has been proYen to be reliable for measuring actual emissions of HAP metals from a 

hazardous waste combustor such as Veolia: 

6. USEPA did not identify any hazardous waste combustors in the Statement ofBasis that 

are similar to V eolia's incineration units, either operationally or with regard to the types 

of wastes that are incinerated. Veolia is a commercial hazardous waste incinerator. 

V eolia bums a heterogenous feedstream in its incinerators. The feed can vary 

significantly based on Veolia's clients. Eli Lilly, the U.S. Army; and the U.S. 

Department of Defense (collectively "Sole Source Incinerators") all have very few 

clients and ·the clients have, for the most part., homogenous feedstrearns. Due to the 

variety of wastes that Veolia accepts, the metals content in Veolia's feedstreams will 

likely vary considerably compared to these Sole Source Incinerators. This significant 

variance in metals content would likely affect the ability of multi-metals CBMS to 

produce valid data over an extended period. Additionally, due to the design and 

operation of Veolia's air pollution control systems, the moisture content of stack gas 

from Veolia's incinerators is considerably higher than most incinerators. The 

concentration of moisture in the stack gas from Veolia's incinerators will likely have a 

negative impact upon the operation of multi-metals CEMS and their ability to produce 

valid data. To my knowledge, multi-metals CEMS have not been operated on 

incinerators with moisture concentrations similar to those presented by the stack gas 

from the incinerators at Veolia. Given these facts, multi-metals CEMS technology has 

·not been demonstrated to be reliable-and has not been proven to be reliable-for 

measuring actual emissions of HAP metals from hazardous waste combustors such as 

Veolia. 

3 

VES 007600 
7. In addition, based on information I have received, Evonik no longer uses a multi-metals 

CBMS on the incinerator at the Tippecanoe facility. The Evonik multi-metals CEMS is 

no longer in operdtion for functional and economic. reasons. 

8. Further, the Statement of Basis sets forth that "the U.S. Department of Defense has 

purchased three Xact units for use at anny munitions incinerators. • Statement of Basis at 

24 n.31. I was advised that Veolia received information from Pall that indicated that 

Larry Wells with the U.S. Army at the Tooele Anny Depot ("TEAD") in Tooele County, 

Utah, may have additional infonnation on how the Xact units have been utilized. 

9. I contacted Mr. Wells on January 29,2013. Mr. Wells related that TEAD had two Xact 

multi-metals CEMS with one installed on each of the two incinerators at TEAD. Of the 

two incinerators, one is a unit used for testing and the other is used for production. The 

unit used for testing only operates periodically, while the production unit operates more 

often. Mr. Wells said that, while there is a Xact multi-metals CEMS at the test unit, he 

was not aware that it bad ever been operated. Mr. Wells then introduced me to his 

colleague, Joe Peterson, who is involved In the operation/monitoring of the production 

incinerator at TEAD. Mr. Peterson recalled that the Xact multi-metals CEMS was 

installed ·and calibrated when it was acquired (in approximately 2007) and that testing of 

the production furnace was performed shortly thereafter that aUowed comparison of 

measurements performed by the multi-metals CEMS to an EPA refe.rence method. He 

also remembered that the Xact multi-metals CEMS was operated for about 15 to 20 days 

·before it failed mechanically: Mr. Peterson said that the Xact multi-metals CEMS has not 

operated since it failed. Based my' phone conversations witb both Mr. Wells and Mr. 

4 

ves oo1so1 
Peterson, it is apparent that, while both of the Xact multi-metals CEMS are still 

physically present at TEAD, they are not being used and are not operational. 

I 0. The third Xact multi-metals CEMS referenced in footnote 31 of the Statement of Basis 

has not been located based upon the information provided by USEPA and Pall. It is not 

known if a third Xact system, which USEPA represents was sold to the U.S. Department 

of Defense for disposing of munitions, is in use. In any case, munitions incinerators are 

not commercial hazardous waste incinerators like V eolia. Munitions incinerators are more 

likely to have a homogenous feed; therefore a multi-metals CEMS employed on a 

munitions incinerator would likely not face the same challenges as presented by the high 

temperature and high moisture environment found in Veolia's stacks. 

FURTHER AFFIANT SA YETH NOT. 

SWORN AND 

SUBSCRIBED Before me 

this day of March, 2013. 

~~d~u...._, 

No1ary Public 0 

My Commission Expires: 

Michael Fuchs 

5 

VES 007602 
Expertise 

._,. Project Management 

./ Air Regulatory 

Compliance (Federal 

and State, RCRA. 

TSCA. and HWC 

MACT) 

./ Source Emissions 

Testi11g: U.S. EPA 40: 

CFR P01t 60 and 75, 

SW-846, and ASTM 

Sampling Methods 

./ Trial Bum Plans, 

Comprehensive 

Performance Test (CPT). 

Plans, Confinnatory ; 

Performance Test · '\·. 

(CfPD Plan• and ·• 

Quality Assurance 

Project Plans .. 

./ Trial Bum, cJY'r: . CfPT RepQrting 

./ HWCMACT 

Educalion tl ~~; i)] BS, Chemistry, S· 

Texas State Uni.ve,siiY: 

(now Texas Sta!e .c;·;;;::'·{<l 

University), · 

Training 

Hazardous 

personnel at TOCDF. 

Michael Fuchs 

l!RS Project Manager 

Qualifications 

Mr. Michael Fuchs is a Principal Project Manager in the Measurements Oo·oup in 

URS' Austin office, and has over 35 years of experience doing environmental 

consulting. Over the past25+ years. he has focused on the permitting of 

hazardous waste combustion units including RCRA and TSCA incinerators. 

RCRA BIF (Boiler and Industrial furnace) units, and units subject to tht Nttlional 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pol/uttmts.from Hazardous Waste 

Combus/ors (i.e., the HWC MACY) . 

Mr. Fuchs began his career performing source testing and now manages projects 

for both indusb·ial and govenunent clients while continuing to provide hands-on 

participation. Mr. Fuchs primarily manages projects related to the treatment of 

hazardous waste (primarily combustion); emissions measurements including 

source testing; and regulatory compliance (RCRA, TSCA, and I-IWC MACT) for 

hazardous waste combustion facilities. He actively participates i11 those projects 

preparing test plans and QAPPs; supervising uial bums, CPTs. and related 

projects; and preparing repoots and regulatory filings. Mr. fuchs manages the trial 

burns. CPTs, and related projects and the development, installation. and annual 

RAT As of the mercuo)' monitoring system at TOCDF. 

Similar Work Experience 

~ Projt(:t Manager, TOCDF Alternative Monitoring Request (AMR) 

Mercury Monitoo·ing or the MPF, 2006, Tooele, UT. An AMR was developed 

and po·epared for the MPf at TOCDF (an incinerator) to provide HWC MACT 

compliance data for the mercury standard. The AMR is based on Appendix K . 

URS developed the S11mpling and an:llytical procedures, proouo'fd all systems for 

sampling and analysis, tmnsferred the sampling lmd analysis fll\>ceduo"s to 

TOCDF, and trained perwnnel at TOCDF. SOPs were prepared for integral 

procedures. 

~ Project Manager, TOCDF RATA or thcAMR Mercury Monitoring 

System, Annually 2006 . 2012, Tooele, UT. A RATA (Relative Accuracy 'fest 

Audit) of the AMR mercury compliance monitoring system of the MPF (I.e .. an 

incinerator at TOCDF) is perfom1ed annually in accordance with EPA 

Perfonnance Specific>~ ion (PS) 12A. n1e RATA was initittlly perfonned in 

2006 using EPA Method 29 as the reference method. Since 2006, the reference 

method used in the RAT As has been EPA Method 306 with Ohio Lumex on 

site analysis. 

~ Project Manager, TOCDF Mercury Process Monitoring for Mercury from 

the MPF. 2006, Tooele, UT. Mercury Process Monitoring (MPM) of the MPF 

was porfonned using an adaptlltion of Appendix K with on site analysis using an 

Ohio Lumcx analyzer. URS developed the sampling and anai)1ical procedures. 

transferred the sampling and analysis procedures to TOCDF. and trainod 

~ Proje<:t Manager, TOCDF Prepa ration of AMR and MPM Sorbent Traps, 2006,2007,2008,2009 Tooele, 

UT. URS prepares the AMR (3·bed, spiked) and MPM (2-bed, unspiked) sorbent traps for TOCDF. n 1e AMR 

and MPM sorbent traps are shipped to TOCDF wetkly. 

~ Projcd Manageo·, TOCDF Quarterly Calibration of Appendix K Meter Boxes, 2006,2007,2008,2009 

Tooele, UT. URS perfoomed the quaoterly calibrations of the Appendix K meter boxes as requ ired by Appendix 

K. ..Ati'< <: ~/(-:;:!:~ ~-~~ URS Pagel 

VES 007603 
~ Project Manager, Veolia HWC MACf CPT, 2006, Port Arthur, TX. URS perfonned and reported the HWC 

MACT CPT ofVeolia's incinerator in Port Arthur, TX. Veolia uses a propriefllly process to control men:ury 

emissions. The mercury slandard was not demonstrated in the initial perfonnance of the CPT. The proprietary 

process was optimized, including testing. Testing for mercury during the optimization phase was performed using 

Appendix K with on site analysis using an Ohio Lumex mercury analyzer. The men:wy slandard was successfully 

demonstrated during the optimization tests (using Appendix K) and the subsequent CPT (using EPA Method 29). · 

• Project Manager, EG&G, TOCDF MPF and LIC2 Mustard ATBs, January 2007, Tooele, UT. The TOCDF 

Metal Parts Furnace (MPF) exhaust gas was simultjlneously sampled by U.S. EPA Method 5/SW-846 Method 

0050; U.S. EPA Method 29; SW-846 MediOd 0023A; SW-846 Method 0010 for Semivolatiles; S\V-8'46 Method 

001 Ofor Total Organic Emissions (GRA V/TCO); SW-846 Method 0040; SW-846 Method 0031; and CEMS for 

CO, NO,. SO,, and THC. The same testing was performed on the Liquid Incinerator (LIC2) exhaust gas following 

the completion of the MPF A TB. Mr: Fuchs served as the Project Manager for these trial bums and provided onsite supervision of the performance of the trial bums. Mr. Fuchs was responsible for providing daily sampling data 

and apdates for the performance of the trial burns. He also managed and participated in the preparation of the 

Sampling and Anal)1ical Reports and QA/QC Reports for the MPF and LIC2 Mustard ATBs. 

• Project Manager, EG&G, TOCDF MPF Secondary Waste Demonstration Test (SWDT), March 2006, 

TOOtl e, ur. The TOCDF MPF exhaust was imultaneot~sly sampled by U.S. EPA Method 5/SW-846 Method 

0050; U.S. EPA Method 29; SW-846 Method 0023A; SW-846 Method 0010 for senuvolatiles; SW-846 Method 

0010 for'fotal Organic Emissions; SW-846 Method 0040; SW-846 Method 0031; and CEMS for C02, NO,., SO,, 

and THC. Mr. Fuchs served as the Project Manager for the SWOT and provided on-site Sllj)«Vision of the 

perfurmance of the test: Mr. Fuchs was responsible for providing daily sampling data and updates for the 

performance of the test. He also managed and participated in the preparation of the Sampling and Analytical 

Reports and QAIQC Reports for the SWOT. 

• Project Manager, VeoUa Eoviroomental Servic., CPT, RCR<\ Periodic Testing, and TSCA Risk Burn, 

April-J uly 2006, Port Arthur, TX. Mr. Fuchs served aS the Project Manager for the tests- an initial test, minibU:nlS, and a fmal test During the April2006 CPT for the Interim Standards of the HWC MACT, RCRA Periodic 

Tesmg, aod TSCA risk bum, the incinerator exhaust was simultaneously sampled by U.S. EPA Method 5/26A, 

U.S. EPA Method 29, SW-846 Method 001 0 for scmivolatile POHC and organics, SW -846 Method 0023 A for 

dioxins/furans, SW-846 Method 0010 for PCBs, S\V-846 Method 0030 for volatile organics, SW-846 Method 

0061 for Cr(VJ), and CEMS for NO, and"THC. Mr. Fuchs worked closely with Veolia, and was the primary author 

of the test plan and QAPP. Mr. Fuchs provided on-site supervision of the performance of the tests. He managed 

and participated in the preparation of the final reports and preparation of the Notification ofCompl.iance. 

~ Project Manager, EaerSol Technologies, Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System (PEPS) Testln&:, Aueust 2006, 

Springfield, VA. Managed the project fnvolving testing the PEPS to determine its suitability for processing 

sec<111dary waste from chemical demilitarization sites. The PEPS exhaust was simultaneously sampled by U.S. 

EPA Method 5/S\V-846 Method 0050, U.S. EP.:\ Method 29, SW-846 Method 0010, and SW-846 Method 0031 

~ On-site.Projed Manager/Test Supervisor, Waste Control Specialists, October 2004, Andrews, TIC Served as 

On·Site Project Manager and Test Supervisor for evaluation of the Geomelt process operated by Waste Control 

Specialists was performed by simultaneously sampling the exhaust by U.S. EPA Method 5/26A; U.S. EPA Method 

29; CARB Method 428 for dioxins/furans and PCBs; SW-846 Method 0010 for semivolatile organics; SW-846 

Meihod 0030 for·volatile organics; and CEMS for 0 2, CO,, CO, NO., SO,, and THC. Mr. Fuchs also managed and 

participated in the preparation of the report. 

~ P~ect Manager, EG&G, TOCDF LIC2 VX ATB, February 20(!4, Tooele, UT. The TOCDF LIC2 exhaust 

was simultaneously sampled by U.S. EPA MediOd 5/SW-846 Method 0050; U.S. EPA Method 29; SW-846 

Melhod 0023A; SW-846 Method 0010 for semivolatile organics; SW -846 Method 0010 for Total Organic 

Emissions; SW-846 Method 0040; SW-846 Method 0031 for volatile organics; and CBMS for CO;, NO .. SO,, and 

THC. Mr. Fuchs served as dw Project Manage.r for this trial bum and provided on-site supervision ofth!' 

peOOirnance of the trial burn . Mr. Fuchs was responsible for providing daily sampling data and updates for the 

penonnance of the trial burns. He managed and participated in the preparation of the Sampling and Analytical 

Report for the LIC2 VX A TB. 

._., ;. · ... • •~:-.:,;~t~ .. :~tn:<;'f:Si(ll4~ .. : ...... UA;.._, •• _____ _, 

URS Page l 

VES 007604 
~ Project Manager, Veolia Environmental Serv c~, Confirmatory Performance Test, 2014 Sauget, IL Mr. 

Fuchs served as the Project Manager for tbe Confumatory Performance Tests (CfPTs) required by the HWC 

1\-!ACT. In these tests the incinerator exhaust was sampled by U.S. EPA Method 0023A for dioxinslfurans. Mr. 

Fuchs worl<ed closely with Veolia, and '"as the primary author of the test plan and QAPP, and he managed and 

participated in the preparation of the fmal reports and preparation of the NotifiCation ofCompJiaoee . 

~ Projwt Manager, VeoUa Environmental Service3, CPT and RCRA Periodic Testing, December 2011, Port 

Arthar, TX. Mr. Fuchs served as the Project Manager for the CPT for the Final Replacement Standards of the 

HWC 1\-!ACT and the RCRA Periodic Testing. In these tests the incinerator exhaust was simultaneously sampled 

by U.S. EPA Method 5126A, U.S. EPA Method 29, SW-846 Method 0023A fordioxinslfurans, SW-846 Metbod 

0061 for Cr(VI), and CEMS for NO, and THC. Mr. Fuchs worl<ed closely with Veolia, and was the primary author 

of the test plan and QAPP. Mr. Fuchs provided on-site supervision of the performance of the tests. He managed 

and participated in the preparation of the fmal reports and preparatiou of the Notification of Compliance. 

URS Page3 

VES 007605 
VES 007606.pdf 
\'eolia Comments on tbc Statement o( Basi.s 

Reference to Prcyious Site-Specific Dispersion Modeling and Risk Assessment 

Tecbnical Evaluation 

Developed by: 

Delana W. Owen', Franklin Engineering Group, Inc. 

US BPA Region V cites to the· May, 2007 US EPA report titled, "Risk Screening and Risk 

Management Recommendations for Veolia ES Teclmical Solutions, L.L.C., Sauget, Illinois", 

attached hereto as Attachment I, and the Addendum thereto dated November 2007, attached 

hereto as Attachment 2 (collectively "Report"), as support for tbe proposed reopening of the 

Veolia Title V permits and proposed revisions contained therein (from Statement of Basis, pg. 

28, footnote 40). The Report presented results of risk screening conducted by US EPA Region 5 

to address comment; raised as ·part of tbe public participation process related to the 2003 

proposed Title V Permit renewal of the Veolia ES Teclmical Solutions, L.L.C. ("Veolia") 

hazardous waste incineration facility located in Sauget, Illinois. The Report includes calculations 

based on assumed theoretical, rather than actual, sampling and analysis of water and fish from 

FranJ.<: Holten State Park and the hypothetical consumption of fish by residents in the area US 

EPA refers to the Report as a risk screening because only specific pollutants believed to have a 

likelihood to exceed accepted levels of cancer risk or chronic toxicity in· previous risk 

assessments for hazardous waste combustors were evaluated. Additionally, the Report was 

considered screening because a nwnber of simplifying conservative assumptions were made in 

the process of c9nducting lhe assessment. 

Due to enurs, unsubstantiated assumptions and the failure of US EPA to resolve conflicting 

information, the Report is technically inaccurate for the Sauget facility. The Report only 

addresses facility risk and hazard superficially, rather than deriving a conclusion from a fuir 

evaluation of reasonable assumptions and data. It is inappropriate and not in k~ping with 

regulatory guidance to set permit limits based on a superficial risk screening, particularly when 

site-specific values are readily available. The US EPA Guidance that applies to Risk 

Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities (EPA 530-R-05·006, Septernber'2005, 

Page 1·9) provides the following advice to pennittees, "We encourage you to use existing and 

1 Pleaso see curriculum vilae Anachmenl 9. 

I 

VES 007606 
site-specific infonnation throughout tbe risk assessment process in order to properly evaluate 

acmal regulated operations for any particular combustor. We generally recommend conservative 

default assnmptions only when they will provide confidence that ensuing permit limits will 

behealth protective.» ... "lltroughout the HHRAP we otfer parameter values for you to consider. 

These values are based on a number of elements, such as the best science available and 

professional judgment. Since this is a national level guidance, the recommended values typically 

reflect national average conditions. The values will be more appropriate for some sites, and less 

so for others. For example, the type of waterbody near a facility (i.e. lake, river, wetland) may 

affecl the methylation rate of mercury in the waterbody, or the type of fish consumed may affect 

percent lipid content used in the assessment. So, a value !bat is reasonable for one facility may be 

over (or under) protective at a different facility." Guidance goes on to state, "You should 

generally make every effort to reduce limitations and uncertainties· in the risk assessment 

process, since they can affect tbe confidence in the risk assessment results." 

US EPA Region 5 performed a risk screening using overly.;:onservative and inaccurate 

assumptions that were neither investigated nor verified for applicability and appropriateness. 

Veolia provided additional information to US EPA so that site-specific values could be utilized 

in the evaluation of risk and hazara, but US EPA Region 5 refused to consider the information 

provided and chose to rely on default parameters that had no basis for the site in question. 

Specific issues that are fatal to the Report's conclusions include: 

I. The Report does not take into account that !he Frank Holten Lakes are not a closed 

system. The government admits in a private e-mail which Veolia makes a part of tbe 

public record through 1ltis affidavit that Frank Holten Lakes are connected via drainage 

canals to the Mississippi River and to each other. These connections allow a constant 

exchange of fish between the River and lakes. The purpose of the Report is to evaluate 

whether Veolia's .emissions are potentially adversely affecting the fish and humans 

consuming the fish from Frank Holten Lakes, and ye~ it fails to recognize or account for 

whether the fish being studied spent any substantial time in the lakes. 

2. The Report assumes that all fish in the Frank Holten Lakes are subjecied to potential 

contaminants from V eolia emissions during their entire life cycle. [o fact, US EPA 

Region 5 is aware or should he aware that channel catfish and other fish likely to be the 

focus of the public's fishing efforts are routinely stocked in Frank Holten Lakes at 

catchable size and !bat many fish caught from Frank Holten Lakes are caught shortly 

after stocking. 

3. The Report specifies a default trophic level for fish caught from the Frank Holten Lakes 

of 4.0, which is the highest and most conservative value !bat is recommended for risk 

2 

VES 007607 
assessment. In o private e-mail which Veolia makes a part of the public record through 

tltis affidav ~ Illinois EPA bas provided ~forma ion tl1at a more ~ppropriate trophic level 

for the Frank Holten Lakes is 3.5. The actual site-specific u-ophic level of fish harvested 

may be lower than either of these values. 

4. The Report makes rontradictory assumptions that background concentrations of mercury 

in Frank Holten Lakes are both z.ero and high enough to be contributory to increased 

concentrations overall. Both assumptions crumot exist simultaneously. 

5. The Report inaccurately assumes high fish consumption rates from Frank Holten Lakes. 

The Report specifies a consumption ra!e based on the alleged presence of subsistence 

fishers in the nearby area, who allegedly consume fish from the Frank Holten Lakes on a 

daily basis. The Report assmnes dlis level of consumption without attempting to verify it 

in a scientific fashion and without considering the ovcrwhelnling evidence to ihe 

contrary. Harvesting of fish from the Frank Holten Lakes is guided by notices at the 

Jakes that restrict the quantity of fish removed based on PCB levels in the lakes. It should 

be noted that PCBs have never been handled by Veolia's Sauget, Illinois facility. 

Therefore, the presence of PCBs in the fish which caused the government to post the 

consumption linlitations are counter indicative of subsistence level consumption and 

independent of Veolia. Further, the lakes do not contain a sustainable fish population that 

would support subsistence consumption. The Report fails to consider these facts in 

reaching its conclusions and fails to consider Franklin Engineering's objections to the 

inaccurate consumption rates (see below). 

Veolia contracted Franklin Engineering Group, Inc. (Franklin) to perform an independent 

Human Health Risk Screening Assessment using the same regulatory guidance and methodology 

as the US EPA Region 5 Risk Screening, but also using available site-specific information 

reiJiled to the issues discussed previously. Franklin's Human Health Risk Screening Assessment 

demonstrated that Veolia operations did not pose s.ignificant health effects at the current 

regulatory limits for the b82al:dous waste incinerator. The Human Health Risk Assessment 

Report (Final Version provided as Attachment 3 to this document) was published in September 

2004, and revised in May and October 2005 .. 

Risk screening .methods are only valuable if they are based on accurate information and 

reasonable assumptions. The Report failed in this regard. Risk assessments, such as that 

conducted by Veotia, are more compelling than risk screenings because they utilize site-specific 

information to more cJosely approximate health impacts. Each of the five issues presented are 

discussed in depth in the following sections. Attachments are provided to substantiate the 

iilformation provided and to document communication with both US EPA Region 5 and IL EPA. 

3 

VES 007608 
1. The Reoort. puroorts to evaluate water and fish that move freclv between the Mississippi 

River and the Frank Holten Lakes witbout attemplill" to acw unt for tbis variable. 

Mr. Dan Stephenson of Illinois Department of Natural Resources stated in an October 20 II 

email (provided as Attachment 7) that "the lakes at Frdnk Holton are connected via ditches to the 

Mississippi River allowing a constant exchange of multiple ~pecies between lake and river. This 

is not a static system. There could be a claim that the !ish tested originally came from the river 

and pick up the methyl mercury elsewhere.» 

Certainly, there is carryover of fish species and any pollutants between the lakes themselves and 

between the lakes and water bodies that are connected to the lakes. The INHS Post-Restoration 

Monitoring Report (provided as Attachment 6) documented flow between the lakes and between 

the lakes and other water sources. "For Lakes I and 2, the types. of unaccountable flows are 

limited. Interlake transfers can be either inflows from Lake 3 or outflows to Lake 3. These flow 

rates, which are generally low due to the limited interconnecting channel capacity, can be 

significant over long periods of time. A one-directional flow of as little as I cubic foot per 

second (cfs) can result in a monthly inflow of more than 50 acre-feet." 

"In addition to the interlake ~ransfers and ground-water flows discussed for Lakes 1 and 2, there 

are replacement intlows from Harding Ditch to restore evaporation anc;l infiltration losses. These 

replacement flows are not available to the upper lakes following their aununer drop in level: The 

colUlection of Lake 3 to Harding Ditch is continuous, and these "slow" losses can be made up." 

Like ' Management Starns Reports also document the lransfer of fish species from connecting 

water bodies, as stated in the April 3, 2003 report (Attachment 8) "The lake also floods through 

ditches coonected to the Mississippi River. This connection introduces many undesirable species 

including common carp, buffalo, grass carp, bighead carp, gizzard shad, yellow bass, and 

bullheads." 

It is clear that any pollu!JUIIS entering Frank Holten Lakes would be affected by inflow and 

outflow with other sources, Likewise, li1e assumption that only fish that begin their life cycle in 

the lakes are harvested is inaccurate. Therefore, modeling the lakes as a closed system is 

inaccurate and inappropriate. 

2. Tbe Reoort fails to consider tbe effeet of fish stoeklng on assllOled mercury 

<:o!)Ceotratlons ill fish from Frank Holten Lakes. tbus also Invalidating the Report. 

Both of the Frank Holten lakes are regularly stocked with catchable size fish from the state 

hatcheries. Main Lake is generaUy stocked with an annual total of over I 0,000 call:hable size 

4 

VES 007609 
·fish, i:ncluding Rainbow Trout, Channel Catfish, and Largemouth Bass. Lake #3 is also stocked 

witll thousands of catchable size fish annually, including Channel Catfish and Largemouth Bass. 

1'hese species of tish ··epresent three of the five most prevalent species or fish harvested in the 

State of Illinois. Attaclunenr 5 presents fish stocking records from 2006 through 20 II provided 

by Mr. Fred Cronin, Dlinois DNR·Fisheries Biologist. 

'The Report did not consider the effect of such stocking. Fish stocked later in their development 

or at catchable size are less affected by lake contaminants since they are not exposed to 

contaminants during their entire life cycle, most notably, during earlier Stages when increased 

uptake of contaminants is ac-complished. Consequently, incremental risk to fishers is reduced 

due to the practice of annual stocldng of these lakes. 

3. The Report use<! a t rophic level that was too bigh and not supported by the available 

evidence. thus o'•erstating assumed m et·cury uptake in fish. 

Risk Assessment modeling estimates exposwe to mercury through fish conswnption by 

calculating the degree at which mercury concentrates in the fatty tissues of fish when exposed to 

the pollutant in the water colunm. A bioaccumulation factor (BAF) is specified by guidance that 

is defined as the ratio of methylmercury concentration in fish Oesh divided by the concentration 

of dissolved methylmercury in the water column. Bioaccumu.lation factors are typically related 

to trophic level with trophic level 4 being specified as the default value in the absence of sitespecific infonnarion. This highest trophic level corresponds to a higher BAF, since larger 

species are assumed to have been exposed to any potential contamination for longer and also to 

be higher level food chain representatives. 

Based on review of available data, the maximum trophic level of 4.0 is not representative o~ fish 

caught at Frank Holten Lakes. Further, information from IEPA and US EPA Region 5 has been 

contradictory and unsubstantiated with respect to this parameter. For example, US EPA Region 

S stated in their Addendum I - Risk Screening for the facility (Attachment 2) that "The available 

information indicates that the lakes at Frank Holten State Park contain fish at a trophic level 4." 

'Meanwhile, Mr. Ted Dragovich from IEPA stated in his August 15, 2011 email (Attaclunent 4) . 

that "USEPA adjusted the trophic level down from 4 to 3.5 for the last risk assessment". 

Fishing reports supplied by Mr. Fred Cronin from 2001 - 2004 indicate that largemouth bass, 

which are the only Trophic Level 4 fish documented at Frank Holten Lakes are largely present 

due to stocking practices. The Lake Management Starus Report from 2003 (Attachment 8) 

states "Maintaining a decent spon fishery in this lake is challenging. The physical habitat of the 

lake is quite poor. The lake is shallow and turbid with no aquatic plants and little structure. The 

5 

VES 007610 
lake also floods through ditches conneeted to the Mississippi River. This connection introduces 

many undesirable species including common carp, buffalo, grass carp, bighead carp, gizzard 

shad, yellow bass, and bullheads. These species compete directly and indirectly for the availalile 

space and resources of the lake .... However the continued stocking of rainbow trout, channel 

catfish, and largemouth bass can provide some quality angling opportunities at this lake." 

Due to the stocking practices, trophic level 3.5 and 4.0 are likely both inappropriate to represent 

contaminated fish that are routinely caught from the Frank Holten Lakes, In any case, the 

Report's failure to address or even mention d1e eft"ect of stocking on the trophic levels of the fish 

demonstrates the Report's failure to accw-ately represent and portray tl1e conditions in the lakes 

and t11e anticipated mercury levels, if any, in the fish. 

4. The Report arbitrarily assumes twO renditions that cannot exist simultaneously - both 

background concentrations of mwcury and no mercury in Frank Holten L3kes. 

The Report a:;swned both background levels of mercury and no background levels of mercury in 

the water column. Each condition is exclusive of the other- they cannot botil be simul!aneously 

true. 

One of the 8S51llllptions made by US EPA Region 5 is that background levels of mercury in the 

Frank Holten Lakes require a more stringent benchmark for comparison to risk assessment 

results because of the likelihood of increased background levels. US EPA's Risk Screening 

states, " ... risk management decisions which follow U.S. EPA recommendations" ... "typically 

consider the potential for cumulative emissions indirectly by: (I) assuming that other nearby 

sources of similar toxic metals contribute up to three times the amount of the facility .being 

·evaluated; .. . " lltis conservative approximation is the basis for regulatory guidance such as the 

following excerpt from the Region 6 Risk Management AddendWil (EP A-R6-98-002, July 

1998), which indicates that background concentrations are assumed to account for a significant 

fraction of exposure: 

... for the purposes of RCRA permitting decisions and consistent with U.S. EPA ( 19?4c), 

U.S. EPA Region 6 recommends a modified taJ:get hazard level, to account for 

background contributions, from an HQ or HI target value of LO to a target value of 0.25. 

This modification eliminates the need to collect background COPC concentration data 

before completing the risk assessment, by assuming that COPC emissions from 

ba2ardous waste emission units resul! in incremental increases ·of existing background 

COPC concentrations, which are, by default, assigned an HI or HQ value of 0.75. 

Although background COPC HQ or f!I values might not equal 0. 75, as a result of this 

modified target level, either the HQ (for a single COPC) or the HI (for multiple COPCs 

6 

VES 007611 
or pathways) resulting from combustion unit emissions should be less ·th.an 0.25. An HQ 

or HI equal to or exceeding 0.25 indicaies a p<>tential for noncarcinogenic health effects. 

However, an HQ or HJ equal to or exceeding 0.25, rather than necessarily indicating that 

noncarcinogenic health effects can or will occur, indicates only that there is a potential 

for noncarcinogenic effects, based on a specific set of exposure, model, and toxicity 

assumptio~s." 

Although se«in.g a benchmark at 25% of the target hazard level is a conservative approximation 

that can be assumed in tbe absence of site-specific data, the determination of actual background 

levels allows the development of more accurate risk assessment parameters and comparison to 

the more appropriate benchmark. Therefore, Veolia proposed the collection of water samples 

from the Frank Holten Lakes to eliminate d1e need for this overly conservative approximation, as 

well as to more closely model mercury concentrations in the lakes. 

In response to Veolia's proposai,IEPA responded that it was unnecessary to attempt to quantify 

mercury concentrations in the water column because those v;tlues were already assumed to be 

zero. See Attachment 4 email from Ted Dragovich, !EPA dated August 15,2011. 

The regulatorS are simply not evenhanded. When dley attempt to justify. reducing Veolia's 

emissions, they claim that the lakes and fish are already burdened by mercury and dlerefore 

justify a stringent approach when evaluatmg Veolia 's emissions against this assumed already 

burdened background. However, when Veolia proposed to actually test the lakes to verizy 

mercury concentrations, the response was that the initial fish, water and sediment samples have 

no mercury. 

s. The Report lpacc.urately asspme£ higb fisb sonsumpt!on rates. 

There is no scientifically valid documented evidence of subsistence fishing in the area of Sauget, 

Illinois or Frank Holten Lakes. Nevertheless, the Report utilizes a consumption rate that 

represents subsistence fishers in the calculations performed. This unjustified assumption grossly 

overestimates risk. 

Veolia determined in its risk assessment that at most there was a potential for the presence of 

recreational fishing at Frank Holten Lakes. This determination was based on discussions with 

.lVIr. Fred Cronin, in January 2005. Although harvesting records were not available for more 

recent years, Mr. Cronin discussed the function of the park and its lakes as recreational. He 

advised that fishing at these lakes bas changed from "a source of protein to recreational activity." 

He indicated thai fu!ure creel surveys (wlrich are interviews with anglers at targeted locations to 

7 

VES 007612 
gain infomlatt'on about the effon, harvest, size distribution of fish species, etc.) would likely 

indicate nmch greater catch and release activity than had been present in the past. 

Furthe1·, creel studies performed at Frank Holten Lakes support the dete1mination that fishing 

conditions are poor and unlikely to support heavy <;onsumprion of any species. A creel surv"ey 

was conducted on the lakes after a reconstruction ·project performed to enhance recreational use 

of the area· in the early 1990's by the INHS under Federal Aid Project F-69-R. The 1994 report 

describing the project and results (Att•cluuent 7 to Ibis docwnent) stated, "For the most part, the 

results of the creel survey were about what would be expected from an urban lake. But 

exceptions were found in angling pressure and boat fishing versus shore fishing. The total of 248 

hours/acre (brs!ac) fishing pressure measured is low compared to 666 hrs/ac at Beaver Dam and 

850 hrs!ac at Siloam Springs. Further, shore fishing accounted for 80 percent of the fishing effort 

and boats accounted for only 20 percent. Nonnally, one would expect a 60-40 split the other 

way. The ang.ler using FHSP Lakes traveled an average 4.6 miles to fish, and the overall rating of 

the lake by the anglers on a scale of I · 10 was 2.7, indicating much dissatisfaction with the 

fishing." This information and the conversations with Mr. Cronin in 2005 reflect that the lakes 

have not been a very productive source of protein for over a decade and even recreational fishing 

in the lakes is dissatisfying due to poor catches. 

The same study went on to say that, u As an example,. largemouth bass, the main predator stocked 

in these lakes, were caught at only 4.8 pounds/ac, but one would expect the catch rate to be about 

20 poundsfac. Further, it appears that the anglers are keeping most of what they catch, as the 

difference between catch and harvest is not great. The average size of fish han•ested was small. 

Yellow bass, for instance, were less than 0.1 pound on the ~verage. It is difficult to envision 

anyone beil18 able to catch a fish that smalL" 

"In summary, the catch results reflect the angler rating of the lake. Anglers were catching low 

numbers of fish that, for the most part, were smaller than expected or desired. This is probably 

due to lack of macrophytes, significant reduction in fish habitat during the summer stratification 

period, poor quality and quantity of benthos, overharvest, and/or possibly because most of the 

fishing was from the bank, limiting anglers to a relatively small proportion of the lake." 

The Report should not have included a consumption rate based on subsistence fishing because, 

based on modern evidence, subsistence fishing does not take place in the area. Further, given lhe 

proximity of other large bodies of water, including the Mississippi River and Horseshoe Lake 

State Park, even if there were subsistence fishers in the local area - and there is 

8 

VES 007613 
no evidence 1hot su.cl~ fishers .~Xtf.'t in tbc- m:eu - !hey WO\Jid be llolikcl)' tO ftSh solely nt fmok 

Hollen Stale l'rui. Th.e most rca~onat>lc and like.(y se<:wtrio is that d1c rccrc<Uiomd fisher and 

recrc•tional fisher chi.ld CX)l()S'Ul'c scenario should hu;e been used because, as tl1e evidence 

dcmonsinlles, ti•e Pranl< Holten Lakes may be lightly t1shed. tor recreational purposes. 

nleteforc, the use of th~ ~creational fisher and fi<!>er child o!l<(lO.'>llre sceo.ados mote closely 

approximate the potential for risk l:ban that of tile subsistence tisher and fisher child. As Veolia 

denlOO$fl:~te<l. in il dsk a.ssessment, when tlle recreational s.cenruio is olilizcd, no increased risk is 

f<Hmd. 

Prepar<!.d By: 

Sigutn.re: 

(~.vfV4••A >J"-" 

4~r :.fl.. 1\~;lvv' 

SWORN AND SUBSCttlBED 

Befote ine this tqday ofllifutcll; 2013. 

1-lotar~ PnbHc 

. , 

'·9 .: 

. . 

:: . 

' . 

VES 007614 
References 

Risk Screening and Risk Management R!!eommendatjons foe Veolia ES fuhnical So!utjons. 

L.L.C. SaugeL !llinojs IFonnerlv: "Onvx Environmental Services") I Document 174 I United 

States Environmental Protection Agency Region 51 Christopher Lambesis et.al. I May 2007 

Addendum 1 - Bjsk Screening and Risk Management Recommendations for:Veolia ES Technical 

Solutions. L.L.C. Sauget. Tl!inois - Explanation of Mercury Speciation. Djsbersjon and 

Methylation I Document 177 I United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 51 

Cluistopber Lambesis et.al. I November 2007 

Onyx Environmental Services Rotarv Kiln and Fjx.ed Hearth Incinerators Screening Level 

Human Health Risk Assessment Reoo[[ I Franklin Engineering Group, Inc. I Franklin, TN I Rev. 

October 2005 

Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, EPA530-

R-05-006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. · · 

Region 6 Risk Management Addendum Draft Human Health Rjsk Assessment Protocol for 

Hazardous Waste Co!Ubustion Facilities. EPA-R6-98-002, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, D.C. 

External Email correspondence from Ted Dragovich, !EPA/ August 15,2011 

Frank Holten Park Fish Stocking Records. provided by Mr. Fred A. Cronin, District !6 Fisheries 

Biologi,;t, Granite City, IL / October201! 

External Email correspondence from Mr. Dan Stephenson, Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources I October 2011 

Frank Holten State Park Lakes: Phase lll Post-Restoration Monitoring by Raman K. Raman aixl 

William C. Bogner I Offices of Water Quality Management and Hydraulics & River Mechanics I 

Prepared for the Dlinois Environmental Protection Agency I December 1994 

Lake Management Status Reoon: Frank Holten Srate Pad< Main La!ce I Fisheties Manager: Fred 

Cronin I April 2003 

10 

VES 007615 
ATTACHMENTl 

Risk Screening and Risk Management Recommendations for: 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions. L.L.C. 

VES 007616 
. ' 

I 

· Document 17 4 

Letters/Re: Risk Screening and Risk 

Management Recommendations for Veolia 

ES Technical Solutions~ LLC, Sauget, Illinois, 

dated May 2007 . 

~2<4334 

VES 007617 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 5 

May 10.2007 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Mary Riegle 

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD 

CHICAGO, IL 60604·3590 

REPlY TO THE A'f'f€Nl10N 0~: 

Dlioois Environmental Prolection Agency 

Pennits Section . 

1021 Noeth Grand Avenue East 

#'33 

Springfield, Dlinois 62794-9276 

Dear Ms. Riegle: · 

Enclosed please find the "Risk Screening nnd Risk Management Recommendations for: Veolia 

ES Technical Solutions, LL.C., Saugel, Dlinois," daled May 2007. Please feel free to contact me 

a1 (312) 886-2967 if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you. 

Sincerely, i!.-.:£-f( 

Environmental Scientist · 

(:(;;Pile 

Fed 24335 

. . 

VES 007618 
1 Fie«Ex. USAirbi/1 -=.; 8490 0972 6948 ' I l!>:jnOI 

_} 1 ,.. ,_,. ___ 

! ~/4/1>'1 :-g;;. 1424 5437-B 

;;" r5t\A .. tD_ A-c;~-t,)A -!311 l n; --y-;7. 

US EPA~----------~------------

- 77 W .J_AC_KSON BLVD STE 1317 

..... CHICAOO ,.. II.. "' 60b04- 3:H 1 

~------­ .... - ................ ---- . D 

• To 

)r:t!Ual 

~ , (2.1.5/c -1'~'2 )0'/- ?.~ <j 

' Tffd !?M • ..ui....Sut•& · M 33 

:L":'' j o J I A!wt" G-" "·.1. A& tw c En r .,._ ....... :o,..,.,.,rqw , ·~ 

... _ . ..... ,""""' .. Nij,. --.hfi, IIWifl~~ .,._,..._ 

"' $f"~,l. ... t:'L ., C271t<Ufl7~ 

:.-

Sender's Copy 

.. ............ - ~""=..,.- ~::t::..:..:...-

0 Ftllb:l)w • 0 ~.!:#Sir ... L-. .. __ .... ..,.,.-..... _ ~ 

0 1:'--""1.-- 0 ~.!::~ •QII-'» 

. ......... . 

!!~ 

0 c='!"'..:=::c 

.,.... ___ _ 

~--· .... __ 

0 l:l't-.'"'1.-"""' 

............... ~~ ... .__ ~l'r-~ _'-,._,., __ ,. 0 ::!" 01.':' o-

' .............. ·- -- NIU.I'oC!o_"',.,...•• - o _,..,.. · o:=.."t:::.£. o ~ ' ~~: --~·- ;;,.··-ty; ..,..._ - ,_ .. _.. :tr::.=. 

.- .. =--.:.::.u ..... --··1 

0"' 

_..,...._.. 0 ~':'/.'~:- ... _ ... .........,._......,. 

0 ~ 0 tl!.r:-...- _ .__.. 0 C.~ttAIIcnAC.ty 

' ,....... ~ .. ,..,..,. ... o.c-.-•w- ---a ~- O R&eiritl'lt 01»-11 ~ Qc..111C.nr Q c•.-t!OO 

~ 1:. 

.......... '*'""""' ...,....,...,... 

• • ftlot~Uo!lof .................. ,...._ ,.._ ..,(_ ..... ...... I 101••-DtliMrt-•

..,_ ~,_ ............. -....... --....... -

-o-

! 

: 

• 

= i 

• " i • • ; \ ::: 

j 

; 

i 

~ ~ 

0292760284 ---~--- @bbl ......... , ......... ~ 

""'""' .... '14"""""11!.,..,!'1La:11<otb ....... .. 

"· 

f0d20ll 

VES 007619 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGIONS 

77~JACKSONBOULEVARD 

ClUCAGO, IL 60604-359() 

Risk Screening and Risk Management Recommendations for: 

VeoUa ES T~bnlcal Solutions, LL.C. 

Sauget, DUnols 

(Formerly: "OnYx EnVironmental Services") 

May2007 

Prepared By: 

Christopher Lambesls, Environmental Scientist 

Todd Ramaly, Environmental Scientist 

Mario Mangino, Toxlcoloe~&t 

James B~gh, Environmental Scientist 

U.S. EPA - Region 5 

Waste, Pestlddes 8Jid ToxiCli Dlvlslon 

Waste Management Brant:h 

77 W. Jadlson Boulevard 

Cbicago,.IIIiDois 60604 

F<l4 24337 

VES 007620 
Risk Screening and Risk Management Jtecommeodations for: 

Veolla ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. 

Sauget, Dllnols 

I. Background 

A. Intcodnction 

This report presents the results of an updated risk screening conducted as part of an evaluation of 

the Veolia ES Technical Solutions, i..L.C. ("Veolia") hazardous waste incineration facility 

located in Sauget, Dlinois. This evaluation has been conducted to ptovide additional infonnation 

relevant to a proposed permit renewal decision by the StateofDiinois. 

The original version of this screening was issued in draft as part of the public participation 

process related to the permit renewal ptOposed by the Dlinois EPA in 2003. The ori gina! risk 

screening document was later revised and dated September 23, 2003. 

This revised versiOn of the ri ~k screening was ·developed in response to various public concerns 

that were raised during the 2003 public comment period. 

In this document, the analysis is refened to as a risk screening. because the focus is only on those 

pollutants which the U.S. EPA believes to have a likelihood of exceeding accepted levels of 

CMCer risk or chronic toxicity at this time, based on the U.S. EPA's experience with ptevious 

risk 8$SCSSments for hazardous waste combustors. It also is a screening in the sense that several 

simplifying conservative (protective) assumptions have been made in the process of conducting 

the assessment. 

AI this time, U.S. EPA Region 5 has focused specifically on the potential health impacts of 

chemicals and circumstances that were: (a) identified by citizens during the public comment 

period as potential ptoblems, but not included in a previous screening (i.e., already existing 

background lead levels and effects from mercury on subsistence fishers at Frank Holten State 

Park); or (b) related to emission limits established by the Hazardous Waste Combustion • 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology Rule ("HWC-MACI"' Rule). The chemical 

emissions assessed are polychlorinated dibenzodioxins'and polychlorinated dibenzofurans 

("Dioxins") and those toxic/carcinogellic metals which are regulated under U.S:EP A regulations 

at 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart EEB (i.e., HWC-MACT Rule). 

Fed24338 

VES 007621 
2 

B. The HWC-MACT Rule 

Hazardous waste incinerators, such as the Veolia facility in Sauget, Illinois, are regulated under 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which establishes a "cradle-to-g)'ave" 

regulatory structure overseeing the safe tieatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. U.S. 

EPA issued RCRA rules to control air emissions from hazardous waste burning incinerators in 

1981, 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, Subpart 0. These rules rely generally on risk-based standards 

to assure control oecessacy to protect human health and the environment, the applicnble RCRA 

standard See RCRA section 3004 (a) and (q). 

Hazardous waste incinerators also are subject to standards under the Clean Air Act (CAA). U.S. 

EPA promulgated the HWC-MACT Rule on September 30, 1999 (64 FR 52828). As a result of 

legal challenges, U.S. EPA published interim standards for the HWC-MACT Rule on February 

13,2002 (67 FR 6792). On October 15,2005, U.S. EPA finalized replacement standards and 

made other additions and amendments to the HWC-MACf Rule (70 FR 59402). The HWCMACf Rule created a technology-based national cap for hazardous air pollutant emissions from 

the combustion of hazardous waste at incineratorS. The rule regulates emissions of numerous 

hazardous air pollutants: dioxinlfunms, other toxic organics (through surrogates), mercury, other 

toxic nletals (both directly and through a sull'Ogate), and hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas. For 

existing owners of hazardous waste incinerators, !he RCRA Subpart 0 regulations general I y no 

longer apply once the facility demOnstrates compliance with the HWC-MACf Rule. {40 C.P.R. 

§ 264.340(b)] 

.&.!though the HWC-MACT Rule standards provide a high level of protection (i.e., they are 

generolly protective) to human health and the environment, thereby allowing U.S. EPA to · 

oationally defer the RCRA emission requirements to MACT standards, additional contrOls may 

be necessary on an individual source basis to ensure tflat adequate protection is achieved in 

accordance with RCRA. Section 3005(c)(3) ofRCRA provides the aulhority to impose 

additional conditions on a source-by-source basis in a RCRA permit if necessary to protect 

lluman health and the environment. Where site-specific factors beyond the HWC-MACT Rule 

standards are present, U.S. EPA may decide to coOduct a site-specific risk assessment (SSRA). 

Some examples of site-specific factors include a source's proximity to a water body or 

endangered specie$ habitat, repeated occurrences of contaminant advisories for nearby water 

bodies, the number of hazardous air poUutant emission sources within a facility and the 

surrounding community, whether or not the waste feed to the combustor is made up of persistent, 

bioaccumulative or toxic contaminants, and sensitive receptors with potentially significantly 

different exposure pathways (70 FR 59595). In addition, there are several uncertainties inherent 

in the 1999 national risk assessment for the HWC-MACT Rule. Thus, uncertainties related to 

the fate and transpon of mercury in the environment and the biological significance of mercury 

exposures in fish (i.e., once meJ;Cury has been transformed into methyl mercury,.it can be 

ingested by the lower trOphic level organisms where it can bioaccumulate in fish tissue), as well 

as the risk posed by non-dioxin products of incomplete combustion, remain and may influence a 

decision to conduct an SSRA. 

Fed 24339 

VES 007622 
3 

C. Summary of Sit.,.Speelfic Factors Rek:vant to the Potential Risk from the 

Veolla Facility 

U.S. EPA considered a number of site-specific factors in evaluating whether compliance with the 

standanls of 40 CPR Part 63, subpart EEE alone at the Veolia facility would be protective of 

human health.' The following is a summary of those factors: 

• Particular sitc-speclfic considerations sucll as proximity to receptors: (such as scbools, 

hospitals, numng homes, day care centers, park~. community activity centers, or other 

potentially sensitive receptors), unique dispersion pauerns, etc. 

Frank Holten SLate Park is approximately six kilometers from the Veolia facility incineratOr 

stacks. The par1c has two lakes· Whispering Willow Lalre and Grand Mar3isl.ake • with a 

combined water surface of approximaJely I~ acn:s and five miles of shoreline. A fish advisocy 

for polychlorinaccd biphenyl (PCB) contamination has been in effect for the Frank Holten State 

Parle lakes. In addition, these lakes are subject to the lllioois statewide fish advisory for methyl 

mercury conlarnination. In addition to. recreational uses of the park., U.S. EPA has received 

repons of subsistence fishjJ:g there. 

• The identities and quantities of emissions of persistent, bioaecurnulative or toxic pollutants 

considering enforceable controls in place to limit those pollutants; 

1he Veolia facility potentially emits, among other pollutants, dioxin, a known human 

carcinogen, and toxic and carcinogenic metals, iocluding arsenic, beryllium, chromium, lead, 

cadmium, and men:ury. E'mi.ssions of these pollutants are limited under the HWC-MACT Rule. 

This risk screening assesses !be prot£Ciiveness of the corresponding HWC-MACT Rule emission 

standanls for the Vcolia facility. · 

• The identities and quantities of other off-4ite sources of pollutants in prox.imity of the 

facility that significantly influence interpretation of a facility-specific risk asse8.'1ment; 

U.S. EPA considered the presence of elevated levels of lead in the communities surrounding the 

Veolia facility in assessing the inCremental added risk that could be posed by the emission of 

lead from thc'Veolia facility at the HWC-MACT Rule emission standard. 

1 AlthOQgb the focus or this risk saeening is on human he.alth. the ~ of signifi<:ant ecological 

consideralicos, 5U<:h u the proximity of a partic.ularly sensitive ecological area, may also be an 

appropriate fac.tor to consider. In November 2006. the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. 

FWS) identified the following list of threateoed or endangered species that may be present within the area 

five miles around the Voolia facility: the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis ·mallst), me threatened bald 

e agle (Haliaeetus/eucocephal!U), the elldangered pallid sturgeon (ScaphirhynchiU albiU), the endangered 

lllinois cave AJDphipod (GammanLS adurondytes). the threatened decum:ot.false astor (JJolt<mia 

tkcurm.,), the threateoed eastcm prairie fringed orchid (Piatanthera l....,ophlwl), and the thteatened 

Prairie bush clo-(l..<'fl<dzu /q>~stad>ya). 

Fod243<10 

VES 007623 
4 

The volume and types of wastes, for example wastes containing highly toxic constituents; 

The Veolia facility indnerates a significant quantity of hazardous waste. According 10 its permit 

application, the Veolia facility has estimated that it incinerates appro<imately 14,050,000 tons of 

listed hazardous waste ~r year. 

• Adequacy of any previously conducted risk assessment, given any subsequent changes in 

conditions likely to affect risk;·aod 

fi>s is discussed ln more detail throughout this report, this risk screening revises lhe analysis 

made in the original2003 risk screening. The earlier analysis !lid not consider potentially 

· elevated levels of lead ln the vicinity of the Veolia facility; nor did it consider the potential 

effects from mercury on subsistence fishers at the nearby Frank Holten State Park. In addition, 

the previous analysis did not consider the application of the HWC-MACT Rule emission 

standards. 

· D. Compooents of the Site-Specific Risk Asseasment Process 

The foundation for the risk screening methods described in this report is consisient with 

well-e;stablished chemical risk assessment principles and procedures developed for the regulation 

of environmental i:ontaminllllls. Application of these guidelines and principles provides a 

consistent process for evaluating and documenting potential health risks associated with 

environmental exposures. The risk assessment process used by federal regulatory agencies and 

applied in this screening is essentially that described by lhe Nationat·Research Council (1], and 

consists of the following four components:. · 

Hazard idend6cation, in which the chemical substances of concern in emissions from 

the facility are identified and data relevant to the toxic propenies of these substances 

are compiled, reviewed. and evaluated; 

Dose-response evaluation, in which the relationship between dose and IeSponse is 

evaluated for each chemical' of potential concern to derive toxiciiy values that can be 

used to estimate the incidence of adverse effects occurring at different upc)swe levels; 

Exposnre assessment, in which potential ex.posure pathways are identified and 

measllfl!s of chemical exposure (~g., concentrations for the variou.< environmental 

media, oi' doses) are estiJll&ted for !he porential exposure pathways, based upon 

varioils exposure assumptions and the characteristics of the population receiving the 

exposure; and. 

Risk characterization, in which nwnerical estimates of risk are calculated for each· 

substanoe by each potential route of exposure using the toxicity information and the 

·exposure estimates'. 

Fed 24341 

VES 007624 
s 

E. Methodology Used for This EvoluatJon 

(1) Risk assessment guidance ood software computation model 

The general model for the risk assessment analysis is contained in the U.S. EPA F"illal Human 

fltalth Risk Assessment ProtQCo/ for H<WJTdous Waste Combustion Facilities; EPA520-R~5· 

006 ("2005 combustion risk guidance"). U.S. EPA chose this model for this risk screening 

because it is peer-reviewed and incorporates an opponunity to use site-speci.fic data. "The 2005 

combustion risk guidance outlines a comprdlensive procedure for calculating estimated 

environmental media (e.g .• air. soil, vegetables, fish, meat) conce<Jtrations, human intAke rateS, 

and health risks due to the emission of chemicals from combustion stacks. "The basic stepS in 

running tbe model for a facility may be summarized as follows: 

a) Identify the chemicals of concern from stack emissions and assign emission rates; 

b) Collect facility-specific stack clatn (e.g., stack height, gas e><.it velocity, building dimensions) 

and local meteorological data; use this data as inputs for the U.S. EPA's Industrial Source 

Complex Shott Tenn ("ISCSTI") alr dispersion/deposition model; 

c) Collect dam on local land use (residential locutions, agricultural locations, major water 

bodies) and map this dam in reference to facility location; 

d) Combine chemical-specific emission r.ucs with the air dispersion model to calculate 

cbemical-specific air concentrations and deposition rates (or moltiple receptor points around 

the facility; 

e) Combine air concentrations and deposition rates with fate and transpOrt al&Orithrns to 

calculate chemical concentrations in environmental media (soils. plants, vegetable crops, 

livestock and fish); 

{) Combine human intake rates for environmental media (air, soil, plants, vegetable crops, etc.) 

witl1 estima,ted chemical concentrations in environmental media to determine chemical doses 

(i.e., intake per unit time) for each applicable e>tposure pathway; 

g) Combine the chemical doses with chemical-specific to•icity factors (e.g •• cancer slope 

factors, Reference Doses) to calculate a Cancer Risk for potentially carcinogenic chemicals 

and a Hazard Quotient for potentially toxic chemicals; 

b) Sum the. Cancer Risks and Hazard Quotients for each chemical across the applicable exposure 

pathways; 

Fod24342 

VES 007625 
6 

i) Sum the Cancer Risks w1d Hazard Quotients ("'HQ'') for each chellllcaJ to obtain the total 

Cancer Risks and Hazard Index ("Fil",the sum of the HQs) for all chemicals. 

Because the evaluation of multiple chemicals, multiple expos~re pathways. and multiple fate and 

transpon processes is a very challenging computational exercise, a computer softwftre program 

was utilized to accomplish ronning the risk assessment model for each emission point/stack. For 

this project, the software system called IndJ1strial Risk Assessment Protocol - HumtJn Health 

(IRAP-h View'""> was used. This software package (abbreviated as "IRAP" in this repon) was 

developed by Lakes Ellvironmenlal Software (Waterloo. Ontario, Canada). lRAP Version 3.0 is 

a Microsoft Wmdows application eJtpressly designed to follow closely the recommendations, 

chemical-specific parametets, and fate and transpon algorithms given in the U.S. EPA's 2005 

combustion ~dance. More infO<malioo on this model can be obtained at the web site: 

<lmp://www.weblalces.com/jJllph.h!Jnl> 

The U.S. EPA does not endorse the use of the IRAP software, but recognizes that the developers 

of lRAP made an effon to design a program which would closely follow the recommendations of 

the 2005 combustion guidance. 

The major features of the IRAP system are its ability to: a) guide the user through the step-bystep process recommended in the 2005 combustion guidance; b) simultaneously calculate risk 

values (cancer risks and hazard quOtients) for multiple chemicals emitted from a single source or 

from multiple sources at multiple locations; c) eliminate the need to perform hand calcu.lationsand wrice multiple interconneCted computation spreadsheets; d) impon air dispersion piOI files 

CCI:ltaining the output from the lnduslria.l Source Complex Dispersion Model ("ISCST3•) air 

dispersion/deposition model nms; e) provide a graphical display of the air disperslon model 

recep10r grid mode locations; I) din:cdy impott ~phjc Information System (''GlSn) 

genaated land oselland cover dalll (e.g., midcntial, flllllling, and water body locations); &) 

dcl'ine the perilllet« of water bodiu and water sbeds using a polygon drawing tool; and h) 

define an area of concern by selecting lhe receptor grid nodes that represent the highest modeled 

air dispen:ion model values. 

1\ttached to this repon are listings which summarize non-default assumptions which U.S. EPA 

Region S set in the lRAP model for this revised screening. Default assumptions incorporated in 

the model are as d&ailed in the 2005 U.S.·EPA docuq~Cnt Final Human Health Risk A.ssessme/11 

Protocol for Ha<JUdous· Waste Combustion Facilities, which is available at: 

sbtm:Uwww.epa.gov/epaoswerlhazwastelcombustlrisk.htm> . 

f1d 24343 

VES 007626 
7 

(2) · Major site-speclJic exposure model assumptions 

The following is a summary of the key exposure modeling assumptions employed in tbe 

analysis: · 

a) Ellposed receptor - the individuals who could be exposed to contaminants were assumed 

to be local adults and children who could reside near the Veolia facility. An adult is 

assumed to be a person of at least 18 years of age who, by definition, could be exposed to 

contaminants for an Exposure Duration of 30 years. A child is a person up to age 7, wbo 

could be exposed to contaminants for an EllpoSure Duration of 6 years. The other 

required exposure factors for adults and children were taken from tbe 2005 combustion 

risk guidance. 

b) Receptor locations - the individuals potentially exposed to contaminants were assumed to 

reside in the nearest area outside the Veolia facility boundary which is roned 

commeteiallresidential. For emissions from each stack (t.e., Unit 2, Unit 3, and Unit 4), 

tbe ISCST3 air dispersion model and tbe IRAP Model were used to identify the locations 

predicted to COIIllSJlOnd to the highest combination of air concenttation and deposition 

from eacb stack. These locations were found to lie in a commercial use zooe that is not 

CUil'ently a residential area. Contaminant impacts in actual residential areas are predicted 

to be lower than tbose used in this risk screening. This procedure adds conservatism to 

tbe risk screening. 

c) Ellposure pathways- the potentially exposed individuals were assumed to have 

contaminant intake from a combination of pathways. These can be sUlliiiUil'ized as: 

inhalation of contaminants as vapors and particles; incidental soil ingestion; and 

consumption of home grown garden vegetable produce. Each of these exposure 

pathways was modeled as occurring at tbe highest impact points deSCTibed in section b) 

above. In addition, each individual was assumed to ingest fish harvested from the lakes 

at Frank Holten State Park. }'bese individuals were assumed to be "subsistence" fishers . . 

Subsistence fishers are "high-end" fish consumers who obtain a significant-portion of 

their protein intake through fish consumption. This assumption provides a conservative 

estimate of fish consumption that would not likely underestimate contaminant exposure 

for the majority of persons living in the vicinity of Veolia. These exposure pathway 

scenarios and the required intake parameters are explained in detail in the 2005 

combustion risk guidance. 

VES 007627 
8 

n. Findings or this Risk Screening 

A. Dioxins 

In an earlier anll!ysis of emissions from Veoli.a, the U.S. EPA used the lRAP software to evaluate 

potential risks from emissions of Dioxins from an lhn:eoperati.ng units at the Veolia Sauget 

facility. Using Dioxin emission data ftom facility stack testing performed in November 2002. 

preliminary calculations showed that.the in<;romental increase in cancer risks would be well 

below the action level of J.OE-5 (I in 100,000) which is described in U.S. EPA's Implementation 

of Exposure As.<essment Guidance for RCRA HO<Prdaus Waste Combustion Faci/.ities [2]. 

This revised analysis takes a different approach from the original 2003 rislc acrcening because the 

I:IWC-MACf Rule emission lir!Uts have since become applicable to the Veolia facility have 

changed since the 2002 preliminaxy calculations, this revised analysis has taken a different 

approach as described below. 

The air dispersion modelill,s: fate and transport in the environment, and estimation of cancer risk 

and toxic hazard are now based on the Dioxin emission rate corresponding to the respective 

HWC-MACf Rule allowable emission limit. Under this approach, if an unacceptable can<:er 

risk and/or toxic hazard were predicted for Dioxin emiued at the HWC-MACf Rule limit, then 

site-specific RCRA pennit lil:nits and monitoring requirements to control emissions would be 

recommended. 

The HWC-MACf Rule Dioxin emission limit for existing hazardous waste incinerators is given 

as a concentrarion in the stack gas: "emissions in exce&S of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 

. percent oxygen~ (40 CPR §63.1203(a)(l}(l}}. TEQ means the international method of 

expressing toxic equivalents for mixtures of dioxin and furan congeners as defined in ''U.S. EPA, 

Interim ProcedW"es for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated 

Dibenzo-p-dioxins nnd -dibenzofurans (CCDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update (March 1989)". 

Dioxin-TEQ is based on 2,3,7,8 - TCDD, which Is tbe most toxic congener of the Dioxin group. 

At the Veolia facility, the above stack gas concentration would be eJC.pected to result in emission 

rates at or below the following levels (see calculations in Attachment A ): 

Dioxin-TEQ: 

Unit 2 = 3.60£-10 Ffsec (1.30E-06 glhr) 

Unit 3 = 3.52£-10 Ffsec (1.27E-06 glhr) 

Unit 4 . = 9.84£-10 Ffsec (3.54B-06 gfhr) 

The predicted risk result$ for a local resident (who also constimes fish from Holten Lake) are 

presented below in Table 2. Because these risk results for Dioxio-TEQ are well below the action 

VES 007628 
9 

level of t.O.E-5 (I in 100,000), the U.S. EPA is not recommending that any further reductions in 

Dioxin emissions should be required through a site-specific RCRA permit limit. 

B. Toxic/ Cardnogenlc Metals 

The HWC-MACT Rule regulates emission concentrations of the metals arsenic, beryllium, 

chromium, lead, cadmium, and mercury because of the Agency's findings, as discussed in the 

preamble of that rule, that lhese metals present a greater potential threat than odlers genernlly 

emitted fiom a hazardous waste incinerator. 'l'he preamble furtbei' concludes that emissions of 

!he other to)tic and C&J:Cinogenic metals will be adequately m;tricted via the partieulate emission 

limit contained in the Rule because almosl all tom and carcinogenic metals would be emitted as 

solid particulate mattec. Therefore, a limit on particulate mauer wiU serve as an oveniding Umit 

on the total emission of all other metals. However, because the HWCMACT Rule specifically 

coosiders arsenic, beryllium, chromiwn, lead, cadmium, and mercury to he a potentially greater 

threat, we have included them in this risk screening. 

In U.S. EPA's lmplonelltntion of Exposure Asse~'StMnt Guidmu:e for RCRA Halllrdous Waste 

Combustion Fac/lilies-[2], the U.S. EPA recommends tliat results of risk assessments conducted 

for hazardous waste incinerators should be comp:ued to a maximum cancer rislc incremenwl. 

increase target value (from metals at full permitted emission rates) of lin 100,000 (1.0 E-5). 

That same criterioo is being used in this screening. In addition, risk assessments for hazardous 

waste incinerators have also typically calculated a hazard quotient ("HQ") from each metal and 

compared the results to the number 0.25. That criterion was also used in this risk screening. 

These combined criteria (for cancer risk and hazard quotient) are used here as indicators of 

whether oc not bwnan health is adequately protected, based on historical health risk henchmarits 

typically recommended by the U.S. EPA. 

(I) Lea4 

The potential health impact of exposure to emissions of the metal lead is analyzed under a 

different approach than other metals. This approach predicts whether there are potential 

increases in blood lead level in a subgroup of the population (i.e., children) expected to have an 

enhanced sensitivity to lead exposw-e. The child blood lead level can be compared with a level 

known to be associated with protection from adverse developmental neurological effects of lead 

exposure. 

The original analysis of the human health risk was described in the report: "Risk Screening for 

Onyx Incineration Facility; Sauget, lltinois" (September 23, 2003). In the time since the original 

analysis was COOl(lleted. public comments received on the draft permit renewal indicated a 

concern about the health protectiveocss of the draft permit I'Cllewal conditions. In panicular, 

public comments raised the COilCCtn that.: a) the cunent baclcgJOW!d level of lead in soil Is already 

Fed 2A34& 

VES 007629 
10 

elevaied because of past and current industrial activity in and around Sauget, and b) future 

emissions of lead from Veolia would add to a background of lead that is unacceptable. 

Consequently, the EPA-Region 5 performed a re-evaluation of potential lead emissions from 

Veolia and developed an altemat<: approach to determine a recommended risk-based lead 

emission limit. The ap!lroach takes into account the concerns raised in public comments about 

potential background exposure to lead in Sauget and East St. Louis. 

Part A: Devel'!pment of a limit for soil deposition of lead from Veolla emissionS 

For hazardous waste cleanup sites and other situations where exposure to lead in sqil could be 

encouncered, tile stated goal of the Agency is to: " ... attempt to limit exposure to soil lead levels 

such that a typical (or hypothetical) child or group of similarly exposed children would have an 

estimated risk of no more than 5% exceeding the 10 JJ& leadldl blood lead level. This 10 Jl.g/dl 

blood lead level is based upon analyses conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and EPA 

that associate blood lead levels of 10 11g/dl and higher with health effects in children; however, 

this blood lead level is below.a level that would trigger medical intervention." [3-4). This 

strategy is usually employed as part of determining a soil remediation goal for lead at hazardous 

waste sites (e.g., Superfund, RCRA, Brownfields). This benchmark can also be used to 

determine an allowable limit for long-rem deposition of lead onto soil in the vicinity of a leademitting combustion unit or other lead~mitting_ source. The EPA's Office of Solid Waste 

(OSW) has recommended that a Jong-l<:ml·soiJ lead deposition limit of 100 mgllcg (100 ppm) 

should be adopced as a generic limit for any RCRA combustion unit [2). This does not preclude 

the possibility that site-specific conditions would warrant thal a lower deposition lirni~ should be 

adopted. · 

In order to predict the m~n blood lead level that would be expected in children in the 6 month to 

7 year age range from exposure to a particular soil lead level, the Agency employs its uptakebiokinetic model (lEUBK [5]). ln addition to lead exposure from soil, the iuodeJ accounts for 

lead uposure from typical bac~ground sources including house dust; ambient air, water, and 

diet2

• 

For the case ofVeolia and the nearby town of Sauget, EPA-Region 5 does not liave specific data 

on cuuent soil lead levels and blood lead levels in children. But Region 5 does have some data 

on surface soil lead levels and child blood lead levels in East St. Louis, IL. ln addition, Region 5 

has· found studies on soil lead levels in Flint, Ml and Rochester, NY and a study oflead in bouse 

2 Tbete can potentially be certain unpredi<table sowee8 of high lead iotalce, sucb as ingestion of 

paint chips, which cW"telllly C1lD1lOI be included in the model. In situatioos wbete lead paint illgestioo is 

suspected of cootributlng to elevated blood lead levels in children, additional interventiOn strategies need 

to be implemented. Outreaeb on this issue is atre.dy in place for this geogrnphlc area (See 

hltp:/lwww.epa.gov/regionS/gatewaylleadcollab.htm). The focus of the model used in this risk screening 

is on iropacts from lbe hazardous waste incinerator aod its potential contribution to existing air and soli 

componentS of exposure. 

' 

VES 007630 
ll 

dust in Rochester. NY. These Sllldies are useful for developing some surrogate "b.a<:kground" 

media levels of lead that would need to be entered into the IEUBK model to apply to the Veolia 

case. 

For East St. Louis, the U.S. EPA has gencr11ted a oolor-<:oded map that displays locations of 

me=red soil lead concentrations expressed as ranges (6]. Although there does not appear to be 

an actual statistical summary of the data, the majority of surfa¢e soil lead levels were reponed in 

the range of 74-399 mg/l<g. Consequently, 400 mglltg (400 ppin) was selected as the surrogate 

background or pre-existing soil lead concentration for Bast St. Louis and for the nearby town of 

Sauget, n... 

In addition, Regioa S has issued fact sheets describing three Superfund soil remediation projects 

~ted recently in East SL Louis [7-8]. Sampling of lead in residential soils 31'0und the three 

abandoned industrial facilities indica!ed that several residential lotS had surface soil lead levels in 

excess of the EP A/Superfund action level of 400 mg/l<g. Contarnin81ed soil in the lots was 

removed and back fiUed with clean soil. Tilete are apparenely Ill least 20 fonner industrial 

properties in East St. Louis that have been identified as lead problem sites and could be subject 

10 soil removal projects. Since the sites have been identified as a problem for lead, the soil 

concentrations lik-ely exceed the EPNSuperfund action level of 400 mglkg. This is taken as 

further evidence that selection of 400 mg/l<g as an av~age soil lead background level is justified 

for East St. Louis and nearby Sauget. (The value of 400 ppm is two times (x2) higher than the 

default IEUBK recommendation for lead In soil at locations wheie no site-specific data is 

available. The value of 400 ppm also appears lObe in the range of the majority of surface soil 

lead measuremenl3 reponed in the historically industrial cities of Flint. Ml and Rochester, NY.) 

For house dust, EPA has performed a statistical analysis of lead in house cmst from a rather large · 

study on housing in Rochester, NY (9]. lndoor dust samples were analyud from approximately 

200 homes, most of which were cpDSIIUCted before J 950. Hence the dust data are representative 

of older housing where elevated dust lead levels might be el\pected fu>m the deterioration of 

lead-based paints. From the combined data, the SOCh percentile value for the dust lead 

distribution was found to be approl<imately 250 rngll<g (250 ppm). This value was adopted for 

the Veolia case. (The value of 250 ppm is 25% bigber than the default IEUBK recommendation 

lor lead in house dast for locations where no site-specific data is available.) 

!'or the other necessary background inputs for lead in the Veolia case (i.e., ambient air, water, 

food/diet), the default values from the IEUBK model were selected.' These default values are 

genenilly conservative and do not have a large impact on the results·of the IBUBK model. 

3 [I should be noted thai the IEUBK Model c~loys &Vera~ or typical inhalation 1nd ingestion· 

r:ue. for environJJIOillal media (i,e., air, soil, du$1, wlllcr. food) based on national data on childhood inlal;e 

behavior. It docs not employ higb<nd or "pica" inulce rates to skew the predicted geomccrlc group mean 

blood lead level to a IU&b-end value. 

Fed 24348 

VES 007631 
12 

Based on the above discussion of lead input values, the IEUBK model was run to predict the 

mean blood lead level (in micro~ per deciliter ~tg/dL) and probability (%) of e~ceeding the 

target blood lead level of 10 ~tg/01. for sevctltl scenarios. The scenarios were selected to 

represent the potential impact of 'lend emissions from Veolia on s~ace soil lead concentrations 

in the vicinity ofVeolia. · 

IEUBK Model runs for scenarios representing lead emissions from VcoUa 

S«narlo 1: Veolia lead emission causes incremental increase in soil lead of 100 ppm 

(equivalent to 100% of recot1liDellded limit in OSW risk management guidelinca) 

Soil level= 400 ppm (background}+ 100 ppm (inaemental increase) 

Dust level = 250 ppm (background) + 70 ppm (incremental increase from soil) 

Geometric Mean blood lead level = 5.7 ~tg/dL 

Predicted probability of children above target= 10.6% 

Scenario 2: Veolia lead emission causes incremental increase in soil lead of .50 ppm 

(equivalent to 50% of recommended limit in OSW risk management guidelines) 

Soil level= 400 ppm (back8roond) + SO'ppm (incremental increase) 

Dust level = 250 ppm (background} + 35 ppm (incremental increase from soil) 

Geometric Mean blood lead level = 5.3 llg/dL 

Predicted probability of children above 11r1tt = 8.2 % 

~enarlo 3: Veolia lead emission causes incn:mental increase in soil lead of 20 ppm 

(equivalent to 20% or recommended limit in OSW risk management guidelines) 

Soil level = 400 ppm (background) + 20 ppm (incremental increase) 

Dust level= 2.50 ppm (background)+ 14 ppm (incremental increase from soil} 

Geometric Mean blood lead level = S.O 11g/dL 

Predic~d probability of children above target= 6.8 % . 

Fed 24340 

VES 007632 
13 

Scenario 4: Veolia lead emission causes incrememal increase in soil lead of 15ppm 

(equivalent to 15%of recommended limit in OSW risk management guidelines) 

Soil level = 400 ppm (background) + 15 ppm (incremental increase) 

Dust level = 250 ppm {background) + II ppm (incremental increase from soil) 

Geometric Mean blood lead level= 5.0 11g/dl.. 

Pxedicted probability of children above tarttet = 6.4 % 

Scenario 5: Veolia lead emission causes increlllC<ltal increase in soil lead of 10 ppm 

(equivalent to !0% of =oii\Jil£nded limit in OSW risk management guidelines) 

Soil level = 400 ppm {background) + 10 ppm (incremental increase) 

Dust level = 250 ppm (background) + 1 ppm (incremental increase from soil) 

Geometric Mean blood lead level = 5.0 11g/dl.. 

l're<licted probability of cbl!';iren above target"' 6.4 % 

Scenario 6: Veolia lead emission canses incremental increase in soil lead of 5 ppm (equivalent 

to 5% of recommended limit in OSW risk management guidelines) 

Soil level= 400 ppm {background)+ 5 ppm (incremental increase) 

Dust level= 250 ppm {background) + 4 ppm (incremental increase from soil) 

Gcomclric Mean blood lead level = 4.9 11g/dl.. 

I'Rdic~ probability of children above target = 6.0 % 

ScMario 7: Veolia lead emission causes incremental increase in soil lead of2.5 ppm 

(equivalent to 2.5% of recolll.IIlended limit in OSW risk management guidelines) 

Soil level= 400 ppm (background)+ 2.S ppm (incremental increase) 

Dust level =· 250 ppm (background) + 2 ppm (increrocntal increase from soil) 

Geometric Mean blood lead level• 4.9jlg/dl.. 

Predicted probability of children above target., 6.0 % 

VES 007633 
14 

The results from the Model runs indicate thai allowing an incremental lead emission impact 

equivalent to the OSW recommended limit (i.e., 100 ppm) would be unac pt able sinoe the 

number of children in a given population jmdjcted to e.xceed the targe1 blood lead goal is more 

than double the desired limit level {i.e., 10.6% vs. 5.0 %). 

Additional Model runs were performed to illustrate the effect of reducing the allowable 

incremental lead emission impact. The results indicate that the predicted geometric mean blood 

level and the )iopulation predicted to exceed the target blood lead goal continue to fall until an 

incremental soilleod increase of 5 ppm (5 mg/kg) is reached. Below S ppm, no significant 

further redtlCtions w-c observed. (The model run.s showed that potential risk would be below the 

desired target level of no more tlian 5% of children predicted to have a blood lead level of 10 

vgldL, eveo with site-specifically selected input parameters for the soil lead and dust lead 

background levels.) It should be pointed out that although the model used 400 ppm as the value 

for lead in the local soil, the actual mean soil lead level is expected to be below this value across 

the East St. Louis geographic area. Thele ase several lines of evidence to suppon this 

etpectation: a) Based on U.S. EPA's sampling surveys for lead in the East St. Louis area, it 

appears that the majority of surface soil lead levels were reported in the range of 74-399 mglkg; 

b) in a report on background levels of inorg~~nic constituents in soil across aJIIJUiior metropolitan 

cotmties in Dlinois, the Dlioois EPA reported a mean surface soil lead concentration of71 mg/kg 

[10]; and c) lhe Illinois EPA and U.S. EPA have been talcing action to reduce lead levels in those 

areas where high soil lead levels were found to exist. (See references 6, 7 and 8 for more 

information on these studies and activities.) 

Consequently, the resulting recommendation is that a totallong·!Ctm incremental ioc<ease in soil 

l ead of 5 ppm should be used as the limit for the allowable inc:rease'in soil lead from the 

operation of t.he Veolia combustion units. This limit on soil deposition of lead should not be 

exceeded at any residential locatioo in the vicinity of Veolia. Tlris value is 5% {ll20th) of the 

original value that was used for back calculating a recommended lead emission limit in the 

Region 5 draft risk screening assessment from April 2003. 

Additional data from these lead model rona are available in Attachment B. 

Part B. Comparison of lead deposltioll predicted from HWC..MACT stack emissions to the 

lead cMposillon limit based oa risk uscsment 

'Ibe analysis in Part A derived a risk-based limit for the total incrcmcntaJ increase in soil lead 

that should be allowable from operation of the Veolia combustion units. The second step in the 

analysis is to assign or derive a stack emission rate to demonstrate that the risk-based limit of 5 

ppm {5 mglkg) for the long-term deposition of lead in soil will not be exceeded. 

The Veolia facility will be required to comply with the HWC-MACT emission standards, which 

include a stack concentration limit for semi-volatile metals. 1be HWC.MACT standard limit for 

semi-volatile metals is 2AO !lg/m3

. The HWC-MACT regulatioo.s use lead and cadmium as the 

Ftd24351 

VES 007634 
15 

swrogate metals for demonstrating compliance with the concentration limit for semi-volatile 

metals. Compliance with the 'HWC-MACf limit on semi-volatile metals is achieved by ensuring 

that the concentration of lead plus cadmium does not exceed the limit of 240 f1g/rn3

• 

The procedute employed for this analysis may be summarized as follows: 

I. Tile HWC-MACf concentration limit for semi-volatile metals was assigned as the 

starting point io the ·analysis. Semi-volatile metals undtt MACf include lead and 

cadmium. In order to avoid a possible undereatimate of the lead concentration under the 

HW~MACf limits, it was assumed for this calculation !hat all of me semi-volatile 

metals cootn"bution would be due to !eM alone. This is a conservative assumption. 

2. The HWC-MACf coneentnltion limit of240 flglm3 for lead was applied to each of the 3 

Veolia combustion units under the assumption that all 3 units could be operated 

simultaneously. Then the documented stack par~ characteristics for the 3 

combustion.units were used to calculate the corresponding lead emission rate for each 

unit .• . 

3. Modeling of air dispersion and particle deposition from the 3 combustion units was 

performed according to Uie protocols in EPA· s ISCST3 air dispersion model. The model 

uses site-specific input data on stack gas parnmetecs, terrain elevation, wind speed, wind 

direction, and precipitation to derive air dispersion factors and psrticle deposition rates 

for chemical cODSiituents in stack gas plumes. 

·4. The OUipUI data from the ISCST3 Model for particle deposition was combined with the 

stac.k emission rates for lead. The dliiA are combined io a risk 8SSC$$IDCI'It model called 

IRAP {as descri.bed earlier in the Methodology Section). lR.AP allows a user to 

iDCOJpoiate maps of local land use data {e.g., teSideotial, industrial, apiculrural, park 

land} and to correlate or "overlay" the land use data with the output ~ptor locations 

from the ISCST3 Model. In this case, maps corresponding to the nearest reddential 

locations in the vicinity of Veolia were overlaid with the ISCST3 receptoc locations. 

IRAP then calculates an accumulated soil deposition coocentration for lead based on tile 

starting stack emission rates and the psrticle deposition rates predicted from the ISCST3 

Model. As a further conservative assumption, the accumulated soil deposition 

concentration for lead was calculated on the assumption ihat Veolia would operate 

continuously for 30 years, even though the proposed permit or HW MACf approval 

might apply to a much shoner time. 

• The prinwy stack parameter ocedcd for the calculatiom is the stack~ flow . The 

operating and stack paru>e~er cbaracterutics ror tbe 3 Veolia combustion units were ob!ainod from the 

lCRA Part B permi< applicaioo or other tompliAnce cloctrmems subrMtod by Veolia to the Dlinois BPA 

ondlar tbe U.S. BPA. 

Fed2A35Z 

VES 007635 
s. 

16 

The IRAP Model was used to estimate a 30-year lead deposition concentration due to 

lead emissions corresponding to the HWC-MACI concentration limit of 240 jlg/m

3

• To 

provide conservatism for the analysis, the lead deposition concentration was reported for 

the highest predicted impact point of lead deposition outside the Veolla facility boundllfy 

as determined from the lSCST3 Model results. The predicted lead deposition due to each 

combustion Unit and the combined totals are summariz.ed below in Table 1, based on 

information preserued in the Attachment B to tiM report: 

Table 1 - Average and Maximum predicted increases In soU lead 

coo~tratlo n due to 30 years« fadlity opmation 

A verii8C increase • Maximum increase b 

Veolia Combustion Unit Concentration (rnglkg) Concentration (rnglkg) 

Stack#2 0.25 

Stack#3 0.24 

Staek 114 0.047 

TOTAL: 0.54 

a • avenge i-in lea4 conoenlntion esdrnMCI d..ins tho 30-ycar opetalion period. 

b- muitnwn inaeaso e.<ti,.ted afto:r tho J().ycar opentioo perlod is ooq>leled. 

0.45 

0.44 

O.OS4 

0.97 

The highest iDaease in soi.l lead concentration due to loog-teno deposition of lead emissions 

from Veolia was predicled to occur at an off-site location oulSide the Vcolia facility boundary. 

This location is currently z.oned for industriallcommertialland use, and is a location not likely to 

be re-zoned f<ir future n:sidenrialland use. The predicted lead deposition amounts within cwrent 

n:sidential areas (Sauget. East SL Louis) in the vicinity of Vcolia would be lower than the viiUC$ 

shown above in Table 1. 

The sum of deposition from all stacks was predicted to cause an increase in soil lead that would 

not e~ceed 1 mglkg. Based on the use of standaro EPA modeling protoCols (l.e.,ISCST3; IRAP) 

combined with a number of conservative assumptions about lead emissions, !1\c predicted longterm increase in soil lead concentration for the highest impacted area outside of Veolia is lower 

than the recomineoded risk-based limit on soil lead concentration increase by a factor of at least 

5 (i.e.,. I mglkg vs. 5 mglkg). 

Consequently, tbe HWC-MACI Rule emission limit for semi-volatile metals as the pe:nnitimposed concentration limit for lead appears to be tbe 8pplopriatc risk-based limit for lead 

emission's from the Veolia facility. 

Fod2<1353 

VES 007636 
17 

(1) O tloer Metals 

The modeling methodology for metals and specific recommendations for metals emission limits 

are described below. 

Modeling Metlwdolm: 

Por all metals except lead (wbicb is aruilyzed above), tbe analysis begins by calculating the 

potential cancer risk and p01ential HQ for each of the metals of concern for each of lbe lhree 

stacks (Unit 2, Unit 3, and Unit 4). The original risk screening conducted the modeling of·metals 

emissions by calculating the cancer risks and h82.819 quotients associated with a unit emission 

rate of I gram per second. This revised analysis takes a different approach from the original 

2003 risk screening because the HWC-MACf Rule emission limits have since become 

applicable to the Veolia facility. 

Therefore. tbe air dispersion modeling, fate and transport in the environment, and estimation of 

cancer risk and toxic l)aza:'ll .are now based on the metals emission rate corresponding to the 

respective HWC-MAcr Rule emission limit. Onder this approach; if an unacceptable cancer 

risk or toxic hazard were predicted for a metal emitted at the HWC-MACf Rule limit, then sitespecific RCRA pennit limits and monitoring requirements to control emissions would be 

recommended. 

The HWC-MACf Rule metals emission limits for existing hazardous waste incinerators at40 

CPR§ 63.1203(a) are given as concentrations in the stack gas as follows: 

Semi volatile Metals - lead and·cadmium (Pb and Cd): 240 pgldscm, combiioed 

emissions, corrected to 7% oitygen. · 

Low Volatility Metals- arsenic, beryllium, and chromium (As, Be and.Cr+O): 

97 pgldscm. combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 

Mercury (Hg): 130 pgldscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 

At the Veolia facility, these stack gas concentrations would be expected to result in emissions at 

or below the following (see calculations in Attachment A): 

VES 007637 
Semj-volalile metals: 

1Jnit2 = 4.14E-04 glsec (1.49 gramslhr) 

Unit 3 = 4.05&04 glsec (1.46 gramslhr) 

Unit 4 = l.l3E-03 glsec (4.07 grams lhr 

Low volatility Metals: 

Unit2 = 1.66&04 glscc (0.597 gr.unslhr) 

Unit 3 = 1.62&04 glscc (0.584 gramslhr) 

Unit4 = 4.53&04 glsec (1.63 gramslhr) 

Mercury: 

Unit 2 = 2.34&04 glsec (0.843 gnunslhr) 

Unit 3 = 229&04 glsec (0.825 gramslhr) 

Unit 4 = 6.39E-04 glsec (2.30 grarnslhr). 

' 

18 

Results from risk modeling of these emissions are pt<:sented below in Table 2, which provides 

cancer m!; and toxic hazard intlexes for each of the metals of concern, assuming each is emitted 

at the full HWC-MACf eulission limit (e.g., Pb at 240 uglm3

; Cd at 240 uglm3, eiC.). The listed 

cancer risk and hazard index values account for the combination of possible exposure pathways 

to an Adult or Child recepoor as described above in the Methodolog¥ section. 

Table 2: Caneer Risk and Hazard csllmatet for aD constituents and sCad an1ssioll. sources 

Emlssiou Soorul 

CootanliDIIDI Resident OUid Rtsidtnt Adult 

Stat~ 2: . C.u..,.Risk Hazard Quotitat Caocer'Risk. HIWlrd Quotient 

Arsenic 2.99e..07 1.13e..OZ 7.53e-07 .MSe-03· 

Beryllium 3.0Se-08 9.8Ze..()3 1.53e-07 8.08e-03 

Cadmium 5.71e-08 1.8Se..OZ 2.86e-07 I.SSe-02 

Ouomlum (Vl) 1.53e-07 1.65e-03 7.64e-07 1.29e..()3 

Macuric chloride NA 2.42e..()2 NA 9.()()e,.()3 

Me.cwy NA 8.71e-08 NA 8.70e-08 

Methyl met=}' NA 3.57e-01 NA S.04c..OJ 

Dioxin-TEQ 1.75e-08 1.9le-03 3.42e-08 6.98e-04 

Fod 24355 

VES 007638 
19 

Staek3: <;aocer Risk Rw•ord QwoU<nt Cancer Risk Ha-tard Quotleot 

Arsenic 2.9Je.()7 l.lle-02 7.35e-07 7.27efl3 

Beryllium 98e~S 9.5Se-03 1.4~7 7.89e-03 

Cadmium 5.59e~S l.Sle-02 2.79e-07 l.Sle-02 

Chromium (VI) L49e-07 l.61c-03 7.45e-07 J.26e-03 

Men:uric cbloride NA 2.35e-02 NA 71~ 

Men:ury NA 8.4lc-08 NA 8.41e-08 

Medlyl DJCtCW:y NA 3.52c-QI NA 4.97..01 

Dioxin - TEQ 1.71cHl8 87~ 3.346-08 6.83e-04 

Stuk4: Cancer Risk Hazard Quotleot Ca~>«r Riot Hazard Qwotitot 

Anenic 6.3lc-08 Z.Slc-03 ).79c.()7 2.09e-03 

Beryllium l.OOe-08 2.89c-Q3 5.02c-08 2.57..03 

Cadmium 1.88e.08 6.09e-03 9.40c-08 6.09e-03 

Chromium (VI) 5.02c-08 4.57c-04 251e.()7 92e~ 

Mercuric chloride NA 7.04c-03 NA 2.61..03 

M=ury NA 2.6!e-08 NA 2.6!e-08 

Mcth}'l mercury NA 8.72c-QI NA 1.24e<OO 

Oioxin-TEQ 5.33e.()9 S.54e-04 2.06e-08 ~ 

NA · Noc Applicable; available infonnali011 DOl SOifficieut to classify cootominaDt M a carciDogen 

From the above Table, the following oonc:lusions can be drawn: 

Mercury 

During the public comment period regarding the propbsed peniut Jencwal, a concern was raised 

that the original 2003 version of this risk screening did not consider the fact that significant 

subsistence fishing occurs at lakes located within tl)e nearby Frank Holten State Park. The use of 

these lakes as a source of food was pointed out. In response, the revised SCJeening has now 

considered this issue a.• well as the location and hydrology of the lakes. From the standpoint of 

risk assessment, mercury deposition and runoff to water bodies is a concern primarily because of 

the conversioo of mercury to methylmercury within the water column. Methylmercury has a 

high potential for bioaccumulatloo and bloconcenttation into aquatic species and fish. In 

addition. because new mercury emissioo limits became effective for the Veolia facility at the end 

of June~. this SCICelling assessmenl now uses mercury emissions at the new MACT-impo&ed 

emission limit as its stllrtlng point 

Fod 24356 

VES 007639 
22 

The analysis of the potential•mpacts of lead emissions from the Veolia facility cons1ders the 

potential for contaminated soil in the nearby residential areas. For other regulated toxic metals 

which are routinely evaluated in these-as.'ICSsments, resultant air concentrations do not 

specifically consider the actulll numerical value for existing air concentrations, and the U.S. 

EPA's national guidance on conducting risk assessmeniS for biiUirdous waste combustors 

c-urrently does not incorporate this technique. However, risk management decisions which 

follow U.S. EPA recommendations (Reference [2]) typically consider the potential for 

cumulative emissions indirectly by: (l) assuming that other nearby sources of similar toxic 

metals contribute up to ~ times the amount of the facility being evaluated: and (2) for 

carcinogens, allowing the facility under investigation 10 only make an insignificant increase in 

potential cancer effects, so that even in the case of an accumulation of risks from many facilities, 

the facility under evaluation would CJ!l]y contribute an insignificant amount. 

The U.S. EPA currenUy RCOIDlllellds (2) that when one is calcnlaring an air concentration 

resulting from an emission source for toxic compounds such as a biiUirdous waste incinuator, 

one should not only compare this to a hazard index ("HI") value of 1.0 (i.e., the highest safe 

value), but, in addition, should compare the calculated air concentration to an H1 value of 0.25 • 

10 account for the fact that multiple facilltlcs in the area might be emitting those same toxic 

compouDds. This accounts for the fact that those emission might be additive. In this way, the 

facility being evaluated only contributes 25% or less to tbe maximum safe impact level. For 

each carcinogenic constituent evaluated, the predicted rislc is compared to a I in 100.000 

(0.00001 or l.OE..QS) target risk level for the llllowable increase in cancer risk. Even if several 

facilities were contributing this same level of cancer risk, the total increase would not be 

expected to become significant for that geographical area. We believe this technique is 

prokctive and is a straightforwanl way to address tbe concern over additive emissions. 

IV. Coadusloos 

U.S. EPA RegionS condueted a screening human health risk assessment for the Veolia facitity in 

Sauget, illinois. Potential risks were calculated based on contaminant emissions at the existing 

· noauiatory limits for stack emissions of toxic/carcinoga>ic metals, which have also become 

compliance limits for the Veolia facility. In co~son to the frequenUy recommended rislc 

management benchmarl<s of HI = 0.25 and Risk = 1.0 E-S for each pollutant, the following 

recommendations are made with respect to further enlission limits beyond the HWC-MACT 

metals concentration limits: 

·Dioxins: No additiOnal limits necusary 

• Mercury: Re&rict total annual stack emissions such that total I:D is equal to or less than 0.25 

• Cadmium: No additional limits neGCs&ary 

- Lead: No additional limits necessary 

- Chromium: No additional limits necessary 

- BeryOium: No additional limits neceuary 

- Arsenic: No additiorial limits neces.wy 

Fed 2.<357 

VES 007640 
23 

V. References: 

Ill National Research Council (1983); Risk A.rsessment in tlte Federal Gtn~tmmcnt: 

Mmtagi11g the Process; Januaryl983. National Academy Press, ISBN: 0309033497 

(available at www .nersto~usa.com/mnbooks/o3ol0309033497 .shun) 

[2] U.S. EPA (1994). Implementation of Exposure As.ressment GuidantY.for RCRA 

Bav:udous Waste Combusril>n Facilities: lmp/emeJ!UJliQn Guidance for Conducting 

Indirect Exposvre Analysis t11 RCRA Combustion Unils (Memorandum from Michael H. Sh2piro. Dixector of U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste to EPA Regional Waste 

Management DirectOR); April 1994. 

[3] U.S. EPA (1994). Revised /nJerim SoU Lead (PI>) Guidance for CERCU. Sitts mui 

RCRA Corrective Acriott Facilities (OSWER Directive 9355.4-12; OffiCe of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response; Washington, DC; July 1994) 

[4) U.S. EPA (1998). Clarification to the 1994 Revised Interim Soil Lead (Pb) Guidance for 

CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities (Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response; Washington, DC; August 1998) 

(5] U.S. EPA (2001). Uur's Guide for the lntegraJed Exposiue Uptake Biolinetlc Mode/for 

U!ad in Children (IEUBK) Windows® venion (EPA OSWER Directive 9285.7-42; 16-

bit vers:ion: October 200 I; Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and 

Technical Review Work Group for Lead; Washington, DC) · 

[6) U.S. EPA (2002). Metro &zst U!ad Project: All Soil Lead Results (sampling map 

generated by Tetta Tec:h EM. Inc. [SL Louis, MO) under contract to U.S. EPA; copy of 

map available in EPA Adminislnlive Recotd for Veol.ia ES Technjcal Solutions facility) 

[7] Winois EPA (2003). Cleanups Under Stale Response Action Program: East Sr. Louis 

Awning Company and Adept Tool; St. ClairCOU11ty, East St. Louis. 

( <ttUp://www .epa.statejl.uslland/cleanup-programsleasr -st-louis.btml>) 

, [8] U.S. EPA (2002). Fact Sheet: Cleanup Near Ully Freeman Elementary School; East St. 

Louis, IL (U.S. EPA • Region 5 Gateway Team; Chlcago,IL; February 2002) 

( <http:J/www .epa. gov/region5/gateway/pdfslfreeman.odf>) 

[91 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develqpmeot (HUD) (1995). ~relation of · 

U!ad-ConJlJ1ftinaJed House Dust and Blood Lead Levels Among Urban Children. 

Voburres 1 and 11. (Final Rcpon to U.S. liUD from the University of Rochester School 

of Medicine, Rochester, NY and the National Center for Lead-Safe Housing; Columbia. 

MD; June 1995) 

Fod2~8 

VES 007641 
24 

[10) Dlinois EPA (1994). A Summary of Stlecrtd Background Condirions for Inorganic& in 

S<Jil (IEPAIENV/94-161); Office o f Chemical Safety; Springfield. IL; August 1994. 

ATIACfiMFNTS: 

Attachment A: Calculation of constituent emission rates at the .MACT emission limit 

for the Veolia Incineration Facility, Sauget, illinois 

Attachment B: Analysis of lead exposure health risk for lead em,issions 

from the Veolia Incineration Facility; Sauget.lllioois 

Attacbment C: Technical Appendices to the Revised Risk Screening 

for Veolia Incineration Facility, Sauget, lllinois 

Fed2"359 

VES 007642 
\ 

Att.adlment A: 

Calculation of coDStituent emission rates at tbe MACf emission limit for the Veolia 

Incineration Facility; Sauget, IDiools 

Fed 243&0 

VES 007643 
Converting MACf Standarch to Mass Emission Rates for ltisk Assesstne11t 

oflncinetator Stack Emissions at Vcolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C (folllluly Onyx 

Envii'01ll1lenlal Services, Inc., fonnerly Trade Waste Incineration) 

Saugel, Ulinois 

Prepared By: Todd D. Ramaly 

,....A H..,/..~ 

U.S. Environmental Pro1ection Agew;;y 

RCRA Programs Section 

May2,1007 

Fed 2<1361 

VES 007644 
I. ·Background 

The United States Environmental Prolection Agency (U.S. EPA) and Veolia ES 

Technical Solutions. L.L.C., Sauget (Veolia-Sauget) have each indepeodendy modeled 

theoretical emissions from Veolia-Sooget's throe stacks in Sauget, lllinois aod c::onducled 

risk asse.ssmems of those emi&sioos based on the surrounding communily's .mbu~. 

V.ui.O ~J"""fVC •vi. V....J. 4'1. u~ UJ ... , .. .,,., uov .._.., , ,.,..,.,. ... ___ ..,,...~ -.. ....... -•• . - • • ~ ... • 

to sec if these limits were assoeialed with unacx:ept.able-xisk in the eommunity. The 

MACf standards are expressed as a c:OilOell11:alioo refom!Ced to certain staDdard stack 

conditioos . . However, lhese cooditions vuy from stack to stack sucb !hat the tnaSS 

emission race (of a~ poliUial)t like metCUtY) in compliance with the MACT may be 

different at each stack. U.S. EPA roquires actual mass flow rail:$ in ordertoeslilmle 

riab. 'I'berefore, U.S. EPAexemincdaselecti.oo ofemissioo teat obsuvalioos fore8Cb 

stJM:k and, coupled with the Sbclc characteristics used in the dispenioa modeling, 

. c01averted the MACf standards into mass emission rates as descn'bed herein. The 

calculations d=ribed below are shown in full for all~ in the attac~ 

spreadsheet. 

1-2 

Fed 2<4362 . 

VES 007645 
II. Modeled Stack Parameters 

The following table li~ts stack parlllllCWS UJed i.n the dispersion modeling. Tho atack 

diameter: and modeled flow velocity were identified es soun:e characteristica in Veolla· 

Sauget's October 27, 2005 Onyx EnvirtlllmDIIal Services, Rotary Kiln and Fixed Heanh 

Inciru~r(llors, Screening Level Human HeaiJJt Risk Asse.ssment Report-Revised. 

I SUck Staclc2 Stack3 Staclc4 

Cluomeu:r (meu:o<J v'.UOJO V.VU.,oJ .~. ..... -..;_ 

modeled emission flow veloci1y {mls) 20.2 20.2 20A 

actual measiiSed flow velocity (m/s) as 16.5-18.3* \9.6-211,6* 19.1-23.7 

in sele.:ted emission ICSIS 

Nolle: - &w wlocitia 1ql(!ltcd in emiosioa "*"'& for -tS 2 aoxl3 comspaadod 10 doecllomecer at lhe oamplioa port wbicb - wider lloan dlot of top of tbo diCl:. l1oe od flow oreloc:iliet 

w= l<ljalood b doe !tad< exitCOIIS#ic:IU>ft (from d~ oio.9906 metqs 10 0.6SS& ~~~e~a~) usumioa 

no •Wteci>oble ~in gaa donsity. · · 

The source> characteristics teportcd by Veolia..Saugi:t we~e also used in US. EPA 

dispersion mOdeling effons. Since the Agency dispersion modeliDg effort was carried 

out at these cooditions, we pl'derred to match the emiWon rates at the MACT standards 

to lhese modeled conditions rather than to those of a specific emission test. It ia worlh 

noting that the flow velocity obaervalioos for the selected Staek 2 emiaaioo tests we.re 

somewhat lower than the source ctuuacteriatic provided by Veoli....Sauget. Tho now 

velocities for Slacks 3 and 4 provided by V eolia..Sauget as souroe characteristics wete 

cocsisleOt with the emission test obscrvllions. 

D-1 

Fed 2A363 

VES 007646 
' 

III.Conversion from MACT rates 

The MACf 8la1ldards for mercury, dioxin, and various metals are given as a dry gas 

concentration at standard rempCrnture, pteSSWC, and a referenced stack gas oxygen 

content. However, tbe observed stack conditions vary from these standard teference 

points and appropriate conversions are made. 

A. Emission Test Observations 

At lhe time tbe calculation wa. prepilred, the obsetvatioos from the foD.owing emission 

tests were on-hand: · · 

Stack2 

Stack3 

Stack4 

Two tests from Seprember 2003 and one test from May 2004 

One tes1 from June 2002 and one from August 2002 

One test each from June 2002, August 2002, and May 2004 

B- Convemng from wet actual stack flow to dry standard stack flow, 

In order to convert to d.~ .$(81\dard conditions, the actual stack pressnte, stack 

temperature, and moisture content are used as follows: 

Ultimately, we wiU need to ~elate the MACf standards to the wei flow rates used in the 

dispersion modeling. Therefore we examined the conversion of act)la) cOnditions to dry 

standard flow as expressed in a single conversion factor for each unique .emission test 

The factor is simply a ratio of the dry standard flow rate to that oftbe actual flow 

rate. These conversion facton wete consistent from run to run for each staclc. Minimum. 

maximums, and average convenion factors where applied to the modeled stack 

conditions, however, tbe values did not vary greatly and the average conversion factOIS 

were used for subsequent calculatioos. 

C. Oxygen Content 

The measured oxygen content from the emission teSt ob$ervations was consistent for each 

stack. Therefore, an average stack oxygen content was used'to convert the MACf limlts 

to stack oxygen condllions. The stack specific MACf standard is calcuJated as follows: 

cr MA _,_ -( . )x(21-01 contenl""'""'f') · - MACf ---':..-. 14~::=c. 

D. Example Calculation 

m-1 

Fod 24364 

VES 007647 
As an example, bete is how we calculated the emissionl'llle of mercury at tl)e MACf 

standard for stack 4. The IDCICUI)' MACT standard is 130 oniCrognms pu my sundard 

cubic metu (ji!ifdsCm) referenced to 7% oxygen content. 

For stack4: 

stack diameter = 

stack eJ<.it Row velocity = 

stack eJ<.it cross sectional area = 

1.2192 meters 

20.4 metm/second (from Veolla-Sau~t) 

1.167 aqu..-e meters ...... - . ·····--- -.. ~ ........... , __ ,_ ...... ""' 

The stack exit volumetric flow rate can be converted to dry standard cubic meta'S peT 

serond by multiplying by lhe ratio of calculated dry standard flow rau:s to wet actual_ 

flow Rtes from emission ~- AD example calculalion from !he Jone 2002 SUICk 4 

emis&ion test follows: 

stacktemperarwe • 

stack pressure = 

stack volumetric moisture content = 

stack oxygen content = 

376.4"1' = 836.07•R 

29.52 inches of metCUI)' 

37.869%· 

13.6% 

Tbe aver-age conveaion factor for stack 4 over the three emission lestS was 0.379. Thus. 

the dty standard flow rate for stack 4 u modeled for the risk assesUnellt is 23.82 x 0.379, 

or 9.03 dry Sl8lldatd cubic meu:rs pa second 

Tbeoxygen adjOSied HgMACJ' limit forstaclt4, based on an ave:r~Foxygen coolt:llt 

obea ved during !be cmisaion tests o( 13.38% is c•k:,.!ated as follows: · 

MACT--·( 130t1f }(21-13-U) • ~161f . 4rJ !lid.... .• ,, fbi.,. 

All that remains is to multiply our stack specific MACf concentration by the dry 

standard flow rate to. &et the mass emission rate at the MACT standard 

m-2 

F<ld 24305 

VES 007648 
IV. Conversion Summary 

The convecsion ofMAcr limits to mus emission rates was completed foe all three 

incinerators at Veolia-Sauget. The results ace suOllllarized in the following table: 

- -.1. dianJole< ( ....... ) . 0.6858 0.6858 1.2192 

1DOdeloclsur:l: gos ail '"locity (tols) 20.2 20.2 20.A 

moddcd IUdl: ps W. flow-(JJA1/s) 7..46 7.46 23.82 

•-ccawnioofa:lorfrom....,.l o.3Sl O.AOC 0.379 !low IOdry-llow 

•-dry-llowr ... (clsc&'s) 2.63 J .. Q5 9.Q3 

•vonce sud: oxygm .,.,.,_ 11 4~ .. 12.9S 3.3·~ 

-I 

Wbxil>'("""' cmissioa ...... rl• ).60 • 10'10 .,. 3.52. 10'1

• rl• 9.t4. 10'10

"' (MAC'!' limit of 0.2!Jiidcom (j 7'11> OJ) 

semi¥01Aiilc mcuJs (1'1> & Cd) emiuion 

ra1e, tfs 0.000414 fls 0.000405 rfs 0.00113 &>'• 

(MACT limit of 230 fll/dlcm 07'11> OJ) 

low volatile ll1tflls (At. Be, Cr) 

-.isoioto ,.... "' 0.000166 r/S 0.000162 sl• 0.000453 fls 

(MACT lilxit of92 f'Wdscm 0 7'11> OJ) 

toa'CI11')' emission ..... "' o.ooo234 r/s 

0-000229 "' 

. 0.000639 rl• (MAC'!' limit of 130 l'lldscn> .7 .. OJ) 

IV-1 

Fod24366 

VES 007649 
·. 

MACI'-for Onyx. $augel,-

• - .. M (ng TEQidsc:m) PI'*'-,_ (¢docm) 

III<T'IIIoiaftll rnolols (Uo'docm) (f'b & Cd)J 

low v-,_ (ughjsan) (As. Be, Cr) ., ... cNortne (ppmv) 

""'IQI!Y ( IJQI<fOC:m) 

voloolly 

__ 

(mls) ,,~ 

- ...... (m2) [PI(-dlatnot<lli2)"2j IIOiumotrlo-(m3ls) ((sl8d< .-)(YIIoalyl] 

"''"~"" m~ flldor trom wet adual k) tkv standal"d fbN 

-'"'"ti:WW""""''¥'•.-uo• t-.K •rUin "'-.;-....--.,..1 -""''"""'"" , ...... 

"""*"""' .......,._lndty ""''-- .... dord<d>ic 1r<tm wet -pot-(~ OdUalto c11y otandlrd now 

-!low in dty-<d>ic-por-.cl ,_,) 

mu1murn now-.c~~y-- -.por-<-> 

--02-.t("Y) 

___ .,.~MeT 

lo_,.,..l'tlho WCT limito---: -!~~ACT • (MIICT limll)(21-02 conten1)(14 

Maya1, 2006 

02 

0.013 

230 

92 

32 

130 

S1adt 4 

20.2 20.4 

0.6858 1.2192 

o.3803897522621 1.1117464032 

7Ael6729e60939 23.818011225 

0.350378938268 0.35574ee$5 

0.3646813881328 03911SIJISQ 

2.6144130<70108 8.472A811234 

2.8335272ll84892 9.o329183a4 

2.MI518535906 8.40St05342 

p. 1 .,. 

Slad< 3 ><l<lled Stock 3 

20.2 20.2 

CUi866 0.8858 

0.38113888 0.-

7.461 1173 7.461 1173 

0-1 0.3281005 

0-41 1 !S4I2 o.a441887 

3.0215e01 2:<We179 

3.0462505 2M73814 

3.07094011 2M8iiOOf' 

11.429 9 h'HH 13.31'888667 SU 10 

...-on -• tho w.cr. {olactl MACT) (-In c11y 111ndw o~ ,..."'per secord) 

dlolcWI""" (ng TEQ'a) mlnlnUn 

-(ngTEQ'a)-

dio>cft1111nn(ngT~ mo>l!num 

-(gTEQ's)mn 

dloldnllulltl (g TE<Ytl - dlo"""'lltl (g Tin's) m8llimum 

... ....,, la,_(~(Pb Cdl"*> 

-·-~ (Pb&Cd)­

_,,.. I •• -~~(Pb Cd)"""' 

............ - (glaj (Pb & Cd) "*' ---1111*1 (Pb a Cd) ...._ -___ nlllllo!WII ........ (Pb a Cd) ,_ 

0.35'181'6e040029 Ot22BBl4:13 O.a480377 0.31143t 

0.31102111615&157 0.86:1727821 o.352A847 O.o402313 

0.3$2068811701113 I.Cl24402334 Cl.35453517 0.4137418 

411.3211094803311 1061.0911516 40208:1"' 453.64847 

414.&b351 5 us1.- ~1 -.- 41a.JJ81l6108800 1171-- 4CUI545 41SJ10319 

Fed24367 

VES 007650 
. I 

I 

low wlati"' ..,...Is (ugls) (As, Be, Cr) min 

. low I/Oialile nocals (Uiis) (As, Be, Cr) everoge 

:ow volatile n¥eals (ugls) (As. Be, Cr) max 

low vola~le <Neals (O's) (As, Be, Cr) min 

lOW -le mtoals (9'$) (As, Be. Cr) average 

low VOI8tile ml8al$ (gs) (As. Be, c~ max pnMoulcalcuJalion • 

"""""'Y (ug/sj"'"' 

"""""'Y (ug/s) avenoge 

""'"""Y (ugla) max 

mo«:ury19fS} 100 

rnoroury(gs) ._ 

merwy (lj/s) max 

previouacalciAalion 

184.53123784136 424.4394345 160.83333 

165.'734143197'12 4525147974 162.14756 

166.55158683441 471.22S0737 163.4618 

Page2of 4 

181.41939 

185.084. 

190.32125 

·~ ·1.8&% 12.26% 28.12% 

232.48919200192 . 599.7513748 227..284411 256 36348 

234.1agss'o1687 639.4230833 229.12156 281.SO:W7 

235 34413357038 ee&.8815172 230.97883 288.6322 

0.000825 0.000194 0.000194 

2.31% 18.10% . 34.80% 

my-to1al """""'Y II Mo\CT 7385.4018541517 

~ 

20Ul4.84638 72255775 34775.825 gra~ 

gamll'feer g-.lyoer 76.!011818 lbaperyear 

-llld<MACT...--..,.aallctoeaohbum 0.(1002638113047 0.000528348 0.0001907 0~ 

10"""1'819 to .,. .aver~Qe" ...... at di8persion I'IIOdt1 condilonl 0.0002138857881 0.000511747 ().0002043 0.000253 

- o.o0022:lCB2986 0.()0()840399 0.0002732 

- 0 0002335800196 0.000880185 0.0001875 0.0002574 30.36% 

-4.26% · 12.40% ·13.80'!1o 12.38% 

Aeat.lt: Average stack MACT e:rrmion rdle.s are conservattv. and wt11 be uaec11 fOf ~ nsk anr ••• 

RiskE- t.mta'atlhe MACTr:orrespond to lhe cond11ions used In lhe diopmion m>dol 

_,.,..., TEO IJ"8 - ile molal$ (g/sj (PI> & Cd)) 

low """'1ile mellls (gla) (As, flo, Cr) • ,men:ury (Ills) • 

-'2 

3.eoE-OIO 

4.14E-Cl04 

,1.86Eo004 

2.34Eo004 

-· _, 

9.114E.(110 3.52E-o10 

1.13E.OOS "-Cl6Eo004 

4.5SEo004 

~ 

~ 

2.296()04 

... 

Fod24368 

VES 007651 
A~B: 

Autysls of lead expci8IIR bullh risk for lead emiss!OIIS from Veolla IDciD«atioa Faclllt7; 

Sauget, IDlnols 

Fed 2A360 

VES 007652 
A TTACBMENT - Analysis of health risk ror lead emissions from V eolia (March 2004) 

Output of mUBK Model runs for sceoarios represenli.og ll'ad emkslons from Veolia 

Scenario 1: Veolia lead emission causes incremelllal increase in soil lead of 100· ppm 

(equivalent to 100% of recommended limit in OSW risk: management guidelines) 

Soil level= 400 ppm (background)+ 100 ppm (incremental increase) 

Dust level= 250 ppm (background)+ 70 ppm (incremental increase from soil) 

Sceoario 2: V eol.iillead emission causes incremental increase in soil lead of 50 ppm 

(equivalent to 50% of recommended limit in OSW risk management guidelines) 

Soil level = 400 ppm (backgrowtd) + 50 ppm (incremeotal increase) 

Dust level = 250 ppm (background) + 35 ppm (incremental incl.-ease from soil) 

8<leoario 3: V eolia lead emission causes incremental iocreasc in soil lead of 20 ppm 

(equivalent to 20% of recommended limit in OSW risk managenient guidelines) 

Soil·level = 400 ppm (background) + 20 ppm (mcremental increase) 

Dust level = 250ppm (background)+ 14 ppm (incremental increase fiom soil) 

Scenario 4: · V eolia lead emission causes incremental ioaease in soil lead of 15 ppm 

(equivalent to 15% of recoJDDJended limit in OSW risk man113ement guidelines) 

· Soil level= 400 ppm (background)+ 15 ppm (incremeot3.t increase) 

Dust level = 250 ppm (backgrotn~d) + 11 ppm (incremental increase from soil) 

Scenario 5: Veolia lead emission causes incremental increase in soil lead of 10 ppm 

(equivalent to 10% of recommended limit in OSW risk management guidelines) 

Soil level = 400 ppni (background)+ 10 ppm (incremtotal increase) 

Dust level = 250 pplli (bacJc&round) + 7 ppm (incremental increase from soil) 

8ceDario 6: V eolia lead emission caoses incremental increase in soil lead of S ppm (equivalent 

to S% of recommended limit in OSW risk management guidelines) 

Soil level = 4.00 ppm (background) + S ppm (incremental increase) 

Dust level = 250 ppm (baclr.gr6und) + 4 ppm (incremet~tal increase from soil) 

Sceo8rio 7: Veolia lead einission causes incremental inCrease in soil lead of2.S ppm 

· (eqwvalent to 2.5% of recommended limit in OSW risk managemeot gui<!elines) 

Soil level = 400ppm (background)+ 2.5 ppm (incremental increase) 

Dust level = 150 ppm (baclcsroond).ofo 2 ppm (iDCfemental increase from soil) 

Fed24370 

VES 007653 
~ IEOBK.,in 

·' 

Run Report 

LEAD HODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0 

Hodel Version: 1. 0 

User Name: 

Data: 

Site Nme: 

Operable Onit: 

Onyx s-dc ( Yeoi'ia~ieJ·---.,-----:­

~ciWIJY"iO #I 

Run Hode: Research 

~-----·,__. .... __ .... ~~~--------~------ "----~~~~-----------.-.···----~----~ 

~> ••••Air•• •••• 

Indoor Air Pb Concentration! 30.000 percent of outdoor. 

other Air Paraaeters: 

Age TilDe 

OUtdoo.xe 

(hours) 

VentilAtion 

Rate 

(10" 3/.day) 

Lung 

Absorption 

\) 

Outdoor Air 

Ph Cone 

U9 Pb/•~3 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .5-1 1.000 2.000 32.000 0.100 

1-2 2.000 3.000 32.000 0.100 

2-3 3.000 s.ooo 32.000 0.100 

3-t 4.000 5.000 32. 000 0.100 

4-S 4.000 5.000 32.000 0.100 

S- 6 4.000 7.000 3i.ooo 0.100 

6-7 4.000 7.000 32.000 0.100 

·• .. ·~·•oi •••••• 

Age Diat Intake (uq/d4y) 

.5- l 5.530 

1-2 5.780 

2- 3 6.490 

3-4 6.240 

4-5 6.010 

5-6 6.340 

6-7 7.000 

••••••orinkinq Water••••• • 

~ater Consu.ption: 

Ago Hater (L/day) 

.5-1 0.200 

1-2 0.500, 2-3 0. 520 

3-4 6.530 

4-5 0.550 

5-6 0.580 ·. 6-7 0.590 

Drinking Hater Concentration: 4.000 uq Pb/L 

2. 

Page 1 

Fed 24371 

VES 007654 
'>' 

I EUBK\fi n un Kepon 

Aqe SOil (ug Pb/g) .House Oust (ug Pb/g) 

.5-1 

1-2 

2-3 

3-4 

4-S 

6-7 

IIIJe 

.S-1 

1-2 

2-3 

3-• 

4-5 . 5-6 

6-7 

500.000 

500.000 

500.000 

500.000 

500.000 

500.000 

Altemate (ug 1/b day) 

0.000 

o.ooo 

0.000 

0.000 

o.ooo 

0.000 

0.000 

320. 000 

320.000 

320.000 

320.000. .320.000 

320.000 

******Maternal Contribution: Intent Mode~****** 

Maternal Blood Coooentration: 2.500 ug Pb/dL 

··~ ··· ···~····· ··~· ··· ·· ···· ~ULATED BLOOD .LEAD AND LllAD UPTAKES: 

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

Year Air 

(uq/dL) 

Diet 

(uq/day) 

Alternate 

(ug/day) 

------ - --·----·- -·"T-------------- - ·-----------·----- S-1 0 .021 2.415 0.000 

1-2 0.034 2.477 0.000 

2-3 0.062 2.834 o.ooo 

3-• 0 . 067 2. 776 o.ooo 

,1 -S 0.067 2. 768 0 . 000 

5-6 0 . 093 2.958 0.000 

6-7 0.093 3.287 0.000 

fear Soil+OUst . Tota l Blood · (ug/<lay) (uq/day) (ug/dL) 

M•ter 

(Uq/day) 

--0.349 

0.857 

0.908 

0.943 

1.013 

1.083 

1.108 

-·----------------------------------------------- --------~----------------------- .5-1 

1-2 

2-3 

8.933 

13.922 

U.1B2 

11.719 

17.291 

17.985 

6.3 

7.1 

6.7 

Page 2 

Fed~2 

VES 007655 
,. 

3-1 

4- S 

5- 6 

6-7 

14 . 447 

11.082 

10 .. 101 

9.604 

18.233 

14.930 

U.238 

14.093 

.. 

6.3 

5. 3 

4. 5 

4.0 

· Page 3 

Fed24373 

VES 007656 
Pro b. Distribglioa (%) 1001\ I 

• 

• ,L_ ______ L_~==~-------------

0 3 6 9 n JS ~ u ~ n ~ ~ ~ 

lllllOCI Pb COlle (•cfdL) 

cm.a = te.oeo ugtdl 

Goo Mesa • 5.683 

% Al>cnle • JO.s95 

<,;;; / = /jt10 -f too 

Pus!= ~lc (2~ + 7d) 

~· R.aace. • 0 to 14 moTiaoe Step • Every 4 Roars 

Ru Mode • Researdt 

Fed 24374 

VES 007657 
JSUBKwin Run Report 

LEAD HODEL FOR WI NDOWS Version 1.0 

••• •••Air• • ., . ... 

Indoor Air Pb concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor. 

Other A.ir Paraaeters,: 

Age Tiae 

Outdoors 

(!tours) 

V•nt1lotion 

Rata 

(a"3/day) 

Lung 

Absorption 

!U 

OUtdoor Air 

Pb Cone 

ug Pb/•"3 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .5- 1 

1-2 

2-3 

3-t 

•-s 

~-6 

6-7 

1.000 

2. 000 

3.900 

4. 000 

4 .000 

4.000 

4.000 

2.000 

3.000 

s.ooo 

5.000 

5.000 

7.000 

7.000 

Age Diet Intolte (ug/day ) 

.S-1 5 .530 

1-2 s. 780 

2-3 6.'90 

3-4 6.240 

4-5 6.010 

5-6 6.340 

6-7 7.000 

• •••••orinki(lg ··wat er-••••• • 

Water Con$Uaption: 

Age Water (L/day) 

.5- l 0.200 

1-2 0.500 

2-3 0.520 

3-4 0.530 

4-5 o.sso 

5-6 0.580 

6-1 o. 590 

Orinki.ng Hater Concentration: 4.000 ug l'b/L 

32 . 000 

32 .ooo 

32. 000 

32.000 

32.000 

32.000 

32.000 

0.100 

0.100 

0.100 

0.100 

0. 100 

0.100 

0.100 

Pago 1 

Ftd2-4375 

VES 007658 
I&UBKwin Run Report 

Age 

.5-1 

1- 2 

2- 3 

3-4 

4-5 

6- 7 

Soil (ug Pb/gl 

450.000 ' 450.000 

450.000 

450 . 000 

450.000 

450. 000 

•• •• • •Alternate In~ •••• 

Hou se Dust {ug Pb/g) 

285 .000 

28S.OOO 

285. 000 

285.000 

285.000 

285. 000 

Age Alternate {ug Pb/day) 

.5-l 0.000 

1- 2 0.000 

2-3 o.ooo 

3- 4 0.000 

4-5 0 .000 

S-6 0.000 

6-7 0.000 

• •••••Maternal Contribution: ·rntant Model" ... * "* 

Moternal Blood concentrati on: 2.500 ug Pb/ dL 

································ ·· ~· CALCULAT£1> BLOOD L£A.D lUID LEJID UPtAKES: 

···· ········~······· ·· ··· ·· ····· ·· · Ye.ar 

5-1 

1-2 

2- 3 

3-4 

4-5 

5-6 

6-7 

YG:ar 

.5- 1 

l- 2 

2-3 

Air 

(ug/dL) 

0.021 

0.034 

0.062 

0.007 

0.067 

0.093 

0.093 

Soil+Dust 

{uq/day) 

8.081 

12.618 

12.835 

2. 439 

2.506 

2.863 

2..800 

2.785 

2.973 

3.301 

Totol 

(ug/day) 

10.894 

16.026 

16. 677 

'7 

Alternate 

{ug/day) 

0.000 

0 . 000 

o.ooo 

0.000 

0.000 

o.ooo 

0 . 000 

Blood 

(ug/dL) 

5. 8 

6.6 

6.2 

0.353 

0.867 

0.917 

0.951 

1.019 

1.088 

1.113 

F'"'24376 

VES 007659 
3-4 

c-s 

5- 6 

6-7 

13.059 

9. 988 

9.096 

8.641 

16. 878 

13.859 

13.250 

13.149 

8 

5. 9 

4.9 

4. 2 

3.8 

Paqe 3 

VES 007660 
Proll. Disttiboliotl (04) JOOr\ 

7$ 

L-----~~~=---------------­ • 3 ' ' n ~ n u ~ n ~ ~ u 

Bloo4l Pb C...., ("'f<<L) 

SO /I"' '1w .f->rJ · 

L4sf~ z!> ( zsv f ;s) 

Fed 24378 

VES 007661 
IEU8Kwin Run Report 

LF~D MODEL FOR WI NDOWS Versi on 1 . 0 

---=:o:~:...-- .. ·-----------------... ----=--oc: :=--....:e...-=e• =~-

l.O . Onyx )d<:. (1/eq/i~ Stte). Model Version: 

User Name: 

Dat e: 

Sit e NMe ; 

Op&rabl e Unit; 

Run Hode: ReSearch 

SC en~ r,'o 113 

=-~ -••----•- --------•~•••-•·~ ~m~--zo=--c==-•--~~-

*****"Air***••• 

Indoor Ajr Pb ConCentra t 'ion: 30.000 pe rcent of o utdoor . 

Other Air Parameters: 

Age TiDe 

Outd®rs (hours) 

Ventilation 

ftate 

(m'3/day) 

Lung 

Absorp.tion 

(t) 

Outdoor Air 

Pb Cone 

UCJ Pb/m'3 

-- ----- ------------------------------------- --------- ---------- -- ---- ----- . 5-1 

1-2 

2-3 

3- 4 

4-5 

5-6 

6-7 

1.000 

2.000 

3.000 

4. 000 

4 . 000 

4.000 

4 . 000 

2. 000 

3.000 

5.000 

s.ooo 

5.000 

7.000 

7 .000 

Age Diet l n take (ug/day) 

.5-l 5.530 

1-2 5.180 

2-3 6.4~0 

3-4 6.240 

4-5 6 .010 

5-6 6 . 340 7 7.000 

Wa er Consumpti on: 

Age Wat er (L/day) 

. 5-l 0. 200 

1-2 0. 500 

2-3 0.520 

3-4 0 .530 

4-5 0.550 

5- 6 0.580 

6 - 7 0. 590 

Drinki nq Water Concentration: 4. 000 ug Pb / L 

!0 

32 . 000 

32.000 

32.000 

32. 000 

32.000 

32. 000 

32.000 

0 .100. 0 :100 

0.100 

0.100 

0. 100 

0.100 

0 . 100 

Page 1 

Fed24379 

VES 007662 
I£U8Kw n Kun xeport 

Age . Soil (ug Pb/g) Hoose Dust lug Pb/gl 

.~-1 420.000 264.000 

1-2 420.000 264 . 000 

2- 3 420 . 000 264.000 

3-4 420.000 264.000 

4-5 420.000 264.000 

6-7 420.000 264.000 

Age Al ternate (ug Pb/day) 

.~-l 0.000 

1-2 . 0 . 000 

2-3 0 .000 

3-4 0.000 

4-5 0.000 

S-6 0.000 

6-7 0 . 000 

•~••••Maternal Contribution: Infant Hodel•••••• 

Maternal Bl ood Concentration: 2.500 ug Pb/dL 

CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES: 

Year . Air 

(ug/dL) 

Diet 

(ug/doy) 

Alternate 

(ug/doyl 

Water 

(ug/day) 

--- ---------------------- ---- ----- --------------- -- ------------------~---- 5-1 

1-2 

2-3 

3-4 

4- 5 

S-6 

6- 7 

Year 

0 . 021 

0 . 03f 

0.062 

0.067 

0.067 

.0.093 

0.093 

Soil+Duat 

(ug/dayl 

22.52 . ·~· 4 

2.880 

2.816 

2.795 

2. 982 

3 . 310 

Tota.l 

(ug/doy) 

0.000 

0 . 000 

0.000 

0 . 000 

0.000 

0.000 

o.ooo 

Blood 

(uq/dL) 

0.355 

0.873 

'0.923 

0.957 

1.023 

1.091 

1.116 

------------------------------------------------------------------------:---

.5-1 

1- 2 

2-3 

7.562 

11.821 

12. 0H 

10.392 

15.253 

15. 879 

II 

5.6 

6.3 

5 . 9 

Page 2 

Fed 24380 

VES 007663 
lb\H:S Wl.M un 1'\Cpor~ 

3-4 

l-5 

5-6 

6- 7 

12.2H 

9.326 

8.497 

8. 059 

16.053 

13.210 

12.653 

12.579 

ll . 

5.6 

4.7 

4.0 

3.6 

Page 3 

FOd24381 

VES 007664 
Prob. Dblribulioll (%) 

1001\ I 

75 

o 3 ' 9 u " n ~ ~ ~ ~ » u 

Blood ... c..e (ucfdL) 

<;a; f :: qoo +zo 

Pd-;. ~Jf 

./3 Fed 2A382 

VES 007665 
LEAD HODEl. FOR WINDOWS Version 1. G 

=;~=~~i:7 1, G m•••·-o;r ~ ···~;r; {~-;; /i 4 rif;)-:-·---·- Date: . 

~~~i:e~nit, 5'c t m rio # 'f 

Run Mode: Reaearch 

•--•= wa-=o -==-... ·~-------··-- ==. . . .,. 

---~ .. . . .. .. .. --·--· .. ,.,.., .. , --~ 

••••••Air.,.•**'** 

Indoor Air fb Concentr4tion: 30.000 perce nt of outdoor~ 

Othar Ai..c Para.eter~: 

.5-1 

1-2 

2-3 

3-t 

t-5 

S-6 

6-7 

Time 

Out:doora: 

(lulurs) 

1.000 

2.000 

3.0GO 

4.000 

4.000 

4. GOG 

4.000 

VentU.ation 

Rate 

(lo•Jtclayl 

2.000 

3.GOO 

5.000 

S.OOG 

s.ooo 

7.0GO 

7.GOG 

Ago Diet Intake(ug/dayJ .5- l 5. 530 

1-·2 S. 78G 

2- 3 6 .f90 

3-4 6.24G 

•-s 6.01G 

S-6 6. 3f0 

6-7 1.000 

••• • • •Drinking Water •••••• 

water Con$u.ption: A~e Water (L/d.tyl 

.5-1 0.20G 

1- 2 0.500 

2- 3 G:520 

3-4 0.530 

4- 5 0. 550 

S-6 0.,580 

6-7 0 .590 

Lung 

Absorption 

(\) 

32.000 

32.000 

32.0GO 

32.0GO 

32.000 

32.000 

32.000 . 

Drinking Water Concentration: 4.000 ug Pb/L 

l'f 

Outdoor Air 

Pb Cone 

UQ' Pb/.a•J 

G.lOO 

G.lOO 

0.100 

0.100 

0.100 

0.100 

0.100 

Paga I 

Fod 24383 

VES 007666 
IEUI;IKw n Kun rteport. 

Age 

.5-1 

1-2 

2-3 

3- 4 

4-5 

6- 7 

Soil (ug Pb/g) n5.ooo 

415 . 000 

415 . 000 

n5.ooo 

415 .000 

415 .000 

House Ou&t (ug Pb/g) 

261 . 000 

261.000 

261.000 

261.000 

261.000 

261.000 

.Age Alternate (ug lib/day) 

. S-1 0.000 

1-2 0.000 

2-3 o.ooo 

3- 4 0 . 000 

4-5 0.000 

5-6 o.ooo 

6-7 0 . 000 

Maternal Blood Concentra~ion: 2.500 ug Pb/dL 

......................... ................. " .... CALCULATED BLOOD LEl\D AND WAD Ul'TAI<ES: 

~··~···~·· ~··· ··· ·· ····· ······· Year Air 

(ug {dL) 

Diet 

(ug/dayl 

Alternate 

(UQ/day) 

Wat e r 

(ug/day) 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-1 

1- 2 

2-3 

3-4 

4-5 

5-6 

6-7 

Year 

.5-1 

1-2 

2-3 

0.021 

0.034 

0.062 

0 . 067 

0 .067 

0.093 

0.093 

Soil+Dust 

lug/day) 

7 . ·(81 

11.696 

11.885 

2 . 456 

2·527 

2 . 883 

2 . 818 

2 . 797 

2.983 

3 .3U 

Tot al 

lug/day) 

10. 313 

15. 132 

15.754 

I~ 

0.000 

0.000 

0 .000 

0 . 000 

0 . 000 

0 . 000 

0 . 000 

Blood 

(ug/dL) 

5 . 5 

6. 2 

5.8 

0.355 

0.874 

0.924 

0.957 

1.024 

1.092 

1.116 

Page 2 

Fed24384 

VES 007667 
3- 4 

4- 5 

5-6 

6-7 · 

12.082 

9·. 222 

8.392 

7.969 

15.924 

13. 109 

12.560 

i2. 490 

I~ 

5 . 6 

4. 6 

4 . 0 

3.6 

·Page 3 

Fed24385 

VES 007668 
. P..,.. Distributloo (%) 

•oof\ I 

75 

~~~3--~, ~~ --t~I~11~~~~1 ~~D=- ~ 

-PI> Co•e (qldL) 

56 if~ 'fr;o T/5 

. Pu.shs ~I 

11 

Aae RaDC~ • e to 84 aOClllls 

Tfme Step • Every 4 Hoon .. Ru Moclo = lloaercll 

Fed 24386 

VES 007669 
I 

IEOBKwin Mun KQPOrt 

LEAD HODEL roR 1!11100115 Version 1. 0 

;;;;;;:~~=;;~~--;;~~ User Name: (./, y:-11 *;;?e L. I /k;t:i ~ ;f~'.J -r-- ~ 

~u: 11r 

Site Name: <;;~ J, rid ::> 

Operable Unit: 

Run Mode: Research 

QQ~------- .... .. .... _ . ..... - --'1::' ------------ __ ._ • ----~--~-------.. --· .. .--==e-----~-- ' • v· --,.I-------- ,..,, -------

••••*•AU•••••• 

Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 per~ent of outdoor. Other Air Par ameter5: 

Til<e 

OUtdoors 

(hours> 

Ventilation 

RAte 

(m'3/day) 

Lung 

Absorption . (') 

Outdoor Air 

Pb Cone 

--------------- ug l'b/:nl'\3 .---------.-_ .. ____________ . ____________ _ ..______________________ . _____ _ , .5-1 

l-2 

2-3 

3-4 

4-5 

5- 6 

6-7 

• 

1.000 

2.000 

3.000 

4 .000 

4.000 

4. 000 

4.000 

2.000 

3 . 000 

5. 000 

5.000 

5.000 

7.000 

7.000 

Aqe 

. S-1 

1-2 

Diet Intake(ug/day) 

5 . 530 

. 2- 3 

3-4 

4-S 

5-6 

6-7 

5.780 

6 , 490 

6.240 

6.010 

6. 340 

7 .·000 

••••••orinkin9 Hater•••••• 

Water Consumption: 

Aqe Water (t/day) 

.S-1 0.200 

1-2 0.500 

2-3 0 . 520 

3-4 0.530 

4-S 0 . 550 

S-6 0.580 

6-7' 0 .590 

Drinking Water Concentration: 4:000 ug Pb/L 

16 

32.000 

32.000 

32.000 

32. 000 

32.000 

32.000 

32.000 

0.100 

0 .100 

0 . 100 

0.100 

0.100 

0 . 100 

0 . 100 

Page l 

Fed 24387 

VES 007670 
IEUBKwin Rur. Re port 

Age 

.5-l 

1- 2 

2-3 

3-4 

4-5 

Soil (ug Pb/gl 

410 .000 

410 . 000 

410 .000 

410 . 000 

410 . 000 ...... v .v.., .. 

410 . 000 

House OUs t (ug Pb/g) 

257 .000 

257.000 

257. 000 

257.000 

257 . 000 

257.000 

'Age Alternate {ug Pb/day) 

.s-r o . ooo 

1-2 0 . 000 

2-3 0 . 000 

3-4 0 .000 

4-S 0 .000 6 0 . 000 

6-7 0.000 

• • ••• •Maternal Cont~ibut on: I nfant Model•••••• 

Mat erna l Blood Concentration; 2.500 ug Pb/dL 

CALCOIJ\TED BLOOD LEAD l\ND LEAD OPTAI<ES ; 

'tear 

5-1 

1-2 

2- 3 

3-4 

4-5 

5· 6 

6-7 

Air 

(U<;I/dL) 

·o.o21 · 

0 . 034 

0.062 

0.067 

0 . 067 

0.093 

0.093 

Diet 

{ug/day) 

2 . 458 . 2 . 530 

2.886 

· 2.821 

2. 798 

2.985 

3 . 313 

Al ternate 

{uq/day) 

0.000 

0.000 

o.ooo 

0.000 

0.000 

0. 000 

0 . 000 

Year Soil +Dust Total Blood 

W•ter. 

(ug/day) . 

0 . 356 

0.875 

0.925 

0.958 

1.024 

1.092 

1.117 

{ug/day) (ug/day) • {uq/dL) . 

--------------.--.. -----·-.------------·------------·---------------- ------------------ . . S- 1 

1-2 

2-3 

7 . 388 

11.553 

11. 738 

10.223 

14 .993 

15.611 

5 . 5 

6.2 

5.8 

· Page 2 

Fed 24388 

VES 007671 
lEUDKwin Run Report 

11.931 

9.104 

8.283 

1.865 

15.777 

12.993 

U.453 

12.388 

5 . 5 

4.6 

3 . 9 

3.5 

Fed2A389 

VES 007672 
Prob. Dlstriblllioa (%) 

1101\ I 

. 75 

L---~--~~~----------------- 0 3 6 ' n ~ u n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Blood PbConc(~dL) 

Clltolf• l8.000 iiCf'll ~Meaa ~962 

% Above c 6.4Ji 

Soi I df~6 f-lo 

P~>t-,. 1.57 

2-1 

AJ< a._,. • flO 84 -..Ills 

Time Step;,. Every 4 Hours 

RUII Mode • llaurdl 

Fed 2A390 

VES 007673 
LEAD HOD&L FOR WINDOWS Version 1. 0 : 

- "'~ . . !· · ·· ·-- ..... .: __ _ ... ....... , 

Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor. 

Other Air Paraaeters: 

· Age Time 

Outdoors 

(hours) 

Ventilation 

Rate 

(11'3/day) 

.Lung 

Absorption 

(\) 

OUtdoor 1\ir Pb Cone _______________________________________________________________ uq __ Pb/Dl"'3 , ________________ _ 

. 5-1 

1-2 

2-3 

3-·· 4-5 

S-6 

6-7 

1.000 

2.000 

3.000 

4.000 

4.000 

4. 000 

4.000 

2.000 

3 . 000 

5.000 

5.000 

5 .000 

7.000 

7.000 

Age Diet Intake( ug/day) 

.5-1 5.530 

1-2 5.780 

2-3 6.490 

3-4 6.240 

4-5 6.010 

5- 6 6.340 

6- 7 7 .000. 

~•• ••Drinking ater••· ~· 

Water Consumpti on: 

Age Water CL/day l 

.S- 1 0.200 

1-2 o.soo 

2-3 0.520 

3-4 5~0 

4- 5 0 . 550 

s-6 o.seo 

E-7 0. 590 

Drinking Kater COncentrati on: 4.000 uq Pb/L 

22.. 

32.000 

32. QOO 

32.000 

32.000 

32.000 

32. 000 

32.000 

0.100 

0.100 

0 . 100 

0.100 

0.100 

0 . 100 

0.100 

Page 1 

Fed 2439.1 

VES 007674 
•••• ••soil& Oust• .-•••• 

Age Soil (ug Pb/g) 

. 5-l 405. 000 

1-2 405. 000 

2-3 405. 000 

3-4 405.000 

4-5 405.000 

6- 7 405.000 

*****""Alternate Intake••••• • 

Age 

. S-1 

1-2 

2-3 

3-4 

4-5 

. S-6 

6- 7 

Alternate (ug Pb/day} 

0. 000 

0. 000 

o.ooo 

0 . 000 

0 . 000 

0.000 

0.000 

House oust (U9 Pb/g} 

254 . 000 

254.000 

254.000 

254 . 000 

254.000 

. . . ... 254.000 

. . 

•••••.,Maternal Contributi'on: Infant Model""**** 

Maternal Blood Concentration: 2.500 U9 Pb/ciL 

·· ·· ·············~···········~···· Cl\LCIJLATED BLOOO LEAD AND LEAD UPT/U(ES: 

Year 

5-l 

1-2 

2-3 

3-4 

4-5 

5-6 

6-7 

Year 

Air 

(u;/dLl 

0.021 

0 . 034 

0. 062 

0.067 

0 .067 • 

0.093 

0.093 

Soil+Dust 

(ug/day} 

Diet 

(ug/day} 

2. 461 

2.533 

2.889 

2.823 . 2. 800 

2.986 

3.314 

'l'otal 

(ug/<lay} 

Alternate 

(U9/clay} 

0.000 

o.ooo 

0.000 

o.ooo 

o.ooo 

0.000 

0.000 

Blood 

(ug / ciL) 

Kater 

(ug/ clay} 

0. 356 

0 . 876 

0.926 

0.959 

1.025 

1.093 

1.117 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . 5-1 

l-2 

2-3 

7 . 306 

11.428 

11. 608 

iO.l44 

14 . 872 '15.485 

5.5 

6.1 

5.7 

Page 2 

Fed24392 . 

VES 007675 
IEOOKwin Run Report 

3- 4 

4-5 

S- 6 

6-7 

11. 798 

9 . 000 

8.188 

'. 774 

15.647 

12.891 

12.360 

12.299 

s.s 

4 . 6 

3.9 

3 .5 

P~ e 3 

Fed24393 

VES 007676 
". 

75 . 

25 

e''------..~....-= 12 _8 l__,. --n-J0 -33--l' 

llood Pb Cooc ("'fdL) 

. . 

CaiOif• JOMO alfdl 

CeoMtu• 4.tU 

%AI>ove•'-023 

. Sail -:::: /tic t ~ 

P~Asf:: l>lf 

VES 007677 
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0 

-..=-==~ -· ---------------·~- -··-- ~ .. .... -===- _ .. ·~ .. ~ ... ,..--~ ... ...4 ...... , --· 

... ,...,. •• Air••• ~• • 

Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of Outdoor. 

Other Air Parameters: 

Aqe TiRe 

OutdOOt'S 

(hours) · 

Ventilation • Rate 

(11'3/day) 

Lunq 

Absorption 

(\) 

Outdoor Air 

Pb Cone 

ug Pb/m' 3 

------------- ------------------ -- --------~--- ---- ---- ----------------- .S-1 · 

1-2 

2- 3 

3-4 

4-5 

s-6 

6-7· 

1.000 

2.000 

3. 000 

4.000 

4.000 

4.000 

4.000 

2.000 

3 . 000 

5. 000 

5.000 

5. 000 

7. 000 

7.000 

Age Diet Intake (uq/day) . 5- 1 5.530 

1- 2 5. 780 

2:3 6.490 

3- 4 6. 240 

4-5 6.010 

S- 6 6.340 

6-7 7.000 

Water Consumption: 

Age Wat er. (L/day) . 5-1 0.200 

1-2 0 .500 

2-'3 0 . 520 

3-4 0.530 

4-5 6.550 .S-6 0 . 580 

6-7 0.590 

Drinking Water Concentration: 4 . 000 ug Pb/L 

32:000 

32. 000 

32. 000 

32.000 

32. 000 

32.000 

32.000 

0. 100 

0.100 

0. 100 

0 . 100 

0.100 

0.100 

0 .100 

Page 1 

VES 007678 
Age 

.5-1 

l-2 

2-3 

3-4 

l-5 

6-7 

SOil (ug Pb/g) 

402.500 

402.500 

402.500 . 402.500 

402.500 

402.500 

House Dust (ug Pb/g) 

252 .ooo 

252. 000 

252.000 

252.000 

252.000 

252.000 

Age Alternate (ug Pb/dayl 

.5-l 0.000 

1-2 0.000 

2-3 0.000 

3- 4 ·0.000 

4-5 0.000 

5-6 0.000 . 6-7 o.ooo 

••••••Maternal Contribution: Infant Hodel•••••• 

Maternal Blood Concentration: 2.500 ug Pb/dL 

CA.l.CULATED BLOOD LEAD AHD LEAD UPTAKES: 

Year Air 

(ug/dL) 

Diet 

(ug/day) 

Alte rnate 

(ug/day) 

Hater 

(ug/dllY.l 

--------------- ------- ------~--- ------------------------------- --------- --- 5-l 0.021 2. 462 0 .000 0.356 

1-2 0~4 2.535 o.ooo 0.877 

2-3 0.062 · 2.891 0.000 0.926 

3-4 0.067 2.824 o.ooo 0 . 960 

4-5 0.067 2.801 0.000 1.025 

5-6 0.093 2. 987 0.000 1.093 

6-7 0.093 3.315 0.000 1.118 

Year Soil+Dust Total Blood ___________(uq/day) __ "':' ______________ , ____(ug/day __________ l ______________________ (ug/dLl ___________ 

.5-1 

1- 2 

2- 3 

7.260 

11.356 

11.535 

10. 099 

14 . 802 

15. 414 

27 

5.4 

6.1 

5.7 

. Paqe 2 

VES 007679 
............ -: .. ·· ....... ......... _-

3-4 

4-S 

S-6 

6-7 

11.122 

8. 940 

8.133 

7.722 

15.573 

12.833 

12.306 

12.248 

s .•. 4.5 

3.9 

3. 5 

Page 3 

VES 007680 
75 

5I 

2 

• 3 6 9 12 u u u u n ~ ~ ~ 

._ n CeK("'fdL) 

C.fAIIfe 10.011 ocfdl 

GooMaa • .oeJ 

% A.Mvc • 6.tZ3 

<;;,'I ==- llfJd 'fzto +- z. ) 

0 tuf.,. UJ. ( t~ -tz..) 

2q Fod 2•398 

VES 007681 
AttacbmeDI C: 

Tedmltal Appmclbs to the ReYbed JUsk Scnm COl' Veolia IDciDeratloo Facility; Sauget, 

Ullloois 

Fed24399 

VES 007682 
WaterbOdy and Watershed Parameters fol' lakes at Frank Holten State Par11: . .... 

Wat§!!lodv ~m!ll§lm In!!!!! Vat!.!§ Wj!tershed P!!t!!!!lel!llll l!ll!!!! Vall!§ 

0!3pth of Water Column 2.0m Impervious Area 31 % 

Average Volumetric Flow 384,998 m•/yr USLE Coller Uanagemen! Factor O.Q? 

Surface Area 715,087m' USLE Erosivity Factor 210 yr'' 

. 7.441 ,556 1112 Area Reoeiving Fallout 

VES 007683 
.. .• PdlfmftLY 

RISK SUMMARY 

RecepiOr 

,1\ecePIOr , 

IRAP-h \/lew 

) 1--2<[5~06 

fisbcr_adult 

fisher_child 

. 4.5267£-006 

1.2474E·006 

• -' , , • • • ,., • • • ,. -- · H 0 • •• • ._,.,, , .... <>~-

2.3420£+000 

J. 7342E+OOO 

..... -...... -peg;, i 

H>d 24401 

VES 007684 
RISKBYCOPC Dale : 712812006 

Rece t~r flther..:•dutt STACia Arseoic 7.S334E.007 7 .4530£.()()3 

Rfa!>tor llsher_adult STACia Beryllium 1.5271£.()()7 8.0822£.003 

Receptor fisllet_adlllt STACia Cadmium 2.8565£.()()1 1.8Sl4E-002 

Roup tor 6sbor_acbdt STACia Chromium, hexavalent 7.63S6£.()()7 1.2948£.()()3 

Receptor r .. ~ .. _adult STACia Lead 0.0000£+000 0.0000£.000 

A efafiU'• ..,.. ... _~oJ<-1 • ... ~ ....... ,_ ··~ ... - .... M ... ...... 

Receptor llsbor_adldt · STACia Mercury O.OOOOE+OOO 8. 7099E-008 

Receptor nila.r_&dult STACia Methyl ~ury O.OOOOE+OOO S.03SJE.ool 

Roeeptor 6sbor_adalt STACia TelraCDD, 2,3,7,8· 3.41 S6E-008 6.981SE-004 

To raJ 1.9894E·006 S .4886E-OO I 

Rec:e,tOr tlslter _adult STACIO Arseoic 7.3519E·007 : 7.2734E-003 

Receptor fisher _adult STACIO Beryllium 1.4903E-007 7.8874£.()()3 

R«tplot' fisher t4~1t . STACIO Cadmjum 2.7944E-007 1.8112E-002 

Re«plor fiober_advlt STACIO Chromium, hexavalent 7. 4SI6E-007 1.2636E-Oo3 

·Rt>O<ptor 6s~or_aatt STACIO I.Aad O.OOOOE+OOO O.OOOOE-+000 

Roeeptor flohor- odlllt STACIO Mercuric cli!oride 0.0000£.000 8.7090E.()()3 

Receptor llsllor _advlt STACIO Mm:wy O.OOOOE+OOO 8 .4078E-008 

Receptor lhktr_adult . STACIO Mecbyl merCOJ)' O.OOOOE+OOO 4.9nSE-OOt 

Reeep!Or fbbor_adalt STACIO Te«nCDD, 2,3, 7,8- 3.3397E-008 6.8264£-004 

Toral 1.9422E-006 S.4121E-Ool 

Receptor r~Aer_advlt STACK4 Arlenic 1.7903E·007 2.0929E-003 

Recepter lhbu_adolt STACK4 Berylliwn s .0242E-008 2.5655£.()()3 

llocepiM lhller_odlllt STACK4 Cadullum 9 .3996E-008 6.0923£.()()3 

Receptor llsbor_aftlt STACK4 Chromium. beuvaknt 2.5121E-007 3.9204£.()()4 

Re<eptor O.llor_adlllt STACK4 . lpd 0.0000£<000 0.0000£<000 

Reeeptor --·- STACK4 Memlric c:bloride O.OOOOE<OOO 2.6137E-003 

Receptor lloher_adak STACK4 Mercury O.OOOOE+OOO 2.607$&008 

Reeeptor flsher_adalt STACK4 Melbyt """""'>' O.OOOOE+OOO 1.2378E<OOO 

Re«pltr --·- STACK4 Telr&CDD, 2,3,7,8- 2.0S60E-008 4.004SE-004 

Toral s.9504£.007 1.2519E+OOO 

Rtc<!ptor· O.ber_chDd STACK2 Arsenic 2.9865E.()()1 1.1331 £.()()2 

Re«pllr 6sber_thlld STACia Be.ylliwu 542£~ 9.81S9E.003 

Reuptor llsber _ cblld STACia Cadlllium 5.7129£.()()8 1.8.514£.()()2 

Receptor o.~~er alld STACia Cbromium, hexavalent 1.527 JE-007 1.6487£.003 

Reeepttr llsher_cblld STACia 1Aad O.OOOOE+OOO o:ooooE.ooo 

Receptor llober_cbUd STACia Mere~ chloride o.OOOOE+OOo 2.4236£·002 

·- ~ ...... --· ... .. - ···-··· _+ .. ..... • ~· ! · .. -· ••• • .... ·--·--•oM ____ _ . . . ···- "Page; IRAP·hView 

Fed 244!>2 

VES 007685 
RISK BYCOPC Dale : 7/28/2006 

IRAP-h Voew . · - · . . .... . . .. ,,_ .. _ _____ -·-" ··- - - l';lge 2 

Fed 24403 

VES 007686 
LEAO EXPOSURE Dale.: 712612006 

1\~' fisher_adu!l STACKl 2.4651E-GOI ~541£-GOI 3.8615£-004 

Receptor fisher_adult STACK.l 2.41 15E-GOI 4.3572E-GOI 3.77761;.()()4 

. Reteptor . fisher _adult STACK4 4.6665£-G02 8.4316E-G02 1.2707£-004 

v Re<eptor fisber_cbild STACKl 2.4651 E-GO I 4.4541£-GOI 3.8615£.()()4 

Re<eptor fisher_child STACK3 2.4115E-GOI 4.3572£-GOI 3.7776£.()()4 

j\'"'""'.t"'""' ........... _ ..... --

-- ··- .. i 

.. ~ ....... __ .. -~ 

-· ~ .. , ._ . ---.. - -

IRAP-h V'oew .,. ___ ...... --- -·--.. --.. ... ... ··-p;ge1 

Fed 24404 

VES 007687 
·1 Source List 

U11ol X U11ol y 

STACK2 745314.500 4275912.300 Yes 

---·----···- ·--·-----------·--·--·- ---- STA~ 745342.® 4275958.000 Yes 

STACK4 7441179.800 4275205..000 Yos 

Ptlnt p;.vlew bY Lak .. Envitonmonlal SoftwBJe Dele : 712812006 Fod 2440!PoQo 1 

VES 007688 
0'1 

.., 

<D 

"'" 0 

0 

1/) 

- w ~ > 

C! 

.. ... • .. • ~ · >- ¥ ... 0 

~ 

' E ll 

~ 

" •• iL ~ •

.. • ' 

~ I 

! 0 

I I '

I 

~ 

l i ~ 

~ I 

:.& I 

I 'f 

:1: 

~ . , 

1 ... 

a 

i 

I ' 

8 .. ,.,: 

:.l .. -

s 

0 ~ ~ w J - ~ 5I 

'4 ..... ... 

~ ~ .. 

0 

"' 

i 

·. .. 

u 

.. I w 

rr: ~ ~ 

~ :g "" ~ 
SITE PARAMETERS 

SITE PARAMETER VALUE 

Soil dry ... ~ densily 1.5 

F""'9" fraction grown on contam. soil eeten by CAme 1.0 

Gtain taction grown on contam. soil eaten by CAmE 1.0 

....... ~ ... ·~ .......... 11' ...... . ... . . ... ....... . . · - • •• -; - · · 

Qlr d rotaoe earen by CAme each day 8.8 

Ql1 ol grain eaten by CAme each dey 0.47 

Ql1 d ollage eaten by CAme each dey 2.5 

Gtaln fladion grown on contam. soil eaten by CHICKEN 1.0 

Qly ol pn eaten by CHICKEN each dey 0.2 

A"""ga annual evapolranspinltion 54.3 

Fish lpid conlent 0,07 

Fraction of CHIO<EN's diet !halls soil 0.1 u-93• 001161ant .8.2058-5 

Awrage annual lnigation 12.5 

Plant Sllface toss coefficient 18 

Frac:tlon d mereury emlsoions NOT lost to lhe globel cycle 0.48 

Fraction d lll8lt>Jry spedated into methyl meroury in prodlroe 0.22 

Frac:tion of mem.oy $pedaled lniO methyl mercutY in soU 0.02 

Foraga traction grown contam. eoll,-by MILK CATJ\.E 1.0 

Grain ftadlon grown conc.m. aoil, oalon by MILK CAmE 1.0. 

Sillge fraolion giwn contam. soil, eaten by MilK CAme 1.0 

Qlyolforage eaten byMII.K CATllE aac:h clay 13.2 

Qlyoi!J11in eaten by .MILK CATTLE each dey 3.0 

Qlyof siage &«en by MILK CATTLE each day 4.1 

A-irigtime 1 

Body woight of irlant 9.4 

ElcpoaJt)o durallon of Want to bteast n11c 1 

Prq>ortion ol ingesled d'ro>dn lhalls sloNd il fat 0.9 

PRlpotlion o1 m....,.. v.etght lhalts 184 0.3 

Fracllon of fat in breaSt milt O.D4 

Fradion of lnges10d eontao.inanllhal is abiofbed 0.9 

Hafl.llfe of cliol<in In edulto 2555 

Ingestion ralo of breast mil< 0.688 

Ylsc:osity of aft correspon<ing lo air temp. 1.81e-04 

AV8111ge aooual procipilation 99.94 

IRAP-1> View 

'SYM80L 

bd 

beei.Jl.lotage 

beef_ fi_gtHI 

beel_qp_fonoge 

beel_qp_graln 

beef_qp_silage 

c:hiel<..fi..9rain 

'c:hld<_qp_grain 

e_v 

UiJ>id 

fr:l_clliCI<en 

gas_r 

I 

"" merc_q_i:ort 

merc:rnelhyl_ag 

merc:melhyl_sc: 

millt,.fi_f<noge 

milk_fi_graln 

millt,.fi_sllage 

mlllt,.qp_fc<ago 

millt,.qp_graln 

~qp_sitage 

mlkflll...at 

rpllfat.bwjrtant 

mlllcfal_ed 

mlldal_fl 

mikfat_l2 

__ t3 

mildat_f4 

mlll<fal..}l 

ml kfal_ir _n¥11< 

rnu_a 

p 

Date: 7/2812006 

UNITS 

~rYWiday 

kg OW/dey 

kg OW/day 

kg OW/day 

orVyr 

kg OW/day 

l<grYWiday 

kg OW/dey 

yr 

kg 

yr 

PaQG 1 

Fed24407 

VES 007690 
SITE PARAMETERS Dale: 712812006 

SllE PARAMETER VALU£ SYMBOl UNITS 

Ft--of goain 9"""' on oontam. S<lOI eaton by PIGS 1.0 pol1t- ft _grain 

fraction of silage g"""' m contam. soil and ea""' by PIGS 1.0 po11t_& _silage 

Oty of gJaln ealen by PIGS each day 3.3 po11t_qp_gmin l;gDWiday 

l,t(,VVf Slti~~Qt$ C$.((::!(1 oy riU:> d"CI~• vat ..• .:. ~<; ' 'q- . ··~ -, 

Qly of soil eaten by CATTl.E 0.5 qs_beol kg/day 

Qly of soil ealan by CHICKEN 0.022 qs_chiek kg/dey 

Qly of soil eaten by DAIRY CA T11.E 0.4 qs_mlk kg/dey 

Qly ol soil oaten by PIGS 0.37 QS_por1< kg/dey 

Average annual runolf 12.5 r cmlyr 

llonslly'ol air 1.2e-3 r!lo_a glcm"3 . 

-~-ty 2.7 r!lo_s glcm"3 

lrlercep4ion fradioo- edl>le portic>l ~VEGROUNO 0.39 11' 

lrletteption fraction - odlblo portion FORAGE 0.5 fl'_ lorago 

"""""'PCian--ecible portion SLAGE ~ fl'_silage 

Anbient ..... ~ 298 K 

Tem,.,aturoc:orroctionfa- 1.026 theta 

SOil voltBnetric wa10r content 0.2 thata_s m1Jcm"3 

Long1h of planl ""P'S· 10 depos. • ABOVEGROUND 0.16 Cp Vr 

l#>glh of plant expos. to depos.- FORAGE 0.12 Cp_ forage Yr 

Ungth of pCant O!q)OS. lo dopos. • SILAGE 0.16 Cp_ llage Vr 

A"'-annual wind speed .3.9 u mls 

Dry deposition -~ 0.5 vrJv cm/s 

Dry deposition velocity lor rnorwry 2.9 vdv_hg 

Whdvolocity 4.55 w -· nVs 

Yieldlston<lno crop biomass ·edible portion AIIOVEGROUNO 2.24 yp l;g DWfmA2 

Yllkllslanding crop biom ... - Odibte portion FORAGE 0.24 yp_~ kg0W/m'2 

Yl!ldlslandiog crop biomasS· edible portion SILAGE 0 .8 yp_sioge kg0W/m"2 

Sal tniJdn9 ...... del)lh 2.0 z em 

• • • • ·~ 0 0 -·· · H " · · - · · 

f ed 24fo'glle 2 

VES 007691 
I .. EXPOSURE SCENARIO PARAMETERS Date: 7/2812008 

R.ECEP.,.OR RC'cr.>otor UT',' X 7~5 .:o· 00 JT',', Y 4 Ll& 1°7 0 

ti' td a.: fW ..,: ~ R• 5icknt Adult --..child Fan;ner Adutt fannwet.lkl Fisher Adult Flsber Ctolld 

•• No No No No Yes Yes 

DfSCRIPTIOII ij td a.: ftP .. ... ._.ITS 

Awraghg-fo<~ 70 70 70 70 70 70 'I' 

A....-ag<>g lime 1o< noncan:Otogem 30 6 40 s 30 6 'I' 

Co>sump1lon rate of BEEF . 0.0 0.0 0.00122 0.00075 0.0 0.0 ~ayf-W 

Body.....,.. 70 16 70 15 70 15 ~ 

~;..eoCPOlURY o.o 0.0 · O.OQ066 0.00045 0.0 0.0 yFW. 

~-of ABOIIEGROONO PRODUCE· 0.00032 0.00077 0.00047 0.00113 0.00032 o.ooon ~yOW 

Consurr¢<1n- ol BEI.OWGROUND I'ROOUCE 0.00014 0.00023 0.00017 0.0002.8 OJX)()14 0.00023 l<gll<g-day DW 

Coo:surnption ra18 of c:M11HKING WAT'Efl u 0 .67 1.4 0,67 1.4 0.67 IJclay 

~role of PROTECTED ABOVEGROUND P 0.000&1 0.0015 O.ll0064 0.00157 0.000&1 0..00150 ·~ow 

~-oiSOtl OJl001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 l<glcl 

El<oosure<Uation 30 6 40 6 30 6 'I' 

EXI»SUfe frequency 350 350 360 350 350 350 doylyr 

~-otEGGS o.o o.o 0.00015 0.000$<1 o.o ILO ~FW 

FftiCfion of ooooratnn.etecl ABO\IEGAOUNO PROOOCE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

Froellon of-ld ORINI<ING WATER 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

Frac:fion eontamin01IOd SCML 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 . 1.0 1.0 

Coroumllion- of FISH 0.0 ILO 0.0 0.0 0.00125 o.oooee ~FW 

Fradion ol..,__ FISH 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

_,.,.~ . ..- 30 6 40 6 30 6 ., 

..-... ~-- 350 . 3SO 350 350 350 350 tlw{lyf 

lnl\elatioo eq;JOSUJe time 24 24 24 24 24 24 twlday 

,_of.,.,..._ BEEF 1 1 

Frodlonot--POUllRY 1 1 

Fnodbn oi-EGGS 1 1 

-of--l.tiLK .1 1 1 

Fnlolonof_......,.PORK 1 1 1 

lntlefAttion rete 0.83 0.30 0,63 0.30 0,63 1).30 

Coosi...,OOO- oiMII.K 0.0 0.0 0.01367 0.02266 0.0 ·o.o · -~FW 

Conoompdon r,oleofPORK . 0.0 0.0 0.00055 0.00042 0,0 0 .0 kg<l<v-doy FW Tlme-.. lh8 t>e(jlnrlng ol""""""""" 0 0 0 0 0 0 'I' 

l.ongl1 ol~- 30 '6 40 6 30 6 ., 

. ·-···-·--.. ·~ ~· -- .... ~ .. -···· · ......... -......... ,,._,_ -- ---~ ---

.-... _. ____ IRAP-b View Page l 

F«<24409 

VES 007692 
. U~t ,Y'f .J-.... 2-'lS~Ob < 

. ' 

OAO_HUIIIIIEII OOI'C_NAMI: ponm __ pelllm_T_m pa111r11_Y_p peram_$ parani_tt param_D_I 

1746.01-6 TetraCOO, 2,3,7,8- 321.98 578.7 1.97E·12 1.93E·S . 3.29E·5 0 .104 

18540·29-9 Chromllm, hexavalent 51.996 2173' 0 0 0 0.13638720$ 50798 

22967·92-6 Methyl mercury 216 . 0 0 0 4.1E·7 0.05277777i 177776 

7439-92·1 Lead 207.2 600.5 0 0 0 0.05426174{ 500396 

7440-38·2 Alsenio 74.92 0 0 0 0 0.10691064< 62165 

7440-41·7 Beryllium 9.012 1560.1 0 0 0 0.43873890:i 65391 

7440-43-9 Cactnkln 112.41 S94.i 0 0 0 0.06157372t 903543 

7487-94-7 Mercurio chlorkle 271.52 550.1 0.00012 . 69000 7.1E·10 0.04531260; 588587 

Fed 244 10 

VES 007693 
Plriii!LDW pnm.Jt.ow PII'II!Lil.oc 

5.6e-6 8309573 • .wl801113 3890-451.45 

1 .579220322272311E-5 0 0 

6 .11111111111111E-6 0 o 

6.28293905105722E·5 0 0 

'1.2379150Z741777E·5 0 . 0 

5.01!01341872862412E•5 0 0 

· 9 .445;37885677787E-6 0 0 

5 .2.4672293418364E.S 0.8095388972.40159 0 

pari!ILI(d....l l181W1l.J(d....sw P81'111LKCI_bl 

389041.51 

19 

7000 

900 

29 

790 

75 

58000 

291783.86 

19 

100000 

900 

29 

790 

75 

100000 

155618.06 

19 

3000 

900 

29 

790 

75 

50000 

P111111L·· .ltl 

0.03 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

.. 

. ' 

l)llnlm_l_v. l)llrlnUICF 

0.664 39999 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0.85 0 

Fed 2••11 

VES 007694 
.... ... 1l 

. .1 .3, 8t ~ "' . ::! 

e~u~~:~;li!~ looooCDo.~o 

& !, 

~ 

~~o~oooo~ 

r 

f. 

1i, 

Uoooooo~ 

I() 

~ ..... 

g 

Ill 

w 

> 
PlriiTL~blef pnm_~ pnll\JICf_egg 

0.0261212286618147 0.031620434895881 0.05982 

0.0055 0 0 

·0.00078 5.07E~ 0.003575 

o.o003 ·o o ~~ 0 0 

0.001 0 0 

0.00012 0.000191489381702123 0.0025 

0.00522 3.393E·5 0.023925 

peiWILI>Cr_"*ken 

3.32 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

ptQIILII(;f - ""' 3A<OO 

3 

0 

.· 

N' I'-h 

0 

0 

68000()[ 

0 . 0.09 ' 

2.00E1 0 

6.20E1 0 

2.51£! 0 

0 0 

. ' 

fMr-wT'!- e8AII' - "•h 

0.09 

0 

. 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Fed 2••13 

VES 007696 
.· ' 

r--n-.ltt"D · pttntrft._O"'-o.t p-.m_fltfO ,.,-,._w.. .. tton_ urt panprnJnhoiatlon_cef Ch...,lo<oUypo Cha •'-L-I>typ. 

1E-9 150000 0 0 150000 0 0 

3.00E-3 0 1AOE-4 0.012 4.20E1 I Metr 

0.0001 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 I Met 

0.0003 1.5 3E-6 0.0043 15 I Mall 

0.002 0 2E-5 0.0024 8.4 I lo4e!l 

0 o. 2E-6 0.0018 6.3 I Mot. 

0.0003 0 0.00105 0 0 I OM 1111 

Ftd24414 

VES 007697 
Param..br_grain · Param..lll..-oo . Pai'II!\..JM_CIIIellen ParamJMJiallatufd 

0.00455 0.0109984120681325 0.0192472211192319 0 

0.0075 0 0 . 0.005 

0 O.OOG575 0.003575 0.0001 

0.045 o o o· 4.00e.()3 0 0 0.0003 

0.01 0 0 0.00571428571428571 

6.20&-02 0.0025 0.10625 0.001 

0 0.023925 0.023925 0.0003 

Pln1111,..18f 

f 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

· 0 

. ~ ·' 

fed' 244 15 ·

VES 007698 
\ 

t>RUT 

Revised April 15, 1994 

JII!IOJWfD!!K 

SUBJllCT: IJoplutentation of Exposure AssesSlllotnt Guidance for RCRA 

Hazardous waste Coabustion Facilities 

FROM: Michael H. Shapiro, Director 

Office of Solid Waste (Mail Code 5301) 

TO: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-X 

This llemorandwn translllits guidance and recommendations on how 

to i11plement the· Agency •s guidance on conducting indirect el(p<)eure 

assessments in determining pe.mit conditions for RCRA hazardous 

waste combustion facilities. The pri11ary Agency documents on this 

subject are the 1990 ORO report "Methodology for Assessing Health 

Risks Associated · with Indirect Exposure to Coll.bustor Ellissions• 

and the 199j Draft Addendllll to that t·eport. 

While the Ag•ncy • a Draft Addendum to the Indirect Exposure 

Document describes the general procadures in conducting indirect 

exposure assessm.nts and provides acme level of detail on parameter 

aasUIIIptions and other s pecific factors, there are a n~r of 

additional i ssues which need to be dealt with in the context of 

specific programs. The attachment to this lleJiorandwa atu.pts to 

address those issues in the c ontaxt of the RCRA proqru. The 

issues are d i scussed under the following categories: 

Who Performs the Risk Assess-nt 

hissions Issues 

Risk Characterization Iasues 

Risk Management Iaaues 

It is important that thb uterial be used in conjunction with 

the Draft AddendWI and the Indirect Exposure DocuJO.a.nt, since its 

intention is to suppleJOant those docuaents. For ex .. ple, 

r eferences to documents mentioned in tb.is memorandUlll are qenarall.y 

provided in the Draft ACidendum. 

Fed 24416 

VES 007699