### has been proYen to be reliable for measuri n g actual emiss i ons of HAP metals from a hazardous waste combustor such as Veolia: 6. USEPA did not identify any hazardous waste combustors in the Statement ofBasis t hat are similar to V eolia ' s incineration units, either operationally or with regard to t he types ofwastes that are incinerated . Veolia is a c o

mmercial hazardous wa s te incinerator. V

eolia bums a h eteroge nous feeds t ream 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 D efense (co llec t ively "Sole Source Incinerators") all have very few clients and · the clients have, fo r the most part., homogenous feedstrearns. 

### Due to the variety of wastes that Veolia acc e pts , the metals conten t in Veolia ' s feedstreams will likely vary considerably compared to these Sole Source Inc i nerat ors. Thi s s i gni fican t variance in 

### met als content woul d likely affect the ability of multi-metals CBMS to produce valid data over an extend e d period. Additionally , due to the d esign and operation of Veolia's air pollution control s ystems, the moisture content of stack gas from Veolia's i ncinerators is considerably higher than most incinerato rs. The concentration of moisture in the stack gas from Veolia ' s incine rato rs will likely have a nega t ive impact upon t he operation of multi-metals CEMS and their ability to produce vali d data. To my knowledge , multi
- m e tal s CEMS have not been operated on incinera to rs with moisture concentrat i ons similar to those p resented by the stack gas from the incinerat ors at Veolia. Given these facts, multi-metals CE MS technology has

· not been demons trated to be reliab le-and has no t been proven to be reliabl e- for measuring actual emissions of HAP metals from hazardous was t e combustors such as Veolia. 3

VES 007600

### 7. I n addition, b ased on i nformation I have received, Ev onik no longer uses a multi-metals CBMS on the 

### incinerator at the Tippecanoe facility . The Evonik multi-metals CEMS is no longer in operd t i on for func t ional and economic . reasons . 8 . Further, the Statement ofBasis sets forth that "the U .S. Department of Defense has purchased three Xact units for use at anny munitions incinerators . • Statement ofBasis 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 An n y Depot ("TEAD") in Tooele Count y, Utah, may have a d

ditional infonnatio n on how the Xact units have been utilized . 9 . I contacted Mr. Wells on January 29,2013 . Mr . Wells related that TEAD h ad two Xact multi-metals CEMS with one installed on each of the two inci n erators a t TEAD. Of the two incinerators, one is a unit used for testing and 

### the other is 

### used for production. The unit used for testin g only o pera tes 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, Jo e Peterson, who is i nvolved In t h

e operation/monito ring of the production incinerator at 

### TEAD. Mr. Peterson recall e d th at the Xact multi-metals CEMS was installed · and calibrated when it 

### was acquired (in approximately 2007) and that t esting of the production furn ace was performed shortly thereafter that aUowed comparison of measurements performed by the multi-metals CEMS to an EPA re fe . rence method. He a l

so remembered that 

### the Xact multi-metals CEMS was operated for about 15 to 20 days

· before it failed mechanically : Mr. Peterson said that the X act multi -metals C EMS has not operated since it failed. Based my' phone conversations witb both Mr . Wells and Mr.

4



## ves oo1so1

### Peterson, i t i s apparent that, while both of t he Xact multi-metal s CEMS are still physically present a t TEAD, they 

### are not being used and 

### are n ot operational. I 0 . 

### The third Xact multi-metals CEMS referenced in footnote 31 

### o f the Sta t ement of Basis has not been l ocated based upo n 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 d i sposing of munitions, is in 

### use. I n 

### any case, munitions incinerators are not commercial hazardous waste incinerators like V eolia . Munitions incinera t ors are more likely to 

### have a homogenou s feed; therefore a multi-metals CEMS employed on a munitions incinerator would likely not face the same cha ll enges as presented by 

### the high temperature and high mo i s ture 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

V ES 00 7 602Expert is e ._, . Project Man agement ./ Air R egula t ory Com pl i ance (Federal an d Sta te, RCRA. T SCA . and HWC MAC T) ./ Source Emissions T e sti11g: U.S. EPA 

### 40: CFR P01t 60 and 75, SW-846 , and AST M Samp l ing Met hod s ./ Tri al B um Plans , C omprehen si ve Performance Test (CPT) . Pl ans, Confinnatory ; Performance T est · '\·. (CfPD Pl an • and ·• Qua l ity Assurance Project Pl ans .. ./ Trial Bum, 

# cJY'r: . CfPT RepQrting ./ HWCMACT Educali o n

### tl**~~; i)]**  BS, Chemistry, 

### S· Texas State U ni. ve,siiY : (now Texas 

### Sta!e .c;·;;;::'·{<l U

n

iversity), · T ra in i ng Hazard ou s

perso nnel at TOC DF . 

### Michael Fuchs l!RS Project Manager Qualificat i ons Mr. M i chael Fuchs is a Pr i ncipal P rojec t Manager i n the M easu re ment s Oo·oup i n UR S' Austin office, and has over 35 yea rs of exper i ence doing environme ntal consult ing. Ove r the past25+ years . he has focused on the perm itt i ng of hazardous waste combustion un i t s i n clud ing RCRA and TSCA incinerato r s. RCRA BIF (Boiler and Indu stria l furnace) units, an d units subject to tht Nttl ional Em is sion Standard s for Haz ardo us Air Pol/uttmts . from Hazardous Waste Combus / ors (i.e ., the 

### HWC MACY) . Mr. Fuchs b egan hi s career perf orm i ng sourc e tes ti ng an d now manages pro j ects fo r both i ndus b · i a

l a n d govenun ent c l i en t s while continu in g t o pr ovide hands
-on participat io n. Mr. Fuch s p ri ma r i ly manages pro jects related t o the t rea tmen t of hazardous was te (pri m a ri ly com bustion); emiss i ons meas ureme n ts i nc l u

d in g sou r ce tes t ing; and reg ulat ory compliance (R CRA, TSCA, and I-IWC MACT) for hazard ous waste combus t i o n fac il i ties. He actively pa r tici p a

te s i 11 those pr ojec t s pr

eparing test plans a nd QAP Ps ; su p e r

vising uial bums, CPTs. an d re l at ed pro jec t s; and prepa ri ng rep o o

ts a nd regu latory fi l ings. M r. fuch s manages the t ri a l burns. CPTs, and rela te d projects an d t he de v e l

o pment, i nstallat i on. a nd annua l RAT As of the mercu o )' moni t ori ng syste m at TOCDF. Simil a r Work Experience**~** Pro j t(: t Man ager , TOCDF Alternative Monitoring Request (AMR) Merc ury Monit o o ·ing or the M P F , 2006, T ooele, UT. An AMR was devel oped an d po· epared f o r the MPf at T OCDF ( an inc in erator) t o provide HWC MACT c ompl i a

nce data fo r the mercury standard. Th e AM R is based on Appendix K . U

RS deve l o p

ed the S11m pl i n

g an d an:llytica l procedures, proouo'fd all systems f or sampling and ana l ys is , tm nsferred the sam pl i ng lmd analys is fll\ >c edu o"s t o TOCD F , and tr a in ed perwnnel a t TOCDF. SOPs we re p repared fo r i nt

egral procedu re s.**~** P r o j ec t Manager, T O CDF RATA or thcAM R Mercury Monitoring Sys tem, Ann u ally 2 006 . 20 1 2, T o oele, UT . A RATA (Re l a

ti ve Ac curacy 'fe st A

udi t) ofthe AMR mer cury com pl i a n

ce moni t or

i ng system o f the MPF ( I.e .. an inc ine rat or at TOCDF) i s perfom 1 ed an nually i n ac cor danc e wit h EPA Perfonnance**Specific>~ ion**  ( PS) 12A. n1 e RA T A was in it i ttlly perfonned i n 2006 using E PA Met h

od 29 a s the refer ence method. S i nce 2006, the r e f

erence method u sed in t he RAT As ha s been EPA Method 306 with Ohio Lumex on si t

e analys is.**~** P r o

j ec t Ma nager, TO CDF Mercury P r ocess Mo ni torin g for Mercury from t he MPF . 2006 , Tooele, UT. Mercury Pro cess M o ni tori ng (MPM) of the M P

F was porfonned using an adaptllt i on o f Appendix K wi th on s it e an alys is us i ng an Oh io Lumcx ana ly zer. URS develo ped the s ampling and anai)1 i cal pr ocedures. tran sferred the sampli n g and an a l ys is pr ocedures to TOCDF. a nd tr ain o d**~** P roj e<:t Ma nag er , TOC DF P repa r atio n of AMR and M P M Sorben t Traps, 2006,2007,2008,2009 Too ele, UT. URS prepa res the AMR (3·bed, spiked) and M PM (2-bed , unsp ik ed

) so r ben t traps for TOCD F. n 1 e AMR and MPM sor b

ent trap s are s hipp ed to TOCDF wetkly .**~** P ro j c d Manag e o· , TO C DF Q u arterly Calibr a ti o n of Appendix K Meter Boxes, 2006 , 2007,2 008 ,2 009 T ooe l e, UT. URS perfoomed the quao terl y c a librati ons of the Ap pend ix K meter boxes a s requ ired by Append ix K .

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

### VES 007603**~** Proj ect Manag e r , Veo lia HWC M A

Cf CPT, 2 006 , 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 d emonstrated in the initial perfonnance of the CPT . T he proprietary 

### process was optimized, inc l uding testing. T esting for mercury during the optimization phase 

### was performed using Appendix K with on s ite ana l ysis using 

### an Ohio Lumex mercury anal yzer. The 

### men:wy slandard 

### was successfully demonstrated during the o ptimization tests (using Appendix K) and 

### the subsequent CPT (u sing EPA M ethod 29). · • Pro ject Manager, EG&G , TOCDF MPF and LIC2 Mustard ATBs , January 2007, T ooel e, UT. The TOCDF Metal Parts Furnace (MPF ) exhaust gas 

### was simultjlneously sampled by U.S. EP A Method 5/SW-8 4 6 Method 0050; U . S . EPA Method 29; SW-846 MediOd 0023A; SW-846 Met hod 00 10 for Semivolatiles; S\V-8'46 Method 001 O f o r Total Organic Emissi on s (GRAV/TCO); SW-8 4 6 Method 0040; SW-846 Method 0031; and CEM S for 

### CO, NO,. SO, , and THC. The same testing was performed on the Liquid Inc i nerator (LIC2) exhaust gas following th

e com pletion ofthe MPF A TB. Mr : Fuchs served as the P roject Manager fo r these trial bums and provi ded onsit

e supervision ofthe performance ofthe trial bums . Mr. Fuchs was respon sible for provid ing daily samp l ing data and a pdates for the performance ofthe trial burns. He also managed and participated in the preparation ofthe Sam pl ing and Anal )1ical Reports and QA/QC Reports for the MPF and 

### LIC2 Mustard ATBs . • Pro ject Manager, EG&G, TOCD F MPF Seco ndary Was te Demonstration Tes t (SWDT), March 2006 , T OOt l e, 

# ur. The TOCDF MPF exhaust was**im ultaneot~sly**  sampled by U.S. EPA Method 5/SW-846 M ethod 0050; U.S. EP A Method 29; SW-846 Method 0023A; SW-846 M ethod 0010 for senuvolatiles; SW-846 M ethod 00 1 0 for'fo tal Organic Emissions; SW
- 8

46 Method 0040; SW-846 Method 0031; and CEMS for C0 2 , NO ,., SO, , and THC. M r. Fuchs served as the Project Manager f or the SWOT and provided on-site Sllj)«Vision of the perfurmance ofthe t est : M r. Fuchs 

### was re spons i b l e for providing daily sampling data and updates for the performance ofthe te st. He also managed and participated in the preparation o f the Samp ling and Analytical Reports and 

### QAIQC Reports for the SWOT. • Project Man ager, VeoUa E o v iroomenta l Servic., CPT , RCR<\ Periodic T est ing , and TSCA Risk Burn , April
-J u l y 2006, Port Arthur , TX. Mr . Fuchs served 

### aS the Proj ect Manager for the tests - an ini tial test, minibU:nlS, a nd a fmal test During the April2006 CPT for the Interim Standards of the HWC MACT, RCRA Periodic Tesm g, aod TSCA risk bum , the incinerator exhaust was s imultaneousl y sampled by U. S . E P A 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 f or volat ile organics, SW-846 Method 0061 f o r Cr(VJ), and CEMS for NO, and"THC . Mr. Fuc hs worked closely with Veolia, and was the primary author of

### the test plan and 

### QAP P . Mr. Fuchs prov i ded on -site supervision ofthe performance ofthe tests . H e managed and participated in the preparation ofthe final reports and 

### preparation of the Notific a tion ofCompl.iance.**~** Project Manager, E a erSol Technologies , Plasma E nergy Pyr o l ysis System (PEPS) T es tln&:, Aueust 2006 , S p ri n gfield, VA. Managed the project fnvolving testing the PEPS to determine its suitability for processing sec<111dary waste from chemical demilitarization s ites . The PEPS exhaust w as si multaneou s ly sampled by U .S. EPA Method 5/S\V-846 M ethod 0050, U . S . EP.:\ Method 29, SW-846 Method 0010, and SW- 84 6 Method 0031**~** On -s ite . Proj ed Manager/Test Supervisor, Waste Control Specialists, Octo ber 2004, Andrews, TIC Served as On · Sit e Project Manager and Test Supervisor for evalu a ti on o f the Geome lt process operated by Waste Control Spec ialists was performed by simultaneously sampling the exhaust by U.S. EPA Method 5/26A ; U.S . EPA Met hod 2 9; CARB Method 428 for dioxins/furans and PCBs; SW
- 846 Method 00 10 for s em iv olatile organics; SW-846 Meihod 0030 for · volatile organics; and CEMS for 0 2 , CO,, CO, NO., SO,, and THC . Mr. Fuch s also managed and participated in the preparation ofthe 

### report.**~ P~ect**  Manager, EG&G, TOCDF LIC2 VX ATB , February 20(!4 , Tooele, UT . The TOCD F LIC2 exhaust was s i mu l taneous l y sampled by U.S . EPA MediOd 5/SW-846 Method 0050; U.S. EPA Method 29; SW-846 Melhod 0023A; SW-846 Method 00 1 0 for s emivol atile organics; SW

### -846 Method 00 10 for Total Organic Em issions; SW-846 Met hod 0040; SW-8 46 Method 0031 for volatile organi cs; an d CBMS for CO; , NO .. SO,, and THC. 

### Mr. Fuchs served as dw Project Manage.r for this trial bum and provided o n- s ite supervision ofth!' peOOirnance ofthe trial burn . 

### Mr . Fuchs was res pon sib l e for providing daily sampling data and update s for the penonnance of

### the trial burns . He m anaged and participated in the preparation o f the Sampling and Analytical R

eport for the 

### LIC2 VX A TB.

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

# URS Page l 

### VES 007604**~** Project Manager, 

### Veo lia Env ironmental**Serv c~,**  Confirmatory Performance 

### Te s t, 2014 Sa uget, 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 . 

### F

uchs worl<ed closely 

### with Veolia, and '"as 

### the primary author ofthe test plan and QAPP, and 

### he managed and partici pated in the preparation ofthe fmal reports and preparation ofthe 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 C PT for the Final Rep lacement 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 M ethod 29 , SW-846 Method 0023A fordioxinslfurans , SW-84 6 Metbod 0061 for Cr(VI), and CEMS for NO, and 

### THC. 

### Mr . Fuchs worl<ed close l y with Veolia , and was the primary author ofthe test 

### plan and QAPP . Mr. Fuchs provided on - site supervision ofthe performance ofthe tests . He managed and participated in the preparation ofthe fmal report s and preparatiou ofthe Notification of Compliance.



# URS Page3 

### VES 007605

# VES 007606 . pdf\'eo li a Comments on tbc Sta te m ent o( Bas i. s Reference to Prc y ious S i te-Specific Dispersion Modeling an d Risk Assessment
Tecb ni cal Eva lu atio n Devel o ped by: Delana W . Owen', Franklin Engineering Group, Inc.

US BPA Region V cites to the · May, 200 7 US EPA report titled, "Risk Screening and Risk Management Recommendations for Veo lia ES Teclmical Solutions, L.L.C., Sauget, Illinois", attached hereto as Attachment I, and t he Addend um 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 Regio n 

### 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 Teclmica l Sol utions, L.L.C. ("Veolia") hazardous waste incineration facility located in Sauget, Illinois. The Report includes calculations based on assumed theoretical, rather than actual , sam pling and analysis of water and fish from FranJ.<: Holten State Park and the hypothetical consump t ion of fish by res idents i n the area U S 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 proces s ofc9nducting lhe assessment. Due to enurs, unsubstantiated as sumptions and the failure of US EPA to resolv e conflicting information, the Report is technically inaccurate for the Sauget facility . The Report only addresses facility risk and hazard superficially, rather than deriving a conc lusion from a fuir evaluation of reasonable assumpti ons 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 readi l y 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) pro vi de s the fo llowing advice to pennittees, "We encourage you to use existing and

1 P

leaso see curriculum vilae Anachmenl 9. I



### VES 007606

### site
- specific i nfonnation throughout tbe risk assessment pr ocess i n order to properl y eva luate acmal regu l ate d operations for any p arti cu l a

r com bustor . We genera lly recommen d conservative default assnm pt io ns only when th ey wi ll pr ovi de confidence th a t ensui ng permi t lim i ts will behea lt

h prot ective . » ... " lltr oughout the HHRAP we ot fer param eter values for you to con s ider . These valu es are based on a number o f el emen ts, s uch as the best science a vai l ab l e and profes sional j udgment . Since this is a nation a l l eve l gui dance , the recommended va l ues typ i ca lly reflect nati onal a verage conditions . The v a lues 

### w ill b e m ore a ppr opriate fo r some sit es, and less so f or others. For exam ple , the type of waterbody near a fac ili ty (i .e. l ake, r i ver, wetland) may affecl the met hylatio n rate of mer c ury in the wate rbo dy , or t he type of fish consumed may affect percent lipid content used in the assessment. So, a value !bat i s reason a bl e fo r one facil ity may be over (or under) protective at a differ ent fac ility. " Guidanc e goes on to sta te , "You should generally make every effort to reduce limita ti ons and uncertainties · in the risk assessment process, since they can affect tbe confidence in the ris k assessment resu l t s ." US EPA Region 5 per f ormed a ris k screening using overly.;:onservative and i naccurate assumptions that were neither inve s tigated nor verifi e d f or applic a bility and 

### appropriatenes s. Veolia provided additional information to US 

### EPA so that si te -specific values could be uti lized in the eva lu ation of risk an d hazara , but US EPA Region 

### 5 refused to consider the information provided and chose 

### to rely on de fault 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 Ho lten Lakes are not a clo sed system. The government admits in a privat e e-mail whi ch Veolia makes a part of tbe public record through 1ltis affidavit that Frank Holten L akes are connected via drai nag e canals to 

### the Mississ i ppi R iver and to each other. These connections allow a constant exchange of fish between the River and lakes. The purpo se o f the Report is to evaluate whether Veoli a ' s . emissions are potentially adversely affecting the fi sh and 

### humans consuming the fish from Frank Holten Lakes, an d**ye~** 

### i t fai ls to recognize or account for whether the fish being studied spent any substantial time i n the 

### lakes. 2. The Report assumes that all fish in 

### the Frank H olten Lakes are subjecied to potential contaminants from V eolia emissions during their entire lif e cyc le. [o fact, US EPA Region 

### 5 is aware or should he aware that channel catfish and 

### other fish likel y to be the focus of the pub li c's fishing efforts are routinely stocked in Frank Holten Lakes a t ca

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

### after stocking. 3. The Report specifies a de f ault trophic level for fish 

### caught from the Frank Holten Lakes of 4.0 , which is the hi ghest and most conservative value !bat is recommended for risk 2

VES 007607assessment. In o p ri vate e - mai l which Veol i a makes a part of the pub lic rec o rd through 

### tltis**affidav ~**  Illinois EPA bas prov i ded**~forma ion**  tl 1 at a more**~ppropriate** tro phic level for the Frank Ho lten La kes is 3.5. The actual site-spec i fic u-ophic level of fi s h harves t ed may be lower than ei ther of these values . 4 . The Report makes rontradictory assumption s that background concentrations o f mercury in Frank H olten Lakes are both z.ero and high enough to be contr i butory to increased concentrat i ons overall. Both assumptions crumot ex i st simultaneously . 5 . T he Report i naccura te ly assumes h igh 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 a lleg ed l y con s ume fish from the Frank Holten Lakes on a daily basis. The Report assmne s dlis level o f cons ump ti on without attempting to v erify it in a scientific fashion and w i thout considering th e ovcrwhelnling evidence to ihe contrary . Harvesting of fis h 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 ne v e r been handl ed by Veolia 's Sauget, Illinois facility. Therefore, the presence of PCBs in the fish which caused the government to post the consumption l inlitations are counter indicative of subsiste nce level consumption an d independent o f Veo l ia . Further , the l akes do not contain a sustainable fish popul ation that would support subsistence consumption . The Report fails t o consider these facts in reaching its c onclusions and fails to c onsider Frank l in Engineering's objections to the inaccurate consumption rates (see b elow). Veo lia contrac t ed Franklin Engineering Group, In c. ( Franklin ) to perform an independent Human Health Ri sk S creening Ass es s men t u sing the same regulatory guidance and methodology as the US EPA Reg ion 5 Risk Screeni ng, but also using available site-specific information reiJil ed to the issues discussed previ ous l y . Franklin's H um an Health Risk Screening Assessmen t demonstrated that Veolia operations did not pose s.ignificant health effects at the curren t re gulatory l imits for the b82al:dous waste incinera t or. The Human Health Ris k Assessment Report (Fina l 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 informatio n and reasonable assumptions. The R eport failed in this regard . Risk assessments, such as that conducted by Veotia, are more compelling than risk screeni ngs because they utilize site-specific information to more cJosely approximate heal th i mpacts. Each of the five issues presented are d iscussed in depth 

### in the following sections. Attachments are provided to substantiate the iilformation provided and to document communication w i th both US EPA Region 5 and IL EPA.
3



### VES 007608

### 1 . The Reo ort . puroo r ts to eva l uate water a n d fi s h 

### t hat m ove frecl v bet ween 

### th e Mi ss i ss ippi Ri ver a nd the Frank H o l ten La k es w i tbo ut attemp lill " to a cw unt f or tb i s variable. Mr. Dan S tephe nson of Illinoi s Dep artment of Natural Resource s stated in an Octobe r 20 II email (provi ded as Attachment 7) 

### th a t 

### "the l a

kes a t Frdnk 

### Ho lton a re connec t ed via ditches to t he M i ss iss i ppi Ri ver all owin g 

# a c o ns t ant exchange o f multiple**~pecies** 

### be t ween l a k

e a nd river . This is not a 

### s t atic system. There could be a cla i m that the 

### !ish te sted originally came from the 

### riv er and p i ck up the met h yl mercury elsewhere.» Certainly , 

### there is 

### carryover of 

### fish spec ies and 

### any poll utants 

### be t ween the l ake s themselves and between the lakes and water bodi es t hat a re connected t o the l a

kes. The INHS Post-Restoration Monit oring Report (pro v ided as 

### Attachment 6) 

### documented flow between the lakes and between the lakes and other water sources. "For La k es I and 2, the types . of unaccounta ble flow s are limited. Interlake transf ers can be ei th e r in fl ows from Lake 3 

### or o utflows to Lake 3 . 

### These flow rates, wh ic h are gene rally l ow d ue to the limited interconnec ting channel capacity, can 

### be s i gnificant over lo ng periods of time . A one-directional flow of as little 

### as I 

### cub i c f oo t per second (cfs) can resu l t i

n a 

### monthly inflow o f more than 

### 50 acre-feet." "In 

### addition to the interlake**~ransfers** 

### and ground
-water flows discussed for Lakes 

### 1 an d 

### 2, there are 

### rep l acement intlows from 

### Harding Ditch to restore evaporation anc;l infil tratio n lo s se s. These replacement flow s 

### are not avai l ab l e to the upper lakes fo llo w ing t hei r 

### aununer drop in l evel: T he colUlection of Lake 3 

### to Harding Ditch is continuous, and 

### these " s l o w" l os ses can be made up ." 

### ' Like Manag ement S tarns 

### Reports also document 

### the lrans fe r of fish specie s from connecting wat er bodies, as stated in the Apri l 3, 2003 report (Attachment 8) "The lake a l so fl oods thro ugh ditches coonected to 

### the Mississipp i River. 

### This connec ti on introduc es many undesirable species including common carp, buf f a

l o, grass carp , b ighead 

### carp , gizzard 

### shad, yellow 

### bass , an d bullheads. " 

### I t is clea r that any pollu!JUIIS ente ring 

### Frank Holten Lakes would be affected 

### by inflow and outflow w i th other sources , Likewise, li1e ass umption that only fish 

### that begin their 

### life c ycle in the lakes are harvested i s inaccurate . Therefore , modeling the lake s as a closed system i s inaccurate and inappropriate . 2. Tbe R eoort fa il s 

### to co n sider tbe effeet of fish stoeklng on as s llOled mercury <: o !)Ceot ratl on s ill 

### fi s h from Frank Holt e n Lakes. tbu s also Invalidating the Repo rt. B oth of th e Frank Ho l ten l akes are regularly stocked with catchable size fish from the state hatcheri es. Main Lake is generaUy sto c k ed with an annual total of over I 0,000 call:ha ble size
4



### VES 007609· fish, i:ncluding Rainbow T rout, Channel Catfish, and Largemouth Bass . Lake #3 i s also stocked witll th ou sands of catchable s ize fish annua ll y, i ncluding Channel Catfish and Largemouth Bass . 1'hese species of t i s h · ·epresent three of the five most prevalent species or fish harv ested in the State of Illinois. Attaclunenr 5 presents fish stocking records from 2006 through 20 II provided by 

### Mr. Fred Cronin, Dlinois DNR · F isheries Biol ogist. 'Th e Report d i d not consider the effect of such stocking . Fish stocked later in their development o r at catchab le size are less affected b y lake contaminants since the y are not exposed to contaminants during thei r entire life cycle , mo st notably, during earlier Stages when i ncreased uptake of contaminants is ac - complished . Consequently, i ncremental risk to fishers is reduced due to the prac ti ce ofannual stocldng of these lakes . 3. The Report us e<! a t rophi c l evel that was too bigh a nd n o t s upported b y the ava ilabl e eviden ce. thus o' •e rstating assume d m et·cury uptake in fish. Risk Assessment modeling estimates exposwe to mercury through fish conswnption by calculating the degree a t which mercury concentrates i n the 

### fatty tissues of fish when exposed to the pollutant in the water colunm. A bioaccumu lation factor (BAF) is specified by guidance that i s defined as the ratio of methylmercury concentration in 

### fish Oesh divided by the concentration of d i ssolved methylmercury in the water column. B ioaccumu.lation factors are typically related t o trophic level with trophic level 4 being s pecified as the default val ue in the absence of site
specific infonnarion. This highest trophic level corresponds to a higher BAF, since larger species are assumed to have been exposed to any potential contamination for lo nger and also to be h i gher level food chain repre sentatives. Based on review ofavailable 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 informat i on indicates that the lakes at Frank Ho lten State Park contain fish at a trophic level 4."
'Meanwhile, Mr. Ted Dragovich from IEPA stated in hi s August 1 5, 2011 email (Attac lunent 4) . that "USEPA adjusted the trophic level down from 4 to 3.5 for the last risk assessment" . F i shing reports supplied by 

### Mr. Fred Cronin from 2001
- 2004 indicate 

### that largemouth bass, which are the only Trophic Lev e l 4 fis h document ed at Frank Holten Lakes are largely present d ue to stocking practices. The Lake Management Starus Report from 2003 (Attachmen t 8) states "Maintaining a decent spo n fishery in thi s 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 007610lake also floods throug h ditches conneeted t o the Mississippi River . This connection introduces many unde s irab le species including co mmon carp , buffa l o, grass carp, bighead carp, gizzard shad, yellow bass, and bul lheads . Thes e species compete directly and indirectl y for the availalile space 

### and resources of the l ake ... . H owever th e continued stocking of rainbow tro ut, channel catf i sh, and largemouth bass can pro vide s ome quality an gli ng opportuni ties at th is lake. " Due to the stocking practice s, trophic l eve l 3.5 and 4 . 0 are likely both inappropriate t o represent contamina te d fish th at are routinel y caught from the Frank Holten Lakes, In any case, the Report's fa ilure to address or even mention d1e eft"ect o f stocking on the trophic levels of the fish demonstrates the Report's fa ilure to accw-ately repre sent and portray tl1e conditions i n the l akes and t11e anticipated mercury l evels, 

### if any, in the fish. 4. T h e Report arbitrarily ass umes 

### twO re n diti ons t h at can n ot exist s imultaneously
- both backgro und concentrations of m wcury a nd no mercury in Fran k H olten L3kes. The Report a:;swned both background levels of mercury and no background levels ofmercury in the water column . Each condition is exclusive of the other
- they cannot botil be simul!aneous ly 

### true. One of the 8S51llllpt io ns made by US EPA Region 5 is that background level s of mercury in the Frank Holten Lakes requi r e a more stringent benchmark for comparison to risk a ssessment results because of the l ikelihood of increased background l evels. US EPA's Risk Screening states, " ... risk management decisions which follow U.S. EPA recommendations" . . . "typically consider t h e potential for cumulative emissions indirectly by : (I) assuming that other nearby sources of similar toxic met a ls cont ribute up to three times the amount of the facility . being

· evaluated; .. . " lltis conservative approximation is the basis fo r regulatory guidance such as the f o llowi ng excerpt from the Region 6 Risk Management AddendWil (EP A-R6-98-002, Jul y 1 998), which indicates that background concentrations are assumed to accoun t for a s i gnificant 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 t o a target value of 0.25. This modification e liminates the need to collect background COPC conc entration data before comp l eting the risk assessment, by assuming that COPC emissions from ba2ardous waste emiss i on units resul! in incremental increases · of existing background COPC concentration s , which are, by default, assigned an 

### HI or 

### HQ value of 0.75 . Although background COPC 

### HQ or 

### f!I val ues might not equal 0. 75, as a result of this modified t arget level, e ither the 

### HQ (for a single COPC) or the 

### HI (for multiple COPCs 

### 6

VES 007611or pathways) resu l ting from combustion unit emissions shou l d be less · th.an 0.25. A n 

### HQ or HI equal to or exceed i ng 0 .25 indi caies a p<>tenti al for no ncarc i nogen ic heal th effects. However, an HQ or HJ equa l to or exceeding 0.25, rather than necessarily indi cating that noncarcinogenic health effects can or will occur, i ndicates only that there is a potentia l fo r no ncarc i nogenic effects, based on a specific set of exposure, model, and toxicity**assumptio~s. "**  Although se«in.g a benchmark at 25% of the targe t hazard le vel is a conservative app roximati on that can be assumed i n tbe absenc e of s i te-specific data, the determination of actual background levels allows the development of more ac c urate risk assessment parameters and comparison to the mo r e appropriate benchmark. Therefore, Veolia proposed the co ll ection o f water samples from the Frank Holten Lakes to elimi nate d1e need for this overly conservative approximat ion, as well as to more closel y mod e l mercury concentrations in the lakes. In r esponse to Veolia's proposai,IEPA responded that i t 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 s i mply not evenhanded. When dley attempt to justify . reducing Veolia's emissions, the y c l aim that the lakes and fish are already burdened by mercury and dlerefore justify a stringent approach when evaluatmg Veoli a 's emissions against 

### this as sumed already burdened background. However, when Veolia proposed to actually test the lakes to v erizy mercury concentrations, the response was that the initial fish, water and sediment samples hav e no mercury. 

## s. The Report l p acc . urately assp m e£ hi g b fis b so n sum pt!on rates. There is no s cientifically valid documented evidence of subsistence fishing in the area of Sauget, Illinois or Frank Holten Lakes. Neverth e l ess, the Report utilizes a consumption rate that represents subsistence fishers 

### in the calculations performed. This unjustified assumption gross l y 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 reco rds 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 acti vity . " He indicated 

### thai fu!ure creel surveys (wlrich are interviews with anglers at targeted locations to
7



### VES 007 6 12

### gai n i n f omlatt ' on about the effon, harves t , s i ze distribut ion of fish species, etc . ) would likel y indicate nmch greater catch and release activi ty than had been present in th e past. Fur t he 1 ·, creel studi es performed at Frank Holten Lakes suppor t the d ete1m i nation t hat fishing condit i ons are poor and unl ike ly to support heavy <;onsumprio n of any species. A creel surv"ey was conducted on the l akes after a reconstruction · project performed to enhance recreational use of the area · in the early 1 990's by the INHS under Federal Aid Project F
-69
- R. Th e 1 994 report desc rib ing the project and results (Att•cluuent 7 to Ibis docwnent) stated, "For the most part, the results of the creel survey were about what woul d be expected from an urban la k

e. But exceptions we r e fo un d in angl i ng pressure and boat fi shing versus sh ore fishing . The total of 24 8 hour s/acre (brs!ac) fishing pressure measur ed is low compared to 666 hrs/ac a t Beaver Dam 

### and 850 hrs!ac a t Si lo am Springs. Further, shore fishing accoun ted for 80 percent of the fishing effort and boats accounted for only 20 percent. Nonnally, one would expec t a 60-40 split the other way. The a ng.ler using FHSP Lakes trav eled an average 4.6 m iles to fish, and the overall rating of the lake by the anglers on a scale of I · 

### 1 0 was 2.7 , indicating much dissatisfaction with the fishing . " This information and the conversations with 

### Mr . C r onin in 2005 reflect that the l akes have not been a very productive source of protein for over a decade and 

### even recreational fishing in the l akes is dissatisfying due to poor catches. The same study wen t on to say that, u 

### As an example, . largemouth bass, the main 

### predator stock ed in these lakes , were caught at only 4.8 pounds/ac, but o ne would expect the catc h rate to be about 20 pounds f ac. Further , it appears that the anglers are keeping most of what they catch, 

### as the difference between cat ch and harvest is not great. The average s i ze 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 resu lts reflect the 

### angler rating o f the lake. A nglers were catching lo w numbers of fish that , for the most part, 

### were smaller than expected or desired. This is probably d ue to lack of macrophytes, significant reduc ti on in fish habitat during the summer strat ification period, poor q u ality and quantity of benthos, overharvest, and/or possi bly because most o f the fish i ng was from the bank, limiting angl e rs to a re l ativ ely small p roportion of the lake." The Report sho u l

d not have included a consumption rate based on subsistence fishing because, based on modern evidence, su b si sten ce fishing does not take place in the area. Further, given lhe proxim ity of other large bodies of water , inc luding the M i ssissippi River and Horseshoe Lake State Park , even if there were sub sistenc e fi shers in 

### the local area - and 

### ther e is


### 8

VES 007613

### no evidence 1hot**su.cl~** 

### fishers**.~Xtf.'t** 

### in tbc- m:eu - !hey WO\J i d be llolikcl)' tO 

### ftSh sol e l

y nt fmok Hollen Stale l'rui. Th.e mos t**rca~onat>lc** 

### and like .( y se<:wtrio i s that d1 c rccrc<Uiomd 

### fisher and recrc•tional fisher chi.ld CX)l()S'Ul 'c 

### scen a rio should hu;e been used because , as tl1 e evidence dcmonsinlles, ti•e 

### Pr anl< Holten Lakes m a y 

### be lightly 

### t1s h e

d

. tor rec re a tional purposes. nleteforc, 

### t he u se of**th~ ~creational**  

### fishe r and fi<!>er child o!l<(lO.'>llre sceo. a

d o s mote closely 

### approximat e the potential for risk l:ban that of tile subsistence tisher and fisher chi l d . As Veo li a**denlOO$fl:~te<l .**  

### in il 

### dsk a.ssessment, when tlle rec reational s.cenruio is o lilizcd, no increased risk is f<Hmd. Prepar<! .d 

### B y: Sigutn.re:**(~.vfV4••A >J"-"** 

### 4~**r** :.fl..

### 1\~;lvv' 

### SWORN AND S UBSCttlB ED Befote ine this 

## tqday ofllifutcll ; 2013.**1-lotar~** PnbHc

. 

## , ' · 9 .:

. 

# . :: . 

### '
.



### VES 007 6 14R eferences Risk Screening and Risk Management R!!eommenda t jon s foe Veo li a E S fuhn ica l So!utjons. L.L.C. SaugeL !llinojs I Fonnerl v: " Onvx Envi ronment al Servi ces " ) I Document 174 I U n i ted States Environmenta l Protection Agenc y Regi o n 

### 5 1 Christopher Lambesis et. a l . 

### I May 2007 Addendum 1- B jsk Scre ening and Risk Management Recommendations fo r: Veolia ES Technical Sol utions. 

### L.L . C. Sauget. Tl!ino is
- Explanation of Mercury Speciation. D j sbersjon and Methy l ation 

### I Document 177 

### I U ni te d States Environmenta l Protection Agency Region 

### 51 Cluistopber Lambes i s et.al. I November 2007 Onyx Environmental Services 

### Rotarv Kiln and Fjx.ed Hearth Incinerators S c reening Level Human Health 

### Risk Asses sment Reoo[[ I Franklin Engineerin g Group, Inc. I Frank l in, 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 . · · Regi on 6 Risk Management Addendum Draft Human Health Rjsk Assessment Protocol for H azardous Waste Co!Ubustion Facilities. EPA-R6-98-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington , D .C. External Email correspondence fro m T ed Dragovich, !EPA / August 1 5,2011 Frank Holten Park Fish S toc king Record s. provided by Mr. Fred 

### A. Cronin, District !6 Fis heries Bio logi,;t, Granite City , IL / October201! External Email correspondence from Mr. Dan Stephenson, Illinois Department of Natural Resources I October 2011 Frank Ho l ten Sta te Park Lakes: Phase 

### lll Post-Restoration Monitoring by Raman K. Raman 

### aixl Willi am C. Bogner I Offices of Water Quality Management and Hydraulics & Rive r 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 Cr onin I April 2003

10



### VES 007615

### ATTACHMENTl Ri sk Sc r een i n g and Ri sk Ma n age m en t R eco mmendation s fo r : Veolia ES Technical Soluti ons . 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 <4** **334**


### VES 007617UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5

May 10.2007 

### V IA FEDERAL E XP RESS Mary Riegle 77 W EST J A C KSON BOULEVAR D CHIC A GO, IL 60604 · 3590

REPlY TO THE A'f'f€Nl10N**0~ :** 



### Dliooi s Environmental Prolec tion Agenc y Pennits Section . 

### 1021 Noeth Grand Avenue East #'33 Springfield, 

### Dlinois 62794-9276 

### Dear Ms. Riegle: · 

### Enclosed please find the 

### " R isk Screening nnd Risk 

### M anagement Recommendations for : Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LL.C., Saugel, 

### Dlinois," daled 

### May 2007 . P lease feel free to 

### contact me 

### a1 (312) 886-2967 if

### you have 

### any questions or concerns. Thank 

### you. Sincerely , 

# i!.-.:£-f(

Environmental 

### Scientist · (:(;;Pile

F ed 24335 

# . .

VES 007618

### 1 

# Fie«Ex . USAirbi/1 

# -=.; 8490 0 9 72 6948 ' I l!>:jnOI _} 1 ,.. ,_ ,. ___ 

## !**~/4/1>'1** 

## :-g;;. 1 424 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!Ua l

### ~**,** 

### (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 .,**C27 1t<** **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.. 11 1C.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 AGEN CY REGIONS**77~JACKSONBOULEVARD** 

### ClUCAGO , IL 60604-35 9()

Risk S creening and Risk Management Recommendations for: 

### VeoUa ES**T~bnlcal** 

### Solutions, LL.C. 

### Sauget, DUnols (Formerly: 

## " OnYx EnVironmenta l 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, P estlddes 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. Sa u get, Dllnol s 

### I. Background 

### A. Intcodnction This report pres ents 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 l ocated in Sauget, Dlinois . This e valuation has been conducted to ptovide additional infonnation relevant to a proposed permit 

### renewal decision by 

### the StateofDiinois. The origina l vers ion of this screening was i ssued in draft 

### as part of the 

### public participation process re l ated 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 peri od. I n this document, the 

### analysis is refened to as a ris k screening. because the focus is only on those pollutants which the U . S . EPA believes to 

### have a likelihood ofexceeding 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 screenin g in 

### the sense that several simplifying conservative (protective) assumption s have been made in the 

### process of conducting the 

### assessment. AI 

### this time, 

### U.S. EPA Re gion 5 

### has focused specifically on the potential health impacts of chemicals and circumstances that were: (a) i dentified by citizens during the 

### p ubli c comment period 

### as potential ptoblems, but not included in a previous screening (i.e., already existing background lead level s and effects from mercury 

### on subs istence fishers at Frank H olten S tate Park); or (b) 

### related to emission l imits established by the H azardous Waste Combustion • Maximum Achievab le Control Technology Rule ("HWC-MACI"' Rule) . The chemical emissions assessed are polychlorinated dibenzodioxins ' and polychlorinated dibenzofurans ("Dioxin s" ) 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) .

F ed24338


### VES 

### 0076212 B. The HWC-MAC T Rule Hazardous waste incinerators, such as the Veolia facility i n Sauget, Illinois, are regu l ated 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 i s sued 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 l egal 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 poll utant 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 bas i s to ensure tflat adequate protection is achieved in accordance with RCRA. Section 3005(c)(3) ofRCRA provides the aulh ority to impose addi tional 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 co Oduct a site-specific risk assessment (SSRA) . Some examples of site-specific factors include a source's proximity to a water body or endangered specie$ hab i t at , repeated occurrences of contaminant adviso ri es for nearby water bodies, the number of hazardous air poUutant emission sources within a facility and the surrounding communi t y, whether or not the waste feed to the combus tor is made up of pers istent, bioaccumulative or toxic contaminants, and sensitive receptors with potentially significantly different e xpo sure pathways (70 FR 59595). 

### In addition, 

### there are several uncertainties inherent in the 1999 national risk assessment for 

### the HWC-MACT R ule . 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 in t o methyl mercury , . it can be ingested by the lower trOphic l evel organisms where it can bioaccumulate i n fish tissue), as well as the risk posed by non-dioxin products of incomplete combustion, remain and may influence a decision to conduct an SS RA.

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 compl iance 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: 

### • Partic u l ar sitc -s peclfic considerations sucll as proximity to receptors: (such as 

### scbools, hospitals, 

### numng h omes, 

### day care centers,**park~.** community 

### activity centers, or 

### other potentially sens i tive 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 polychl orinaccd biphenyl (PCB) contamination has been in effect for the 

### Frank Holten State Parle lakes . I n 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 fa cility potentially emits, 

### among other pollutants, 

### dioxin, a known 

### human carcinogen , and toxic and 

### carcinogenic metals, 

### i ocluding arsenic, beryllium, chromium, 

### lead, cadmium, 

### and men:ury . E'mi.ssions of 

### these pollutants are limited under the HWC-MACT Rule . This ris k screening assesses !be prot£Ciiveness of the corresponding HWC-MACT Rule 

### emission standanls for the 

### Vcolia facility . · • The 

### identities and 

### quantities of other off -4 ite sources of 

### pollutants in prox.im ity of the 

### facility that significantly 

### influence interpretation o f 

### a facility-specific risk 

### asse8.'1ment; U.S. EPA considered the 

### presence o f 

### 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 HW C-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. t he 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 

### V oolia facility: the 

### endangered Indiana bat (Myotis ·mallst), 

# me threatened bald e agle (Haliaeetus/e u coceph al!U ), the elldangered pallid sturgeon (ScaphirhynchiU albiU), the endangered lllinois cave AJDphipod (G ammanLS 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 0076234 

### The volume and types of wastes, for example wastes containing h i ghly toxic constitue nts ; The Veolia f ac i lity i ndnerates a significant quantity of hazardous waste . According 10 

### its permit a

pplication, the Veolia facility has estimated that i t incinerates appro<imatel y 14 , 050,000 

### tons of listed hazardou s waste**~r** 

### year . • Adequacy of any previously conducted risk 

### assessment, given any subsequent changes in 

### conditions likely to 

### affect ri sk; · aod fi>s 

### is discussed ln more detail throughout this report, this risk screening revises lhe analysis made in the original2003 ri s k 

### screening . The earlier ana lysis !lid not consider potentially · elevated levels of lead ln 

### the vicinity of the Veolia f acility; 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 Ru le emission standards.


### · D . Compooents 

### of 

### th e Site-Specific 

### Risk Asseasment Process The 

### foundation for the risk 

### screening methods 

### descri bed in this report is consisient wi t h well
-e;s tablished chemical risk 

### assessment p ri nc i ples and procedures dev eloped fo r the regulation ofenvironmental i:ontaminllllls. Application of these guidelines and 

### principles provides a consistent process for evaluating and documenting potential health risks associated wi th environmental exposures. The 

### risk assessment process used 

### by federa l regulatory agencies and app lied in this screening is essentially that described by lhe Nationat·Research Council (1] , and 

### consi sts of the foll owing four components : . · 

### Hazard idend6cat i on, in 

### w hic h the 

### chemical substances o f 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, 

### i n which the 

### relationship between 

### dose and IeSponse is evaluated for each chemical ' o f potentia l concern to derive toxiciiy values that can be used 

### to es ti mate the incidence of adverse effec ts occurring at different upc)swe l e vels; 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 popul ation recei ving the ex

p os ure ; 

### and. Risk characterization, in which nwnerical estimates of risk are calculat ed for each · substanoe by each potential route of exposure using the toxicity information and the



### · exposure estimates'.

F ed 24341



### VES 007624

# s
E. M e

th odo l ogy Used f or T his Evo l ua tJon (1) 

### Risk assess m ent gui d ance oo d sof t ware computati on m odel The general model for the risk assessmen t analysis is contained in the U.S. EPA F"illal Human fltalth R isk Assessment Pr o t

QCo/ for H<WJTd ous Waste Combustion Facilities;**EPA520-R~5 ·**  

### 006 ("2005 combustion risk guidance") . U . S . EPA chose this model fo r this risk screening because it is peer-reviewed and incorporates an opponunity to 

### use site-speci.fic data. "The 

### 2005 combustion ri s k guidance outlines a com prdlen sive procedure fo r calculating estimated environmental media (e.g . • air . soil, vegetables, fish, meat ) conce<Jtrations , human 

### intAke ra teS, and 

### health risks due 

### to the 

### emis sio n of chemical s from 

### co mbustion stacks . "The 

### basic stepS 

### in running tbe 

### model for a facility may be 

### summarized as fo llows: a) Identify the 

### chemicals ofconcern from s tack emi ssi ons and assign emission rat es; b ) 

### Collect facility
- specific stack 

### clatn (e.g., stack 

### heigh t , gas 

### e><.it velocity, building 

### dimensions) and local meteorological data; 

### use this data 

### as inputs for the 

### U.S. EPA's I ndustrial Source Compl ex Shott Tenn ("ISCSTI") alr 

### dispers i on/deposition model; c) Collect dam 

### on local l and use (res idential locutions , agricultural locations , major water 

### bodies) and 

### map thi s dam 

### in refere nce to 

### f acility location; d) Combine chemical
- specific emiss ion 

### r.ucs with the air 

### dispersion model to calculate cbemical-specific air concentration s and deposition rates (or moltip le receptor points around the facility; e ) 

### Combine air 

### concentrat i ons 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 i ntake 

### rates for 

### environmental media (air, 

### soil, plants, vegetable 

### crops, etc.) witl1 

### estima,ted chemica l concentrations in environmental media to determine chemical doses (i.e . , i n take per unit ti m e) for each applicable e >tposure pathway ; g) 

### Combine the chemical doses with chemical-specific to • icity factors (e.g •• cancer s lope factors, Reference Doses) to 

### calculate a Cancer Risk for potentially carcinogeni c chemicals and a Hazard 

### Quo tient for potentially toxic chemicals; b) Sum 

### the . Cancer 

### Risks and Hazard Quotients 

### for each chemical across the 

### applicable exposure pathways;

Fod24342



### V E S 00 7 62 56 

### i ) Sum the Cancer Risks w1d Hazard Quotie nts ("'HQ'') f or 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 chemica ls, multiple**expos~re** 

### pathways. and multiple fate and 

### transpon processes is 

### a very challenging computa tional 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 

### Vers i on 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 

### combus tion guidance; b) simultaneously calculate risk 

### values (cancer risks and 

### hazard quOtients) 

### for multiple chemica l s emitted 

### from a single source 

### or fro m multiple sources at 

### multiple locations ; c) elimina te 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 (" I SCST3•) air dispersion/deposition model 

### nms; e) provide a graphical display of the 

### air disperslon model recep10r 

### grid mode locations ; I) 

### din:cdy i mpott**~phjc** 

### Information System (''GlS n ) 

### 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 

### RiskA.ssessme/11 

### Protocol for Ha<JUdo us · Waste Combustion Facilities, which is available at: 

### s btm :Uwww .epa.gov/epaoswerlhazwastelcombustlrisk.htm> .

f1d 24343



### VES 0076267 (2) · 

### Major site-speclJic expo sure mode l 

### ass ump tions The following is a summary of the 

### key exposure modeling assumpti ons emplo yed i n tbe analysis: · a) 

### Ellposed receptor - the individuals who could be 

### exposed to 

### contaminants were assumed to be 

### local adults and 

### children who coul d res ide 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 chi ld is a person up to age 

### 7, wbo could be 

### exposed to contaminants for an EllpoSure Duration of 

### 6 years. T he other required exposure factors fo r adults and children were taken from tbe 2005 

### combust i o n risk guidance . b ) Receptor 

### locations
- the 

### individuals potentially exposed to contaminants we re 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 I SCST3 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 commerci al 

### use zooe that i s not 

### CUil'ently a re si dential 

### area . Contaminant i mpacts in actual residential 

### areas are predicted to be 

### l ower than tbose used i n thi s ri sk screening. 

### This procedure adds conservatism to tbe 

### risk screening. c) Ellposure pathways- the potentially 

### exposed i ndividuals were assumed to 

### have contaminant intake from a combination of pathways. 

### These can be 

### sUlliiiUil'ized as: inhalation of contaminants as vapors and particl es; incidental soil ingestion ; and consumption of home grown garden vegetable produce. Each of 

### these exposure pathways was modeled as occurring at tbe 

### highest i mpact poi nts deSCTibed in section b) above. In addition, each individual was assumed to ingest fish harvested 

### from the 

### lakes at Frank 

### Holten Sta t e Park. }'bese individuals were assumed to be 

### "subsi stence " 

### fishers . . Subsistence 

### fishers are "high-end" 

### fish consumers who obtain a s i gnificant
- portion of their protein intake through fish consumption. This assump ti on provides a conservative estimate of fish consumption that would not likely underestimate contaminant exposure for the majority of persons living i n the v icinity of Veolia. These exposure pathway scenarios and the required intake parameters are exp l ained in detail in the 2005 

### combustion ris k guidance.



### VES 007627

### 8 

# n. Find in gs or this Risk Screening A. 

### Dioxins In 

### an earlier anll! ysis 

### of emission s 

### from Veoli . a, the 

### U.S . 

### EPA used the 

### lRAP sof tw are to evaluate potential 

### ri s ks from emissions of Dioxins 

### from an lhn:eoperati . ng units 

### a t the Veolia 

### Sauget facili ty . Using Dioxin emission 

### data ftom facility stack testing performed i n November 

### 2002. preliminary calculation s showed that . the 

### in<;romental increase in 

### cancer 

### risks would be well below the 

### action 

### leve l o f J.OE-5 ( I 

### i n 100,000 ) which 

### is described in 

### U .S . EPA ' s Implementation of

Exposure As . <essment Guidancefor R C RA HO<Prdaus Waste Combustion Faci/.iti es [2 ] . 

### Thi s revised analy sis takes a different 

### approach from the original 2003 

### rislc acrcening because the 

### I:IWC
- MACf Rule emissi on 

### lir!Uts have since 

### become applicable to 

### the Veolia facility 

### have changed 

### since the 

### 2002 preliminaxy calculations, 

### this revised analysis 

### has t aken 

### a different approach as described 

### below . The 

### air d i spersion 

### modelill,s : fate 

### and 

### transport i n the environment, and 

### estimation of cancer risk and 

### toxic hazard are now based 

### on the Dioxin emissio n rate corresponding to the respective 

### HWC-MACf Rule allowable emission limit. 

### Under this approac h , 

### if an unac ceptab l e can<:er risk and/or toxi c hazard 

### were predicted for Di oxin emiued at 

### the HW C -MACf Rule limit, then site-specific RCRA 

### pennit lil:nits and 

### moni toring requirements to contro l emission s would be recommended . The 

### HWC
- MACf R u

le Di oxin emission limit 

### for existing hazardous waste 

### inci nerato rs 

### is given as a concentrari on 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

express i ng toxi c 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-diox i ns nnd 

### -dibenzofurans (CCDs and C D

Fs) and 

### 1989 Upd ate 

### (March 1 989)". Dioxi n-TEQ i s 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 follo wing levels (see calculat i ons 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 . 8 4£- 10 Ffsec (3.54B-06 gfhr) The 

### predicted risk result$ for a local reside n t (who also constimes fish from H olten Lake) 

### are presented 

### below in 

### Table 2. Because these 

### risk results for Dioxio-TEQ are well below the 

### action

VES 00 76289 level of 

### t.O.E-5 (I i n 

### 100,000), the 

### U.S . E PA i s not recommending that any further reducti o ns in Di

oxin emissions should be required through a site-specific 

### RCRA permit limit. 

### B

. 

### Toxic/ C a rdnog enl c 

### M etals 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 th e preamble of that rule, that lhese metals present a greater potential threat than odlers genernlly emitted fiom a hazardous waste incinerator. 'l'he p reamble furtbei' concludes that emi ss ions of 

### !he other to)tic and C&J:Cinogenic 

### metal s will be adequately m;tricted 

### via the partieulate emi ss ion li mit co ntained in the Rule because a l mosl all 

# tom and carcinogenic metals would be emitted as so

l id particulate mattec. Therefore, a limit on particulate mauer wiU serve as an o veniding Umit o

n the to tal 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** 

### G u

idmu:e for RCRA Halllrdous Waste Combustion Fac/lil i es-[2], the U.S. 

### EPA 

### recommends tliat results of 

### risk assessments conducted for h azardous waste inci nerators should be comp:ued to a maximum cancer ri slc incremenwl. increase target v al ue (from metals at fu ll permitted emission rates) o f lin 100 , 000 (1.0 E
- 5). That same criterioo is being u sed in this screening. In addition, risk assessments for hazardous waste inc i nerators have also typically ca l culated 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 crit eri a 

### (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 anal yzed under a different app roach 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 associa ted with protect ion from adverse developmental n euro l ogical effects of l ead 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 soi l 

### I s already

Fed 2A34 &

VES 

### 007 62910 

### elevaied becau se of past and current indus t rial activi ty in an d aroun d Sauget, and b) f uture emission s of lead from Veolia would add to a background of lead th a t is unacceptable. Conseq uently , the EPA-Region 

### 5 performed a re-evaluation of potential lead emi ssion s from Veoli a and dev e loped an altemat<: ap pro ach to determine a recomme nded risk
- based lead emissio n limit. The 

### ap!lroach 

### takes i nto account the concerns raised in 

### public comments about potent i al bac k ground exposure to lead in Sauget and 

### Eas t St. Louis. Part A: Devel'!pment of a limit for soil 

### deposition of lead from Veolla emissionS 

### For hazardous waste cle anup sites and 

### other situations where exposure to lead in sqil 

### cou l d be 

### encouncered, tile 

### stated go al of the Agency is to : " . . . attempt to 

### limit exposure to soil lead levels such that a t ypical (or hypothetical) child or group 

### of similar l y exposed childre n would have an estimated risk of 

### no more than 5% 

### exceeding the 10 JJ& 

### l eadldl blood le ad l evel. This 10 

### Jl. g/dl b

l ood lead l evel i s based upon analyses conducted by the Centers for Disease Control an d EPA that assoc i ate blood lead 

### levels o f 10 

### 11g/d l and higher 

### w ith health e ffects in 

### children; however, this blood 

### lead level i s below . a level that woul d tri gger 

### medical intervention . " [3-4) . 

### This strategy is usually emp loyed as part 

## of determining a soil remediati on goal for lead at hazardous waste sites (e . g ., Superfund , R CRA, Brownfield s) . This benchmark can also be 

### used to 

### determine an all owable limit for 

### l ong-rem depositi on of lead onto 

### soil in 

### the v ic

ini ty o f a leademitting combustion unit or other**lead~mitting _**  

### source. The 

### EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OS W) has recommended that a Jong-l<:ml · soiJ lead deposition limit of 100 

### mgllcg (100 

### pp m

) should be 

### adopced as 

### a generic limit for 

### any RCRA combu stio n unit [ 2 ). 

### This does not preclude the possibili ty t hat site- s pecifi c conditions w oul d warrant thal a lo wer depos itio n**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 uptakebi okinetic model (lEUBK [5 ]) . ln 

### addition t o lead expos ure fro m soil, the 

## iuodeJ accounts for lead 

### uposure from typ i cal**bac~groun d**  

### sources including house d ust; ambient air, 

### water, and diet 2 • 

### For the 

### case ofVeo li a and 

### the nearby town 

### of Sauget, EPA- Region 

### 5 does not li ave specific data 

### on cuuent soil lead level s and blood lead levels in c hildren . But Region 

### 5 does have some data 

### on surfac e soil l ead levels and child blood l ead 

### levels 

### in East St. Lo uis , 

### IL. ln 

### additio n, Region 

### 5 has · 

### fou nd studies on soil lead levels i n Flint, Ml and R ochester , NY and a s tudy oflead in 

### bouse 2 Tbete can 

### pote n

tially be certain 

### unpredi<tab l e sowee8 of high 

### lead iotalce, sucb as ingesti on 

### of paint chips, whic h 

### cW"telllly C1lD1lOI be inc luded in the model. 

### In situatioos wbete lead paint illgestioo is 

### suspected ofcootributlng to eleva ted blood lead 

### levels in 

### children , additi onal interventi On strategies need 

### to be implemented. Outreaeb 

### on this issue is atre.dy in pla ce 

### for this 

### geogrnphlc area ( See 

### hltp:/lwww.epa.go v /regionS/gatewaylleadcollab.htm ) . The focus ofthe model 

### used in 

### this ris k screening is on iropacts from lbe 

### hazardous waste incinerator aod its 

### potentia l contribution to ex isting air 

### and soli co

mponentS of exposure. 

## '

VES 007630ll 

### dust in Rochester. NY . These Sllldies are usefu l 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 c ase. For 

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

### me=red soil lead concentrations expressed as ranges (6] . Although 

### there does not appear to be an actual 

### statis tical summary of the data, the 

### majority of surfa¢e soil l ead levels were reponed in the 

### range of 74 -3 99 

### mg/l<g. Consequently, 400 

### mglltg (400 

### ppin) was selected as the 

### surrogate background or pre -existing soil lead concentration for Bast St. Lo uis a nd 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 i ndustrial facil i ties indica!ed that several residential lotS had surface soil lead levels in excess 

### of the EPA/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 l i k -e ly exceed the EPNSuperfund action level of 400 mglkg. This is taken as further evidence that sel ection 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 I n 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 s oil 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 du st 

### 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 

### Veoli a 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 M odel

### 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 00763112 

### Based on the ab ove discussion of l ead input values, the IEUBK model was run to 

### predict t he mean blood lead l evel (in**mi cro** **~** 

### per deciliter**~tg/dL)** 

### and probability (%) 

### of**e~ceeding** 

### the target blood lead level of 10**~tg/01.** 

### f or sevctltl scenarios. The scenari os were s elected to represen t the potential impac t of 'lend emissions from Veolia on**s~ac e**  

### soil lead concentrations i n the vici nit y ofVeolia. · IEUBK Model runs 

### for scenarios representing lead emissions f rom 

### 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 l evel= 400 ppm 

### (background}+ 100 ppm (inaemental increase) 

### Dust level 

# = 250 ppm 

### (background) 

### + 7 0 ppm (i ncremental increase 

### from soil) Geometric Mean 

### blood lead level = 

### 5 .7**~tg/dL** Predicted 

### probability of children above target= 10 . 6% Scenar i o 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 l evel 

### = 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 childre n above target= 6.8 % .

Fed 2434 0



### V E S 007632

### 13 Scenario 4: Veolia le ad emission causes incrememal increase in soil lead of 15ppm (equivalent to 15%of recommended limi t in OSW risk management guidelines) Soil level = 400 ppm (background) + 15 ppm (incremental i n crease) 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 % S cenario 5: Veolia l ead emission causes increlllC<ltal increase in soil lead of 10 ppm ( equivalent to 

### !0% of =oii\Jil£nded limit in 

### OSW ris k management guidelines) Soil level 

# = 400 ppm {bac k ground) + 10 ppm (incremental increase) Dust level = 250 ppm (background ) + 1 ppm (incremental increase from soil) Geometric 

### Mean blood lead level 

# = 5.0 11 g/dl.. l're<licted probability 

### of cbl!';iren above target"' 

### 6.4 % Scena rio 6 : Veolia lead emission canses incremental increase in soil lead of 

### 5 ppm (equi v alent 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: Veo li a 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 i ncrease) Dust level 

# = · 250 p p m (background) + 2 ppm (increrocntal increase from soil) Geometric Mean blood lead level• 

### 4 .9jlg/dl.. Predicted probability of children above 

### target., 6.0 %



### VES 

### 00763314 

### The results from the Mode l runs indicate thai all o wing an incremental lead e missi on impact equivalent to the OS W recommended 

### limit (i. e . , 100 

### ppm) would be**unac pt** **able** sinoe the 

### number o f c h il dren in a given popula ti on jmdj cted to e.xceed the targe1 

### blood lead g oal i s 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 l ead emission i mpact. The 

### results indicate that the 

### predicted geometric mean 

### blood level and the )iopulation predicted to exceed the 

### target blood lead goal cont i nue to fall until an incremental soilleod increase of 

### 5 ppm (5 

### mg/kg) is reached. Below 

### S ppm, no significan t 

### further redtlCtions w-c 

### observed. (The 

### mode l 

### run . s showed that potential risk would be below the desired 

### target level of no more tlian 5% 

### of children predicted to 

### have a bl ood lead level of 10 vgldL, 

### eveo with site-specifically selected input parameters for the soil 

### lead and dust lead background level s. ) It 

### should be 

### pointed out that although the 

### model used 

### 400 

### ppm as 

### the value 

### for lead 

### in the 

### loc al soil , the actual 

### mean soi l lead level is expected to be 

### below thi s value across the East St . 

### Loui s 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 

### level s 

### were reported in the 

### range of 74-399 

### mglkg; b ) 

### in a report 

### on background levels of**inorg~~nic** 

### constituents in soil 

### across aJ I IJUiior metropolitan 

### cotmties in D linois, the Dlioois EPA reported a mean surface soil lea d 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 s hould be used as the 

### limit for the 

### allowable inc:rease 'in soi l 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 o f 

### lead deposltioll p redicted from 

### HWC..MACT stack emissions to the 

### l ead 

### cMposillon limit 

### based 

### oa risk 

### uscsment 'Ibe analysis in Part A 

### derived a risk-based 

### limit for the 

### total incrcmcntaJ 

### increase 

### i n soil 

### l ead 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 le ad 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/m 3

. The 

### HWC- MACT regulatioo. s use lead and cadmium as the

F td2 4351



### VES 00763415 

### swrogate metals for demons trating compliance with the concentration limit for semi
- volatile metals. Compliance with t he ' HWC
- MACf li mit on semi-volatile metals is achieved by ensuring that the concentration of lead plu s cadmium does not exceed the limit o f 240 f1g/rn 3 • 

### The procedute empl oyed for thi s analysis may be 

### s ummarized as follows : I. Tile 

### HWC- MA Cf concentration limit for semi
-volatile metals was assigned as the starting point io 

### the · analysis . 

### Semi-volatile metals undtt 

### MACf inc lude 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 o f 

# me semi
-volatile metals cootn"bution would be 

### due to !eM 

### alone . This is 

### a conservative assumption. 2. The 

### HWC-MACf coneentnltion limit of240 flglm 3 

### for l ead was 

### applied to each of the 

### 3 Veolia combustion units under the assumption that all 3 units could be 

### opera ted simultaneously. Th en 

### the documented s tack**par~** 

### characteristics for the 3 

### combustion . units were used 

### to calculate the corresponding l e ad emission rate for each unit .• . 3 . 

### Modeli ng 

## of air 

### di spersion and particle depositio n from t he 

### 3 combustion units was performed accordi ng to Uie protocol s in EPA· s 

### IS CST3 air 

### di spersion model. Th e model 

### uses site-specific inp ut data on 

### stack gas parnmetecs, terrai n elevation, wind 

### speed, wind direction , and 

### preci pitation to 

### derive air 

### dispe rsion factors and 

### psrticle deposition rates for chemical cODSiituen ts 

### in stack gas plumes.

· 4. The OUipUI data 

### fro m the ISCST3 Model 

### for particle deposition was 

### combined with the stac . k 

### emission rates 

### for l ead. The 

### d liiA are 

### combined io 

### a ris k 

### 8SSC$$IDCI'It model called 

### IRAP {as descri .bed earlier 

### in the Methodo logy Section). lR.AP 

### allows a 

### user to iDCOJpoiate 

### maps of local 

### land use data 

### {e . g ., teSideotial, industrial , 

### apiculrural, park 

### land} an d to 

### correlate or "ov e rlay" the 

### land use data with the 

### output**~ptor** 

### locations from the ISCST3 Model . In 

### this 

### case, maps corresponding to the 

### nearest reddential l ocations i n the vicinity 

### of V eolia were 

### overlaid with the ISCST3 receptoc 

### loc ation s. 

### IRAP then calculates 

### an acc umulated 

### soil deposition coocentration for l ead based on 

### tile starting 

### stack emission rates and 

### the psrticle deposition rates 

### predicted from the 

### ISCST3 Model. As a further conservative assumption, th e acc um ulated soil d eposition co n

centrat i on for lead was calcul a ted o n t he assumption ihat Veolia would operate continuously 

### for 30 years , even though the propo sed permit 

### or**HW MA** **Cf** 

### approval might apply to a 

### muc h shoner time .

• The prinwy stack 

### parameter ocedcd for the 

### calculatiom is the

### stack~ flow

### . The operating and stack**paru>e~er** cbaracterutics r or tbe 3 Veolia combustion units were ob!ainod from the lCRA Part B permi< applicaioo or other tompliAnce cloctrmems subrMtod b y Veolia to 

### the Dlinois BPA ondlar tbe 

### U.S. BPA.

Fed2A35Z



### VES 007635

# s . 16 The IRAP Model was used to estima t e a 3 0-year lead deposition concentration due to lead emissions corres ponding to the HWC-MACI concentration limit of 240 jlg/ m 3 • To provide conservatism 

### for the analysis, the lead deposition concentratio n was reported for the highest predict ed impact point of lead deposition outside the Veolla facility boundllfy as determined from the lS CS T 3 Model results. The predicted l ead deposi t ion due to each combustion Unit and the combined 

### t otals are summariz.ed below in Tabl e 

### 1, based on information preserued in the Attachment B to tiM report: Table 1
- Averag e and Maximum predicted increases In soU lea d**coo~tra tlo** **n** du e to 30 years« fadlity opmatio n A



### verii8C increase 

# • Maximum 

### increase b Veolia Combustion 

### Uni t Concentration (rnglkg) Concentration (rnglkg) Stack#2 0.25 Stack#3 0.24 Staek 114 0.047 TOTAL: 0.54
a • a venge i- in lea4 conoenlntion esdrnMCI d..ins t ho 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 loo g-teno deposition of lead emissions fro m Veo lia was predicled to occur at an off-site location oulSide the Vcolia facility boundary . This location is currently z.oned for industriall co mmertialland use, and is a location not likel y 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 vi i UC$ shown above 

### in Tab le 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 u se of standaro EPA model ing 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 l ower than the recomineoded risk
- based limit o n soil lead concentration increase by a factor of at leas t 

### 5 (i.e.,. I mglkg vs. 

### 5 mglkg) . Consequently, tbe HWC-MACI R ule emission limit for semi-volatile metals as the pe:nnitimposed 

### concentration limit for lead 

### appears to be 

### tbe 8pplopriatc risk-based limit f or lead emission ' s from the Veolia facility.

Fod2 <1353



### VES 0076 3617 (1) O tlo er 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. Thi s revised analysis takes a different approach 

### from the original 2003 

### risk screening because the HWC -MACf 

### Rule emiss i on limits have since become 

### applicable to the 

### Veolia fac i lity . 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 

### Rul e 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 site

### specific RCRA pennit limits and 

### monitoring requirements to control emissions would be recommended . The HWC-MACf 

### Rule metals emission limits fo r existing hazardous was te i ncinerators at40 CPR§ 63 . 1203(a) are give n as concentrations i n the stack gas as follow s: 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 concen trations would be expected to resu lt in emissions at or belo w the following (see calculations in Attachment A):

V ES 00 7 63 7

### Semj
- volalile metals : 1Jnit2 

### = 4 . 1 4E
-04 

### glsec (1.49 

### gramslhr) U

nit 3 

### = 4.05&04 glsec (1.46 

### gramslhr) Unit 4 = 

### l.l3E-03 glsec (4.07 grams lhr Low 

### vo l atility 

### Metals : U

n

it 2 

### = 1.66&04 glscc 

### ( 0 . 597 gr.unslhr ) Uni t 3 

# = 1. 62&04 glscc 

### ( 0 . 584 gramslhr ) U nit4 

### = 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) . 

### ' 1 8

Results from risk modeli ng of these emissions are pt<:sented below in Table 2, which provides cancer 

### m!; and toxic 

### hazard 

### intlexes f or each of the metals of concern, assuming each is emitted at the 

### full HWC-MACf eulission limit (e.g. , Pb at 240 uglm 3 ; 

### Cd at 

### 240 uglm 3 , 

### 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 

### f o r 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 M acuric 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 ..O J Dioxin-TEQ 1.75e-08 

### 1.9 l e-03 3.42e-08 

### 6 . 98e-04

F o d 2435 5



### VES 00763819
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 C admium**5.59e~S** l . Sle-0 2 2 . 79e-07 l.Sle -0 2 Chromium (VI) L49e-07 l.61c-03 7 .45e-07 J. 26e-03 Men:uric cbloride 

### NA 2.3 5e-02 

### NA**71 ~**  Men:ury 

### NA 8.4lc-08 

### N A 8 .4 1e-08 Medlyl DJCtCW:y 

### NA 3.5 2c-QI 

### NA 4 . 97 ..0 1 Dioxin
- TEQ 1 . 71cHl8**87 ~**  3.346-08 6. 83e-04 S tuk4: 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 2.6 1 ..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 s ignificant subs istence fishing 

### occurs at l akes loc ated 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 an d 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 emiss i oo li mits became effective for the 

### Veoli a facility at the 

### end of**June~ .**  this 

### SCICelling assessmenl now uses 

### mercury emissions at the new MACT-impo&ed emission limit as i ts stllrtlng point

Fod 24356



### VES 

### 00763922 

### The analysis of the potential•mpacts of le ad emissions from the Veo l ia facility cons1ders the potential for contaminated soil in the nearby residential 

### areas. Fo r 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 concent rations, and the 

### U .S . EPA's 

### national guidance on conducting risk assessmeniS for 

### biiUirdous waste combustors c -

urrently does not i ncorporate this technique . However, risk management decisions whi ch follow U. S. EPA 

### recommendations (Reference 

### [2]) typically consider the potential for cumulative emissions indirectly by: (l) 

### assuming that other nearby sources of similar t oxic 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 ca l cnlaring an air 

### concentration resulting from 

### an emission 

### source for tox ic 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 

### val ue of 0.25 • 10 

### account for the 

### fact that multiple facilltlcs in the area might be emitting those same toxic compouDds . This account s for the 

### fact that those emission might be additive. 

### In this way, 

### the facility being evaluated onl y contributes 25% or l ess 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 i f sev eral facilities were contributing this same level of cancer risk, 

### the total increase would not be expected 

### to become 

### significant for that geographical area. We 

### believ e 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, 

### whic h 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 

### to tal 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. R eferences : 

### Ill National Research Council (1983); Risk A.rsessment in tlte 

### Federal**Gtn~tmmcnt :**  Mmtagi11g the P r ocess; 

### 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 Combus tion 

### Unils (Memorandum 

### from Mi chael 

### H . Sh2piro. 

### Dixector of U.S. EPA Office 

### of Soli d Waste to EPA Regional Waste Management DirectOR); 

### April 1994 . [3] 

### U.S. EPA (1994). 

### Revised /nJ e rim SoU Lead 

### (PI>) Guidance for CERCU. Sitts mui 

### RCRA Corrective 

### Acriott Facilities (OS WER Directive 9355 . 4-12; OffiCe of Solid Waste and Emergency Response ; Washington , DC; 

### July 1994) [4) U.S. 

### EPA (1998). Clarification 

### to th e 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 199 8) (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 Technj cal Solutions facility) [7] 

### Winois EPA (2003). Cleanups U nder 

### Stale Response Action Program: East 

### Sr . Louis Awning Company and 

### Adept Tool; St. ClairCOU11ty, East 

### St. Louis. ( <ttUp://www 

### . epa.statej l .uslland/cleanup-programsleasr -st-louis.btml>)



### , [8] U.S. EPA (2002). Fact Sheet: Clean up 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 /reg ion5/gateway/pdfslfreeman.odf>) 

### [91 U.S. Department 

### of Housing and 

### Urban Develqpmeot (HUD) 

### (199 5) .**~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 Hous i ng; Columbia. MD ; June 1995)**Fod2~8**


### VES 007641

### 24 [10) Dlinois EPA (1994) . 

### A Summary of Stlecrtd Background Condirionsfor Inorganic& in S<Jil (IEPAIENV/94-161); Office o f Chemical Safety; Springfield . IL ; August 1994.


### A

TIACfiMFNTS: Attachment 

### A: Calc u lation o f constitue nt emission rat es at th e .

MACT emission limi t 

### for the 

### Veolia Inc ineration 

### Facility, Sauget, illinoi s Attachment B : 

### Analysis of lead exposure health risk for lead 

### em,issions from the Veolia Incineration Facility; Sauget.lllioois Attacbment C : T echnical 

### Appendices to the R evised Risk Screening 

### for Veolia Incineration Facility , Sauget, lllinois

Fed2"359



### VES 0 07 642\ Att.adlment A: C al culatio n of coDStituent emissio n rates at tbe MACf emissi on limit for the Veo lia In cineration Facility; Sauget, IDioo ls

F ed 243&0



### VES 0 076 4 3

### 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 B y: Todd D . 

### Ramaly 

### ,....A**H..,/..~** 

### U . S. Environmental Pro1ection 

### A gew;;y RCRA Programs 

### Section May2,1007

Fed 2<1361



### VES 007644

## I. · Background The U nit ed 

### States Environmental Prolection Agency (U . S . EPA ) and Veo li a ES Technical 

### So lutions . L.L .C., Sauget (Veolia-Sauget) have each indepeodendy m odeled 

### theoretical emissions 

### from Veolia-Sooget's throe 

### stacks in 

### Sa uget, 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 ex pressed as a 

### c:OilOell11:alioo refom!Ced to certain staDdard 

### stack conditioos . . H owever , lhese cooditions vuy from stack to stack sucb !hat the tnaSS 

### emission race (o f**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 int o mass emission rates 

### as descn'bed herein. The 

### calculations d=ribed 

### bel ow are shown in 

### full for**all~** 

### in the**attac ~**  spreads heet .

1 -2 Fed 2<4362 .


### VES 007645

## II . 

## Modeled Stack Parameters The following table**li~ts** stack parlllllCWS UJed i. n the dispersion mode ling . Tho atack diameter: and modeled 

### flow velocity were identifi ed es soun:e characteristica in Veolla · Sauget's October 27, 2005 

### Onyx EnvirtlllmDIIal 

### Services, Rotary 

### Kiln and 

### Fixed H e

anh**Inciru~r(llors,** 

### Screening Level Human HeaiJJt Ri sk Asse.ssment Report
- Revis ed. 

## I SUck 

### Staclc2 

### Stack 3 Staclc4

Cluomeu:r (meu:o<J v' . UOJO V.VU.,oJ**.~.** 

### ..... -..; _ 

### modeled emission flow 

### veloci1y {mls) 

### 20.2 20.2 

### 20 A 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 oftop 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> characteristic s teportcd by Veolia..Saugi:t**we~e** also u sed 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 

### veloc ity obaervalioos for the selected Staek 2 emiaaioo tests we.re somewhat lower than the source ctuu ac

teriati c provided by Veoli....Sauget. Tho now 

### velocities for Slacks 

### 3 and 

### 4 provided by 

### Veolia..Sauget as souroe characteristics w ete cocsisleOt with the emission test obscrvllions.



### D

-1 Fed 2A363



### VES 007646' 

## III .Co nversion 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 i n a single conversion factor for each unique . emission test 

### The factor is simp l y 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 -( . )x(21-01 

# contenl""'""'f') · MA _,_ - MACf ---':..- .

# 14**~:: =c.**  D . 

### Example Calculation


## m - 1 Fod 24 364


### VES 007647As 

### 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 convert ed to dry 

### standard cubic meta'S peT serond 

### by multiplying by lhe 

### ratio ofcalculated 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 .37 9 . 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 i s 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 compl eted foe all three 

### i nc in erators at 

### Veolia-Sauget. The results ace suOllllarized 

### in the follow i ng tab l e :



# - -.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- ( JJA 1 /s) 7 ..46 7.46 23.82 •-ccawnioofa:lorfrom....,.l o.3Sl O.AOC 0.3 79 !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 . 0011 3 &>'• (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 00 764 9

# · . 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 -""''"""'"" , ..... . 

## """*"""' ""''-- 1r<tm wet OdUalto c11y otandlrd 

### now .......,._lndty .... dord<d>ic**-pot-(~** -!low in dty-<d>ic-por-.cl ,_,) mu1murn**now-.c~~y--** 

# -.por- <-> --02-.t("Y)

___**.,.~MeT**

lo_,.,..l'tlho WCT limit

# o--- :**-!~~ACT** • (MIICT limll)(21- 02 conten1)(14 Ma ya1, 2006 02 0.0 13

230 92 32 1 30 S1adt 4 20.2 20. 4 0 . 6858 1.2192 o.3803897522621 1. 1117464032 7Ael6729e60939 23.818011225 0.350378938268 0.35574ee$5 0.3646813881328 039 1 1SIJISQ 2 . 6144130<70108 8. 472A811234 2.8335272ll84892 9.o329183a4 2.MI5 1 8535906 8.40St05342 

# p. 1 ., .

Slad< 3 ><l<lled Stock 3 20.2 20.2 CUi866 0.8858 0.38113888 0.- 7.46 11173 7 .461 1173 0-1 0.3281005 0-41 1 !S4I2 o.a441887 3.0215e01 2: <We179 3.0462505 2M73814 3.07094011 2M8iiOOf' 1 1.429 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 Ot22 B Bl4:13 O . a480377 0.31143t 0.31102111615&157 0 .86:1727821 o.352A847 O.o402313 0.3$20688117011 1 3 I.Cl24 402334 Cl.35453517 0.41374 1 8

411.3211094803311 1 061 . 0911516 40208:1"' 453.64847 414.&b351 5 us1.-**~1** -.- 41a.JJ81l6108800 1171-- 4CUI545 4 1SJ10319

F ed24367



### VES 007650. I I low wlati"' ..,... I s (ugls) (As, Be, Cr) min

. low I/Oi alile nocals (Uii s) (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 1 84.53123784 1 36 424 . 4394345 160 . 83333 165.'734 1 43197'12 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 condi lonl 0.0002138857881 0.000511747 ().0002043 0.000253

- o.o0022:lC B2986 0.()0()840399 0.0002732

- 0 0002335800196 0.000880185 0.0001875 0.0002574 30.36% -4.26% · 12.40% ·13.80'!1o 1 2.38% Aeat.lt: Average stack MACT e:rrmion rdle.s are conservattv. and wt11 be uaec11 fOf**~** nsk anr ••• Risk E - t.mta ' atlhe MACTr:orrespond to lhe cond11ion s used In lhe diopmion m>dol

_,.,..., TEO 

### IJ"8

- i le molal$ (g/sj (PI> & Cd)) low 

## """'1ile mellls (gla) (As, flo, Cr) • , men:ury (Ills) • 

# -'2
3.eoE-OIO 4 . 14E-Cl04 ,1.8 6Eo004 2.34Eo004 

# -· 

# _, 9 . 114E.(110 3.52E-o10 1.13E.OOS "-Cl6Eo004 4.5SEo004**~ ~**  2.296()04



## . ..

F od24368



### VES 007651**A~B :**  

### Aut ysls 

### o f lead expci8IIR 

### bullh risk 

### f o

r lead emiss! OIIS from 

### Veolla IDciD«atioa 

### Faclllt7 ; Sauget, IDlnols

Fed 2A360


### VES 007652ATTACBMENT
- Analysis ofhealth risk ror lead 

### emissions from V eolia (March 2004) 

### Output o f 

### mUBK 

### Model runs for sceoarios 

### represenli.og ll'ad emkslons from Veolia 

### Scenario 

### 1 : Veolia lead emission causes incremelllal i ncrease 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)+ 

### 7 0 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 l evel = 400 

### ppm (backgrowtd) + 50 

### ppm (incremeotal 

### increase) Dust 

### l evel 

# = 250 

### ppm (background) + 

### 35 ppm (incremental incl.-ease 

### from soil) 8<leoario 3 : 

### V eolia 

### lead emiss ion causes incremental iocreasc in soil 

### lead of 20 

### ppm (equiv alent to 20% of recommended 

### limit in 

### OSW risk managenient guidelines) Soil · level = 400 ppm 

### (background) + 20 

### ppm (mcremental increase) 

### D

us t level = 250ppm (background)+ 14 

### ppm (incremental increase 

### fiom soil) Scenario 4: · 

### V eoli a 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% ofrecommended limit in 

### OSW risk 

### management guidelines) Soil level = 400 

### ppni (background)+ 10 

### ppm (incremtotal increase) Dust level 

# = 250 pplli (bacJc&round) + 7 ppm (incremental increasefrom soil) 8ceDario 

### 6: V eo li a 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 (incremen tal 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)

Fed24 370


### VES 007653**~** IEOB K., in

·' Run Report

LEAD HODEL FOR W INDOWS Version 1 .0 Hodel V e rsion: 1 . 0 User N ame: Data : Site Nme: Operable Onit: 

# Onyx s-dc (**Yeoi'ia~ieJ· ---** **.,- --** **--:­**

# ~ciWIJY"iO 

# #I Run Hode: Research

### ~-**----·,__.** 

# ....__ 

# ... .**~~~ --------~-** **----- "----~~~~-----------.-.··** **·---- ~----** **~ ~>** **••••Air ••** **••• •**  Indoor Air Pb Concentrat ion! 30.000 percent o f outdoor. other Air Paraaeters: Age T ilDe OUtdoo.xe

(ho urs ) VentilAtion Rate ( 10" 3/.da y) 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 0.1 00 3- t 4.000 5.000 32 . 000 0.100 

### 4

-S 4.000 5.000 32 .00 0 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 Inta ke (uq/d4y) .5
- l 5.530 1-2 5.780 2
- 3 6.490 3 -4 6.2 40 4-5 6.010 5-6 6.340 6-7 7.000
•• • •••orinkinq Wat er • • •• • •**~a ter**  Consu.ption: Ago Hater (L/day) .5 -1 0.200 1-2 0.500 , 2-3 0. 520 3 -4 6 .53 0 4 -5 0.550 5-6 0. 5 80 

# ·. 6-7 0.590 Dr

inking Ha ter Concentration: 4. 000 uq Pb/L



# 2. P age 1 Fed 2 4 371



### VES 007654

## '> ' I EUBK\f i n**un** Kepo n

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 C ontrib ution: Intent**Mode~******** Ma te rna l Blood Coooentratio n: 2.500 ug Pb/dL**··~ ···** **···~·· ···** **··~· ···** **·· ····** **~ULATED** BLOOD .LEAD AN D LllAD UPTAKES:



### •••••••• • •••••••••••••••••••••• ••• •• Year Air (uq/dL) Diet (uq/day) Alternate (u g/day)

----- - - -- · -- -- · - - · "T------------- - - · --------- -- · --- -- S-1 0 .021 2.415 0.000 1-2 0.034 2. 4 77 0.000 2-3 0.062 2.83 4 

## o.ooo 3-• 0 . 067 2. 776 

## o.ooo ,1 -S 0.067 2. 76 8 0 . 000 5-6 0 . 0 93 2.958 0.000 6-7 0.093 3.287 0.000 fear Soil+OUst . Tot a l Blood · (ug/<lay) (uq/day) (ug/dL) M• ter (Uq/day)


# -- 0.3 49 0.857 0.908 0.9 4 3 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 .. 10 1 9.604 1 8.233 14.930 U.238 14.093



## . . 6 .3 5 . 3 4 . 5 4.0

· Page 3 Fed24373



### VES 007656Prob. 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 • J O

.s95 

# <,;;; / = /jt10 -f 

# too Pus!=

## ~lc**(2~** 

# + 

# 7d)**~·** 

### R.aace .• 0 to 14 moTiaoe S tep • Every 4 Roars R

u Mode • Researdt

F ed 24374


### VES 007657JSUBKwin Run Report

LEAD HODEL FOR W I NDOWS Version 1.0



### ••• ••• Ai r • • ., . ... Indoor Air Pb concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor. Other A.ir Paraaeter s,: 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 .53 0 1-2 

### s. 780 2-3 6. '90 3-4 6.24 0 4-5 6.010 5-6 6.340 6-7 7.000 • •••••o rinki(lg 

### · · wat e r-••• •• • 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. 1 00 0.100 0.100

Pago 1 Ftd2-4375



### VES 007658I&UBKwin R un Report

Ag e .5-1 1
- 2 2
- 3 3- 4 4- 5 6
- 7 Soil (ug Pb/g l 4 50.000 ' 4 50 .000 4 5 0.000 45 0 . 000 4 50. 000 450. 000
•• • • • •Alternate**In~ ••••**  Hou se Du s t {ug Pb/ g ) 285 . 000 28S.OOO 285 . 000 285.000 285.000 285 . 000 Age Alterna te {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 Contribu tion: · rn tant Mod el" ... * "* Moternal Blood concentrat i 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 0.03 4 0.062 0.007 0.067 0.093 0.093 Soil+Dust

{uq/day)

8.08 1 12.6 18 12.835 2. 4 39 2.506 2.8 63 2..800 2.7 8 5 2 .9 73 3.30 1 Totol (ug/day)

10.89 4 16.026 16 . 677



# '7 Alternate {ug /day)

0.000 0 . 000 

## o.ooo 0.000 0.00 0 

## 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 0076593 -4 

## c-s 5
- 6 6
- 7 13.059 9 . 9 88 9.096 8.641 16 . 878 13.859 1 3.250 13.149



# 8 5. 9 4.9 4 . 2 3.8



### Pa q e 3

VES 007660Proll. Di stt ibo liotl (04) 

# JOOr\

7$**L-----~~~ =---** **---- --** **-- --** **--­**

• 3 ' ' 

### n**~** 

## n u**~** 

### n**~ ~**  

## u Bloo4l Pb C...., ("'f<<L)


# SO / I"' '1w .f->rJ ·

# L4s**f~** 

# z!> ( zsv f 

# ;s)

F ed 24378



### VES 007661I EU8Kwi n Ru n Rep o r t**LF~D** MODEL FOR W I NDOWS Vers i on 1 . 0**---= :o:** **~:...--** 

# .. ·- - ----------- - --- ...**--- -=** **-- oc:** **:=-- ....:** **e...-=e• =~-**  l. O . 

# Onyx )d<:.

# (1/eq/i~ 

# Stte). Model Version: User Name: Da t e: Sit e NM e ; Op&rabl e U ni t; Run Hode: ReSearch 

# SC**en~** 

# r, ' o 

# 113**=-~ -••----•-** **--------•~•••-•·~ ~m~** **--zo=--c= =-** **•-- ~~-**  *****"Ai r* * *••• Indoor Ajr Pb Co nCe ntra t ' ion: 30.000 p e rc e n t of o utdoor . Oth e r Air Parameters : Ag e TiDe Outd®rs

(hours) Ventilation ftate (m '3/day) Lung Absorp . tion ( t) Outd oor 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 Die t l n take (ug/day) .5-l 5 .5 30 1-2 5.1 80 2-3**6.4~0** 3-4 6.240 4-5 6 . 01 0 5- 6 6 . 34 0**7** 7.000**Wa er**  Consumpt i on: Age Wat er ( L /day)

. 5-l 0. 200 1 -2 0 . 500 2-3 0.520 3-4 0 .5 30 4 -5 0.550 5
- 6 0.58 0 6
- 7 0 . 590 Drink i nq Water Concentration: 4 . 000 ug P b / 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. 1 00 0.100 0 . 100

P

a g e 1 F ed2 4379



### VES 0 07662**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 42 0.000 264.000 Age A l te rnate (ug Pb/day)**.~- l**  0.000 1 -2 . 0 . 000 2-3 0 .0 00 3-4 0.000 4-5 0.000 S-6 0.000 6-7 0 . 000**•~••••Maternal** Contribution : Infant Hodel•••••• Matern al B l 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 So il +Duat

(ug/day l 2 .

### ·~· 2.52 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 2 4380



### VES 007663**lb\ H:S** **Wl.M un** **1'\Cpor~**

3- 4 l-5 5- 6 6
- 7 12.2H 9 .326 8 .4 9 7 8 . 059 16.053 13.210 12.653 1 2.579



## ll . 5.6 4.7 4. 0 3.6

Page 3 FOd2438 1



### VES 007664Prob. Dblribulioll (%) 

# 100 1\ 

# I

75



## o 3 ' 9 

## u " 

## n**~ ~** **~ ~**  

## » u Blood ... 

## c..e (ucfdL) 

# <;a; f :: qoo +zo 

# Pd
- ;.**~Jf**



# . /3 Fed 2A382


### VES 007665LEAD 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 Concentr4 tion: 30.000 perce nt of**outdoor~** Othar Ai..c**Para.et er~:** 
.5-1 1-2 2-3 3-t t-5 S-6 6-7 Time Out:doora:

(lulurs) 1.0 00 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. o oo 7.0GO 7.GOG Ago Diet Intake(ug/dayJ .5
- l 5 . 530 1
- ·

2 S. 78G 2
- 3 6 .f9 0 3- 4 6.24G 

# •-s 6.01G S -6 6. 3f0 6-7 1.000
•• • • • • Drinking W ater • ••••• 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 rtepor t.

Age .5-1 1-2 2-3 3
- 4 4- 5 6
- 7 S oil (ug Pb/g) 

### n5 .ooo 415 . 000 415 . 000 

### n5.ooo 415 .000 41 5 .0 0 0 House Ou&t (ug Pb/g ) 261 . 00 0 261.00 0 26 1. 000 261.000 26 1. 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**Concen tra~** **ion:** 2.5 00 ug Pb/dL



# ........ . .. .. . .. .. .. . .... .. .. . . . ... . .... .. " 

# .... CALCULATED BLOOD LEl\D AND WAD Ul'TAI<ES:**~··~···~·· ~···** **··· ··** **····· ·······**  Y

e ar Air (u g {dL ) Diet (ug/dayl Alternate (U Q /day) Wat e r (ug/ d ay)



# ------- ---------- -- - ----- - - -- -- ------ ---- --------------- - --- --- --- -- -- - -- - - - - - -- --

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. 06 2 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 To t al lu g/day)

10 . 313 15. 13 2 15.75 4

### I~ 0.000 0.000 0 .00 0 0 . 000 0 . 000 0 . 000 0 . 000 Blood (ug/dL)

5 . 5 6 . 2 5.8 0.35 5 0.874 0.924 0.957 1.024 1.092 1.116

Page 2 Fed24384



### V E S 0076 6 73
- 4 4
- 5 5-6 6-7 · 12.082 9 · . 222 8.392 7.969 15.924 13 . 1 09 12.560 i2. 4 90

## I~ 5 . 6 4 . 6 4 . 0 3.6

· Page 3 Fed2438 5



### VES 007668

# . P..,.. Distributloo (%) 

# •oof\ 

# I

75

### ~~~3--~,**~~ --** **t~I~11~~~~1 ~~D=-** **~** 

## -PI> Co•e (qldL)


# 5

6**if~** 

## 'fr;o T/5



# . Pu.s h s**~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

## ;;;;;;:~~=;;~~--;;~~**y:-*****; ;?e**  I 

# /k;t:i**~ ;f~** **-r-- ~**  User Name: (./, 11 

### L. 

## '.J**~u:** 

# 11r Site Name:

### <;;~ J, 

# rid ::> Operable Unit: Run Mode: Resea rc h

### QQ~-------**------------ --** **-- ~--~-----** **--** 

# .. --· ..**.--==e -----~--** **-- --------** **-------** ' • v· ,.I ,.. ,, ... . .. .... _ . .. ... - --'1::' __ ._ • 

### ••••*•AU•• • • • • I ndoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000**per~ent** of outdoor . Other Air Pa r 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 2.00 0 3.000 4 .000 4 .0 00 4 . 000 4.000 2.000 3 . 000 5 . 000 5.000 5.000 7.000 7.000 Aqe

. S-1 1-2 Diet Inta k e( 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 Drink i ng Water Co ncentration: 4:000 ug Pb/L



# 1

6 32.000 32.000 32.000 32 . 000 32.000 32.000 32.000 0.100 0 .10 0 0 . 100 0.100 0.100 0 . 100 0 . 100

Page l Fed 24387



### VES 007670IEUBKwin R u r. R e port

Age .5 -l 1
- 2 2-3 3-4 4-5 Soil (ug Pb/gl 410 .000 410 . 0 00 4 1 0 .00 0 410 . 000 410 . 000

...... v .v.., .. 41 0 . 000 House OU s t ( u g Pb/g) 257 .0 00 257.00 0 257 . 000 257.0 00 2 5 7 . 000 257.000 'Age Al terna te {ug Pb /day)



### . s- r o . ooo 1 -2 0 . 0 00 2 -3 0 . 000 3-4 0 .000 4-S 0 .000**6** 0 . 000 6 -7 0.0 00

• • ••• •Maternal**Cont ~ibut** **on:** I nfan t Model•••••• Ma t er n a 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 . 06 7 0.093 0. 09 3 Diet {ug/day)

2 . 458

. 2 . 530

2.886

· 2.821 2. 79 8 2.9 85 3 . 313 A l ternate {uq/day)

0.000 0.000 o.ooo 0.000 0.000 0. 0 00 0 . 000 Year Soil +Dus t Total B loo d W•ter . (ug/day) .

0 . 356 0.8 75 0. 925 0.958 1.024 1.09 2 1.117 {u g /day) (ug/day) • {uq/dL) . 

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

..



# ----- · -.-- -- ----- --- · -- ---- ---- -- · --- -------- - -- -- ---- -- ---- -- ------

. . S
- 1

1- 2 2-3 7 . 388 1 1.55 3 11. 738 10.223 14 .9 93 15.6 11 5 . 5 6.2 5.8

· Page 2 Fed 2 4 388



### VES 007671lEUDKwin Run Report

11.931 9.10 4 8.283 1.865 15.777 12.993 U.453 12.388 5 . 5 4.6 3 . 9 3.5

Fed2A389



### VES 007672Prob. Dlstriblllioa ( % ) 

# 110 1\ 

# 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 007673LEAD HOD&L FOR WINDOWS Version 1. 0 :

-**"'~** . . !· · ·· · - - ..... .:

__ _ ... ....... , Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoo r. Other Air Paraaeters:
· Age Time Outdoors

(hours) Ventilation Rate (11'3/day) . L ung Absorption (\) OUtdoor 1\i r 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 . 00 0 5.000 5.00 0 5 .0 00 7.000 7.000 Age Diet In ta ke( ug/day) .5-1 5.53 0 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 Consumpt i on: Age W ate r CL/da y 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 COncentrat i on: 4 . 0 00 uq Pb/L



## 22.. 32 .000 32 . QOO 32 .0 00 32.000 32.000 32 . 000 32.000 0.100 0.100 0 . 100 0.100 0.100 0 . 100 0.1 0 0

Page 1 Fed 2439.1



### V E S 007674••• • ••s oil& O ust• .- ••• • Age Soil (ug Pb/g)

. 5 -l 405 . 000 1-2 4 05 . 000 2-3 405 . 000 3- 4 4 05.0 0 0 4-5 405.000 6
- 7 4 05.000 * ** ** ""Alternate Intake •••• • • Age

. S- 1 1-2 2-3 3- 4 4-5

. S-6

6
- 7 Alternate (ug Pb/day} 0 . 000 0 . 0 0 0 

### o.ooo 0 . 000 0 . 00 0 0.000 0.000 House o ust (U9 Pb/g}

2 54 . 000 254.000 254.000 254 . 000 254.000

. . . 

# .. . 254.000



# . .

•••••.,Ma ternal Contributi'on: Infant M odel ""* * ** M

ate rnal 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 .0 67 • 0.093 0.093 Soil+Dust

(ug/day} Diet ( ug/day}

2. 4 61 2.533 2.8 8 9 2.823 . 2 . 800 2. 9 86 3. 3 14 'l'otal (ug/<lay} Alternate (U9/ cl ay} 0.000 

### o . o o

o 0.000 

### o.ooo o .ooo 0.000 0.000 Blood ( u g / ciL) Ka ter (ug/ clay}

0 . 356 0 . 8 76 0.926 0.959 1.025 1.093 1.117



# ---- ------------------- ---- - --- - - ----------- -- -- -- ------ ---------- ----- ------ -----

. 5- 1 l-2 2-3 7 . 30 6 11.428 11. 608 iO.l4 4 14 . 872 ' 15.485 5.5 6.1 5.7



### P a ge 2 Fed24392 .



### V E S 0 0 7675IEOOKwin Run Report

3
- 4 4 -5 S
- 6 6-7 11. 798 9 . 0 00 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)



# . . C aiOif• JOMO alfdl Ceo Mtu • 4 . tU %AI>ove•'-023



# . Sail -:::: /tic t

## ~**P~Asf ::**  

## l>lf

VES 007677LEAD 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) · Ven tilation • 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 · 1.0 0 0 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 Inta k e (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 .34 0 6 -7 7.000 Water Consumption: Age Wa t er . (L/day )

. 5-1 0.200 1-2 0 .5 00 2-'3 0 . 520 3-4 0.530 4-5 6.550

. S-6 0 . 580 6-7 0.590 Drinking Wa ter 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 .1 00



### Page 1

VES 007678Age .5-1 l-2 2-3 3- 4 l-5 6-7 SOil (ug Pb/g) 402.500 402.500 402.500

. 40 2.500

402.500 402 .5 00 House Dus t (ug Pb/g) 2 52 

## .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 Contribut ion: Infant Hodel••• • •• Maternal Blood Concentration: 2.500 ug Pb/dL

CA.l.CULATED BLOOD LEAD AHD LEAD UPTAKES: Year A ir (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 2.80 1 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



### V ES 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



### P age 3

VE S 00 7 68 075

5I

2

• 3 6 9 12 

### u u 

## u u n**~ ~** **~** 

### ._ n CeK("'fdL) C.fAIIf e 10.011 ocfdl GooMaa • .oeJ % A.Mvc • 6.tZ3



# <;;,'I==- 

## llfJd 

# 'fzto +- 

# z. )



# 0

tuf.,. UJ. (**t~** 

## -tz..)



# 2q Fod 2•398



### VES 00768 1

### AttacbmeDI C: Tedmltal Appmclbs 

### to the 

### ReYbed JUsk Scnm COl' Veolia 

### IDciDeratloo Facility; Sauget, 

### Ullloois

Fed24399


### VES 007682WaterbOdy and Watershed Parameters fol' lakes 

### at Frank 

### Holten State 

### Par11: . .. . . Wat§!!lodv**~m!ll§lm** I n!!!!! Vat!.!§ 

### Wj!tershed P !!t!!!!lel!llll l!ll!!!! Vall!§ 0!3pth of Water Column 2 .0m Impervious Area 3 1 % Average Volumetric Flow 384 , 998 m•/yr USLE Coller Uanagemen! Factor O.Q? Surface Area 715,087m' USLE Erosivity Factor 210 yr''



# . 7.441 ,556 111 2 Area Reoeiving Fallout



### V ES 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 007684RISKBYCO PC Dale : 712812006**Rece t~** **r** flther ..:•dutt STACia Arseoic 7.S334E.007 7 .4530£.()()3 Rfa!>tor llsher

_ a dult STACia Beryll ium 1.5271£.()() 7 8.0822£.003 Receptor fisllet

_ adlllt STACia Cadmium 2 .8565£.()()1 1.8Sl4E-002 Ro up tor 6sbor_acbdt STACia Chromium, hexavalent 7.6 3S6£.()()7 1.2948£.()() 3 R ecept or 

### r ..**~** 

### .. _ adult STACia Lead 0.0000£+000 0.0000£.000 A efa fiU'•**..,..** ...**_~ oJ<-1** **•** 

### ...**~** 

# .. ..... ,_**··~** ... - .... M ... .. ... . Receptor llsb or

_ 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 T oraJ 1.9894E·006 S .4886E-OO I Rec:e,t Or tlslter

_ adult STACIO Arseoic 7.3519E · 007 : 7.2734E-003 Recep t o r fisher

_ adult STACIO Beryllium 1.4903E-007 7.8 874£.()()3 R «tplot' fisher**t4~1t** 

### . STACIO Cadmjum 2 .7944E-007 1.8112E-002 Re«plor fiober

_ advlt STACIO Chromium, hexaval ent 7 . 4SI6E-007 1.2636E-Oo3

· Rt>O<p tor**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 M m:wy O.OOOOE+OOO 8 .4078E-008 Recep t or lhktr_adult . STACIO Mecbyl merCOJ)' O .OOOOE+OOO 4.9nSE-OOt Reeep!Or fbbor

_

adalt STACIO Te«nCDD, 2,3 ,7,8- 3.3 3 97E-008 6.8264£-004 Toral 1. 9422E-006 S .4121E-Oo l Receptor**r~Aer_advlt** ST ACK4**Arlenic** 1.7903E·007 2.0929E-003 Recep ter 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<epto r O.llor

_

adlllt STACK4
. lpd 0 . 0000£<000 0 .0000£<000 Reeeptor 

# - - ·- STACK4 Memlric c:bloride O.OOOOE<OOO 2.6 137E-003 Recepto r lloher_adak STACK4 M ercury O.OOOOE+OOO 2.607 $&008 Reeep tor flsher

_ adalt STACK4 Melbyt """""'>' O.OOOOE+OOO 1.2378E <OOO Re«pltr 

# - - ·- STACK4 Telr&CDD, 2 , 3 , 7,8- 2.0S60E-008 4.004 SE-004 Toral 

### s.9504£.007 1 .2519E+OOO R tc<! 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 5.7 129£.()()8 1.8 . 514£.()()2 Receptor**o.~~er alld**  STACia Cbromium, hexavalent 1.527 JE-007 1.6487£.003 Reeepttr llsher_cblld STA Cia 1Aad O.OOOOE+OOO 

## o:ooooE.ooo R eceptor llober_cbUd STACia**Mere~** chlori de o.OOOOE+OOo 2 .4 236£·002**·- ~**  ...... 

## - -· . .. . . - · · · -···

_ + . . .... . •**~·** ! · .. -· ••• • 

### .... · -- · -- • oM

_ _ __ _ . 

### . . ··· - "Page; IRAP·hView F ed 244!>2



### VES 007685R IS K B YCOPC Dale : 7 /28/2006

IRAP -h Voew . · - · . . . . . . . . .. , ,_ .. _ __ _ __ -·- " · · - - - l';lge 

### 2 F ed 24403



### VES 007686L E A O EXPOS URE Dale . : 712612006

### 1\~' fisher

_ adu!l STACKl 2 .4651 E -GOI**~541£-GOI** 3 . 8615 £ -004 Receptor fisher

_adult STACK.l 2 .41 1 5E-GOI 4.3572E-GOI 3 . 7776 1; .()()4

. R eteptor . fisher

_ adult STACK4 4.6665£-G02 8.43 16E-G02 1.2707£-004 v Re<ep t or fisber_c bild STACKl 2.4651 E-GO I 4 . 4541£-GO I 3 . 8615£.()()4 Re<eptor fisher

_ c h

ild STACK3 2 .4115E-GOI 4 .3572£-GOI 3.7776£.()()4 j \ '

"'""'.t"' ""' 

## ........... 

## _ 

# .... .**-- --** **··-** .. i 

# . .**~** ... ....

# __ ..**-~** 

# -·**~** . . , ._ .


## - -- 

## .. - -

IRAP-h V'oew 

## .,. __ _ ...... --- - · - - .. -- .. ... ... ·· - p;ge 1 Fed 24404



### V E S 007687

### · 1 

# Source List
U11ol X U11ol y STACK2 7453 14 . 500 427 5912 . 300 Yes



## ---· - - - - 

## ·· ·- · --·- - --- --- - - - ·- -

·-- · - ----**STA~** 745342.® 4 275958.000 

### Ye s
STA CK4 7441179.800 4275205..000 Yos

Ptlnt p ;.vlew bY Lak ..Envitonmonlal SoftwBJe Dele : 712812006 Fod 2440!PoQo 1



### V ES 0076880'1 

# .., <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 ""**~**S I TE PARAMETERS

SITE PARAMETER VALU E 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. 4 7 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 l pid conl ent 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 NO T 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 so U 0.02 Foraga traction grown contam. eoll,- by MILK CATJ\.E 1 .0 Grain ftadlon grown 

### conc.m. aoil, oalon by M ILK CAm E 1 . 0 . Sillge fraolion giwn contam. soil , eaten by MilK CAme 1.0 Qlyolforage eat en byMII.K CATllE aac:h clay 13.2 Qlyoi!J11in eaten by . MILK CATTLE each dey 3.0 Qly of siage &«en by M ILK 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 I ngestion ralo ofbreast m il< 0.688 Ylsc:osity of aft correspon<ing lo a i r temp . 1.81e-04 AV8111ge aooual procipilation 99.94 IRAP-1> View ' SYM80L bd beei.Jl.lotage beef

_ fi_gtHI beel_qp _fonog e beel_qp_graln beef_qp

_silage c:hiel<..fi..9 rai n ' 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_ si** **tage** mlkflll...at rpllfat.bwjrtant mlllcfal_ed mlldal

_ fl mikfat_l2

__ t3 mi ldat_f4 mlll<fal..}l m

l kfal_ ir

_n¥11< rnu_a p Date: 7/2812006

UN ITS**~rYWiday** kg OW/dey kg OW/day kg OW/day orVyr

kg OW/day l<grYWiday kg OW/dey yr kg yr

PaQG 1 Fed2 4407



### VES 007 6 90SITE PARAMETERS Dale: 712812006

SllE P ARAMETER 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~~Q t$**  C$.((::!(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 .1 6 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 D W

fmA2 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 2 4 fo'glle 2



### VES 007691

# I . . EXPOSURE SCENARIO PARAMETERS Date: 7/2812008 R.ECEP.,.OR RC'c r.>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 F ishe r 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 rat e of BEEF . 0.0 0 .0 0.00122 0 . 00075 0.0 0.0**~ayf-W** Body.....,.. 70 16 70 15 7 0 15**~ ~;..eoCPOlURY**  

### o.o 0 . 0 · O.OQ066 0.00045 0.0 0.0**yFW .** **~-of** ABOIIEGROONO PRODUCE · 0.00032 0.00077 0 .0004 7 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 r a18 of c:M1 1H KING WAT'Efl u 0 . 67 1.4 0,67 1.4 0.67 IJclay**~role** of PROTECTED ABOVEGROUND P 0 . 000&1 0 .001 5 O.ll0064 0 .00 157 0.000&1 0..00150**·~ow ~-oi** **SOtl** 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- oiM II. 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«< 2 4409



### VES 007692

# .**U~t** 

# , Y'f 

# .J- ....**2-'lS~Ob** <

. 

# ' OAO_ HUIIIIIEII OO I'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 .1 04 18540·29-9 Chromllm, hexavalent 51.996 2173 ' 0 0 0 0. 1 3638720$ 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 6539 1 7440-43-9 Cactnkln 1 12.41 

### S94.i 0 0 0 0 .06157372t 903543 7 487-94-7 Mercurio chlorkle 27 1 . 52 550.1 0 . 00012 . 69000 7 . 1E·10 0 .04531260; 588587

Fed 244 10


### VE S 00 76 9 3Plriii!LDW 

### pnm .Jt. ow PII'II!Lil.oc 5.6e-6 8309573 • .wl801113 3890-451.45 1 .579220322272311E-5 0 0 6 . 1 111 1111111111E-6 0 

### o 6.28293905 1 05722E·5 0 0 ' 1.2379 1 50Z741777E·5 0 . 0 5.01!01 341872862412E•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 1 00000 155618 . 06 19 3000 900 29 790 75 50000 P1111 11L · · . ltl 0 .03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

# ..

. 

# ' l)llnlm

_l

_ v. l)llrlnU ICF 0 . 664 3 999 9 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 pn** **m_ ~**  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 . 00 1 0 0 0.000 1 2 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 ' 2.00E 1 0 6.20E1 0 2.51£! 0 0 0 

## . 

# ' fMr-wT'!- e8A II'- "• h 0 . 09 0

. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fed 2 ••1 3


### VES 007696

# . · 

# ' r--n-.ltt"D · pttntrft._O"'-o.t p-. m_ fltfO 

## ,.,-,._w.... tton

_ u rt 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 0.000 1 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 111 1

Ftd244 14


### VES 007697Param..br_gra in · 

### Param..lll..-oo . Pai'II!\..JM

_ CIIIellen 

### ParamJMJiall a

t ufd 0 . 00455 0.0109984120681325 0.01924722 1 1192319 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 0.0 1 0 0 0 . 0057142857 1 428571 6. 20&-02 0. 0025 0 . 1 0625 0.00 1 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, 199 4

JII!IOJWfD!!K 

### SUBJllCT: IJoplutentation of Exposure AssesSlllotnt Guidance for RCRA Hazardous waste Coabustion Facilities FROM: Mi chael H. Shapiro, Director Office of S olid 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 " M ethodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated · with Indirect Exposure to Coll.bustor Ellissions• and the 199j Draft Addendllll to that t·epo rt. While the Ag•ncy • a Draft Addendum to the Indire ct Exposure Document describes the genera l procadures in conducting indirect exposure assessm.nts and provides acme level of detail on parameter aasUIIIptions and other s p ecific factors, there are a**n~r** 

### of additional i ss ues which need to be dealt with in the co ntext 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 followin g 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 a nd the Indirect Exposure DocuJO . a .

nt, since its intention is to suppleJOant those docuaents. For ex .. ple, r eferences to documents mentione d in tb.is memorandUlll are qenarall.y provided in the Draft ACidendum.

Fed 2 44 1 6



### VES 007699