Quinn Cement Ltd Ballyconnell Cement Manufacturing Facility

Transcription

1 Quinn Cement Ltd Ballyconnell Cement Manufacturing Facility Human Health Risk Assessment for Dioxins and Furans EPA Export :00:16:13

2 Consulting (UK) Limited Firecrest Court Centre Park Warrington WA1 1RG United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Quinn Cement Ltd Ballyconnell Cement Manufacturing Facility Human Health Risk Assessment for Dioxins and Furans Author Checker Jethro Redmore Hannah Beswick ~.J!ww;-cL Approver Mariam Weatherley Report No 001-UA NHR-01-Quinn-Cement-HHRA-F Date 23 rd November 2010 This report has been prepared for Quinn Cement Ltd. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited ( ) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party. EPA Export :00:16:13

3 CONTENTS 1 Introduction Proposed Process Methodology Assessment Criteria Assessment Inputs Results Dispersion Modelling Daily Intake Rates Summary and Conclusion Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited EPA Export :00:16:13

4 1 Introduction Hyder Consulting Ltd was commissioned by WYG Environment Transport Planning Ltd (WYG) on behalf of Quinn Cement Ltd to undertake a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) of potential dioxin and furan emissions associated with the Ballyconnell Cement Manufacturing Facility. This was in response to a request from the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) following submission of an IPPC Licence application. It should be noted that throughout this report, the term dioxins is taken to mean the family of 210No. compounds or congeners comprising polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs). If both PCDDs and PCDFs are present, these have been referred to as PCDD/Fs. The summation of the concentrations of 17No. toxic PCDD and PCDF congeners, weighted relative to the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, is given in the form of World Health Organisation Toxic Equivalents (WHO-TEQ). 1.1 Proposed Process Quinn Cement currently operate a cement manufacturing facility at their Ballyconnell site, Republic of Ireland. The approximate Irish Grid Reference (IGR) of the site is , Reference should be made to the Figures section for a map of the site and surrounding area. Quinn Cement currently produce 1.4million tonnes of cement per year at the Ballyconnell facility. The process is currently coal fuelled and it is proposed to replace approximately 55% of this with Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF). Due to the nature of this fuel source there is the potential for PCDD/F emissions. As such, the IEPA has requested that a HHRA be undertaken to consider potential impacts at sensitive locations in the vicinity of the site. This is summarised in the following report. Page 1 EPA Export :00:16:13

5 2 Methodology The assessment of potential impacts associated with PCDD/F intake into the human body has been undertaken in accordance with the methodology outlined within United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities 1. The HHRAP provides a detailed explanation of the process required to undertake an assessment of potential risks associated with waste fuelled installations and is based upon site specific input parameters to allow consideration of individual locations and scenarios. This guidance was identified by the IEPA as being suitable for an assessment of this nature. This report aims to document the methodology and inputs used to assess potential impacts associated with the Ballyconnell Cement Manufacturing Facility. For further background on HHRA, reference should be made to the USEPA guidance. 2.1 Assessment Criteria The IEPA has not issued specific guideline values for PCDD/F exposure. Therefore a literature search was undertaken in order to identify suitable criteria for use in the assessment. The English Environment Agency (EEA) has issued a number of reports which assess the risk to human health associated with contaminants in soil. The Contaminants in Soil: Updated Collation of Toxicological Data and Intake Values for Humans - Dioxins, Furans and Dioxin-like PCBs 2 was reviewed to determine the relevant Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI ORAL ) for use in the HHRA. This indicated that the TDI ORAL for PCDD/Fs is 2pg/kg/day. As such, all intake predictions have been compared with this value. 2.2 Assessment Inputs The assessment requires a number of inputs that are discussed in the following sub-sections. Where standard inputs are suggested within the HHRAP and were subsequently utilised within the assessment these have not been discussed further Ambient Concentrations and Deposition Rates Ambient pollutant concentrations and deposition rates as a result of emissions from the Ballyconnell Facility were predicted through dispersion modelling using the USEPA dispersion model, AERMOD (version 09292). AERMOD is a development from the ISC3 dispersion model and incorporates improved dispersion algorithms and pre-processors to integrate the impact of meteorology and topography within the modelling output. The model utilises hourly meteorological data to define conditions for plume rise, transport, diffusion and deposition. It estimates the concentration for each source and receptor 1 2 Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, USEPA Office of Solid Waste, Contaminants in Soil: Updated Collation of Toxicological Data and Intake Values for Humans - Dioxins, Furans and Dioxin-like PCBs, English Environment Agency, Page 2 EPA Export :00:16:13

6 combination for each hour of input meteorology, and calculates user-selected long-term and short-term averages. It should be noted that the WYG Detailed Dispersion Modelling Report (Attachment No. I1) produced in support of the IPPC Licence Application was reviewed to provide continuity between the two assessments. Any differences between the models are identified in the appropriate sections. Process Conditions Process conditions were obtained though consultation with WYG on behalf of Quinn Cement Ltd and are based on the relevant design parameters. As such they are considered to provide an accurate representation of future operational conditions. These are summarised in Table 1. Table 1 Process Conditions Parameter Unit Value Stack location Irish Grid Reference (IGR) , Stack height m 118 Emission point diameter (internal) m 3.5 Flue gas emission velocity m/s Volumetric flow rate m 3 /s Temperature K 406 Although there are a number of emission points associated with the Ballyconnell Facility, PCDD/F will only be emitted from the Raw Mill/Kiln. Therefore this was the only source considered within the assessment. Emissions A nominal emission rate of 1g/s was used within the dispersion model, as required by the HHRAP, in order to produce unitized predictions for inclusion within the relevant equations. Due to the low volatility of PCDD/Fs all emissions were considered to be particle bound and vapour phase impacts were therefore not considered. The Method 2 option for particle deposition was selected within AERMOD. This was chosen because the proportion of each particulate fraction to be emitted from the plant was not known as it is not yet operational in the proposed configuration. However, as the installation will include an electrostatic precipitator it is likely that the majority of emitted particulate will be in the range 1-2µg/m 3. As such, a value of 1No. was used to describe the fine mass fraction and the mean particle diameter was entered as 1µm. Page 3 EPA Export :00:16:13

7 An emission rate (Q) of 1.67 x 10-8 g/s was used in the HHRA, based on the Emission Limit Value (ELV) for PCDD/Fs of 1 x 10-7 mg/m 3 presented in Annex II for the special provision for cement kilns co-incinerating waste of EC Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste, and the exhaust gas volumetric flow rate shown in Table 1. It should be noted that this assumes that PCDD/Fs are constantly released at the maximum permitted for the entire modelling period. As such impacts are likely to be significantly over estimated. The HHRA requires congener specific PCDD/F concentration data. However, site specific monitoring results were not available to specify the congener profile (finger-print) of emissions from the facility as it is not yet operational. In order to provide suitable inputs to the HHRA, the results of the dispersion modelling were factored by the congener profile provided within the Her Majesty s Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP) guidance document Risk Assessment of Dioxin Releases from Municipal Waste Incineration Processes 3, in lieu of more accurate data. This is summarised in Table 2. Table 2 Predicted Congener Specific Emissions Congener Representative Incinerator Normalised Emission Concentrations (ng/m 3 ) (1) 2,3,7,8-TCDD ,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD OCDD Proportion of Total Emission (%) 2,3,7,8-TCDF ,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF Risk Assessment of Dioxin Releases from Municipal Waste Incineration Processes, Her Majesty s Inspectorate of Pollution, Page 4 EPA Export :00:16:13

8 Congener Representative Incinerator Normalised Emission Concentrations (ng/m 3 ) (1) Proportion of Total Emission (%) 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF OCDF NOTE: (1) As stated in Risk Assessment of Dioxin Releases from Municipal Waste Incineration Processes, HMIP, Assessment Extents Ambient concentrations and deposition rates for inclusion within the soil concentration and subsequent produce and animal concentration equations were predicted at the discrete receptor locations summarised in Table 3. Table 3 Receptor Receptor Locations IGR (m) R1 Doon Heights R2 Doon Beg R3 Court House R4 Preaching House Lane X Y R5 Church Street R6 Main Street R7 Market House R8 Ballyconnell House R9 Derryginny Gardens R10 Farm R11 Farm R12 Farm Page 5 EPA Export :00:16:13

9 Receptor IGR (m) R13 Farm It should be noted these are the same residential receptors identified within the WYG Detailed Dispersion Modelling Report for continuity. Concentrations and deposition rates were also predicted across an area of 5km x 5km (IGR: , to , ) to determine the maximum results. One Cartesian grid with a resolution of 50m was used to describe this area within the model. It should be noted that the model was produced using UTM projection in order to utilise the provided terrain data. As such, the IGRs reproduced in this report have been converted and may appear to be incorrect due to variations between the two projection systems. In order to provide suitable ambient concentrations and deposition rates across the watershed a polygon receptor array at a spatial resolution of 500m was placed across the relevant extents, as determined through a desk-top mapping study using MapInfo and review of data contained within the IEPA website 4. The mean modelling result across all receptors was then determined as described within the HHRAP and used for input to the concentrations in water and subsequent fish concentration equations. It should be noted that terrain data was not included within the watershed modelling due to the extended assessment extents. This is not considered to represent a significant source of inaccuracy due to the large data set produced for averaging purposes and the low predicted impacts throughout the majority of the watershed. Meteorological Data Meteorological data used in this assessment was taken from St Angelo meteorological station, over the period 1 st January 2007 to 31 st December 2007 (inclusive). St Angelo observation station is located at NGR: , , which is approximately 30km north of the facility. Meteorological data from 2007 was chosen to provide continuity with the Detailed Dispersion Modelling Assessment undertaken by WYG in support of the IPPC Licence Application. A sensitivity analysis was also undertaken to ensure 2007 data resulted in the maximum predicted PCDD/F concentrations at sensitive receptor locations. Results are summarised in Table 4. Table 4 Meteorology Sensitivity Analysis Receptor Predicted Annual Mean Concentration (µg/m 3 ) R1 Doon Heights R2 Doon Beg Page 6 EPA Export :00:16:13

10 Receptor Predicted Annual Mean Concentration (µg/m 3 ) R3 Court House R4 Preaching House Lane R5 Church Street R6 Main Street R7 Market House R8 Ballyconnell House R9 Derryginny Gardens R10 Farm R11 Farm R12 Farm R13 Farm As indicated in Table 4, the maximum concentrations were predicted using the 2007 data set. As such, the use of this meteorological year is considered to provide a worst-case assessment scenario. It should be noted that the concentrations shown in Table 4 were not predicted using a unitized emission rate and therefore vary from the results shown in other sections of this report. All meteorological data used in the assessment was provided by Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling (ADM) Ltd, which is an established distributor of meteorological data within the UK and Republic of Ireland. Terrain Data The model was run with OS 1:50,000 scale digital height contour data at 10m vertical intervals for the sensitive receptor and Cartesian grid modelling. Data was processed by the AERMAP function within AERMOD to calculate heights for sources, buildings and receptors. Building Downwash The integrated Building Profile Input Programme (BPIP) module within AERMOD was used to assess the potential impact of building downwash upon predicted dispersion characteristics. Building downwash occurs when turbulence, induced by nearby structures, causes pollutants emitted from an elevated source to be displaced and dispersed rapidly towards the ground, resulting in elevated ground level concentrations. Page 7

11 Modelling that includes data inputs for building downwash provides a more accurate representation of pollutant dispersion than modelling that omits this consideration. Tests have indicated that when building downwash is not accounted for, erroneous predicted concentrations may be produced. Building downwash should always be considered for buildings that have a maximum height equivalent to at least 40% of the emission height, and which within a distance defined as five times the lesser of the height or maximum projected width of the building. Building heights and dimensions used were provided by WYG on behalf of Quinn Cement Ltd. All on-site structures were inputted into the BPIP Building Downwash pre-processor. These are summarised in Table 5. Table 5 Modelled Buildings Building IGR (m) Height (m) Radius (m) X Y Cement mill Bagging plant Raw mill Workshop Office building Waste storage bays Additive bins Coal storage Cement silo Cement silo Cement silo CF silo Clinker shed Model Accuracy Dispersion model results are susceptible to both reducible and inherent uncertainties. These have been reduced as far as practicable and worst-case assumptions have been made when necessary in order to provide a robust assessment. Measures to reduce modelling uncertainty Page 8

12 are outlined within the IEPA dispersion modelling guidance 5. These were considered within this assessment in the following manner: Emission rates - It was assumed that PCDD/Fs were constantly released at the maximum permitted for the entire modelling period. As such impacts are likely to be significantly over estimated; Meteorological data - Meteorological data was sourced from an observation station relatively close to the Ballyconnell Facility. A sensitivity analysis was also undertaken to identify the data set which resulted in the maximum predicted pollutant concentrations to ensure a worst-case assessment; Terrain - Terrain data was included within the model; and, Building downwash - The integrated BPIP module within AERMOD was used to assess the potential impact of building downwash upon predicted dispersion characteristics. Results have been considered in the context of the relevant assessment criteria and the contribution from the proposed process calculated as a proportion of the TDI ORAL.It is considered that the use of the stated measures to reduce uncertainty and the use of worst-case assumptions when necessary has resulted in model accuracy of an acceptable level. It is understood that further model accuracy information will be provided by WYG in response to a number of queries from the IEPA and therefore further sensitivity analysis is considered outside the scope of this report Concentrations In Soil Pollutant concentrations in soil (C s ) were predicted using the dispersion modelling results, the equations detailed within the HHRAP and the input parameters discussed below. Annual Precipitation Annual mean precipitation (P) for the assessment area was obtained from the Office of Public Works 6 for the Bellaheady hydrological station, which is located approximately 5km south-west of the installation boundary. Due to the relatively small distance between the two locations it is considered that similar levels of precipitation would be experienced and this source of data was therefore suitable for the assessment. The average annual precipitation was recorded as 1.272m. Soil Mixing Zone Depth A soil mixing zone depth (Z s ) of 0.2m was used for the residential receptor locations and 0.02m for the watershed. This is equal to the suggested values for tilled and untilled land, respectively, and was determined based upon the assumed land use i.e. agricultural for residents producing their own produce and animals and non-agricultural for the majority of the watershed area. It should be noted that the assumption of untilled land results in a higher predicted value for C s and associated exposure throughout the watershed. 5 6 Air Dispersion Modelling from Industrial Installations Guidance Note (AG4), IEPA, Page 9

13 Annual Irrigation Annual irrigation (I) was assumed to be 0m/yr. Annual Evapotranspiration Annual evapotranspiration (E v ) was calculated using the Turner method 7. The area of the watershed covered by shrubs and trees (C) was estimated as from the National Forest Inventory 8 with subsequent verification using aerial photography. This resulted in an E v of 0.555m. Annual Surface Run-off from Pervious Areas Annual surface run-off from pervious areas (RO) was calculated based on a water mass balance, where P + I = E v + RO. As a result, RO was calculated as 0.717m Concentrations In Water Pollutant concentrations in water (C wctot ) were predicted using the dispersion modelling results, the equations detailed within the HHRAP and the input parameters discussed below. Water Body Surface Area The water body surface area (A w ) was estimated from a desk-top mapping study using MapInfo and data available from the IEPA website 9. This indicated an A w value of 17,421,000m 2 within the watershed. Water Body Temperature Information on the water body temperature (T wb ) was not available for this assessment. A value of 283K was therefore assumed in lieu of more accurate data. Water Body Current Velocity The water body current velocity (u) was estimated based on the mean flow of 8.69m 3 /s provided by the Office of Public Works 10 for the Bellaheady hydrological station, and a width of 16m determined from the desk-top mapping study and Google streetview. This resulted in a u value of 0.54m/s. Water Body Depth The water body depth (d z ) was estimated as 2m. This was in consideration of the mean value throughout the watershed area Annual Evapotranspiration of Native Vegetation in a Mediterranean -Type Climate, Water Resources Bulletin, 27(1): 1-6, Turner, K.M National Forest Inventory - Republic of Ireland - Results, Department of Agriculture, ies and Food, Page 10

14 Average Annual Wind Speed The average annual wind speed (W) was obtained for the 2004 to 2008 St Angelo meteorological data set used in the dispersion modelling. This resulted in a W value of 3.47m/s. Watershed Area The total watershed area receiving deposition (AL) was determined through review of data available from the IEPA website 11. This resulted in an AL value of 366,100,000m 2. Impervious Watershed Area The impervious watershed area receiving deposition (AI) was determined based upon land-use analysis and AL. It was estimated that approximately 2% of the watershed was impervious, resulting in an AI value of 7,322,000m 2. Rainfall Factor A rainfall factor (RF) of was used in the assessment based upon annual average precipitation throughout the area. The HHRAP suggests a value of 50 to 300 as being representative of most locations. It should be noted that the use of a large RF value results in a higher estimation of C wctot and therefore concentrations in fish (C fish ). Erodibility Factor An erodibility factor (K) of 0.39ton/acre was used based upon the default value cited in NC DEHNR (1997) 12 and USEPA (1994) 13. Length-Slope Factor A length-slope factor (LS) of 1.5 was used based upon the default value cited in NC DEHNR (1997) 14 and USEPA (1994) 15. Water Body Volumetric Flow The average volumetric flow through water body (V fx ) was estimated based on the mean flow provided by the Office of Public Works 16 for the Bellaheady hydrological station. This resulted in a V fx value of 274,047,840m 3 /yr Final NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units, NC DEHNR, Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analysis at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Office of Solid Waste, USEPA, Final NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units, NC DEHNR, Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analysis at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Office of Solid Waste, USEPA, Page 11

15 Water Column Depth The water body depth (d wc ) was estimated as 2.1m. This was in consideration of the mean value throughout the watershed area. Page 12

16 3 Results 3.1 Dispersion Modelling Predicted normalised concentrations and deposition rates at each sensitive receptor location are summarised in Table 6. Table 6 Predicted Impacts at Discrete Receptors Receptor Predicted Normalised Annual Mean Concentration (C yp) (µg/m 3 ) Predicted Normalised Annual Deposition Rate (g/m 2 /yr) Dry Deposition Wet Deposition (D ydp) (D ydp) R1 Doon Heights R2 Doon Beg R3 Court House R4 Preaching House Lane R5 Church Street R6 Main Street R7 Market House R8 Ballyconnell House R9 Derryginny Gardens R10 Farm R11 Farm R12 Farm R13 Farm As shown in Table 6, the maximum predicted normalised concentration and deposition rates were predicted at Receptor R13. Daily intake rates (I) were therefore calculated this location in order to provide a robust assessment. The maximum concentration and deposition rates predicted at any location on the modelling grid were also identified for use in a worst-case scenario. Although the point of maximum predicted impact is not representative of human exposure, the use of the worst-case scenario Page 13

17 allows consideration of the highest resulting impact associated with PCDD/F emissions from the Ballyconnell Facility. The relevant results and grid locations are summarised in Table 7. Table 7 Maximum Predicted Impacts Parameter IGR (m) Predicted Normalised Annual Mean X Y Concentration (C yp) (µg/m 3 ) Dry Predicted Normalised Annual Deposition Rate (g/m 2 /yr) Deposition (D ydp) Maximum concentration Wet Deposition (D ydp) Maximum dry deposition Maximum wet deposition Predicted concentrations and deposition rates throughout the watershed are summarised in Table 8. Table 8 Receptor Predicted Impacts throughout Watershed Predicted Normalised Annual Mean Concentration (C yp) (µg/m 3 ) Predicted Normalised Annual Deposition Rate (g/m 2 /yr) Dry Deposition Wet Deposition (D ydp) (D ydp) Watershed x Daily Intake Rates Daily intake rates (I) were calculated for each congener using the equations detailed within the HHRAP for the following pathways: Daily intake from soil (I soil ); Daily intake from produce (I ag ); Daily intake from beef (I beef ); Daily intake from milk (I milk ); Daily intake from fish (I fish ); Daily intake from pork (I pork ); Daily intake from poultry (I poultry ); Page 14

18 Daily intake from eggs (I eggs ); Daily intake from drinking water (I dw ); and, Daily intake through inhalation (I inh ). The following 9No. scenarios stated within the HHRAP were considered at Receptor R13 and the point of maximum exposure: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and,. Predicted PCDD/F exposure was predicted for each congener and summed to provide total I. This is summarised in Table 9 for Receptor R13. Reference should be made to Appendix A for full details of I from each congener. Table 9 Daily PCDD/F Intake at Receptor R13 Proportion TDI ORAL (%) As indicated in Table 9, the predicted I for PCDD/Fs is less than the TDI ORAL of 2pg/kg/day for all exposure scenarios at Receptor R13. The maximum predicted increase in I is 0.17% of the Page 15

19 TDI ORAL for the farmer scenario. It should be noted this is a worst-case scenario and actual impacts are likely to be significantly lower. Predicted PCDD/F exposure was predicted for each congener and summed to provide total I. This is summarised in Table 10 for the point of maximum exposure. Reference should be made to Appendix B for full details of I from each congener. Table 10 Daily PCDD/F Intake at Point of Maximum Exposure Proportion TDI ORAL (%) As indicated in Table 10, the predicted I for PCDD/Fs is less than the TDI ORAL of 2pg/kg/day for all exposure scenarios at the point of maximum exposure. The maximum predicted increase in I is 0.33% of the TDI ORAL for the farmer scenario. It should be noted this is a worst-case scenario using the maximum concentration and deposition rates predicted at any grid location and actual impacts are likely to be significantly lower. Due to the very low predicted I for both receptor locations it is not considered that a sensitivity analysis of model variables would significantly increase predicted impacts. Sufficient headroom is also apparent in the results to provide confidence in the prediction that the TDI ORAL will not be exceeded at any receptor location as a result of PCDD/F emissions from the Ballyconnell Facility. Page 16

20 4 Summary and Conclusion An assessment of potential daily intake of PCDD/Fs as a result of atmospheric emissions from the Ballyconnell Cement Manufacturing Facility using SRF to co-fuel the kiln was undertaken in accordance with the USEPA HHRAP methodology. The assessment used worst-case inputs as far as practicable and considered the 9No. exposure scenarios outlined within the HHRAP at each residential receptor in the vicinity of the site. An additional worst-case exposure scenario was considered using maximum predicted concentration and deposition outputs from the dispersion model. The results of the assessment indicated that the calculated I was less than the TDI ORAL for all scenarios at all receptor locations. The maximum predicted I was pg/kg/day at Receptor R13 for the farmer scenario, which was equal to 0.17% of the TDI ORAL. The maximum predicted I at the point of maximum exposure was pg/kg/day for the farmer scenario, which was equal to 0.33% of the TDI ORAL. Based on the results of the HHRA it is not considered likely that PCDD/F emissions from the Ballyconnell Cement Manufacturing Facility will be a risk to human health. Page 17

21 Figures

22 Legend ~ S 80oo,," Title Figure 1 - Site Location Plan Project Human Health Risk Assessment for Dioxins and Furans Project Number UA Client Quinn Cement Ltd ""-"=?'--"-'=r---'L--+-':::::::,...-f"""--'::.,--"""----,----'C>.L"'---';""'------>.L---,.lL.---=--,L--'---">"O;----'-"'-"Y-"==,a =------'-",--L.:...:,;="""-''---+'------''e..:.-,=----''--'--,---C:.----,-----""r Contains Ordnance Survey Data Crown Copyright and Database Act 2010 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Firecrest Court Centre Park Warrington WA11RG United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0)

23 Appendix A Congener Specific Results - Receptor 13

24 Appendix A - Congener Specific Results Table A.1 Predicted Daily Intake - TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8 4.76E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-05 Table A.2 Predicted Daily Intake - PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8 9.88E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04

25 Table A.3 Predicted Daily Intake - HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8 1.28E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04 Table A.4 Predicted Daily Intake - HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8 1.14E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04

26 Table A.5 Predicted Daily Intake - HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9 9.22E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04 Table A.6 Predicted Daily Intake - HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 7.76E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04

27 Table A.7 Predicted Daily Intake - OctaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 1.84E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04 Table A.8 Predicted Daily Intake - TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8 2.90E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04

28 Table A.9 Predicted Daily Intake - PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8 9.26E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04 Table A.10 Predicted Daily Intake - PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8 1.90E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-03

29 Table A.11 Predicted Daily Intake - HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8 9.47E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-03 Table A.12 Predicted Daily Intake - HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8 3.50E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-03

30 Table A.13 Predicted Daily Intake - HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8 1.81E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-05 Table A.14 Predicted Daily Intake - HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9 3.62E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-03

31 Table A.15 Predicted Daily Intake - HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 1.99E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-03 Table A.16 Predicted Daily Intake - HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 1.85E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04

32 Table A.17 Predicted Daily Intake - OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 1.63E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04

33 Table A.18 Predicted Daily Intake Congener Specific TetraCDD 2,3,7,8- HexaCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8- PentaCDD 1,2,3,7,8- HexaCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8- HexaCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9 - HeptaCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - OctaCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7, 8,9- TetraCDF 2,3,7,8- PentaCDF 1,2,3,7,8- PentaCDF 2,3,4,7,8- HexaCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8- HexaCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8- HexaCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8- HexaCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9- HeptaCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - HeptaCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 - OctaCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7, 8,9-1.32E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04

34 Table A.19 Predicted Daily Intake Congener Specific: WHO-TEQ Basis TetraCDD 2,3,7,8- HexaCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8- PentaCDD 1,2,3,7,8- HexaCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8- HexaCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9 - HeptaCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - OctaCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7, 8,9- TetraCDF 2,3,7,8- PentaCDF 1,2,3,7,8- PentaCDF 2,3,4,7,8- HexaCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8- HexaCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8- HexaCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8- HexaCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9- HeptaCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - HeptaCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 - OctaCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7, 8,9-1.32E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-08

35 Appendix B Hyder Congener Specific Results - Location of Maximum Exposure

36 Appendix B - Congener Specific Results Table B.1 Predicted Daily Intake - TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8 1.07E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-05 Table B.2 Predicted Daily Intake - PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8 2.23E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04

37 Table B.3 Predicted Daily Intake - HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8 2.89E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04 Table B.4 Predicted Daily Intake - HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8 2.58E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04

38 Table B.5 Predicted Daily Intake - HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9 2.08E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04 Table B.6 Predicted Daily Intake - HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 1.75E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04

39 Table B.7 Predicted Daily Intake - OctaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 4.16E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04 Table B.8 Predicted Daily Intake - TetraCDF, 2,3,7,8 6.55E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E-04