ' 

# . . .

,_ 

### NONCANCRR HAZARD**l:?.S .l1MAl}~**  

### FOR AClfl'E 

### INHALAT I O N EX}' O SUR£ 

### '**C:'ie ~**  Af f Q)»h l ;t & 1I'I'' '3 I 0 .04 '11 0 . 2 4 8 C

M7l 0.00941 O

.ll 6**o.oo:, s~**  0.0471 3 . 141!. ·05 0 .

047 1 0 . 116 7 . 76l\ · 04 5 . 641J. 05 3
. 1 3£-.()5 0 .0 ) 78**3.0.2E~** 1.94T .,. IO ! . 3QE- I O

. 

# . ' :·. 

# . · . ·'



### V E S 00790 0