Golder Associates (UK) Ltdwrren.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/S4_Appendix-2-Golder-2009... ·...

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd Kensal House 77 Springfield Road Chelmsford Essex CM2 6JG England

Tel: [44] (0)1245 291949 Fax: [44] (0)1245 291950 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.golder.com/uk

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Golder Associates (UK) Ltd

Company Registered in England No 1125149. At Attenborough House, Browns Lane Business Park, Stanton-on-the-Wolds, Nottinghamshire, NG12 5BL. GOLDER ASSOCIATES: OPERATIONS IN AFRICA, ASIA, AUSTRALASIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA

REPORT ON

Submitted to:

Planning Application Ref: APP/Z1585/V/09/2104804 Ms Claire Tomalin

Essex County Council Minerals and Waste Planning E2

County Hall Chelmsford CM1 1QH

September 2009 09514690030.512/B.0

PLANNING APPLICATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL

STATEMENT

ADDENDUM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

PROPOSED EVOLUTION OF THE RECYCLING & COMPOSTING FACILITY

AT RIVENHALL AIRFIELD GENT FAIRHEAD & CO LIMITED

Gent Fairhead & Co. LimitedGent Fairhead & Co. Limited

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION

September 2009 - i - 09514690030.512 Introduction B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1

1.1 Contents of the Addendum ES ................................................................ 1

September 2009 1-1 09514690030.512 Introduction B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On 26 August 2008, Golder Associates (UK) Ltd, planning agents for Gent Fairhead & Co Limited (GFC), submitted a Planning Application to Essex County Council (ECC) for the construction of an evolution of the Recycling and Composting Facility (eRCF) on part of Rivenhall Airfield in Essex. Having reviewed the eRCF application, Environmental Statement and consultation responses, on 24 November 2008, ECC issued a Regulation 19 – Request for Additional Information. On 9 December 2008, the Regulation 19 – Additional Information (Regulation 19 Submission) was submitted in response to ECC’s request.

At a meeting of ECC’s Development and Regulation Committee on 24 April 2009, it was resolved that the Secretary of State be informed that the Council was minded to grant planning permission subject to the completion of legal agreements. On 12 May 2009, the Government Office for the East of England confirmed that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had directed ECC to refer the application to the Secretary of State for determination.

This Addendum Environmental Statement, September 2009 (Addendum ES) presents additional information for the public inquiry in respect of the eRCF. A Revised Non-Technical Summary, September 2009 (NTS 2009) has been produced to accompany the Addendum ES. Together, the four documents of the ES August 2008, Regulation 19 Submission, Addendum ES and the NTS 2009 constitute the eRCF Environmental Statement (eRCF ES).

1.1 Contents of the Addendum ES

The Addendum ES Addendum presents the following additional information:

a) Chapter 2 – Air Quality;

b) Chapter 3 – Human Health Risk Assessment;

c) Chapter 4 – Carbon Balance; and

d) Chapter 5 – Ecology.

The Appendices for each Chapter follow in the order of the environmental topics within the Addendum ES set out above.


CHAPTER 2AIR QUALITY

September 2009 - i - 09514690030.512 Addendum Air Quality Impact Assessment B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1

1.1 Report Context ........................................................................................ 1 1.2 Addendum Air Quality Impact Assessment (AAQIA) ............................... 1 1.3 The Proposed Development .................................................................... 2 1.4 Assessment Methodology ....................................................................... 3 1.5 Report Outline ......................................................................................... 3

2.0 SITE LOCATION AND BACKGROUND AIR QUALITY ............................. 5 2.1 The Site ................................................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Site location ................................................................................. 5 2.1.2 Land Use at the Site and Surroundings ....................................... 5 2.1.3 Topography .................................................................................. 5 2.1.4 Existing Sources of Air Pollution .................................................. 6

2.2 Receptors in the Vicinity of the Site ......................................................... 7 2.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Public Rights of Way .................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Nature Conservation Sites ........................................................... 7

2.3 Background Air Quality ............................................................................ 8 2.3.1 Background Monitoring ................................................................ 8 2.3.2 Local Authority Monitoring ......................................................... 10 2.3.3 UK Air Quality Archive Data ....................................................... 10 2.3.4 Air Quality Management Areas .................................................. 12

3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO EMISSIONS TO AIR . 13 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 13 3.2 Sources of Emissions to Air from the eRCF .......................................... 13

3.2.1 Biogas from the AD Plant .......................................................... 13 3.2.2 Combined Heat and Power Plant .............................................. 14

3.3 The Contaminants to be Assessed and the Relevant Environmental Assessment Levels ........................................................................................... 14 3.4 Assessment Scenarios .......................................................................... 17

3.4.1 Typical Operation Scenarios ...................................................... 17 3.4.2 Non-typical Operation Scenarios ............................................... 17 3.4.3 Summary of Scenarios .............................................................. 18

4.0 ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODELLING .......................................... 19 4.1 Justification of Atmospheric Dispersion Models .................................... 19

4.1.1 AERMOD ................................................................................... 19 4.1.2 ADMS ........................................................................................ 20

4.2 Meteorology ........................................................................................... 21 4.2.1 Meteorology Characteristics ...................................................... 21 4.2.2 Surface Characteristics .............................................................. 22

4.3 Terrain ................................................................................................... 23

September 2009 - ii - 09514690030.512 Addendum Air Quality Impact Assessment B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

4.4 Modelled Domain ................................................................................... 23 4.5 eRCF Buildings ...................................................................................... 24 4.6 Engine, CHP and Flare Emissions ........................................................ 25 4.7 Receptors within the Model ................................................................... 29

4.7.1 Receptor Grids ........................................................................... 29 4.7.2 Discrete Receptors .................................................................... 29

4.8 Conservative Nature of Modelling Assumptions .................................... 32 5.0 ASSESSMENT OF EMISSIONS .............................................................. 33

5.1 Assessment Methodology ..................................................................... 33 5.2 Scenario 1 – eRCF ................................................................................ 33

5.2.1 Short-Term ................................................................................. 33 5.2.2 Long-Term ................................................................................. 35

5.3 Scenario 2 – eRCF Revised .................................................................. 36 5.3.1 Short-Term ................................................................................. 36 5.3.2 Long-Term ................................................................................. 38

5.4 Scenario 3 ............................................................................................. 38 5.4.1 Short-Term ................................................................................. 39 5.4.2 Long-Term ................................................................................. 40 5.4.3 Arsenic Emissions Sensitivities.................................................. 41

5.5 Scenario 4 ............................................................................................. 44 5.5.1 Short-Term ................................................................................. 44

6.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 46 6.1 Stack Height Analysis ............................................................................ 46

6.1.1 Scenario 1 eRCF: Stack Height Analysis .................................. 46 6.1.2 Scenario 2 eRCF: Revised Stack Height Analysis ..................... 49

6.2 Meteorological Data ............................................................................... 51 6.2.1 Inter Annual Variability ............................................................... 51 6.2.2 Alternative Meteorological Data Set .......................................... 52

6.3 NO2 Short-Term Emission Limits ........................................................... 54 6.4 Reduced Load Sensitivity ...................................................................... 55 6.5 Single Effective Flue .............................................................................. 58

7.0 DEPOSITION PREDICTIONS .................................................................. 61 7.1 Predictive Methodology for the Human Health Risk Assessment ......... 61

7.1.1 Environmental Standards Used in the Air Dispersion Assessment ........................................................................................... 61 7.1.2 Atmospheric Dispersion Model .................................................. 61

7.2 Assessment of Deposition & Ambient Air Concentrations ..................... 65 7.2.1 Deposition .................................................................................. 65

8.0 PLUME VISABILITY .................................................................................. 67 8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 67 8.2 Scenarios Assessed .............................................................................. 67 8.3 Model Inputs .......................................................................................... 68 8.4 Plume Visibility Predicted Impacts ......................................................... 68

September 2009 - iii - 09514690030.512 Addendum Air Quality Impact Assessment B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

8.4.1 Scenario 1 - eRCF ..................................................................... 68 8.4.2 Scenario 2 – eRCF Revised ...................................................... 69 8.4.3 Scenario Single Effective Flue ................................................... 70

8.5 Summary ............................................................................................... 70 9.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 72 10.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 76 11.0 ACRONYMS ............................................................................................. 78 LIST OF TABLES Table AAQIA1 Statutory Nature Conservation Sites within 10 km of the Site Table AAQIA2 Summary of Background Air Quality Monitoring Data Collected at the

Site Table AAQIA3 Maximum 12 month averaged monitoring Data at Location Riv3 Table AAQIA4 UK Air Quality Archive Background Concentrations Table AAQIA5 UK Air Quality Archive Background Concentrations Table AAQIA6 Summary of Air Quality Background Concentrations used in the

Modelling Table AAQIA7 Environmental Standards Used in the Assessment Table AAQIA8 Assessment Criteria for HF Table AAQIA9 Assessment Criteria for HCl Table AAQIA10 Summary of Scenarios Table AAQIA11 Calm Hours in the Meteorological Dataset Table AAQIA12 Land-Use Sector Surrounding the Site Table AAQIA13 Characteristics of Land-Use Sectors Table AAQIA14 Extent of the Modelled Domain Table AAQIA15 Location and Dimensions of Buildings Used in the Model Table AAQIA16 Engine and Flare Parameters Used in the Model Table AAQIA17 Engine Emission Rates used in the Model Table AAQIA18 Flare Emission Rates used in the Model Table AAQIA19 CHP Emission Rates used in the Model Table AAQIA20 Named Discrete Receptors Used in the Model Table AAQIA21 Diffusion Tube Locations Added as Additional Discrete Receptors

Table AAQIA22 Ecological Receptors included in the Model Table AAQIA23 Scenario 1: The 19th (99.79%ile) Maximum Short-Term (Hourly)

Concentrations of NO2 Table AAQIA24 Scenario 1: The 1st (100%ile) Maximum 8-hour Concentration of CO

Table AAQIA25 Scenario 1: The 8th (90.41%ile) Maximum 24-hour Concentration of PM10 Table AAQIA26 Scenario 1: The Maximum Short-term Concentrations of SO2 for 1999

Meteorological Data Table AAQIA27 Scenario 1: The Maximum Long-Term (Annual) Concentrations of NO2Table AAQIA28 Scenario 1: The Maximum Long-Term (Annual) Concentration of PM10

September 2009 - iv - 09514690030.512 Addendum Air Quality Impact Assessment B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

Table AAQIA29 Scenario 2: The 19th (99.79%ile) Maximum Short-Term (Hourly) Concentrations of NO2

Table AAQIA30 Scenario 2: The 1st (100%ile) Maximum 8-hour Concentration of CO Table AAQIA31 Scenario 2: The 8th (90.41%ile) Maximum 24-hour Concentration of PM10 Table AAQIA32 Scenario 2: The Maximum Short-term Concentrations of SO2 for 19994

Meteorological Data Table AAQIA33 Scenario 2: The Maximum Long-Term (Annual) Concentrations of NO2 Table AAQIA34 Scenario 2: The Maximum Long-Term (Annual) Concentration of PM10 Table AAQIA35 Scenario 3: The Maximum Short-Term (Hourly) Concentrations of

Pollutants Table AAQIA36 Scenario 3: The Maximum Long-Term (Annual) Concentrations of

Pollutants Table AAQIA37 Parameters for Arsenic Sensitivity Analysis ScenariosTable AAQIA38 Predicted Concentrations µg/m3 of Annual Mean Arsenic for a Range of

Scenarios Table AAQIA39 Scenario 4: The 19th (99.79%ile) Maximum Short-Term (Hourly)

Concentrations of NO2 Table AAQIA40 Scenario 4: The 1st (100%ile) Maximum 8-hour Concentration of CO

Table AAQIA41 Scenario 4: The 8th (90.41%ile) Maximum 24-hour Concentration of PM10 Table AAQIA42 Scenario 4: The Maximum Short-term Concentrations of SO2 for 1999

Meteorological Data Table AAQIA43 Sensitivity Analysis Table AAQIA44 Scenario 2 eRCF Revised: The Maximum Short-term Concentrations of

Pollutants in the Village of Silver End Using an Alternative Meteorological Dataset

Table AAQIA45 Scenario 3: The Maximum Short-term Concentrations of Pollutants in the Village of Silver End Using an Alternative Meteorological Dataset

Table AAQIA46 Scenario 2: The Maximum Long-term Concentrations of Pollutants in the Village of Silver End Using an Alternative Meteorological Dataset

Table AAQIA47 Scenario 3: The Maximum Long-term Concentrations of Pollutants in the Village of Silver End Using an Alternative Meteorological Dataset

Table AAQIA48 Short-term NO2 Sensitivity Analysis: CHP Emission Rates Table AAQIA49 ST NO2 Sensitivity Analysis: The 19th (99.79%ile) Maximum Short-Term

(Hourly) Concentrations of NO2 Table AAQIA50 CHP Parameters for Reduced Load Operation Table AAQIA51 CHP Emission Rates for Reduced Load Operation Table AAQIA52 Reduced Load Scenario, 1 flue: The Maximum Short-term Concentrations

of Pollutants Within the Entire Modelled Domain Table AAQIA53 Reduced Load Scenario, 2 flues: The Maximum Short-term

Concentrations of Pollutants Within the Entire Modelled Domain Table AAQIA54 Parameters for Single Effective Flue Operation Table AAQIA55 Emission Rates for Single Effective Flue Operation Table AAQIA56 Single Effective Flue Scenario: The Maximum Short-term Concentrations

September 2009 - v - 09514690030.512 Addendum Air Quality Impact Assessment B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

of Pollutants Within the Entire Modelled Domain Table AAQIA57 Single Effective Flue Scenario: The Maximum Long-term Concentrations

of Pollutants Within the Entire Modelled Domain Table AAQIA58 CHP Plant Stack Emission Rates Used in the ADMS Model and

Partitioning Behaviour of Congeners, Metals and Metalloids Table AAQIA59 Mass-Based and Surface-Area Based Distributions of Particulate Material Table AAQIA60 Maximum Predicted Deposition for the Particle-bound Phase Table AAQIA61 Maximum Predicted Deposition for the Particle Phase Table AAQIA62 Maximum Predicted Deposition for the Vapour Phase Table AAQIA63 Plumes Impacts from the No. 1 Engine for Scenario 1 Table AAQIA64 Visible Plumes Impacts from the CHP and Engines for Scenario 1 Table AAQIA65 Visible Plumes Impacts from the CHP and Engines for Scenario 2 Table AAQIA66 Visible Plumes Impacts from the Single Stack for Scenario 3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure AAQIA1 Background Air Quality Monitoring Locations Figure AAQIA2 Scenario 1 eRCF Stack Height Analysis – Short-Term NO2

Figure AAQIA3 Scenario 1 eRCF Stack Height Analysis – Long-Term NO2 Figure AAQIA4 Scenario 1 eRCF Stack Height Analysis – Short-Term SO2

(15 minute averaged)Figure AAQIA5 Scenario 2 eRCF Revised Stack Height Analysis – Short-Term NO2 Figure AAQIA6 Scenario 2 eRCF Revised Stack Height Analysis – Long-Term NO2 Figure AAQIA7 Scenario 2 eRCF Revised Stack Height Analysis – Short-Term SO2

(15 minute averaged) LIST OF ANNEXES Annex AAQIA1 Windrose Annex AAQIA2 Example AERMOD Contour Plots eRCF Annex AAQIA3 Example AERMOD Contour Plots eRCF Revised Annex AAQIA4 Discrete Receptor Concentration Tables Scenario 1 Annex AAQIA5 Discrete Receptor Concentration Tables Scenario 2 Annex AAQIA6 Discrete Receptor Concentration Tables Scenario 3 Annex AAQIA7 Discrete Receptor Concentration Tables Scenario 4

September 2009 - 1 - 09514690030.512 Addendum Air Quality Impact Assessment B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Report Context

Gent Fairhead & Co Ltd has commissioned Golder Associates (UK) Ltd to develop an evolution of the planned Recycling and Composting Facility (the eRCF) at Rivenhall Airfield (the Site). The eRCF presents a further development of the design of the original Recycling & Composting Facility (RCF) on the Site, which was resolved to be granted planning permission by Essex County Council’s Planning Committee on 30 March 2007.

An Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (AQIA) for the eRCF was prepared by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd (Golder) on behalf of GFC and comprised part of the Environmental Statement August 2008 (ES August 2008). The eRCF design assessed in the ES August 2008 proposed a 35 m high Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant stack and a separate 22 m high gas engine stack. Additional air quality assessment work was undertaken as part of the Regulation 19 Additional Information, December 2008 (Regulation 19 Submission) in response to queries regarding stack heights and potential short-term, short duration, abnormal operating NO2 emission rates.

This report is an Addendum Chapter for Air Quality and is part of the Addendum Environmental Statement, September 2009 (Addendum ES) which presents additional information for the public enquiry in respect to the eRCF. A Revised Non-Technical Summary, September 2009 (NTS 2009) has been produced to accompany the Addendum ES. Together, the 4 documents of the ES August 2008, Regulation 19 Submission, Addendum ES, and the NTS 2009 constitute the eRCF Environmental Statement (eRCF ES).

1.2 Addendum Air Quality Impact Assessment (AAQIA)

The Addendum Chapter for Air Quality and this supporting Addendum Air Quality Impact Assessment (AAQIA) Appendix present additional information.

Additional air quality impact assessments have been undertaken in support of the proposed eRCF. The eRCF design proposed consists of a 35 m high CHP plant stack and a separate 22 m high gas engine stack. The additional assessment have been undertaken to include consideration of:

• Corrected building heights rather than the conservative approach to building height that was adopted in the ES August 2008;

• Amended meteorology; • More accurate terrain; and • And additional sensitivity analyses.


Golder Associates

The sensitivity analyses include:

• Gas engine stack height considerations between 22 and 27 m; • Chp stack height considerations between 25 and 45 m; • Alternative meteorology with the village of silver end located downwind of the

prevailing wind direction; • Short-term, short duration, abnormal operating NO2 emission limits; and

• An assessment of plume visibility is also presented. A potential redesign to remove the gas engine stack and re-route all emissions through the CHP stack (referred to as eRCF Revised) has also been considered. This assessment is as a result of further design work undertaken for the Inquiry that has identified that this minor design alteration would allow for better air quality (routing all emissions through a single stack generates increased thermal buoyancy of the plume for the larger volume flow) and other benefits, such as visually the removal of the gas engine stack.

As with the additional air quality impact assessments undertaken in support of the proposed eRCF consideration has been taken of corrected building heights, amended meteorology and updated terrain. The additional assessment for the eRCF Revised have been undertaken to include consideration of:

• Multiple flues from the CHP and gas engines encased within a single CHP stack shroud with a height of 35 m;

• A single effective flue CHP stack (with the combined CHP and gas engine exhaust

emissions) with a height of 35 m; and • An assessment of plume visibility is also presented. 1.3 The Proposed Development

The eRCF will incorporate improved environmental and technological features that reflect the need for local recycling and waste treatment facilities by incorporating the following waste treatment processes:

• A Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) to sort recyclable materials collected by the Waste Collection Authorities (input capacity of 100,000 tpa);

• An Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plant to generate energy from mixed organic wastes

(input capacity of 85,000 tpa); • A Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) to treat a combination of mixed residual

Municipal Solid Wastes (MSW) (i.e. black bag wastes), and/or Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste (capable of treating up to 250,000 tpa);


Golder Associates

• A Market De-inked Paper Pulp Production Facility (Pulp Facility) to de-ink and recycle paper and card such as newspapers and magazines (combined input capacity of up to 360,000 tpa (i.e. 331,000 tpa of imported waste paper, magazines and card and 29,000 tpa residual paper and card derived from the MRF & MBT); and

• CHP plant to supply energy to the Site and export 40 MW of electricity to the national

grid (capable of treating up to 360,000 tpa of solid recovered fuel (SRF) comprising SRF produced by the MBT, SRF produced by other waste treatment facilities such as Courtauld Road, Basildon, rejects from the MRF and waste sludge from the Pulp Facility).

A number of these processes have the potential to result in the release of emissions to air. These processes are described in Section 3.2.

1.4 Assessment Methodology

The potential air quality impacts on human health and vegetation have been assessed by means of atmospheric dispersion modelling. In particular, the impact at residential properties in the surrounding area and nearby ecological receptors has been assessed.

Following detailed dispersion modelling, the impact of the emissions in relation to the local air quality in the vicinity of the Site has been assessed by comparing the Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PECs) with the Environmental Assessment Levels (EALs). The PEC is the sum of the predicted specific Process Contribution (PC) from the proposed development and the existing background concentrations.

The atmospheric modelling has been performed according to the protocol set out by the Air Quality Modelling and Assessment Unit (AQMAU) in their guidance ‘Air Dispersion Modelling Report Requirements (for detailed dispersion modelling)’ (Environment Agency, 2004c).

1.5 Report Outline

The following assessments detail the AAQIA undertaken for the proposed facility. The report is structured as follows:

Section 2: The Site location and background air quality;

Section 3: Outlines the potential emissions to air from the proposed development and their relevant assessment criteria;

Section 4: Describes the atmospheric dispersion model;

Section 5: Provides an assessment of emissions results for the eRCF and the eRCF Revised;

Section 6: Details a number of model sensitivity tests which were conducted;


Golder Associates

Section 7: Details predictions of the deposition of pollutants which feed into the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA);

Section 8: Considers plume visibility; and

Section 9: Concludes the AAQIA.


Golder Associates

2.0 SITE LOCATION AND BACKGROUND AIR QUALITY

2.1 The Site

2.1.1 Site location

The Site is located on the south-eastern edge of a World War II airfield known as Rivenhall Airfield between the villages of Bradwell (northwest 2.6 km), Silver End (southwest 1.1 km), Rivenhall (south 2.3 km), Coggeshall (northeast 2.8 km) and Kelvedon (southeast 3.4 km).

2.1.2 Land Use at the Site and Surroundings

In terms of landscape, the former airfield and its immediate surroundings are on a plateau above the River Blackwater. This plateau is currently being excavated and, therefore, under the current planning permission, half of the old airfield will become a restored ‘bowl’ for continued agricultural use. The airfield was open and exposed and had been used predominantly for agricultural purposes, although currently it is under extensive sand and gravel extraction and restoration.

The nearest residential properties within 1 km of the Site are: The Lodge, Allshotts Farm, Bumby Hall, Sheepcotes Farm, Greenpastures Bungalow, Goslings Cottage, Goslings Barn, Goslings Farm, Deeks Cottage, Heron’s Farm, Deeks Cottage, Haywards, and Park Gate Farm Cottages.

Apart from the quarrying operations taking place to the north of the Site, there are several existing buildings and groups of buildings surrounding the Site which are currently in use for commercial and industrial purposes. These include the industrial Hanger No. 1 and surrounding buildings near Sheepcotes Farm to the west of the Site, the scrap yard and associated industry at Allshots Farm to the east of the Site, the street sweeping and sewage clearing services at the Elephant House to the south of the Site, and the series of Light Industrial units at the Polish Site to the southeast of the Site.

2.1.3 Topography

The majority of the Site is relatively flat, lying at around 50 m AOD. Generally ground levels fall towards the River Blackwater which is at an elevation of approximately 30 m AOD to the north and east of the Site, and 20 m AOD to the south. The former airfield and its immediate surroundings are on a plateau above the River Blackwater. The proposed eRCF will be lowered by at least 11 m below surrounding ground level to reduce the overall visual impact on the surrounding landscape.

The plateau is currently being excavated by Blackwater Aggregates and, therefore, under the current planning permission (ESS/07/98/BTE), half of the old airfield will become a restored ‘bowl’ for continued agricultural use. The sand and gravel workings commenced on the


Golder Associates

airfield in 2002. Subsequent modifications to the planning permission have amended the original restoration scheme to include a mixture of shallow sloping agricultural fields, steeper woodland side slopes and a large surface water collection lagoon (New Field Lagoon).

The Upper Blackwater Valley lies to the north of the old airfield, and sweeps east to Coggeshall and south to Kelvedon before continuing south to Witham. The Valley forms a distinct feature within the area, particularly between Braintree and Coggeshall where the valley sides are relatively steep and the river floodplain is narrow.

2.1.4 Existing Sources of Air Pollution

Existing sources of air pollutants in the vicinity of the proposed development include:

• Traffic exhausts from the A120, the quarry traffic and the local roads; • Potential nuisance dust and particles nuisance from the quarry; • Local light industry; and • Agricultural activity. Existing sources of air pollutants in the vicinity of the proposed development sourced from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory for post code CO5 9DF, http://www.naei.org.uk/emissions/postcode_2003.php?f_postcode=CO5+9DF&radius=5, include:

• Emissions of NO2 dominated by combustion in commercial, institutions, residential and agricultural sectors, and road transport;

• Emissions of PM10 dominated by combustion in commercial, institutions, residential

and agricultural sectors, and general agricultural activities; • Emissions of SO2 dominated by combustion in industry; • Emissions of non-methane VOCs dominated by solvent use and nature, land use change

and other; • Emissions of CO dominated by road transport; and • Emissions of CO2 dominated by combustion in commercial, institutions, residential and

agricultural sectors nature, land use change and other.

Specific sources of air pollutants identified by the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory within 5 km of post code CO5 9DF include:

• Bards Malt Ltd, with emissions of VOCs; • Hayman Ltd, with emissions of VOCs; and


Golder Associates

• Kelle Nalo UK Ltd with emissions of VOCs and PM10. 2.2 Receptors in the Vicinity of the Site

2.2.1 Introduction

All residential properties identified during the Community Engagement stage of the development within 1 km of the proposed eRCF have been modelled as discrete receptors (Refer to Section 4.7). This means that the impact of the emissions from the eRCF have been assessed for each neighbouring residential receptor. In addition, other residential, commercial and industrial receptors have been identified. The use of a large cartesian receptor grid also allows the estimation of impacts at other locations, not specified as discrete receptors. The Cartesian grid is approximately 4 km x 4 km centred on the Site with 50 m resolution.

2.2.2 Public Rights of Way

All of the footpaths and bridleways in the vicinity of the eRCF are outside the perimeter of the Site. The closest footpath lies approximately 300 m to the south (Footpath No. 8 in Essex County Council’s (ECC’s) designation). The new access road to the eRCF will run along a footpath to the north of the Site (Footpaths No. 56 and 31/35 in ECC’s designation). The air quality impact at various receptor points along Footpaths 7, 8, 31 and 32 has been assessed within the report, and the general extent of any areas of adverse air quality impact can be determined more generally from the contour plots presented in Annexes AAQIA2 and AAQIA3.

2.2.3 Nature Conservation Sites

There are three County Wildlife Sites (CWSs) located within a 3.0 km radius around the Site. These are as follows:

• W125 Blackwater Plantation (within 3 km); • W134 Maxeys Spring (within 1 km); and • W139 Storeys Wood (within 1 km). The closest statutory designation appears to be the Brockwell Meadows Local Nature Reserve, which lies approximately 5 km to the southeast of the Site. The closest site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is the Belcher’s and Broadfield Woods, approximately 7 km to the north of the Site whose main habitat is Broadleaved, Mixed and Yew woodland. Within 10 km of the Site are a further five SSSIs, namely, Marks Tey Brickpit, Chalkney Wood, Bovingdon Hall Woods, Tiptree Heath, and River Tey.

Environment Agency guidance for Pollution Prevention and Control permit applications (Environment Agency, 2003) states that the operator of an installation should consider whether the presence of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a Special Protection Area

Scale

Project

Title

File No.

Status

Project No.

Drawing No. Rev

Client Project Manager ReviewerCreated by Date

© Golder Associates (UK) Ltd

Size

Gent Fairhead & Co. Ltd

Evolution of the Recycling & CompostingFacility, Rivenhall Airfield

Background Air QualityMonitoring Locations

AJ SJS SJS AUG 2008

560537

NTS

09514690030

For Information

AAQIA 1 -

A4

Legend


Golder Associates

(SPA) or a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) within 10 km of the location of the installation justifies the need for detailed dispersion modelling to be carried out.

The statutory nature conservation areas located within 10 km of the Site are listed in Table AAQIA1 below. No sensitive habitats sites, including CWSs, are located within 5 km of the Site. These receptors have thus not been explicitly modelled as discrete but any impacts estimated from the contour plots presented in Annexes AAQIA2 and 3.

Table AAQIA1: Statutory Nature Conservation Sites within 10 km of the Site

Receptor Type Distance from Site Boundary (m)

Direction from Site Boundary

None within 10 km SAC - - None within 10 km RAMSAR - - None within 10 km SPA - -

Belcher’s & Broadfield Woods SSSI 6178 N Marks Tey Brickpit SSSI 9535 NE-E

Chalkney Wood SSSI 8477 NE Bovingdon Hall Woods SSSI 9444 NW

Tiptree Heath SSSI 8288 SE River Ter SSSI 9379 SW

Notes: 1. Information obtained from www.magic.gov.uk. 2.3 Background Air Quality

For the purposes of the assessment it is necessary to determine the existing background concentrations for contaminants of concern. The additional contribution arising from the Site PC can then be added to this in order to obtain a total PEC.

2.3.1 Background Monitoring

Monitoring of existing concentrations of NO2 (Nitrogen Dioxide) and SO2 (Sulphur Dioxide), using passive diffusion tubes, was initiated in July 2007 at 13 locations in the vicinity of the Site. Monitoring locations were chosen to reflect the location of potentially sensitive receptors and be representative of all wind directions. The monitoring locations are illustrated in Figure AAQIA1. Measurements were taken on a monthly basis until October 2008.

At each of the monitoring locations, diffusion tubes were exposed in duplicate to allow interpretation of the reliability of results. A total of 14 months data were collected for the Site. The NO2 data showed a strong seasonal trend with higher concentrations in the winter months. However, data collected in the monitoring period covering January-February 2008 contained unusually low values at all monitoring locations suggesting that these results are unreliable. Consequently, all of the data collected in January-February 2008 have been removed from the main data set before analysis.


Golder Associates

Table AAQIA2 below contains a summary of the data collected at each of the monitoring locations (with the removal of January-February 2008 data).

Table AAQIA2: Summary of Background Air Quality Monitoring Data Collected at the Site

Monitoring Location Statistic Concentration

of NO2 (µg/m3) Concentration of SO2 (µg/m3)

Number of months of NO2 data

Number of months of SO2 data

Riv1 min 3.2 4.0

11 12 max 28.5 79.8 Mean 15.4 16.2

Riv2 min 7.6 3.2

10 10 max 30.6 33.6 Mean 18.0 10.3

Riv2a min 11.1 1.10

10 11 max 34.8 164 Mean 20.9 21.8

Riv3 min 10.4 2.9

13 14 max 37.7 38.1 Mean 21.6 11.2

Riv 4R min 10.3 3.5

13 14 max 35.9 57.3 Mean 19.6 13.8

Riv5 min 9.9 3.9

11 10 max 46.3 52.7 Mean 23.2 14.9

Riv6 min 7.5 3.00

13 13 max 53.2 66.1 Mean 22.1 16.7

Riv7 min 6.50 1.20

13 14 max 33.6 96.6 Mean 18.6 13.0

Riv8 min 10.2 2.10

13 14 max 42.1 333 Mean 20.9 33.0

Riv9a min 13.6 -

2 0 max 13.7 - Mean 13.7 -

Riv 9R min 15.1 10.4

2 2 max 15.9 13.2 Mean 15.5 11.8

Riv10 min 8.80 3.90

11 12 max 35.5 44.3 Mean 20.3 11.2

Riv 10a min 7.10 3.90

13 14 max 40.5 73.9 Mean 21.3 15.3

Riv 11 min 8.80 3.10

12 14 max 28.0 58.5 Mean 15.8 11.3

Riv12 min 16.8 2.60

10 11 max 36.2 54.4 Mean 25.4 15.0

Riv12a min 5.50 2.90

9 11 max 48.8 46.2 Mean 28.9 14.3


Golder Associates

For some of the monitoring locations, data was not collected for all monitoring months. This was due to weather damage and vandalism at some of the locations. In determining a background concentration, monitoring locations for which a more complete set of data is available (locations 3,4R,6, 7,8 and10A) have been considered. The monitoring location with the best correlation between the duplicate samples is Riv3 which lies slightly northeast of the Site, close to Haywards Farm. A 12 month mean was calculated for this monitoring location and these results are tabulated in Table AAQIA3 below:

Table AAQIA3: Maximum 12 Month Averaged Monitoring Data at Location Riv3

Concentration of NO2 (µg/m3) Concentration of SO2 (µg/m3) 22.7 12

2.3.2 Local Authority Monitoring

Braintree District Council (BDC) carries out local monitoring of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter in the district. No background monitoring of carbon monoxide is currently undertaken. BDC’s monitoring is carried out at predominantly roadside and urban locations in Braintree town centre and on the A12. Limited data is available for rural locations which are more comparable to the Site.

Where no site-specific monitoring data was available, it was considered most appropriate to adopt background concentrations provided by the UK Air Quality Archive Data (data available at www.airquality.co.uk).

2.3.3 UK Air Quality Archive Data

Background air quality data have been sourced from ‘the national background maps’, which are provided for each 1 x 1 km grid square across the UK. Theses maps show estimated UK background concentrations of various pollutants and can be provided for existing and future years via data projection. Numerical data can be downloaded for each grid square, the co-ordinates are given for the centre of each square. The maps can be accessed at www.airquality.co.uk/archive/laqm/tools.php.

The UK Air Quality Archive background air quality database has been updated on a number of occasions and the pollutant concentration data changed based on improved data collection techniques and more recent understanding of the pollutant chemistry, especially in the case of NOx and PM10. The background data has thus been updated since the Environmental Statement.

The UK Air Quality Archive background concentrations of NO2 (Nitrogen Dioxide), CO (Carbon Monoxide), PM10 (Particulate Matter), and SO2 (Sulphur Dioxide) for the year 2009 are summarised in Table AAQIA4.


Golder Associates

Table AAQIA4: UK Air Quality Archive Background Concentrations

Parameter 2009 Data (µg/m3) 1,2,3

Source of Background Concentration1

Nitrogen Dioxide 12.10 2009 annual mean (from the 2006 data set) Carbon Monoxide 254 2001 annual mean (from the 2001 data set). Particulate Matter

(PM10) 16.50 2009 annual mean (from the 2006 data set)

Sulphur Dioxide4 3.53 2001 annual mean (from the 2001 data set). Notes: 1. The background data is from the UK Air Quality Archive website for 582500, 220500; 2. These backgrounds are for the long-term concentrations, for the short-term concentrations the long term

concentration is doubled; 3. It is possible to project forward to year of interest, however a more conservative approach has been

adopted in the use of the current year; and 4. SO2 background concentrations are taken to be the 2001 annual mean as no extrapolation tool is

available. In addition to the above data, background metals data has also been collected from the UK Air Quality Archive (Table AAQIA5). Data is available for a discreet number of rural and urban monitoring locations around the UK. Given that the proposed facility is situated in a rural location, the nearest rural metals monitoring location has been used to obtain background metals monitoring data. This is Monkswood which is in Cambridgeshire.

Where no data was available for the rural Monkswood monitoring location, data from the nearest urban monitoring location has been used. The nearest urban monitoring location is Cromwell Road in Greater London. However, this monitoring location is situated at the kerbside of a busy arterial road in Central London with a traffic density approximately 60,000 vehicles per day. This is not typical of the Site and consequently these values are anticipated to be very conservative. No Data was available for antimony or cobalt at any of the monitoring locations.

Background dioxins and furans data was also taken from UK Air Quality Archive (Table AAQIA5). Data for London 2007 was used as this is the nearest location to the Site for which data was available. However, the proposed facility lies in a much more rural location so values used are anticipated to be very conservative.

Table AAQIA5: UK Air Quality Archive Background Concentrations

Parameter 2006 Data (ng/m3)1 Source of Background Concentration

Arsenic 0.95 Monkswood data for 2006 Cadmium 0.17 Monkswood data for 2006 Chromium 5.3 London, Cromwell Road data for 2006

Copper4 47.6 London, Cromwell Road data for 2006 Manganese 11.3 London, Cromwell Road data for 2006

Nickel 1.3 Monkswood data for 2006 Lead 17.3 London, Cromwell Road data for 2006

Vanadium 4.7 London, Cromwell Road data for 2006 Mercury 1.7 Monkswood data for 2006

Dioxins and Furans 7.25 x 10-6ug/m3 London data for 2007 Notes:


Golder Associates

1. These background concentrations are for the long-term concentrations, to determine the short-term concentrations the long term concentrations are doubled.

No background data was available for Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) or Hydrogen Fluoride (HF).

Table AAQIA6, below summarises both the long and short-term background concentrations used in the AAQIA modelling. Short-term backgrounds have been calculated by doubling the long-term background.

Table AAQIA6: Summary of Air Quality Background Concentrations used in the Modelling

Parameter Short-Term Background used in Modelling (µg/m3)

Long-Term Background used in Modelling (µg/m3)

NO2 45.4 22.7 CO 508 N/A

PM10 33.0 16.5 SO2 23.9 N/A HCl 0 0 HF 0 0

Dioxin and Furans 1.5 x 10-5 7.3 x 10-6 Cadmium 3.40E-04 1.70E-04 Thallium - - Mercury 3.40E-03 1.70E-03

Antimony - - Arsenic 1.90E-03 1.00E-03

Lead 3.46E-02 1.73E-02 Chromium 1.05E-02 5.30E-03

Cobalt - - Copper 9.52E-02 4.76E-02

Manganese 2.26E-02 1.13E-02 Nickel 2.54E-03 1.30E-03

Vanadium 9.40E-03 4.70E-03

2.3.4 Air Quality Management Areas

BDC does not currently have any Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs).


Golder Associates

3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO EMISSIONS TO AIR

3.1 Introduction

The operations to be carried out at the eRCF are described in detail in Chapter 3 – Construction & Operations of the Environmental Statement. The proposed eRCF development components are summarised in Section 1.3. Two of these processes result in emissions to air via exhaust stacks. These are:

• Emissions from the biogas combusted in gas engines and back-up flare associated with the AD plant; and

• Emissions from the CHP plant which is utilising the SRF produced by the MBT at the

Site and also ventilation air from the other eRCF process to feed the combustion process, thereby treating any odours and dust from the eRCF and producing one point-source emission.

Emissions will also be generated by vehicular movements to and from the Site. These have not been considered within this AAQIA and are addressed separately within Appendix 11-2 of the August 2008 ES.

Potential nuisance emissions of odour, dust and bioaerosols may also be generated at the Site; although the Site is designed for most operations to take place within buildings under negative pressure to minimise these impacts. Potential nuisance emissions have not been considered within this assessment and are addressed separately within Chapter 14 of the August 2008 ES.

3.2 Sources of Emissions to Air from the eRCF

3.2.1 Biogas from the AD Plant

The biogas will be collected from the AD plant and stored temporarily in the gasometer before being used as a fuel for the biogas engines. The engines will power generators to produce electricity for export to the National Grid 24 hours a day. Four or five 1 MW engines will be installed sequentially at the Site as required, as the volume of biogas produced increases. A total of 4 engines will be required by the year of maximum production with a fifth engine installed on-Site as a back up to be used during maintenance. Therefore, four engines have been modelled within the AAQIA.

A flare will be located adjacent to the engines. Under normal operating conditions, the engines will be operational and not the flare. The flare will be available on automated stand-by to burn excess biogas in the event of shutdown of the engines as a result of either planned maintenance and repairs, or to use excess gas which is not of sufficient quantity to utilise for electricity generation. One flare with capacity of 3,000 m3/hr has been modelled within the AAQIA.


Golder Associates

3.2.2 Combined Heat and Power Plant

The SRF produced by the eRCFs MBT, or SRF manufactured and imported from elsewhere, will be delivered to the integrated CHP for combustion. The energy produced by the CHP will be converted into electricity, heat and steam. Part of the electricity will be exported from Site and into the National Grid, whilst the remainder will be used as a source of power for the eRCF processes e.g. the Pulp Facility will use heat and hot water produced by the CHP plant.

The CHP unit will take all the exhaust and ventilation air from eRCF processes, including the MBT, Waste Reception Halls, MRF, etc. The air will be used within the CHP combustion process and the exhaust air treated, in accordance with the requirements of all relevant legislation before being emitted from the eRCF via a 35 m high stack. The CHP will be fitted with the latest flue gas cleaning systems to remove gases such as NO2 and other trace components in line with European and National legislation. In addition, to ensure compliance to all relevant emissions legislation continuous monitoring systems will be put in place to ensure compliance and best practice.

3.3 The Contaminants to be Assessed and the Relevant Environmental Assessment Levels

The primary emissions arising from the Biogas Utilisation Plant will be those associated with combustion processes, and will include NO2, SO2, PM10 and CO. These contaminants will also arise from the proposed CHP plant stack. In addition to these contaminants, it is also recognised that a number of additional gases or vapours may be emitted from the CHP stack, including HCL, HF, dioxins and furans and heavy metals (Groups 1-3 as defined in the Waste Incineration Directive (WID)). For the purpose of this assessment, potential emissions of these substances have also been assessed.

Concentrations of the above identified contaminants have been determined for short-term and long-term time frames, where an associated Environmental Standard exists. Long and short-term emissions of dioxins and furans have been modelled despite the absence of corresponding Environmental Standards. Similarly long-term emissions of HF have also been modelled in the absence of a corresponding Environmental Standard in order to aid understanding of the emission profile.

For each of the potential contaminants from the proposed eRCF a specific Process Contribution (PC) is predicted. The PC is combined with the existing background concentrations to give a PEC. The PEC is compared to air quality environmental standards or benchmarks to determine whether or not it is acceptable. These environmental standards are indicators of the degree of the environmental impact that can be considered acceptable for a particular substance at a receptor and comprise of statutory Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) or EALs. EQSs exist only for a limited number of substances, and tend to be those substances regulated by European Directives.


Golder Associates

The appropriate environmental standards for the emissions assessed are shown in Table AAQIA7 below.

Table AAQIA7: Environmental Standards Used in the Assessment

Combustion Emissions

Long-term (Annual) Environmental Standard

(μg/m3)

Short-term Environmental

Standard (μg/m3) Assessed

%iles Assessed Period

Nitrogen Dioxide(1) 40

200 (Hourly mean, exceeded no more than

18 times per year) 99.79 1 hour

Carbon Monoxide 350 10000 (8 hour running

mean) 100 8 hour

Particulate Matter (PM10)

40 50 (24 hour mean,

exceeded no more than 35 times per year)

90.41 24 hour

Sulphur Dioxide -

266 (15 minute mean, exceeded no more than

35 times per year)

350 (Hourly mean, exceeded no more than

24 times per year)

125 (24 hour mean, exceeded no more than

3 times per year)

99.9

99.73

99.18

15 minutes

1 hour

24 hour

Hydrogen Chloride 20 750 (Hourly mean) 100 1 hour

Hydrogen Fluoride - 160 100 1 hour

Dioxins and Furans - - 100 -

Anitimony 5 150 100 1 hour Arsenic2 0.006 15 100 1 hour

Cadmium2 0.005 1.5 100 1 hour Chromium

CrIII CrVI

5

0.1

150

3 100 1 hour

Cobalt 0.2 6 100 1 hour Copper 10 200 100 1 hour

Manganese 1 1500 100 1 hour Lead - 0.25 100 1 hour

Mercury 0.25 7.5 100 1 hour Nickel2 10 300 100 1 hour

Thallium 1 30 100 1 hour Vanadium 5 1 100 1 hour

Notes: 1. For assessment against the short-term criterion for NO2, AQMAU assume that only 50% of the nitrogen

oxides measured in the emissions are oxidised to NO; and 2. For Arsenic, Cadmium and Nickel, the values listed above are taken from the EU directive 2012 target

values. These values are not currently enforced in the UK and are more stringent than those currently listed in H1 Guidance but they have been used in this assessment for conservatism.


Golder Associates

There are no Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for HF and EALs for this pollutant have been obtained from Horizontal Guidance Note H1 (Environment Agency, 2003). The short-term EAL that applies to HF is equivalent to the short-term exposure limit divided by 10.

The Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (EPAQS) has recently published a report on halogen and hydrogen halides in ambient air (EPAQS, 2006). A summary of the EPAQS guideline and EALs for HF is presented in Table AAQIA8.

Table AAQIA8: Assessment Criteria for HF

Averaging Period Concentration (µg/m3) Averaging Period Environmental Assessment Levels Short-term EAL 250 1-hour mean Proposed EPAQS Guideline 160 1-hour mean There are no AQS for HCl and EALs for this pollutant have been obtained from Horizontal Guidance Note H1. The EALs that apply to HCl are as follows:

• A long-term EAL derived from Health and Safety (HSE) Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) and is equivalent to the long-term exposure limit divided by a factor of 100; and

• A short-term EAL equivalent to the short-term exposure limit divided by 10. As for HF, EPAQS has recently recommended a guideline concentration for HCl in their draft report. A summary of the EPAQS guideline and EALs for HCl is presented in Table AAQIA9. Table AAQIA9: Assessment Criteria for HCl Averaging Period Concentration (µg/m3) Averaging Period Environmental Assessment Levels Long-term EAL 20 annual mean Short-term EAL 800 1-hour mean Proposed EPAQS Guideline 750 1-hour mean These derived EALs (or EQSs) are conservative. They are designed to ensure that compliance with the EALs (or EQS) assessment criteria in the Environment Agency guidance means that there is no significant health risk, and no additional health risk assessment is required beyond this exposure assessment. Contaminants that have the potential to deposit and be subsequently ingested via the food chain have been further assessed within Chapter 15 Human Health Risk Assessment.

The predicted concentrations of gases have been assessed against the relevant EALs (or EQS) at the appropriate averaging period. Where the EAL (or EQS) has a number of exceedances that are allowed, results were calculated at the appropriate percentile. For example:


Golder Associates

• The hourly average NO2 air quality objective states that the standard should be exceeded no more than 18 times per year, so the modelled impact of the 19th highest hour is calculated, which equates to the 99.79th percentile of hourly meteorological data; and

• The 15 minute average SO2 air quality objective states that the standard should be

exceeded no more than 36 times per year. The shortest averaging period in the air quality assessment is determined by the meteorological data which is a 1 hour average. To calculate, a 15 minute average SO2 concentration at the appropriate percentile, the impact of the 37th highest hour is calculated, and the result then multiplied by 1.34 (the conversion from 1 hour to 15 minute average as detailed in the Environment Agency H1 Guidance (Environment Agency, 2003)).

3.4 Assessment Scenarios

3.4.1 Typical Operation Scenarios

Four separate scenarios have been modelled to represent the potential emissions to air from the eRCF and eRCF Revised considering the different CHP, gas engines and flare scenarios. The three typical operational scenarios are detailed below as follows:

• Scenario 1 – eRCF - This scenario models the impact of four engines emitting through a 22 m high stack and the 35 m CHP plant stack. Emissions of contaminant common to both the gas engines and the CHP have been considered;

• Scenario 2 –eRCF Revised - This scenario models the impact of four engines and the CHP, with the engine emissions re-routed to separate flues within the 35 m single CHP shrouded stack. Emissions of contaminant common to both the gas engines and the CHP have been considered; and

• Scenario 3- This scenario models the impact of the CHP stack alone for the purpose of assessing the impacts of hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, dioxins and furans and heavy metals which are only emitted from this source.

For all scenarios it is assumed that the Site is operating to its full capacity. No downtime (periods when the engines are not operational due to routine maintenance etc) has been assumed and the engines have been conservatively assumed to operate on a continuous basis, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

3.4.2 Non-typical Operation Scenarios

Horizontal guidance H1 (Environment Agency, 2003) requires the emissions assessment to consider, qualitatively or quantitatively, a number of potential non-typical operation (accident) scenarios. Those which are relevant to the biogas plant include:

• Gas explosion; • Damage to or failure of the biogas collection system; and • Failure of the power supply.


Golder Associates

Gas explosions, damage to the biogas collection system, or total failure of the power supply are considered unlikely. Impacts on the routine operations of biogas collection and utilisation at the Site, such as breaks and failures in the biogas collection system, shut down of the engines, or a short-term power outage are potentially more likely than the extreme event scenarios listed above. These scenarios will be covered by appropriate management practices.

• Scenario 4 - This scenario models the impact of the unlikely emergency scenario whereby all biogas is directed to the flare (in the event of total engine shutdown) with flaring capacity of 3000 m3/hr. Emissions from the CHP will also be considered as this will operate independently of the Biogas Utilisation Plant. Consequently emissions are considered from the flare and CHP only. For the purposes of this scenario emissions have only been assessed in the short-term as this is not considered to representative of typical long-term operation.

3.4.3 Summary of Scenarios

Combustion emissions have been assessed under four scenarios, which are summarised in Table AAQIA10.

Table AAQIA10: Summary of Scenarios

Scenario Brief Description Emissions Assessed

1

eRCF four engines and CHP emitted from two separate stacks

Short-term emissions of NO2, SO2, PM10 and CO and long-term emissions of NO2 and PM10.

2

eRCF Revised four Engines and CHP emitted from one single stack

Short-term emissions of NO2, SO2, PM10 and CO and long-term emissions of NO2 and PM10.

3 CHP specific emissions only

Long-term and short-term emissions of HCl, HF, Dioxins and Furans, Heavy Metals Group 1, Heavy Metals Group 2 and Heavy Metals Group 3.

4 One flare (flaring all biogas) and CHP Short-term emissions of NO2, SO2, PM10 and CO.


Golder Associates

4.0 ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODELLING

4.1 Justification of Atmospheric Dispersion Models

Until recently, all air dispersion models, which are widely used to predict ground level pollutant concentrations, were based on the concept of the time averaged lateral and vertical concentration of pollutants in a plume being characterised by a Gaussian distribution1 and the atmosphere was characterised by a number of discrete stability classes. However, a ‘new generation’ of dispersion models has been developed which replaces the description of the atmospheric boundary layer as being composed of discrete stability classes with an infinitely variable measure of the surface heat flux, which in turn influences the turbulent structure of the atmosphere and hence the dispersion of a plume.

There are two commercially available dispersion models that are able to predict ground level concentrations arising from a number of different types of sources including ground level area sources. These models are described by the Environment Agency as ‘new generation’:

• AERMOD PRIME: The US American Meteorological Society and Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model Improvement Committee MODel; and

• UK ADMS: The UK Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System model developed by the UK based consultancy Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants (CERC).

In many respects the models are quite similar. Two inter-comparison studies commissioned by the Environment Agency however found there to be significant differences in calculated concentrations between the models (Hall et al, 2000a, 2000b). These reports highlight modelling uncertainties and do not suggest that either of the models is considered to be the more accurate.

Both models are industry standard air dispersion modelling systems based on well-established scientific principles that have been validated and independently reviewed. In the case of the eRCF, the terrain and source data used are site-specific and the meteorological data have been made site-specific through AERMET. Both models therefore meets the Environment Agency’s criteria for suitability (Environment Agency, 2000).

4.1.1 AERMOD

AERMOD can simulate atmospheric physical processes and provides refined concentration estimates from a variety of point and area sources over a wide range of meteorological conditions and modelling scenarios in all types of terrain. It can also assess the effects of building downwash on the atmospheric dispersion of pollutants through its PRIME (Plume Rise Model Enhancements) algorithm. BREEZE AERMOD includes two data pre-processors

1 A Gaussian distribution has the appearance of a bell shaped curve. The maximum concentration occurs on the centre line.


Golder Associates

for streamlining data input; AERMET and AERMAP. AERMET is a meteorological pre-processor that computes boundary layer and other necessary parameters for use with BREEZE AERMOD and accepts data from both on-site and off-site sources. AERMAP is a terrain pre-processor that simplifies the computation of receptor elevations and effective height scales for numerous types of digital data formats, including Ordnance Survey® digital elevation data.

Dispersion modelling of emissions from the gas engines, flare and CHP plant has been undertaken using the US EPA AERMOD Prime dispersion model (US EPA Version 07026). AERMOD was used for the proposed eRCF as the proposed development is quite complex, particularly with regard to the number and variation in buildings that protrude above the existing ground level. The AERMOD model allows the assessor to use multiple buildings in consideration of building downwash affects whereas ADMS allows only one building to be used. Therefore, given the complex nature of the proposed eRCF, AERMOD was used.

4.1.2 ADMS

ADMS is a practical dispersion model that simulates a wide range of buoyant and passive releases to the atmosphere either individually or in combination. The model takes into account the effects of buildings, terrain and coastlines on dispersion. ADMS incorporates an air flow model, Flowstar, for use in complex terrain. Flowstar is capable of simulating the deflection of air flow around hills.

ADMS is supplied complete with a meteorological pre-processor, a utility for creating terrain data files from OS digital terrain data and utilities for incorporating source data. Many advanced options are included in the base model, including the calculation of the effects of buildings and terrain, and the calculation of concentration statistics including percentiles and rolling averages.

Since the release of ADMS 2 in 1995, the debate within the modelling community has progressed and there is now widespread agreement that new generation models are the most appropriate tools for practical dispersion modelling. The new models are characterised by two main features:

1. The description of the atmospheric boundary layer, not in terms of the single parameter Pasquill Class, but in terms of two parameters, namely the boundary layer depth and the Monin-Obukhov length; and

2. Dispersion under convective meteorological conditions uses a skewed Gaussian

concentration distribution, shown by validation studies to be a better representation than a Gaussian expression.

Plume visibility modelling and deposition has been undertaken using ADMS. ADMS was used for the plume visibility modelling as AERMOD does not provide plume visibility modelling. Deposition calculations for the HHRA were also calculated using ADMS due to


Golder Associates

the preferred method for inputting information on vapour and particle characteristics that are required for the deposition calculations.

4.2 Meteorology

4.2.1 Meteorology Characteristics

The most appropriate weather station was considered to be London Stansted Airport, located approximately 30 km west of the Site. This was the nearest observing station with all data required for air dispersion modelling. The dataset used consisted of 5 years of hourly sequential readings (1999 to 2003). These years do not relate to the modelled year of emissions but are purely used to drive the air dispersion model. The windroses for 1999 to 2003 are shown in Annex AAQIA1.

The air dispersion models require meteorological data to drive the calculations. Hourly averaged data are required for the following parameters:

• Wind speed (m/s) at a reference height of 10 m; • Wind direction (degrees) at a reference height of 10 m; • Temperature (degrees C) at a reference height of 2 m; • Relative humidity (%) at a reference height of 2 m; • Cloud cover (in 8ths); and • Surface pressure (mb). These data are used in the models, along with additionally specified input data e.g. land use and surface roughness, to calculate a number of additional parameters. The additionally calculated parameters include both surface and upper air characteristics. Calculated surface parameters include: albedo, bowen ratio, friction velocity and sensible heat flux. Calculated upper air characteristics include: vertical temperature gradients, mechanical and convective missing heights and the Monin-Obukov length.

An assessment of inter-annual variability was obtained by running the model using one year of meteorological data at a time. The air dispersion models read in one hour of meteorological data at a time and calculate the air dispersion of emitted pollutants and the potential impacts. The predicted results are collated for each year and the data at the required averaging and percentile reported as per the air quality assessment requirements.

The meteorological data may contain calm hours. For calm hours, the models set the concentration values to zero. The total number of calm hours for every year in the five-year meteorological dataset at London Stansted Airport are summarised in Table AAQIA11. The percentage of calm hours varies between 0.8% and 2.3% annually in five year meteorological data. The average percentage of calm hours for the total five-year meteorological period is 1.7%.


Golder Associates

Table AAQIA11: Calm Hours in the Meteorological Dataset

Year Total Calm Hours (hour)

Percentage (%)

1999 150 1.7 2000 198 2.3 2001 77 0.9 2002 158 1.8 2003 146 1.7 Mean 145.8 1.7

In the lower atmosphere (the Troposphere) temperature generally decreases with height (altitude) away from the surface. A temperature inversion is when, at some height above the ground, temperature begins to increase with altitude. There are two main mixing processes in the atmosphere, convective (due to temperature differences of air masses) and turbulent (mechanical mixing due to winds). When there is a temperature inversion this slows or indeed stops convection currents from rising away from the surface. If the air masses are polluted, then the temperature inversion acts as a lid, confining the pollution near the surface.

Temperature inversions are often associated with light winds. Within the modelling of the emissions, the period of time when winds are light have been considered for each year of meteorological data used. Not all of these calm periods are also associated with temperature inversions and potentially higher pollution, but consideration of the data for light wind periods generally, allows investigation of how often weather conditions may occur which the model cannot simulate (AERMOD and ADMS are driven by wind flow and so for very light winds the models are not able to predict the dispersed pollutant concentrations with any accuracy).

For the meteorological data used in the assessment, there were on average in any year 1.6% of light winds. In general, a meteorological data file is considered acceptable for use in a dispersion modelling study as long as less than 10% of the data are unusable by the model i.e. less than 10% of data are missing or light winds, and so no significant periods of time when there may be light winds and potentially higher pollution episodes are missed. Furthermore, a temperature inversion would elevate short-term concentrations and short-term assessment criteria permit a certain number of exceedances each year.

4.2.2 Surface Characteristics

The Site is surrounded by cultivated land comprised of arable crops, small areas of woodland and hedgerows which can be divided into single distinct sector described in Table AAQIA12. The surface characteristics of this sector are shown in Table AAQIA13 and include a maximum surface roughness value typical of agricultural areas. This is an update to the ES August 2008 where a lower value was used. The higher value now being adopted to ensure consistency with the HHRA dispersion modelling.


Golder Associates

Table AAQIA12: Land-Use Sector Surrounding the Site

Location Sector Land-Use Beginning Ending Site 1 Cultivated land 0° 360°

Table AAQIA13: Characteristics of Land-Use Sectors

Location Sector Frequency Albedo Bowen Ratio Surface Roughness (m) Site 1 Annual 0.28 0.75 0.3

4.3 Terrain

Nextmap Britain® digital terrain data have been included in the models. The data were supplied by eMapSite in a 5 m DTM file, resampled to 50m in ArcGIS. This data was then converted into a digital elevation model file (.dem) using AERMOD’s file translator (XYZ2DEM.EXE) prior to using AERMAP. A text file was produced for use in ADMS.

Within air dispersion models terrain with less than a slope of 1:10 is generally considered not to influence the air flow and hence dispersion of pollutants (Trinity Consultants, 2007 and CERC, 2007). Terrain has been included in the air dispersion modelling assessments for completeness. The terrain utilised has been updated since the ES August 2008 as an improved data set has become available.

A large proportion of the proposed eRCF will be below existing ground levels as ground levels are lowered, as part of the proposed development. To represent this effectively within the dispersion model, only those aspects of the proposed development (e.g. buildings and stacks) which protrude above the existing ground level, considered to be approximately 50 m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD), have been included in the dispersion model.

4.4 Modelled Domain

The extent of the modelled domain is shown in Table AAQIA14 and extends at least 1 km in all directions from the Site.

Table AAQIA14: Extent of the Modelled Domain

Easting (m) Northing (m) Southwest Corner 580000 218600 Northeast Corner 585070 222150

The domain included in the air quality assessment was determined by consideration of the extent of the plume dispersion and location of predicted maxima concentration. An initial test of the modelling domain utilising a 10 km grid centred on the Site was undertaken. Discrete


Golder Associates

receptors were placed at 50 m intervals and the assessment was undertaken considering short term and long term NO2 concentrations.

The location of the predicted NO2 long-term maximum plume impact was identified to be downwind (to the northeast) within 1.0 km of the proposed Site. Beyond 4 km from the proposed Site the predicted short-term impacts were predicted less than 20% of the maximum, and just greater than 1% of the EAL i.e. the H1 screening criteria of no significance.

The location of the predicted NO2 short-term maximum plume impact was identified to be downwind (to the northeast) within 1.0 km of the proposed Site. Beyond 4 km from the proposed Site the predicted short-term impacts were predicted less than 10% of the maximum, and less than 10% of the EAL i.e. below the H1 screening criteria for no significance.

4.5 eRCF Buildings

The eRCF’s treatment, processing and recycling buildings could potentially cause ‘building downwash’; therefore, they have been modelled. The proposed eRCF will be lowered by at least 11 m below surrounding ground level. For the purpose of representing this within the model, the heights of the various buildings above existing ground level have been calculated using Figure 3-12 from the ES August 2008 and assuming an existing ground height of 50 m AOD.

The locations, dimensions and heights of the eRCF buildings used in the model are presented in Table AAQIA15.

Table AAQIA15: Location and Dimensions of Buildings Used in the Model

Buildings

Building Grid Reference Height (m) Height above Existing Ground Level (m)

Pulp Production facility 582250, 220667 25.75 10.75 CHP Area 582395, 220446 40.75 10.75 AD tank 1 582351, 220369 30 13 AD tank 2 582334, 220347 30 13 AD tank 3 582355, 220331 30 13 Gasometer 582373, 220350 30 13 Building below CHP1 582464, 220456 20 3 Water treatment plant 582376, 220422 23.9 1 Engine 1 582360, 220396 3.9 4.5 Engine 2 582377, 220407 3.9 4.5 Engine 3 582385, 220400 3.9 4.5 Engine 4 582396, 220391 3.9 4.5 Engine 5 582406, 220383 3.9 4.5 Notes: 1. Heights indicative of structures other than the exhaust stack – exhaust stack height contained within

Table AAQIA16.


Golder Associates

4.6 Engine, CHP and Flare Emissions

The locations of the proposed engines and flares are detailed in Table AAQIA16.

Table AAQIA16: Engine and Flare Parameters Used in the Model

Parameter (Source Type) Flares (Point NGR) Engines (point NGR) CHP (point NGR)

Stack Locations 582400, 220368 Scenario 1: 582399, 2203852 Scenario2: 582460,220424 582460, 220424

Stack height (m) 10 Scenario 1: 221

Scenario 2: 35 351

Exit diameter (m) 2 0.57 4.24 Exit temperature (K) 1273 873 423

Notes:

1. Heights have been determined by stack height analysis exercised described in detail in Section 6; and

2. Central Location of the 5 clustered flues.

The combustion emission rates and associated volumetric flow rates are summarised in Table AAQIA17, AAQIA18 and AAQIA19. In the absence of Environment Agency guidance for biogas engines and flares, the combustion emission concentrations for NO2 and CO used are the Environment Agency’s emission limit requirements for landfill gas spark ignition engines commissioned after 31 December 2005 (Environment Agency 2004a) and landfill gas flares commissioned after 31 December 2003 (Environment Agency 2004b).

These figures are based on standard reference conditions using standard temperature and pressure, 273 K, 101.3 kPa for both engines and flares, and using standard reference value of 5% O2 for engines and 3% O2 for flares. These limits were then converted to estimated site-specific emissions by considering operating conditions. The combustion emission concentrations for SO2 and PM10 were taken from the default concentrations in GasSim2. Emission concentrations for the CHP were taken from the WID guidance for maximum permissible emission rates and therefore represent a conservative approach.


Golder Associates

Table AAQIA17: Engine Emission Rates used in the Model

Source Emission Concentration (mg/Nm3)

Normalised Concentration

(mg/Nm3)

Concentration at Operating Conditions (mg/m3)(3)

Volumetric Flow Rate (at Operating Conditions) (m3/s)

Emission Rate (g/s)(3,4)

Exit Velocity

(m/s) Engines NO2 5001 500 130.8

3.9

0.51 5

15.3

Engines CO 14001 1400 366.1 1.43

Engines SO2 LOGUNIFORM

(18.0, 402.0)2 315 90.4 0.35

Engines PM10 TRIANGULAR(1.2,

4.6, 12.5)2 10 3 0.01

Notes: 1. Data taken from Environment Agency’s emission limits for engines and flares; 2. Data taken from GasSim2; 3. Data calculated using GasSim defaults; 4. Emission rates quoted per engine; and 5. For short-term NO2 assessment, the emission rate is halved.


Golder Associates

Table AAQIA18: Flare Emission Rates used in the Model

Source Emission Concentration (mg/Nm3)

Normalised Concentration (mg/Nm3)

Concentration at Operating Conditions (mg/m3)(,3)

Volumetric Flow Rate (at Operating Conditions) (m3/s)(4)

Emission Rate (g/s)(4)

Exit Velocity (m/s)(4)

Flares NO2 1501 150 14.7

46.6

0.69 5

14.8

Flares CO 501 50 4.9 0.23

Flares SO2 UNIFORM(0.0,

482.0)2 450 45.1 2.10

Flares PM10 UNIFORM(1.0,

10.0)2 9 0.9 0.04

Notes: 1. Data taken from Environment Agency’s emission limits for engines and flares; 2. Data taken from GasSim2; 3. Data calculated using GasSim2 defaults; 4. Data calculated assumes one 3000 m3/hr flare as was stated in last correspondence; and 5. For short-term NO2 assessment, the emission rate is halved.


Golder Associates

Table AAQIA19: CHP Emission Rates used in the Model

Source Emission Concentration (mg/Nm3)1

Concentration at Operating Conditions

(mg/m3) 4

Volumetric Flow Rate 2 Emission Rate (g/s)

Exit Velocity (m/s) 2 Normalised

Conditions (Nm3/s)2 Operating

Conditions (m3/s)5

CHP NO2 200

Not explicitly needed. can be calculated from the actual gas temp compared

with the temp of gas under “Normal”

conditions

136.8 212.0

27.363

15.0

CHP CO 100 13.68

CHP SO2 50 6.84 CHP PM10 10 1.37 CHP HCl 10 1.37 CHP HF 1 0.14 CHP Dioxins and Furans 1.00E-07 1.37E-08

CHP Heavy Metals Group 1 0.05 6.84E-03

CHP Heavy metals Group 2 0.05 6.84E-03

CHP Heavy metals Group 3 0.5 6.84E-02

Notes: 1. Data taken from WID Directive. Normalised conditions assume 11% O2, 0◦C and dry. Operating conditions assume 11% O2, 150◦C and dry; 2. Data given during correspondence with project team; 3. For short-term NO2 assessment, the emission rate is halved; 4. Concentration at operating conditions assume 11% O2, , 150◦C and dry; and 5. Flow converted for operating temperature of 150◦C.


Golder Associates

4.7 Receptors within the Model

4.7.1 Receptor Grids

One uniform cartesian receptor grid has been used in the model, centred on National Grid Reference E 582364.4, N 220341.3. The grid extends approximately 4 km by 4 km, centred on the Site, with receptors at 50 m intervals.

The scope of the air quality assessment involves modelling ground level concentrations of emissions at the boundary and at sensitive receptors. Therefore, flagpole (receptors above ground level) and on-Site receptors are not used in this model.

4.7.2 Discrete Receptors

In addition to the cartesian grid, 47 discrete receptors have been identified and are shown in Table AAQIA20 below. The types of discrete receptors included are based on the Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance LAQM TG (09) 2009, paragraph 1.29, which states that discrete receptors of interest should ‘focus on those locations where members of the public are likely to be regularly present and are likely to be exposed for a period of time appropriate to the averaging period of the objective’.

Discrete receptors identified include places of residence which will be important for long-term and short-term assessment, areas of sensitive habitats which will be important for long-term assessment, and footpaths/recreational areas which will be important for short-term assessment.

Emphasis is placed on receptors in close proximity to the site, and within the extent of the plume, where potential impacts may be greatest. A grid over the whole model domain is also included so that concentrations can also be identified at locations not necessarily identified as discrete receptors and to allow a greater understanding of spatial distribution of potential impacts.

Table AAQIA20: Named Discrete Receptors Used in the Model

Receptor ID Receptor Easting Northing D1 Sheepcotes Farm (Hanger No.1) 581564.6 220328.3 D2 Wayfarers Site 582557.4 220185.4 D3 Allshot's Farm (Scrap Yard) 582892.6 220458.3 D4 Haywards 583235.7 221162.6 D5 Herons Farm 582443.0 221378.3 D6 Gosling's Farm 581426.9 221380.9 D7 Curd Hall Farm 583261.7 221708.3 D8 Church (adjacent to Bradwell Hall) 581832.3 222157.9 D9 Bradwell Hall 581837.5 222319.1 D10 Rolphs Farmhouse 580675.8 220512.8


Golder Associates

Receptor ID Receptor Easting Northing D11 Silver End/Bower Hall/Fossil Hall 581286.5 219730.6 D12 Rivenhall Pl/Hall 581860.9 219104.3 D13 Parkgate Fm/Waterfall Cottages 582336.5 219195.2 D14 Ford Farm/Rivenhall Cottage 582697.7 218597.5 D15 Porter's Farm 583391.6 219242.0 D16 Unknown Building 1 583131.7 219462.9 D17 Bumby Hall/The Lodge/Polish Site (Light Industry) 582947.2 220115.2 D18 Footpath 8, Receptor 1 (East of Site) 582660.7 220977.1 D19 Footpath 8, Receptor 2 (East of Site) 582597.0 220688.5 D20 Footpath 8, Receptor 3 (East of Site) 582609.1 220564.0 D21 Footpath 8, Receptor 4 (East of Site) 582627.3 220497.2 D22 Footpath 8, Receptor 5 (East of Site) 582590.9 220415.2 D23 Footpath 8, Receptor 6 (East of Site) 582761.0 220217.8 D24 Footpath 8, Receptor 7 (East of Site) 583016.1 220026.5 D25 Footpath 35, Receptor 1 (North of Site) 582861.2 220843.4 D26 Footpath 35, Receptor 2 (North of Site) 582454.2 221013.5 D27 Footpath 35, Receptor 3 (North of Site) 582032.1 221162.3 D28 Footpath 31, Receptor 1 (Northwest of Site) 581877.2 220958.8 D29 Footpath 31, Receptor 2 (Northwest of Site) 581740.6 220764.5 D30 Footpath 31, Receptor 3 (Northwest of Site) 581379.2 220548.8 D31 Footpath 7, Receptor 1 (Southeast of Site) 582505.9 220117.6 D32 Footpath 7, Receptor 2 (Southeast of Site) 582757.9 220066.0 D33 Footpath 7, Receptor 3 (Southeast of Site) 582967.5 219959.7 D34 Footpath 7, Receptor 4 (Southeast of Site) 583167.9 220372.7 D35 Footpath 7, Receptor 5 (Southeast of Site) 583301.5 220725.0 D36 Elephant House (Street Sweeping) 582368.7 220189.0 D37 Green Pastures Bungalow 581249.9 221176.1 D38 Deeks Cottage 582873.4 221255.1 D39 Woodhouse Farm 582583.9 220617.9 D40 Goslings Cottage/Barn 581508.4 221305.5 D41 Felix Hall/The Clock House/Park Fm 584578.8 219574.9 D42 Glazenwood House 579980.5 222134.8 D43 Bradwell Hall 580570.6 222802.9 D44 Perry Green Farm 580899.7 221973.3 D45 The Granary/Porter Fm/Rook Hall 584106.2 218964.5 D46 Grange Farm 584888.0 222222.0 D47 Coggeshall 585070.0 222839.0

Eleven additional discrete receptors were also added to represent the locations of diffusion tubes which have been installed for monitoring purposes.


Golder Associates

These locations can be found in Table AAQIA21, below:

Table AQIA21: Diffusion Tube Locations added as Additional Discrete Receptors

Receptor ID Diffusion Tube ID Easting Northing D48 Riv5 582589 220407 D49 Riv2 582692 220241 D50 Riv2A 582840 220150 D51 Riv1 582621 220635 D52 Riv3 583114 221178 D53 Riv10 582331 221582 D54 Riv10A 582957 221249 D55 Riv4R 583171 220998 D56 Riv11 582319 220255 D57 Riv7 582931 220423 D58 Riv6 581609 221516 D88 Riv9A 581856 220069 D89 Riv8 581507 220601 D90 Riv12A 581767 219395 D91 Riv12 582354 219285

A number of ecological receptors have also been identified for the purposes of the Ecological Impact and Ecological Risk Assessment. Given that the plume maximum occurs within 1 km of the Site, it has not been considered necessary to extend the inclusion of sensitive receptors out any further than 4 km from the Site. The ecological receptors used in the assessment are included in Table AAQIA22 below. Results generated at these locations will not be discussed within this report but are contained within the Ecological Risk Assessment (ES August 2008, Chapter 7).

Table AAQIA22: Ecological Receptors included in the Model

Receptor ID Ecological Receptor Easting Northing D59 River Blackwater, Receptor 1 581464.3 222771 D60 River Blackwater, Receptor 2 581591.2 222687.2 D61 River Blackwater, Receptor 3 581727.7 222708.7 D62 River Blackwater, Receptor 4 581828.2 222632.1 D63 River Blackwater, Receptor 5 581833 222507.6 D64 River Blackwater, Receptor 6 581900.1 222366.3 D65 River Blackwater, Receptor 7 581940.8 222241.8 D66 River Blackwater, Receptor 8 582060.5 222217.8 D67 River Blackwater, Receptor 9 582194.6 222258.5 D68 River Blackwater, Receptor 10 582307.2 222296.8 D69 River Blackwater, Receptor 11 582446.1 222258.5 D70 River Blackwater, Receptor 12 582570.6 222184.3 D71 River Blackwater, Receptor 13 582692.7 222143.6 D72 River Blackwater, Receptor 14 582810 222090.9 D73 River Blackwater, Receptor 15 582944.1 222119.6 D74 River Blackwater, Receptor 16 583085.4 222141.2 D75 River Blackwater, Receptor 17 583219.5 222160.3 D76 River Blackwater, Receptor 18 583312.2 222221.6 D77 River Blackwater, Receptor 19 583421.3 222187.6 D78 River Blackwater, Receptor 20 583450.4 222093.1 D79 River Blackwater, Receptor 21 583513.5 222005.8


Golder Associates

Receptor ID Ecological Receptor Easting Northing D80 River Blackwater, Receptor 22 583595.9 221940.4 D81 River Blackwater, Receptor 23 583705 221882.2 D82 River Blackwater, Receptor 24 583809.2 221904 D83 River Blackwater, Receptor 25 583915.9 221998.6 D84 River Blackwater, Receptor 26 584008 222025.2 D85 River Blackwater, Receptor 27 584100.2 222090.7 D86 River Blackwater, Receptor 28 584182.6 222178 D87 Existing lake location (Woodhouse Farm) 582552.5 220648.1

A total of 3608 receptors are featured within the model, including the discrete receptors, the cartesian grid, and the boundary receptors.

4.8 Conservative Nature of Modelling Assumptions

There are uncertainties associated with modelling emissions from developments such as that proposed. Consequently, worst-case assumptions have been adopted for the air quality assessment to ensure that predicted impacts will be over-estimated rather than under-estimated. Worst-case assumptions used for the assessment include the following:

• The use of the worst-case meteorological year for predicting ground level pollutant concentrations;

• The gas engines and CHP plant are assumed to operate at full load and to operate

continuously; • Emissions are assumed to be continuously at the maximum permissible by the relevant

legislation and/or Environment Agency guidance; • For the CHP plant, metal emissions are specified in three groups. Where there is more

than one metal in the group (e.g. Group 1 comprises two metals and Group 3 comprises nine metals1), it is assumed that each individual metal is emitted at the emission limit for the group as a whole. Clearly, this assumption is implausible as the emission overall would be twice the emission limit for Group 1 metals and nine times the emission limit for the Group 3 metals. (Using Arsenic as an example, Section 5.4.3, considers more realistic options for emission rates);

• Maximum predicted concentrations are compared to the EAL irrespective of whether

there is relevant public exposure at that location; and • Worst-case dispersion conditions are considered with respect to the single stack

configuration (i.e. the enhanced thermal buoyancy of the plume is not accounted for in the detailed predictions) adopted for the eRCF Revised proposal.

1 Group 1 comprises cadmium (Cd) and thallium (Tl) and Group 3 comprises arsenic (As), cobalt

(Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), antimony (Sb) and vanadium (V)


Golder Associates

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF EMISSIONS


The procedure for atmospheric dispersion modelling at the boundary and at critical receptors is complex. The assessment protocol is fully described in the Horizontal Guidance Note H1 (Environment Agency, 2003).

The assessment procedure involves calculating the emissions from the process at a number of site boundaries and other critical receptors after dispersion into the atmosphere. This calculated value is called the PC. Modelling takes into account the background environmental air quality and calculates the total PEC. The PEC is assessed against environmental benchmarks, which are indicators of the degree of environmental impact that can be considered acceptable for a particular substance to a receptor. These environmental benchmarks comprise statutory EQSs or EALs as discussed in Section 3.3.

Emissions were assessed under four different scenarios, as described in Section 3.4.

5.2 Scenario 1 – eRCF

The short-term emissions of NO2, CO, PM10 and SO2 and the long-term emissions of NO2 and PM10 from the 4 engines and CHP releasing emissions from two separate stacks have been assessed using AERMOD. The maximum concentrations anywhere in the model domain are presented in the following sections. The results of these scenarios are presented below and are supported by example contour plots in Annex AAQIA2 and discrete receptor concentration tables in Annex AAQIA4.

5.2.1 Short-Term

The short-term emissions of NO2 from the engines and CHP were assessed for all five years of meteorological data. The maximum PECs within the entire modelled domain were compared against the relevant EALs. This showed that short-term NO2, for all five years of meteorological data assessed did not exceed the air quality standard at any location within the model domain (including all discrete receptors, SSSIs and conservation areas). From the meteorological dataset, the year resulting in maximum short-term pollutant concentration was identified as 1999. Consequently this year of meteorological data was used to assess all other short-term pollutant concentrations under this scenario.

The maximum PECs of short-term CO, PM10 and SO2 within the entire modelled domain were compared against the relevant EALs, the results of which are displayed in Tables AAQIA 23-26. The results show that short-term CO, PM10 and SO2 (1 hour and 24 hour average) did not exceed the air quality assessment standard at any location within the model domain (including all discrete receptors, SSSIs and conservation areas). The 15 minute averaged SO2 PEC does exceed the relevant EAL of 266 µg/m3 at 1 location within the


Golder Associates

modelled domain which lies on the northern boundary of the Site Consequently a stack height analysis has been undertaken as part of the sensitivity analyses described in Section 6.

Table AAQIA23: Scenario 1: The 19th (99.79%ile) Maximum Short-Term (Hourly) Concentrations of NO2

Emission Year EAL (μg/m3)

Max. PC

(μg/m3)%EAL

Background 1,3

(μg/m3)

PEC 2 (μg/m3)

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

NO2 19994 200 120.1 60.1 45.4 165.6 582210 220685 NO2 2000 200 104.8 52.4 45.4 150.3 582250 220700 NO2 2001 200 108.9 54.4 45.4 154.3 582250 220865 NO2 2002 200 113.6 56.8 45.4 159.0 582210 220700 NO2 2003 200 112.0 56.0 45.4 157.4 582250 220700

Notes: 1. Background air quality data was obtained from monitoring (see section 2.3); 2. PEC = PC + Background; 3. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 4. Worst year Table AAQIA24: Scenario 1: The 1st (100%ile) Maximum 8-hour Concentration of CO

SCENARIO 1

Year EAL (μg/m3) Max. PC (μg/m3) Background1,3

(μg/m3) PEC2

(μg/m3) Easting

(m) Northing

(m) 994 10,000 454.1 548 962.1 582210 220685

Notes: 1. Background air quality data for 2009 was obtained from the UK Air Quality Archive for co-ordinates

582500, 220500; 2. PEC = PC + Background; 3. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 4. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only. Table AAQIA25: Scenario 1: The 8th (90.41%ile) Maximum 24-hour Concentration of PM10

SCENARIO 1

Year EAL (μg/m3) 8th Max. PC (μg/m3) Background1,3

(μg/m3) PEC2

(μg/m3) Easting

(m) Northing

(m) 994 50 0.480 33.0 33.5 582950 220800


582500, 220500; 2. PEC = PC + Background; 3. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 4. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only.


Golder Associates

Table AAQIA26: Scenario 1: The Maximum Short-Term Concentrations of SO2 for 19994 Meteorological Data

Averaging Period

Assessed Percentile

EAL (μg/m3)

Max. PC3

(μg/m3)

Background 1,3

(μg/m3)

PEC 2 (μg/m3)

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

15 minute 99.9 266 249 23.9 273 582210 220685 1 hour 99.73 350 155 23.9 179 582210 220685 24 hour 99.18 125 45.4 23.9 69.3 582210 220685

Notes: 1. Background air quality data was obtained from monitoring (see section 2.3); 2. PEC = PC + Background; 3. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 4. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only. 5.2.2 Long-Term

The long-term emissions of NO2 from the engines and CHP were assessed for all five years of meteorological data. From the meteorological dataset, the year resulting in maximum long-term pollutant concentration was identified as 2003. Consequently this year of meteorological data was used to assess all other long-term pollutant concentrations under this scenario. The maximum PECs were compared against the relevant EALs. The results illustrate that the maximum PECs of the long-term NO2 emissions for all five years of meteorological data assessed did not exceed the relevant air quality standards, at any locations within the model domain (including all discrete receptors, SSSIs and conservation areas).

The maximum PECs of long-term PM10 was compared against the relevant EAL. This illustrated that long-term PM10 did not exceed the air quality assessment standard at any location within the model domain (including all discrete receptors, SSSIs and conservation areas). Table AAQIA27 and AAQIA28 below lists the maximum concentrations for each of the pollutants modelled and the locations at which they occur.

Table AAQIA27: Scenario 1: The Maximum Long-Term (Annual) Concentrations of NO2


Max. PC

(μg/m3)%EAL

Background 1

(μg/m3)

PEC 2 (μg/m3)

Easting (m)

Northing(m)

NO2 1999 40 5.45 0.14 22.71 28.2 582250 220700 NO2 2000 40 7.00 0.17 22.71 29.7 582300 220700 NO2 2001 40 5.63 0.14 22.71 28.3 582210 220685 NO2 2002 40 7.16 0.18 22.71 29.9 582210 220685 NO2 20033 40 8.30 0.21 22.71 31.0 582091 220431

Notes: 1. Background air quality data was obtained from monitoring (see section 2.3); 2. PEC = PC + Background; and 3. Worst Year


Golder Associates

Table AAQIA28: Scenario 1: The Maximum Long-Term (Annual) Concentration of PM10

SCENARIO 1

Year EAL (μg/m3) Max. PC (μg/m3) Background1

(μg/m3) PEC2

(μg/m3) Easting

(m) Northing

(m) 033 40 0.18 16.5 16.7 582091 220431


582500, 220500; 2. PEC = PC + Background; and 3. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only.

5.3 Scenario 2 – eRCF Revised

The short-term emissions of NO2, CO, PM10 and SO2 and long-term emissions of NO2 and PM10 from the four engines and CHP emitting from a single stack have been assessed using AERMOD. The maximum concentrations anywhere in the model domain are presented in the following sections. The results of these scenarios are presented below and are supported by example contour plots in Annex AAQIA3 and discrete receptor concentration tables in Annex AAQIA5.

5.3.1 Short-Term

The short-term emissions of NO2 from the engines and CHP were assessed for all five years of meteorological data. The maximum PECs within the entire modelled domain were compared against the relevant EALs. This showed that short-term NO2, for all five years of meteorological data assessed did not exceed the air quality standard at any location within the model domain (including all discrete receptors, SSSIs and conservation areas). From the meteorological dataset, the year resulting in maximum short-term pollutant concentration was identified as 1999. Consequently this year of meteorological data was used to assess all other short-term pollutant concentrations under this scenario.

The maximum PECs of short-term CO, PM10 and SO2 within the entire modelled domain were compared against the relevant EALs, the results of which are displayed in Tables AAQIA 29-32. This showed that short-term CO, PM10 and SO2 did not exceed the air quality assessment standard at any location within the model domain (including all discrete receptors, SSSIs and conservation areas).


Golder Associates



Max. PC (μg/m3) %EAL

Background 1,3

(μg/m3)

PEC 2 (μg/m3)

Easting (m)

Northing(m)

NO2 19994 200 40.1 20.1 45.42 85.5 582700 220850 NO2 2000 200 37.8 18.9 45.42 83.2 582700 220850 NO2 2001 200 26.5 13.2 45.42 71.9 582750 220900 NO2 2002 200 39.5 19.8 45.42 84.9 582750 220850 NO2 2003 200 23.9 12.0 45.42 69.4 582950 220850

Notes: 1. Background air quality data was obtained from monitoring (see section 2.3); 2. PEC = PC + Background; 3. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 4. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only. Table AAQIA30: Scenario 2: The 1st (100%ile) Maximum 8-hour Concentration of CO

SCENARIO 2

Year EAL (μg/m3) Max. PC (μg/m3) Background1,3

(μg/m3) PEC2

(μg/m3) Easting

(m) Northing

(m) 994 10,000 57.74 508.00 565.74 582700 220800


582500, 220500; 2. PEC = PC + Background; 3. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 4. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only. Table AAQIA31: Scenario 2: The 8th (90.41%ile) Maximum 24-hour Concentration of PM10

SCENARIO 2


(μg/m3) PEC2

(μg/m3) Easting

(m) Northing

(m) 994 50 0.47 33.0 33.5 583000 220800


582500, 220500; 2. PEC = PC + Background; 3. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 4. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only. Table AAQIA32: Scenario 2: The Maximum Short-term Concentrations of SO2 for 19994 Meteorological Data

Averaging Period

Assessed Percentile

EAL (μg/m3)

Max. PC3

(μg/m3)

Background 1,3

(μg/m3)

PEC 2 (μg/m3)

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

15 minute 99.9 266 33.7 23.9 57.6 582650 220800 1 hour 99.73 350 22.2 23.9 46.1 582700 220850

24 hour 99.18 125 11.0 23.9 34.9 582700 220900 Notes: 1. Background air quality data was obtained from monitoring (see section 2.3); 2. PEC = PC + Background; 3. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 4. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only.


Golder Associates

5.3.2 Long-Term

The long-term emissions of NO2 from the engines and CHP were assessed for all five years of meteorological data. The maximum PECs were compared against the relevant EALs. This illustrated that the maximum PECs of the long-term NO2 emissions for all five years of meteorological data assessed did not exceed the relevant air quality standards, at any locations within the model domain (including all discrete receptors, SSSIs and conservation areas). From the meteorological dataset, the year resulting in maximum long-term pollutant concentration was identified as 1999. Consequently this year of meteorological data was used to assess all other long-term pollutant concentrations under this scenario.

The maximum PECs of long-term PM10 was compared against the relevant EAL. This illustrated that long-term PM10 did not exceed the air quality assessment standard at any location within the model domain (including all discrete receptors, SSSIs and conservation areas). Table AAQIA33 and AAQIA34 below lists the maximum concentrations for each of the pollutants modelled and the locations at which they occur.

Table AAQIA33: Scenario 2: The Maximum Long-Term (Annual) Concentrations of NO2


Max. PC (μg/m3) %EAL

Background 1

(μg/m3)

PEC 2 (μg/m3)

Easting (m)

Northing(m)

NO2 19994 40 3.51 8.79 22.7 26.2 582900 220800 NO2 2000 40 3.48 8.69 22.7 26.2 582900 220800 NO2 2001 40 2.54 6.34 22.7 25.3 582900 220800 NO2 2002 40 3.17 7.93 22.7 25.9 582900 220800 NO2 2003 40 2.75 6.88 22.7 25.5 582900 220800

Notes: 1. Background air quality data was obtained from monitoring (see section 2.3); 2. PEC = PC + Background; and 3. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only. Table AAQIA34: Scenario 2: The Maximum Long-Term (Annual) Concentration of PM10

SCENARIO 1

Year EAL (μg/m3) Max. PC (μg/m3) Background1

(μg/m3) PEC2

(μg/m3) Easting

(m) Northing

(m) 993 40 0.14 16.5 16.6 582950 220850


582500, 220500; 2. PEC = PC + Background; and 3. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only. 5.4 Scenario 3

The long-term and short-term combustion emissions of HCl, HF, Dioxins and Furans, Heavy Metals Group 1(Cadmium and Thallium), Heavy Metals Group 2 (Mercury) and Heavy


Golder Associates

Metals Group 3 (Antimony, Arsenic, Lead, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Manganese, Nickel and Vanadium) from the CHP plant have been assessed using AERMOD. The maximum concentrations anywhere in the model domain are presented in the following sections. The results of these scenarios are presented below and are supported by discrete receptor concentration tables in Annex AAQIA6.

5.4.1 Short-Term

The short-term emissions of each pollutant emitted from the CHP were assessed for the 1999 meteorological data as this was previously identified as the year resulting in maximum short-term pollutant concentrations in Scenarios 1 and 2. The maximum PECs were compared against the relevant EALs, the results of which are presented in Table AQIA35. This showed that short-term HCl, HF, Dioxins and Furans, Heavy Metals Groups 1 -3 did not exceed the air quality assessment standard at any location within the model domain (including all discrete receptors, SSSIs and conservation areas).

Table AAQIA35: Scenario 3: The Maximum Short-Term (Hourly) Concentrations of Pollutants

Emission Year3 EAL (μg/m3)

Max. PC (μg/m3)

Background 1

(μg/m3) PEC 2 (μg/m3)

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

Hydrogen Chloride 1999 800 4.37 - 4.37 582650 220750

Hydrogen Fluoride 1999 250 4.47E-01 - 4.47E-01 582650 220750

Dioxins and Furans 1999 - 3.19E-08 1.45E-05 1.45E-05 582650 220750

Cadmium (Group 1) 1999 1.5 2.17E-02 3.40E-04 2.20E-02 582650 220750

Thallium (Group 1) 1999 30 2.17E-02 - 2.17E-02 582650 220750

Mercury (Group 2) 1999 7.5 2.17E-02 3.46E-03 2.52E-02 582650 220750

Antimony (Group 3) 1999 150 2.17E-01 - 2.17E-01 582650 220750

Arsenic (Group 3) 1999 15 2.17E-01 1.90E-03 2.19E-01 582650 220750

Lead (Group 3) 1999 0.25 2.17E-01 3.46E-02 2.52E-01 582650 220750

Chromium (Group 3) 1999 3 2.17E-01 1.05E-02 2.22E-01 582650 220750

Cobalt (Group 3) 1999 6 2.17E-01 - 2.17E-01 582650 220750

Copper (Group 3) 1999 200 2.17E-01 9.52E-02 3.12E-01 582650 220750

Manganese (Group 3) 1999 1500 2.17E-01 2.26E-02 2.40E-01 582650 220750

Nickel (Group 3) 1999 300 2.17E-01 2.54E-03 2.19E-01 582650 220750

Vanadium (Group 3) 1999 1 2.17E-01 9.30E-03 2.26E-01 582650 220750

Notes:


Golder Associates

1. Background data has been taken from the UK Air Quality Archive. No background data was available for Hydrogen Chloride, Hydrogen Fluoride, Thallium, Antimony or Cobalt.

2. PEC = PC + Background; and 3. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only. 5.4.2 Long-Term

The long-term emissions of each pollutant emitted from the CHP were assessed for the 1999 meteorological data as this was previously identified as the year resulting in maximum long-term pollutant concentrations. The maximum PECs were compared against the relevant EALs, the results of which are presented in Table AAQIA36. This illustrates that long-term HCl, HF, Dioxins and Furans, Heavy Metals Group 1, Group 2 and most of Group 3 did not exceed the air quality assessment standard at any location within the model domain (including all discrete receptors, SSSIs and conservation areas).

The PEC of arsenic does exceed the stated EAL however the assessment limit used for arsenic is taken from the EU directive target values for 2012 which are much more stringent than those in current UK legislation. Currently, the relevant EAL for arsenic in the UK guidance is 0.2 µg/m3and the predicted environmental concentration of arsenic from the proposed facility is below this value. Irrespective of this, a number of sensitivity tests have been conducted for arsenic and these can be found in Section 5.4.3.

Table AAQIA36: Scenario 3: The Maximum Long-Term (Annual) Concentrations of Pollutants


Max. PC (μg/m3)

Background 1

(μg/m3)

PEC 2 (μg/m3)

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

Hydrogen Chloride 1999 20 1.21E-01 - 1.21E-01 582950 220850

Hydrogen Fluoride 1999 - 1.24E-02 - 1.24E-02 582950 220850

Dioxins and Furans 1999 - 8.85e-10 7.25E-06 7.25E-06 582950 220850

Cadmium (Group 1) 1999 0.005 6.01E-04 2.00E-04 7.71E-04 582950 220850

Thallium (Group 1) 1999 1 6.01E-04 - 6.01E-04 582950 220850

Mercury (Group 2) 1999 0.25 6.01E-04 1.70E-03 2.33E-03 582950 220850

Antimony (Group 3) 1999 5 6.01E-03 - 6.01E-03 582950 220850

Arsenic (Group 3) 1999 0.005 6.01E-03 1.00E-03 6.96E-03 582950 220850

Lead (Group 3) 1999 - 6.01E-03 1.73E-02 2.33E-02 582950 220850

Chromium (Group 3) 1999 0.1 6.01E-03 5.30E-03 1.66E-02 582950 220850

Cobalt (Group 3) 1999 0.2 6.01E-03 - 6.01E-03 582950 220850

Copper (Group 3) 1999 10 6.01E-03 4.76E-02 5.36E-02 582950 220850


Golder Associates


Max. PC (μg/m3)

Background 1

(μg/m3)

PEC 2 (μg/m3)

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

Manganese (Group 3) 1999 1 6.01E-03 1.13E-02 1.73E-02 582950 220850

Nickel (Group 3) 1999 10 6.01E-03 1.30E-03 7.28E-03 582950 220850

Vanadium (Group 3) 1999 5 6.01E-03 4.70E-03 1.07E-02 582950 220850

Notes: 1. Background data has been taken from the UK Air Quality Archive. No background data was available for

Hydrogen Chloride, Hydrogen Fluoride, Thallium, Antimony or Cobalt.; 2. PEC = PC + Background; and 3. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only. 5.4.3 Arsenic Emissions Sensitivities

In the assessment of predicted concentrations resulting from Scenario 3, the predicted Long-Term concentration of arsenic exceeds the relevant EAL of 0.006 µg/m3. The EAL used for arsenic is taken from the EU directive target values for 2012 which are much more stringent than those in current UK legislation. Currently, the relevant EAL for arsenic in the UK guidance is 0.2 µg/m3 (a factor of more than 30 higher) however the EU Directive 2012 target has been used for conservatism and because it will apply in the future as the EU Directive is transposed into UK legislation.

The predicted concentrations presented above for arsenic are for a worst-case scenario. Some of the assumptions adopted are implausible. For example, arsenic is one of nine metals which under WID form the Group 3 metals and have an emission limit applied to the group as a whole at 0.5 mg/Nm3. For the assessment, it is assumed that arsenic alone emits at the group limit of 0.5 mg/Nm3, as do all of the other metals in the group. This would effectively result in an emission of 4.5 mg/Nm3 for the group almost a factor of ten higher than the limit.

As the annual mean EAL for arsenic is exceeded when the background concentration is added to the PC, a series of sensitivities for less pessimistic emissions have also undertaken. The scenarios evaluated and their respective parameters are described in Table AAQIA37. The results are summarised in Table AAQIA38. However, even these still reflects a number of worst-case conditions (e.g. with respect to meteorological data, full loading, continuous operation and emission limits).

Table AAQIA37: Parameters for Arsenic Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios

Scenario Flow (Am3/s)

Temperature (K)

Diameter (m)

Stack Height

(m)

Arsenic Emission Rate ( g/s)

eRCF and eRCF Revised (Scenario 3, at 100% of the Group 3 metals emission limit)

212 423 4.24 35 0.068

eRCF and eRCF Revised (at 50% of the Group 3 metals emission limit) 212 423 4.24 35 0.034


Golder Associates

eRCF with 40 m stack height and 100% of the Group 3 metals emission limit

212 423 4.24 40 0.068

Enhanced plume rise for single effective flue sensitivity (Section 6) and 100% of the Group 3 metals emission limit

228 454 4.40 35 0.068

Enhanced plume rise for single effective flue sensitivity (Section 6) and 50% of the Group 3 metals emission limit

228 454 4.40 35 0.034

Enhanced plume rise for single effective flue sensitivity (Section 6) with 40 m stack height and 100% of the Group 3 metals emission limit

228 454 4.40 40 0.068

Table AAQIA38: Predicted Concentrations µg/m3 of Annual Mean Arsenic for a Range of Scenarios

Scenario PC Background PEC eRCF and eRCF Revised (Scenario 3, at 100% of the Group 3 metals emission limit) 0.0060 0.00095 0.0070

eRCF and eRCF Revised (at 50% of the Group 3 metals emission limit) 0.0030 0.00095 0.0040

eRCF with 40 m stack height and 100% of the Group 3 metals emission limit 0.0052 0.00095 0.0062

Enhanced plume rise for single effective flue sensitivity (Section 6) and 100% of the Group 3 metals emission limit 0.0058 0.00095 0.0068

Enhanced plume rise for single effective flue sensitivity (Section 6) and 50% of the Group 3 metals emission limit 0.0029 0.00095 0.0039

Enhanced plume rise for single effective flue sensitivity (Section 6) with 40 m stack height and 100% of the Group 3 metals emission limit

0.0043 0.00095 0.0053

Annual mean EAL 0.006 The concentrations presented in Table AAQIA38 are the maximum predicted throughout the modelling domain. At residential receptors, where relevant public exposure would occur, predicted concentrations are substantially lower. For the eRCF and eRCF Scenario 3, at 100% of the Group 3 emission limit the predicted concentrations at Haywards Farm (where highest annual mean residential receptor concentrations are predicted) the maximum PC is 0.0045 µg/m3 resulting in a PEC of 0.0055 µg/m3. The PEC therefore, is below the assessment criterion of 0.006 µg/m3.

The site-specific WRATE modelling for Rivenhall waste composition assumes 0.000293% arsenic by mass (2.93 ppm). For the proposed waste volume to be utilised at the site this would relate to an emission rate for arsenic of 0.034 g/s. This is approximately 50% of the arsenic emission rate used in the Scenario 3 modelling. The results presented in Table AAQIA38 demonstrate that the maximum within the modelled domain using the more realistic 50% of the Group 3 metals emission limit for arsenic are below the relevant EAL for the eRCF, the eRCF Revised and the single effective flue.


Golder Associates

As discussed, worst-case assumptions have been adopted with regard to the emissions of trace metals from the CHP plant. For arsenic, an emission rate of 0.068 g/s (equivalent to 5.96 g per tonne of SRF for a capacity of 360,000 tonnes per annum) has been used and assumes that arsenic is emitted at the emission limit of the Group 3 metals (comprising of nine metals). Research carried out by Watanabe et al (1999), undertook sampling and analysis of waste streams for two municipal waste incinerators in Japan in order to carry out a mass balance of arsenic in waste incinerators. Based on their sampling and analysis they estimated the following:

• Arsenic content of the waste stream was 0.9 g/tonne; • 53 to 54% of the arsenic was found in the bottom ash (i.e. Not emitted to atmosphere);

and • The remaining arsenic was found in the fly ash, the majority of which would be

captured by the bag filters associated with the air pollution control equipment. Therefore, even assuming that all of the fly ash is emitted to atmosphere the amount would emitted would 0.010 g/s. Assuming 53% remains in the bottom ash, this reduces to 0.005 g/s. Both numbers are significantly lower than the emission rate used in the Scenario 3 modelling and the sensitivity analyses presented in Table AAQIA38.

Although there are likely to be differences between the municipal waste in Japan and the SRF used at the eRCF, the research data provides a good indication of levels of arsenic likely to arise in waste streams. Therefore, it is evident that emissions from the CHP plant with respect to arsenic are substantially overestimated.

Arsenic in municipal solid waste arises from road sweepings and timber treated with chromium copper arsenate preservative. This preservative was removed from use in the EU in 2004 and will eventually be removed as a source of arsenic from the waste stream.

Realistic arsenic emissions (as opposed to the extreme worst case) will be substantially lower that the EU target EAL and can be most appropriately controlled by the inclusion of a specific emission limits in the Environmental Permit for the eRCF facility which would be issued by the Environment Agency.

Options other than reducing the emission rate were also considered e.g. stack height and single effective flue (described in more detail in Section 6). Increasing the stack height to 40 m decreases the predicted concentrations of arsenic at surrounding locations. However, there is limited benefit in increasing the stack above 35 m (see Section 6). As detailed in Table AAQIA38 a stack height of 40 m for the eRCF and the eRCF Revised does not reduce the predicted PEC below the EAL. A single effective flue, with increased volume and plume bouyancy, does however significantly reduce the predicted impact below the EAL for a stack height of 40 m.


Golder Associates

5.5 Scenario 4

The short-term emissions of NO2, CO, PM10 and SO2 from the flare and CHP stack have been assessed using AERMOD, the results of which are presented in the following sections. Only short-term emissions were assessed as this is a non-typical operating scenario and so is unlikely to continue for an extended period of time. Results at discrete receptors are presented in Annex AAQIA7.

5.5.1 Short-Term

The short-term emissions of NO2 from the flare and CHP were assessed for the year of meteorological data previously identified as resulting in the greatest concentrations (1999). The maximum PEC was compared against the relevant EAL, the results of which are presented in Table AAQIA39. This showed that short-term NO2 did not exceed the air quality standard at any location within the model domain (including all discrete receptors, SSSIs and conservation areas).

The maximum PECs of short-term CO, PM10 and SO2 were compared against the relevant EALs, the results of which are presented in Tables AAQIA40 to 42. These illustrate that short-term CO, PM10 and SO2 did not exceed the air quality standard at any location within the model domain (including all discrete receptors, SSSIs and conservation areas).


Emission EAL (μg/m3)

Max. PC

(μg/m3) %EAL

Background 1,3

(μg/m3)

PEC 2 (μg/m3)

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

NO2 200 37.6 18.8 45.4 83.0 582700 220850 Notes: 1. Background air quality data was obtained from monitoring (see section 2.3); 2. PEC = PC + Background; 3. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 4. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only. Table AAQIA40: Scenario 4: The 1st (100%ile) Maximum 8-hour Concentration of CO

Year EAL (μg/m3)

Max. PC (μg/m3)

Background1,

3 (μg/m3)

PEC2 (μg/m3)

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

994 10,000 37.2 508 545 582700 220800 Notes: 1. Background air quality data for 2009 was obtained from the UK Air Quality Archive for co-ordinates

582500, 220500; 2. PEC = PC + Background; 3. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 4. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only.


Golder Associates

Table AAQIA41: Scenario 4: The 8th (90.41%ile) Maximum 24-hour Concentration of PM10


(μg/m3) PEC2

(μg/m3) Easting

(m) Northing

(m) 024 50 0.43 33.0 33.4 583000 220800


582500, 220500; 2. PEC = PC + Background; 3. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 4. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only. Table AAQIA42: Scenario 4: The Maximum Short-Term Concentrations of SO2 for 1999 Meteorological Data

Averaging Period

Assessed Percentile

EAL (μg/m3)

Max. PC4

(μg/m3)

Background 1,3

(μg/m3)

PEC 2 (μg/m3)

Easting (m)

Northing (m)

15 minute 99.9 266 138 23.92 162 582210 220685 1 hour 99.73 350 71.9 23.92 95.8 582250 220700 24 hour 99.18 125 24.3 23.92 48.2 582250 220700

Notes: 1. Background air quality data was obtained from monitoring (see section 2.3); 2. PEC = PC + Background; 3. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 4. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only.


Golder Associates

6.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

A number of sensitivity studies were undertaken to support the confidence in the results presented within the AAQIA. Sensitivity analyses include:

• Stack height considerations for the gas engine stacks (as modelled in Scenario 1 for the eRCF);

• Stack height considerations for the single shroud stack containing the gas engine and CHP flues (as modelled in Scenario 2 for the eRCF Revised);

• Inter-annual variability of the meteorological data; • Alternative meteorological data; • Short-term NO2 emission limits; • Reduced load operations; and • Single effective stack with one flue for all the CHP and gas engine emissions. The results of these sensitivities are provided in the sections below.

6.1 Stack Height Analysis

In order to determine the potential optimum height for the engine and CHP stacks with respect to predicted dispersion of emissions and potential impacts, stack height analyses have been performed for Scenarios 1 (eRCF) and 2 (eRCF Revised).

In Scenario 1 (eRCF), there are separate stacks for the engines and the CHP. A stack height analysis has been performed for the engine stack. In Scenario 2 (eRCF Revised), there is one single stack through which both the engine and CHP flues are routed. The stack height analysis for Scenario 2 (eRCF Revised) has been conducted for the single stack containing both engine and CHP flues.

The modelled impacts from various stack heights which were increased incrementally were compared to the appropriate EALs. For the purposes of these assessments, NO2 and SO2 have been used as an indicative substance as; NO2 is the most commonly assessed pollutant with long-term and short-term EALS, which 15 minute SO2 impacts are those of most concern in Scenario 1 (eRCF) at the Site.

It should be noted that a stack height analysis may be required to be repeated upon finalisation of the exact specifications of the eRCF.

6.1.1 Scenario 1 eRCF: Stack Height Analysis

In order to determine the optimum stack height with respect to the dispersion of emissions, combined emissions from the four biogas engines and CHP were considered. An initial engine stack height of 22 m above existing ground level was used and gradually increased at 1 m intervals. The CHP stack was kept at 35 m throughout this analysis. Figures AAQIA2 to AAQIA4 show the predicted concentrations of short-term NO2, long-term NO2 and short-term (15 minute averaged) SO2 at various stack heights. A stack height of 23 m would result in


Golder Associates

both the maximum predicted concentrations of all pollutants falling below the EAL. It can be seen however that at a gas engine stack height of 27 m would result in a sufficient height to overcome building downwash effects and a significant reduction in predicted impacts.


Golder Associates

Figure AAQIA2: Scenario 1 eRCF Stack Height Analysis – Short-Term NO2

Figure AAQIA3: Scenario 1 eRCF Stack Height Analysis – Long-Term NO2

0

50

100

150

200

22 23 24 25 26 27

Short T

erm NO2 at 9

9.79

%ile

(ug/m3)

Stack Height (m)

Short Term NO2 Stack Height Assessment

ST NO2 PC

ST NO2 PEC

EAL=200µg/m3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

22 23 24 25 26 27

Long

Term NO2 ( ug/m

3)

Stack Height (m)

Long Term NO2 Stack Height Assessment

LT NO2 PC

LT NO2 PEC

EAL=40µg/m3


Golder Associates

Figure AAQIA4: Scenario 1 eRCF Stack Height Analysis – Short-Term SO2 (15 minute averaged)

6.1.2 Scenario 2 eRCF: Revised Stack Height Analysis

In order to determine the optimum stack height with respect to the dispersion of emissions, combined emissions from the biogas engines and CHP shrouded in a single stack. An initial stack height of 20 m above existing ground level was used and increased at 5 m intervals. Figures AAQIA5 to AAQIA7 show the predicted PCs of short-term NO2 , long-term NO2 and short-term (15 minute averaged SO2) at various stack heights. A stack height of 25 m is sufficient to overcome building downwash effects. However, a stack height of 35 m would result in the maximum predicted concentrations of all pollutants being below the EAL and with limited additional gain at higher heights.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

22 23 24 25 26 27

ST NO2 PC

at 99

.79 %ile

(ug/m3)

Stack Height (m)

Short Term SO2 Stack Height Assessment

ST SO2 PC

ST SO2 PEC

EAL=266µg/m3


Golder Associates

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

20 25 30 35 40 45

Long

Term NO2 ( ug/m

3)

Stack Height (m)

Long Term NO2 Stack Height Assessment

LT NO2 PC

LT NO2 PEC

EAL=40µg/m3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

20 25 30 35 40 45

Short T

erm NO2 at 9

9.79

%ile

(ug/m3)

Stack Height (m)

Short Term NO2 Stack Height Assessment

ST NO2 PC

ST NO2 PEC

EAL=200µg/m3

Figure AAQIA5: Scenario 2 eRCF Revised Stack Height Analysis – Short-Term NO2

Figure AAQIA6: Scenario 2 eRCF Revised Stack Height Analysis – Long-Term NO2


Golder Associates

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

20 25 30 35 40 45

ST NO2 PC

at 99

.79 %ile

(ug/m3)

Stack Height (m)

Short Term SO2 Stack Height Assessment

ST SO2 PC

ST SO2 PEC

EAL=266µg/m3

Figure AAQIA7: Scenario 2 eRCF Revised Stack Height Analysis – Short-Term SO2

(15 minute averaged)

6.2 Meteorological Data

6.2.1 Inter Annual Variability

The combustion emissions of short-term and long-term NO2 from the engines and CHP have been modelled for five complete years of meteorological data. The model sensitivity to inter-annual variation of meteorological conditions was calculated by using the following equation:

% Variation = [(Maximum mean – Minimum mean) ÷ 2] x 100 [(Maximum mean + Minimum mean) ÷ 2]

In the above equation “mean” refers to the true mean for all of the concentrations calculated by the model. The sensitively analysis has been performed for the predicted process contribution at all locations within the modelled domain. Results of the sensitivity analysis for Scenario 2 eRCF Revised are shown in Table AAQIA43.


Golder Associates

Table AAQIA43: Sensitivity Analysis

Substance Year of Meteorological Data % Variation 1 2 3 4 5 NO2 short-term process contribution 12.48 12.39 11.77 12.45 11.57 3.75 NO2 long-term process contribution 0.92 0.92 0.83 0.88 0.84 5.26 The sensitivity analysis indicates that for the emissions of NO2 from 4 engines and the CHP Facility, run for all 5 years of meteorological data, the percent variation was 3.75 % and 5.26 % for short-term and long-term respectively.

6.2.2 Alternative Meteorological Data Set

The meteorological data obtained from London Stansted Airport illustrates prevailing winds over an annual period blowing from the southwest towards the northeast. The nearest village to the eRCF is Silver End (i.e. the nearest group of residential receptors) located approximately southwest of the Site and therefore upwind of the predominant wind direction. In order to investigate the potential impact of a hypothetical worst case scenario whereby Silver End was located downwind of the annual prevailing wind direction, a sensitivity analysis exercise was undertaken.

The emissions of NO2 arising from Scenario 2 eRCF Revised were assessed for all five years of the alternative meteorological data. From the alternative meteorological dataset, the year resulting in maximum short-term and long-term pollutant concentration at Silver End was identified as 2002. Consequently this year of meteorological data was used to assess all other short and long-term pollutant concentrations under Scenario 2 and Scenario 3, the results of which are presented in Tables AAQIA44 to AAQIA47.

The concentrations indicated in brackets below are the predicted concentrations and PECs at Silver End from Scenarios 2 and 3 with no rotation of the prevailing wind. Concentrations not indicated in brackets are for Scenarios 2 and 3 with the wind data rotated through 180º to illustrate a prevailing wind directed towards Silver End. The outcome of this analysis indicated that there were no exceedances at any of the receptors within the village of Silver End for both the long-term and short-term emissions of all the pollutants evaluated.

Table AAQIA44: Scenario 2 eRCF Revised: The Maximum Short-Term Concentrations of Pollutants in the Village of Silver End Using an Alternative Meteorological Dataset

Emission Averaging Period

Assessed Percentile

EAL (μg/m3)

Max. PC5 (μg/m3)

Background 1,2,4

(μg/m3)

PEC 3 (μg/m3)

NO2 1 hour 99.79 200 7.99 (7.85) 45.4 53.4 (53.2) CO 8 hour 100 10,000 18.3 (12.1) 508 526 (520)

PM10 24 hour 90.41 125 0.25 (0.07) 33.0 33.25 (33.1) SO2 15 minute 99.9 266 12.2 (6.93) 23.9 36.2 (30.9) SO2 1 hour 99.73 350 8.67 (4.72) 23.9 32.6 (28.6) SO2 24 hour 99.18 125 4.47 (2.24) 23.9 28.4 (26.2)

Notes:


Golder Associates

1. Values at Silver End are taken to be concentrations at co-ordinates 581287, 219731(the closest point); 2. Background air quality data for CO and PM10 was obtained from the UK Air Quality Archive for co-

ordinates 582500, 220500. Background Data for NO2 and SO2 was obtained from Monitoring Data ( see section 2.3);

3. PEC = PC + Background; 4. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 5. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only. Table AAQIA45: Scenario 3: The Maximum Short-Term Concentrations of Pollutants in the Village of Silver End Using an Alternative Meteorological Dataset

Emission EAL (μg/m3) Max. PC (μg/m3) Background 1

(μg/m3) Max. PEC (μg/m3)

Hydrogen Chloride 800 1.47E+00 (1.40 E+00) - 1.47E+00 (1.40 E+00) Hydrogen Fluoride 250 1.50E-01 (1.40E-01) - 1.50E-01 (1.40E-01) Dioxins and Furans - 1.47E-08 (1.40E-08) 1.45E-06 1.45E-05 (1.45E-05) Cadmium (Group 1) 1.5 7.28E-03 (6.97E-03) 3.40E-04 7.62E-03 (7.31E-03) Thallium (Group 1) 30 7.28E-03 (6.97E-03) - 7.28E-03 (6.97E-03) Mercury (Group 2) 7.5 7.28E-03 3.46E-03 1.07E-02 (1.04E-02)

Antimony (Group 3) 150 7.28E-02 (6.97E-02) - 7.28E-02 (6.97E-02) Arsenic (Group 3) 15 7.28E-02 (6.97E-02) 1.90E-03 7.47E-02 (7.16E-02)

Lead (Group 3) 0.25 7.28E-02 (6.97E-02) 3.46E-02 1.07E-01 (1.04E-01) Chromium (Group 3) 3 7.28E-02 (6.97E-02) 1.05E-02 7.81E-02 (8.02E-02

Cobalt (Group 3) 6 7.28E-02 (6.97E-02) - 7.28E-02 (6.97E-02) Copper (Group 3) 200 7.28E-02 (6.97E-02) 9.52E-02 1.68E-01 (1.65E-01)

Manganese (Group 3) 1500 7.28E-02 (6.97E-02) 2.26E-02 9.54E-02 (9.23E-02) Nickel (Group 3) 300 7.28E-02 (6.97E-02) 2.54E-03 7.54E-02 (7.22E-02)

Vanadium (Group 3) 1 7.28E-02 (6.97E-02) 9.30E-03 8.21E-02 (7.90E-02) Notes: 1. Values at Silver End are taken to be concentrations at co-ordinates 581287, 219731 (the closest point); 2. Background air quality data was obtained from UK Air Quality Archive; 3. PEC = PC + Background; 4. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 5. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only. Table AAQIA46: Scenario 2: The Maximum Long-Term Concentrations of Pollutants in the Village of Silver End using an Alternative Meteorological Dataset

Emission EAL (μg/m3)

Max. PC4 (μg/m3)

Background 1,2, (μg/m3)

PEC 3 (μg/m3)

NO2 40 0.52 (0.47) 22.7 23.2 (11.1) PM10 40 0.118 (0.02) 16.5 16.6 (16.5)

Notes: 1. Values at Silver End are taken to be concentrations at co-ordinates 581287, 219731; 2. Background air quality data for CO and PM10 was obtained from the UK Air Quality Archive for co-

ordinates 582500, 220500. Background Data for NO2 and SO2 was obtained from Monitoring Data (see section 2.3);

3. PEC = PC + Background; and 4. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only.


Golder Associates

Table AAQIA47: Scenario 3: The Maximum Long-Term Concentrations of Pollutants in the Village of Silver End Using an Alternative Meteorological Dataset

Emission EAL (μg/m3) Max. PC (μg/m3) Background 1

(μg/m3) PEC 2

(μg/m3) Hydrogen Chloride 20 6.41E-02 (1.65E-02) - 6.41E-02 (1.65E-02) Hydrogen Fluoride - 6.55E-03 (1.65E-03) - 6.55E-03 (1.65E-03) Dioxins and Furans - 6.41E-10 (1.62E-10) 7.25E-06 7.25E-06 (7.25E-06) Cadmium (Group 1) 0.005 3.18E-04(8.04E-05) 2.00E-04 4.88E-04 (2.50E-04) Thallium (Group 1) 1 3.18E-04(8.04E-05) - 3.18E-04(8.04E-05) Mercury (Group 2) 0.25 3.18E-04(8.04E-05) 1.70E-03 2.05E-03 (1.81E-03)

Antimony (Group 3) 5 3.18E-03 (8.04E-04) - 3.18E-03 (8.04E-04) Arsenic (Group 3) 0.005 3.18E-03 (8.04E-04) 1.00E-03 4.13E-03 (1.75E-03)

Lead (Group 3) - 3.18E-03 (8.04E-04) 1.73E-02 2.05E-02 (1.81E-02) Chromium (Group 3) 0.1 3.18E-03 (8.04E-04) 5.30E-03 1.37E-02 (6.07E-03)

Cobalt (Group 3) 0.2 3.18E-03 (8.04E-04) - 3.18E-03 (8.04E-04) Copper (Group 3) 10 3.18E-03 (8.04E-04) 4.76E-02 5.08E-02 (4.84E-02)

Manganese (Group 3) 1 3.18E-03 (8.04E-04) 1.13E-02 1.45E-02 (1.21E-02) Nickel (Group 3) 10 3.18E-03 (8.04E-04) 1.30E-03 4.45E-03 (2.07E-03)

Vanadium (Group 3) 5 3.18E-03 (8.04E-04) 4.70E-03 7.83E-03 (5.5E-03) Notes: 1. Values at Silver End are taken to be concentrations at co-ordinates 581287, 219731 (the closest point); 2. Background air quality data was taken from UK Air Quality Archive; 3. PEC = PC + Background; and 4. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only. 6.3 NO2 Short-Term Emission Limits

The WID contains two different emission limit values for nitrogen oxides. CHP facilities must comply with a 200 µg/m3 emission limit 97% of the time but for the remaining 3% of the time, emissions can be as high as 400 µg/m3. We have therefore looked at the short-term implications for the facility operating at a 400 µg/m3 emission limit for Scenario 2. The derived CHP emission rate and associated parameter are detailed in Table AAQIA48 below.

Table AAQIA48: Short-Term NO2 Sensitivity Analysis: CHP Emission Rates

Source Emission Substance

Concentration (Nmg/m3)

Volumetric Flow Rate Emission Rate (g/s)

Exit velocity

(m/s)

Normalised conditions

(Nm3/s)

Operating Conditions

(m3/s) CHP NO2 400 136.8 212.0 54.72 15.0

As previously, it is assumed that 50% of the NOx emission limit is NO2. Emission rates for the four engines remain as described in Table AAQIA13. Modelling was conducted for Scenario 2 using the worst year of meteorological data (1999). The maximum PEC of short-term NO2, was compared against the relevant EAL, the results of which are presented in Tables AAQIA49, below. This illustrates that should the CHP facility operate at an emission limit of 400µg/m3 for a short-term period, the resultant NO2 PEC does not exceed the air quality standard at any location within the model domain (including all discrete receptors, SSSIs and conservation areas).


Golder Associates

Table AAQIA49: ST NO2 Sensitivity Analysis: The 19th (99.79%ile) Maximum Short-Term (Hourly) Concentrations of NO2


Assessed Percentile

EAL (μg/m3)

Max. PC5 (μg/m3)

Background 1,2,4

(μg/m3)

PEC 3 (μg/m3)

NO2 1 hour 99.79 200 76.56 45.42 121.98 Notes: 1. Background Data for NO2 and SO2 was obtained from Monitoring Data ( see section 2.3); 2. PEC = PC + Background; 3. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 4. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only. 6.4 Reduced Load Sensitivity

As part of the day to day operation of the CHP, there may be occasions where the CHP may need to operate with a reduced load. The CHP stack is made up of three separate flues (i.e. up to three 120,000 tpa CHP boiler lines) and on the occasion that the facility is operating with a reduced load, it is most realistic that one or potentially two of these flues may not be operational for a short period of time. Consequently an assessment has been undertaken upon the impacts of one or two flues going down. Previously the CHP has been modelled as one single flue thus to represent one or two flues, the flue parameters have been recalculated accordingly (all engine parameters remain as previously described). The revised CHP parameters are detailed in Table AAQIA50 below.

Table AAQIA50: CHP Parameters for Reduced Load Operation

Scenario Flow (Am3/s) Temperature (K) Diameter (m) 1 CHP flue operational 70.7 423 3.5 2 CHP flue operational 141.3 423 2.4 As a result of the reduced load operations, emission rates from the CHP facility are also affected. All engine emission rates remain as previously described. The revised CHP emission rates are detailed in Table AAQIA51 below.

Table AAQIA51: CHP Emission Rates for Reduced Load Operation

Pollutant 1 CHP flue operational (g/s) 2 CHP flue operational (g/s) NO2 4.56 9.12 CO 4.56 9.12 PM10 0.46 0.91 SO2 2.28 4.56 HCl 0.46 0.91 HF 0.05 0.09 Dioxins and Furans 3.33E-09 6.67E-09 Heavy Metals Group1 0.002 0.005 Heavy Metals Group 2 0.002 0.005 Heavy Metals Group 3 0.02 0.05


Golder Associates

Modelling was conducted for Scenario 2 eRCF Revised using the worst year of meteorological data (1999). As this is anticipated to be only an occasional operating scenario, only the short-term predicted concentrations have been assessed. The maximum PECs of short-term pollutants were compared against the relevant EAL, the results of which are presented in Tables AAQIA52 and AAQIA53, below. This illustrates that should the CHP facility operate at a reduced load for a short-term period, the resultant PECs do not exceed the air quality standard at any location within the model domain (including all discrete receptors, SSSIs and conservation areas) for any of the modelled pollutants.

Table AAQIA52: Reduced Load Scenario, 1 Flue: The Maximum Short-Term Concentrations of Pollutants Within the Entire Modelled Domain


Assessed Percentile

EAL (μg/m3)

Max. PC4 (μg/m3)

Background 1,3

(μg/m3)

PEC 2 (μg/m3)

NO2 1 hour 99.79 200 20.98 45.42 66.40 CO 8 hour 100 10,000 43.15 508 551.15

PM10 24 hour 90.41 125 0.37 33.00 33.37 SO2 15 minute 99.9 266 20.21 23.92 44.13 SO2 1 hour 99.73 350 14.53 23.92 38.45 SO2 24 hour 99.18 125 8.78 23.92 32.70

Hydrogen Chloride 1 hour 100 800 1.73E+00 - 1.73E+00

Hydrogen Fluoride 1 hour 100 250 1.77E-01 - 1.77E-01

Dioxins and Furans 1 hour 100 - 1.73E-08 1.45E-05 7.27E-06

Cadmium (Group 1) 1 hour 100 1.5 8.59E-03 3.40E-04 8.93E-03

Thallium (Group 1) 1 hour 100 30 8.59E-03 - 8.59E-03

Mercury (Group 2) 1 hour 100 7.5 8.59E-03 3.46E-03 1.21E-02

Antimony (Group 3) 1 hour 100 150 8.59E-02 - 8.59E-02

Arsenic (Group 3) 1 hour 100 15 8.59E-02 1.90E-03 8.78E-02

Lead (Group 3) 1 hour 100 0.25 8.59E-02 3.46E-02 1.21E-01

Chromium (Group 3) 1 hour 100 3 8.59E-02 1.05E-02 9.12E-02

Cobalt (Group 3) 1 hour 100 6 8.59E-02 - 8.59E-02

Copper (Group 3) 1 hour 100 200 8.59E-02 9.52E-02 1.81E-01

Manganese (Group 3) 1 hour 100 1500 8.59E-02 2.26E-02 1.09E-01

Nickel (Group 3) 1 hour 100 300 8.59E-02 2.54E-03 8.85E-02

Vanadium (Group 3) 1 hour 100 1 8.59E-02 9.30E-03 9.52E-02


Golder Associates

Notes: 1. Background air quality data for CO and PM10 was obtained from the UK Air Quality Archive for co-

ordinates 582500, 220500. Background Data for NO2 and SO2 was obtained from Monitoring Data ( see section 2.3) Background metals data was taken from AQ Archive;

2. PEC = PC + Background; 3. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 4. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only. Table AAQIA53: Reduced Load Scenario, 2 Flues: The Maximum Short-Term Concentrations of Pollutants within the Entire Modelled Domain


Assessed Percentile

EAL (μg/m3)

Max. PC4 (μg/m3)

Background 1,3

(μg/m3)

PEC 2 (μg/m3)

NO2 1 hour 99.79 200 31.28 45.42 76.70 CO 8 hour 100 10,000 9.99 508 557.82

PM10 24 hour 90.41 125 0.43 33.00 33.43 SO2 15 minute 99.9 266 1.69 23.92 51.16 SO2 1 hour 99.73 350 27.24 23.92 42.44 SO2 24 hour 99.18 125 18.52 23.92 33.91

Hydrogen Chloride 1 hour 100 800 3.20E+00 3.20E+00 3.20

Hydrogen Fluoride 1 hour 100 250 3.27E-01 3.27E-01 0.33

Dioxins and Furans 1 hour 100 - 3.20E-08 7.28E-06 4.97E-

06 Cadmium (Group 1) 1 hour 100 1.5 1.59E-02 1.62E-02 0.02

Thallium (Group 1) 1 hour 100 30 1.59E-02 1.59E-02 0.02

Mercury (Group 2) 1 hour 100 7.5 1.59E-02 1.93E-02 0.02

Antimony (Group 3) 1 hour 100 150 1.59E-01 1.59E-01 0.16

Arsenic (Group 3) 1 hour 100 15 1.59E-01 1.61E-01 0.16

Lead (Group 3) 1 hour 100 0.25 1.59E-01 1.93E-01 0.19

Chromium (Group 3) 1 hour 100 3 1.59E-01 1.64E-01 0.16

Cobalt (Group 3) 1 hour 100 6 1.59E-01 1.59E-01 0.16

Copper (Group 3) 1 hour 100 200 1.59E-01 2.54E-01 0.25

Manganese (Group 3) 1 hour 100 1500 1.59E-01 1.81E-01 0.18

Nickel (Group 3) 1 hour 100 300 1.59E-01 1.61E-01 0.16

Vanadium (Group 3) 1 hour 100 1 1.59E-01 1.68E-01 0.17



2. PEC = PC + Background; 3. Short-term background has been taken as twice the long-term background; and 4. Data reported for year of highest predicted concentration only.


Golder Associates

6.5 Single Effective Flue

As part of the proposed redesign, the option of routing all emissions through one single flue has also been investigated. The set up would be as described for Scenario 2 with one single stack on-site at a 35 m but instead of having multiple engine and CHP flues encased in a single shroud, there would only be one single flue through which all CHP and engine emissions were vented. This would create a single point source of emissions. The parameters of this point source are detailed in Table AAQIA54 below.

Table AAQIA54: Parameters for Single Effective Flue Operation

Scenario Flow (Am3/s) Temperature (K) Diameter (m) 1. Effective Flue 227.6 453.8 4.4 As a result of the reduced load operations, emission rates are also affected. The revised emission rates for the single point source are detailed in Table AAQI55 below.

Table AAQIA55: Emission Rates for Single Effective Flue Operation

Pollutant 1 Effective Flue (g/s) NO2 14.72 CO 19.4

PM10 1.41 SO2 8.24 HCl 1.37 HF 0.14

Dioxins and Furans 0.00000001 Heavy Metals Group1 0.0068 Heavy Metals Group 2 0.0068 Heavy Metals Group 3 0.068

Modelling was conducted using the worst year of meteorological data (1999). The maximum PECs of short-term and long-term pollutants were compared against the relevant EALs, the results of which are presented in Table AAQIA56 and AAQIA57, below. The resultant short-term and long-term PECs do not exceed the air quality standards at any location within the model domain (including all discrete receptors, SSSIs and conservation areas) for any of the pollutants modelled.

Table AAQIA56: Single Effective Flue Scenario: The Maximum Short-Term Concentrations of Pollutants within the Entire Modelled Domain


Assessed Percentile

EAL (μg/m3)

Max. PC4 (μg/m3)

Background 1,3

(μg/m3)

PEC 2 (μg/m3)

NO2 1 hour 99.79 200 34.59 45.42 80.01 CO 8 hour 100 10,000 45.78 508 553.78

PM10 24 hour 90.41 125 0.35 33.00 33.35 SO2 15 minute 99.9 266 31.69 23.92 55.61 SO2 1 hour 99.73 350 17.22 23.92 41.14


Golder Associates


Assessed Percentile

EAL (μg/m3)

Max. PC4 (μg/m3)

Background 1,3

(μg/m3)

PEC 2 (μg/m3)

SO2 24 hour 99.18 125 6.59 23.92 30.51 Hydrogen Chloride 1 hour 100 800 3.93E+00 - 3.93E+00

Hydrogen Fluoride 1 hour 100 250 4.02E-01 - 4.02E-01

Dioxins and Furans 1 hour 100 - 2.87E-08 1.45E-05 7.28E-06

Cadmium (Group 1) 1 hour 100 1.5 1.95E-02 3.40E-04 1.99E-02

Thallium (Group 1) 1 hour 100 30 1.95E-02 - 5.60E-02

Mercury (Group 2) 1 hour 100 7.5 1.95E-02 3.46E-03 2.30E-02

Antimony (Group 3) 1 hour 100 150 1.95E-01 - 5.60E-01

Arsenic (Group 3) 1 hour 100 15 1.95E-01 1.90E-03 1.97E-01

Lead (Group 3) 1 hour 100 0.25 1.95E-01 3.46E-02 2.30E-01

Chromium (Group 3) 1 hour 100 3 1.95E-01 1.05E-02 2.00E-01

Cobalt (Group 3) 1 hour 100 6 1.95E-01 - 5.60E-01

Copper (Group 3) 1 hour 100 200 1.95E-01 9.52E-02 2.90E-01

Manganese (Group 3) 1 hour 100 1500 1.95E-01 2.26E-02 2.18E-01

Nickel (Group 3) 1 hour 100 300 1.95E-01 2.54E-03 1.98E-01

Vanadium (Group 3) 1 hour 100 1 1.95E-01 9.30E-03 2.04E-01




Table AAQIA57: Single Effective Flue Scenario: The Maximum Long-Term Concentrations of Pollutants Within the Entire Modelled Domain

Emission EAL (μg/m3) Max. PC4 (μg/m3) Background 1,3

(μg/m3) PEC 2

(μg/m3) NO2 40 1.07 22.71 24.9897 PM10 40 0.10 16.50 16.6025

Hydrogen Chloride 20 9.96E-02 - 9.96E-02 Hydrogen Fluoride - 1.02E-02 - 1.02E-02 Dioxins and Furans - 7.27E-10 7.25E-06 7.25E-06

Cadmium (Group 1) 0.005 4.94E-04 2.00E-04 6.64E-04

Thallium (Group 1) 1 4.94E-04 - 3.59E-05

Mercury (Group 2) 0.25 4.94E-04 1.70E-03 3.95E-03


Golder Associates

Emission EAL (μg/m3) Max. PC4 (μg/m3) Background 1,3

(μg/m3) PEC 2

(μg/m3) Antimony (Group 3) 5 4.94E-03 - 3.59E-04

Arsenic (Group 3) 0.006 4.94E-03 1.00E-03 5.89E-03

Lead (Group 3) - 4.94E-03 1.73E-02 3.95E-02 Chromium (Group 3) 0.1 4.94E-03 5.30E-03 1.55E-02

Cobalt(Group 3) 0.2 4.94E-03 - 3.59E-04 Copper (Group 3) 10 4.94E-03 4.76E-02 5.26E-02

Manganese (Group 3) 1 4.94E-03 1.13E-02 1.63E-02 Nickel (Group 3) 10 4.94E-03 1.30E-03 6.21E-03

Vanadium (Group 3) 5 4.94E-03 4.70E-03 9.59E-03 Notes: 1. Background air quality data for CO and PM10 was obtained from the UK Air Quality Archive for co-




Golder Associates

7.0 DEPOSITION PREDICTIONS

7.1 Predictive Methodology for the Human Health Risk Assessment

The following sections present the methodology used to predict the airborne concentration of pollutants and the deposition of pollutants to ground. This information is required for the human health risk assessment (HHRA, Chapter 15 of the Environmental Statement). The results of the modelling assessment are not interpreted here but only used as input data to the human health risk assessment model.

7.1.1 Environmental Standards Used in the Air Dispersion Assessment

Atmospheric dispersion modelling has been undertaken for the purpose of predicting airborne concentrations (direct health affects) and deposition (indirect health affects) of PCDDs, PCDFs, metals and metalloids, in order to be used as inputs to the food chain and HHRA modelling. Therefore, neither ambient air concentrations nor predicted deposition rates are compared directly to environmental standards.

Ambient air concentrations of PCDDs and PCDFs and metals are assessed in relation to air quality standards and objectives and are presented elsewhere in this Air Quality Impact Assessment.

7.1.2 Atmospheric Dispersion Model

7.1.2.1 Justification of Atmospheric Dispersion Model

For the purposes of undertaking the HHRA, the ADMS dispersion model was used in order that the dry and wet deposition functions could be utilised. The methodology adopted for the dispersion modelling of emission was taken from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) (September 2005), Chapter 3.

7.1.2.2 Air Emissions Source

Emissions to atmosphere are assessed from the CHP plant stack of the proposed eRCF, modelled as a point source. The location of this source and emission properties under typical operation of the proposed eRCF are detailed in Section 4. With the gas engine stacks combined with the CHP plant flues there is improved dispersion due to the large volume flow and increased temperature of the emission. However, for the purposes of the HHRA it is assumed that the CHP plant operates alone and consequently emissions for eRCF and eRCF Revised are identical.


Golder Associates

7.1.2.3 Emission Rates

A suite of 17 individual PCDD and PCDF congeners, and a suite of 12 metals and metalloids were considered within the assessment. In accordance with the USEPA HHRAP methodology, a unitised emissions rate of 1 g/s was utilised within the air dispersion models, with actual emission rates of the individual congeners, metals and metalloids being incorporated into the subsequent deposition term calculation.

The individual emission rates for dioxins and furans used were calculated using the standard congener emissions profile derived by the former Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution (1996). For metals and metalloids, the emissions limits within the Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC were adopted. The emission rates of PCDDs, PCDFs, metals and metalloids emitted from the proposed eRCF are summarised in Table AAQIA58.

Table AAQIA58: CHP Plant Stack Emission Rates Used in the ADMS Model and Partitioning Behaviour of Congeners, Metals and Metalloids

Pollutant Concentration (mg/Nm3)

Emission Rate (g/s) Partitioning Behaviour1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1.70E-07 2.33E-08 Particle 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 4.40E-07 6.01E-08 Particle 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 4.30E-08 5.87E-09 Particle-bound 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 2.90E-08 3.93E-09 Particle 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 2.20E-07 2.98E-08 Particle 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 2.60E-08 3.53E-09 Particle 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 8.10E-08 1.10E-08 Particle-bound 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 2.10E-08 2.80E-09 Particle 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 4.20E-09 5.75E-10 Particle-bound 1,2,3,7,8-PCDD 2.50E-08 3.35E-09 Particle-bound 1,2,3,7,8-PCDF 2.80E-08 3.79E-09 Particle-bound 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 8.70E-08 1.19E-08 Particle-bound 2,3,4,7,8-PCDF 5.40E-08 7.32E-09 Particle-bound 2,3,7,8-TCDD 3.10E-09 4.24E-10 Particle-bound 2,3,7,8-TCDF 2.70E-08 3.69E-09 Particle-bound OCDD 4.00E-07 5.53E-08 Particle OCDF 3.60E-07 4.88E-08 Particle Antimony 5.00E-01 6.84E-02 Particle Arsenic 5.00E-01 6.84E-02 Particle Cadmium 5.00E-02 6.84E-03 Particle Cobalt 5.00E-01 6.84E-02 Particle Copper 5.00E-01 6.84E-02 Particle Chromium (III)2 2.50E-01 3.42E-02 Particle Chromium (VI)2 2.50E-01 3.42E-02 Particle Lead 5.00E-01 6.84E-02 Particle Manganese 5.00E-01 6.84E-02 Particle

Total mercury 5.00E-02 6.84E-03 80 % Vapour 20% Particle-bound

Nickel 5.00E-01 6.84E-02 Particle Thallium 5.00E-02 6.84E-03 Particle Vanadium 5.00E-01 6.84E-02 Particle Notes: 1. Determined by assumptions within USPEA Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste

Combustion Facilities (2005) and associated Fv values; and


Golder Associates

2. It is assumed that Chromium occurs 50% as trivalent Chromium (CrIII) and 50% as hexavalent Chromium (CrVI).

7.1.2.4 Particle Characteristics

In order to model the deposition of each individual congener and metal, consideration was given to the partitioning behaviour of the contaminants. Atmospheric emissions occur in either the vapour or particle phase. The USEPA HHRAP provides a general assumption for determining which phase a contaminant is present in, in relation to how the deposition process should be modelled:

• Contaminants with very low volatility (fraction of contaminant in vapour phase (Fv) less than 0.05) occur only in the particle phase;

• Highly volatile contaminants (Fv of 1.0) occur only in the vapour phase; and • Remaining contaminants occur with a portion of the vapour condensed onto the surface

of particulates, i.e. are particle-bound. The partitioning behaviour of each of the individual congeners was determined in accordance with the above methodology and are presented in Table AAQIA58.

Particle size is the main determinant of deposition rates for dry or wet deposition mechanisms. Larger particles fall more rapidly from the emission plume than small particles and tend to be deposited closer to the emission source. In the absence of research data on particle composition and distribution from gasification plant emissions, example data provided in the HHRAP methodology has been used.

For modelling of congeners released only in the particle phase, the mass fractions allocated to each particle size are different than the mass fractions used for modelling congeners released in the particle-bound phase. Congeners modelled as particle bound require a surface area weighting of particles. The relative mass and surface weighted distributions for each particle size category are provided in Table AAQIA59.

Table AAQIA59: Mass-Based and Surface-Area Based Distributions of Particulate Material

Particle Diameter (µm) Mass-Based Distribution (fraction of total)

Surface Area-Based Distribution (fraction of total)

15.0 0.128 0.0149 12.5 0.105 0.0146 8.1 0.104 0.0224 5.5 0.073 0.0231 3.6 0.103 0.0499 2.0 0.105 0.0915 1.1 0.082 0.1290 0.7 0.076 0.1656 0.1 0.224 0.4880

For the modelling of wet deposition, a washout coefficient was derived based on an annual rainfall of 700 mm and ADMS default values for Coefficients A and B were used.


Golder Associates

7.1.2.5 Receptors

7.1.2.5.1 Modelled Domain

The extent of the modelled domain is at least 2.5 km in all directions from the proposed eRCF. The distance between grid points is 50 m.

The scope of this assessment required the modelling of pollutant ground level ambient air and deposited concentrations of PCDD, PCDF, metals and metalloid emissions in the area surrounding the Site, in order to provide inputs to the multi-pathway food chain assessment. A number of receptors were identified surrounding the Site that, by the nature of their activities, represented potential pollutant linkages through which deposited contaminants could enter the human food chain that were primarily farms. A number of receptors representing locations of ongoing background monitoring were also included in the model in order to aid comparison of modelling results with monitoring results in future assessments. The individual receptors identified are presented within Section 4.7

It was also not possible to identify the extent of the land belonging to each individual farm. As such, farm specific ambient air and deposition concentrations were not assigned to individual discrete receptors for the purpose of food chain modelling. A conservative approach was taken whereby the maximum predicted values within the model domain (beyond the Site boundary) were utilised in the multi-pathway assessment which again represents an unlikely ‘worst case’ scenario.

7.1.2.6 Meteorology

7.1.2.6.1 Meteorology Characteristics

As for the dispersion modelling for the air quality assessment, meteorological data for London Stansted Airport has been used (1999 to 2003). In order to assess inter-annual variability, the dispersion model was run for each of the five years of data and the worst-case concentration and deposition rate were used in the assessment.

7.1.2.6.2 Surface Characteristics

As a worst-case, the land uses surrounding the Site were described within the ADMS model as ‘agricultural areas maximum’ and characterised by a surface roughness of 0.3 m.

7.1.2.7 Terrain

In terms of terrain, the former airfield and its immediate surroundings are on a plateau above the River Blackwater. Therefore, it was not necessary to consider terrain within the ADMS modelling exercise as, the elevation of land extending approximately 1.5 km in all directions


Golder Associates

beyond the Site does not vary significantly. However, for completeness and for consistency with the air quality assessment, terrain data have been incorporated into the model.

7.1.2.8 eRCF Buildings

The proposed eRCF will be lowered by at least 11 metres below surrounding ground level. For the purpose of representing this within the model, the heights of the various buildings above existing ground level have been calculated (Section 4.4). In ADMS, it is only possible to specify one building for the assessment of building downwash affects. The most significant building at the Site would be the Pulp Production facility combined with the CHP plant building. For the purposes of the assessment the characteristic of this building were assumed to be as follows:

• Height of 10.75 m above existing ground levels; • Length of 218 m and width of 275 m; and • Building centre at grid reference 582273, 220508 and an angle of 45°. 7.1.2.9 Special Treatments

The scope of the report does not warrant the inclusion of any special treatments (e.g. short-term/puff releases, photochemistry) in the model.

7.2 Assessment of Deposition & Ambient Air Concentrations

The following sections describe the dispersion and deposition modelling results of process emissions from the stack of the proposed CHP plant. These were subsequently utilised within the multi-pathway health risk assessment.

7.2.1 Deposition

7.2.1.1 Particle-Bound Phase Modelling

Deposition rates and concentrations produced by the particle-bound phase modelling were assessed for every year in the five year meteorological data set. The maximum predicted concentration and total deposition rates (wet plus dry processes) within each model data set were identified and compared in order to establish which meteorological year represented the worst case scenario. Maximum concentrations were predicted for the 1999 and 2000 meteorological years. The results for 1999 and 2000 are presented within Table AAQIA60. However, it should be noted that these results illustrate the output of the utilised emission rate model and as such are not representative of the actual predicted concentrations. They have been utilised only to identify the meteorological data set that predicted the greatest deposition rate. As a worst-case these maxima were utilised in the human health risk assessment.


Golder Associates

Table AAQIA60: Maximum Predicted Deposition for the Particle-Bound Phase

Meteorological Data Year 1999 2000

Maximum Total Deposition (µg/m2/s)1 0.00605 0.00618 Maximum Airborne concentration (µg m-3) 0.147 0.142 Note: 1. Deposition rates and concentrations are derived from unitised emission rate (e.g. 1 g/s) model input value

and therefore do not represent actual predicted deposition rates or concentrations.

7.2.1.2 Particle Phase Modelling

Deposition rates and concentrations produced by the particle phase modelling were assessed for every year in the five year meteorological data set. The maximum predicted concentration and total deposition rates (wet plus dry processes) within each model data set were identified and compared in order to establish which meteorological year represented the worst case scenario. Maximum concentrations were predicted for the 1999 and 2000 meteorological years. The results for 1999 and 2000 are presented within Table AAQIA61. As a worst-case these maxima were utilised in the human health risk assessment.

Table AAQIA61: Maximum Predicted Deposition for the Particle Phase


Maximum Total Deposition (µg/m2/s)1 0.770 0.790 Maximum Airborne concentration (µg m-3) 0.134 0.128 Notes: 1. Deposition rates are derived from unitised emission rate (e.g. 1 g/s) model input value and therefore do not

represent actual predicted concentrations.

7.2.1.3 Vapour Phase Modelling

Deposition rates and concentrations produced by the vapour phase modelling were assessed for every year in the five year meteorological data set. The maximum predicted concentration and total deposition rates (wet plus dry processes) within each model data set were identified and compared in order to establish which meteorological year represented the worst case scenario. Maximum concentrations were predicted for the 1999 and 2000 meteorological years. The results for 1999 and 2000 are presented within Table AAQIA62. As a worst-case these maxima were utilised in the human health risk assessment.

Table AAQIA62: Maximum Predicted Deposition for the Vapour Phase


Maximum Total Deposition (µg/m2/s)1 0.00584 0.00614 Maximum Airborne concentration (µg m-3) 0.152 0.146 Notes: 1. Deposition rates are derived from unitised emission rate (e.g. 1 g/s) model input value and therefore do not

represent actual predicted concentrations.


Golder Associates

8.0 PLUME VISABILITY

8.1 Introduction

Wet plumes from the proposed facility stacks may become visible when vapour condenses under certain climatic conditions. To ensure such a plume is not a nuisance to receptors neighbouring the Site (i.e. the footpaths, residential properties) plume visibility modelling was undertaken. If a plume is predicted to be visible outside of the Site boundary it is necessary to determine whether the plume returns to ground level as such an occurrence could be a potential nuisance. Detailed plume visibility modelling has been carried out using the ADMS model (version 4.1) developed by Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants (CERC). The Plume Visibility module in ADMS uses the initial water content of the gaseous emission from the stacks and the humidity of the ambient air to determine whether the plume will be visible at a number of downstream points.

A plume is defined as ‘visible’ if the liquid water content of the plume at the plume centreline exceeds 15-5 kg/kg, and is defined to have ‘grounded’ if the vertical spread of the plume (σz) is larger than the plume centreline height (zp).

In addition to the input parameters required for the ADMS or AERMOD air dispersion models to predict ground level pollutant concentrations, ADMS requires the following input parameters to determine whether a plume will be visible or will return to ground level at a given downwind distance:

• Surface humidity (relative humidity) as a meteorological variable; • Surface temperature as a meteorological variable since moisture properties of the

atmosphere depend strongly on temperature; and • The initial mixing ratio of the plume in kg/kg (i.e. the mass of water vapour per unit

mass of dry release at the source). 8.2 Scenarios Assessed

Scenario 1 – eRCF - This scenario models the impact of four engines emitting through a 22 m high stack and the 35 m CHP plant stack. Emissions of contaminant common to both the gas engines and the CHP have been considered;

Scenario 2 –eRCF Revised - This scenario models the impact of four engines and the CHP, with the engine emissions re-routed to separate flues within the 35 m single CHP shrouded stack. Emissions of contaminant common to both the gas engines and the CHP have been considered; and

Single Effective Flue - As part of the proposed redesign, the option of routing all emissions through one single flue has also been investigated. The set up would be as described for Scenario 2 with one single stack on-site at a 35 m but instead of having multiple engine and CHP flues encased in a single shroud, there would only be one single flue through which all


Golder Associates

CHP and engine emissions were vented. This would create a single point source of emissions.

8.3 Model Inputs

The mixing ratio of the plume has been calculated by taking account of water vapour from:

• The exhaust air of the engine; and • The exhaust air of the CHP Plant. The mixing ratios of the stack plumes are calculated to be 0.0808 kg/kg and 0.04413 kg/kg for single engine and the CHP respectively. The mixing ratio of the combined exhaust for Scenario 3 is 0.04534 kg/kg. A moisture content of approximately 7% is assumed.

8.4 Plume Visibility Predicted Impacts

8.4.1 Scenario 1 - eRCF

The plume visibility impact from Scenario 1 was assessed for all five years of meteorological data and annual dataset consists of an entire year of hourly sequential readings. The hourly sequential readings include the relative humidity and temperature.

The number of invisible plume groundings from the first engine emissions, presented in Tables AAQIA63. The highest number of invisible plume groundings from the engines is 3265 when using 2000 meteorological data. Consequently this year of meteorological data was used to assess for other scenarios.

Table AAQIA63: Plumes Impacts from the No. 1 Engine for Scenario 1

Year Number of Visible Plumes 2

Number of Invisible

Groundings

Number of visible

groundings

Number of plumes visible at

release 1999 0 3180 0 0

2000 1 0 3265 0 0 2001 0 2740 0 0 2002 0 3120 0 0 2003 0 2942 0 0

Notes: 1. Year of worst predicted impacts; and 2. Which means the number of plumes that would be visible to the observers if they looked directly upwards

from locations adjacent to the stack.. The results of visible plume impact from both CHP and all engines using 2000 meteorological data (the year of worst impact) are presented in Table AAQIA64 and are summarised below:


Golder Associates

Table AAQIA64: Visible Plumes Impacts from the CHP and Engines for Scenario 1

Source Number of Visible Plumes 1,2

Number of Invisible Plume

Groundings

Number of Visible

Groundings

Number of Plumes Visible at

Release CHP 0 0 0 0 Engine 1 0 3265 0 0 Engine 2 0 3263 0 0 Engine 3 0 3260 0 0 Engine 4 0 3259 0 0

Source Percentage of plumes visible

Percentage of invisible plume

grounding

Percentage of plumes visible and grounding

Percentage of plumes visible at

release CHP 0 0 0 0 Engine 1 0 38.4% 0 0 Engine 2 0 38.4% 0 0 Engine 3 0 38.3% 0 0 Engine 4 0 38.3% 0 0


from locations adjacent to the stack. • There are no visible plumes from the CHP and engines; • There are no invisible plume groundings from CHP; there are between 3259 and

3265 invisible plume groundings per year among the engines; • There are no visible plume groundings anywhere inside or outside of the Site from CHP

and the engines; and • There are no plumes visible at release from the CHP and the engines. 8.4.2 Scenario 2 – eRCF Revised

The results of visible plume impact from both CHP and all engines using 2000 meteorological data (the year of worst impact) are presented in Table AAQIA65 and are summarised below:

Table AAQIA65: Visible Plumes Impacts from the CHP and Engines for Scenario 2

Source Number of Visible Plumes 1, 2

Number of Invisible Plume

Groundings

Number of Visible

Groundings

Number of Plumes Visible at

Release CHP 0 0 0 0

Engine 1 0 362 0 0 Engine 2 0 362 0 0 Engine 3 0 362 0 0 Engine 4 0 362 0 0

Source Percentage of plumes visible

Percentage of invisible plumes

grounding



release CHP 0 0 0 0

Engine 1 0 4.3 % 0 0 Engine 2 0 4.3 % 0 0 Engine 3 0 4.3 % 0 0 Engine 4 0 4.3 % 0 0

Notes:


Golder Associates

1. Year of worst predicted impacts; and 2. Which means the number of plumes that would be visible to the observers if they looked directly upwards

from locations adjacent to the stack. • There are no visible plumes from the CHP and engines; • There are no invisible plume groundings from CHP; there are 362 invisible plume

groundings per year for the engines; • There are no visible plume groundings anywhere inside or outside of the Site from CHP

and the engines; and • There are no plumes visible at release from the CHP and the engines. In comparison with Scenario 1, the number of invisible plume groundings decreases from 3265 times per year from the engines (Scenario 1) to 362 times per year from the engines (Scenario 2). 8.4.3 Scenario Single Effective Flue

The results of visible plume impact from the combined exhausts of the CHP and all engines using 2000 meteorological data (the year of worst impact) for Scenario 3 are presented in Table AAQIA66 and are summarised below: Table AAQIA66: Visible Plumes Impacts from the Single Stack for Scenario 3

Source Number of visible plumes 1,2

Number of invisible plume groundings

Number of visible

groundings

Number of plumes visible at release

Single Stack

0 0 0 0

Percentage of plumes visible

Percentage of invisible plume

groundings



release 0 0 0 0


from locations adjacent to the stack. • There are no visible plumes from the single stack; • There are no invisible plume groundings from the single stack; • There are no visible plume groundings anywhere inside or outside of the Site from the

single stack; and • There are no plumes visible at release from the single stack. 8.5 Summary

ADMS models were run for each year in the five-year meteorological dataset, from 1999 to 2003 inclusive and the worst case highest predicted impact occurs for 2000 meteorological data.

For Scenario 1 eRCF and Scenario 2 eRCF Revised, there are no visible plumes and no visible plume groundings anywhere inside and outside the Site boundary including at the


Golder Associates

release points of the CHP and the engines. There are between 3259 and 3265 invisible plume groundings per year among the engines for Scenario 1 and 362 invisible plume groundings per year for the engines for Scenario 2.

For the scenario of the single effective flue, there are no visible plumes, no visible plume groundings, and no invisible plume groundings anywhere inside and outside the Site boundary; and there are no visible plumes at the release point from the single stack.


Golder Associates

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

Gent Fairhead & Co Ltd has commissioned Golder Associates (UK) Ltd (Golder) to develop an evolution of the planned Recycling and Composting Facility (the eRCF) at Rivenhall Airfield (the Site). The eRCF presents a further development of the design of the original Recycling & Composting Facility (RCF) on the Site, which was resolved to be granted planning permission by Essex County Council’s Planning Committee on 30 March 2007.

An Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (AQIA) for the eRCF was prepared by Golder on behalf of GFC and comprised part of the Environmental Statement August 2008 (ES August 2008). The eRCF design assessed in the ES August 2008 proposed consists of a 35 m high Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant stack and a separate 22 m high gas engine stack (comprising 4 gas engine flues). Additional air quality assessment work was undertaken as part of the Regulation 19 Additional Information, December 2008 (Regulation 19 Submission) in response to queries regarding stack heights and potential short term, short duration, abnormal operating NO2 emission rates.

This report is an Addendum Chapter for Air Quality and is part of the Addendum Environmental Statement, September 2009 (Addendum ES) which presents additional information for the public enquiry in respect to the eRCF. A Revised Non-Technical Summary, September 2009 (NTS 2009) has been produced to accompany the Addendum ES. Together, the 4 documents of the ES August 2008, Regulation 19 Submission, Addendum ES, and the NTS 2009 constitute the eRCF Environmental Statement (eRCF ES).

The Addendum Air Quality Impact Assessment (AAQIA) has been undertaken in support of the proposed eRCF and includes consideration of: corrected building heights rather than the conservative approach to building height that was adopted in the ES August 2008; amended meteorology; more accurate terrain; and additional sensitivity analyses. The sensitivity analyses include: gas engine stack height considerations between 22 and 27 m; CHP stack height considerations between 25 and 45 m; alternative meteorology with the village of Silver End located downwind of the prevailing wind direction; and short term, short duration, abnormal operating No2 emission limits. An assessment of plume visibility is also presented.

A potential redesign to remove the gas engine stack and re-route all emissions through the CHP stack (referred to as eRCF Revised) has also been considered. This assessment is as a result of further design work that has identified that this minor design alteration would allow for better air quality (routing all emissions through a single stack generates increased thermal buoyancy of the plume for the larger volume flow) and other benefits, such as visually the removal of the gas engine stack. As with the additional air quality impact assessments undertaken in support of the proposed eRCF consideration has been taken of corrected building heights, amended meteorology and updated terrain. The additional assessment for the eRCF Revised have been undertaken to include consideration of: multiple flues from the CHP and gas engines encased within a single CHP stack shroud with a height of 35 m; a


Golder Associates

single effective flue CHP stack (with the combined CHP and gas engine exhaust emissions) with a height of 35 m; and an assessment of plume visibility.

An analysis of the potential impact on air quality of the eRCF (including the eRCF Revised) has been undertaken using a dispersion model to predict airborne ground level concentrations. For the air quality assessment, predictions have been carried out using the US EPA AERMOD dispersion model. Plume visibility and pollutant deposition to the ground (results generated for input into the Human Health Risk Assessment) has been carried out using the UK ADMS dispersion model. Both models are used extensively in the UK for assessing air quality impacts of industrial processes.

The air dispersion models include 5 years of meteorological data from Stansted airport, terrain even though the surrounding area is relatively flat, and the buildings which are exposed above the current ground level which is assumed to be 50 m AOD (a large proportion of the proposed eRCF will be below existing ground levels). A receptor grid over an area of approximately 16 km2 with grid resolution of 50 m has been included along with specific receptors for assessing population exposure (e.g. footpaths, farms, isolated residential properties and residential areas) and for sensitive habitat sites.

Background air quality data have been sourced from the UK Air Quality Archive and includes estimated concentrations for the local area as well as measured concentrations. In addition, a Golder monitoring study provides measured concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide for thirteen sites around the local area. The monitoring data available indicate that local air quality is good and that there are currently no exceedance of air quality objectives or limit values.

The dispersion model is used to predict the Process Contribution (PC) arising from the operation of the eRCF (i.e. the impact on air quality of the facility in isolation). The predicted environmental concentration (PEC) is determined by adding the background concentration (i.e. the concentration of pollutants occurring at that location from other sources) to the PC. The impact of the eRCF is assessed by comparison of the PC and PEC to an appropriate Environmental Assessment Level (EAL) for each pollutant. The EALs used are those provided in European legislation, UK legislation and, where European or UK legislation does not exist, from other robust sources such as the Environment Agency and the World Health Organization.

There are uncertainties associated with modelling emissions from developments such as that proposed. Consequently, worst-case assumptions have been adopted for the air quality assessment to ensure that predicted impacts will be over-estimated rather than under-estimated. These assumptions include: the use of the worst-case meteorological year for predicting ground level pollutant concentrations, the gas engines and CHP plant are assumed to operate at full load and to operate continuously; emissions are assumed to be continuously at the maximum permissible by the relevant legislation and/or Environment Agency guidance; for the CHP plant, metal emissions are specified in three groups, however, where there is


Golder Associates

more than one metal in the group (e.g. Group 1 comprises two metals and Group 3 comprises nine metals), it is assumed that each individual metal is emitted at the emission limit for the group as a whole; and maximum predicted concentrations are compared to the EAL irrespective of whether there is relevant public exposure at that location.

The findings were assessed under the following scenarios: Scenario 1 eRCF assessed emissions (NO2, SO2, PM10 and CO) from 4 engines with a stack height of 22 m and the CHP Plant stack at a height of 35 m with the two stacks approximately 80 m apart; Scenario 2 eRCF Revised assessed emissions (NO2, SO2, PM10 and CO) from 4 engines and the CHP plant from one single stack at a height of 35 m; Scenario 3 assessed additional emissions from the CHP plant (HCl, HF, dioxins and furans and heavy metals); and Scenario 4 assessed emissions (NO2, SO2, PM10 and CO) from the flare and CHP (in the unlikely event of failure of all engines).

For the eRCF (Scenarios 1, 3 & 4) the PEC for each emission (process contribution plus background) indicates compliance with the relevant air quality objectives and limits, except for arsenic and the 15 minute SO2. (The impacts of 15 minute SO2 were addressed via a stack height analysis of the gas engines which shows that an increased gas engine stack height of 23 m would reduce the predicted impacts below the EAL). For the eRCF Revised (Scenarios 2, 3 & 4) the PEC for each emission (process contribution plus background) indicates compliance with the relevant air quality objectives and limits, except for arsenic.

For arsenic, the EAL (based on an EU target value to be achieved by 2012) is particularly stringent and over thirty times more stringent than the EAL adopted by the Environment Agency. However, it is the most appropriate criterion to use for arsenic. Therefore, a more detailed assessment of arsenic has been undertaken. Realistic arsenic emissions (as opposed to the extreme worst case) will be substantially lower that the EU target EAL and can be most appropriately controlled by the inclusion of a specific emission limit in the Environmental Permit for the eRCF facility which would be issued by the Environment Agency.

Sensitivity analyses indicated that: increasing the CHP stack height from 20 m to 25 m results in a substantial reduction in predicted concentrations, however, from 30 m through to 45 m the increases in stack height are less influential; alternative meteorological data with the prevailing wind forced to be blowing towards the nearest village of Silver End highlights that even this worst case does not result in an exceedance of any EALs in the village; short-term NO2 emission limits which are double those normally assessed does not result in an exceedance of the relevant EAL; reduced load with only one or two CHP flues operational does not result in an exceedance of any EALs; and the single effective flue enhanced volume and buoyancy of the emissions results in lower PECs than both the eRCF and eRCF Revised options. A plume visibility assessment has been carried out for the single multi-flue stack and no visible plumes are predicted to be emitted from the stack (assuming moisture content of approximately 7%).


Golder Associates

In summary, as a result of the extensive air quality modelling undertaken in respect of the eRCF and eRCF Revised, it is concluded that the proposed facility will not have a detrimental impact on air quality.


Golder Associates

10.0 REFERENCES

Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants (2007) ADMS 4, Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System, June 2007. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006) Guidance of Directive 2007/76/EC on the incineration of waste. Edition 3 June 2006.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2009) Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 Part III Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(09) February 2009. Department of Environment (1996) Risk Assessment of Dioxin Releases from Municipal Waste Incineration Processes, Report by Environmental Resources Management. DoE Ref: HMIP/CPR2/41/1/181. Environment Agency (2000). Environment Agency Policy EAS/2007/1/1. Choice of Air Dispersion Models. March 2000.

Environment Agency (2003). Horizontal Guidance Notes IPPC H1. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BAT. Version 6, July 2003.

Environment Agency (2004a) Guidance for Monitoring Landfill Gas Engine Emissions, September 2004.

Environment Agency (2004b). Guidance for Monitoring Enclosed Landfill Gas Flares, September 2004.

Environment Agency (2004c). Air Dispersion Modelling Report Requirements (for detailed air dispersion modelling). The Air Quality Modelling and Assessment Unit, The Environment Agency. This version undated but believed revised in early 2004.

EPAQS, 2006. Guidelines for Halogen and Hydrogen Halides in Ambient Air for Protecting Human Health Against Acute Irritancy Effects, January 2006.

Hall, DJ, Spanton, AM, Dunkerley, F, Bennett, M, and Griffiths, RF (2000a). A Review of Dispersion Model Intercomparison Studies using ISC, R91, AERMOD and ADMS. R&D Technical Report P353 for the Environment Agency.

Hall, DJ, Spanton, AM, Dunkerley, F, Bennett, M, and Griffiths, RF (2000b). An Intercomparison of the AERMOD, ADMS and ISC Dispersion Models for Regulatory Applications. R&D Technical Report P362 for the Environment Agency.


Golder Associates

Magic website. http://www.magic.gov.uk/website/magic/.

UK Air Quality Archive website. http://www.airquality.co.uk.

Trinity Consultants (2007) Breeze AERMOD User Guide, Version 6. USEPA (2005) Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol, September 2005 Watanabe, N, Inoue, S, Ito, H (1999) Mass Balance of Arsenic and Antimony in Municipal Waste Incinerators. Journal of Material Cycles Waste Management 1:38–47.


Golder Associates

11.0 ACRONYMS

AAQIA – Addendum Air Quality Impact Assessment

AERMOD - American Meteorological Society and Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Modelling Software

AD – Anaerobic Digestion

ADMS – Atmospheric Dispersion modelling System

AOD – Above Ordnance Datum

AQMA – Air Quality Management Area

AQMAU – Air Quality Modelling and Assessment Unit

BDC – Braintree District Council

C&I – Commercial and Industrial

CERC – Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants

CHP – Combined Heat and Power

CO – Carbon Monoxide

CWS – County Wildlife Site

EAL – Environmental Assessment Level

ECC – Essex County Council

ES – Environmental Statement

EQS – Environmental Quality Standard

eRCF – Evolution of the Recycling and Composting Facility

HCl – Hydrogen Chloride

HF – Hydrogen Fluoride

HHRA – Human Health Risk Assessment


Golder Associates

HSE – Health and Safety

MBT – Mechanical Biological Treatment

MRF – Materials Recycling Facility

MSW – Municipal Solid Waste

NO2 – Nitrogen Dioxide

NOx – Nitrogen Oxides

OES – Occupational Exposure Level

OS – Ordnance Survey

PC – Process Contribution

PEC – Predicted Environmental Concentration

PM10 – Particulate Matter

PRIME – Plume Rise Model Enhancements

RCF – Recycling and Composting Facility

SAC – Special Area of Conservation

SO2 – Sulphur Dioxide

SPA – Special Protection Area

SRF – Solid Recovered Fuel

SSSI – Sites of Special Scientific Interest

WID – Waste Incineration Directive

September 2009 09514690030.512 Addendum Air Quality Impact Assessment B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

ANNEXES


Golder Associates

ANNEX AAQIA1

WINDROSES


Golder Associates

ANNEX AAQIA2

EXAMPLE CONTOUR PLOTS eRCF


Golder Associates

ANNEX AAQIA3

EXAMPLE CONTOUR PLOTS eRCF


Golder Associates

ANNEX AAQIA4

DISCRETE RECEPTOR TABLES SCENARIO 1


Golder Associates

ANNEX AAQIA5



Golder Associates

ANNEX AAQIA6



Golder Associates

ANNEX AAQIA7


September 2009 - i - 09514690030.512 Air Quality B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1

1.1 Report Context ........................................................................................ 1 1.2 Report Outline ......................................................................................... 1

2.0 VEHICLE EMISISONS ASSESSMENT ...................................................... 3 2.1 Context .................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Amendments ........................................................................................... 3 2.3 Impact of Amendments ............................................................................ 3

3.0 ADDITIONAL AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR eRCF .......................... 5 3.1 Context .................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Amendments ........................................................................................... 5 3.3 Impact of Amendments ............................................................................ 5

4.0 ADDITIONAL AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR eRCF REVISED ......... 6 4.1 Context .................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Amendments ........................................................................................... 6 4.3 Impact of Amendments ............................................................................ 6

5.0 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Traffic Volumes for the Proposed Facility LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 2-1 Addendum Air Quality Impact Assessment (AAQIA)

September 2009 - 1 - 09514690030.512 Addendum Air Quality B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Report Context

Gent Fairhead & Co Limited (GFC) has commissioned Golder Associates (UK) Ltd (Golder) to develop an evolution of the planned Recycling and Composting Facility (the eRCF) at Rivenhall Airfield (the Site). The eRCF presents a further development of the permitted design of the original Recycling & Composting Facility (RCF) on the Site.

An Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) for the eRCF was undertaken by Golder on behalf of GFC and comprised part of the Environmental Statement August 2008 (ES August 2008). The proposed eRCF design includes a 35 m high Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant stack and a separate 22 m high gas engine stack. Additional air quality assessment work was undertaken as part of the Regulation 19 Additional Information, December 2008 (Regulation 19 Submission) in response to queries regarding stack heights and potential short term, short duration, abnormal operating NO2 emission rates.

This report is an Addendum Chapter for Air Quality and is part of the Addendum Environmental Statement, September 2009 (Addendum ES) which presents additional information for the public inquiry in respect of the eRCF. A Revised Non-Technical Summary, September 2009 (NTS 2009) has been produced to accompany the Addendum ES. Together, the four documents of the ES August 2008, Regulation 19 Submission, Addendum ES, and the NTS 2009 constitute the eRCF Environmental Statement (eRCF ES).

1.2 Report Outline

This Addendum Chapter for Air Quality provides additional assessments of the impacts on air quality that could result from the proposed eRCF at Rivenhall Airfield. The report is structured as follows:

Section 2 - Details typographical amendments to the Vehicle Emissions Assessment (VEA) ES August 2008, Chapter 11, Appendix 11-2. The amendments do not impact on the conclusions previously drawn.

Section 3 - Introduces an Addendum Air Quality Impact Assessment (AAQIA) presented as an Appendix to this Chapter for the eRCF. This is an additional updated air quality assessment to the ES August 2008, Chapter 11, Appendix 11-1 with further supporting sensitivity analyses.

Section 4 - Introduces an additional Addendum Air Quality Impact Assessment (AAQIA) presented as an Appendix to this Chapter of a potential redesign to remove the gas engine stack and re-route all emissions through the CHP stack. This redesign consideration is


Golder Associates

referred to as eRCF Revised. Again, this is an additional assessment to the ES August 2008, Chapter 11, Appendix 11-1 with further supporting sensitivity analyses. Section 5 - Summarises the amendments and additional works undertaken for air quality in this Addendum ES.


Golder Associates

2.0 VEHICLE EMISISONS ASSESSMENT

2.1 Context

A VEA was presented in the ES August 2008, Chapter 11, and supporting Appendix 11-2. The assessment considered the potential local air quality impacts associated with a change in road traffic emissions brought about by the proposed development. The assessment was undertaken using the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) methodology (Volume 11 Environmental Assessment, Section 3, Environmental Assessment Techniques).

2.2 Amendments

Typographical amendments to vehicle numbers on the Site Access Road from traffic data have been undertaken and are presented in Table 1 below. This table is a replacement to Table 11-36 of the ES August 2008 Chapter 11 and Table VEH4 of the ES August 2008, Chapter 11, Appendix 11-2.

Table 1: Traffic Volumes for the Proposed Facility

A120 ( Total flow west of Site Access Road)

A120 ( Total flow East of Site Access Road)

Site Access Road

2012 Base AADT 25,940 25,910 390 HGV 2,683 2,594 234 Development traffic AADT 205 185 388 HGV 1831 1341 317 2012 with development AADT 26,145 26,095 778 HGV 2,866 2,728 551 % Difference AADT 0.8 0.7 99.5 HGV 6.8 5.2 135.0 1. It is assumed that 58% of vehicles turn west on to the A120 and 42% turn east (as per Chapter 10 of the ES

August 2008 undertaken by Intermodal Transportation). 2.3 Impact of Amendments

The DMRB screening method presents a ‘scoping’ criterion which is used in identifying those road links potentially affected by a proposed development (ES August 2008, Chapter 11, Section 11.5.6.5. and ES August 2008, Chapter 11, Appendix 11-2, Section 4.3). Receptors within 200 m of the road network are considered. The DMRB criterion consider the following:

• A road alignment change of 5 m or more; • Daily traffic flow changes by 1000 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) movements

or more; • Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) flow changes by 200 AADT or more; • Daily average speed changes by 10 km.hr or more; or • Peak hour speed changes by 20 km/hr or more.


Golder Associates

Based on the AADT, there are 317 HGV on the Site access road (Table 1) which is above the DMRB screening criteria. However, there are no long-term sensitive receptors within 200 m of this access route. In addition, the number of vehicles turning in each direction onto the A120 is less than the DMRB 200 HGV AADT screening criteria. Therefore, the impact of traffic emissions on local air quality does not require further assessment, as per the original conclusion in ES August 2008, Chapter 11 and supporting Appendix 11-2.


Golder Associates

3.0 ADDITIONAL AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR eRCF

3.1 Context

A detailed AQIA for the eRCF was presented in the ES August 2008, Chapter 11, and supporting Appendix 11-1. The assessment considered the air quality impacts on human health and vegetation associated with the proposed development. The assessment was undertaken using atmospheric dispersion modelling. The atmospheric modelling has been performed according to the protocol set out by the Air Quality Modelling and Assessment Unit (AQMAU). Following detailed dispersion modelling, the impact of the predicted emissions in relation to the local air quality in the vicinity of the Site were assessed by comparing the Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PECs) with the relevant Environmental Assessment Levels (EALs). Note, the PEC is the predicted specific Process Contribution (PC) plus the existing background concentration.

3.2 Amendments

Additional AQIAs have been undertaken in support of the proposed eRCF and are presented as Appendix 2-1 to this Addendum Chapter for Air Quality. The additional assessment have been undertaken to include consideration of:

• Corrected building heights rather than the conservative approach to building height that was adopted in the ES August 2008;

• Amended meteorology; • More accurate terrain; and • Additional sensitivity analyses. The sensitivity analyses include:

• Gas engine stack height considerations between 22 and 27 m; • CHP stack height considerations between 25 and 45 m; • Alternative meteorology with the village of Silver End located downwind of the

prevailing wind direction; and • Short term, short duration, abnormal operating NO2 emission limits. An assessment of plume visibility from the two stack is also presented.

3.3 Impact of Amendments

The results of the additional AQIAs have been undertaken in support of the proposed eRCF and are presented as Appendix 2-1 (AAQIA) to this Addendum Chapter for Air Quality.


Golder Associates

4.0 ADDITIONAL AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR eRCF REVISED

4.1 Context

As presented in Section 3, a detailed AQIA for the eRCF was presented in the ES August 2008, Chapter 11, and supporting Appendix 11-1.

4.2 Amendments

A potential redesign to remove the gas engine stack and re-route all emissions through the CHP stack (referred to as eRCF Revised) has been considered. This assessment is as a result of further design work undertaken for the ES August 2008 that has identified that this design alteration would allow for better air quality and other benefits, such as visually the removal of the gas engine stack.

Additional AQIAs have been undertaken in support of the proposed eRCF Revised and are presented as Appendix 2-1 (AAQIA) to this Addendum Chapter for Air Quality. As with the additional AQIAs undertaken in support of the proposed eRCF, consideration has been taken of corrected building heights, amended meteorology and updated terrain (Section 3.2 above).

The additional assessment for the eRCF Revised have been undertaken to include consideration of:

• Multiple flues from the CHP and gas engines encased within a single CHP stack shroud with a height of 35 m;

• A single effective flue CHP stack (with the combined CHP and gas engine exhaust

emissions) with a height of 35 m; and • An assessment of plume visibility from the single stack is also presented. 4.3 Impact of Amendments

The results of the additional AQIAs undertaken in support of the proposed eRCF Revised are presented as Appendix 2-1 (AAQIA) to this Addendum Chapter for Air Quality.


Golder Associates

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

This report is an Addendum Chapter for air quality and is part of the Addendum to the Environmental Statement, September 2009 (GF/12). This report should not be read in isolation from the full set of eRCF ES documents.

This Addendum Chapter for Air Quality highlights:

• A correction to the number of vehicles on the Site Access Road, and a replacement to the table presented in the ES August 2008, Chapter 11. The correction does not affect the previous conclusions drawn with respect to the potential impacts on the proposed development traffic on local air quality;

• Additional AQIAs for the proposed eRCF. The additional assessments take into

account corrected building heights, amended meteorology and updated terrain, and additional sensitivity analyses. The additional assessments for the proposed eRCF are presented in Appendix 2-1 (AAQIA) to this Addendum Chapter for Air Quality; and

• Additional AQIAs for a proposed eRCF Revised (which is a minor redesign to remove

the gas engine stack and re-route all emissions through the CHP stack). This design alteration would allow for better air quality and other benefits, such as visually the removal of the gas engine stack. The additional assessments for the proposed eRCF Revised are presented in Appendix 2-1 (AAQIA) to this Addendum Chapter for Air Quality.

September 2009 09514690030.512 Addendum Air Quality B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

APPENDICES

September 2009 09514690030.512 Addendum Air Quality B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

APPENDIX 2-1

ADDENDUM AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AAQIA)

September 2009 - 1 - 09514690030.512Annex AAQIA1 B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

Stansted Airport Windroses 1999-2003

1999 2000

2001 2002

2003

Rivenhall Airfield Recycling and Composting Facility

Contours are PEC in ug/m3

Predicted Emissions from eRCF

The Relevant EAL = 40 ug/m3

579000 580000 581000 582000 583000 584000 585000 586000 587000216000

217000

218000

219000

220000

221000

222000

223000

224000

The Maximum Annual Average Concentration of NO2, Using 2003 Met Data

The Site Boundary is shown in black





579000 580000 581000 582000 583000 584000 585000 586000 587000216000

217000

218000

219000

220000

221000

222000

223000

224000

The 19th (99.79 %ile) Hourly Concentration of NO2, Using 1999 Met Data






579000 580000 581000 582000 583000 584000 585000 586000 587000216000

217000

218000

219000

220000

221000

222000

223000

224000

The 8th (90.41 %ile) 24 Hour Averaged Concentration of PM10, Using 1999 Met Data






579000 580000 581000 582000 583000 584000 585000 586000 587000216000

217000

218000

219000

220000

221000

222000

223000

224000

The 36th (99.9 %ile) 15 Minute Averaged Concentration of SO2, Using 1999 Met Data




Predicted Emissions from eRCF Revised


579000 580000 581000 582000 583000 584000 585000 586000 587000216000

217000

218000

219000

220000

221000

222000

223000

224000

The Maximum Annual Average Concentration of NO2, Using 1999 Met Data






579000 580000 581000 582000 583000 584000 585000 586000 587000216000

217000

218000

219000

220000

221000

222000

223000

224000

The 19th (99.79 %ile) Hourly Concentration of NO2, Using 1999 Met Data






579000 580000 581000 582000 583000 584000 585000 586000 587000216000

217000

218000

219000

220000

221000

222000

223000

224000

The 8th (90.41 %ile) 24 Hour Averaged Concentration of PM10, Using 1999 Met Data






579000 580000 581000 582000 583000 584000 585000 586000 587000216000

217000

218000

219000

220000

221000

222000

223000

224000

The 36th (99.9 %ile) 15 Minute Averaged Concentration of SO2, Using 1999 Met Data



Golder Associates

Table 1: Scenario 1: Maximum Predicted Short term Concentrations at Discrete Receptor Locations, Using 1999Meteorological Data Set

Pollutant NO2 CO PM10 SO2 SO2 SO2

Averaging period 1 hour 8 hour 24 hour 15 minutes 1 hour 24 hour

EAL (µg/m3) 200 10,000 50 266 350 125

Percentile 99.79%ile 100%ile 90.41%ile 99.9%ile 99.18%ile 99.73%ile

Background (µg/m3) 45.42 508.00 33.00 23.92 23.92 23.92

Receptor Max ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3)PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC

Sheepcotes Farm (Hangar No. 1) 14.15 35.43 43.56 551.56 0.12 33.12 29.95 53.87 15.49 39.41 5.11 29.03Wayfarers Site 26.40 47.68 103.28 611.28 0.25 33.25 50.56 74.48 34.70 58.62 14.47 38.39Allshot's farm (Scrap yard) 19.16 40.44 55.55 563.55 0.26 33.26 34.30 58.22 18.94 42.86 7.94 31.86Haywards 19.30 40.58 23.97 531.97 0.35 33.35 15.04 38.96 10.77 34.69 5.50 29.42Herrings Farm 17.10 38.38 23.83 531.83 0.13 33.13 15.87 39.79 9.49 33.41 3.81 27.73Goslings Farm 8.25 29.53 33.53 541.53 0.08 33.08 12.95 36.87 8.12 32.04 2.96 26.88Curd Hall Farm 13.14 34.42 14.17 522.17 0.21 33.21 10.48 34.40 7.40 31.32 3.31 27.23Silver End/Bower Hall/Fossil Hall 8.03 29.31 17.84 525.84 0.07 33.07 9.53 33.45 6.47 30.39 2.71 26.63Rivenhall PI/Hall 6.59 27.87 15.70 523.70 0.05 33.05 8.88 32.80 5.82 29.74 2.27 26.19Parkgate Farm/Waterfall Cottages 8.63 29.91 22.42 530.42 0.06 33.06 10.14 34.06 7.10 31.02 4.11 28.03Porter's Farm 10.17 31.45 19.44 527.44 0.11 33.11 12.89 36.81 7.79 31.71 3.21 27.13Unknown Building 1 12.71 33.99 45.17 553.17 0.12 33.12 20.81 44.73 11.94 35.86 4.47 28.39Bumby Hall/The Lodge/Polish Site(Light Industry) 19.36 40.64 42.58 550.58 0.25 33.25 28.02 51.94 16.53 40.45 7.13 31.05Footpath 8, Receptor 1 (E of Site) 30.69 51.97 43.49 551.49 0.25 33.25 26.05 49.97 17.10 41.02 9.65 33.57Footpath 8, Receptor 2 (E of Site) 25.08 46.36 57.29 565.29 0.24 33.24 27.62 51.54 16.71 40.63 10.16 34.08Footpath 8, Receptor 3 (E of Site) 15.14 36.42 70.56 578.56 0.22 33.22 25.50 49.42 18.34 42.26 11.18 35.10Footpath 8, Receptor 4 (E of Site) 14.79 36.07 62.34 570.34 0.19 33.19 26.98 50.90 18.74 42.66 10.72 34.64Footpath 8, Receptor 5 (E of Site) 24.09 45.37 70.17 578.17 0.17 33.17 45.14 69.06 30.09 54.01 9.95 33.87


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 200 10,000 50 266 350 125


Background (µg/m3) 45.42 508.00 33.00 23.92 23.92 23.92


Footpath 8, Receptor 6 (E of Site) 18.50 39.78 53.22 561.22 0.26 33.26 31.85 55.77 20.29 44.21 9.81 33.73Footpath 8, Receptor 7 (E of Site) 17.76 39.04 38.06 546.06 0.24 33.24 24.89 48.81 15.09 39.01 7.24 31.16Footpath 35, Receptor 1 (N of Site) 34.96 56.24 50.02 558.02 0.45 33.45 28.38 52.30 19.89 43.81 10.66 34.58Footpath 35, Receptor 2 (N of Site) 19.47 40.75 31.72 539.72 0.18 33.18 20.88 44.80 11.54 35.46 4.77 28.69Footpath 35, Receptor 3 (N of Site) 22.54 43.82 57.95 565.95 0.11 33.11 48.98 72.90 25.16 49.08 5.52 29.44Footpath 31, Receptor 1(NW of Site) 18.64 39.92 70.49 578.49 0.17 33.17 44.44 68.36 23.53 47.45 6.37 30.29Footpath 31, Receptor 2(NW of Site) 17.35 38.63 54.00 562.00 0.15 33.15 33.90 57.82 22.25 46.17 5.96 29.88Footpath 31, Receptor 3 (NW of Site) 11.33 32.61 50.86 558.86 0.08 33.08 25.16 49.08 11.90 35.82 4.38 28.30Footpath 7, Receptor 1 (SE of Site) 28.41 49.69 126.63 634.63 0.28 33.28 56.12 80.04 36.90 60.82 12.33 36.25Footpath 7, Receptor 2 (SE of Site) 19.34 40.62 60.23 568.23 0.27 33.27 36.39 60.31 23.92 47.84 8.68 32.60Footpath 7, Receptor 3 (SE of Site) 16.59 37.87 33.94 541.94 0.20 33.20 26.97 50.89 15.34 39.26 6.36 30.28Footpath 7, Receptor 4 (SE of Site) 18.98 40.26 57.23 565.23 0.24 33.24 35.61 59.53 22.52 46.44 5.87 29.79Footpath 7, Receptor 5 (SE of Site) 20.51 41.79 25.18 533.18 0.28 33.28 17.54 41.46 11.62 35.54 5.12 29.04Elephant House (Street Sweeping) 25.57 46.85 128.46 636.46 0.17 33.17 48.14 72.06 32.53 56.45 14.52 38.44Green Pastures Bungalow 8.11 29.39 22.91 530.91 0.08 33.08 14.37 38.29 8.32 32.24 2.69 26.61Deeks Cottage 22.25 43.53 25.67 533.67 0.26 33.26 17.56 41.48 12.38 36.30 7.03 30.95Woodhouse Farm 15.27 36.55 57.68 565.68 0.20 33.20 22.11 46.03 15.57 39.49 10.05 33.97Goslings Cottage/ Barn 9.00 30.28 37.18 545.18 0.09 33.09 14.58 38.50 8.88 32.80 3.21 27.13Diffusion tube location - Riv 5 25.83 47.11 78.53 586.53 0.17 33.17 50.06 73.98 32.95 56.87 10.41 34.33Diffusion tube location - Riv 2 18.68 39.96 57.53 565.53 0.25 33.25 37.50 61.42 23.07 46.99 10.33 34.25Diffusion tube location - Riv 2A 18.67 39.95 47.52 555.52 0.27 33.27 32.18 56.10 17.77 41.69 8.31 32.23Diffusion tube location - Riv 1 17.69 38.97 55.91 563.91 0.24 33.24 24.52 48.44 17.19 41.11 10.14 34.06Diffusion tube location - Riv 3 20.26 41.54 27.04 535.04 0.32 33.32 15.99 39.91 11.52 35.44 5.55 29.47Diffusion tube location - Riv 10 13.99 35.27 25.42 533.42 0.10 33.10 15.41 39.33 9.20 33.12 3.57 27.49Diffusion tube location - Riv 10A 20.96 42.24 23.18 531.18 0.30 33.30 16.76 40.68 11.62 35.54 5.85 29.77Diffusion tube location - Riv 4R 21.58 42.86 28.55 536.55 0.36 33.36 16.82 40.74 12.09 36.01 5.89 29.81


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 200 10,000 50 266 350 125


Background (µg/m3) 45.42 508.00 33.00 23.92 23.92 23.92


Diffusion tube location - Riv 11 28.94 50.22 123.02 631.02 0.14 33.14 54.63 78.55 36.98 60.90 17.50 41.42Diffusion tube location - Riv 7 23.71 44.99 56.41 564.41 0.27 33.27 44.82 68.74 25.85 49.77 7.31 31.23Diffusion tube location - Riv 6 13.90 35.18 51.79 559.79 0.07 33.07 37.37 61.29 9.49 33.41 4.18 28.10River Blackwater, receptor 23 10.52 31.80 15.65 523.65 0.18 33.18 8.17 32.09 5.90 29.82 2.50 26.42River Blackwater, receptor 24 9.86 31.14 14.59 522.59 0.17 33.17 7.71 31.63 5.57 29.49 2.37 26.29Existing lake location (WoodhouseFarm) 15.81 37.09 54.50 562.50 0.19 33.19 21.49 45.41 15.44 39.36 9.57 33.49Proposed new lake location(Woodhouse Farm) 12.57 33.85 54.93 562.93 0.16 33.16 22.58 46.50 15.98 39.90 9.00 32.92Diffusion tube location, Riv 9A 17.79 39.07 39.77 547.77 0.15 33.15 21.00 44.92 14.33 38.25 6.38 30.30Diffusion tube location, Riv 8 12.96 34.24 37.53 545.53 0.10 33.10 28.04 51.96 14.97 38.89 3.91 27.83Diffusion tube location, Riv 12A 8.43 29.71 24.15 532.15 0.05 33.05 10.21 34.13 6.70 30.62 3.16 27.08Diffusion tube location, Riv 12 9.51 30.79 24.25 532.25 0.07 33.07 10.84 34.76 7.76 31.68 4.58 28.50Church (adj to bradwell) 8.42 29.70 18.64 526.64 0.04 33.04 14.71 38.63 5.88 29.80 1.83 25.75Bradwell Hall 6.31 27.59 15.71 523.71 0.04 33.04 9.67 33.59 5.28 29.20 1.67 25.59Rolphs House 7.21 28.49 16.81 524.81 0.05 33.05 8.89 32.81 5.61 29.53 1.72 25.64Ford farm/ Rivenhall Cottage 5.53 26.81 16.78 524.78 0.07 33.07 8.85 32.77 5.80 29.72 2.11 26.03Goslings Cottage/ Barn 8.86 30.14 35.75 543.75 0.09 33.09 14.08 38.00 8.69 32.61 3.13 27.05Felix Hall/ The clock house/ ParkFarm 7.86 29.14 12.66 520.66 0.07 33.07 6.31 30.23 4.42 28.34 2.18 26.10Glazenwood House 4.36 25.64 8.62 516.62 0.03 33.03 5.72 29.64 3.48 27.40 1.21 25.13Bradwell Hall 3.45 24.73 8.08 516.08 0.03 33.03 5.34 29.26 3.16 27.08 0.98 24.90Perry Green farm 5.28 26.56 14.83 522.83 0.05 33.05 7.42 31.34 5.01 28.93 1.48 25.40The Granary/ Porter farm/Rook Hall 7.90 29.18 10.70 518.70 0.07 33.07 6.58 30.50 4.65 28.57 1.90 25.82Grange farm 5.82 27.10 8.04 516.04 0.11 33.11 4.76 28.68 3.41 27.33 1.31 25.23Coggeshall 5.20 26.48 6.63 514.63 0.10 33.10 4.97 28.89 3.15 27.07 1.16 25.08


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 200 10,000 50 266 350 125


Background (µg/m3) 45.42 508.00 33.00 23.92 23.92 23.92


River Blackwater, receptor 1 5.05 26.33 8.11 516.11 0.03 33.03 6.47 30.39 4.42 28.34 1.21 25.13River Blackwater, receptor 2 5.06 26.34 8.42 516.42 0.03 33.03 6.69 30.61 4.55 28.47 1.36 25.28River Blackwater, receptor 3 5.15 26.43 8.15 516.15 0.04 33.04 6.41 30.33 4.26 28.18 1.38 25.30River Blackwater, receptor 4 5.69 26.97 8.18 516.18 0.03 33.03 6.49 30.41 4.49 28.41 1.54 25.46River Blackwater, receptor 5 5.50 26.78 10.56 518.56 0.04 33.04 7.09 31.01 4.70 28.62 1.66 25.58River Blackwater, receptor 6 6.49 27.77 12.85 520.85 0.04 33.04 9.20 33.12 5.17 29.09 1.88 25.80River Blackwater, receptor 7 7.05 28.33 14.32 522.32 0.04 33.04 10.17 34.09 5.54 29.46 2.02 25.94River Blackwater, receptor 8 8.35 29.63 12.53 520.53 0.05 33.05 15.95 39.87 6.15 30.07 2.04 25.96River Blackwater, receptor 9 8.48 29.76 14.40 522.40 0.06 33.06 12.37 36.29 5.80 29.72 2.16 26.08River Blackwater, receptor 10 8.30 29.58 14.19 522.19 0.06 33.06 7.77 31.69 5.32 29.24 2.07 25.99River Blackwater, receptor 11 8.55 29.83 13.49 521.49 0.06 33.06 7.43 31.35 5.05 28.97 1.82 25.74River Blackwater, receptor 12 9.05 30.33 11.70 519.70 0.07 33.07 7.62 31.54 5.10 29.02 1.78 25.70River Blackwater, receptor 13 9.35 30.63 11.56 519.56 0.08 33.08 7.92 31.84 5.21 29.13 2.18 26.10River Blackwater, receptor 14 9.79 31.07 11.91 519.91 0.09 33.09 7.90 31.82 5.35 29.27 2.52 26.44River Blackwater, receptor 15 10.11 31.39 12.71 520.71 0.10 33.10 8.19 32.11 5.65 29.57 2.83 26.75River Blackwater, receptor 16 9.91 31.19 12.70 520.70 0.10 33.10 7.77 31.69 5.52 29.44 3.05 26.97River Blackwater, receptor 17 9.41 30.69 11.06 519.06 0.11 33.11 7.56 31.48 5.31 29.23 2.99 26.91River Blackwater, receptor 18 9.34 30.62 10.23 518.23 0.12 33.12 7.30 31.22 5.31 29.23 2.81 26.73River Blackwater, receptor 19 9.45 30.73 10.07 518.07 0.13 33.13 7.41 31.33 5.29 29.21 2.59 26.51River Blackwater, receptor 20 9.84 31.12 10.07 518.07 0.13 33.13 7.74 31.66 5.54 29.46 2.54 26.46River Blackwater, receptor 21 9.93 31.21 11.11 519.11 0.16 33.16 7.77 31.69 5.66 29.58 2.54 26.46River Blackwater, receptor 22 9.94 31.22 12.26 520.26 0.17 33.17 7.83 31.75 5.55 29.47 2.44 26.36River Blackwater, receptor 25 8.92 30.20 12.91 520.91 0.16 33.16 6.95 30.87 4.99 28.91 2.11 26.03River Blackwater, receptor 26 9.04 30.32 13.13 521.13 0.15 33.15 7.17 31.09 5.20 29.12 2.15 26.07River Blackwater, receptor 27 8.58 29.86 12.43 520.43 0.15 33.15 6.91 30.83 5.00 28.92 2.04 25.96River Blackwater, receptor 28 8.05 29.33 12.02 520.02 0.14 33.14 6.71 30.63 4.72 28.64 1.93 25.85


Golder Associates

Table 2: Scenario 1: Maximum Predicted Long term Concentrations at Discrete Receptor Locations, Using 2003Meteorological Data Set

Pollutant NO2 PM10

Averaging period Annual Annual

EAL (µg/m3) 40 40

Percentile 100%ile 100%ile

Background (µg/m3) 22.71 16.50

Receptor Max ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3)PC PEC PC PEC

Sheepcotes Farm (Hangar No. 1) 14.15 35.43 1.42 12.06Wayfarers Site 26.40 47.68 2.70 13.34Allshot's farm (Scrap yard) 19.16 40.44 2.22 12.86Haywards 19.30 40.58 2.01 12.65Herrings Farm 17.10 38.38 1.07 11.71Goslings Farm 8.25 29.53 0.72 11.36Curd Hall Farm 13.14 34.42 1.10 11.74Silver End/Bower Hall/ Fossil Hall 8.03 29.31 0.59 11.23Rivenhall PI/Hall 6.59 27.87 0.39 11.03Parkgate Farm/ Waterfall Cottages 8.63 29.91 0.52 11.16Porter's Farm 10.17 31.45 0.72 11.36Unknown Building 1 12.71 33.99 0.96 11.60Bumby Hall/The Lodge/Polish Site (Light Industry) 19.36 40.64 1.69 12.33Footpath 8, Receptor 1 (E of Site) 30.69 51.97 1.70 12.34Footpath 8, Receptor 2 (E of Site) 25.08 46.36 2.28 12.92Footpath 8, Receptor 3 (E of Site) 15.14 36.42 2.80 13.44Footpath 8, Receptor 4 (E of Site) 14.79 36.07 2.47 13.11Footpath 8, Receptor 5 (E of Site) 24.09 45.37 2.20 12.84Footpath 8, Receptor 6 (E of Site) 18.50 39.78 2.03 12.67Footpath 8, Receptor 7 (E of Site) 17.76 39.04 1.51 12.15Footpath 35, Receptor 1 (N of Site) 34.96 56.24 3.11 13.75


Golder Associates

Pollutant NO2 PM10


EAL (µg/m3) 40 40




Footpath 35, Receptor 2 (N of Site) 19.47 40.75 1.42 12.06Footpath 35, Receptor 3 (N of Site) 22.54 43.82 1.27 11.91Footpath 31, Receptor 1(NW of Site) 18.64 39.92 1.57 12.21Footpath 31, Receptor 2(NW of Site) 17.35 38.63 1.90 12.54Footpath 31, Receptor 3 (NW of Site) 11.33 32.61 1.29 11.93Footpath 7, Receptor 1 (SE of Site) 28.41 49.69 2.79 13.43Footpath 7, Receptor 2 (SE of Site) 19.34 40.62 2.03 12.67Footpath 7, Receptor 3 (SE of Site) 16.59 37.87 1.50 12.14Footpath 7, Receptor 4 (SE of Site) 18.98 40.26 1.63 12.27Footpath 7, Receptor 5 (SE of Site) 20.51 41.79 1.75 12.39Elephant House (Street Sweeping) 25.57 46.85 1.79 12.43Green Pastures Bungalow 8.11 29.39 0.85 11.49Deeks Cottage 22.25 43.53 1.50 12.14Woodhouse Farm 15.27 36.55 2.44 13.08Goslings Cottage/ Barn 9.00 30.28 0.80 11.44Diffusion tube location - Riv 5 25.83 47.11 2.21 12.85Diffusion tube location - Riv 2 18.68 39.96 2.12 12.76Diffusion tube location - Riv 2A 18.67 39.95 1.86 12.50Diffusion tube location - Riv 1 17.69 38.97 2.73 13.37Diffusion tube location - Riv 3 20.26 41.54 2.02 12.66Diffusion tube location - Riv 10 13.99 35.27 0.92 11.56Diffusion tube location - Riv 10A 20.96 42.24 1.67 12.31Diffusion tube location - Riv 4R 21.58 42.86 2.19 12.83Diffusion tube location - Riv 11 28.94 50.22 1.77 12.41Diffusion tube location - Riv 7 23.71 44.99 2.09 12.73Diffusion tube location - Riv 6 13.90 35.18 0.65 11.29


Golder Associates

Pollutant NO2 PM10


EAL (µg/m3) 40 40




River Blackwater, receptor 23 10.52 31.80 1.06 11.70River Blackwater, receptor 24 9.86 31.14 1.03 11.67Existing lake location (Woodhouse Farm) 15.81 37.09 2.05 12.69Proposed new lake location (Woodhouse Farm) 12.57 33.85 2.17 12.81Diffusion tube location, Riv 9A 17.79 39.07 1.33 11.97Diffusion tube location, Riv 8 12.96 34.24 1.51 12.15Diffusion tube location, Riv 12A 8.43 29.71 0.48 11.12Diffusion tube location, Riv 12 9.51 30.79 0.59 11.23Church (adj to bradwell) 8.42 29.70 0.51 11.15Bradwell Hall 6.31 27.59 0.47 11.11Rolphs House 7.21 28.49 0.63 11.27Ford farm/ Rivenhall Cottage 5.53 26.81 0.46 11.10Goslings Cottage/ Barn 8.86 30.14 0.78 11.42Felix Hall/ The clock house/ Park Farm 7.86 29.14 0.40 11.04Glazenwood House 4.36 25.64 0.32 10.96Bradwell Hall 3.45 24.73 0.23 10.87Perry Green farm 5.28 26.56 0.39 11.03The Granary/ Porter farm/Rook Hall 7.90 29.18 0.42 11.06Grange farm 5.82 27.10 0.60 11.24Coggeshall 5.20 26.48 0.54 11.18River Blackwater, receptor 1 5.05 26.33 0.34 10.98River Blackwater, receptor 2 5.06 26.34 0.37 11.01River Blackwater, receptor 3 5.15 26.43 0.39 11.03River Blackwater, receptor 4 5.69 26.97 0.41 11.05River Blackwater, receptor 5 5.50 26.78 0.43 11.07River Blackwater, receptor 6 6.49 27.77 0.48 11.12


Golder Associates

Pollutant NO2 PM10


EAL (µg/m3) 40 40




River Blackwater, receptor 7 7.05 28.33 0.52 11.16River Blackwater, receptor 8 8.35 29.63 0.57 11.21River Blackwater, receptor 9 8.48 29.76 0.56 11.20River Blackwater, receptor 10 8.30 29.58 0.54 11.18River Blackwater, receptor 11 8.55 29.83 0.54 11.18River Blackwater, receptor 12 9.05 30.33 0.54 11.18River Blackwater, receptor 13 9.35 30.63 0.55 11.19River Blackwater, receptor 14 9.79 31.07 0.57 11.21River Blackwater, receptor 15 10.11 31.39 0.57 11.21River Blackwater, receptor 16 9.91 31.19 0.58 11.22River Blackwater, receptor 17 9.41 30.69 0.61 11.25River Blackwater, receptor 18 9.34 30.62 0.62 11.26River Blackwater, receptor 19 9.45 30.73 0.69 11.33River Blackwater, receptor 20 9.84 31.12 0.77 11.41River Blackwater, receptor 21 9.93 31.21 0.85 11.49River Blackwater, receptor 22 9.94 31.22 0.93 11.57River Blackwater, receptor 25 8.92 30.20 0.93 11.57River Blackwater, receptor 26 9.04 30.32 0.93 11.57River Blackwater, receptor 27 8.58 29.86 0.89 11.53River Blackwater, receptor 28 8.05 29.33 0.84 11.48


Golder Associates

Table 1: Scenario 2: Maximum Predicted Short-Term Concentrations at Discrete Receptor Locations, Using 1999 Meteorological DataSet



EAL (µg/m3) 200 10,000 50 266 350 125


Background (µg/m3) 45.42 508.00 33.00 23.92 23.92 23.92

Receptor Max ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3)

PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECSheepcotes Farm (Hangar No. 1) 12.76 58.18 22.82 530.82 0.09 33.09 11.14 35.06 7.93 31.85 3.65 27.57Wayfarers Site 14.84 60.26 40.39 548.39 0.12 33.12 18.27 42.19 12.51 36.43 3.90 27.82Allshot's farm (Scrap yard) 17.57 62.99 32.37 540.37 0.22 33.22 17.69 41.61 12.58 36.50 4.91 28.83Haywards 19.54 64.96 24.67 532.67 0.32 33.32 15.47 39.39 11.05 34.97 5.48 29.40Herrings Farm 16.83 62.25 22.34 530.34 0.13 33.13 16.02 39.94 8.64 32.56 3.66 27.58Goslings Farm 7.72 53.14 14.59 522.59 0.07 33.07 9.05 32.97 4.76 28.68 2.06 25.98Curd Hall Farm 13.24 58.66 14.29 522.29 0.20 33.20 10.76 34.68 7.53 31.45 3.41 27.33Silver End/Bower Hall/Fossil Hall 7.85 53.27 12.08 520.08 0.07 33.07 6.93 30.85 4.72 28.64 2.24 26.16Rivenhall PI/Hall 6.51 51.93 13.18 521.18 0.05 33.05 6.64 30.56 4.49 28.41 1.96 25.88Parkgate Farm/ Waterfall Cottages 8.46 53.88 17.31 525.31 0.06 33.06 7.48 31.40 5.26 29.18 2.89 26.81Porter's Farm 10.14 55.56 13.24 521.24 0.10 33.10 9.60 33.52 5.75 29.67 2.41 26.33Unknown Building 1 12.44 57.86 19.44 527.44 0.11 33.11 12.76 36.68 6.72 30.64 3.37 27.29Bumby Hall/The Lodge/Polish Site (Light Industry) 18.71 64.13 36.78 544.78 0.24 33.24 20.07 43.99 11.96 35.88 6.03 29.95Footpath 8, Receptor 1 (E of Site) 30.56 75.98 44.04 552.04 0.23 33.23 26.56 50.48 17.25 41.17 9.22 33.14Footpath 8, Receptor 2 (E of Site) 22.73 68.15 39.87 547.87 0.16 33.16 24.22 48.14 14.20 38.12 5.80 29.72Footpath 8, Receptor 3 (E of Site) 11.43 56.85 25.11 533.11 0.06 33.06 15.25 39.17 9.03 32.95 2.56 26.48Footpath 8, Receptor 4 (E of Site) 9.73 55.15 17.74 525.74 0.04 33.04 13.21 37.13 8.17 32.09 2.13 26.05Footpath 8, Receptor 5 (E of Site) 7.28 52.70 17.17 525.17 0.02 33.02 9.97 33.89 5.26 29.18 1.43 25.35Footpath 8, Receptor 6 (E of Site) 17.22 62.64 37.38 545.38 0.20 33.20 18.79 42.71 13.12 37.04 5.36 29.28Footpath 8, Receptor 7 (E of Site) 17.65 63.07 31.01 539.01 0.22 33.22 17.89 41.81 10.92 34.84 5.86 29.78Footpath 35, Receptor 1 (N of Site) 35.11 80.53 51.60 559.60 0.42 33.42 28.91 52.83 19.68 43.60 8.78 32.70Footpath 35, Receptor 2 (N of Site) 19.15 64.57 32.28 540.28 0.16 33.16 20.75 44.67 11.72 35.64 4.26 28.18


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 200 10,000 50 266 350 125


Background (µg/m3) 45.42 508.00 33.00 23.92 23.92 23.92


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECFootpath 35, Receptor 3 (N of Site) 12.49 57.91 18.61 526.61 0.06 33.06 11.18 35.10 7.69 31.61 2.99 26.91Footpath 31, Receptor 1(NW of Site) 14.58 60.00 23.27 531.27 0.13 33.13 12.93 36.85 9.10 33.02 3.33 27.25Footpath 31, Receptor 2(NW of Site) 14.50 59.92 20.95 528.95 0.10 33.10 12.58 36.50 8.98 32.90 3.60 27.52Footpath 31, Receptor 3 (NW of Site) 10.55 55.97 16.50 524.50 0.07 33.07 9.03 32.95 6.37 30.29 2.72 26.64Footpath 7, Receptor 1 (SE of Site) 16.58 62.00 38.06 546.06 0.11 33.11 18.78 42.70 13.56 37.48 4.64 28.56Footpath 7, Receptor 2 (SE of Site) 18.22 63.64 35.13 543.13 0.20 33.20 17.97 41.89 12.72 36.64 5.17 29.09Footpath 7, Receptor 3 (SE of Site) 16.47 61.89 26.82 534.82 0.18 33.18 15.05 38.97 10.52 34.44 5.10 29.02Footpath 7, Receptor 4 (SE of Site) 15.95 61.37 25.69 533.69 0.21 33.21 14.17 38.09 10.15 34.07 5.05 28.97Footpath 7, Receptor 5 (SE of Site) 20.68 66.10 25.89 533.89 0.28 33.28 17.89 41.81 11.86 35.78 5.00 28.92Elephant House (Street Sweeping) 13.11 58.53 28.78 536.78 0.06 33.06 16.56 40.48 11.35 35.27 3.23 27.15Green Pastures Bungalow 7.66 53.08 14.98 522.98 0.07 33.07 7.64 31.56 4.72 28.64 2.01 25.93Deeks Cottage 22.63 68.05 27.63 535.63 0.25 33.25 18.13 42.05 12.57 36.49 6.80 30.72Woodhouse Farm 13.25 58.67 24.94 532.94 0.08 33.08 16.18 40.10 10.46 34.38 3.13 27.05Goslings Cottage/ Barn 8.52 53.94 15.41 523.41 0.08 33.08 9.23 33.15 5.13 29.05 2.11 26.03Diffusion tube location - Riv 5 7.57 52.99 17.38 525.38 0.02 33.02 9.66 33.58 5.52 29.44 1.49 25.41Diffusion tube location - Riv 2 15.73 61.15 37.61 545.61 0.16 33.16 18.58 42.50 12.85 36.77 4.32 28.24Diffusion tube location - Riv 2A 18.07 63.49 35.33 543.33 0.21 33.21 17.97 41.89 12.66 36.58 6.02 29.94Diffusion tube location - Riv 1 15.91 61.33 32.99 540.99 0.14 33.14 17.85 41.77 12.33 36.25 4.16 28.08Diffusion tube location - Riv 3 20.54 65.96 28.14 536.14 0.32 33.32 16.45 40.37 11.76 35.68 5.36 29.28Diffusion tube location - Riv 10 12.33 57.75 16.82 524.82 0.08 33.08 12.46 36.38 6.22 30.14 3.31 27.23Diffusion tube location - Riv 10A 21.18 66.60 24.06 532.06 0.30 33.30 17.24 41.16 11.92 35.84 5.82 29.74Diffusion tube location - Riv 4R 21.78 67.20 29.58 537.58 0.35 33.35 17.21 41.13 12.39 36.31 5.66 29.58Diffusion tube location - Riv 11 12.06 57.48 25.12 533.12 0.05 33.05 16.08 40.00 9.87 33.79 2.47 26.39Diffusion tube location - Riv 7 17.25 62.67 31.20 539.20 0.21 33.21 17.18 41.10 12.18 36.10 4.90 28.82Diffusion tube location - Riv 6 7.86 53.28 14.79 522.79 0.06 33.06 7.21 31.13 4.82 28.74 2.54 26.46River Blackwater, receptor 23 10.63 56.05 13.38 521.38 0.18 33.18 8.36 32.28 5.96 29.88 2.54 26.46


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 200 10,000 50 266 350 125


Background (µg/m3) 45.42 508.00 33.00 23.92 23.92 23.92


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECRiver Blackwater, receptor 24 9.97 55.39 12.33 520.33 0.17 33.17 7.86 31.78 5.68 29.60 2.34 26.26Existing lake location (Woodhouse Farm) 12.91 58.33 22.07 530.07 0.09 33.09 16.46 40.38 10.35 34.27 3.22 27.14Proposed new lake location (Woodhouse Farm) 8.15 53.57 14.97 522.97 0.02 33.02 12.21 36.13 6.19 30.11 1.48 25.40Diffusion tube location, Riv 9A 15.32 60.74 21.68 529.68 0.10 33.10 13.52 37.44 9.78 33.70 4.30 28.22Diffusion tube location, Riv 8 11.64 57.06 15.93 523.93 0.08 33.08 10.06 33.98 7.05 30.97 3.07 26.99Diffusion tube location, Riv 12A 8.28 53.70 15.70 523.70 0.04 33.04 7.61 31.53 5.06 28.98 2.85 26.77Diffusion tube location, Riv 12 9.47 54.89 18.05 526.05 0.06 33.06 8.23 32.15 5.75 29.67 3.16 27.08Church (adj to bradwell) 5.40 50.82 9.66 517.66 0.04 33.04 7.06 30.98 3.90 27.82 1.64 25.56Bradwell Hall 5.74 51.16 8.78 516.78 0.04 33.04 6.83 30.75 3.76 27.68 1.43 25.35Rolphs House 5.78 51.20 13.46 521.46 0.05 33.05 7.60 31.52 4.04 27.96 1.47 25.39Ford farm/ Rivenhall Cottage 5.32 50.74 12.88 520.88 0.06 33.06 5.99 29.91 3.97 27.89 1.93 25.85Goslings Cottage/ Barn 8.41 53.83 14.99 522.99 0.08 33.08 8.97 32.89 5.07 28.99 2.06 25.98Felix Hall/ The clock house/ Park Farm 7.89 53.31 9.81 517.81 0.07 33.07 6.43 30.35 4.36 28.28 2.23 26.15Glazenwood House 4.36 49.78 6.74 514.74 0.03 33.03 4.58 28.50 2.99 26.91 0.91 24.83Bradwell Hall 3.17 48.59 7.62 515.62 0.03 33.03 4.24 28.16 2.81 26.73 0.97 24.89Perry Green farm 4.39 49.81 10.13 518.13 0.04 33.04 6.39 30.31 3.88 27.80 1.40 25.32The Granary/ Porter farm/Rook Hall 7.96 53.38 10.26 518.26 0.07 33.07 6.66 30.58 4.56 28.48 1.67 25.59Grange farm 5.86 51.28 7.14 515.14 0.11 33.11 4.67 28.59 3.31 27.23 1.31 25.23Coggeshall 5.24 50.66 6.07 514.07 0.10 33.10 4.13 28.05 2.97 26.89 1.17 25.09River Blackwater, receptor 1 5.14 50.56 7.53 515.53 0.03 33.03 5.36 29.28 3.60 27.52 1.16 25.08River Blackwater, receptor 2 5.09 50.51 7.96 515.96 0.03 33.03 5.71 29.63 3.54 27.46 1.20 25.12River Blackwater, receptor 3 5.22 50.64 7.51 515.51 0.03 33.03 5.52 29.44 3.46 27.38 1.25 25.17River Blackwater, receptor 4 5.63 51.05 7.10 515.10 0.03 33.03 5.88 29.80 3.50 27.42 1.34 25.26River Blackwater, receptor 5 5.46 50.88 7.74 515.74 0.04 33.04 6.03 29.95 3.63 27.55 1.36 25.28River Blackwater, receptor 6 5.94 51.36 8.00 516.00 0.04 33.04 6.77 30.69 3.75 27.67 1.49 25.41River Blackwater, receptor 7 6.18 51.60 8.41 516.41 0.04 33.04 7.15 31.07 3.90 27.82 1.60 25.52


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 200 10,000 50 266 350 125


Background (µg/m3) 45.42 508.00 33.00 23.92 23.92 23.92


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECRiver Blackwater, receptor 8 7.16 52.58 9.69 517.69 0.04 33.04 6.84 30.76 4.22 28.14 1.90 25.82River Blackwater, receptor 9 6.93 52.35 10.89 518.89 0.05 33.05 7.42 31.34 4.01 27.93 2.08 26.00River Blackwater, receptor 10 8.29 53.71 10.34 518.34 0.06 33.06 7.51 31.43 4.36 28.28 2.11 26.03River Blackwater, receptor 11 8.62 54.04 10.62 518.62 0.06 33.06 7.50 31.42 4.83 28.75 1.88 25.80River Blackwater, receptor 12 9.05 54.47 9.98 517.98 0.07 33.07 7.65 31.57 5.08 29.00 1.79 25.71River Blackwater, receptor 13 9.46 54.88 11.70 519.70 0.08 33.08 8.03 31.95 5.34 29.26 1.90 25.82River Blackwater, receptor 14 9.77 55.19 12.30 520.30 0.09 33.09 8.04 31.96 5.38 29.30 2.29 26.21River Blackwater, receptor 15 10.19 55.61 12.89 520.89 0.10 33.10 8.31 32.23 5.73 29.65 2.64 26.56River Blackwater, receptor 16 9.99 55.41 13.14 521.14 0.10 33.10 7.96 31.88 5.60 29.52 2.97 26.89River Blackwater, receptor 17 9.46 54.88 11.55 519.55 0.11 33.11 7.74 31.66 5.41 29.33 2.87 26.79River Blackwater, receptor 18 9.44 54.86 10.47 518.47 0.12 33.12 7.46 31.38 5.44 29.36 2.71 26.63River Blackwater, receptor 19 9.53 54.95 10.43 518.43 0.12 33.12 7.50 31.42 5.34 29.26 2.62 26.54River Blackwater, receptor 20 9.93 55.35 10.25 518.25 0.13 33.13 7.91 31.83 5.62 29.54 2.61 26.53River Blackwater, receptor 21 10.04 55.46 11.31 519.31 0.15 33.15 7.96 31.88 5.79 29.71 2.54 26.46River Blackwater, receptor 22 10.03 55.45 12.02 520.02 0.17 33.17 8.01 31.93 5.69 29.61 2.49 26.41River Blackwater, receptor 25 8.99 54.41 10.92 518.92 0.16 33.16 7.09 31.01 5.10 29.02 2.13 26.05River Blackwater, receptor 26 9.09 54.51 10.48 518.48 0.15 33.15 7.23 31.15 5.21 29.13 2.16 26.08River Blackwater, receptor 27 8.64 54.06 9.92 517.92 0.15 33.15 6.85 30.77 4.93 28.85 2.06 25.98River Blackwater, receptor 28 8.12 53.54 9.32 517.32 0.14 33.14 6.44 30.36 4.62 28.54 1.94 25.86


Golder Associates

Table 2: Scenario 2: Maximum Predicted Long-Term Concentrations at Discrete Receptor Locations, Using 2003 Meteorological DataSet

Pollutant NO2 PM10


EAL (µg/m3) 40 40



ReceptorMax ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3)

PC PEC PC PECSheepcotes Farm (Hangar No. 1) 0.72 11.36 0.03 16.53Wayfarers Site 0.85 11.49 0.03 16.53Allshot's farm (Scrap yard) 1.80 12.44 0.07 16.57Haywards 2.44 13.08 0.10 16.60Herrings Farm 0.92 11.56 0.04 16.54Goslings Farm 0.48 11.12 0.02 16.52Curd Hall Farm 1.39 12.03 0.06 16.56Silver End/Bower Hall/ Fossil Hall 0.47 11.11 0.02 16.52Rivenhall PI/Hall 0.33 10.97 0.01 16.51Parkgate Farm/ Waterfall Cottages 0.48 11.12 0.02 16.52Porter's Farm 0.65 11.29 0.03 16.53Unknown Building 1 0.81 11.45 0.03 16.53Bumby Hall/The Lodge/Polish Site (Light Industry) 1.72 12.36 0.07 16.57Footpath 8, Receptor 1 (E of Site) 2.02 12.66 0.08 16.58Footpath 8, Receptor 2 (E of Site) 1.45 12.09 0.05 16.55Footpath 8, Receptor 3 (E of Site) 0.65 11.29 0.02 16.52Footpath 8, Receptor 4 (E of Site) 0.43 11.07 0.01 16.51Footpath 8, Receptor 5 (E of Site) 0.18 10.82 0.01 16.51Footpath 8, Receptor 6 (E of Site) 1.54 12.18 0.05 16.55Footpath 8, Receptor 7 (E of Site) 1.59 12.23 0.06 16.56Footpath 35, Receptor 1 (N of Site) 3.43 14.07 0.14 16.64Footpath 35, Receptor 2 (N of Site) 1.13 11.77 0.04 16.54


Golder Associates

Pollutant NO2 PM10


EAL (µg/m3) 40 40




PC PEC PC PECFootpath 35, Receptor 3 (N of Site) 0.61 11.25 0.02 16.52Footpath 31, Receptor 1(NW of Site) 0.82 11.46 0.03 16.53Footpath 31, Receptor 2(NW of Site) 0.79 11.43 0.03 16.53Footpath 31, Receptor 3 (NW of Site) 0.56 11.20 0.02 16.52Footpath 7, Receptor 1 (SE of Site) 0.94 11.58 0.03 16.53Footpath 7, Receptor 2 (SE of Site) 1.39 12.03 0.05 16.55Footpath 7, Receptor 3 (SE of Site) 1.40 12.04 0.06 16.56Footpath 7, Receptor 4 (SE of Site) 1.63 12.27 0.07 16.57Footpath 7, Receptor 5 (SE of Site) 2.09 12.73 0.09 16.59Elephant House (Street Sweeping) 0.53 11.17 0.02 16.52Green Pastures Bungalow 0.50 11.14 0.02 16.52Deeks Cottage 1.95 12.59 0.08 16.58Woodhouse Farm 0.81 11.45 0.03 16.53Goslings Cottage/ Barn 0.52 11.16 0.02 16.52Diffusion tube location - Riv 5 0.18 10.82 0.01 16.51Diffusion tube location - Riv 2 1.22 11.86 0.04 16.54Diffusion tube location - Riv 2A 1.66 12.30 0.06 16.56Diffusion tube location - Riv 1 1.32 11.96 0.04 16.54Diffusion tube location - Riv 3 2.44 13.08 0.10 16.60Diffusion tube location - Riv 10 0.66 11.30 0.03 16.53Diffusion tube location - Riv 10A 2.11 12.75 0.09 16.59Diffusion tube location - Riv 4R 2.65 13.29 0.11 16.61Diffusion tube location - Riv 11 0.45 11.09 0.01 16.51Diffusion tube location - Riv 7 1.77 12.41 0.07 16.57Diffusion tube location - Riv 6 0.43 11.07 0.02 16.52River Blackwater, receptor 23 1.27 11.91 0.05 16.55


Golder Associates

Pollutant NO2 PM10


EAL (µg/m3) 40 40




PC PEC PC PECRiver Blackwater, receptor 24 1.23 11.87 0.05 16.55Existing lake location (Woodhouse Farm) 0.79 11.43 0.03 16.53Proposed new lake location (Woodhouse Farm) 0.28 10.92 0.01 16.51Diffusion tube location, Riv 9A 0.82 11.46 0.03 16.53Diffusion tube location, Riv 8 0.61 11.25 0.03 16.53Diffusion tube location, Riv 12A 0.41 11.05 0.02 16.52Diffusion tube location, Riv 12 0.53 11.17 0.02 16.52Church (adj to bradwell) 0.31 10.95 0.01 16.51Bradwell Hall 0.30 10.94 0.01 16.51Rolphs House 0.34 10.98 0.01 16.51Ford farm/ Rivenhall Cottage 0.38 11.02 0.02 16.52Goslings Cottage/ Barn 0.51 11.15 0.02 16.52Felix Hall/ The clock house/ Park Farm 0.54 11.18 0.02 16.52Glazenwood House 0.23 10.87 0.01 16.51Bradwell Hall 0.18 10.82 0.01 16.51Perry Green farm 0.29 10.93 0.01 16.51The Granary/ Porter farm/Rook Hall 0.50 11.14 0.02 16.52Grange farm 0.77 11.41 0.03 16.53Coggeshall 0.67 11.31 0.03 16.53River Blackwater, receptor 1 0.23 10.87 0.01 16.51River Blackwater, receptor 2 0.24 10.88 0.01 16.51River Blackwater, receptor 3 0.25 10.89 0.01 16.51River Blackwater, receptor 4 0.27 10.91 0.01 16.51River Blackwater, receptor 5 0.28 10.92 0.01 16.51River Blackwater, receptor 6 0.30 10.94 0.01 16.51River Blackwater, receptor 7 0.33 10.97 0.01 16.51


Golder Associates

Pollutant NO2 PM10


EAL (µg/m3) 40 40




PC PEC PC PECRiver Blackwater, receptor 8 0.36 11.00 0.01 16.51River Blackwater, receptor 9 0.39 11.03 0.02 16.52River Blackwater, receptor 10 0.42 11.06 0.02 16.52River Blackwater, receptor 11 0.47 11.11 0.02 16.52River Blackwater, receptor 12 0.53 11.17 0.02 16.52River Blackwater, receptor 13 0.60 11.24 0.03 16.53River Blackwater, receptor 14 0.68 11.32 0.03 16.53River Blackwater, receptor 15 0.73 11.37 0.03 16.53River Blackwater, receptor 16 0.78 11.42 0.03 16.53River Blackwater, receptor 17 0.82 11.46 0.04 16.54River Blackwater, receptor 18 0.82 11.46 0.04 16.54River Blackwater, receptor 19 0.89 11.53 0.04 16.54River Blackwater, receptor 20 0.98 11.62 0.04 16.54River Blackwater, receptor 21 1.06 11.70 0.05 16.55River Blackwater, receptor 22 1.12 11.76 0.05 16.55River Blackwater, receptor 25 1.12 11.76 0.05 16.55River Blackwater, receptor 26 1.12 11.76 0.05 16.55River Blackwater, receptor 27 1.07 11.71 0.05 16.55River Blackwater, receptor 28 1.01 11.65 0.04 16.54


Golder Associates

Table 1: Scenario 3: Maximum Predicted Short-Term Concentrations at Discrete Receptor Locations, Using 1999Meteorological Data Set – Part 1

Pollutant HydrogenChloride

HydrogenFluoride

Dioxins and Furans Cadmium Thalium Mercury

Averaging period 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour

EAL (µg/m3) 750 160 - 1.5 30 7.5

Percentile 100%ile 100%ile 100%ile 100%ile 100%ile 100%ile

Background (µg/m3) - - 1.45e-5 0.00034 - 0.00346

ReceptorMax ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3)

PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECSheepcotes Farm (Hangar No. 1) 1.63 1.63 0.17 0.17 1.63E-08 1.45E-05 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.012Wayfarers Site 1.18 1.18 0.12 0.12 1.18E-08 1.45E-05 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.009Allshot's Farm (Scrap yard) 2.90 2.90 0.30 0.30 2.90E-08 1.45E-05 0.014 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.018Haywards 1.90 1.90 0.19 0.19 1.90E-08 1.45E-05 0.009 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.013Herrings Farm 2.13 2.13 0.22 0.22 2.13E-08 1.45E-05 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.014Goslings Farm 1.26 1.26 0.13 0.13 1.26E-08 1.45E-05 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.010Curd Hall Farm 1.33 1.33 0.14 0.14 1.33E-08 1.45E-05 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.010Silver End/Bower Hall/Fossil Hall 1.40 1.40 0.14 0.14 1.40E-08 1.45E-05 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.010Rivenhall PI/Hall 0.82 0.82 0.08 0.08 8.17E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008Parkgate Farm/Waterfall Cottages 1.13 1.13 0.12 0.12 1.13E-08 1.45E-05 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.009Porter's Farm 1.29 1.29 0.13 0.13 1.29E-08 1.45E-05 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.010Unknown Building 1 1.73 1.73 0.18 0.18 1.73E-08 1.45E-05 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.012Bumby Hall/The Lodge/Polish Site(Light Industry) 3.36 3.36 0.34 0.34 3.36E-08 1.45E-05 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.020Footpath 8, Receptor 1 (E of Site) 3.25 3.25 0.33 0.33 3.25E-08 1.45E-05 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.020Footpath 8, Receptor 2 (E of Site) 3.90 3.90 0.40 0.40 3.90E-08 1.45E-05 0.019 0.020 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.023Footpath 8, Receptor 3 (E of Site) 1.02 1.02 0.10 0.10 1.02E-08 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.009Footpath 8, Receptor 4 (E of Site) 0.95 0.95 0.10 0.10 9.55E-09 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008Footpath 8, Receptor 5 (E of Site) 0.76 0.76 0.08 0.08 7.64E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.007Footpath 8, Receptor 6 (E of Site) 2.44 2.44 0.25 0.25 2.44E-08 1.45E-05 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.016Footpath 8, Receptor 7 (E of Site) 2.95 2.95 0.30 0.30 2.95E-08 1.45E-05 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.018


Golder Associates


HydrogenFluoride



EAL (µg/m3) 750 160 - 1.5 30 7.5


Background (µg/m3) - - 1.45e-5 0.00034 - 0.00346


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECFootpath 35, Receptor 1 (N of Site) 3.56 3.56 0.36 0.36 3.56E-08 1.45E-05 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.021Footpath 35, Receptor 2 (N of Site) 3.09 3.09 0.32 0.32 3.09E-08 1.45E-05 0.015 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.019Footpath 35, Receptor 3 (N of Site) 1.47 1.47 0.15 0.15 1.47E-08 1.45E-05 0.007 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.011Footpath 31, Receptor 1(NW ofSite) 1.51 1.51 0.15 0.15 1.51E-08 1.45E-05 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.011Footpath 31, Receptor 2(NW ofSite) 1.83 1.83 0.19 0.19 1.83E-08 1.45E-05 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.013Footpath 31, Receptor 3 (NW ofSite) 1.37 1.37 0.14 0.14 1.37E-08 1.45E-05 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.010Footpath 7, Receptor 1 (SE of Site) 1.29 1.29 0.13 0.13 1.29E-08 1.45E-05 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.010Footpath 7, Receptor 2 (SE of Site) 1.73 1.73 0.18 0.18 1.73E-08 1.45E-05 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.012Footpath 7, Receptor 3 (SE of Site) 2.28 2.28 0.23 0.23 2.28E-08 1.45E-05 0.011 0.012 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.015Footpath 7, Receptor 4 (SE of Site) 2.69 2.69 0.27 0.27 2.69E-08 1.45E-05 0.013 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.017Footpath 7, Receptor 5 (SE of Site) 2.36 2.36 0.24 0.24 2.36E-08 1.45E-05 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.015Elephant House (Street Sweeping) 1.14 1.14 0.12 0.12 1.14E-08 1.45E-05 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.009Green Pastures Bungalow 1.37 1.37 0.14 0.14 1.37E-08 1.45E-05 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.010Deeks Cottage 2.20 2.20 0.22 0.22 2.20E-08 1.45E-05 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.014Woodhouse Farm 1.74 1.74 0.18 0.18 1.74E-08 1.45E-05 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.012Goslings Cottage/ Barn 1.32 1.32 0.13 0.13 1.32E-08 1.45E-05 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.010Diffusion tube location - Riv 5 0.78 0.78 0.08 0.08 7.78E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.007Diffusion tube location - Riv 2 1.40 1.40 0.14 0.14 1.40E-08 1.45E-05 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.010Diffusion tube location - Riv 2A 3.30 3.30 0.34 0.34 3.30E-08 1.45E-05 0.016 0.017 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.020Diffusion tube location - Riv 1 2.47 2.47 0.25 0.25 2.47E-08 1.45E-05 0.012 0.013 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.016Diffusion tube location - Riv 3 2.05 2.05 0.21 0.21 2.05E-08 1.45E-05 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.014Diffusion tube location - Riv 10 1.72 1.72 0.18 0.18 1.72E-08 1.45E-05 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.012Diffusion tube location - Riv 10A 2.16 2.16 0.22 0.22 2.16E-08 1.45E-05 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.014


Golder Associates


HydrogenFluoride



EAL (µg/m3) 750 160 - 1.5 30 7.5


Background (µg/m3) - - 1.45e-5 0.00034 - 0.00346


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECDiffusion tube location - Riv 4R 2.08 2.08 0.21 0.21 2.08E-08 1.45E-05 0.010 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.014Diffusion tube location - Riv 11 1.03 1.03 0.11 0.11 1.03E-08 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.009Diffusion tube location - Riv 7 2.92 2.92 0.30 0.30 2.92E-08 1.45E-05 0.014 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.018Diffusion tube location - Riv 6 1.29 1.29 0.13 0.13 1.29E-08 1.45E-05 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.010River Blackwater, receptor 23 1.04 1.04 0.11 0.11 1.04E-08 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.009River Blackwater, receptor 24 0.97 0.97 0.10 0.10 9.71E-09 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008Existing lake location (WoodhouseFarm) 2.13 2.13 0.22 0.22 2.13E-08 1.45E-05 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.014Proposed new lake location(Woodhouse Farm) 0.85 0.85 0.09 0.09 8.46E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008Diffusion tube location, Riv 9A 2.46 2.46 0.25 0.25 2.46E-08 1.45E-05 0.012 0.013 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.016Diffusion tube location, Riv 8 1.08 1.08 0.11 0.11 1.08E-08 1.45E-05 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.009Diffusion tube location, Riv 12A 1.61 1.61 0.16 0.16 1.61E-08 1.45E-05 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.011Diffusion tube location, Riv 12 1.15 1.15 0.12 0.12 1.15E-08 1.45E-05 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.009Church (adj to bradwell) 1.01 1.01 0.10 0.10 1.01E-08 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008Bradwell Hall 0.92 0.92 0.09 0.09 9.21E-09 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008Rolphs House 1.08 1.08 0.11 0.11 1.08E-08 1.45E-05 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.009Ford farm/ Rivenhall Cottage 0.88 0.88 0.09 0.09 8.79E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008Goslings Cottage/ Barn 1.29 1.29 0.13 0.13 1.29E-08 1.45E-05 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.010Felix Hall/ The clock house/ ParkFarm 0.80 0.80 0.08 0.08 8.00E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.007Glazenwood House 0.61 0.61 0.06 0.06 6.08E-09 1.45E-05 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.006Bradwell Hall 0.57 0.57 0.06 0.06 5.71E-09 1.45E-05 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.006Perry Green farm 0.89 0.89 0.09 0.09 8.91E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008The Granary/ Porter farm/RookHall 0.89 0.89 0.09 0.09 8.92E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008


Golder Associates


HydrogenFluoride



EAL (µg/m3) 750 160 - 1.5 30 7.5


Background (µg/m3) - - 1.45e-5 0.00034 - 0.00346


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECGrange farm 0.57 0.57 0.06 0.06 5.72E-09 1.45E-05 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.006Coggeshall 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.05 5.13E-09 1.45E-05 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.006River Blackwater, receptor 1 0.74 0.74 0.08 0.08 7.39E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.007River Blackwater, receptor 2 0.77 0.77 0.08 0.08 7.71E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.007River Blackwater, receptor 3 0.79 0.79 0.08 0.08 7.93E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.007River Blackwater, receptor 4 0.81 0.81 0.08 0.08 8.09E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.007River Blackwater, receptor 5 0.85 0.85 0.09 0.09 8.53E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008River Blackwater, receptor 6 0.90 0.90 0.09 0.09 9.00E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008River Blackwater, receptor 7 0.95 0.95 0.10 0.10 9.55E-09 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008River Blackwater, receptor 8 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 1.00E-08 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008River Blackwater, receptor 9 1.03 1.03 0.11 0.11 1.03E-08 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.009River Blackwater, receptor 10 1.01 1.01 0.10 0.10 1.01E-08 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008River Blackwater, receptor 11 1.01 1.01 0.10 0.10 1.01E-08 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008River Blackwater, receptor 12 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 1.00E-08 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008River Blackwater, receptor 13 1.02 1.02 0.10 0.10 1.02E-08 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.009River Blackwater, receptor 14 1.06 1.06 0.11 0.11 1.06E-08 1.45E-05 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.009River Blackwater, receptor 15 1.02 1.02 0.10 0.10 1.02E-08 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.009River Blackwater, receptor 16 0.97 0.97 0.10 0.10 9.75E-09 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008River Blackwater, receptor 17 0.95 0.95 0.10 0.10 9.51E-09 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008River Blackwater, receptor 18 0.91 0.91 0.09 0.09 9.09E-09 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008River Blackwater, receptor 19 0.94 0.94 0.10 0.10 9.41E-09 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008River Blackwater, receptor 20 0.96 0.96 0.10 0.10 9.56E-09 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008River Blackwater, receptor 21 0.97 0.97 0.10 0.10 9.72E-09 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008River Blackwater, receptor 22 0.96 0.96 0.10 0.10 9.62E-09 1.45E-05 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008River Blackwater, receptor 25 0.87 0.87 0.09 0.09 8.74E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008River Blackwater, receptor 26 0.88 0.88 0.09 0.09 8.80E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008


Golder Associates


HydrogenFluoride



EAL (µg/m3) 750 160 - 1.5 30 7.5


Background (µg/m3) - - 1.45e-5 0.00034 - 0.00346


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECRiver Blackwater, receptor 27 0.83 0.83 0.08 0.08 8.28E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008River Blackwater, receptor 28 0.79 0.79 0.08 0.08 7.91E-09 1.45E-05 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.007


Golder Associates

Table 2: Scenario 3: Maximum Predicted Short term Concentrations at Discrete Receptor Locations, Using 1999Meteorological Data Set – Part 2

Pollutant Antimony Arsenic Lead Chromium Cobalt Copper


EAL (µg/m3) 150 15 0.25 3 6 200


Background (µg/m3) - 0.0019 0.0346 0.0105 - 0.0952


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECSheepcotes Farm (Hangar No. 1) 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.083 0.081 0.116 0.081 0.091 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.176Wayfarers Site 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.061 0.059 0.093 0.059 0.069 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.154Allshot's farm (Scrap yard) 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.146 0.144 0.179 0.144 0.155 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.239Haywards 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.096 0.094 0.129 0.094 0.105 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.189Herrings Farm 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.108 0.106 0.140 0.106 0.116 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.201Goslings Farm 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.064 0.063 0.097 0.063 0.073 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.158Curd Hall Farm 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.068 0.066 0.100 0.066 0.076 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.161Silver End/Bower Hall/ Fossil Hall 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.072 0.070 0.104 0.070 0.080 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.165Rivenhall PI/Hall 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.042 0.041 0.075 0.041 0.051 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.136Parkgate Farm/ Waterfall Cottages 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.058 0.056 0.091 0.056 0.067 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.151Porter's Farm 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.066 0.064 0.099 0.064 0.075 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.159Unknown Building 1 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.088 0.086 0.121 0.086 0.097 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.181Bumby Hall/The Lodge/Polish Site(Light Industry) 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.169 0.167 0.202 0.167 0.178 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.262Footpath 8, Receptor 1 (E of Site) 0.162 0.162 0.162 0.163 0.162 0.196 0.162 0.172 0.162 0.162 0.162 0.257Footpath 8, Receptor 2 (E of Site) 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.195 0.194 0.228 0.194 0.204 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.289Footpath 8, Receptor 3 (E of Site) 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.053 0.051 0.085 0.051 0.061 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.146Footpath 8, Receptor 4 (E of Site) 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.049 0.047 0.082 0.047 0.058 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.143Footpath 8, Receptor 5 (E of Site) 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.040 0.038 0.072 0.038 0.048 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.133Footpath 8, Receptor 6 (E of Site) 0.121 0.121 0.121 0.123 0.121 0.156 0.121 0.132 0.121 0.121 0.121 0.216Footpath 8, Receptor 7 (E of Site) 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.148 0.146 0.181 0.146 0.157 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.241Footpath 35, Receptor 1 (N of Site) 0.177 0.177 0.177 0.179 0.177 0.211 0.177 0.187 0.177 0.177 0.177 0.272


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 150 15 0.25 3 6 200


Background (µg/m3) - 0.0019 0.0346 0.0105 - 0.0952


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECFootpath 35, Receptor 2 (N of Site) 0.154 0.154 0.154 0.155 0.154 0.188 0.154 0.164 0.154 0.154 0.154 0.249Footpath 35, Receptor 3 (N of Site) 0.073 0.073 0.073 0.075 0.073 0.108 0.073 0.084 0.073 0.073 0.073 0.168Footpath 31, Receptor 1(NW of Site) 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.077 0.075 0.110 0.075 0.086 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.170Footpath 31, Receptor 2(NW of Site) 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.093 0.091 0.126 0.091 0.102 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.186Footpath 31, Receptor 3 (NW ofSite) 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.070 0.068 0.103 0.068 0.079 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.163Footpath 7, Receptor 1 (SE of Site) 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.066 0.064 0.098 0.064 0.074 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.159Footpath 7, Receptor 2 (SE of Site) 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.088 0.086 0.120 0.086 0.096 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.181Footpath 7, Receptor 3 (SE of Site) 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.115 0.113 0.148 0.113 0.124 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.209Footpath 7, Receptor 4 (SE of Site) 0.133 0.133 0.133 0.135 0.133 0.168 0.133 0.144 0.133 0.133 0.133 0.229Footpath 7, Receptor 5 (SE of Site) 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.119 0.117 0.152 0.117 0.128 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.213Elephant House (Street Sweeping) 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.058 0.057 0.091 0.057 0.067 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.152Green Pastures Bungalow 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.070 0.068 0.103 0.068 0.079 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.163Deeks Cottage 0.109 0.109 0.109 0.111 0.109 0.144 0.109 0.119 0.109 0.109 0.109 0.204Woodhouse Farm 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.088 0.086 0.121 0.086 0.097 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.182Goslings Cottage/ Barn 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.067 0.066 0.100 0.066 0.076 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.161Diffusion tube location - Riv 5 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.041 0.039 0.073 0.039 0.049 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.134Diffusion tube location - Riv 2 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.071 0.070 0.104 0.070 0.080 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.165Diffusion tube location - Riv 2A 0.164 0.164 0.164 0.166 0.164 0.199 0.164 0.174 0.164 0.164 0.164 0.259Diffusion tube location - Riv 1 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.124 0.122 0.157 0.122 0.133 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.218Diffusion tube location - Riv 3 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.103 0.102 0.136 0.102 0.112 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.197Diffusion tube location - Riv 10 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.087 0.085 0.120 0.085 0.096 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.180Diffusion tube location - Riv 10A 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.109 0.107 0.142 0.107 0.118 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.202Diffusion tube location - Riv 4R 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.105 0.103 0.138 0.103 0.114 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.198Diffusion tube location - Riv 11 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.053 0.051 0.086 0.051 0.062 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.146Diffusion tube location - Riv 7 0.145 0.145 0.145 0.147 0.145 0.179 0.145 0.155 0.145 0.145 0.145 0.240


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 150 15 0.25 3 6 200


Background (µg/m3) - 0.0019 0.0346 0.0105 - 0.0952


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECDiffusion tube location - Riv 6 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.066 0.064 0.098 0.064 0.074 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.159River Blackwater, receptor 23 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.053 0.051 0.086 0.051 0.062 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.147River Blackwater, receptor 24 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.050 0.048 0.083 0.048 0.059 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.143Existing lake location (WoodhouseFarm) 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.108 0.106 0.140 0.106 0.116 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.201Proposed new lake location(Woodhouse Farm) 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.044 0.042 0.077 0.042 0.053 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.137Diffusion tube location, Riv 9A 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.124 0.122 0.157 0.122 0.133 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.218Diffusion tube location, Riv 8 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.055 0.053 0.088 0.053 0.064 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.149Diffusion tube location, Riv 12A 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.082 0.080 0.114 0.080 0.090 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.175Diffusion tube location, Riv 12 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.059 0.057 0.092 0.057 0.067 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.152Church (adj to bradwell) 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.052 0.050 0.085 0.050 0.061 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.146Bradwell Hall 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.048 0.046 0.080 0.046 0.056 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.141Rolphs House 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.055 0.054 0.088 0.054 0.064 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.149Ford farm/ Rivenhall Cottage 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.046 0.044 0.078 0.044 0.054 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.139Goslings Cottage/ Barn 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.066 0.064 0.098 0.064 0.074 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.159Felix Hall/ The clock house/ ParkFarm 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.042 0.040 0.074 0.040 0.050 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.135Glazenwood House 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.032 0.030 0.065 0.030 0.041 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.125Bradwell Hall 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.030 0.028 0.063 0.028 0.039 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.124Perry Green farm 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.046 0.044 0.079 0.044 0.055 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.139The Granary/ Porter farm/Rook Hall 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.046 0.044 0.079 0.044 0.055 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.140Grange farm 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.030 0.028 0.063 0.028 0.039 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.124Coggeshall 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.027 0.025 0.060 0.025 0.036 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.121River Blackwater, receptor 1 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.039 0.037 0.071 0.037 0.047 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.132River Blackwater, receptor 2 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.040 0.038 0.073 0.038 0.049 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.134


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 150 15 0.25 3 6 200


Background (µg/m3) - 0.0019 0.0346 0.0105 - 0.0952


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECRiver Blackwater, receptor 3 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.041 0.039 0.074 0.039 0.050 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.135River Blackwater, receptor 4 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.042 0.040 0.075 0.040 0.051 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.135River Blackwater, receptor 5 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.044 0.042 0.077 0.042 0.053 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.138River Blackwater, receptor 6 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.047 0.045 0.079 0.045 0.055 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.140River Blackwater, receptor 7 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.049 0.047 0.082 0.047 0.058 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.143River Blackwater, receptor 8 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.052 0.050 0.084 0.050 0.060 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.145River Blackwater, receptor 9 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.053 0.051 0.086 0.051 0.062 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.146River Blackwater, receptor 10 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.052 0.050 0.085 0.050 0.061 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.145River Blackwater, receptor 11 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.052 0.050 0.085 0.050 0.060 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.145River Blackwater, receptor 12 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.052 0.050 0.084 0.050 0.060 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.145River Blackwater, receptor 13 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.053 0.051 0.085 0.051 0.061 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.146River Blackwater, receptor 14 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.055 0.053 0.087 0.053 0.063 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.148River Blackwater, receptor 15 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.053 0.051 0.085 0.051 0.061 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.146River Blackwater, receptor 16 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.050 0.048 0.083 0.048 0.059 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.144River Blackwater, receptor 17 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.049 0.047 0.082 0.047 0.058 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.142River Blackwater, receptor 18 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.047 0.045 0.080 0.045 0.056 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.140River Blackwater, receptor 19 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.049 0.047 0.081 0.047 0.057 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.142River Blackwater, receptor 20 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.049 0.047 0.082 0.047 0.058 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.143River Blackwater, receptor 21 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.050 0.048 0.083 0.048 0.059 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.143River Blackwater, receptor 22 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.050 0.048 0.082 0.048 0.058 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.143River Blackwater, receptor 25 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.045 0.043 0.078 0.043 0.054 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.139River Blackwater, receptor 26 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.046 0.044 0.078 0.044 0.054 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.139River Blackwater, receptor 27 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.043 0.041 0.076 0.041 0.052 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.136River Blackwater, receptor 28 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.041 0.039 0.074 0.039 0.050 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.134


Golder Associates

Table 3: Scenario 3: Maximum Predicted Short term Concentrations at Discrete Receptor Locations, Using 1999Meteorological Data Set – Part 3

Pollutant Manganese Nickel Vanadium

Averaging period 1 hour 1 hour 1 hour

EAL (µg/m3) 1500 300 1

Percentile 100%ile 100%ile 100%ile

Background (µg/m3) 0.0226 0.00254 0.00930

ReceptorMax ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3) Max ( µg/m3)

PC PEC PC PEC PC PECSheepcotes Farm (Hangar No. 1) 0.081 0.104 0.081 0.083 0.081 0.090Wayfarers Site 0.059 0.081 0.059 0.061 0.059 0.068Allshot's farm (Scrap yard) 0.144 0.167 0.144 0.147 0.144 0.153Haywards 0.094 0.117 0.094 0.097 0.094 0.103Herrings Farm 0.106 0.128 0.106 0.108 0.106 0.115Goslings Farm 0.063 0.085 0.063 0.065 0.063 0.072Curd Hall Farm 0.066 0.088 0.066 0.068 0.066 0.075Silver End/Bower Hall/ Fossil Hall 0.070 0.092 0.070 0.072 0.070 0.079Rivenhall PI/Hall 0.041 0.063 0.041 0.043 0.041 0.050Parkgate Farm/ Waterfall Cottages 0.056 0.079 0.056 0.059 0.056 0.066Porter's Farm 0.064 0.087 0.064 0.067 0.064 0.073Unknown Building 1 0.086 0.109 0.086 0.089 0.086 0.095Bumby Hall/The Lodge/Polish Site (LightIndustry) 0.167 0.190 0.167 0.170 0.167 0.176Footpath 8, Receptor 1 (E of Site) 0.162 0.184 0.162 0.164 0.162 0.171Footpath 8, Receptor 2 (E of Site) 0.194 0.216 0.194 0.196 0.194 0.203Footpath 8, Receptor 3 (E of Site) 0.051 0.073 0.051 0.053 0.051 0.060Footpath 8, Receptor 4 (E of Site) 0.047 0.070 0.047 0.050 0.047 0.057Footpath 8, Receptor 5 (E of Site) 0.038 0.061 0.038 0.040 0.038 0.047Footpath 8, Receptor 6 (E of Site) 0.121 0.144 0.121 0.124 0.121 0.131Footpath 8, Receptor 7 (E of Site) 0.146 0.169 0.146 0.149 0.146 0.156Footpath 35, Receptor 1 (N of Site) 0.177 0.199 0.177 0.179 0.177 0.186


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 1500 300 1


Background (µg/m3) 0.0226 0.00254 0.00930


PC PEC PC PEC PC PECFootpath 35, Receptor 2 (N of Site) 0.154 0.176 0.154 0.156 0.154 0.163Footpath 35, Receptor 3 (N of Site) 0.073 0.096 0.073 0.076 0.073 0.082Footpath 31, Receptor 1(NW of Site) 0.075 0.098 0.075 0.078 0.075 0.084Footpath 31, Receptor 2(NW of Site) 0.091 0.114 0.091 0.094 0.091 0.100Footpath 31, Receptor 3 (NW of Site) 0.068 0.091 0.068 0.071 0.068 0.077Footpath 7, Receptor 1 (SE of Site) 0.064 0.087 0.064 0.066 0.064 0.073Footpath 7, Receptor 2 (SE of Site) 0.086 0.108 0.086 0.088 0.086 0.095Footpath 7, Receptor 3 (SE of Site) 0.113 0.136 0.113 0.116 0.113 0.123Footpath 7, Receptor 4 (SE of Site) 0.133 0.156 0.133 0.136 0.133 0.143Footpath 7, Receptor 5 (SE of Site) 0.117 0.140 0.117 0.120 0.117 0.127Elephant House (Street Sweeping) 0.057 0.079 0.057 0.059 0.057 0.066Green Pastures Bungalow 0.068 0.091 0.068 0.071 0.068 0.077Deeks Cottage 0.109 0.132 0.109 0.111 0.109 0.118Woodhouse Farm 0.086 0.109 0.086 0.089 0.086 0.096Goslings Cottage/ Barn 0.066 0.088 0.066 0.068 0.066 0.075Diffusion tube location - Riv 5 0.039 0.061 0.039 0.041 0.039 0.048Diffusion tube location - Riv 2 0.070 0.092 0.070 0.072 0.070 0.079Diffusion tube location - Riv 2A 0.164 0.187 0.164 0.166 0.164 0.173Diffusion tube location - Riv 1 0.122 0.145 0.122 0.125 0.122 0.132Diffusion tube location - Riv 3 0.102 0.124 0.102 0.104 0.102 0.111Diffusion tube location - Riv 10 0.085 0.108 0.085 0.088 0.085 0.094Diffusion tube location - Riv 10A 0.107 0.130 0.107 0.110 0.107 0.116Diffusion tube location - Riv 4R 0.103 0.126 0.103 0.106 0.103 0.113Diffusion tube location - Riv 11 0.051 0.074 0.051 0.054 0.051 0.060Diffusion tube location - Riv 7 0.145 0.167 0.145 0.147 0.145 0.154Diffusion tube location - Riv 6 0.064 0.087 0.064 0.066 0.064 0.073


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 1500 300 1


Background (µg/m3) 0.0226 0.00254 0.00930


PC PEC PC PEC PC PECRiver Blackwater, receptor 23 0.051 0.074 0.051 0.054 0.051 0.061River Blackwater, receptor 24 0.048 0.071 0.048 0.051 0.048 0.057Existing lake location (Woodhouse Farm) 0.106 0.128 0.106 0.108 0.106 0.115Proposed new lake location (WoodhouseFarm) 0.042 0.065 0.042 0.045 0.042 0.051Diffusion tube location, Riv 9A 0.122 0.145 0.122 0.125 0.122 0.132Diffusion tube location, Riv 8 0.053 0.076 0.053 0.056 0.053 0.063Diffusion tube location, Riv 12A 0.080 0.102 0.080 0.082 0.080 0.089Diffusion tube location, Riv 12 0.057 0.080 0.057 0.059 0.057 0.066Church (adj to bradwell) 0.050 0.073 0.050 0.053 0.050 0.060Bradwell Hall 0.046 0.068 0.046 0.048 0.046 0.055Rolphs House 0.054 0.076 0.054 0.056 0.054 0.063Ford farm/ Rivenhall Cottage 0.044 0.066 0.044 0.046 0.044 0.053Goslings Cottage/ Barn 0.064 0.086 0.064 0.066 0.064 0.073Felix Hall/ The clock house/ Park Farm 0.040 0.062 0.040 0.042 0.040 0.049Glazenwood House 0.030 0.053 0.030 0.033 0.030 0.039Bradwell Hall 0.028 0.051 0.028 0.031 0.028 0.038Perry Green farm 0.044 0.067 0.044 0.047 0.044 0.054The Granary/ Porter farm/Rook Hall 0.044 0.067 0.044 0.047 0.044 0.054Grange farm 0.028 0.051 0.028 0.031 0.028 0.038Coggeshall 0.025 0.048 0.025 0.028 0.025 0.035River Blackwater, receptor 1 0.037 0.059 0.037 0.039 0.037 0.046River Blackwater, receptor 2 0.038 0.061 0.038 0.041 0.038 0.048River Blackwater, receptor 3 0.039 0.062 0.039 0.042 0.039 0.049River Blackwater, receptor 4 0.040 0.063 0.040 0.043 0.040 0.049River Blackwater, receptor 5 0.042 0.065 0.042 0.045 0.042 0.052


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 1500 300 1


Background (µg/m3) 0.0226 0.00254 0.00930


PC PEC PC PEC PC PECRiver Blackwater, receptor 6 0.045 0.067 0.045 0.047 0.045 0.054River Blackwater, receptor 7 0.047 0.070 0.047 0.050 0.047 0.057River Blackwater, receptor 8 0.050 0.072 0.050 0.052 0.050 0.059River Blackwater, receptor 9 0.051 0.074 0.051 0.054 0.051 0.061River Blackwater, receptor 10 0.050 0.073 0.050 0.053 0.050 0.059River Blackwater, receptor 11 0.050 0.073 0.050 0.052 0.050 0.059River Blackwater, receptor 12 0.050 0.072 0.050 0.052 0.050 0.059River Blackwater, receptor 13 0.051 0.073 0.051 0.053 0.051 0.060River Blackwater, receptor 14 0.053 0.075 0.053 0.055 0.053 0.062River Blackwater, receptor 15 0.051 0.073 0.051 0.053 0.051 0.060River Blackwater, receptor 16 0.048 0.071 0.048 0.051 0.048 0.058River Blackwater, receptor 17 0.047 0.070 0.047 0.050 0.047 0.057River Blackwater, receptor 18 0.045 0.068 0.045 0.048 0.045 0.054River Blackwater, receptor 19 0.047 0.069 0.047 0.049 0.047 0.056River Blackwater, receptor 20 0.047 0.070 0.047 0.050 0.047 0.057River Blackwater, receptor 21 0.048 0.071 0.048 0.051 0.048 0.058River Blackwater, receptor 22 0.048 0.070 0.048 0.050 0.048 0.057River Blackwater, receptor 25 0.043 0.066 0.043 0.046 0.043 0.053River Blackwater, receptor 26 0.044 0.066 0.044 0.046 0.044 0.053River Blackwater, receptor 27 0.041 0.064 0.041 0.044 0.041 0.050River Blackwater, receptor 28 0.039 0.062 0.039 0.042 0.039 0.049


Golder Associates

Table 4: Scenario 3: Maximum Predicted Long term Concentrations at Discrete Receptor Locations, Using 1999Meteorological Data Set – Part 1


HydrogenFluoride


Averaging period Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

EAL (µg/m3) 20 - - 0.005 1 0.25


Background (µg/m3) - - 7.25e-6 0.0002 - 0.0017


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECSheepcotes Farm(Hangar No. 1) 0.0254 0.0254 0.0026 0.0026 2.54E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0019Wayfarers Site 0.0198 0.0198 0.0020 0.0020 1.98E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Allshot's farm (Scrap yard) 0.0515 0.0515 0.0053 0.0053 5.15E-10 7.25E-06 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0020Haywards 0.0912 0.0912 0.0093 0.0093 9.12E-10 7.25E-06 0.0005 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0022Herrings Farm 0.0313 0.0313 0.0032 0.0032 3.13E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0019Goslings Farm 0.0163 0.0163 0.0017 0.0017 1.63E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Curd Hall Farm 0.0552 0.0552 0.0056 0.0056 5.52E-10 7.25E-06 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0020Silver End/Bower Hall/Fossil Hall 0.0162 0.0162 0.0017 0.0017 1.62E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Rivenhall PI/Hall 0.0106 0.0106 0.0011 0.0011 1.06E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Parkgate Farm/Waterfall Cottages 0.0153 0.0153 0.0016 0.0016 1.53E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Porter's Farm 0.0236 0.0236 0.0024 0.0024 2.36E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Unknown Building 1 0.0287 0.0287 0.0029 0.0029 2.87E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0019Bumby Hall/The Lodge/PolishSite (Light Industry) 0.0543 0.0543 0.0056 0.0056 5.43E-10 7.25E-06 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0020Footpath 8, Receptor 1 (E ofSite) 0.0704 0.0704 0.0072 0.0072 7.04E-10 7.25E-06 0.0003 0.0005 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0021Footpath 8, Receptor 2 (E ofSite) 0.0369 0.0369 0.0038 0.0038 3.69E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0019


Golder Associates


HydrogenFluoride



EAL (µg/m3) 20 - - 0.005 1 0.25


Background (µg/m3) - - 7.25e-6 0.0002 - 0.0017


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECFootpath 8, Receptor 3 (E ofSite) 0.0148 0.0148 0.0015 0.0015 1.48E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Footpath 8, Receptor 4 (E ofSite) 0.0103 0.0103 0.0011 0.0011 1.03E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Footpath 8, Receptor 5 (E ofSite) 0.0051 0.0051 0.0005 0.0005 5.10E-11 7.25E-06 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018Footpath 8, Receptor 6 (E ofSite) 0.0396 0.0396 0.0040 0.0040 3.96E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0019Footpath 8, Receptor 7 (E ofSite) 0.0523 0.0523 0.0053 0.0053 5.23E-10 7.25E-06 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0020Footpath 35, Receptor 1 (N ofSite) 0.1176 0.1176 0.0120 0.0120 1.18E-09 7.25E-06 0.0006 0.0008 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0023Footpath 35, Receptor 2 (N ofSite) 0.0361 0.0361 0.0037 0.0037 3.61E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0019Footpath 35, Receptor 3 (N ofSite) 0.0204 0.0204 0.0021 0.0021 2.04E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Footpath 31, Receptor 1(NW ofSite) 0.0278 0.0278 0.0028 0.0028 2.78E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0019Footpath 31, Receptor 2(NW ofSite) 0.0272 0.0272 0.0028 0.0028 2.72E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0019Footpath 31, Receptor 3 (NWof Site) 0.0204 0.0204 0.0021 0.0021 2.04E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Footpath 7, Receptor 1 (SE ofSite) 0.0235 0.0235 0.0024 0.0024 2.35E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Footpath 7, Receptor 2 (SE ofSite) 0.0397 0.0397 0.0041 0.0041 3.97E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0019


Golder Associates


HydrogenFluoride



EAL (µg/m3) 20 - - 0.005 1 0.25


Background (µg/m3) - - 7.25e-6 0.0002 - 0.0017


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECFootpath 7, Receptor 3 (SE ofSite) 0.0457 0.0457 0.0047 0.0047 4.57E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0020Footpath 7, Receptor 4 (SE ofSite) 0.0554 0.0554 0.0057 0.0057 5.54E-10 7.25E-06 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0020Footpath 7, Receptor 5 (SE ofSite) 0.0734 0.0734 0.0075 0.0075 7.34E-10 7.25E-06 0.0004 0.0005 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0021Elephant House (StreetSweeping) 0.0127 0.0127 0.0013 0.0013 1.27E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Green Pastures Bungalow 0.0170 0.0170 0.0017 0.0017 1.70E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Deeks Cottage 0.0748 0.0748 0.0076 0.0076 7.48E-10 7.25E-06 0.0004 0.0005 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0021Woodhouse Farm 0.0185 0.0185 0.0019 0.0019 1.85E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Goslings Cottage/ Barn 0.0176 0.0176 0.0018 0.0018 1.76E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Diffusion tube location - Riv 5 0.0052 0.0052 0.0005 0.0005 5.17E-11 7.25E-06 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018Diffusion tube location - Riv 2 0.0291 0.0291 0.0030 0.0030 2.91E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0019Diffusion tube location - Riv2A 0.0480 0.0480 0.0049 0.0049 4.80E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0020Diffusion tube location - Riv 1 0.0314 0.0314 0.0032 0.0032 3.14E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0019Diffusion tube location - Riv 3 0.0920 0.0920 0.0094 0.0094 9.20E-10 7.25E-06 0.0005 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0022Diffusion tube location - Riv 10 0.0223 0.0223 0.0023 0.0023 2.23E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Diffusion tube location -Riv10A 0.0809 0.0809 0.0083 0.0083 8.09E-10 7.25E-06 0.0004 0.0006 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0021Diffusion tube location - Riv4R 0.0966 0.0966 0.0099 0.0099 9.66E-10 7.25E-06 0.0005 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0022Diffusion tube location - Riv 11 0.0103 0.0103 0.0011 0.0011 1.03E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Diffusion tube location - Riv 7 0.0526 0.0526 0.0054 0.0054 5.26E-10 7.25E-06 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0020Diffusion tube location - Riv 6 0.0147 0.0147 0.0015 0.0015 1.47E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018River Blackwater, receptor 23 0.0495 0.0495 0.0051 0.0051 4.95E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0020River Blackwater, receptor 24 0.0479 0.0479 0.0049 0.0049 4.79E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0020


Golder Associates


HydrogenFluoride



EAL (µg/m3) 20 - - 0.005 1 0.25


Background (µg/m3) - - 7.25e-6 0.0002 - 0.0017


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECExisting lake location(Woodhouse Farm) 0.0184 0.0184 0.0019 0.0019 1.84E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Proposed new lake location(Woodhouse Farm) 0.0067 0.0067 0.0007 0.0007 6.67E-11 7.25E-06 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018Diffusion tube location, Riv 9A 0.0282 0.0282 0.0029 0.0029 2.82E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0019Diffusion tube location, Riv 8 0.0216 0.0216 0.0022 0.0022 2.16E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Diffusion tube location,Riv12A 0.0137 0.0137 0.0014 0.0014 1.37E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Diffusion tube location, Riv 12 0.0168 0.0168 0.0017 0.0017 1.68E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Church (adj to bradwell) 0.0104 0.0104 0.0011 0.0011 1.04E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Bradwell Hall 0.0099 0.0099 0.0010 0.0010 9.88E-11 7.25E-06 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018Rolphs House 0.0125 0.0125 0.0013 0.0013 1.25E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Ford farm/ Rivenhall Cottage 0.0127 0.0127 0.0013 0.0013 1.27E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Goslings Cottage/ Barn 0.0173 0.0173 0.0018 0.0018 1.73E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Felix Hall/ The clock house/Park Farm 0.0203 0.0203 0.0021 0.0021 2.03E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Glazenwood House 0.0078 0.0078 0.0008 0.0008 7.82E-11 7.25E-06 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018Bradwell Hall 0.0059 0.0059 0.0006 0.0006 5.87E-11 7.25E-06 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018Perry Green farm 0.0098 0.0098 0.0010 0.0010 9.79E-11 7.25E-06 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018The Granary/ Porter farm/RookHall 0.0185 0.0185 0.0019 0.0019 1.85E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018Grange farm 0.0297 0.0297 0.0030 0.0030 2.97E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0019Coggeshall 0.0262 0.0262 0.0027 0.0027 2.62E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0019River Blackwater, receptor 1 0.0075 0.0075 0.0008 0.0008 7.54E-11 7.25E-06 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018River Blackwater, receptor 2 0.0081 0.0081 0.0008 0.0008 8.06E-11 7.25E-06 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018River Blackwater, receptor 3 0.0084 0.0084 0.0009 0.0009 8.44E-11 7.25E-06 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018


Golder Associates


HydrogenFluoride



EAL (µg/m3) 20 - - 0.005 1 0.25


Background (µg/m3) - - 7.25e-6 0.0002 - 0.0017


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECRiver Blackwater, receptor 4 0.0090 0.0090 0.0009 0.0009 8.96E-11 7.25E-06 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018River Blackwater, receptor 5 0.0093 0.0093 0.0010 0.0010 9.30E-11 7.25E-06 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018River Blackwater, receptor 6 0.0101 0.0101 0.0010 0.0010 1.01E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018River Blackwater, receptor 7 0.0108 0.0108 0.0011 0.0011 1.08E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018River Blackwater, receptor 8 0.0120 0.0120 0.0012 0.0012 1.20E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018River Blackwater, receptor 9 0.0133 0.0133 0.0014 0.0014 1.33E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018River Blackwater, receptor 10 0.0145 0.0145 0.0015 0.0015 1.45E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018River Blackwater, receptor 11 0.0167 0.0167 0.0017 0.0017 1.67E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018River Blackwater, receptor 12 0.0193 0.0193 0.0020 0.0020 1.93E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018River Blackwater, receptor 13 0.0224 0.0224 0.0023 0.0023 2.24E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018River Blackwater, receptor 14 0.0263 0.0263 0.0027 0.0027 2.63E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0019River Blackwater, receptor 15 0.0290 0.0290 0.0030 0.0030 2.90E-10 7.25E-06 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0019River Blackwater, receptor 16 0.0312 0.0312 0.0032 0.0032 3.12E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0019River Blackwater, receptor 17 0.0330 0.0330 0.0034 0.0034 3.30E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0019River Blackwater, receptor 18 0.0332 0.0332 0.0034 0.0034 3.32E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0019River Blackwater, receptor 19 0.0360 0.0360 0.0037 0.0037 3.60E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0019River Blackwater, receptor 20 0.0393 0.0393 0.0040 0.0040 3.93E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0019River Blackwater, receptor 21 0.0423 0.0423 0.0043 0.0043 4.23E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0019River Blackwater, receptor 22 0.0445 0.0445 0.0046 0.0046 4.45E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0020River Blackwater, receptor 25 0.0435 0.0435 0.0044 0.0044 4.35E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0019River Blackwater, receptor 26 0.0433 0.0433 0.0044 0.0044 4.33E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0019River Blackwater, receptor 27 0.0414 0.0414 0.0042 0.0042 4.14E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0019River Blackwater, receptor 28 0.0393 0.0393 0.0011 0.0011 3.93E-10 7.25E-06 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0019


Golder Associates




EAL (µg/m3) 5 0.006 - 0.1 0.2 10


Background (µg/m3) - 0.0010 0.0173 0.0053 - 0.0476


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECSheepcotes Farm (Hangar No. 1) 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0022 0.0013 0.0186 0.0013 0.0065 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0489Wayfarers Site 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0019 0.0010 0.0183 0.0010 0.0063 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0486Allshot's farm (Scrap yard) 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0035 0.0026 0.0199 0.0026 0.0078 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0502Haywards 0.0045 0.0045 0.0045 0.0055 0.0045 0.0218 0.0045 0.0098 0.0045 0.0045 0.0045 0.0521Herrings Farm 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0025 0.0016 0.0189 0.0016 0.0068 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0492Goslings Farm 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0018 0.0008 0.0181 0.0008 0.0061 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0484Curd Hall Farm 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0037 0.0027 0.0200 0.0027 0.0080 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0503Silver End/Bower Hall/Fossil Hall 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0018 0.0008 0.0181 0.0008 0.0061 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0484Rivenhall PI/Hall 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0005 0.0178 0.0005 0.0058 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0481Parkgate Farm/Waterfall Cottages 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0017 0.0008 0.0181 0.0008 0.0060 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0484Porter's Farm 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0021 0.0012 0.0185 0.0012 0.0064 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0488Unknown Building 1 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0024 0.0014 0.0187 0.0014 0.0067 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0490Bumby Hall/The Lodge/Polish Site(Light Industry) 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0036 0.0027 0.0200 0.0027 0.0080 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0503Footpath 8, Receptor 1 (E of Site) 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0044 0.0035 0.0208 0.0035 0.0088 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0511Footpath 8, Receptor 2 (E of Site) 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0028 0.0018 0.0191 0.0018 0.0071 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0494Footpath 8, Receptor 3 (E of Site) 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0017 0.0007 0.0180 0.0007 0.0060 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0483Footpath 8, Receptor 4 (E of Site) 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0005 0.0178 0.0005 0.0058 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0481Footpath 8, Receptor 5 (E of Site) 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0012 0.0003 0.0176 0.0003 0.0055 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0479Footpath 8, Receptor 6 (E of Site) 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0029 0.0020 0.0193 0.0020 0.0072 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0496


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 5 0.006 - 0.1 0.2 10


Background (µg/m3) - 0.0010 0.0173 0.0053 - 0.0476


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECFootpath 8, Receptor 7 (E of Site) 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0035 0.0026 0.0199 0.0026 0.0079 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0502Footpath 35, Receptor 1 (N of Site) 0.0058 0.0058 0.0058 0.0068 0.0058 0.0231 0.0058 0.0111 0.0058 0.0058 0.0058 0.0534Footpath 35, Receptor 2 (N of Site) 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0027 0.0018 0.0191 0.0018 0.0071 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0494Footpath 35, Receptor 3 (N of Site) 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0020 0.0010 0.0183 0.0010 0.0063 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0486Footpath 31, Receptor 1(NW of Site) 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0023 0.0014 0.0187 0.0014 0.0066 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0490Footpath 31, Receptor 2(NW of Site) 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0023 0.0013 0.0186 0.0013 0.0066 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0490Footpath 31, Receptor 3 (NW ofSite) 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0020 0.0010 0.0183 0.0010 0.0063 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0486Footpath 7, Receptor 1 (SE of Site) 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0021 0.0012 0.0185 0.0012 0.0064 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0488Footpath 7, Receptor 2 (SE of Site) 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0029 0.0020 0.0193 0.0020 0.0072 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0496Footpath 7, Receptor 3 (SE of Site) 0.0023 0.0023 0.0023 0.0032 0.0023 0.0196 0.0023 0.0075 0.0023 0.0023 0.0023 0.0499Footpath 7, Receptor 4 (SE of Site) 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0037 0.0027 0.0200 0.0027 0.0080 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0504Footpath 7, Receptor 5 (SE of Site) 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.0046 0.0036 0.0209 0.0036 0.0089 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.0513Elephant House (Street Sweeping) 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0016 0.0006 0.0179 0.0006 0.0059 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0482Green Pastures Bungalow 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0018 0.0008 0.0181 0.0008 0.0061 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0485Deeks Cottage 0.0037 0.0037 0.0037 0.0047 0.0037 0.0210 0.0037 0.0090 0.0037 0.0037 0.0037 0.0513Woodhouse Farm 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0019 0.0009 0.0182 0.0009 0.0062 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0485Goslings Cottage/ Barn 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0018 0.0009 0.0182 0.0009 0.0061 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0485Diffusion tube location - Riv 5 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0012 0.0003 0.0176 0.0003 0.0055 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0479Diffusion tube location - Riv 2 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0024 0.0014 0.0187 0.0014 0.0067 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0491Diffusion tube location - Riv 2A 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0033 0.0024 0.0197 0.0024 0.0077 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0500Diffusion tube location - Riv 1 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0025 0.0016 0.0189 0.0016 0.0068 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0492Diffusion tube location - Riv 3 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 0.0055 0.0046 0.0219 0.0046 0.0098 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 0.0522Diffusion tube location - Riv 10 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0021 0.0011 0.0184 0.0011 0.0064 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0487Diffusion tube location - Riv 10A 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0050 0.0040 0.0213 0.0040 0.0093 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0516Diffusion tube location - Riv 4R 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0057 0.0048 0.0221 0.0048 0.0101 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0524


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 5 0.006 - 0.1 0.2 10


Background (µg/m3) - 0.0010 0.0173 0.0053 - 0.0476


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECDiffusion tube location - Riv 11 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0005 0.0178 0.0005 0.0058 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0481Diffusion tube location - Riv 7 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0036 0.0026 0.0199 0.0026 0.0079 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0502Diffusion tube location - Riv 6 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0017 0.0007 0.0180 0.0007 0.0060 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0483River Blackwater, receptor 23 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0034 0.0025 0.0198 0.0025 0.0077 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0501River Blackwater, receptor 24 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0033 0.0024 0.0197 0.0024 0.0076 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0500Existing lake location (WoodhouseFarm) 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0019 0.0009 0.0182 0.0009 0.0062 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0485Proposed new lake location(Woodhouse Farm) 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0013 0.0003 0.0176 0.0003 0.0056 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0479Diffusion tube location, Riv 9A 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0024 0.0014 0.0187 0.0014 0.0067 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0490Diffusion tube location, Riv 8 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0020 0.0011 0.0184 0.0011 0.0063 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0487Diffusion tube location, Riv 12A 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0016 0.0007 0.0180 0.0007 0.0060 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0483Diffusion tube location, Riv 12 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0018 0.0008 0.0181 0.0008 0.0061 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0484Church (adj to bradwell) 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0005 0.0178 0.0005 0.0058 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0481Bradwell Hall 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0014 0.0005 0.0178 0.0005 0.0058 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0481Rolphs House 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0016 0.0006 0.0179 0.0006 0.0059 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0482Ford farm/ Rivenhall Cottage 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0016 0.0006 0.0179 0.0006 0.0059 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0482Goslings Cottage/ Barn 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0018 0.0009 0.0182 0.0009 0.0061 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0485Felix Hall/ The clock house/ ParkFarm 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0020 0.0010 0.0183 0.0010 0.0063 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0486Glazenwood House 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0013 0.0004 0.0177 0.0004 0.0057 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0480Bradwell Hall 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0012 0.0003 0.0176 0.0003 0.0056 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0479Perry Green farm 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0014 0.0005 0.0178 0.0005 0.0058 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0481The Granary/ Porter farm/Rook Hall 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0019 0.0009 0.0182 0.0009 0.0062 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0485Grange farm 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0024 0.0015 0.0188 0.0015 0.0067 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0491Coggeshall 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0023 0.0013 0.0186 0.0013 0.0066 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0489


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 5 0.006 - 0.1 0.2 10


Background (µg/m3) - 0.0010 0.0173 0.0053 - 0.0476


PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PEC PC PECRiver Blackwater, receptor 1 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0013 0.0004 0.0177 0.0004 0.0056 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0480River Blackwater, receptor 2 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0014 0.0004 0.0177 0.0004 0.0057 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0480River Blackwater, receptor 3 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0014 0.0004 0.0177 0.0004 0.0057 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0480River Blackwater, receptor 4 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0014 0.0004 0.0177 0.0004 0.0057 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0481River Blackwater, receptor 5 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0014 0.0005 0.0178 0.0005 0.0057 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0481River Blackwater, receptor 6 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0005 0.0178 0.0005 0.0058 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0481River Blackwater, receptor 7 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0005 0.0178 0.0005 0.0058 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0481River Blackwater, receptor 8 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0015 0.0006 0.0179 0.0006 0.0059 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0482River Blackwater, receptor 9 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0016 0.0007 0.0180 0.0007 0.0059 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0483River Blackwater, receptor 10 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0017 0.0007 0.0180 0.0007 0.0060 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0483River Blackwater, receptor 11 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0018 0.0008 0.0181 0.0008 0.0061 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0484River Blackwater, receptor 12 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0019 0.0010 0.0183 0.0010 0.0062 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0486River Blackwater, receptor 13 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0021 0.0011 0.0184 0.0011 0.0064 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0487River Blackwater, receptor 14 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0023 0.0013 0.0186 0.0013 0.0066 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0489River Blackwater, receptor 15 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0024 0.0014 0.0187 0.0014 0.0067 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0490River Blackwater, receptor 16 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0025 0.0015 0.0188 0.0015 0.0068 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0492River Blackwater, receptor 17 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0026 0.0016 0.0189 0.0016 0.0069 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0492River Blackwater, receptor 18 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0026 0.0016 0.0189 0.0016 0.0069 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0493River Blackwater, receptor 19 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0027 0.0018 0.0191 0.0018 0.0071 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0494River Blackwater, receptor 20 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.0029 0.0019 0.0192 0.0019 0.0072 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.0496River Blackwater, receptor 21 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 0.0030 0.0021 0.0194 0.0021 0.0074 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 0.0497River Blackwater, receptor 22 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0032 0.0022 0.0195 0.0022 0.0075 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0498River Blackwater, receptor 25 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0031 0.0022 0.0195 0.0022 0.0074 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0498River Blackwater, receptor 26 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 0.0031 0.0021 0.0194 0.0021 0.0074 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 0.0498River Blackwater, receptor 27 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 0.0030 0.0021 0.0194 0.0021 0.0073 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 0.0497River Blackwater, receptor 28 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0029 0.0020 0.0193 0.0020 0.0072 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0496


Golder Associates




EAL (µg/m3) 1 10 5


Background (µg/m3) 0.0113 0.0013 0.0047


PC PEC PC PEC PC PECSheepcotes Farm (Hangar No. 1) 0.0013 0.0126 0.0013 0.0025 0.0013 0.0059Wayfarers Site 0.0010 0.0123 0.0010 0.0023 0.0010 0.0056Allshot's farm (Scrap yard) 0.0026 0.0139 0.0026 0.0038 0.0026 0.0072Haywards 0.0045 0.0158 0.0045 0.0058 0.0045 0.0092Herrings Farm 0.0016 0.0129 0.0016 0.0028 0.0016 0.0062Goslings Farm 0.0008 0.0121 0.0008 0.0021 0.0008 0.0055Curd Hall Farm 0.0027 0.0140 0.0027 0.0040 0.0027 0.0074Silver End/Bower Hall/ Fossil Hall 0.0008 0.0121 0.0008 0.0021 0.0008 0.0055Rivenhall PI/Hall 0.0005 0.0118 0.0005 0.0018 0.0005 0.0052Parkgate Farm/Waterfall Cottages 0.0008 0.0121 0.0008 0.0020 0.0008 0.0054Porter's Farm 0.0012 0.0125 0.0012 0.0024 0.0012 0.0058Unknown Building 1 0.0014 0.0127 0.0014 0.0027 0.0014 0.0061Bumby Hall/The Lodge/Polish Site (LightIndustry) 0.0027 0.0140 0.0027 0.0040 0.0027 0.0073Footpath 8, Receptor 1 (E of Site) 0.0035 0.0148 0.0035 0.0048 0.0035 0.0081Footpath 8, Receptor 2 (E of Site) 0.0018 0.0131 0.0018 0.0031 0.0018 0.0065Footpath 8, Receptor 3 (E of Site) 0.0007 0.0120 0.0007 0.0020 0.0007 0.0054Footpath 8, Receptor 4 (E of Site) 0.0005 0.0118 0.0005 0.0018 0.0005 0.0052Footpath 8, Receptor 5 (E of Site) 0.0003 0.0116 0.0003 0.0015 0.0003 0.0049Footpath 8, Receptor 6 (E of Site) 0.0020 0.0133 0.0020 0.0032 0.0020 0.0066Footpath 8, Receptor 7 (E of Site) 0.0026 0.0139 0.0026 0.0039 0.0026 0.0072


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 1 10 5


Background (µg/m3) 0.0113 0.0013 0.0047


PC PEC PC PEC PC PECFootpath 35, Receptor 1 (N of Site) 0.0058 0.0171 0.0058 0.0071 0.0058 0.0105Footpath 35, Receptor 2 (N of Site) 0.0018 0.0131 0.0018 0.0031 0.0018 0.0064Footpath 35, Receptor 3 (N of Site) 0.0010 0.0123 0.0010 0.0023 0.0010 0.0057Footpath 31, Receptor 1(NW of Site) 0.0014 0.0127 0.0014 0.0026 0.0014 0.0060Footpath 31, Receptor 2(NW of Site) 0.0013 0.0127 0.0013 0.0026 0.0013 0.0060Footpath 31, Receptor 3 (NW of Site) 0.0010 0.0123 0.0010 0.0023 0.0010 0.0057Footpath 7, Receptor 1 (SE of Site) 0.0012 0.0125 0.0012 0.0024 0.0012 0.0058Footpath 7, Receptor 2 (SE of Site) 0.0020 0.0133 0.0020 0.0032 0.0020 0.0066Footpath 7, Receptor 3 (SE of Site) 0.0023 0.0136 0.0023 0.0035 0.0023 0.0069Footpath 7, Receptor 4 (SE of Site) 0.0027 0.0141 0.0027 0.0040 0.0027 0.0074Footpath 7, Receptor 5 (SE of Site) 0.0036 0.0150 0.0036 0.0049 0.0036 0.0083Elephant House (Street Sweeping) 0.0006 0.0119 0.0006 0.0019 0.0006 0.0053Green Pastures Bungalow 0.0008 0.0122 0.0008 0.0021 0.0008 0.0055Deeks Cottage 0.0037 0.0150 0.0037 0.0050 0.0037 0.0084Woodhouse Farm 0.0009 0.0122 0.0009 0.0022 0.0009 0.0056Goslings Cottage/ Barn 0.0009 0.0122 0.0009 0.0021 0.0009 0.0055Diffusion tube location - Riv 5 0.0003 0.0116 0.0003 0.0015 0.0003 0.0049Diffusion tube location - Riv 2 0.0014 0.0128 0.0014 0.0027 0.0014 0.0061Diffusion tube location - Riv 2A 0.0024 0.0137 0.0024 0.0037 0.0024 0.0070Diffusion tube location - Riv 1 0.0016 0.0129 0.0016 0.0028 0.0016 0.0062Diffusion tube location - Riv 3 0.0046 0.0159 0.0046 0.0058 0.0046 0.0092Diffusion tube location - Riv 10 0.0011 0.0124 0.0011 0.0024 0.0011 0.0058Diffusion tube location - Riv 10A 0.0040 0.0153 0.0040 0.0053 0.0040 0.0087Diffusion tube location - Riv 4R 0.0048 0.0161 0.0048 0.0061 0.0048 0.0094Diffusion tube location - Riv 11 0.0005 0.0118 0.0005 0.0018 0.0005 0.0052Diffusion tube location - Riv 7 0.0026 0.0139 0.0026 0.0039 0.0026 0.0073


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 1 10 5


Background (µg/m3) 0.0113 0.0013 0.0047


PC PEC PC PEC PC PECDiffusion tube location - Riv 6 0.0007 0.0120 0.0007 0.0020 0.0007 0.0054River Blackwater, receptor 23 0.0025 0.0138 0.0025 0.0037 0.0025 0.0071River Blackwater, receptor 24 0.0024 0.0137 0.0024 0.0036 0.0024 0.0070Existing lake location (Woodhouse Farm) 0.0009 0.0122 0.0009 0.0022 0.0009 0.0056Proposed new lake location (Woodhouse Farm) 0.0003 0.0116 0.0003 0.0016 0.0003 0.0050Diffusion tube location, Riv 9A 0.0014 0.0127 0.0014 0.0027 0.0014 0.0061Diffusion tube location, Riv 8 0.0011 0.0124 0.0011 0.0023 0.0011 0.0057Diffusion tube location, Riv 12A 0.0007 0.0120 0.0007 0.0020 0.0007 0.0053Diffusion tube location, Riv 12 0.0008 0.0121 0.0008 0.0021 0.0008 0.0055Church (adj to bradwell) 0.0005 0.0118 0.0005 0.0018 0.0005 0.0052Bradwell Hall 0.0005 0.0118 0.0005 0.0018 0.0005 0.0051Rolphs House 0.0006 0.0119 0.0006 0.0019 0.0006 0.0053Ford farm/ Rivenhall Cottage 0.0006 0.0119 0.0006 0.0019 0.0006 0.0053Goslings Cottage/ Barn 0.0009 0.0122 0.0009 0.0021 0.0009 0.0055Felix Hall/ The clock house/ Park Farm 0.0010 0.0123 0.0010 0.0023 0.0010 0.0057Glazenwood House 0.0004 0.0117 0.0004 0.0017 0.0004 0.0050Bradwell Hall 0.0003 0.0116 0.0003 0.0016 0.0003 0.0049Perry Green farm 0.0005 0.0118 0.0005 0.0018 0.0005 0.0051The Granary/ Porter farm/Rook Hall 0.0009 0.0122 0.0009 0.0022 0.0009 0.0056Grange farm 0.0015 0.0128 0.0015 0.0027 0.0015 0.0061Coggeshall 0.0013 0.0126 0.0013 0.0026 0.0013 0.0060River Blackwater, receptor 1 0.0004 0.0117 0.0004 0.0016 0.0004 0.0050River Blackwater, receptor 2 0.0004 0.0117 0.0004 0.0017 0.0004 0.0051River Blackwater, receptor 3 0.0004 0.0117 0.0004 0.0017 0.0004 0.0051River Blackwater, receptor 4 0.0004 0.0118 0.0004 0.0017 0.0004 0.0051River Blackwater, receptor 5 0.0005 0.0118 0.0005 0.0017 0.0005 0.0051


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 1 10 5


Background (µg/m3) 0.0113 0.0013 0.0047


PC PEC PC PEC PC PECRiver Blackwater, receptor 6 0.0005 0.0118 0.0005 0.0018 0.0005 0.0052River Blackwater, receptor 7 0.0005 0.0118 0.0005 0.0018 0.0005 0.0052River Blackwater, receptor 8 0.0006 0.0119 0.0006 0.0019 0.0006 0.0052River Blackwater, receptor 9 0.0007 0.0120 0.0007 0.0019 0.0007 0.0053River Blackwater, receptor 10 0.0007 0.0120 0.0007 0.0020 0.0007 0.0054River Blackwater, receptor 11 0.0008 0.0121 0.0008 0.0021 0.0008 0.0055River Blackwater, receptor 12 0.0010 0.0123 0.0010 0.0022 0.0010 0.0056River Blackwater, receptor 13 0.0011 0.0124 0.0011 0.0024 0.0011 0.0058River Blackwater, receptor 14 0.0013 0.0126 0.0013 0.0026 0.0013 0.0060River Blackwater, receptor 15 0.0014 0.0127 0.0014 0.0027 0.0014 0.0061River Blackwater, receptor 16 0.0015 0.0129 0.0015 0.0028 0.0015 0.0062River Blackwater, receptor 17 0.0016 0.0129 0.0016 0.0029 0.0016 0.0063River Blackwater, receptor 18 0.0016 0.0130 0.0016 0.0029 0.0016 0.0063River Blackwater, receptor 19 0.0018 0.0131 0.0018 0.0031 0.0018 0.0064River Blackwater, receptor 20 0.0019 0.0133 0.0019 0.0032 0.0019 0.0066River Blackwater, receptor 21 0.0021 0.0134 0.0021 0.0034 0.0021 0.0067River Blackwater, receptor 22 0.0022 0.0135 0.0022 0.0035 0.0022 0.0069River Blackwater, receptor 25 0.0022 0.0135 0.0022 0.0034 0.0022 0.0068River Blackwater, receptor 26 0.0021 0.0135 0.0021 0.0034 0.0021 0.0068River Blackwater, receptor 27 0.0021 0.0134 0.0021 0.0033 0.0021 0.0067River Blackwater, receptor 28 0.0020 0.0133 0.0020 0.0032 0.0020 0.0066


Golder Associates

Table 1: Scenario 4: Maximum Predicted Short-Term Concentrations at Discrete Receptor Locations, Using 1999 Meteorological DataSet



EAL (µg/m3) 200 10,000 50 266 350 125


Background (µg/m3) 45.42 508.00 33.00 23.92 23.92 23.92


Sheepcotes Farm (Hangar No. 1) 11.38 56.80 9.61 517.61 0.09 33.09 11.72 35.64 8.20 32.12 1.84 25.76Wayfarers Site 9.44 54.86 7.30 515.30 0.09 33.09 10.08 34.00 6.72 30.64 4.93 28.85Allshot's farm (Scrap yard) 13.53 58.95 11.52 519.52 0.19 33.19 20.20 44.12 11.39 35.31 5.81 29.73Haywards 18.31 63.73 16.90 524.90 0.31 33.31 16.58 40.50 11.83 35.75 3.56 27.48Herrings Farm 15.84 61.26 14.54 522.54 0.13 33.13 27.16 51.08 13.72 37.64 2.05 25.97Goslings Farm 7.02 52.44 7.98 515.98 0.06 33.06 12.36 36.28 5.87 29.79 3.61 27.53Curd Hall Farm 12.47 57.89 8.43 516.43 0.19 33.19 11.61 35.53 8.21 32.13 1.96 25.88Silver End/Bower Hall/Fossil Hall 7.13 52.55 5.77 513.77 0.05 33.05 7.04 30.96 4.80 28.72 1.13 25.05Rivenhall PI/Hall 5.68 51.10 4.04 512.04 0.04 33.04 6.41 30.33 3.92 27.84 2.01 25.93Parkgate Farm/Waterfall Cottages 7.54 52.96 6.43 514.43 0.05 33.05 8.20 32.12 5.44 29.36 2.17 26.09Porter's Farm 9.22 54.64 7.25 515.25 0.09 33.09 10.43 34.35 6.65 30.57 2.97 26.89Unknown Building 1 10.78 56.20 11.21 519.21 0.11 33.11 13.95 37.87 7.76 31.68 4.90 28.82Bumby Hall/The Lodge/Polish Site(Light Industry) 16.99 62.41 15.22 523.22 0.21 33.21 23.43 47.35 12.71 36.63 10.21 34.13Footpath 8, Receptor 1 (E of Site) 28.55 73.97 24.54 532.54 0.22 33.22 29.03 52.95 19.86 43.78 9.60 33.52Footpath 8, Receptor 2 (E of Site) 20.98 66.40 20.86 528.86 0.16 33.16 33.72 57.64 20.77 44.69 8.30 32.22Footpath 8, Receptor 3 (E of Site) 7.95 53.37 5.21 513.21 0.09 33.09 24.08 48.00 15.99 39.91 7.65 31.57Footpath 8, Receptor 4 (E of Site) 6.27 51.69 4.38 512.38 0.07 33.07 20.35 44.27 13.11 37.03 3.02 26.94Footpath 8, Receptor 5 (E of Site) 5.09 50.51 5.24 513.24 0.04 33.04 18.30 42.22 10.20 34.12 3.87 27.79Footpath 8, Receptor 6 (E of Site) 12.53 57.95 9.20 517.20 0.18 33.18 18.14 42.06 10.85 34.77 5.06 28.98


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 200 10,000 50 266 350 125


Background (µg/m3) 45.42 508.00 33.00 23.92 23.92 23.92


Footpath 8, Receptor 7 (E of Site) 15.71 61.13 16.09 524.09 0.20 33.20 20.73 44.65 11.61 35.53 9.50 33.42Footpath 35, Receptor 1 (N of Site) 32.85 78.27 31.16 539.16 0.39 33.39 30.96 54.88 21.14 45.06 6.51 30.43Footpath 35, Receptor 2 (N of Site) 18.11 63.53 17.78 525.78 0.17 33.17 46.10 70.02 24.79 48.71 4.17 28.09Footpath 35, Receptor 3 (N of Site) 11.14 56.56 9.48 517.48 0.07 33.07 38.38 62.30 17.88 41.80 5.24 29.16Footpath 31, Receptor 1(NW of Site) 12.85 58.27 9.68 517.68 0.11 33.11 34.78 58.70 20.26 44.18 4.31 28.23Footpath 31, Receptor 2(NW of Site) 12.83 58.25 10.04 518.04 0.10 33.10 14.82 38.74 10.39 34.31 2.21 26.13Footpath 31, Receptor 3 (NW of Site) 9.46 54.88 8.42 516.42 0.07 33.07 9.23 33.15 6.49 30.41 2.57 26.49Footpath 7, Receptor 1 (SE of Site) 11.17 56.59 8.29 516.29 0.09 33.09 12.66 36.58 8.53 32.45 4.40 28.32Footpath 7, Receptor 2 (SE of Site) 13.81 59.23 10.93 518.93 0.17 33.17 15.18 39.10 10.73 34.65 4.99 28.91Footpath 7, Receptor 3 (SE of Site) 14.18 59.60 13.53 521.53 0.16 33.16 16.56 40.48 10.00 33.92 4.08 28.00Footpath 7, Receptor 4 (SE of Site) 14.14 59.56 13.27 521.27 0.20 33.20 15.45 39.37 9.95 33.87 4.91 28.83Footpath 7, Receptor 5 (SE of Site) 19.44 64.86 14.01 522.01 0.25 33.25 19.53 43.45 12.75 36.67 6.53 30.45Elephant House (Street Sweeping) 8.63 54.05 5.09 513.09 0.07 33.07 27.50 51.42 17.95 41.87 2.04 25.96Green Pastures Bungalow 6.89 52.31 5.72 513.72 0.07 33.07 9.82 33.74 4.67 28.59 6.58 30.50Deeks Cottage 21.23 66.65 18.03 526.03 0.24 33.24 19.33 43.25 13.47 37.39 7.50 31.42Woodhouse Farm 9.14 54.56 8.55 516.55 0.11 33.11 25.12 49.04 17.22 41.14 2.24 26.16Goslings Cottage/ Barn 7.71 53.13 8.02 516.02 0.07 33.07 13.33 37.25 7.22 31.14 3.10 27.02Diffusion tube location - Riv 5 4.96 50.38 5.33 513.33 0.03 33.03 18.81 42.73 9.87 33.79 3.09 27.01Diffusion tube location - Riv 2 10.53 55.95 8.29 516.29 0.14 33.14 16.10 40.02 9.75 33.67 4.44 28.36Diffusion tube location - Riv 2A 14.48 59.90 14.37 522.37 0.19 33.19 18.44 42.36 11.53 35.45 7.07 30.99Diffusion tube location - Riv 1 13.89 59.31 14.48 522.48 0.14 33.14 27.32 51.24 16.94 40.86 5.01 28.93Diffusion tube location - Riv 3 19.29 64.71 19.20 527.20 0.30 33.30 17.57 41.49 12.67 36.59 2.67 26.59Diffusion tube location - Riv 10 10.76 56.18 10.90 518.90 0.09 33.09 20.98 44.90 10.74 34.66 6.17 30.09Diffusion tube location - Riv 10A 19.76 65.18 16.96 524.96 0.29 33.29 18.43 42.35 12.62 36.54 5.78 29.70Diffusion tube location - Riv 4R 20.25 65.67 17.33 525.33 0.33 33.33 18.56 42.48 13.14 37.06 7.83 31.75Diffusion tube location - Riv 11 7.98 53.40 5.40 513.40 0.05 33.05 37.74 61.66 19.01 42.93 4.20 28.12


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 200 10,000 50 266 350 125


Background (µg/m3) 45.42 508.00 33.00 23.92 23.92 23.92


Diffusion tube location - Riv 7 13.96 59.38 11.74 519.74 0.19 33.19 17.47 41.39 10.72 34.64 2.67 26.59Diffusion tube location - Riv 6 7.10 52.52 7.78 515.78 0.06 33.06 22.49 46.41 7.47 31.39 2.67 26.59River Blackwater, receptor 23 9.95 55.37 9.12 517.12 0.17 33.17 9.00 32.92 6.46 30.38 2.52 26.44River Blackwater, receptor 24 9.43 54.85 8.43 516.43 0.17 33.17 8.52 32.44 6.14 30.06 10.64 34.56Existing lake location (WoodhouseFarm) 10.28 55.70 10.36 518.36 0.13 33.13 38.26 62.18 23.45 47.37 7.16 31.08Proposed new lake location(Woodhouse Farm) 5.68 51.10 4.24 512.24 0.08 33.08 24.81 48.73 16.71 40.63 3.91 27.83Diffusion tube location, Riv 9A 13.72 59.14 10.84 518.84 0.09 33.09 14.93 38.85 10.26 34.18 2.75 26.67Diffusion tube location, Riv 8 10.31 55.73 7.14 515.14 0.07 33.07 10.50 34.42 7.11 31.03 2.04 25.96Diffusion tube location, Riv 12A 7.56 52.98 5.33 513.33 0.03 33.03 8.52 32.44 5.17 29.09 2.19 26.11Diffusion tube location, Riv 12 8.43 53.85 7.26 515.26 0.06 33.06 8.67 32.59 6.01 29.93 1.22 25.14Church (adj to bradwell) 4.94 50.36 3.77 511.77 0.03 33.03 10.36 34.28 5.71 29.63 1.09 25.01Bradwell Hall 4.92 50.34 3.90 511.90 0.04 33.04 8.63 32.55 4.82 28.74 1.34 25.26Rolphs House 5.21 50.63 7.64 515.64 0.04 33.04 8.48 32.40 3.56 27.48 1.21 25.13Ford farm/ Rivenhall Cottage 4.80 50.22 3.68 511.68 0.05 33.05 5.90 29.82 3.03 26.95 2.19 26.11Goslings Cottage/ Barn 7.58 53.00 7.79 515.79 0.06 33.06 13.02 36.94 6.99 30.91 2.36 26.28Felix Hall/ The clock house/ ParkFarm 7.45 52.87 6.14 514.14 0.07 33.07 7.00 30.92 4.79 28.71 0.76 24.68Glazenwood House 3.81 49.23 3.68 511.68 0.03 33.03 4.86 28.78 2.66 26.58 0.68 24.60Bradwell Hall 2.55 47.97 3.30 511.30 0.02 33.02 3.84 27.76 1.88 25.80 1.10 25.02Perry Green farm 4.01 49.43 5.95 513.95 0.04 33.04 7.31 31.23 2.87 26.79 1.83 25.75The Granary/ Porter farm/Rook Hall 7.50 52.92 6.28 514.28 0.06 33.06 7.40 31.32 5.05 28.97 1.40 25.32Grange farm 5.53 50.95 4.70 512.70 0.10 33.10 5.07 28.99 3.62 27.54 1.25 25.17Coggeshall 4.94 50.36 3.99 511.99 0.10 33.10 4.49 28.41 3.26 27.18 0.97 24.89River Blackwater, receptor 1 4.69 50.11 3.31 511.31 0.03 33.03 5.75 29.67 3.57 27.49 0.99 24.91


Golder Associates



EAL (µg/m3) 200 10,000 50 266 350 125


Background (µg/m3) 45.42 508.00 33.00 23.92 23.92 23.92


River Blackwater, receptor 2 4.49 49.91 3.17 511.17 0.03 33.03 6.59 30.51 3.59 27.51 1.04 24.96River Blackwater, receptor 3 4.89 50.31 3.14 511.14 0.03 33.03 6.07 29.99 3.70 27.62 1.11 25.03River Blackwater, receptor 4 5.20 50.62 3.73 511.73 0.03 33.03 6.52 30.44 3.71 27.63 1.10 25.02River Blackwater, receptor 5 5.10 50.52 3.83 511.83 0.03 33.03 7.07 30.99 4.27 28.19 1.16 25.08River Blackwater, receptor 6 5.33 50.75 4.41 512.41 0.04 33.04 7.60 31.52 4.61 28.53 1.19 25.11River Blackwater, receptor 7 5.38 50.80 4.84 512.84 0.04 33.04 8.61 32.53 5.13 29.05 1.31 25.23River Blackwater, receptor 8 6.55 51.97 5.81 513.81 0.04 33.04 10.63 34.55 5.51 29.43 1.65 25.57River Blackwater, receptor 9 6.37 51.79 6.02 514.02 0.05 33.05 11.21 35.13 5.51 29.43 1.73 25.65River Blackwater, receptor 10 7.50 52.92 5.78 513.78 0.05 33.05 9.03 32.95 5.59 29.51 1.77 25.69River Blackwater, receptor 11 7.90 53.32 5.94 513.94 0.06 33.06 8.80 32.72 5.60 29.52 1.63 25.55River Blackwater, receptor 12 8.48 53.90 6.60 514.60 0.07 33.07 8.85 32.77 5.87 29.79 1.94 25.86River Blackwater, receptor 13 8.79 54.21 7.94 515.94 0.07 33.07 9.26 33.18 6.15 30.07 2.15 26.07River Blackwater, receptor 14 9.14 54.56 8.28 516.28 0.09 33.09 9.24 33.16 6.23 30.15 2.60 26.52River Blackwater, receptor 15 9.64 55.06 8.82 516.82 0.10 33.10 9.09 33.01 6.26 30.18 3.25 27.17River Blackwater, receptor 16 9.44 54.86 9.06 517.06 0.10 33.10 8.63 32.55 6.17 30.09 2.99 26.91River Blackwater, receptor 17 8.88 54.30 7.95 515.95 0.10 33.10 8.38 32.30 5.92 29.84 2.63 26.55River Blackwater, receptor 18 8.80 54.22 6.93 514.93 0.11 33.11 8.09 32.01 5.88 29.80 2.79 26.71River Blackwater, receptor 19 8.87 54.29 6.42 514.42 0.12 33.12 8.21 32.13 5.83 29.75 2.76 26.68River Blackwater, receptor 20 9.30 54.72 6.29 514.29 0.13 33.13 8.57 32.49 6.03 29.95 2.53 26.45River Blackwater, receptor 21 9.39 54.81 7.11 515.11 0.15 33.15 8.66 32.58 6.26 30.18 2.64 26.56River Blackwater, receptor 22 9.48 54.90 8.06 516.06 0.16 33.16 8.68 32.60 6.15 30.07 2.30 26.22River Blackwater, receptor 25 8.43 53.85 7.49 515.49 0.15 33.15 7.72 31.64 5.54 29.46 2.33 26.25River Blackwater, receptor 26 8.55 53.97 7.16 515.16 0.14 33.14 7.87 31.79 5.64 29.56 2.16 26.08River Blackwater, receptor 27 8.12 53.54 6.56 514.56 0.14 33.14 7.40 31.32 5.35 29.27 2.03 25.95River Blackwater, receptor 28 7.63 53.05 6.13 514.13 0.13 33.13 7.00 30.92 5.03 28.95 1.84 25.76


CHAPTER 3HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

September 2009 3-i 09514690030.512 Human Health Risk Assessment B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE 3.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................. 3-1

3.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................3-1 3.2 Assessment Methodology ....................................................................3-1 3.3 Assessment Objectives ........................................................................3-2 3.4 Contaminants of Potential Concern ......................................................3-2 3.5 Use of Air Quality Data .........................................................................3-3

3.5.1 Air Quality Data used in the HHRA ...........................................3-3 3.5.2 Conservative Approach used in the Choice of Air Quality Data for the HHRA ........................................................................................3-3

3.6 Conceptual Site Model .........................................................................3-4 3.6.1 Contaminant Sources ...............................................................3-4 3.6.2 Contaminant Pathways and Exposure Routes .........................3-4 3.6.3 Potential Receptors ..................................................................3-6

3.7 Risk Characterisation and Assessment ................................................3-7 3.7.1 Health Criteria Values (HCV) ....................................................3-7

3.8 Results from the Human Health Risk Assessment ...............................3-9 3.8.1 PCDDs and PCDFs ..................................................................3-9 3.8.2 Metals and Metalloids .............................................................3-10

3.9 Human Health Risk Evaluation and Conclusions ...............................3-10 3.10 References .........................................................................................3-11

September 2009 3-ii 09514690030.512 Human Health Risk Assessment B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix HHRA1 Deposition and Cumulative Soil Concentration Calculations Appendix HHRA2 Exposure Assessment Equations Appendix HHRA3 Sources of Health Criteria Values Appendix HHRA4 Health Criteria Value (HCV) Derivations for Adult Appendix HHRA5 Health Criteria Value (HCV) HCV Derivations for Child Appendix HHRA6 Multi-Pathway HHRA Summary Tables for Dioxins and Furans Appendix HHRA7 Multi-Pathway HHRA Summary Tables for Metals and Metalloids

September 2009 3-1 09514690030.512 Human Health Risk Assessment B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

3.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

3.1 Introduction

Since the Environmental Statement was issued in August 2008 (ES August 2008) there has been new guidance published by the Environment Agency which replaces comparable guidance used to complete the original Multi-Pathway Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) in Chapter 15 of the ES August 2008. The new guidance reports set out the methodology for deriving toxicological values used to benchmark risk and provide updated data sets and assumptions used to describe different land uses. As a consequence of the new guidance referred to above and the revised air dispersion modelling described in Chapter 2, the HHRA has been revised.

This HHRA uses the results of the air dispersion modelling to assess the risk to human health of potential emissions of dioxins, furans, metals and metalloids arising from the proposed facility through their accumulation in soil and subsequent uptake throughout the food chain and inhalation from ambient air.

The proposed eRCF will incorporate a number of processes with the potential to result in the release of emissions to air. Short term health effects associated with emissions of PM10, NO2, SO2 and CO2 are discussed with reference to health based air quality objectives in Chapter 2. A number of emissions to air arising from the proposed eRCF have the potential to deposit on land and be taken up and transferred within the human food chain. This HHRA considers the potential for long term health effects from contaminants associated with the combustion of waste.

The following sections describe the methodology adopted for the HHRA, the different exposure scenarios included within the conceptual site model, selection of Health Criteria Values (HCVs) and the results.


There is no United Kingdom (UK) methodology for undertaking a HHRA and therefore the assessment followed the United States Environmental Protection Agency Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities (HHRAP). Deviations from the HHRAP are described in the relevant sections and were made to allow UK specific receptor variables and risk interpretation to be incorporated into the HHRA.

The HHRAP estimates concentrations of Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC) in the different media (i.e. air, soil, pasture, above and below ground fruit and vegetables, poultry, eggs and breast milk) and the receptor specific intake (exposures) for each media. Together, these allow COPC intake to be estimated in each media and a total intake to be estimated by summation of all potential exposure pathways.


Golder Associates

Risk characterisation has been performed by comparing the predicted daily exposure to COPC with published health effect criteria.

3.3 Assessment Objectives

The objectives of this HHRA are as follows:

• To estimate the future potential exposure of identified potential human receptors to COPC via various ingestion and inhalation pathways using emission and deposition rates and ambient air concentrations presented in Chapter 2; and

• To determine whether these predicted future exposures are likely to result in unacceptable health risks to the identified human receptors.

3.4 Contaminants of Potential Concern

The potential contaminants included in the HHRA can be divided into two categories: firstly the 17 polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDFs) congeners; and secondly 12 metals and metalloids (Cadmium, Thallium, Mercury, Antimony, Arsenic, Lead, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Manganese, Nickel and Vanadium). PCDDs are produced in extremely small amounts as the by products of the combustion process. PCDFs are a closely related group of chemicals which have a similar structure to PCDDs and are produced in similar amounts. Metals are also known to be produced as by products of combustion with strict controls on emissions prescribed under the Waste Incineration Directive.

Various systems of toxicity equivalents have been developed for the purpose of assessing the toxicity of PCDD and PCDF mixtures. The systems use toxicity data and structural similarities to estimate weighting factors that express toxicity of certain PCDDs and PCDFs relative to an equivalent amount of the most toxic PCDD (2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)). The weighting factors are known as Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEF). These TEFs are multiplied by the concentration of the specific congener to give a Toxic Equivalent Quotient (TEQ). The toxicity of the mixture relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD is the sum of the TEQs.

This TEQ approach is relevant to the 17 PCDDs and PCDFs included in this assessment. The TEF system endorsed by the UK Committee of Toxicology (COT) is that developed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and therefore the WHO TEFs have been used to calculate the WHO TEQ. WHO TEFs used in this report have been sourced from the COT discussion paper on the revision of WHO TEFs (COT, 2006).


Golder Associates

3.5 Use of Air Quality Data

3.5.1 Air Quality Data used in the HHRA

The results of air dispersion and deposition modelling are used as source input values in the HHRA. In summary, the following ‘source inputs’ are used during the estimation of media concentrations:

• Emissions data (Q) and deposition data (Dywp and Dydp) used to estimate the deposition term (Ds) and the contaminant concentration in soil (Cs) and above ground produce concentration due to direct deposition (Pd);

• Ambient air concentrations (Cyv) to estimate the above ground produce concentration due

to air-to-plant transfer (Pv); and • Emissions data (Q) and ambient air concentrations (Cyp, Cyv) to provide an average daily

intake from inhalation (ADI). A single set of air quality output data has been used in the HHRA, representative of the eRCF and eRCF Revised scenarios, because the air quality modelling has shown that the relevant output used in the HHRA is the same under both scenarios.

The equations from the HHRAP utilised for the calculation of Ds and Cs for PCDDs, PCDFs, metals and metalloids, the relevant inputs and the resulting outputs are contained for reference within Appendix HHRA1. It has been assumed that the eRCF would have a serviceable operational life of 25 years.

3.5.2 Conservative Approach used in the Choice of Air Quality Data for the HHRA

As discussed in Chapter 2, the greatest predicted deposition rates for wet and dry deposition in the entire model domain (outside of the Site boundary) were used. This therefore represents an unlikely worst case scenario. Similarly, maximum predicted annual ambient air concentrations within the entire model domain were obtained from the air quality modelling presented in Chapter 2.

It should be noted that ambient air concentrations generated for the HHRA assumed no amount of a particular contaminant would be lost due to deposition and as such represent a conservative prediction. In addition, for the purposes of the HHRA, metals and metalloids were modelled collectively as two different groups (Group 1 being comprised of Cadmium, Thallium and Mercury, and Group 2 being comprised of Antimony, Arsenic, Lead, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Manganese, Nickel and Vanadium) and PCDDs and PCDFs were modelled collectively as a total group of congeners. The predicted ambient air concentration for the whole group was utilised for the individual metals, metalloids and PCDD and PCDF congeners within the HHRA modelling and as such represents a highly conservative and pessimistic approach.


Golder Associates

The following should be noted:

• For all contaminants a conservative and pessimistic approach was adopted by using maximum concentrations predicted from the air quality modelling; and

• Emissions data was used to adjust unitized air concentrations and depositions.

3.6 Conceptual Site Model

The scenarios modelled and presented within this HHRA are detailed below.

3.6.1 Contaminant Sources

The source of potential contamination is air emissions from the proposed CHP stack which include contaminants associated with the combustion of waste which are controlled under the Waste Incineration Directive as described in section 3.4.

3.6.2 Contaminant Pathways and Exposure Routes

The following exposure pathways have been included in the HHRA.

3.6.2.1 Inhalation and Soil Ingestion Pathways

Following emission from the proposed CHP stack, COPC are assumed to enter ambient air and are also incorporated into surface soils. People living in the study area may potentially be exposed to COPC through inhalation of outdoor air and accidental ingestion of soil and both pathways are included in the HHRA. Concentrations of COPC inhaled and ingested are assumed to be present at maximum predicted concentrations.

The estimation of the concentration of COPC in soil takes into account soil characteristics such as the mixing zone depth and bulk density. The HHRA assumes that following deposition the contaminants are incorporated into the upper 2 cm of soil. Where soils are used as growing medium, soils would be tilled and contaminants incorporated deeper in the soil. However, to be conservative it has been assumed that no tilling takes place and, therefore, the dilution effects of incorporating surface deposited contamination into deeper soils have been excluded from the model.

3.6.2.2 Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Pathways

Exposure via consumption of potentially contaminated fruit and vegetables grown in close vicinity to the proposed eRCF are likely to be low given that many people purchase fruit and vegetables from commercial outlets which sell produce grown from other regions. However, this pathway has been included in the model to represent the assumption that local farmers and residents grow and consume produce within the study area. Maximum predicted concentrations in soil and ambient air are used as inputs into the plant uptake equations.


Golder Associates

The model algorithms include the following potential exposure scenarios for consumption of fruit and vegetables:

• Above ground exposed fruit and vegetables (e.g. kale, broccoli, spinach) – contaminants deposited directly from air and entering the edible portion of the plant via root uptake;

• Above ground protected vegetables (e.g. sweetcorn and peas) – edible parts of the plant are covered so direct deposition of contaminants from air onto these parts is minimised. Root uptake from soil into the edible portion of the plant is the predominant exposure pathway; and

• Below ground root vegetables (e.g. carrots and potatoes) – root uptake from soil into the

edible portion of the plant is the predominant exposure pathway; however, since the edible parts of the plant are below ground the bio-concentration factors are often higher than those for above ground produce.

3.6.2.3 Poultry and Egg Pathways

Exposure via consumption of potentially contaminated chickens and eggs farmed and produced in close vicinity to the proposed eRCF are likely to be low given that many people purchase such products from commercial outlets which sell produce grown from other regions. However, these pathways have been included in the modelling to represent the assumption that local farmers and residents consume chicken and eggs within the study area. This assumption is based on the Site reconnaissance undertaken in the area surrounding the Site that indicated the presence of poultry.

The algorithms estimate uptake of PCDDs, PCDFs, metals and metalloids into grain (it is assumed grain is the sole feed for chickens) via relevant plant exposure pathways (direct deposition, vapour transfer and root uptake).

Contaminant concentrations in poultry tissue are estimated on the basis of the animal’s diet using bio-concentration factors. It is assumed that poultry only consume contaminated grain containing maximum predicted contaminant concentrations.

Contaminant concentrations in eggs are also estimated on the basis of the animal’s diet; however, in this case a bio-concentration factor for eggs is used.

3.6.2.4 Breast Milk Pathway

The HHRA includes estimating the average daily dose of PCDDs and PCDFs which an infant is exposed to via the ingestion of breast milk. This calculation is completed in two parts:

• Estimation of PCDD and PCDF concentrations in the milkfat of breast milk (based on the given exposure scenario relevant to the mother e.g. local resident); and

• Estimation of the average daily dose of PCDDs and PCDFs by the infant from ingestion

of contaminated breast milk.


Golder Associates

Maximum predicted concentrations of PCDDs and PCDFs are used to estimate concentrations in the milkfat of breast milk.

3.6.2.5 HHRAP Pathways Excluded from the HHRA

The following pathways were excluded from the HHRA on the basis that the exposure scenarios were either not relevant or deemed to be insignificant:

• Ingestion of drinking water from surface and groundwater sources; • Ingestion of pork, cattle and milk grown and produced within the study area; • Ingestion of fish farmed in the study area; and • Dermal exposure to soil and surface waters. 3.6.3 Potential Receptors

Potentially sensitive receptors included in the HHRAP and included in this assessment are a farming family with a child and an infant living in the study area. A farming family is used to represent a worst case or critical receptor since it is assumed that they will consume the greatest proportion of home grown produce. The receptor identification and exposure scenarios follow guidance provided in the HHRAP as detailed below:

• Adult and child exposed to PCDDs, PCDFs, metals and metalloids via inhalation of vapours and particulates, ingestion of soil, ingestion of home grown produce, chickens, and eggs from home reared chickens; and

• Infant exposure to PCDDs and PCDFs in mothers’ breast milk.

The HHRAP was the principal source document for the majority of input values; however, where available and appropriate, UK specific input criteria were used, as follows:

• The concept of critical receptors was used in accordance with Environment Agency guidance on human health risk assessment (Environment Agency 2009b). A female adult aged 16 to 65 years and female child aged 0 to 6 years were assumed to represent critical receptors for the adult and child farmer scenarios and a female infant aged 0 to 1 years for the breast milk exposure pathway;

• Body weights for adult and child receptors were taken from the Environment Agency

guidance, Science Report: SC050021/SR3 (Environment Agency 2009b); • Daily respiration rates for adult and child receptors were taken from the Environment

Agency guidance, Science Report: SC050021/SR3 (Environment Agency 2009b); • Daily soil (including dust) consumption rates for adults and child receptors were taken

from Environment Agency guidance, Science Report: SC050021/SR3 (Environment Agency 2009b); and


Golder Associates

Receptor input values with sources are presented in exposure assessment equations presented in Appendix HHRA2. These equations are those presented in the HHRAP and model the bioaccumulation of COPC through the human food chain to derive a single daily intake via all exposure pathways in units of µg/kg COPC per body weight per day.

3.7 Risk Characterisation and Assessment

The HHRA estimates predicted daily exposure to PCDDs, PCDFs, metals and metalloids for each of the receptors. Daily exposure is incremental (e.g. additive daily intakes from consumption of produce, ingestion of soil etc) depending on the specific exposure scenarios.

Many of the values used in the assessment (e.g. bio-concentration factors, physical chemical properties) are congener and metal specific. Appendix HHRA2 presents exposure assessment equations with congener and metal specific input values which have been sourced from the accompanying HHRAP database. A report used to derive values presented in the HHRAP database (Baes et al, 1984) was used by Golder to derive applicable bio-concentration and physical chemical factors for 4 metals (cobalt, copper, manganese and vanadium) that have been assessed but are excluded from the HHRAP database.

The estimated daily exposures via inhalation and ingestion of PCDDs, PCDFs, metals and metalloids require comparison with appropriate toxicological based health effect criteria to determine whether the potential exposures arising from the proposed eRCF are likely to result in an unacceptable risk to human health.

The HHRAP uses a North American approach to assess risk from COPC (e.g. slope factors, reference doses and unit risk factors). These methods are not entirely consistent with the UK approach for deriving health effect criteria and characterising risk; therefore, an appropriate UK based ‘Health Criteria Value’ (HCV)1 has been derived using toxicological data sourced in accordance with UK guidance. Further information on the concept and definition of HCVs is provided in the Environment Agency Science Report: SC050021/SR2 (Environment Agency 2009a).

3.7.1 Health Criteria Values (HCV)

The following sections provide a summary on the sources of toxicological data used to derive HCVs.

1 HCVs for contaminants with a threshold toxicity were derived using a Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) and Mean Daily Intake (MDI) where the HCV (µg kg-1 bw day-1) = TDI-MDI. The TDI is the amount of the COPC which an adult can be exposed to daily over a lifetime without appreciable health risk. The MDI is the background daily exposure from the COPC via food, water and ambient air. HCVs for adults and children are different due to differing bodily characteristics. HCVs for contaminants with a non-threshold toxicity (predominantly non-threshold carcinogenicity) were derived using an Index Dose (ID). The ID is the amount of the COPC that can be experienced over a lifetime with minimal cancer risk. MDI is not taken into account when using an ID.


Golder Associates

3.7.1.1 PCDDs and PCDFs

The Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) published in the Environment Agency Toxicological Report for PCDDs, PCDFs and Dioxin-like PCBs (Environment Agency 2003b) has been used in the HHRA. The report states that PCDDs and PCDFs should be assessed as threshold contaminants and therefore the TDI and Mean Daily Intake (MDI) data from this report have been used to develop the HCV.

The HCV for PCDDs and PCDFs is expressed as a WHO-TEQ; therefore, in order to complete the risk characterisation assessment it is necessary to:

• Multiply the daily exposure estimate for each congener by the congener specific TEF; and

• Sum the ‘TEF corrected’ estimated daily exposure of each congener to derive an average daily exposure in µg kg-1 bw day-1 expressed as a WHO TEQ.

The TEF approach reflects the current UK Committee on Toxicology position when completing a human health risk assessment for PCDDs and PCDFs.

3.7.1.2 Metals and Metalloids

Toxicological (MDI, TDI and Index Dose (ID)) data published in the Environment Agency Science Reports ‘Contaminants in soil: updated collation of toxicological data and intake values for humans’ for arsenic (Environment Agency 2009c), cadmium (Environment Agency 2009d), nickel (Environment Agency 2009e) and mercury (Environment Agency 2009f) were used in the HHRA.

The Environment Agency toxicological report for lead (Environment Agency 2002a) uses a blood lead concentration of 10 µg/DL; however, the HHRAP is not able to incorporate this toxicological benchmark since the blood lead concentration is not estimated. Golder has used conversions referenced in the toxicological report to estimate oral and inhalation TDIs for lead. For inhalation it is assumed that 1µg/m3 is equivalent to a blood lead concentration of 5 µg/DL. For oral exposure it is assumed that 1 µg/kg/day is equivalent to a blood lead concentration of 1 µg/DL. MDI data was also sourced from the toxicological report.

For the remaining metals and metalloids (antimony, chromium, cobalt, copper, manganese, thallium and vanadium), toxicological data were researched using guidance presented in Environment Agency Science Report: SC050021/SR2 (Environment Agency 2009a). Following review of the toxicological reference material, values from the following principal source documents were used:

• Reports prepared by the UK Food Standards Agency (Food Standards Agency 2003, 2008);


Golder Associates

• Reports produced by international authoritative bodies: World Health Organisation (WHO 2000, 2008) and for the WHO International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS 1996, 1998); and

• Reports prepared by other national organisations and web based risk database information: USEPA Integrated Risk Information System website (USEPA IRIS 2009a, b, c); the US Public Health Service’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ASTDR 1992a,b, 2008); and the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM 2001).

Appendix HHRA3 includes the values and sources for all TDI, MDI and ID values used in the HHRA.

Appendices HHRA4 and HHRA5 include tables that show how threshold toxicity HCVs have been derived from the TDIs and MDIs for the adult and child receptors respectively, to take into account the body weight of the receptor and appropriate correction factors. The methodology used to derive threshold toxicity HCVs is in accordance with Environment Agency guidance (Environment Agency 2009a).

3.8 Results from the Human Health Risk Assessment

The summary tables presented in Appendix HHRA6 show individual PCDD and PCDF congener exposures and appropriate WHO TEFs, the ‘WHO TEF corrected exposure’ and the summated ‘WHO TEQ exposures’. The summary tables presented in Appendix HHRA7 show the estimated daily exposures from metals and metalloids compared with their appropriate HCV.

For PCDDs, PCDFs, metals and metalloids, if the estimated daily exposure exceeds the HCV there may be an unacceptable risk; however, the degree of risk is dependant on the magnitude of the exeedance. Conversely, if the estimated daily exposure is less than the HCV the risk, given the layers of conservatism used in the HHRA, the risk is likely to be negligible.

3.8.1 PCDDs and PCDFs

Tables A6.1 and A6.2 (exposures via ingestion pathways for adult and child respectively) and A6.5 and A6.6 (exposures via inhalation pathways for adult and child respectively) in Appendix HHRA6 summarise the individual congener exposures and the total daily exposure expressed as a WHO TEQ for the adult and child exposure scenarios. The tables also show the comparison between the total daily exposure and the HCV for ingestion (oral) and inhalation exposures, respectively.


Golder Associates

3.8.1.1 Ingestion Pathways

Table A6.4 shows that both the adult, child and infant scenarios are shown to pass the risk assessment as their total daily intake is less than the HCV resulting in ‘daily exposure:HCV’ ratios less than 1.

3.8.1.2 Inhalation Pathway

Table A6.7 shows that both the adult and child scenarios are shown to pass the risk assessment as their total daily intake is less than the HCV resulting in ‘daily exposure:HCV’ ratios less than 1.

3.8.2 Metals and Metalloids

Tables A7.1 and A7.2 (exposures via ingestion pathways for adult and child respectively) and A7.3 and A7.4 (exposures via inhalation pathways for adult and child respectively) in Appendix HHRA7 summarise the individual metal and metalloid exposures for the adult and child exposure scenarios and show the comparison between the total daily exposure and the HCV for ingestion (oral) and inhalation exposures.

3.8.2.1 Ingestion Pathways

The adult and child scenarios are shown to pass the risk assessment as the total daily intake for each individual metal or metalloid are less than their respective HCVs resulting in ‘daily exposure:HCV’ ratios of less than 1.

3.8.2.2 Inhalation Pathway

The adult and child scenarios are shown to pass the risk assessment as the total daily intake for each individual metal or metalloid are less than their respective HCVs resulting in ‘daily exposure:HCV’ ratios of less than 1.

3.9 Human Health Risk Evaluation and Conclusions

The HHRA was undertaken in accordance with an internationally recognised USEPA protocol for assessing health risks from hazardous waste thermal treatment facilities as part of permit applications. Deviations from the HHRAP protocol were made to allow UK specific receptor variables and risk interpretation to be incorporated into the assessment.

The results for PCDDs, PCDFs, metals and metalloids demonstrate that their estimated daily exposures, for identified potential source – pathway – receptor linkages do not exceed the published health effect criteria. Therefore, the predicted levels of PCDD, PCDF, metals and metalloid exposure from the proposed eRCF are unlikely to result in unacceptable risks to identified human receptors within the local area.


Golder Associates

3.10 References

ATSDR (1992a). Toxicological Profile for Vanadium and Compounds, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (Atlanta, GA). ATSDR (1992b). Toxicological Profile for Thallium, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (Atlanta, GA). ATSDR, 2008. Draft Toxicological Profile for Chromium, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (Atlanta, GA).

Baes et al (1984). A Review and Analysis Of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ORNL-5786.

Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (2006). Revision of WHO Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds. TOX/2006/27. 2006.

Environment Agency (2002a). Contaminants In Soil: Collation Of Toxicological Data and Intake Values For Humans: Lead, TOX 6. March 2002.

Environment Agency (2002b). Contaminants In Soil: Collation Of Toxicological Data and Intake Values For Humans: Chromium, TOX 4. March 2002. Environment Agency (2003). Contaminants In Soil: Collation Of Toxicological Data and Intake Values For Humans. Dioxins, Furans and Dioxin-like PCBs, TOX 12. March 2003.

Environment Agency (2009a). Human health toxicological assessment of contaminants in soil. Science Report: SC050021/SR2, January 2009. Environment Agency (2009b). Updated technical background to the CLEA model. Science Report: SC050021/SR3, January 2009. Environment Agency (2009c). Contaminants in soil: updated collation of toxicological data and intake values for humans’: Inorganic arsenic. Science Report: SC050021/Tox1, May 2009. Environment Agency (2009d). Contaminants in soil: updated collation of toxicological data and intake values for humans’: Cadmium. Science Report: SC050021/Tox3, July 2009. Environment Agency (2009e). Contaminants in soil: updated collation of toxicological data and intake values for humans’: Nickel. Science Report: SC050021/Tox8, May 2009.


Golder Associates

Environment Agency (2009f). Contaminants in soil: updated collation of toxicological data and intake values for humans’: Mercury. Science Report: SC050021, March 2009. Food Standards Agency (2003). Safe Upper Levels for Minerals and Vitamins, Food Standards Agency, Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals. London UK. Food Standards Agency (2008). Total Diet Study 2006. ICPS (1996). Environmental Health Criteria 182: Thallium, World Health Organisation, International Programme on Chemical Safety. ICPS (1998). Environmental Health Criteria 200: Copper, World Health Organisation, International Programme on Chemical Safety. RIVM (2001). Re-evaluation of human-toxicological maximum permissible risk levels, RIVM, Netherlands, Report 71170125. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2005). Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, Report EPA 530-R-05-006. September 2005. USEPA IRIS website (2009a). Toxicological summary for Antimony Trioxide, accessed 26 August 2009. http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/subst/0676.htm USEPA IRIS website (2009b). Toxicological summary for Manganese, accessed 26 August 2009. http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/subst/0373.htm USEPA IRIS website (2009c). Toxicological summary for Chromium VI, accessed 26 August 2009. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm?fuseaction=iris.showQuickView&substance_nmbr=0144#reforal World Health Organisation (2000). Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, 2nd Edition. World Health Organisation (2008). Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 3rd Edition

September 2009 09514690030.512 Human Health Risk Assessment B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

APPENDICES


Golder Associates

APPENDIX HHRA1 DEPOSITION AND CUMULATIVE SOIL CONCENTRATION

CALCULATIONS


Golder Associates

APPENDIX HHRA2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT EQUATIONS


Golder Associates

APPENDIX HHRA3 SOURCES OF HEALTH CRITERIA VALUES


Golder Associates

APPENDIX HHRA4 HEALTH CRITERIA VALUE (HCV) DERIVATIONS FOR ADULT


Golder Associates

APPENDIX HHRA5 HEALTH CRITERIA VALUE (HCV) DERIVATIONS FOR CHILD


Golder Associates

APPENDIX HHRA6 MULTI-PATHWAY HHRA SUMMARY TABLES FOR DIOXINS

AND FURANS


Golder Associates

APPENDIX HHRA7 MULTI-PATHWAY HHRA SUMMARY TABLES FOR METALS

AND METALLOIDS

Deposition Term - Dioxin and Furan Individual Congeners (2 cm depth - no tilling)

Congeners 100 Q (g/s) Zs (cm)BD (g

soil/cm3soil)

Fv

(unitless)Dydv

(g/m2/yr)Dywv

(g/m2/yr)Dydp

(g/m2/yr)Dywp

(g/m2/yr)Ds (mg/kg

soil/yr)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1.00E+02 2.33E-08 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 3.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 1.93E-071,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1.00E+02 6.01E-08 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 1.00E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 4.94E-071,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1.00E+02 5.87E-09 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 5.70E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 3.59E-081,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1.00E+02 3.93E-09 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 2.40E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 3.18E-081,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1.00E+02 2.98E-08 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 4.90E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 2.35E-071,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1.00E+02 3.53E-09 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 2.90E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 2.85E-081,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.00E+02 1.10E-08 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 5.20E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 6.80E-081,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1.00E+02 2.80E-09 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 2.29E-081,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 1.00E+02 5.75E-10 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 9.00E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 3.40E-091,2,3,7,8-PCDD 1.00E+02 3.35E-09 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 1.17E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 1.92E-081,2,3,7,8-PCDF 1.00E+02 3.79E-09 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 2.68E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 1.80E-082,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.00E+02 1.19E-08 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 5.50E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 7.31E-082,3,4,7,8-PCDF 1.00E+02 7.32E-09 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 2.21E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 3.70E-082,3,7,8-TCDD 1.00E+02 4.24E-10 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 6.64E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 9.25E-102,3,7,8-TCDF 1.00E+02 3.69E-09 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 7.70E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 5.52E-09OCDD 1.00E+02 5.53E-08 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 2.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 4.58E-07OCDF 1.00E+02 4.88E-08 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 2.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 4.04E-07

Ds100QZs

BD

Fv

Dydv

Dywv

Dydp

Dywp

1Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC)

Ds = [(100 * Q)/(Zs * BD)] * [Fv * (Dydv + Dywv) + (Dydp + Dywp) * (1-Fv)]

Description ReferencesDeposition Term Equation 5-11 (US EPA, 2005)

Soil mixing zone depth US EPA, 2005Soil Bulk Density US EPA, 2005

Units Conversion factor (mg/m2 - kg/cm2) US EPA, 2005Congener emission rate Derived from Waste Incineration Directive1 and adjusted to operating conditions

Unitized yearly average wet deposition from particlephase

Derived from air dispersion modelling

Fraction of Congener air concentration in vapourphase (unitless)

US EPA, 2005

Unitized yearly average dry deposition from vapourphase


Unitized yearly average wet deposition from vapourphase


Unitized yearly average dry deposition from particlephase


Golder Associates

Deposition Term - Dioxin and Furan Individual Congeners (20 cm term - including tilling)

Congeners 100 Q (g/s) Zs (cm)BD (g

soil/cm3soil)

Fv

(unitless)Dydv

(g/m2/yr)Dywv

(g/m2/yr)Dydp

(g/m2/yr)Dywp

(g/m2/yr)Ds (mg/kg

soil/yr)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1.00E+02 2.33E-08 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 3.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 1.93E-081,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1.00E+02 6.01E-08 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 1.00E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 4.94E-081,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1.00E+02 5.87E-09 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 5.70E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 3.59E-091,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1.00E+02 3.93E-09 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 2.40E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 3.18E-091,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1.00E+02 2.98E-08 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 4.90E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 2.35E-081,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1.00E+02 3.53E-09 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 2.90E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 2.85E-091,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.00E+02 1.10E-08 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 5.20E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 6.80E-091,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1.00E+02 2.80E-09 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 2.29E-091,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 1.00E+02 5.75E-10 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 9.00E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 3.40E-101,2,3,7,8-PCDD 1.00E+02 3.35E-09 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 1.17E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 1.92E-091,2,3,7,8-PCDF 1.00E+02 3.79E-09 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 2.68E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 1.80E-092,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.00E+02 1.19E-08 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 5.50E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 7.31E-092,3,4,7,8-PCDF 1.00E+02 7.32E-09 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 2.21E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 3.70E-092,3,7,8-TCDD 1.00E+02 4.24E-10 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 6.64E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 9.25E-112,3,7,8-TCDF 1.00E+02 3.69E-09 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 7.70E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 5.52E-10OCDD 1.00E+02 5.53E-08 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 2.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 4.58E-08OCDF 1.00E+02 4.88E-08 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 2.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 4.04E-08

Ds100QZs

BD

Fv

Dydv

Dywv

Dydp

Dywp


Units Conversion factor (mg/m2 - kg/cm2) US EPA, 2005Congener emission rate Derived from Waste Incineration Directive1 and adjusted to operating conditions



Fraction of Congener air concentration in vapourphase (unitless)

US EPA, 2005

Unitized yearly average dry deposition from vapourphase



Unitized yearly average wet deposition from particlephase


Unitized yearly average wet deposition from vapourphase


Unitized yearly average dry deposition from particlephase


Golder Associates

Cumulative Soil Concentration - Dioxin and Furan Individual Congeners (2 cm depth - no tilling)

CongenersDs (mg Congener/kg

soil/yr) ks (yr-1) tD (yr) CstD (mg/kg)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1.93E-07 2.77E-02 2.50E+01 3.48E-061,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 4.94E-07 2.78E-02 2.50E+01 8.90E-061,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 3.59E-08 2.78E-02 2.50E+01 6.47E-071,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 3.18E-08 2.78E-02 2.50E+01 5.74E-071,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 2.35E-07 2.80E-02 2.50E+01 4.23E-061,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 2.85E-08 2.79E-02 2.50E+01 5.12E-071,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 6.80E-08 2.80E-02 2.50E+01 1.22E-061,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 2.29E-08 2.79E-02 2.50E+01 4.13E-071,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 3.40E-09 2.80E-02 2.50E+01 6.10E-081,2,3,7,8-PCDD 1.92E-08 2.84E-02 2.50E+01 3.44E-071,2,3,7,8-PCDF 1.80E-08 2.82E-02 2.50E+01 3.23E-072,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 7.31E-08 2.80E-02 2.50E+01 1.31E-062,3,4,7,8-PCDF 3.70E-08 2.86E-02 2.50E+01 6.61E-072,3,7,8-TCDD 9.25E-10 2.82E-02 2.50E+01 1.66E-082,3,7,8-TCDF 5.52E-09 3.00E-02 2.50E+01 9.71E-08OCDD 4.58E-07 2.77E-02 2.50E+01 8.26E-06OCDF 4.04E-07 2.77E-02 2.50E+01 7.29E-06

CstD

DskstD Time period over which deposition occurs

Equation 5-1 E (US EPA, 2005)Derived from Equation 5-11 (US EPA, 2005)Derived from soil loss equationsPlant assumed to operate for 25 years

Congener soil loss constant due to all processes

CstD = Ds * (1 - exp( - ks * tD)) / ks

Soil concentration at time tDDeposition Term

Description References

Golder Associates

Cumulative Soil Concentration - Dioxin and Furan Individual Congeners (20 cm depth - including tilling)

Congeners Ds (mg Congener/kg soil/yr) ks (yr-1) tD (yr) CstD (mg/kg)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1.93E-08 2.77E-02 25 3.48E-071,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 4.94E-08 2.78E-02 25 8.90E-071,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 3.59E-09 2.78E-02 25 6.47E-081,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 3.18E-09 2.78E-02 25 5.74E-081,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 2.35E-08 2.80E-02 25 4.23E-071,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 2.85E-09 2.79E-02 25 5.12E-081,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 6.80E-09 2.80E-02 25 1.22E-071,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 2.29E-09 2.79E-02 25 4.13E-081,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 3.40E-10 2.80E-02 25 6.10E-091,2,3,7,8-PCDD 1.92E-09 2.84E-02 25 3.44E-081,2,3,7,8-PCDF 1.80E-09 2.82E-02 25 3.23E-082,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 7.31E-09 2.80E-02 25 1.31E-072,3,4,7,8-PCDF 3.70E-09 2.86E-02 25 6.61E-082,3,7,8-TCDD 9.25E-11 2.82E-02 25 1.66E-092,3,7,8-TCDF 5.52E-10 3.00E-02 25 9.71E-09OCDD 4.58E-08 2.77E-02 25 8.26E-07OCDF 4.04E-08 2.77E-02 25 7.29E-07

CstD

DskstD

CstD = Ds * (1 - exp( - ks * tD)) / ks

Soil concentration at time tD Equation 5-1 E (US EPA, 2005)Description References

Time period over which deposition occurs Plant assumed to operate for 25 years

Deposition Term Derived from Equation 5-11 (US EPA, 2005)Congener soil loss constant due to all processes Derived from soil loss equations

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan Congener Soil Loss Constant due to Biotic and Abiotic Degradation

Constant t1/2Ksg

(1/year)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.693 25 0.027721,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.693 25 0.027721,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.693 25 0.027721,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.693 25 0.027721,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.693 25 0.027721,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.693 25 0.027721,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.693 25 0.027721,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.693 25 0.027721,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.693 25 0.027721,2,3,7,8-PCDD 0.693 25 0.027721,2,3,7,8-PCDF 0.693 25 0.027722,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.693 25 0.027722,3,4,7,8-PCDF 0.693 25 0.027722,3,7,8-TCDD 0.693 25 0.027722,3,7,8-TCDF 0.693 25 0.02772

0.693 25 0.027720.693 25 0.02772

Referencesksg Equation A-2-13 (US EPA, 2005)0.693 US EPA, 2005t1/2 US EPA, 2005

ksg = 0.693 / t1/2

Congeners

Half-life of compounds

Congener soil loss constant due to biotic and abiotic degradationDescription

First order kinetics constant

OCDFOCDD

Golder AssociatesGolder Associates

Dioxin and Furan Congener Soil Loss Constant due to Surface Runoff

2cm depth - no tillingRO

(cm/year)θsw

(mL water/cm³ soil)Zs

(cm)kds

(mL water/g soil)BD

(g soil/cm³ soil)ksr

(1/year)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 6.5 0.2 2 6.17E+05 1.5 3.51E-061,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 6.5 0.2 2 1.55E+05 1.5 1.40E-051,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 6.5 0.2 2 1.55E+05 1.5 1.40E-051,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 6.5 0.2 2 3.89E+05 1.5 5.57E-061,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 6.5 0.2 2 6.17E+04 1.5 3.51E-051,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 6.5 0.2 2 1.23E+05 1.5 1.76E-051,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 6.5 0.2 2 6.17E+04 1.5 3.51E-051,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 6.5 0.2 2 1.23E+05 1.5 1.76E-051,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 6.5 0.2 2 6.17E+04 1.5 3.51E-051,2,3,7,8-PCDD 6.5 0.2 2 2.69E+04 1.5 8.05E-051,2,3,7,8-PCDF 6.5 0.2 2 3.80E+04 1.5 5.70E-052,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 6.5 0.2 2 6.17E+04 1.5 3.51E-052,3,4,7,8-PCDF 6.5 0.2 2 1.95E+04 1.5 1.11E-042,3,7,8-TCDD 6.5 0.2 2 3.89E+04 1.5 5.57E-052,3,7,8-TCDF 6.5 0.2 2 7.76E+03 1.5 2.79E-04

6.5 0.2 2 9.77E+05 1.5 2.22E-066.5 0.2 2 6.17E+05 1.5 3.51E-06

ksr

ROθswZskdsBD

20 cm depth - tilling

RO (cm/year)

θsw


(cm)Kds

(mL water/g soil)BD


(1/year)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 6.5 0.2 20 6.17E+05 1.5 3.51E-071,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 6.5 0.2 20 1.55E+05 1.5 1.40E-061,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 6.5 0.2 20 1.55E+05 1.5 1.40E-061,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 6.5 0.2 20 3.89E+05 1.5 5.57E-071,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 6.5 0.2 20 6.17E+04 1.5 3.51E-061,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 6.5 0.2 20 1.23E+05 1.5 1.76E-061,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 6.5 0.2 20 6.17E+04 1.5 3.51E-061,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 6.5 0.2 20 1.23E+05 1.5 1.76E-061,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 6.5 0.2 20 6.17E+04 1.5 3.51E-061,2,3,7,8-PCDD 6.5 0.2 20 2.69E+04 1.5 8.05E-061,2,3,7,8-PCDF 6.5 0.2 20 3.80E+04 1.5 5.70E-062,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 6.5 0.2 20 6.17E+04 1.5 3.51E-062,3,4,7,8-PCDF 6.5 0.2 20 1.95E+04 1.5 1.11E-052,3,7,8-TCDD 6.5 0.2 20 3.89E+04 1.5 5.57E-062,3,7,8-TCDF 6.5 0.2 20 7.76E+03 1.5 2.79E-05

6.5 0.2 20 9.77E+05 1.5 2.22E-076.5 0.2 20 6.17E+05 1.5 3.51E-07

ksr

ROθswZskdsBD

US EPA, 2005Soil/water partition coefficient US EPA, 2005 (Database)

OCDD

Congeners


US EPA, 2005

OCDF

ksr = [RO / (θsw x Zs)] x [1 / (1 + (kds x BD / θsw))]

Description ReferencesCongener soil loss constant due to surface runoff Equation 5-4 (US EPA, 2005)

Congeners

OCDF

Soil mixing zone depth (2cm - untilled)

Congener soil loss constant due to surface runoff Equation 5-4 (US EPA, 2005)

Average annual surface runoff from pervious areas

Based on data from websites: High Flow (Environment Agency) and National Rivers Flow Archive (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology)

OCDD

Average annual surface runoff from pervious areas

Based on data from websites: High Flow (Environment Agency) and National Rivers Flow Archive (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology)

Soil volumetric water content US EPA, 2005

Soil bulk density

Soil/water partition coefficient US EPA, 2005 (Database)Soil bulk density US EPA, 2005

Soil volumetric water content US EPA, 2005Soil mixing zone depth (20cm - tilled) US EPA, 2005

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan Congener Soil Loss Constant due to Leaching

2cm depth - no tilling

P (cm/year)

I (cm/year)

RO (cm/year)

Ev (cm/year)

θsw


(cm)BD

(g soil/cm³ soil)Kds

(mL water/g soil)ksl

(1/year)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 6.17E+05 2.47E-051,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 1.55E+05 9.81E-051,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 1.55E+05 9.81E-051,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 3.89E+05 3.91E-051,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 6.17E+04 2.47E-041,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 1.23E+05 1.24E-041,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 6.17E+04 2.47E-041,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 1.23E+05 1.24E-041,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 6.17E+04 2.47E-041,2,3,7,8-PCDD 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 2.69E+04 5.65E-041,2,3,7,8-PCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 3.80E+04 4.00E-042,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 6.17E+04 2.47E-042,3,4,7,8-PCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 1.95E+04 7.80E-042,3,7,8-TCDD 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 3.89E+04 3.91E-042,3,7,8-TCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 7.76E+03 1.96E-03

56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 9.77E+05 1.56E-0556.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 6.17E+05 2.47E-05

kslPI

ROEvθsw

ZsBDkds

20 cm depth - Tilling

P (cm/year)

I (cm/year)

RO (cm/year)

Ev (cm/year)

θsw


(cm)BD



(1/year)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 6.17E+05 2.47E-061,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 1.55E+05 9.81E-061,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 1.55E+05 9.81E-061,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 3.89E+05 3.91E-061,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 6.17E+04 2.47E-051,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 1.23E+05 1.24E-051,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 6.17E+04 2.47E-051,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 1.23E+05 1.24E-051,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 6.17E+04 2.47E-051,2,3,7,8-PCDD 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 2.69E+04 5.65E-051,2,3,7,8-PCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 3.80E+04 4.00E-052,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 6.17E+04 2.47E-052,3,4,7,8-PCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 1.95E+04 7.80E-052,3,7,8-TCDD 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 3.89E+04 3.91E-052,3,7,8-TCDF 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 7.76E+03 1.96E-04

56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 9.77E+05 1.56E-0656.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 6.17E+05 2.47E-06

kslPI

ROEvθsw

ZsBDkds

Average annual evapotranspiration MAFF Technical Bulletin 35 (1976)

Assumed conservatively to be zero

Congeners

Average annual precipitation Flood Estimation Handbook CD-ROM V2 (based on Site Grid Reference)Average annual irrigation

Average annual surface runoff from pervious areasBased on data from websites: High Flow (Environment Agency) and National Rivers Flow Archive (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology)

OCDF

ksl = (P + I - RO - Ev) / {θsw x Zs x [1 + ( BD x kds / θsw)]}

Description ReferencesCongener soil loss constant due to leaching Equation 5-5A (US EPA, 2005)

OCDD

Soil / water partition coefficientUS EPA, 2005

Soil volumetric water content

US EPA, 2005 (Database)Soil bulk density

US EPA, 2005Soil mixing zone depth (2cm - untilled) US EPA, 2005

Congeners

Description ReferencesCongener soil loss constant due to leaching Equation 5-5A (US EPA, 2005)

OCDFOCDD

Average annual surface runoff from pervious areasBased on data from websites: High Flow (Environment Agency) and National Rivers Flow Archive (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology)


Average annual precipitation Flood Estimation Handbook CD-ROM V2 (based on Site Grid Reference)Average annual irrigation Assumed conservatively to be zero

Soil bulk density US EPA, 2005Soil / water partition coefficient US EPA, 2005 (Database)


Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan Congener Soil Loss Constant

Assuming a soil mixing depth of 2 cm (untilled)ksg

(1/year)kse

(1/year)ksr

(1/year)ksl

(1/year)ksv

(1/year)ks

(1/year)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2.77E-02 0 3.51E-06 2.47E-05 0 2.77E-021,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 2.77E-02 0 1.40E-05 9.81E-05 0 2.78E-021,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 2.77E-02 0 1.40E-05 9.81E-05 0 2.78E-021,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 2.77E-02 0 5.57E-06 3.91E-05 0 2.78E-021,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 2.77E-02 0 3.51E-05 2.47E-04 0 2.80E-021,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 2.77E-02 0 1.76E-05 1.24E-04 0 2.79E-021,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 2.77E-02 0 3.51E-05 2.47E-04 0 2.80E-021,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 2.77E-02 0 1.76E-05 1.24E-04 0 2.79E-021,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2.77E-02 0 3.51E-05 2.47E-04 0 2.80E-021,2,3,7,8-PCDD 2.77E-02 0 8.05E-05 5.65E-04 0 2.84E-021,2,3,7,8-PCDF 2.77E-02 0 5.70E-05 4.00E-04 0 2.82E-022,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 2.77E-02 0 3.51E-05 2.47E-04 0 2.80E-022,3,4,7,8-PCDF 2.77E-02 0 1.11E-04 7.80E-04 0 2.86E-022,3,7,8-TCDD 2.77E-02 0 5.57E-05 3.91E-04 0 2.82E-022,3,7,8-TCDF 2.77E-02 0 2.79E-04 1.96E-03 0 3.00E-02

2.77E-02 0 2.22E-06 1.56E-05 0 2.77E-022.77E-02 0 3.51E-06 2.47E-05 0 2.77E-02

Assuming a soil mixing depth of 20 cm (tilled)ksg

(1/year)kse

(1/year)ksr

(1/year)ksl

(1/year)ksv

(1/year)ks

(1/year)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2.77E-02 0 3.51E-07 2.47E-06 0 2.77E-021,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 2.77E-02 0 1.40E-06 9.81E-06 0 2.77E-021,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 2.77E-02 0 1.40E-06 9.81E-06 0 2.77E-021,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 2.77E-02 0 5.57E-07 3.91E-06 0 2.77E-02

ks = ksg + kse + ksr + ksl + ksv

OCDFOCDD

Congeners

Congeners

Golder Associates

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 2.77E-02 0 3.51E-06 2.47E-05 0 2.77E-021,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 2.77E-02 0 1.76E-06 1.24E-05 0 2.77E-021,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 2.77E-02 0 3.51E-06 2.47E-05 0 2.77E-021,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 2.77E-02 0 1.76E-06 1.24E-05 0 2.77E-021,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2.77E-02 0 3.51E-06 2.47E-05 0 2.77E-021,2,3,7,8-PCDD 2.77E-02 0 8.05E-06 5.65E-05 0 2.78E-021,2,3,7,8-PCDF 2.77E-02 0 5.70E-06 4.00E-05 0 2.78E-022,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 2.77E-02 0 3.51E-06 2.47E-05 0 2.77E-022,3,4,7,8-PCDF 2.77E-02 0 1.11E-05 7.80E-05 0 2.78E-022,3,7,8-TCDD 2.77E-02 0 5.57E-06 3.91E-05 0 2.78E-022,3,7,8-TCDF 2.77E-02 0 2.79E-05 1.96E-04 0 2.79E-02

2.77E-02 0 2.22E-07 1.56E-06 0 2.77E-022.77E-02 0 3.51E-07 2.47E-06 0 2.77E-02

ksksgkseksrkslksv

Congener soil loss constant due to biotic and abiotic degradation Estimated Congener soil loss constant due to soil erosion Conservatively assumed to be zero


OCDFOCDD

Congener soil loss constant due to leaching EstimatedCongener soil loss constant due to volatilization Conservatively assumed to be zero

Equation 5-2A (US EPA, 2005)Congener soil loss constant due to all process

Congener soil loss constant due to surface runoff Estimated

Golder Associates

Deposition Term - Mercury

2 cm depth - no tilling

Metals 100 0.48 Q (g/s) Zs (cm)BD (g

soil/cm3 soil)

Fv

(unitless)Dydv

(g/m2/yr)Dywv

(g/m2/yr)Dydp

(g/m2/yr)Dywp

(g/m2/yr)Dsmercury (mg/kg

soil/yr)

Mercury 1.00E+02 4.80E-01 6.84E-03 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 8.50E-01 1.58E-04 1.94E-01 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 2.12E-02


Metals 100 0.48 Q (g/s) Zs (cm)BD (g

soil/cm3 soil)

Fv

(unitless)Dydv

(g/m2/yr)Dywv

(g/m2/yr)Dydp

(g/m2/yr)Dywp

(g/m2/yr)Dsmercury (mg/kg

soil/yr)

Mercury 1.00E+02 4.80E-01 6.84E-03 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 8.50E-01 1.58E-04 1.94E-01 1.51E-03 1.93E-01 2.12E-03

2 cm depth - no tillingMetals 0.98 0.02 DsMercuric chloride 9.80E-01 - 2.08E-02Methyl mercury - 2.00E-02 4.25E-04

20 cm depth - no tillingMetals 0.98 0.02 DsMercuric chloride 9.80E-01 - 2.08E-03Methyl mercury - 2.00E-02 4.25E-05

Ds

100

QZs

BD

Fv

Dydv

Dywv

Dydp

Dywp

0.48

0.98

0.02



Unitized yearly average dry deposition from particle phase Derived from air dispersion modelling

Used 0.48Q for total mercury

Apportioned calculated Ds value into divalent mercury based on assumed 98% speciation split in soil. Assumed elemental mecury does not exist in particle or particle bound phaseApportioned calculated Ds value into methyl mercury based on assumed 2% speciation split in soil. Assumed elemental mecury does not exist in particle or particle bound phase

US EPA, 2005

US EPA, 2005

US EPA, 2005

Derived from Waste Incineration Directive1 and adjusted to operating conditionsSoil mixing zone depth US EPA, 2005

Unitized yearly average wet deposition from particle phase Derived from air dispersion modelling

Fraction of Metal air concentration in vapour phase (unitless). Equal to 0.85 for mercury US EPA, 2005

Unitized yearly average dry deposition from vapour phase Derived from air dispersion modelling

Unitized yearly average wet deposition from vapour phase

Soil Bulk Density US EPA, 2005

Ds = [(100 * 0.48*Q)/(Zs * BD)] * [Fv * (Dydv + Dywv) + (Dydp + Dywp) * (1-Fv)]


Units Conversion factor (mg/m2 - kg/cm2) US EPA, 2005

Metal emission rate

Golder Associates

Deposition Term - Metals and Metalloids (2 cm depth - no tilling)

Metals 100 Q (g/s) Zs (cm)BD (g

soil/cm3soil)

Fv

(unitless)Dydv

(g/m2/yr)Dywv

(g/m2/yr)Dydp

(g/m2/yr)Dywp

(g/m2/yr)Ds (mg/kg

soil/yr)

Antimony 1.00E+02 6.84E-02 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.63E-01Arsenic 1.00E+02 6.84E-02 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 6.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.65E-01Cadmium 1.00E+02 6.84E-03 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.63E-02Cobalt 1.00E+02 6.84E-02 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.63E-01Copper 1.00E+02 6.84E-02 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.63E-01Chromium (III) 1.00E+02 3.42E-02 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 2.81E-01Chromium (VI) 1.00E+02 3.42E-02 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 2.84E-01Lead 1.00E+02 6.84E-02 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 7.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.64E-01Manganese 1.00E+02 6.84E-02 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.63E-01Nickel 1.00E+02 6.84E-02 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.63E-01Thallium 1.00E+02 6.84E-03 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.63E-02Vanadium 1.00E+02 6.84E-02 2.00E+00 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.63E-01

Ds100 Units Conversion factor (mg/m2 - kg/cm2)

Q

Zs

BD

Fv

Dydv

Dywv

Dydp

Dywp


US EPA, 2005

Metal emission rate Derived from Waste Incineration Directive1 and adjusted to operating conditions(emission rates for Cr III and Cr VI have been apportioned in the ratio of 50:50)



Unitized yearly average wet deposition fromparticle phase


Fraction of Metal air concentration in vapourphase (unitless). Assumed Sb, Co, Cu, Mn andV 0.009.

US EPA, 2005

Unitized yearly average dry deposition fromvapour phase


Unitized yearly average wet deposition fromvapour phase


Unitized yearly average dry deposition fromparticle phase



Golder Associates

Deposition Term - Metals and Metalloids (20 cm depth - including tilling)

Metals 100 Q (g/s) Zs (cm)BD (g

soil/cm3soil)

Fv

(unitless)Dydv

(g/m2/yr)Dywv

(g/m2/yr)Dydp

(g/m2/yr)Dywp

(g/m2/yr)Ds (mg/kg soil/yr)

Antimony 1.00E+02 6.84E-02 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.63E-02Arsenic 1.00E+02 6.84E-02 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 6.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.65E-02Cadmium 1.00E+02 6.84E-03 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.63E-03Cobalt 1.00E+02 6.84E-02 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.63E-02Copper 1.00E+02 6.84E-02 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.63E-02Chromium (III) 1.00E+02 3.42E-02 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 2.81E-02Chromium (VI) 1.00E+02 3.42E-02 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 2.84E-02Lead 1.00E+02 6.84E-02 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 7.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.64E-02Manganese 1.00E+02 6.84E-02 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.63E-02Nickel 1.00E+02 6.84E-02 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.63E-02Thallium 1.00E+02 6.84E-03 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.63E-03Vanadium 1.00E+02 6.84E-02 2.00E+01 1.50E+00 9.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.18E-02 5.63E-02

Ds100

Q

Zs

BD

Fv

Dydv

Dywv

Dydp

Dywp


Deposition Term Equation 5-11 (US EPA, 2005)


ReferencesDescription


Units Conversion factor (mg/m2 - kg/cm2) US EPA, 2005

Metal emission rate Derived from Waste Incineration Directive1 and adjusted to operating conditions(emission rates for Cr III and Cr VI have been apportioned in the ratio of 50:50)

Fraction of Metal air concentration in vapourphase (unitless). Assumed Sb, Co, Cu, Mn andV 0.009.

US EPA, 2005

Unitized yearly average wet deposition fromparticle phase


Unitized yearly average wet deposition fromvapour phase


Unitized yearly average dry deposition fromparticle phase


Unitized yearly average dry deposition fromvapour phase


Golder Associates

Cumulative Soil Metal Concentration for Child Receptor (Carcinogenic Contaminants via Oral Exposure Route)


Metals Ds (mg Metal/kg soil/yr) ks (yr-1) tD (yr) T1 (yr) Cs (mg/kg)

Arsenic 5.65E-01 5.96E-01 2.50E+01 0.00E+00 8.84E-01


Metals Ds (mg Metal/kg soil/yr) ks (yr-1) tD (yr) T1 (yr) Cs (mg/kg)

Arsenic 5.65E-02 5.96E-02 2.50E+01 0.00E+00 4.55E-01

CsDskstD

T1 Time period over which deposition occursAssumed to be zero ie it is assumed that no historical exposure has occurredfrom historic operations and emissions from hazardous waste combustion

Derived from soil loss equationsPlant assumed to operate for 25 years

Metal soil loss constant due to all processesTime period over which deposition occurs

Cs = Ds / ks(tD - T1) * [(tD + (exp( - ks * tD) / ks)) - (T1 + (exp( - ks * T1) / ks)]

Average soil concentration over exposure durationDeposition Term

ReferencesEquation 5-1 C (US EPA, 2005)Derived from Equation 5-11 (US EPA, 2005)

Description

Golder Associates

Cumulative Soil Metal Concentration (Non-Carginogenic - Child and Adult)

2 cm depth - no tillingMetals Ds (mg Metal/kg soil/yr) ks (yr-1) tD (yr) CstD (mg/kg)Antimony 5.63E-01 3.85E-01 2.50E+01 1.46E+00Cadmium 5.63E-02 2.31E-01 2.50E+01 2.43E-01Cobalt 5.63E-01 3.85E-01 2.50E+01 1.46E+00Copper 5.63E-01 4.94E-01 2.50E+01 1.14E+00Chromium (III) 2.81E-01 9.08E-01 2.50E+01 3.10E-01Chromium (VI) 2.84E-01 9.08E-01 2.50E+01 3.13E-01Lead 5.64E-01 1.93E-02 2.50E+01 1.12E+01Manganese 5.63E-01 2.67E-01 2.50E+01 2.11E+00Mercuric chloride 2.08E-02 2.99E-04 2.50E+01 5.18E-01Methyl mercury 4.25E-04 2.48E-03 2.50E+01 1.03E-02Nickel 5.63E-01 2.67E-01 2.50E+01 2.11E+00Thallium 5.63E-02 2.44E-01 2.50E+01 2.30E-01Vanadium 5.63E-01 1.74E-02 2.50E+01 1.14E+01

20 cm depth - tillingMetals Ds (mg Metal/kg soil/yr) ks (yr-1) tD (yr) CstD (mg/kg)Antimony 5.63E-02 3.85E-02 2.50E+01 9.04E-01Cadmium 5.63E-03 2.31E-02 2.50E+01 1.07E-01Cobalt 5.63E-02 3.85E-02 2.50E+01 9.04E-01Copper 5.63E-02 4.94E-02 2.50E+01 8.08E-01Chromium (III) 2.81E-02 9.08E-02 2.50E+01 2.78E-01Chromium (VI) 2.84E-02 9.08E-02 2.50E+01 2.81E-01Lead 5.64E-02 1.93E-03 2.50E+01 1.38E+00Manganese 5.63E-02 2.67E-02 2.50E+01 1.03E+00Mercuric chloride 2.08E-03 2.99E-05 2.50E+01 5.20E-02Methyl mercury 4.25E-05 2.48E-04 2.50E+01 1.06E-03Nickel 5.63E-02 2.67E-02 2.50E+01 1.03E+00Thallium 5.63E-03 2.44E-02 2.50E+01 1.05E-01Vanadium 5.63E-02 1.74E-03 2.50E+01 1.38E+00

CstD

DskstD


Equation 5-1 E (US EPA, 2005)Derived from Equation 5-11 (US EPA, 2005)Derived from soil loss equationsPlant assumed to operate for 25 years

Deposition Term

CstD = [Ds * (1 - exp( - ks * tD))] / ks

Soil concentration at time tDReferencesDescription

Golder Associates


Metals Ds (mg Metal/kg soil/yr) ks (yr-1) tD (yr) CstD T1 (yr) T2 (yr) Cs (mg/kg)

Arsenic 5.65E-01 5.96E-01 2.50E+01 9.47E-01 0.00E+00 4.90E+01 4.83E-01


Metals Ds (mg Metal/kg soil/yr) Ks (yr-1) tD (yr) CstD T1 (yr) T2 (yr) Cs (mg/kg)

Arsenic 5.65E-02 5.96E-02 2.50E+01 7.34E-01 0.00E+00 4.90E+01 4.23E-01

CsCstD

DskstDT1T2

Cumulative Soil Metal Concentration for Adult Receptor (Carcinogenic Contaminants via Oral Exposure Route)

Cs = ((Ds*tD - CstD) / ks + (CstD / ks)*(1 - (exp[ - ks (T2 - tD)]) / (T2-T1)

Average soil concentration over exposure duration

Deposition Term

References

Derived from Equation 5-11 (US EPA, 2005)Equation 5-1 E (US EPA, 2005)Equation 5-1 D (US EPA, 2005)

Soil concentration at time tD

Description

Plant assumed to operate for 25 yearsTime period at the beginning of combustion

Assumed to be 49 for adult


Assumed to be zeroLength of exposure duration

Derived from soil loss equations

Golder Associates

Metal and Metalloid Soil Loss Constant due to Biotic and Abiotic Degradation

Ksg (1/year)

Antimony 0Arsenic 0Cadmium 0

0Copper 0Chromium (III) 0Chromium (VI) 0

0Manganese 0Mercuric chloride 0Methyl mercury 0

0Thallium 0Vanadium 0

References

ksg Metal soil loss constant due to biotic and abiotic degradation. Assume zero as metals are transformed and not degraded. Equation A-2-13 (US EPA, 2005)

ksg = 0

Metals

Description

Nickel

Lead

Cobalt

Golder Associates

Metal and Metalloid Soil Loss Constant due to Surface Runoff

Assuming a soil mixing depth of 2 cm (untilled)RO

(cm/year)θsw


(cm)kds

(mL water/g soil)BD


(1/year)Antimony 6.5 0.2 2 4.50E+01 1.5 4.80E-02Arsenic 6.5 0.2 2 2.90E+01 1.5 7.44E-02Cadmium 6.5 0.2 2 7.50E+01 1.5 2.88E-02

6.5 0.2 2 4.50E+01 1.5 4.80E-02Copper 6.5 0.2 2 3.50E+01 1.5 6.17E-02Chromium (III) 6.5 0.2 2 1.90E+01 1.5 1.13E-01Chromium (VI) 6.5 0.2 2 1.90E+01 1.5 1.13E-01

6.5 0.2 2 9.00E+02 1.5 2.41E-03Manganese 6.5 0.2 2 6.50E+01 1.5 3.33E-02Mercuric chloride 6.5 0.2 2 5.80E+04 1.5 3.74E-05Methyl mercury 6.5 0.2 2 7.00E+03 1.5 3.10E-04

6.5 0.2 2 6.50E+01 1.5 3.33E-02Thallium 6.5 0.2 2 7.10E+01 1.5 3.05E-02Vanadium 6.5 0.2 2 1.00E+03 1.5 2.17E-03

ksr

RO

θswZskdsBD

Assuming a soil mixing depth of 20 cm (tilled)

RO (cm/year)

θsw


(cm)kds

(mL water/g soil)BD


(1/year)

Antimony 6.5 0.2 20 4.50E+01 1.5 4.80E-03Arsenic 6.5 0.2 20 2.90E+01 1.5 7.44E-03Cadmium 6.5 0.2 20 7.50E+01 1.5 2.88E-03

6.5 0.2 20 4.50E+01 1.5 4.80E-03Copper 6.5 0.2 20 3.50E+01 1.5 6.17E-03Chromium (III) 6.5 0.2 20 1.90E+01 1.5 1.13E-02Chromium (VI) 6.5 0.2 20 1.90E+01 1.5 1.13E-02

6.5 0.2 20 9.00E+02 1.5 2.41E-04Manganese 6.5 0.2 20 6.50E+01 1.5 3.33E-03Mercuric chloride 6.5 0.2 20 5.80E+04 1.5 3.74E-06Methyl mercury 6.5 0.2 20 7.00E+03 1.5 3.10E-05

6.5 0.2 20 6.50E+01 1.5 3.33E-03Thallium 6.5 0.2 20 7.10E+01 1.5 3.05E-03Vanadium 6.5 0.2 20 1.00E+03 1.5 2.17E-04

ksr

RO

θswZskdsBD

Metal soil loss constant due to surface runoff Equation 5-4 (US EPA, 2005)

Average annual surface runoff from pervious areas Based on data from websites: High Flow (Environment Agency) andNational Rivers Flow Archive (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology)


Lead

Soil mixing zone depth (2cm - untilled) US EPA, 2005Soil/water partition coefficient US EPA, 2005 (Database); Co, Cu, Mn and V from ornl1

1 Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ornl), Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Baes et al., 'A Review and Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Envrionmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture', 1984

Metals


Nickel

Cobalt

Lead

Nickel

Soil bulk density US EPA, 2005

Cobalt

Average annual surface runoff from pervious areas Based on data from websites: High Flow (Environment Agency) andNational Rivers Flow Archive (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology)

Soil volumetric water content US EPA, 2005

ksr = [RO / (θsw x Zs)] x [1 / (1 + (kds x BD / θsw))]

Description ReferencesMetal soil loss constant due to surface runoff Equation 5-4 (US EPA, 2005)

Metals

Soil bulk density US EPA, 2005

US EPA, 2005Soil mixing zone depth (20cm - tilled) US EPA, 2005Soil/water partition coefficient US EPA, 2005 (Database); Co, Cu, Mn and V from ornl1

Golder Associates

Metal and Metalloid Soil Loss Constant due to Leaching

Assuming a soil mixing depth of 2 cm (untilled)P

(cm/year)I

(cm/year)RO

(cm/year)Ev

(cm/year)θsw


(cm)BD

(g soil/cm³ soil)kds


(1/year)Antimony 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 4.50E+01 3.37E-01Arsenic 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 2.90E+01 5.22E-01Cadmium 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 7.50E+01 2.02E-01

56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 4.50E+01 3.37E-01Copper 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 3.50E+01 4.33E-01Chromium (III) 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 1.90E+01 7.94E-01Chromium (VI) 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 1.90E+01 7.94E-01

56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 9.00E+02 1.69E-02Manganese 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 6.50E+01 2.33E-01Mercuric chloride 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 5.80E+04 2.62E-04Methyl mercury 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 7.00E+03 2.17E-03

56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 6.50E+01 2.33E-01Thallium 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 7.10E+01 2.14E-01Vanadium 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 2 1.5 1.00E+03 1.52E-02

kslPI

RO

Evθsw

ZsBDkds

Assuming a soil mixing depth of 20 cm (tilled)

P (cm/year)

I (cm/year)

RO (cm/year)

Ev (cm/year)

θsw


(cm)BD



(1/year)

Antimony 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 4.50E+01 3.37E-02Arsenic 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 2.90E+01 5.22E-02Cadmium 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 7.50E+01 2.02E-02

56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 4.50E+01 3.37E-02Copper 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 3.50E+01 4.33E-02Chromium (III) 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 1.90E+01 7.94E-02Chromium (VI) 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 1.90E+01 7.94E-02

56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 9.00E+02 1.69E-03Manganese 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 6.50E+01 2.33E-02Mercuric chloride 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 5.80E+04 2.62E-05Methyl mercury 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 7.00E+03 2.17E-04

56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 6.50E+01 2.33E-02Thallium 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 7.10E+01 2.14E-02Vanadium 56.6 0 6.5 4.5 0.2 20 1.5 1.00E+03 1.52E-03

kslPI

RO

Evθsw

ZsBDkds

1 Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ornl), Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Baes et al., 'A Review and Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Envrionmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture', 1984


Assumed conservatively to be zero

Average annual surface runoff from pervious areas Based on data from websites: High Flow (Environment Agency) and National Rivers Flow Archive (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology)

Soil / water partition coefficientUS EPA, 2005


US EPA, 2005 (Database); Co, Cu, Mn and V from ornl1

Lead

Nickel

Metals

Average annual precipitation Flood Estimation Handbook CD-ROM V2 (based on Site Grid Reference)Average annual irrigation

Soil bulk density

US EPA, 2005Soil mixing zone depth (2cm - untilled) US EPA, 2005

ksl = (P + I - RO - Ev) / {θsw x Zs x [1 + ( BD x kds / θsw)]}

Description ReferencesMetal soil loss constant due to leaching Equation 5-5A (US EPA, 2005)

Cobalt

Metals

Description ReferencesMetal soil loss constant due to leaching Equation 5-5A (US EPA, 2005)

Cobalt

Lead

Nickel

Average annual surface runoff from pervious areas Based on data from websites: High Flow (Environment Agency) and National Rivers Flow Archive (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology)


Average annual precipitation Flood Estimation Handbook CD-ROM V2 (based on Site Grid Reference)Average annual irrigation Assumed conservatively to be zero

Soil bulk density US EPA, 2005Soil / water partition coefficient US EPA, 2005 (Database); Co, Cu, Mn and V from ornl1


Golder Associates

Metal and Metalloid Soil Loss Constant

Assuming a soil mixing depth of 2 cm (untilled)ksg

(1/year)kse

(1/year)ksr

(1/year)ksl

(1/year)ksv

(1/year)ks

(1/year)Antimony 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.80E-02 3.37E-01 0.00E+00 3.85E-01Arsenic 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.44E-02 5.22E-01 0.00E+00 5.96E-01Cadmium 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.88E-02 2.02E-01 0.00E+00 2.31E-01

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.80E-02 3.37E-01 0.00E+00 3.85E-01Copper 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.17E-02 4.33E-01 0.00E+00 4.94E-01Chromium (III) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.13E-01 7.94E-01 0.00E+00 9.08E-01Chromium (VI) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.13E-01 7.94E-01 0.00E+00 9.08E-01

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.41E-03 1.69E-02 0.00E+00 1.93E-02Manganese 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.33E-02 2.33E-01 0.00E+00 2.67E-01Mercuric chloride 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.74E-05 2.62E-04 0.00E+00 2.99E-04Methyl mercury 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.10E-04 2.17E-03 0.00E+00 2.48E-03

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.33E-02 2.33E-01 0.00E+00 2.67E-01Thallium 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.05E-02 2.14E-01 0.00E+00 2.44E-01Vanadium 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.17E-03 1.52E-02 0.00E+00 1.74E-02

Assuming a soil mixing depth of 20 cm (tilled)ksg

(1/year)kse

(1/year)ksr

(1/year)ksl

(1/year)ksv

(1/year)ks

(1/year)Antimony 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.80E-03 3.37E-02 0.00E+00 3.85E-02Arsenic 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.44E-03 5.22E-02 0.00E+00 5.96E-02Cadmium 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.88E-03 2.02E-02 0.00E+00 2.31E-02

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.80E-03 3.37E-02 0.00E+00 3.85E-02Copper 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.17E-03 4.33E-02 0.00E+00 4.94E-02Chromium (III) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.13E-02 7.94E-02 0.00E+00 9.08E-02Chromium (VI) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.13E-02 7.94E-02 0.00E+00 9.08E-02

Cobalt

ks = ksg + kse + ksr + ksl + ksv

Cobalt

Lead

Nickel

Metals

Metals

Golder Associates

( )0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.41E-04 1.69E-03 0.00E+00 1.93E-03

Manganese 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.33E-03 2.33E-02 0.00E+00 2.67E-02Mercuric chloride 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.74E-06 2.62E-05 0.00E+00 2.99E-05Methyl mercury 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.10E-05 2.17E-04 0.00E+00 2.48E-04

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.33E-03 2.33E-02 0.00E+00 2.67E-02Thallium 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.05E-03 2.14E-02 0.00E+00 2.44E-02Vanadium 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.17E-04 1.52E-03 0.00E+00 1.74E-03

ksksgkseksrkslksv

Metal soil loss constant due to soil erosion Assumed to be zero (US EPA, 2005)

Lead

Nickel

Metal soil loss constant due to surface runoff

Description ReferencesMetal soil loss constant due to all process

Metal soil loss constant due to leaching EstimatedMetal soil loss constant due to volatilization Assumed to be zero (metals have low volatility)

Equation 5-2A (US EPA, 2005)

Estimated

Metal soil loss constant due to biotic and abiotic degradation Assumed to be zero (US EPA, 2005)

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan Congeners - Aboveground produce concentration due to direct deposition

1,000 (mg/g)

Q (g/s)

Fv(unitless)

Dydp (g/m²-yr)

Fw(unitless)

Dywp (g/m²-yr)

Rp(unitless)

kp (1/year)

Tp (year)

Yp (kgDW/m²)

Pd (mg/kgDW)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1.00E+03 2.33E-08 3.00E-03 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 4.78E-081,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1.00E+03 6.01E-08 1.00E-02 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.22E-071,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1.00E+03 5.87E-09 5.70E-02 1.51E-03 6.00E-01 1.93E-01 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 5.96E-091,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1.00E+03 3.93E-09 2.40E-02 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 7.88E-091,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1.00E+03 2.98E-08 4.90E-02 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 5.83E-081,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1.00E+03 3.53E-09 2.90E-02 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 7.05E-091,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.00E+03 1.10E-08 5.20E-02 1.51E-03 6.00E-01 1.93E-01 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.13E-081,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1.00E+03 2.80E-09 1.60E-02 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 5.68E-091,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 1.00E+03 5.75E-10 9.00E-02 1.51E-03 6.00E-01 1.93E-01 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 5.63E-101,2,3,7,8-PCDD 1.00E+03 3.35E-09 1.17E-01 1.51E-03 6.00E-01 1.93E-01 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 3.19E-091,2,3,7,8-PCDF 1.00E+03 3.79E-09 2.68E-01 1.51E-03 6.00E-01 1.93E-01 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 2.99E-092,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.00E+03 1.19E-08 5.50E-02 1.51E-03 6.00E-01 1.93E-01 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.21E-082,3,4,7,8-PCDF 1.00E+03 7.32E-09 2.21E-01 1.51E-03 6.00E-01 1.93E-01 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 6.14E-092,3,7,8-TCDD 1.00E+03 4.24E-10 6.64E-01 1.51E-03 6.00E-01 1.93E-01 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.53E-102,3,7,8-TCDF 1.00E+03 3.69E-09 7.70E-01 1.51E-03 6.00E-01 1.93E-01 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 9.15E-10OCDD 1.00E+03 5.53E-08 2.00E-03 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.14E-07OCDF 1.00E+03 4.88E-08 2.00E-03 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.00E-07

Pd1,000QFvDydp

Fw

DywpRpkpTpYp

Pd = {1,000 x Q x (1 - Fv) x [Dydp + (Fw x Dywp)] x Rp x [1.0 - exp(-kp x Tp)]} / (Yp x kp)

Congeners


Congener emission rate Congener specific values from air dispersion modellingFraction of congener air concentration in vapour phase US EPA, 2005 (Database)

Plant (aboveground produce) concentration due to direct (wet and dry) deposition Equation 5-14 (US EPA, 2005)Units conversion factor US EPA, 2005

Unitized yearly wet deposition from particle phase Maximum values from air dispersion modellingInterception fraction of the edible portion of plant US EPA, 2005 (Table B-2-7)

Unitized yearly average dry deposition from particle phase Maximum values from air dispersion modellingFraction of congener wet deposition that adheres to plant surfaces (0.2 for anions, 0.6 for cations & most organics) US EPA, 2005 (Table B-2-7)

Yield or standing crop biomass of edible portion of the plant (productivity) US EPA, 2005 (Table B-2-7)

Plant surface loss coefficient US EPA, 2005 (Table B-2-7)Length of plant exposure to deposition per harvest of edible portion of the i th plant group US EPA, 2005 (Table B-2-7)

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan Congeners - Aboveground produce concentration due to air-to-plant transfer

Q(g/s)

Fv(unitless)

Cyv(ug-s/g-m³)

Bvag

(unitless)VGag

(unitless)ρa

(g/m³)Pv (ug/gDW)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2.33E-08 3.00E-03 1.52E-01 9.10E+05 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 8.06E-111,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 6.01E-08 1.00E-02 1.52E-01 8.30E+05 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 6.32E-101,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 5.87E-09 5.70E-02 1.52E-01 8.30E+05 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 3.52E-101,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 3.93E-09 2.40E-02 1.52E-01 5.20E+05 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 6.21E-111,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 2.98E-08 4.90E-02 1.52E-01 1.62E+05 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 3.00E-101,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 3.53E-09 2.90E-02 1.52E-01 5.20E+05 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 6.74E-111,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.10E-08 5.20E-02 1.52E-01 1.62E+05 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 1.18E-101,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 2.80E-09 1.60E-02 1.52E-01 5.20E+05 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 2.96E-111,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 5.75E-10 9.00E-02 1.52E-01 1.62E+05 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 1.06E-111,2,3,7,8-PCDD 3.35E-09 1.17E-01 1.52E-01 2.39E+05 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 1.19E-101,2,3,7,8-PCDF 3.79E-09 2.68E-01 1.52E-01 9.75E+04 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 1.25E-102,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.19E-08 5.50E-02 1.52E-01 1.62E+05 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 1.34E-102,3,4,7,8-PCDF 7.32E-09 2.21E-01 1.52E-01 9.75E+04 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 2.00E-102,3,7,8-TCDD 4.24E-10 6.64E-01 1.52E-01 6.55E+04 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 2.34E-112,3,7,8-TCDF 3.69E-09 7.70E-01 1.52E-01 4.57E+04 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 1.65E-10OCDD 5.53E-08 2.00E-03 1.52E-01 2.36E+06 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 3.31E-10OCDF 4.88E-08 2.00E-03 1.52E-01 2.28E+06 1.00E-02 1.20E+03 2.82E-10

PvQFv

CyvBvag

VGag

ρa

US EPA, 2005 (Database)


Congeners

Congener emission rate Congener specific values from air dispersion modellingFraction of congener air concentration in vapour phaseUnitized yearly average air concentration in vapour phase Maximum values from air dispersion modelling

Density of air US EPA, 2005 (Table B-2-8)Empirical correction factor for aboveground produce US EPA, 2005 (Table B-2-8; congener: Kow>4)

Pv = Q x Fv x (Cyv x Bvag x VGag) / ρa

Description ReferencesConcentration of congener in the plant resulting from air-to-plant transfer Equation 5-18 (US EPA, 2005)

congener air-to-plant biotransfer factor

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan Congeners - Produce concentration due to root uptake

Exposed and protected aboveground produce:

Grain

Cs (mg/kgsoil) BrgrainPr

(mg/kg)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 3.48E-06 9.20E-04 3.20E-091,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 8.90E-06 2.05E-03 1.83E-081,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 6.47E-07 2.05E-03 1.33E-091,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 5.74E-07 1.20E-03 6.88E-101,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 4.23E-06 3.48E-03 1.47E-081,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 5.12E-07 2.34E-03 1.20E-091,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.22E-06 3.48E-03 4.25E-091,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 4.13E-07 2.34E-03 9.66E-101,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 6.10E-08 3.48E-03 2.12E-101,2,3,7,8-PCDD 3.44E-07 5.62E-03 1.93E-091,2,3,7,8-PCDF 3.23E-07 4.61E-03 1.49E-092,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.31E-06 3.48E-03 4.58E-092,3,4,7,8-PCDF 6.61E-07 6.78E-03 4.48E-092,3,7,8-TCDD 1.66E-08 4.55E-03 7.56E-112,3,7,8-TCDF 9.71E-08 1.15E-02 1.12E-09

8.26E-06 7.05E-04 5.83E-097.29E-06 9.20E-04 6.71E-09

Above Ground Produce

Cs (mg/kgsoil) BragPr

(mg/kg)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 3.48E-06 9.20E-04 3.20E-091,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 8.90E-06 2.05E-03 1.83E-081,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 6.47E-07 2.05E-03 1.33E-091,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 5.74E-07 1.20E-03 6.88E-101,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 4.23E-06 3.48E-03 1.47E-081,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 5.12E-07 2.34E-03 1.20E-091,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.22E-06 3.48E-03 4.25E-091,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 4.13E-07 2.34E-03 9.66E-101,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 6.10E-08 3.48E-03 2.12E-101,2,3,7,8-PCDD 3.44E-07 5.62E-03 1.93E-091,2,3,7,8-PCDF 3.23E-07 4.61E-03 1.49E-092,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.31E-06 3.48E-03 4.58E-092,3,4,7,8-PCDF 6.61E-07 6.78E-03 4.48E-092,3,7,8-TCDD 1.66E-08 4.55E-03 7.56E-112,3,7,8-TCDF 9.71E-08 1.15E-02 1.12E-09

8.26E-06 7.05E-04 5.83E-097.29E-06 9.20E-04 6.71E-09

ReferencesPr Equation 5-20 A (US EPA, 2005)

Cs Untilled value of Cs used for conservatism

Br US EPA, 2005 (Database)

OCDD

Pr = Cs x Br

Congeners

Average soil concentration over exposure duration

OCDFOCDD

Plant-soil bioconcentration factor for produce

Concentration of congener in produce due to root uptakeDescription

Congeners

OCDF

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan Congeners - Produce concentration due to root uptake

Belowground produce:

Cs (mg/kgsoil) RCF VGrootvegkds

(L/kg)Prbg

(mg/kg)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 3.48E-06 3.36E+05 1.00E-02 6.17E+05 1.89E-081,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 8.90E-06 1.16E+05 1.00E-02 1.55E+05 6.66E-081,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 6.47E-07 1.16E+05 1.00E-02 1.55E+05 4.84E-091,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 5.74E-07 2.36E+05 1.00E-02 3.89E+05 3.47E-091,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 4.23E-06 5.70E+04 1.00E-02 6.17E+04 3.91E-081,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 5.12E-07 9.71E+04 1.00E-02 1.23E+05 4.04E-091,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.22E-06 5.70E+04 1.00E-02 6.17E+04 1.13E-081,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 4.13E-07 9.71E+04 1.00E-02 1.23E+05 3.26E-091,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 6.10E-08 5.70E+04 1.00E-02 6.17E+04 5.65E-101,2,3,7,8-PCDD 3.44E-07 3.01E+04 1.00E-02 2.69E+04 3.85E-091,2,3,7,8-PCDF 3.23E-07 3.93E+04 1.00E-02 3.80E+04 3.34E-092,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.31E-06 5.70E+04 1.00E-02 6.17E+04 1.22E-082,3,4,7,8-PCDF 6.61E-07 2.35E+04 1.00E-02 1.95E+04 7.97E-092,3,7,8-TCDD 1.66E-08 4.00E+04 1.00E-02 3.89E+04 1.71E-102,3,7,8-TCDF 9.71E-08 1.16E+04 1.00E-02 7.76E+03 1.45E-09OCDD 8.26E-06 4.79E+05 1.00E-02 9.77E+05 4.05E-08OCDF 7.29E-06 4.79E+05 1.00E-02 6.17E+05 5.66E-08

Prbg

CsRCFVGrootveg

kds

Prbg = (Cs x RCF x VGrootveg) / (kds x 1 kg/L)

Congeners

Average soil concentration over exposure duration Untilled value of Cs used for conservatism

Description ReferencesConcentration of congener in produce due to root uptake Equation 5-20B (US EPA, 2005)

Soil / water partition coefficient US EPA, 2005 (Database)

Root concentration factor US EPA, 2005 (Database)Empirical correction factor for below ground produce US EPA, 2005 (Table B-2-10; congener: Kow>4)

Golder Associates

Pr - grain (mg/kg DW)

Pi (mg/kg DW)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 3.20E-09 3.20E-091,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1.83E-08 1.83E-081,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1.33E-09 1.33E-091,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 6.88E-10 6.88E-101,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1.47E-08 1.47E-081,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1.20E-09 1.20E-091,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 4.25E-09 4.25E-091,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 9.66E-10 9.66E-101,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2.12E-10 2.12E-101,2,3,7,8-PCDD 1.93E-09 1.93E-091,2,3,7,8-PCDF 1.49E-09 1.49E-092,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 4.58E-09 4.58E-092,3,4,7,8-PCDF 4.48E-09 4.48E-092,3,7,8-TCDD 7.56E-11 7.56E-112,3,7,8-TCDF 1.12E-09 1.12E-09OCDD 5.83E-09 5.83E-09OCDF 6.71E-09 6.71E-09

References

Pi Equation 5-27 (US EPA, 2005)

Pr Estimated

Dioxin and Furan Congeners - Concentration of Congener in Plant Type i Eaten by the animal (chicken)

Pi = Σ (Pr)

Plant (grain) concentration due to root uptake

Description

Congeners

Concentration of congener in each plant type i eaten by the animal (grain is eaten by chickens)

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan Congeners - Concentration of Congener in Chicken

Fi Qpi (KgDW plant/day)

Pi (mg/kg DW)

Qs (kg/day)

Cs (mg/kg soil) Bs Bachicken

(day/kg FW tissue) Achicken

(mg/kg tissue) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 3.20E-09 2.20E-02 3.48E-06 1.00E+00 6.50E-03 5.02E-101,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.83E-08 2.20E-02 8.90E-06 1.00E+00 1.20E-02 2.39E-091,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.33E-09 2.20E-02 6.47E-07 1.00E+00 1.20E-02 1.74E-101,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 6.88E-10 2.20E-02 5.74E-07 1.00E+00 8.10E-03 1.03E-101,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.47E-08 2.20E-02 4.23E-06 1.00E+00 1.70E-02 1.63E-091,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.20E-09 2.20E-02 5.12E-07 1.00E+00 1.30E-02 1.50E-101,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 4.25E-09 2.20E-02 1.22E-06 1.00E+00 1.70E-02 4.71E-101,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 9.66E-10 2.20E-02 4.13E-07 1.00E+00 1.30E-02 1.21E-101,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 2.12E-10 2.20E-02 6.10E-08 1.00E+00 1.70E-02 2.36E-111,2,3,7,8-PCDD 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.93E-09 2.20E-02 3.44E-07 1.00E+00 2.10E-02 1.67E-101,2,3,7,8-PCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.49E-09 2.20E-02 3.23E-07 1.00E+00 1.90E-02 1.41E-102,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 4.58E-09 2.20E-02 1.31E-06 1.00E+00 1.70E-02 5.07E-102,3,4,7,8-PCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 4.48E-09 2.20E-02 6.61E-07 1.00E+00 2.30E-02 3.55E-102,3,7,8-TCDD 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 7.56E-11 2.20E-02 1.66E-08 1.00E+00 1.90E-02 7.23E-122,3,7,8-TCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.12E-09 2.20E-02 9.71E-08 1.00E+00 2.70E-02 6.37E-11OCDD 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 5.83E-09 2.20E-02 8.26E-06 1.00E+00 5.10E-03 9.33E-10OCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 6.71E-09 2.20E-02 7.29E-06 1.00E+00 6.50E-03 1.05E-09

Achicken

FiQpiPiQsCsBsBachicken

Quantity of soil eaten by the animal (chicken) each day US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-14; chicken)

Congener biotransfer factor for chicken US EPA, 2005 (Database)

Average soil concentration over exposure duration Untilled value of Cs used for conservatismSoil bioavailability factor US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-14)

Fraction of plant type i (grain) grown on contaminated soil and ingested by the animal (chicken) US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-14). Conservatively set at maximum Quantity of plant type i (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) per day US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-14; chicken)Concentration of congener in each plant type i (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) US EPA, 2005

Achicken = [Σ (Fi x Qpi x Pi) + (Qs x Cs x Bs)] x Bachicken

Congeners

Description ReferencesConcentration of congener in chicken Equation 5-26 (US EPA, 2005)

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan Congeners - Concentration of Congener in Egg

Fi Qpi (KgDW plant/day)

Pi (mg/kg DW)

Qs (kg/day)

Cs (mg/kg soil) Bs Baegg (day/kg

FW tissue) Aegg

(mg/kg tissue) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 3.20E-09 2.20E-02 3.48E-06 1.00E+00 3.70E-03 2.86E-101,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.83E-08 2.20E-02 8.90E-06 1.00E+00 6.90E-03 1.38E-091,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.33E-09 2.20E-02 6.47E-07 1.00E+00 6.90E-03 1.00E-101,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 6.88E-10 2.20E-02 5.74E-07 1.00E+00 4.60E-03 5.87E-111,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.47E-08 2.20E-02 4.23E-06 1.00E+00 9.60E-03 9.22E-101,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.20E-09 2.20E-02 5.12E-07 1.00E+00 7.60E-03 8.75E-111,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 4.25E-09 2.20E-02 1.22E-06 1.00E+00 9.60E-03 2.66E-101,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 9.66E-10 2.20E-02 4.13E-07 1.00E+00 7.60E-03 7.05E-111,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 2.12E-10 2.20E-02 6.10E-08 1.00E+00 9.60E-03 1.33E-111,2,3,7,8-PCDD 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.93E-09 2.20E-02 3.44E-07 1.00E+00 1.20E-02 9.55E-111,2,3,7,8-PCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.49E-09 2.20E-02 3.23E-07 1.00E+00 1.10E-02 8.15E-112,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 4.58E-09 2.20E-02 1.31E-06 1.00E+00 9.60E-03 2.86E-102,3,4,7,8-PCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 4.48E-09 2.20E-02 6.61E-07 1.00E+00 1.30E-02 2.01E-102,3,7,8-TCDD 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 7.56E-11 2.20E-02 1.66E-08 1.00E+00 1.10E-02 4.19E-122,3,7,8-TCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.12E-09 2.20E-02 9.71E-08 1.00E+00 1.50E-02 3.54E-11OCDD 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 5.83E-09 2.20E-02 8.26E-06 1.00E+00 2.90E-03 5.31E-10OCDF 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 6.71E-09 2.20E-02 7.29E-06 1.00E+00 3.70E-03 5.98E-10

Aegg

FiQpiPiQsCsBsBaegg

Quantity of soil eaten by the animal (chicken) each day US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-13; chicken)

congener biotransfer factor for eggs US EPA, 2005 (Database)


Fraction of plant type i (grain) grown on contaminated soil and ingested by the animal (chicken) US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-14). Conservatively set at maximum of 1.Quantity of plant type i (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) per day US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-13)Concentration of congener in each plant type i (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) US EPA, 2005

Aegg = [Σ (Fi x Qpi x Pi) + (Qs x Cs x Bs)] x Baegg

Congeners

Description ReferencesConcentration of congener in eggs Equation 5-26 (US EPA, 2005)

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan CongenersReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Incidental ingestion of soil

CongenersCs

(mg/kg)CRsoil

(kg/day)Fsoil

(unitless)BW(kg)

Isoil (mg/kg-day)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 3.48E-06 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 2.62E-111,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 8.90E-06 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 6.69E-111,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 6.47E-07 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 4.87E-121,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 5.74E-07 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 4.31E-121,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 4.23E-06 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 3.18E-111,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 5.12E-07 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 3.85E-121,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.22E-06 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 9.19E-121,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 4.13E-07 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 3.10E-121,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 6.10E-08 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 4.59E-131,2,3,7,8-PCDD 3.44E-07 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 2.59E-121,2,3,7,8-PCDF 3.23E-07 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 2.43E-122,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.31E-06 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 9.89E-122,3,4,7,8-PCDF 6.61E-07 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 4.97E-122,3,7,8-TCDD 1.66E-08 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 1.25E-132,3,7,8-TCDF 9.71E-08 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 7.30E-13OCDD 8.26E-06 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 6.21E-11OCDF 7.29E-06 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 5.48E-11

Isoil

Cs

CRsoil

Fsoil

BW

Isoil = (Cs x CRsoil x Fsoil) /BW

Description ReferencesDaily intake of congener from soil Table C-1-1 (US EPA, 2005)

Average soil concentration over exposure durationUntilled value of Cs used forconservatismEA Report SR3, 2009. 0-6 yr old (child)Consumption rate of soilUS EPA, 2005. Conservativelyassumed to be the maximum of 1

Fraction of soil that is contaminated

Body weight EA Report SR3, 2009. 0-6 yr old (child)

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan CongenersReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Ingestion of homegrown produce

Congeners Pd (mg/kg)

Pv (mg/kg)

Prag

(mg/kg)CRag

(kg/kg-dayDW)CRpp

(kg/kg-dayDW)Prbg

(mg/kg)CRbg

(kg/kg-dayDW)Fag

(unitless)Iag

(mg/kg-dayDW)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 4.78E-08 8.06E-11 3.20E-09 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 1.89E-08 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 6.81E-111,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1.22E-07 6.32E-10 1.83E-08 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 6.66E-08 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 2.07E-101,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 5.96E-09 3.52E-10 1.33E-09 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 4.84E-09 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 1.21E-111,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 7.88E-09 6.21E-11 6.88E-10 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 3.47E-09 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 1.18E-111,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 5.83E-08 3.00E-10 1.47E-08 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 3.91E-08 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 1.17E-101,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 7.05E-09 6.74E-11 1.20E-09 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 4.04E-09 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 1.24E-111,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.13E-08 1.18E-10 4.25E-09 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 1.13E-08 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 2.75E-111,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 5.68E-09 2.96E-11 9.66E-10 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 3.26E-09 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 9.97E-121,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 5.63E-10 1.06E-11 2.12E-10 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 5.65E-10 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 1.38E-121,2,3,7,8-PCDD 3.19E-09 1.19E-10 1.93E-09 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 3.85E-09 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 1.00E-111,2,3,7,8-PCDF 2.99E-09 1.25E-10 1.49E-09 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 3.34E-09 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 8.48E-122,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.21E-08 1.34E-10 4.58E-09 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 1.22E-08 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 2.96E-112,3,4,7,8-PCDF 6.14E-09 2.00E-10 4.48E-09 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 7.97E-09 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 2.15E-112,3,7,8-TCDD 1.53E-10 2.34E-11 7.56E-11 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 1.71E-10 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 4.52E-132,3,7,8-TCDF 9.15E-10 1.65E-10 1.12E-09 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 1.45E-09 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 4.64E-12OCDD 1.14E-07 3.31E-10 5.83E-09 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 4.05E-08 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 1.56E-10OCDF 1.00E-07 2.82E-10 6.71E-09 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 5.66E-08 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 1.47E-10

Iag

Pd

PvPrCRag

CRpp

Prbg

CRbg

Fbg Fraction of produce that is contaminated

Calculated using equation in Table B-2-10 (US EPA, 2005)US EPA, 2005US EPA, 2005. Conservatively assumed to be the maximum of 1

Belowground produce concentration due to root uptakeConsumption rate of belowground produce

Consumption rate of aboveground produceUS EPA, 2005

Aboveground exposed produce concentration due to air-to-plant transferAboveground exposed and protected produce concentration due to root uptake

Consumption rate of protected aboveground produce

Calculated using equation in Table B-2-8 (US EPA, 2005)Calculated using equation in Table B-2-9 (US EPA, 2005)US EPA, 2005

Aboveground exposed produce concentration due to direct (wet and dry) deposition onto plant surfaces Calculated using equation in Table B-2-7 (US EPA, 2005)

Iag = [((Pd + Pv +Prag) x CRag) + (Prag x CRpp) + (Prbg x CRbg)] x Fag

ReferencesTable C-1-2 (US EPA, 2005)

DescriptionDaily intake of congener from produce

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan CongenersReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Ingestion of homegrown chickens

Congeners Achicken

(mg/kg FW)CRchicken

(kg/kg-day FW)Fchicken (kg) Ichicken (mg/kg-

day)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 5.02E-10 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 2.26E-131,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 2.39E-09 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 1.08E-121,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1.74E-10 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 7.83E-141,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1.03E-10 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 4.65E-141,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1.63E-09 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 7.35E-131,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1.50E-10 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 6.74E-141,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 4.71E-10 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 2.12E-131,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1.21E-10 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 5.42E-141,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2.36E-11 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 1.06E-141,2,3,7,8-PCDD 1.67E-10 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 7.52E-141,2,3,7,8-PCDF 1.41E-10 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 6.34E-142,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 5.07E-10 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 2.28E-132,3,4,7,8-PCDF 3.55E-10 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 1.60E-132,3,7,8-TCDD 7.23E-12 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 3.25E-152,3,7,8-TCDF 6.37E-11 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 2.87E-14OCDD 9.33E-10 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 4.20E-13OCDF 1.05E-09 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 4.73E-13

Ichicken

Achicken

CRchicken

Fchicken

Table C-1-3 (US EPA, 2005)Estimated using Equation 5-26 (US EPA, 2005)US EPA, 2005US EPA, 2005. Conservatively assumed to be the maximum of 1

Ichicken = Achicken x CRchicken x Fchicken

Consumption rate of chickenFraction of chicken that is contaminated

DescriptionDaily intake of congener from chickenConcentration of congener in chicken

References

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan CongenersReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Ingestion of eggs from homegrown chickens

Congeners Aeggs

(mg/kg FW)CReggs

(kg/kg-day FW)Feggs (kg) Ieggs (mg/kg-

day)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2.86E-10 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 1.54E-131,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1.38E-09 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 7.43E-131,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1.00E-10 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 5.41E-141,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 5.87E-11 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 3.17E-141,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 9.22E-10 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 4.98E-131,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 8.75E-11 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 4.73E-141,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 2.66E-10 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 1.44E-131,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 7.05E-11 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 3.80E-141,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 1.33E-11 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 7.18E-151,2,3,7,8-PCDD 9.55E-11 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 5.16E-141,2,3,7,8-PCDF 8.15E-11 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 4.40E-142,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 2.86E-10 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 1.55E-132,3,4,7,8-PCDF 2.01E-10 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 1.08E-132,3,7,8-TCDD 4.19E-12 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 2.26E-152,3,7,8-TCDF 3.54E-11 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 1.91E-14OCDD 5.31E-10 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 2.87E-13OCDF 5.98E-10 5.40E-04 1.00E+00 3.23E-13

Ieggs

Aeggs

CReggs

Feggs

Table C-1-3 (US EPA, 2005)Estimated using Equation 5-26 (US EPA, 2005)US EPA, 2005US EPA, 2005. Conservatively assumed to be the maximum of 1

Ieggs = Aeggs x CReggs x Feggs

Consumption rate of eggsFraction of eggs that is contaminated

DescriptionDaily intake of congener from eggsConcentration of congener in eggs

References

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan CongenersTotal Daily IntakeReceptor: Child

CongenersIsoil

(mg/kg-day)Iag

(mg/kg-day)Ichicken

(mg/kg-day)Ieggs

(mg/kg-day)I

(mg/kg-day)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2.62E-11 6.81E-11 2.26E-13 1.54E-13 9.46E-111,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 6.69E-11 2.07E-10 1.08E-12 7.43E-13 2.76E-101,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 4.87E-12 1.21E-11 7.83E-14 5.41E-14 1.71E-111,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 4.31E-12 1.18E-11 4.65E-14 3.17E-14 1.62E-111,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 3.18E-11 1.17E-10 7.35E-13 4.98E-13 1.50E-101,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 3.85E-12 1.24E-11 6.74E-14 4.73E-14 1.64E-111,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 9.19E-12 2.75E-11 2.12E-13 1.44E-13 3.71E-111,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 3.10E-12 9.97E-12 5.42E-14 3.80E-14 1.32E-111,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 4.59E-13 1.38E-12 1.06E-14 7.18E-15 1.86E-121,2,3,7,8-PCDD 2.59E-12 1.00E-11 7.52E-14 5.16E-14 1.28E-111,2,3,7,8-PCDF 2.43E-12 8.48E-12 6.34E-14 4.40E-14 1.10E-112,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 9.89E-12 2.96E-11 2.28E-13 1.55E-13 3.99E-112,3,4,7,8-PCDF 4.97E-12 2.15E-11 1.60E-13 1.08E-13 2.67E-112,3,7,8-TCDD 1.25E-13 4.52E-13 3.25E-15 2.26E-15 5.82E-132,3,7,8-TCDF 7.30E-13 4.64E-12 2.87E-14 1.91E-14 5.42E-12OCDD 6.21E-11 1.56E-10 4.20E-13 2.87E-13 2.19E-10OCDF 5.48E-11 1.47E-10 4.73E-13 3.23E-13 2.03E-10

IIsoil

Iag

Ichicken

Ieggs

I = Isoil + Iag + Ichicken + Ieggs

Description ReferencesCongener specific total daily intakeTable C-1-6 (US EPA, 2005)

Daily intake from eggs Table C-1-3 (US EPA, 2005)Daily intake from chicken Table C-1-3 (US EPA, 2005)

Daily intake of from soil Table C-1-1 (US EPA, 2005)

Daily intake from aboveground produce Table C-1-2 (US EPA, 2005)

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan CongenersReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Inhalation of vapours and particulates

Congeners Q (g/s) Fv Cyv

(µg-s/g-m³)Cyp

(µg-s/g-m³)Ca

(µg/m³)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2.33E-08 3.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 3.12E-091,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 6.01E-08 1.00E-02 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 8.07E-091,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 5.87E-09 5.70E-02 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 8.64E-101,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 3.93E-09 2.40E-02 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 5.28E-101,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 2.98E-08 4.90E-02 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 4.02E-091,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 3.53E-09 2.90E-02 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 4.75E-101,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.10E-08 5.20E-02 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 1.63E-091,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 2.80E-09 1.60E-02 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 3.77E-101,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 5.75E-10 9.00E-02 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 8.47E-111,2,3,7,8-PCDD 3.35E-09 1.17E-01 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 4.95E-101,2,3,7,8-PCDF 3.79E-09 2.68E-01 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 5.62E-102,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.19E-08 5.50E-02 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 1.75E-092,3,4,7,8-PCDF 7.32E-09 2.21E-01 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 1.08E-092,3,7,8-TCDD 4.24E-10 6.64E-01 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 6.37E-112,3,7,8-TCDF 3.69E-09 7.70E-01 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 5.57E-10OCDD 5.53E-08 2.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 7.41E-09OCDF 4.88E-08 2.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 6.54E-09

Ca = Q x [(Fv x Cyv) + (1.0 - Fv) x Cyp]

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan CongenersReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Inhalation of vapours and particulates

Congeners Ca (µg/m³)

IR (m³/hr)

ET (hrs/day)

EF (days/yr)

ED (years)

0.001 (mg/µg)

BW (kg)

AT (year)

365 (days/yr)

ADI (mg/kg-day)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 3.12E-09 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.39E-131,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 8.07E-09 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.65E-121,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 8.64E-10 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.77E-131,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 5.28E-10 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.08E-131,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 4.02E-09 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 8.22E-131,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 4.75E-10 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 9.71E-141,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.63E-09 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 3.32E-131,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 3.77E-10 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 7.70E-141,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 8.47E-11 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.73E-141,2,3,7,8-PCDD 4.95E-10 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.01E-131,2,3,7,8-PCDF 5.62E-10 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.15E-132,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.75E-09 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 3.59E-132,3,4,7,8-PCDF 1.08E-09 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 2.22E-132,3,7,8-TCDD 6.37E-11 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.30E-142,3,7,8-TCDF 5.57E-10 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.14E-13OCDD 7.41E-09 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.52E-12OCDF 6.54E-09 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.34E-12

CaQFvCyvCypADIIRETEFED0.001BWAT365

Exposure frequency Conservatively assumed 365 days per year

Fraction of congener air concentration in vapor phase

Total congener air concentration Table B-5-1 (US EPA, 2005)


Units conversion factor US EPA, 2005

Inhalation rate EA, SR3, 2009 (child)Exposure time Conservatively assumed 8 hours outside per day

EA Report SR3, 2009 (0-6 yr child)

Average body weight Table 4.6, EA Report SR3, 2009 (0-6 yr child)

ADI = (Ca x IR x ET x EF x ED x 0.001) / (BW x AT x 365)


Average daily congener intake via inhalation Table C-3-1 (US EPA, 2005)

congener - specific emission rate Derived as part of air dispersion assessment

Unitized yearly air concentration from particle phase Maximum concentration from air dispersion modellingUnitized yearly air concentration from vapor phase Maximum concentration from air dispersion modelling

Units conversion factor US EPA, 2005Averaging time EA Report SR3, 2009 (0-6 yr child)

Exposure duration

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan CongenersReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Incidental ingestion of soil

Congeners Cs (mg/kg)

CRsoil

(kg/day)Fsoil

(unitless)BW (kg)

Isoil

(mg/kg-day)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 3.48E-06 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 2.98E-121,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 8.90E-06 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 7.63E-121,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 6.47E-07 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 5.55E-131,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 5.74E-07 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 4.92E-131,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 4.23E-06 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 3.63E-121,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 5.12E-07 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 4.39E-131,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.22E-06 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.05E-121,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 4.13E-07 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 3.54E-131,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 6.10E-08 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 5.23E-141,2,3,7,8-PCDD 3.44E-07 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 2.95E-131,2,3,7,8-PCDF 3.23E-07 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 2.77E-132,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.31E-06 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.13E-122,3,4,7,8-PCDF 6.61E-07 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 5.67E-132,3,7,8-TCDD 1.66E-08 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.42E-142,3,7,8-TCDF 9.71E-08 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 8.32E-14OCDD 8.26E-06 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 7.08E-12OCDF 7.29E-06 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 6.25E-12

Isoil

Cs

CRsoil

Fsoil

BW

Table 6.2, EA Report SR3, 2009Consumption rate of soilUS EPA, 2005Fraction of soil that is contaminated

Body weight Table 4.6, EA Report SR3, 2009


Description ReferencesDaily intake of congener from soil Table C-1-1 (US EPA, 2005)

Average soil concentration over exposure duration Untilled value of Cs used for conservatism

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan CongenersReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Ingestion of homegrown produce

Congeners Pd (mg/kg)

Pv (mg/kg)

Prag

(mg/kg)CRag

(kg/kg-dayDW)CRpp

(kg/kg-dayDW)Prbg

(mg/kg)CRbg

(kg/kg-dayDW)Fag

(unitless)Iag

(mg/kg-dayDW)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 4.78E-08 8.06E-11 3.20E-09 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 1.89E-08 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 2.93E-111,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1.22E-07 6.32E-10 1.83E-08 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 6.66E-08 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 8.94E-111,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 5.96E-09 3.52E-10 1.33E-09 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 4.84E-09 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 5.26E-121,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 7.88E-09 6.21E-11 6.88E-10 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 3.47E-09 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 5.09E-121,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 5.83E-08 3.00E-10 1.47E-08 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 3.91E-08 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 5.06E-111,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 7.05E-09 6.74E-11 1.20E-09 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 4.04E-09 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 5.36E-121,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.13E-08 1.18E-10 4.25E-09 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 1.13E-08 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 1.20E-111,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 5.68E-09 2.96E-11 9.66E-10 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 3.26E-09 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 4.31E-121,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 5.63E-10 1.06E-11 2.12E-10 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 5.65E-10 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 6.01E-131,2,3,7,8-PCDD 3.19E-09 1.19E-10 1.93E-09 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 3.85E-09 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 4.36E-121,2,3,7,8-PCDF 2.99E-09 1.25E-10 1.49E-09 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 3.34E-09 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 3.69E-122,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.21E-08 1.34E-10 4.58E-09 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 1.22E-08 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 1.29E-112,3,4,7,8-PCDF 6.14E-09 2.00E-10 4.48E-09 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 7.97E-09 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 9.31E-122,3,7,8-TCDD 1.53E-10 2.34E-11 7.56E-11 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 1.71E-10 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 1.96E-132,3,7,8-TCDF 9.15E-10 1.65E-10 1.12E-09 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 1.45E-09 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 1.99E-12OCDD 1.14E-07 3.31E-10 5.83E-09 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 4.05E-08 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 6.69E-11OCDF 1.00E-07 2.82E-10 6.71E-09 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 5.66E-08 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 6.43E-11

Iag

Pd

PvPrCRag

CRpp

Prbg

CRbg

Fag

Aboveground exposed produce concentration due to direct (wet and dry) deposition onto plant surfaces Calculated using equation in Table B-2-7 (US EPA, 2005)



DescriptionDaily intake of congener from produce

Consumption rate of aboveground produceUS EPA, 2005




Fraction of produce that is contaminated

Calculated using equation in Table B-2-10 (US EPA, 2005)US EPA, 2005US EPA, 2005

Belowground produce concentration due to root uptakeConsumption rate of belowground produce

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan CongenersReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Ingestion of homegrown chickens

Congeners Achicken

(mg/kg FW)CRchicken

(kg/kg-day FW)Fchicken

(kg)Ichicken

(mg/kg-day)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 5.02E-10 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 3.31E-131,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 2.39E-09 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 1.58E-121,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1.74E-10 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 1.15E-131,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1.03E-10 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 6.82E-141,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1.63E-09 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 1.08E-121,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1.50E-10 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 9.88E-141,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 4.71E-10 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 3.11E-131,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1.21E-10 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 7.95E-141,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2.36E-11 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 1.55E-141,2,3,7,8-PCDD 1.67E-10 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 1.10E-131,2,3,7,8-PCDF 1.41E-10 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 9.29E-142,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 5.07E-10 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 3.35E-132,3,4,7,8-PCDF 3.55E-10 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 2.34E-132,3,7,8-TCDD 7.23E-12 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 4.77E-152,3,7,8-TCDF 6.37E-11 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 4.20E-14OCDD 9.33E-10 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 6.16E-13OCDF 1.05E-09 6.60E-04 1.00E+00 6.94E-13

Ichicken

Achicken

CRchicken

Fchicken

ReferencesTable C-1-3 (US EPA, 2005)Estimated using Equation 5-26 (US EPA, 2005)US EPA, 2005US EPA, 2005


Consumption rate of chickenFraction of chicken that is contaminated

DescriptionDaily intake of congener from chickenConcentration of congener in chicken

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan CongenersReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Ingestion of eggs from homegrown chickens

Congeners Aeggs

(mg/kg FW)CReggs

(kg/kg-day FW)Feggs

(kg)Ieggs

(mg/kg-day)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2.86E-10 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 2.14E-131,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1.38E-09 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 1.03E-121,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1.00E-10 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 7.51E-141,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 5.87E-11 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 4.40E-141,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 9.22E-10 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 6.92E-131,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 8.75E-11 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 6.56E-141,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 2.66E-10 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 2.00E-131,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 7.05E-11 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 5.28E-141,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 1.33E-11 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 9.98E-151,2,3,7,8-PCDD 9.55E-11 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 7.16E-141,2,3,7,8-PCDF 8.15E-11 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 6.11E-142,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 2.86E-10 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 2.15E-132,3,4,7,8-PCDF 2.01E-10 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 1.51E-132,3,7,8-TCDD 4.19E-12 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 3.14E-152,3,7,8-TCDF 3.54E-11 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 2.65E-14OCDD 5.31E-10 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 3.98E-13OCDF 5.98E-10 7.50E-04 1.00E+00 4.49E-13

Ieggs

Aeggs

CReggs

Feggs

ReferencesTable C-1-3 (US EPA, 2005)Estimated using Equation 5-26 (US EPA, 2005)US EPA, 2005US EPA, 2005


Consumption rate of eggsFraction of eggs that is contaminated

DescriptionDaily intake of congener from eggsConcentration of congener in eggs

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan CongenersTotal Daily IntakeReceptor: Adult

CongenersIsoil

(mg/kg-day)Iag

(mg/kg-day)Ichicken

(mg/kg-day)Ieggs

(mg/kg-day)I

(mg/kg-day)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2.98E-12 2.93E-11 3.31E-13 2.14E-13 3.28E-111,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 7.63E-12 8.94E-11 1.58E-12 1.03E-12 9.97E-111,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 5.55E-13 5.26E-12 1.15E-13 7.51E-14 6.01E-121,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 4.92E-13 5.09E-12 6.82E-14 4.40E-14 5.69E-121,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 3.63E-12 5.06E-11 1.08E-12 6.92E-13 5.60E-111,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 4.39E-13 5.36E-12 9.88E-14 6.56E-14 5.97E-121,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.05E-12 1.20E-11 3.11E-13 2.00E-13 1.36E-111,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 3.54E-13 4.31E-12 7.95E-14 5.28E-14 4.79E-121,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 5.23E-14 6.01E-13 1.55E-14 9.98E-15 6.79E-131,2,3,7,8-PCDD 2.95E-13 4.36E-12 1.10E-13 7.16E-14 4.83E-121,2,3,7,8-PCDF 2.77E-13 3.69E-12 9.29E-14 6.11E-14 4.12E-122,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.13E-12 1.29E-11 3.35E-13 2.15E-13 1.46E-112,3,4,7,8-PCDF 5.67E-13 9.31E-12 2.34E-13 1.51E-13 1.03E-112,3,7,8-TCDD 1.42E-14 1.96E-13 4.77E-15 3.14E-15 2.18E-132,3,7,8-TCDF 8.32E-14 1.99E-12 4.20E-14 2.65E-14 2.14E-12OCDD 7.08E-12 6.69E-11 6.16E-13 3.98E-13 7.50E-11OCDF 6.25E-12 6.43E-11 6.94E-13 4.49E-13 7.17E-11

IIsoil

Iag

Ichicken

Ieggs

Daily intake from aboveground produce Table C-1-2 (US EPA, 2005)

Daily intake from eggs Table C-1-3 (US EPA, 2005)Daily intake from chicken Table C-1-3 (US EPA, 2005)

I = Isoil + Iag + Ipoultry + Ieggs

Description ReferencesCongener specific total daily intake Table C-1-6 (US EPA, 2005)Daily intake of from soil Table C-1-1 (US EPA, 2005)

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan CongenersReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Inhalation of vapours and particulates

CongenersQ

(g/s)Fv

Cyv(mg-s/g-m³)

Cyp(mg-s/g-m³)

Ca(mg/m³)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2.33E-08 3.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 3.12E-091,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 6.01E-08 1.00E-02 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 8.07E-091,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 5.87E-09 5.70E-02 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 8.64E-101,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 3.93E-09 2.40E-02 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 5.28E-101,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 2.98E-08 4.90E-02 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 4.02E-091,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 3.53E-09 2.90E-02 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 4.75E-101,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.10E-08 5.20E-02 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 1.63E-091,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 2.80E-09 1.60E-02 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 3.77E-101,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 5.75E-10 9.00E-02 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 8.47E-111,2,3,7,8-PCDD 3.35E-09 1.20E-01 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 4.95E-101,2,3,7,8-PCDF 3.79E-09 2.70E-01 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 5.62E-102,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.19E-08 5.50E-02 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 1.75E-092,3,4,7,8-PCDF 7.32E-09 2.20E-01 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 1.08E-092,3,7,8-TCDD 4.24E-10 6.60E-01 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 6.37E-112,3,7,8-TCDF 3.69E-09 7.70E-01 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 5.57E-10OCDD 5.53E-08 2.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 7.41E-09OCDF 4.88E-08 2.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 6.54E-09


Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan CongenersReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Inhalation of vapours and particulates

CongenersCa

(µg/m³)IR

(m³/hr)ET

(hrs/day)EF

(days/yr)ED

(years)0.001

(mg/µg)BW(kg)

AT(year)

365(days/yr)

ADI(mg/kg-day)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 3.12E-09 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 5.78E-131,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 8.07E-09 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.49E-121,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 8.64E-10 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.60E-131,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 5.28E-10 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 9.76E-141,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 4.02E-09 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 7.44E-131,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 4.75E-10 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 8.78E-141,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.63E-09 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 3.01E-131,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 3.77E-10 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 6.97E-141,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 8.47E-11 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.57E-141,2,3,7,8-PCDD 4.95E-10 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 9.15E-141,2,3,7,8-PCDF 5.62E-10 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.04E-132,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.75E-09 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 3.25E-132,3,4,7,8-PCDF 1.08E-09 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 2.01E-132,3,7,8-TCDD 6.37E-11 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.18E-142,3,7,8-TCDF 5.57E-10 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.03E-13OCDD 7.41E-09 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.37E-12OCDF 6.54E-09 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.21E-12

Ca

FvCyvCypADIIRETEFED0.001BWAT365


Units conversion factor US EPA, 2005Averaging time EA Report SR3, 2009 (16-65 yrs old female)

Exposure duration EA Report SR3, 2009 (16-65 yrs old female)

Average body weight Table 4.6, EA Report SR3, 2009 (16-65 yrs old female)



Average daily congener intake via inhalation Table C-3-1 (US EPA, 2005)

congener - specific emission rate Derived as part of air dispersion assessmentFraction of congener air concentration in vapor phase

Total congener air concentration Table B-5-1 (US EPA, 2005)



Inhalation rate EA, SR3, 2009 (adult)Exposure time Conservatively assumed 14 hours outside per dayExposure frequency Conservatively assumed 365 days per year

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan CongenersReceptor: InfantExposure Pathway: Ingestion of breast milk

Congenersm

(mg/kgBW-day)1E+09

(pg/mg)h

(days)f1

(unitless)0.693

f2

(unitless)Cmilkfat

(pg/kgmilkfat)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 3.34E-11 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 3.69E-011,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1.01E-10 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 1.12E+001,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 6.17E-12 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 6.82E-021,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 5.79E-12 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 6.40E-021,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 5.67E-11 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 6.27E-011,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 6.06E-12 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 6.70E-021,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.39E-11 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 1.53E-011,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 4.86E-12 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 5.38E-021,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 6.95E-13 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 7.69E-031,2,3,7,8-PCDD 4.92E-12 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 5.45E-021,2,3,7,8-PCDF 4.22E-12 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 4.67E-022,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.49E-11 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 1.65E-012,3,4,7,8-PCDF 1.05E-11 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 1.16E-012,3,7,8-TCDD 2.30E-13 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 2.54E-032,3,7,8-TCDF 2.25E-12 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 2.49E-02OCDD 7.63E-11 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 8.44E-01OCDF 7.29E-11 1.00E+09 2.56E+00 9.00E-01 6.93E-01 3.00E-01 8.06E-01

Cmilkfat = (m x 1E+09 x h x f1) / (0.693 x f2)

Golder Associates

Dioxin and Furan CongenersReceptor: InfantExposure Pathway: Ingestion of breast milk

CongenersCmilkfat

(pg/kgmilkfat)f3

(unitless)f4

(unitless)IRmilk

(kg/day)ED

(years)BWinfant

(kg)AT

(years)ADDinfant

(pg/kg BW-day)

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 3.69E-01 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 1.63E-031,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1.12E+00 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 4.95E-031,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 6.82E-02 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 3.02E-041,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 6.40E-02 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 2.83E-041,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 6.27E-01 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 2.77E-031,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 6.70E-02 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 2.96E-041,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.53E-01 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 6.78E-041,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 5.38E-02 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 2.38E-041,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 7.69E-03 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 3.40E-051,2,3,7,8-PCDD 5.45E-02 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 2.41E-041,2,3,7,8-PCDF 4.67E-02 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 2.06E-042,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.65E-01 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 7.29E-042,3,4,7,8-PCDF 1.16E-01 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 5.12E-042,3,7,8-TCDD 2.54E-03 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 1.12E-052,3,7,8-TCDF 2.49E-02 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 1.10E-04OCDD 8.44E-01 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 3.73E-03OCDF 8.06E-01 4.00E-02 9.00E-01 6.88E-01 1.00E+00 5.60E+00 1.00E+00 3.56E-03

Cmilkfat

m1.E+09hf16.93E-01f2ADDinfant

f3f4IREDBwinfant

AT Averaging time US EPA, 2005

Average daily dose for infant exposed to contaminated breast milk

US EPA, 2005

Exposure duration 1 yr old, EA Report SR3, 2009Body weight of infant Table 4.6, EA Report SR3, 2009 (1 yr old)

Fraction of ingested congener that is absorbed US EPA, 2005Ingestion rate of breast milk by the infant US EPA, 2005

Fraction of mother’s weight that is fat US EPA, 2005

Fraction of mother’s breast milk that is fat

Table C-3-2 (US EPA, 2005)

US EPA, 2005 (m = I + ADI)

Half-life of dioxin in adults US EPA, 2005Fraction of ingested dioxin that is stored in fat US EPA, 2005Units conversion factor US EPA, 2005

ADDinfant = (Cmilkfat x f3 x f4 x IRmilk x ED) / (BWinfant x AT)



Concentration of dioxins in milk fat of breast milk for a specificexposure scenario


Average maternal intake of dioxins for each adult exposure scenario

Golder Associates

Metals and Metalloids - Aboveground produce concentration due to direct deposition

1,000(mg/g)

Q(g/s)

Fv(unitless)

Dydp(s/m²-yr)

Fw(unitless)

Dywp(s/m²-yr)

Rp(unitless)

kp(1/year)

Tp(year)

Yp(kgDW/m²)

Pd(mg/kgDW)

Antimony 1.00E+03 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.39E-01Arsenic 1.00E+03 6.84E-02 6.00E-03 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.40E-01Cadmium 1.00E+03 6.84E-03 9.00E-03 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.39E-02

1.00E+03 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.39E-01Copper 1.00E+03 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.39E-01Chromium (III) 1.00E+03 3.42E-02 9.00E-03 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 6.97E-02Chromium (VI) 1.00E+03 3.42E-02 0.00E+00 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 7.04E-02

1.00E+03 6.84E-02 7.00E-03 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.40E-01Manganese 1.00E+03 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.39E-01Mercuric chloride 1.00E+03 6.84E-03 8.50E-01 1.51E-03 6.00E-01 1.93E-01 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.11E-03Methyl mercury 1.00E+03 6.84E-03 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 6.00E-01 1.93E-01 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 7.37E-03

1.00E+03 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.39E-01Thallium 1.00E+03 6.84E-03 9.00E-03 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.39E-02Vanadium 1.00E+03 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.87E-01 6.00E-01 6.18E-02 3.90E-01 1.80E+01 1.64E-01 2.24E+00 1.39E-01

Pd1,000

Q

FvDydp

Fw

DywpRpkpTpYp Yield or standing crop biomass of edible portion of the plant (productivity) US EPA, 2005 (Table B-2-7)

Plant surface loss coefficient US EPA, 2005 (Table B-2-7)Length of plant exposure to deposition per harvest of edible portion of the i th plant group US EPA, 2005 (Table B-2-7)

Unitized yearly wet deposition from particle phase Maximum values from air dispersion modellingInterception fraction of the edible portion of plant US EPA, 2005 (Table B-2-7)

Unitized yearly average dry deposition from particle phase Maximum values from air dispersion modellingFraction of metal wet deposition that adheres to plant surfaces (0.2 for anions, 0.6 for cations &most organics). It has been assumed that all metals exist as cations

US EPA, 2005 (Table B-2-7)

Metal emission rateMetal specific values from air dispersion modelling (emission rates for CrIII and Cr VI have been apportioned in the ratio of 50:50)

Fraction of metal air concentration in vapour phase US EPA, 2005 (Database)

Plant (aboveground produce) concentration due to direct (wet and dry) deposition Equation 5-14 (US EPA, 2005)Units conversion factor US EPA, 2005

Pd = {1,000 x Q x (1 - Fv) x [Dydp + (Fw x Dywp)] x Rp x [1.0 - exp(-kp x Tp)]} / (Yp x kp)

Metals


Cobalt

Lead

Nickel

Golder Associates

Metals and Metalloids - Produce concentration due to root uptake (Non-Carcinogenic)


Grain

CstD (mg/kgsoil) BrgrainPrgrain

(mg/kg)1.46E+00 3.00E-02 4.39E-022.43E-01 6.20E-02 1.51E-021.46E+00 7.00E-03 1.02E-021.14E+00 2.50E-01 2.85E-01

Chromium (III) 3.10E-01 4.50E-03 1.40E-03Chromium (VI) 3.13E-01 4.50E-03 1.41E-03

1.12E+01 9.00E-03 1.01E-01Manganese 2.11E+00 5.00E-02 1.05E-01Mercuric chloride 5.18E-01 9.30E-03 4.82E-03Methyl mercury 1.03E-02 1.90E-02 1.96E-04

2.11E+00 6.00E-03 1.27E-022.30E-01 4.00E-04 9.20E-05

Vanadium 1.14E+01 3.00E-03 3.42E-02


CstD (mg/kgsoil) BragPrag

(mg/kg)1.46E+00 3.19E-02 4.67E-022.43E-01 1.25E-01 3.03E-021.46E+00 8.65E-03 1.27E-021.14E+00 2.69E-01 3.06E-01

Chromium (III) 3.10E-01 4.88E-03 1.51E-03Chromium (VI) 3.13E-01 4.50E-03 1.41E-03

1.12E+01 1.36E-02 1.52E-01Manganese 2.11E+00 7.54E-02 1.59E-01Mercuric chloride 5.18E-01 1.45E-02 7.51E-03Methyl mercury 1.03E-02 2.94E-02 3.03E-04

2.11E+00 9.31E-03 1.96E-022.30E-01 8.58E-04 1.97E-04

Vanadium 1.14E+01 3.32E-03 3.79E-02


CstDUntilled value of CstD used forconservatism

Brgrain US EPA, 2005 (Database)

Brag US EPA, 2005 (Database)

CobaltCopper

Lead

Metals

AntimonyCadmium

Plant-soil bioconcentration factor for above ground produce

NickelThallium

1 Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ornl), Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Baes et al., 'A Review and Analysis ofParameters for Assessing Transport of Envrionmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture', 1984

Soil concentration at time tD

Plant-soil bioconcentration factor for produce

Concentration of non-carcinogenic metal in produce due to root uptakeDescription

Copper

Nickel

Lead

Thallium

Pr = CstD x Br

Metals

CobaltCadmiumAntimony

Golder Associates


Grain

Cs (mg/kgsoil) BrgrainPrgrain

(mg/kg)8.84E-01 4.00E-03 3.53E-03


Cs (mg/kgsoil) BragPrag

(mg/kg)8.84E-01 6.33E-03 5.59E-03


CsUntilled value of Cs used forconservatism


Brag US EPA, 2005 (Database)

Plant-soil bioconcentration factor for produce (grain)

Concentration of metal in produce due to root uptakeDescription

Plant-soil bioconcentration factor for above ground produce

Average soil concentration over exposure duration (carcinogenic metalconcentration modelled for a child)

Metals and Metalloids - Produce concentration due to root uptake (Carcinogenic Uptake for Child)

Metals

Arsenic

Pr = Cs x Br

Metals

Arsenic

Golder Associates


Grain

Cs (mg/kgsoil) BrgrainPrgrain

(mg/kg)4.83E-01 4.00E-03 1.93E-03


Cs (mg/kgsoil) BragPrag

(mg/kg)4.83E-01 6.33E-03 3.06E-03


CsUntilled value of Cs used forconservatism


Brag US EPA, 2005 (Database)Plant-soil bioconcentration factor for produce (above ground)

Plant-soil bioconcentration factor for produce (grain)

Concentration of carcinogenic metal in produce due to root uptakeDescription

Metals and Metalloids - Produce concentration due to root uptake (Carcinogenic Uptake for Adult)

Metals

Arsenic

Average soil concentration over exposure duration (carcinogenic metalconcentration modelled for an adult)

Pr = Cs x Br

Metals

Arsenic

Golder Associates

Metals and Metalloids - Root Concentration Factor

Brrootveg kds (L/kg) RCFAntimony 3.00E-02 4.50E+01 1.35E+00

8.00E-03 2.90E+01 2.32E-01Cadmium 6.40E-02 7.50E+01 4.80E+00

7.00E-03 4.50E+01 3.15E-012.50E-01 3.50E+01 8.75E+00

Chromium (III) 4.50E-03 1.90E+01 8.55E-02Chromium (VI) 4.50E-03 1.90E+01 8.55E-02

9.00E-03 9.00E+02 8.10E+00Manganese 5.00E-02 6.50E+01 3.25E+00Mercuric chloride 3.60E-02 5.80E+04 2.09E+03Methyl mercury 9.90E-02 7.00E+03 6.93E+02

8.00E-03 6.50E+01 5.20E-014.00E-04 7.10E+01 2.84E-02

Vanadium 3.00E-03 1.00E+03 3.00E+00

References

RCFEquation A-2-16 (USEPA, 2005)

Brrootveg

ornl1 for Co, Cu, Mn,V; US EPA, 2005(Database) for allother metals

kdsUS EPA, 2005(Database); Co, Cu,Mn and V from ornl1

RCF = Brrootveg x kds

Metals

Description

Cobalt

Lead

Nickel

Arsenic

Thallium

Copper

Soil / water partition coefficient

Root concentration factor. Calculated RCF values from Kdsand Brrootveg.

Plant-soil bioconcentration factor for produce (elementalmercury is assumed not to deposit onto soils and thereforethere is no plant uptake)

1 Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ornl), Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Baes et al.,'A Review and Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of EnvrionmentallyReleased Radionuclides through Agriculture', 1984

Golder Associates

Metals and Metalloids - Produce concentration due to root uptake (Non-Carcinogenic)


CstD (mg/kgsoil) RCF VGrootveg kds (L/kg)Prbg

(mg/kg)1.46E+00 1.35E+00 1.00E+00 4.50E+01 4.39E-022.43E-01 4.80E+00 1.00E+00 7.50E+01 1.55E-021.46E+00 3.15E-01 1.00E+00 4.50E+01 1.02E-021.14E+00 8.75E+00 1.00E+00 3.50E+01 2.85E-01

Chromium (III) 3.10E-01 8.55E-02 1.00E+00 1.90E+01 1.40E-03Chromium (VI) 3.13E-01 8.55E-02 1.00E+00 1.90E+01 1.41E-03

1.12E+01 8.10E+00 1.00E+00 9.00E+02 1.01E-01Manganese 2.11E+00 3.25E+00 1.00E+00 6.50E+01 1.05E-01Mercuric chloride 5.18E-01 2.09E+03 1.00E+00 5.80E+04 1.87E-02Methyl mercury 1.03E-02 6.93E+02 1.00E+00 7.00E+03 1.02E-03

2.11E+00 5.20E-01 1.00E+00 6.50E+01 1.69E-022.30E-01 2.84E-02 1.00E+00 7.10E+01 9.20E-05

Vanadium 1.14E+01 3.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+03 3.42E-02

Prbg

CstD

RCF

VGrootveg

kds

Copper

Lead

Thallium

CadmiumCobalt

1 Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ornl), Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Baes et al., 'A Review and Analysis of Parameters forAssessing Transport of Envrionmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture', 1984

Soil / water partition coefficient US EPA, 2005 (Database); Co, Cu, Mn and V from ornl1

Root concentration factor. US EPA, 2005 (Database) Brrootveg x kds

Empirical correction factor for below ground produce US EPA, 2005 (Table B-2-10; Metal: Kow<4)

Prbg = (CstD x RCF x VGrootveg) / (kds x 1 kg/L)

Metals

Soil concentration at time tD Untilled value of CstD used for conservatism

Description ReferencesConcentration of non-carcinogenic metal in produce due to root uptake Equation 5-20B (US EPA, 2005)

Antimony

Nickel

Golder Associates

Metals and Metalloids - Produce concentration due to root uptake (Carcinogenic Uptake for Child)



(L/kg)Prbg

(mg/kg)8.84E-01 2.32E-01 1.00E+00 2.90E+01 7.07E-03

Prbg

Cs

RCF

VGrootveg

kds


Metals

Average soil concentration over exposure duration (carcinogenic metalconcentration modelled for a child)

Untilled value of Cs used for conservatism

Description ReferencesConcentration of carcinogenic metal in produce due to root uptake Equation 5-20B (US EPA, 2005)

Arsenic

Soil / water partition coefficient US EPA, 2005 (Database)



Golder Associates

Metals and Metalloids - Produce concentration due to root uptake (Carcinogenic Uptake for Adult)



(L/kg)Prbg

(mg/kg)4.83E-01 2.32E-01 1.00E+00 2.90E+01 3.87E-03

Prbg

Cs

RCF

VGrootveg

kds Soil / water partition coefficient US EPA, 2005 (Database)




Metals

Average soil concentration over exposure duration (carcinogenic metalconcentration modelled for an adult)

Untilled value of Cs used for conservatism

Description ReferencesConcentration of carcinogenic metal in produce due to root uptake Equation 5-20B (US EPA, 2005)

Arsenic

Golder Associates

Metals and Metalloids - Aboveground produce concentration due to air-to-plant transfer

Q(g/s)

Fv(unitless)

Cyv(ug-s/g-m³)

Bvag

(unitless)VGag

(unitless)ra (g/m³) Pv (ug/gDW)

Antimony 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 0.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.20E+03 0.00E+00Arsenic 6.84E-02 6.00E-03 1.52E-01 0.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.20E+03 0.00E+00Cadmium 6.84E-03 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 0.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.20E+03 0.00E+00

6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 0.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.20E+03 0.00E+00Copper 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 0.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.20E+03 0.00E+00Chromium (III) 3.42E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 0.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.20E+03 0.00E+00Chromium (VI) 3.42E-02 0.00E+00 1.52E-01 0.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.20E+03 0.00E+00

6.84E-02 7.00E-03 1.52E-01 0.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.20E+03 0.00E+00Manganese 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 0.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.20E+03 0.00E+00Mercuric chloride 6.84E-03 8.50E-01 1.52E-01 1.80E+03 1.00E+00 1.20E+03 1.33E-03Methyl mercury 6.84E-03 0.00E+00 1.52E-01 0.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.20E+03 0.00E+00

6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 0.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.20E+03 0.00E+00Thallium 6.84E-03 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 0.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.20E+03 0.00E+00Vanadium 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 0.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.20E+03 0.00E+00

Pv

Q

Fv

CyvBvag

VGag

ra Density of air US EPA, 2005 (Table B-2-8)

Empirical correction factor for aboveground produce US EPA, 2005 (Table B-2-8; metal: Kow<4)

Pv = Q x Fv x (Cyv x Bvag x VGag) / ra

Description ReferencesConcentration of metal in the plant resulting from air-to-plant transfer Equation 5-18 (US EPA, 2005)

Cobalt

Lead

Nickel

Metal air-to-plant biotransfer factor (zero for metals) US EPA, 2005 (Database)


Metals

Metal emission rateMetal specific values from air dispersion modelling (emission rates forCr III and Cr VI have been apportioned in the ratio of 50:50)

Fraction of metal air concentration in vapour phaseUnitized yearly average air concentration in vapour phase Concentrations from air dispersion modelling

Golder Associates

Pr - grain(mg/kg DW)

Pi(mg/kg DW)

4.39E-02 4.39E-021.51E-02 1.51E-021.02E-02 1.02E-022.85E-01 2.85E-01

Chromium (III) 1.40E-03 1.40E-03Chromium (VI) 1.41E-03 1.41E-03

1.01E-01 1.01E-01Manganese 1.05E-01 1.05E-01Mercuric chloride 4.82E-03 4.82E-03Methyl mercury 1.96E-04 1.96E-04

1.27E-02 1.27E-029.20E-05 9.20E-05

Vanadium 3.42E-02 3.42E-02

References


Pr Equation 5-20 A (US EPA, 2005)

CobaltCopper

Lead

Nickel

Metals and Metalloids - Concentration of Metal in Plant Type i Eaten by the animal(chicken) (Non-Carginogenic)

Thallium

Pi = S (Pr)


Description

Metals

Concentration of non-carcinogenic metal in each plant type ieaten by the animal (grain is eaten by chickens)

AntimonyCadmium

Golder Associates

(Carcinogenic Uptake for Child)


Pi(mg/kg DW)

3.53E-03 3.53E-03

References



Metals and Metalloids - Concentration of Metal in Plant Type i Eaten by theanimal (chicken)

Pi = S (Pr)


Description

Metals

Concentration of carcinogenic metal in each planttype i eaten by the animal (grain is eaten bychickens) for a child receptor

Arsenic

Golder Associates

(Carcinogenic Uptake for Adult)


Pi(mg/kg DW)

1.93E-03 1.93E-03

References



Metals and Metalloids - Concentration of Metal in Plant Type i Eaten bythe animal (chicken)

Pi = S (Pr)


Description

Metals

Concentration of carcinogenic metal in each planttype i eaten by the animal (grain is eaten by chickens)for an adult receptor

Arsenic

Golder Associates

Metals and Metalloids - Concentration of Metal in Chicken (Non-Carginogenic)

FiQpi

(KgDW plant/day)Pi

(mg/kg DW)Qs

(kg/day)CstD

(mg/kg soil)Bs

Bachicken

(day/kg FW tissue)Achicken

(mg/kg tissue)1.00E+00 2.00E-01 4.39E-02 2.20E-02 1.46E+00 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 4.61E-021.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.51E-02 2.20E-02 2.43E-01 1.00E+00 1.06E-01 8.87E-041.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.02E-02 2.20E-02 1.46E+00 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 3.86E-021.00E+00 2.00E-01 2.85E-01 2.20E-02 1.14E+00 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 9.23E-02

Chromium (III) 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.40E-03 2.20E-02 3.10E-01 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 8.00E-03Chromium (VI) 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.41E-03 2.20E-02 3.13E-01 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 8.07E-03

1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.01E-01 2.20E-02 1.12E+01 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 3.00E-01Manganese 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.05E-01 2.20E-02 2.11E+00 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 7.60E-02Mercuric chloride 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 4.82E-03 2.20E-02 5.18E-01 1.00E+00 2.39E-02 2.96E-04Methyl mercury 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.96E-04 2.20E-02 1.03E-02 1.00E+00 3.58E-03 9.49E-07

1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.27E-02 2.20E-02 2.11E+00 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 5.51E-021.00E+00 2.00E-01 9.20E-05 2.20E-02 2.30E-01 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 5.72E-03

Vanadium 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 3.42E-02 2.20E-02 1.14E+01 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 2.91E-01

Achicken

FiQpiPiQs

CstD

Bs

Bachicken

NickelThallium

Quantity of soil eaten by the animal (chicken) each day

Quantity of plant type i (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) per day

US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-14; chicken)

Metal biotransfer factor for chicken (assumed elemental mercury neither deposits onto soils nor transfersinto aboveground plant parts or grains; therefore, there is no transfer of elemental mercury into animaltissue)

US EPA, 2005 (Database) for all metals (except mercury compoundsand cadmium) the highest value for metals in the US EPA Databasewas used.

Soil concentration at time tD (modelled for non-carcinogenic metals using the most conservative value ofCstD between tilled and un-tilled soils)

Untilled value of CstD used for conservatism

Soil bioavailability factor US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-14)

US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-14; chicken)Concentration of metal in each plant type i (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) US EPA, 2005

Concentration of non-carcinogenic metal in chicken Equation 5-26 (US EPA, 2005)Fraction of plant type i (grain) grown on contaminated soil and ingested by the animal (chicken) US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-14). Conservatively used a maximum of 1.

Achicken = [S (Fi x Qpi x Pi) + (Qs x CstD x Bs)] x Bachicken

Metals


AntimonyCadmiumCobaltCopper

Lead

Golder Associates

Metals and Metalloids - Concentration of Metal in Chicken (Carcinogenic Uptake for Child)

FiQpi

(KgDW plant/day)Pi

(mg/kg DW)Qs

(kg/day)Cs

(mg/kg soil)Bs

Bachicken


(mg/kg tissue)1.00E+00 2.00E-01 3.53E-03 2.20E-02 8.84E-01 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 2.27E-02

Achicken

FiQpiPiQsCsBs

Bachicken

Achicken = [S (Fi x Qpi x Pi) + (Qs x Cs x Bs)] x Bachicken

Metals


Arsenic

Concentration of carcinogenic metal in chicken for a child receptor Equation 5-26 (US EPA, 2005)Fraction of plant type i (grain) grown on contaminated soil and ingested by the animal (chicken) US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-14). Conservatively used a maximum of 1.Quantity of plant type i (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) per day US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-14; chicken)Concentration of metal in each plant type i (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) US EPA, 2005Quantity of soil eaten by the animal (chicken) each day US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-14; chicken)

Metal biotransfer factor for chickenUS EPA, 2005 (Database) the highest value for metals in the USEPA Database was used


Golder Associates

Metals and Metalloids - Concentration of Metal in Chicken (Carcinogenic Uptake for Adult)

FiQpi

(KgDW plant/day)Pi

(mg/kg DW)Qs

(kg/day)Cs

(mg/kg soil)Bs

Bachicken



Achicken

FiQpiPiQsCsBs

Bachicken Metal biotransfer factor for chickenUS EPA, 2005 (Database) the highest value for metals in the USEPA Database was used.


Concentration of metal in each plant type i (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) US EPA, 2005Quantity of soil eaten by the animal (chicken) each day US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-14; chicken)

Equation 5-26 (US EPA, 2005)Fraction of plant type i (grain) grown on contaminated soil and ingested by the animal (chicken) US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-14). Conservatively used a maximum of 1.Quantity of plant type i (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) per day US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-14; chicken)

Concentration of carcinogenic metal in chicken for an adult receptor

Achicken = [S (Fi x Qpi x Pi) + (Qs x Cs x Bs)] x Bachicken

Metals


Arsenic

Golder Associates

Metals and Metalloids - Concentration of Metal in Egg (Non-Carginogenic)

FiQpi

(KgDW plant/day)Pi

(mg/kg DW)Qs

(kg/day)CstD

(mg/kg soil)Bs

Baegg

(day/kg FW tissue)Aegg

(mg/kg tissue)1.00E+00 2.00E-01 4.39E-02 2.20E-02 1.46E+00 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 4.61E-021.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.51E-02 2.20E-02 2.43E-01 1.00E+00 2.50E-03 2.09E-051.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.02E-02 2.20E-02 1.46E+00 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 3.86E-021.00E+00 2.00E-01 2.85E-01 2.20E-02 1.14E+00 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 9.23E-02

Chromium (III) 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.40E-03 2.20E-02 3.10E-01 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 8.00E-03Chromium (VI) 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.41E-03 2.20E-02 3.13E-01 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 8.07E-03

1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.01E-01 2.20E-02 1.12E+01 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 3.00E-01Manganese 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.05E-01 2.20E-02 2.11E+00 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 7.60E-02Mercuric chloride 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 4.82E-03 2.20E-02 5.18E-01 1.00E+00 2.39E-02 2.96E-04Methyl mercury 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.96E-04 2.20E-02 1.03E-02 1.00E+00 3.58E-03 9.49E-07

1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.27E-02 2.20E-02 2.11E+00 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 5.51E-021.00E+00 2.00E-01 9.20E-05 2.20E-02 2.30E-01 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 5.72E-03

Vanadium 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 3.42E-02 2.20E-02 1.14E+01 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 2.91E-01

Aegg

FiQpiPiQsCstD

Bs

Baegg

CobaltCopper

Lead

Nickel

Concentration of non-carcinogenic metal in eggs

Thallium

Aegg = [S (Fi x Qpi x Pi) + (Qs x CstD x Bs)] x Baegg

Metals


AntimonyCadmium

Equation 5-26 (US EPA, 2005)Fraction of plant type i (grain) grown on contaminated soil and ingested by the animal (chicken) US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-13). Conservatively used a maximum of 1.Quantity of plant type i (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) per day US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-13)Concentration of metal in each plant type i (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) US EPA, 2005Quantity of soil eaten by the animal (chicken) each day US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-13; chicken)

Metal biotransfer factor for eggsUS EPA, 2005 (Database) for all metals (except mercury compoundsand cadmium) the highest value for metals in the US EPA Databasewas used.

Average soil concentration over exposure duration Untilled value of CstD used for conservatism

Soil bioavailability factor US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-13)

Golder Associates

Metals and Metalloids - Concentration of Metal in Egg (Carcinogenic Uptake for Child)

FiQpi

(KgDW plant/day)Pi

(mg/kg DW)Qs

(kg/day)Cs

(mg/kg soil)Bs

Baegg (day/kgFW tissue)

Aegg(mg/kg tissue)

1.00E+00 2.00E-01 3.53E-03 2.20E-02 8.84E-01 1.00E+00 1.13E+00 2.27E-02

Aegg

FiQpiPiQsCsBs

Baegg Metal biotransfer factor for eggsUS EPA, 2005 (Database) the highest value for metals in the US EPADatabase was used.


Concentration of metal in each plant type i (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) US EPA, 2005Quantity of soil eaten by the animal (chicken) each day US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-13; chicken)

Equation 5-26 (US EPA, 2005)Fraction of plant type i (grain) grown on contaminated soil and ingested by the animal (chicken) US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-13). Conservatively used a maximum of 1.Quantity of plant type i (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) per day US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-13)

Concentration of carcinogenic metal in eggs for a child receptor

Aegg = [S (Fi x Qpi x Pi) + (Qs x Cs x Bs)] x Baegg

Metals


Arsenic

Golder Associates

Metals and Metalloids - Concentration of Metal in Egg (Carcinogenic Uptake for Adult)

FiQpi

(KgDW plant/day)Pi

(mg/kg DW)Qs

(kg/day)Cs

(mg/kg soil)Bs

Baegg

(day/kg FW tissue)Aegg


Aegg

FiQpiPiQsCsBs

Baegg

Aegg = [S (Fi x Qpi x Pi) + (Qs x Cs x Bs)] x Baegg

Metals


Arsenic

Concentration of carcinogenic metal in eggs for an adult receptor Equation 5-26 (US EPA, 2005)Fraction of plant type i (grain) grown on contaminated soil and ingested by the animal (chicken) US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-13). Conservatively used a maximum of 1.Quantity of plant type i (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) per day US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-13)Concentration of metal in each plant type i (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) US EPA, 2005Quantity of soil eaten by the animal (chicken) each day US EPA, 2005 (Table B-3-13; chicken)

Metal biotransfer factor for eggsUS EPA, 2005 (Database) the highest value for metals in the USEPA Database was used.


Golder Associates

Metal and MetalloidsReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Incidental ingestion of soil (Non-Carcinogenic)

MetalsCs

(mg/kg)CRsoil

(kg/day)Fsoil

(unitless)BW (kg)

Isoil (mg/kg-day)

Antimony 1.46E+00 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 1.10E-05Cadmium 2.43E-01 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 1.83E-06Cobalt 1.46E+00 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 1.10E-05Copper 1.14E+00 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 8.56E-06Chromium (III) 3.10E-01 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 2.33E-06Chromium (VI) 3.13E-01 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 2.35E-06Lead 1.12E+01 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 8.41E-05Manganese 2.11E+00 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 1.59E-05Mercuric chloride 5.18E-01 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 3.90E-06Methyl mercury 1.03E-02 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 7.74E-08Nickel 2.11E+00 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 1.59E-05Thallium 2.30E-01 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 1.73E-06Vanadium 1.14E+01 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 8.58E-05

Isoil

Cs

CRsoilFsoil

BWUS EPA, 2005Fraction of soil that is contaminated


Average soil concentration over exposure durationUntilled value of Cs used forconservatismEA Report SR3, 2009. 0-6 yr old (child)Consumption rate of soil


Description ReferencesDaily intake of Metal from soil Table C-1-1 (US EPA, 2005)

Golder Associates

Metal and MetalloidsReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Incidental ingestion of soil (Carcinogenic Uptake for Child)

MetalsCs

(mg/kg)CRsoil

(kg/day)Fsoil

(unitless)BW (kg)

Isoil (mg/kg-day)

Arsenic 8.84E-01 1.00E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E+01 6.64E-06

Isoil

Cs

CRsoilFsoil

BW


Description ReferencesDaily intake of Metal from soil Table C-1-1 (US EPA, 2005)

Average soil concentration over exposure durationUntilled value of Cs used forconservatismEA Report SR3, 2009. 0-6 yr old (child)Consumption rate of soilUS EPA, 2005Fraction of soil that is contaminated


Golder Associates

Metal and MetalloidsReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Ingestion of homegrown produce (Non-Carcinogenic)

MetalsPd

(mg/kg)Pv

(mg/kg)Prag

(mg/kg)CRag

(kg/kg-dayDW)CRpp

(kg/kg-dayDW)Prbg

(mg/kg)CRbg

(kg/kg-dayDW)Fag

(unitless)Iag

(mg/kg-dayDW)

Antimony 1.39E-01 0.00E+00 4.67E-02 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 4.39E-02 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 2.96E-04Cadmium 1.39E-02 0.00E+00 3.03E-02 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 1.55E-02 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 1.02E-04Cobalt 1.39E-01 0.00E+00 1.27E-02 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 1.02E-02 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 1.95E-04Copper 1.39E-01 0.00E+00 3.06E-01 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 2.85E-01 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 1.06E-03Chromium (III) 6.97E-02 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 1.40E-03 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 8.33E-05Chromium (VI) 7.04E-02 0.00E+00 1.41E-03 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 1.41E-03 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 8.37E-05Lead 1.40E-01 0.00E+00 1.52E-01 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 1.01E-01 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 5.97E-04Manganese 1.39E-01 0.00E+00 1.59E-01 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 1.05E-01 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 6.16E-04Mercuric chloride 1.11E-03 1.33E-03 7.51E-03 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 1.87E-02 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 2.83E-05Methyl mercury 7.37E-03 0.00E+00 3.03E-04 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 1.02E-03 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 9.43E-06Nickel 1.39E-01 0.00E+00 1.96E-02 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 1.69E-02 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 2.15E-04Thallium 1.39E-02 0.00E+00 1.97E-04 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 9.20E-05 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 1.63E-05Vanadium 1.39E-01 0.00E+00 3.79E-02 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 3.42E-02 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 2.69E-04

Iag

Pd

PvPrCRag

CRpp

Prbg

CRbg

Fbg

Aboveground exposed produce concentration due to direct (wet and dry) depositiononto plant surfaces

Calculated using equation in Table B-2-7 (US EPA, 2005)

Iag = [((Pd + Pv +Pr) x CRag) + (Pr x CRpp) + (Prbg x CRbg)] x Fag


DescriptionDaily intake of Metal from produce

Consumption rate of aboveground produce

US EPA, 2005






US EPA, 2005

US EPA, 2005

Belowground produce concentration due to root uptake

Consumption rate of belowground produce

Golder Associates

Metal and MetalloidsReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Ingestion of homegrown produce (Carcinogenic Uptake for Child)

MetalsPd

(mg/kg)Pv

(mg/kg)Prag

(mg/kg)CRag

(kg/kg-dayDW)CRpp

(kg/kg-dayDW)Prbg

(mg/kg)CRbg

(kg/kg-dayDW)Fag

(unitless)Iag

(mg/kg-dayDW)

Arsenic 1.40E-01 0.00E+00 5.59E-03 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 7.07E-03 2.80E-04 1.00E+00 1.75E-04

Iag

Pd

PvPrCRag

CRpp

Prbg

CRbg



US EPA, 2005

US EPA, 2005




US EPA, 2005








DescriptionDaily intake of Metal from produce

Golder Associates

Metal and MetalloidsReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Ingestion of homegrown chickens (Non-Carcinogenic)

MetalsAchicken

(mg/kg FW)CRchicken


(kg)Ichicken

(mg/kg-day)Antimony 4.61E-02 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 2.08E-05Cadmium 8.87E-04 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 3.99E-07Cobalt 3.86E-02 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 1.73E-05Copper 9.23E-02 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 4.16E-05Chromium (III) 8.00E-03 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 3.60E-06Chromium (VI) 8.07E-03 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 3.63E-06Lead 3.00E-01 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 1.35E-04Manganese 7.60E-02 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 3.42E-05Mercuric chloride 2.96E-04 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 1.33E-07Methyl mercury 9.49E-07 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 4.27E-10Nickel 5.51E-02 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 2.48E-05Thallium 5.72E-03 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 2.57E-06Vanadium 2.91E-01 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 1.31E-04

Ichicken

Achicken

CRchicken

Fchicken


Consumption rate of chicken

Fraction of chicken that is contaminated

DescriptionDaily intake of Metal from chicken

Concentration of Metal in chicken


Estimated using Equation 5-26 (US EPA, 2005)

US EPA, 2005

US EPA, 2005

Golder Associates

Metal and MetalloidsReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Ingestion of homegrown chickens (Carcinogenic Uptake for Child)

MetalsAchicken

(mg/kg FW)CRchicken


(kg)Ichicken

(mg/kg-day)Arsenic 2.27E-02 4.50E-04 1.00E+00 1.02E-05

Ichicken

Achicken

CRchicken

Fchicken US EPA, 2005




DescriptionDaily intake of Metal from chicken

Concentration of Metal in chicken



US EPA, 2005

Golder Associates

Metal and MetalloidsReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Ingestion of eggs from homegrown chickens (Non-Carcinogenic)

MetalsAeggs

(mg/kg FW)CReggs

(kg/kg-day FW)Feggs

(kg)Ieggs


Ieggs

Aeggs

CReggs

Feggs


Consumption rate of eggs

Fraction of eggs that is contaminated

DescriptionDaily intake of Metal from eggs

Concentration of Metal in eggs



US EPA, 2005

US EPA, 2005

Golder Associates

Metal and MetalloidsReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Ingestion of eggs from homegrown chickens (Carcinogenic Uptake for Child)

MetalsAeggs

(mg/kg FW)CReggs

(kg/kg-day FW)Feggs

(kg)Ieggs


Ieggs

Aeggs

CReggs

Feggs US EPA, 2005




DescriptionDaily intake of Metal from eggs

Concentration of Metal in eggs



US EPA, 2005

Golder Associates

Metal and MetalloidsTotal Daily IntakeReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Ingestion of soil, above ground produce, poultry and eggs from

homegrown chickens (Non-Carcinogenic)

MetalsIsoil

(mg/kg-day)Iag

(mg/kg-day)Ichicken

(mg/kg-day)Ieggs

(mg/kg-day)I

(mg/kg-day)Antimony 1.10E-05 2.96E-04 2.08E-05 2.49E-05 3.53E-04Cadmium 1.83E-06 1.02E-04 3.99E-07 1.13E-08 1.04E-04Cobalt 1.10E-05 1.95E-04 1.73E-05 2.08E-05 2.44E-04Copper 8.56E-06 1.06E-03 4.16E-05 4.99E-05 1.16E-03Chromium (III) 2.33E-06 8.33E-05 3.60E-06 4.32E-06 9.35E-05Chromium (VI) 2.35E-06 8.37E-05 3.63E-06 4.36E-06 9.40E-05Lead 8.41E-05 5.97E-04 1.35E-04 1.62E-04 9.78E-04Manganese 1.59E-05 6.16E-04 3.42E-05 4.10E-05 7.08E-04Mercuric chloride 3.90E-06 2.83E-05 1.33E-07 1.60E-07 3.24E-05Methyl mercury 7.74E-08 9.43E-06 4.27E-10 5.13E-10 9.51E-06Nickel 1.59E-05 2.15E-04 2.48E-05 2.98E-05 2.86E-04Thallium 1.73E-06 1.63E-05 2.57E-06 3.09E-06 2.37E-05Vanadium 8.58E-05 2.69E-04 1.31E-04 1.57E-04 6.43E-04

IIsoil

Iag

Ichicken

Ieggs Daily intake from eggs Table C-1-3 (US EPA, 2005)

Daily intake from chicken Table C-1-3 (US EPA, 2005)


Daily intake from abovegroundproduce



Description ReferencesMetal specific total daily intake Table C-1-6 (US EPA, 2005)

Golder Associates

Metal and MetalloidsTotal Daily IntakeReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Ingestion of soil, above ground produce, chicken and eggs from

homegrown chickens (Carcinogenic Uptake for Child)

MetalsIsoil

(mg/kg-day)Iag

(mg/kg-day)Ichicken

(mg/kg-day)Ieggs

(mg/kg-day)I

(mg/kg-day)Arsenic 6.64E-06 1.75E-04 1.02E-05 1.23E-05 2.04E-04

IIsoil

Iag

Ichicken

Ieggs


Description ReferencesMetal specific total daily intake Table C-1-6 (US EPA, 2005)Daily intake of from soil Table C-1-1 (US EPA, 2005)



Daily intake from eggs Table C-1-3 (US EPA, 2005)


Golder Associates

Metal and MetalloidsReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Inhalation of vapours and particulates (Non-Carcinogenic)

MetalsQ

(g/s)Fv

Cyv(mg-s/g-m³)

Cyp(mg-s/g-m³)

Ca(mg/m³)

Antimony 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.18E-03Cadmium 6.84E-03 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.18E-04Copper 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.18E-03Chromium (III) 3.42E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 4.59E-03Lead 6.84E-02 7.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.17E-03Manganese 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.18E-03Thallium 6.84E-03 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.18E-04Vanadium 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.18E-03


Golder Associates

Receptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Inhalation of vapours and particulates (Non-Carcinogenic)

MetalsCa

(µg/m³)IR

(m³/hr)ET

(hrs/day)EF

(days/yr)ED

(years)0.001

(mg/µg)BW(kg)

AT(year)

365(days/yr)

ADI(mg/kg-day)

Antimony 9.18E-03 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.88E-06Cadmium 9.18E-04 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.88E-07Copper 9.18E-03 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.88E-06Chromium (III) 4.59E-03 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 9.38E-07Lead 9.17E-03 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.88E-06Manganese 9.18E-03 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.88E-06Thallium 9.18E-04 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.88E-07Vanadium 9.18E-03 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.88E-06

Ca

QFvCyvCypADIIRETEFED0.001BWAT365



Exposure duration EA Report SR3, 2009 (0-6 yr child)




Average daily metal intake via inhalation Table C-3-1 (US EPA, 2005)

Metal - specific emission rate Derived as part of air dispersion assessmentFraction of metal air concentration in vapor phase

Total metal air concentrationTable B-5-1 (US EPA, 2005) (assumes 50% of total chromiumis chromium III)



Inhalation rate EA, SR3, 2009 (child)Exposure time Conservatively assumed 8 hours outside per dayExposure frequency Conservatively assumed 365 days per year

Golder Associates

Metal and MetalloidsReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Inhalation of vapours and particulates (Mercury and Mercuric Chloride)

Metals 0.002Q

(g/s)Fv

Cyv(mg-s/g-m³)

Cyp(mg-s/g-m³)

Ca(mg/m³)

Mercury 2.00E-03 6.84E-03 1.00E+00 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 2.08E-06

Metals 0.48Q

(g/s)Fv

Cyv(mg-s/g-m³)

Cyp(mg-s/g-m³)

Ca(mg/m³)

Mercuric chloride 4.80E-01 6.84E-03 8.50E-01 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 4.97E-04

Ca = 0.002 x Q x [(Fv x Cyv) + (1.0 - Fv) x Cyp]


Golder Associates

Metal and MetalloidsReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Inhalation of vapours and particulates (Mercury and Mercuric Chloride)

MetalsCa

(µg/m³)IR

(m³/hr)ET

(hrs/day)EF

(days/yr)ED

(years)0.001

(mg/µg)BW(kg)

AT(year)

365(days/yr)

ADI(mg/kg-day)

Mercury 2.08E-06 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 4.25E-10Mercuric chloride 4.97E-04 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.02E-07

Ca


Derived as part of air dispersion assessment

Table B-5-1 (US EPA, 2005)

References


Table C-3-1 (US EPA, 2005)Maximum concentration from air dispersion modellingMaximum concentration from air dispersion modelling


Average daily Metal intake via inhalationUnitized yearly air concentration from particle phase

Units conversion factorAveraging timeAverage body weightUnits conversion factorExposure duration

US EPA, 2005Table 4.6, EA Report SR3, 2009 (0-6 yr child)

EA Report SR3, 2009 (0-6 yr child)US EPA, 2005

EA, SR3, 2009 (child)Conservatively assumed 8 hours outside per day

Conservatively assumed 365 days per yearEA Report SR3, 2009 (0-6 yr child)

Description

Exposure frequencyExposure time

Unitized yearly air concentration from vapor phaseFraction of metal air concentration in vapor phaseMetal - specific emission rate

Total Metal air concentration (methyl mercury is assumed not to exist in the air phase (USEPA, 2005)

Inhalation rate

Golder Associates

Metal and MetalloidsReceptor: ChildExposure Pathway: Inhalation of vapours and particulates (Carcinogenic Uptake for Child)

MetalsQ

(g/s)Fv

Cyv(mg-s/g-m³)

Cyp(mg-s/g-m³)

Ca(mg/m³)

Arsenic 6.84E-02 6.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.17E-03Chromium (VI) 3.42E-02 0.00E+00 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 4.58E-03Cobalt 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.18E-03Nickel 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.18E-03

MetalsCa

(µg/m³)IR

(m³/hr)ET

(hrs/day)EF

(days/yr)ED

(years)0.001

(mg/µg)BW(kg)

AT(year)

365(days/yr)

ADI(mg/kg-day)

Arsenic 9.17E-03 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.88E-06Chromium (VI) 4.58E-03 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 9.37E-07Cobalt 9.18E-03 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.88E-06Nickel 9.18E-03 3.40E-01 8.00E+00 3.65E+02 6.00E+00 1.00E-03 1.33E+01 6.00E+00 3.65E+02 1.88E-06

Ca



Inhalation rate EA, SR3, 2009 (child)Exposure time Conservatively assumed 8 hours outside per dayExposure frequency Conservatively assumed 365 days per year


Average daily Metal intake via inhalation Table C-3-1 (US EPA, 2005)

Metal - specific emission rate Derived as part of air dispersion assessmentFraction of Metal air concentration in vapor phase

Total Metal air concentrationTable B-5-1 (US EPA, 2005)(assumes 50% of total chromium is chromium VI)




Exposure duration EA Report SR3, 2009 (0-6 yr child)




Golder Associates

Metals and MetalloidsReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Incidental ingestion of soil (Non-Carcinogenic)

MetalsCs

(mg/kg)CRsoil

(kg/day)Fsoil

(unitless)BW(kg)

Isoil

(mg/kg-day)Antimony 1.46E+00 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.25E-06Cadmium 2.43E-01 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 2.08E-07Cobalt 1.46E+00 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.25E-06Copper 1.14E+00 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 9.76E-07Chromium (III) 3.10E-01 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 2.66E-07Chromium (VI) 3.13E-01 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 2.68E-07Lead 1.12E+01 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 9.59E-06Manganese 2.11E+00 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.81E-06Mercuric chloride 5.18E-01 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 4.44E-07Methyl mercury 1.03E-02 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 8.82E-09Nickel 2.11E+00 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.81E-06Thallium 2.30E-01 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.97E-07Vanadium 1.14E+01 6.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 9.79E-06

Isoil

Cs

CRsoil

Fsoil

BWUS EPA, 2005Fraction of soil that is contaminated

Body weight Table 4.6, EA Report SR3, 2009

Average soil concentration over exposure durationUntilled value of Cs used forconservatismTable 6.2, EA Report SR3, 2009Consumption rate of soil


Description ReferencesDaily intake of metal from soil Table C-1-1 (US EPA, 2005)

Golder Associates

Metals and MetalloidsReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Incidental ingestion of soil (Carcinogenic Uptake for Adult)

MetalsCs

(mg/kg)CRsoil

(kg/day)Fsoil

(unitless)BW(kg)

Isoil

(mg/kg-day)Arsenic 4.83E-01 5.00E-05 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 3.45E-07

Isoil

Cs

CRsoil

Fsoil

BW


Description ReferencesDaily intake of metal from soil Table C-1-1 (US EPA, 2005)

Average soil concentration over exposure durationUntilled value of Cs used forconservatismTable 6.2, EA Report SR3, 2009Consumption rate of soil

US EPA, 2005Fraction of soil that is contaminatedBody weight Table 4.6, EA Report SR3, 2009

Golder Associates

Metals and MetalloidsReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Ingestion of homegrown produce (Non-Carcinogenic)

MetalsPd

(mg/kg)Pv

(mg/kg)Prag

(mg/kg)CRag

(kg/kg-dayDW)CRpp

(kg/kg-dayDW)Prbg

(mg/kg)CRbg

(kg/kg-dayDW)Fag

(unitless)Iag

(mg/kg-dayDW)

Antimony 1.39E-01 0.00E+00 4.67E-02 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 4.39E-02 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 1.25E-04Cadmium 1.39E-02 0.00E+00 3.03E-02 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 1.55E-02 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 4.29E-05Cobalt 1.39E-01 0.00E+00 1.27E-02 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 1.02E-02 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 8.13E-05Copper 1.39E-01 0.00E+00 3.06E-01 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 2.85E-01 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 4.54E-04Chromium (III) 6.97E-02 0.00E+00 1.51E-03 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 1.40E-03 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 3.47E-05Chromium (VI) 7.04E-02 0.00E+00 1.41E-03 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 1.41E-03 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 3.49E-05Lead 1.40E-01 0.00E+00 1.52E-01 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 1.01E-01 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 2.52E-04Manganese 1.39E-01 0.00E+00 1.59E-01 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 1.05E-01 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 2.60E-04Mercuric chloride 1.11E-03 1.33E-03 7.51E-03 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 1.87E-02 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 1.27E-05Methyl mercury 7.37E-03 0.00E+00 3.03E-04 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 1.02E-03 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 3.97E-06Nickel 1.39E-01 0.00E+00 1.96E-02 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 1.69E-02 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 9.02E-05Thallium 1.39E-02 0.00E+00 1.97E-04 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 9.20E-05 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 6.79E-06Vanadium 1.39E-01 0.00E+00 3.79E-02 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 3.42E-02 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 1.13E-04

Iag

Pd

PvPrCRag

CRpp

Prbg

CRbg

Fag





DescriptionDaily intake of metal from produce


US EPA, 2005






US EPA, 2005

US EPA, 2005



Golder Associates

Metals and MetalloidsReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Ingestion of homegrown produce (Carcinogenic Uptake for Adult)

MetalsPd

(mg/kg)Pv

(mg/kg)Prag

(mg/kg)CRag

(kg/kg-dayDW)CRpp

(kg/kg-dayDW)Prbg

(mg/kg)CRbg

(kg/kg-dayDW)Fbg

(unitless)Iag

(mg/kg-dayDW)

Arsenic 1.40E-01 0.00E+00 3.06E-03 4.70E-04 6.40E-04 3.87E-03 1.70E-04 1.00E+00 6.98E-05

Iag

Pd

PvPrCRag

CRpp

Prbg

CRbg



US EPA, 2005

US EPA, 2005




US EPA, 2005








DescriptionDaily intake of metal from produce

Golder Associates

Metals and MetalloidsReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Ingestion of homegrown chickens (Non-Carcinogenic)

MetalsAchicken

(mg/kg FW)CRchicken


(kg)Ichicken


Ichicken

Achicken

CRchicken

Fchicken

US EPA, 2005

US EPA, 2005




DescriptionDaily intake of metal from chicken

Concentration of metal in chicken



Golder Associates

Metals and MetalloidsReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Ingestion of homegrown chickens (Carcinogenic Uptake for Adult)

MetalsAchicken

(mg/kg FW)CRchicken


(kg)Ichicken


Ichicken

Achicken

CRchicken

Fchicken


US EPA, 2005

US EPA, 2005




DescriptionDaily intake of metal from chicken

Concentration of metal in chicken


Golder Associates

Metals and MetalloidsReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Ingestion of eggs from homegrown chickens (Non-Carcinogenic)

MetalsAeggs

(mg/kg FW)CReggs

(kg/kg-day FW)Feggs

(kg)Ieggs


Ieggs

Aeggs

CReggs

Feggs

US EPA, 2005

US EPA, 2005




DescriptionDaily intake of metal from eggs

Concentration of metal in eggs



Golder Associates

Metals and MetalloidsReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Ingestion of eggs from homegrown chickens (Carcinogenic Uptake for Adult)

MetalsAeggs

(mg/kg FW)CReggs

(kg/kg-day FW)Feggs (kg)

Ieggs


Ieggs

Aeggs

CReggs

Feggs


US EPA, 2005

US EPA, 2005




DescriptionDaily intake of metal from eggs

Concentration of metal in eggs


Golder Associates

Metals and MetalloidsTotal Daily IntakeReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Ingestion of soil, above ground produce, chicken and eggs from

homegrown chickens (Non-Carcinogenic)

MetalsIsoil

(mg/kg-day)Iag

(mg/kg-day)Ichicken

(mg/kg-day)Ieggs

(mg/kg-day)I

(mg/kg-day)

Antimony 1.25E-06 1.25E-04 3.04E-05 3.46E-05 1.91E-04Cadmium 2.08E-07 4.29E-05 5.86E-07 1.57E-08 4.37E-05Cobalt 1.25E-06 8.13E-05 2.54E-05 2.89E-05 1.37E-04Copper 9.76E-07 4.54E-04 6.09E-05 6.93E-05 5.85E-04Chromium (III) 2.66E-07 3.47E-05 5.28E-06 6.00E-06 4.62E-05Chromium (VI) 2.68E-07 3.49E-05 5.33E-06 6.05E-06 4.65E-05Lead 9.59E-06 2.52E-04 1.98E-04 2.25E-04 6.84E-04Manganese 1.81E-06 2.60E-04 5.02E-05 5.70E-05 3.69E-04Mercuric chloride 4.44E-07 1.27E-05 1.95E-07 2.22E-07 1.35E-05Methyl mercury 8.82E-09 3.97E-06 6.26E-10 7.12E-10 3.98E-06Nickel 1.81E-06 9.02E-05 3.64E-05 4.13E-05 1.70E-04Thallium 1.97E-07 6.79E-06 3.78E-06 4.29E-06 1.51E-05Vanadium 9.79E-06 1.13E-04 1.92E-04 2.18E-04 5.33E-04

IIsoil

Iag

Ichicken

Ieggs Daily intake from eggs Table C-1-3 (US EPA, 2005)






Description ReferencesMetal specific total daily intake Table C-1-6 (US EPA, 2005)

Golder Associates

Metals and MetalloidsTotal Daily IntakeReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Ingestion of soil, above ground produce, poultry and eggs from

homegrown chickens (Carcinogenic Uptake for Adult)

MetalsIsoil

(mg/kg-day)Iag

(mg/kg-day)Ichicken

(mg/kg-day)Ieggs

(mg/kg-day)I

(mg/kg-day)Arsenic 3.45E-07 6.98E-05 8.19E-06 9.31E-06 8.76E-05

IIsoil

Iag

Ichicken

Ieggs


Description ReferencesMetal specific total daily intake Table C-1-6 (US EPA, 2005)Daily intake of from soil Table C-1-1 (US EPA, 2005)



Daily intake from eggs Table C-1-3 (US EPA, 2005)


Golder Associates

Metals and MetalloidsReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Inhalation of vapours and particulates (Non-Carcinogenic)

MetalsQ

(g/s)Fv

Cyv(mg-s/g-m³)

Cyp(mg-s/g-m³)

Ca(mg/m³)

Antimony 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.18E-03Cadmium 6.84E-03 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.18E-04Copper 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.18E-03Chromium (III) 3.42E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 4.59E-03Lead 6.84E-02 7.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.17E-03Manganese 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.18E-03Thallium 6.84E-03 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.18E-04Vanadium 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.18E-03


Golder Associates

Metals and MetalloidsReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Inhalation of vapours and particulates (Non-Carcinogenic)

MetalsCa

(µg/m³)IR

(m³/hr)ET

(hrs/day)EF

(days/yr)ED

(years)0.001

(mg/µg)BW(kg)

AT(year)

365(days/yr)

ADI(mg/kg-day)

Antimony 9.18E-03 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.70E-06Cadmium 9.18E-04 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.70E-07Copper 9.18E-03 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.70E-06Chromium (III) 4.59E-03 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 8.49E-07Lead 9.17E-03 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.70E-06Manganese 9.18E-03 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.70E-06Thallium 9.18E-04 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.70E-07Vanadium 9.18E-03 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.70E-06

Ca










Total metal air concentrationTable B-5-1 (US EPA, 2005) (assumes 50% of total chromiumis chromium III)




Golder Associates

Metals and MetalloidsReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Inhalation of vapours and particulates (Mercury and Mercuric Chloride)

Metals 0.002Q

(g/s)Fv

Cyv(mg-s/g-m³)

Cyp(mg-s/g-m³)

Ca(mg/m³)

Mercury 2.00E-03 6.84E-03 1.00E+00 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 2.08E-06

Metals 0.48Q

(g/s)Fv

Cyv(mg-s/g-m³)

Cyp(mg-s/g-m³)

Ca(mg/m³)

Mercuric chloride 4.80E-01 6.84E-03 8.50E-01 1.52E-01 1.47E-01 4.97E-04



Golder Associates

Metals and MetalloidsReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Inhalation of vapours and particulates (Mercury and Mercuric Chloride)

MetalsCa

(µg/m³)IR

(m³/hr)ET

(hrs/day)EF

(days/yr)ED

(years)0.001

(mg/µg)BW(kg)

AT(year)

365(days/yr)

ADI(mg/kg-day)

Mercury 2.08E-06 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 3.85E-10Mercuric chloride 4.97E-04 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 9.19E-08

CaQFvCyvCypADIIRETEFED0.001BWAT365

Unitized yearly air concentration from vapor phase Maximum concentration from air dispersion modellingUnitized yearly air concentration from particle phase Maximum concentration from air dispersion modelling

Metal - specific emission rate Derived as part of air dispersion assessmentFraction of metal air concentration in vapor phase US EPA, 2005 (Database)

Total metal air concentration Table B-5-1 (US EPA, 2005)



Average daily metal intake via inhalation Table C-3-1 (US EPA, 2005)Inhalation rate EA, SR3, 2009 (adult)Exposure time Conservatively assumed 14 hours outside per dayExposure frequency Conservatively assumed 365 days per yearExposure duration EA Report SR3, 2009 (16-65 yrs old female)Units conversion factor US EPA, 2005


Average body weight Table 4.6, EA Report SR3, 2009 (16-65 yrs old female)Averaging time EA Report SR3, 2009 (16-65 yrs old female)

Golder Associates

Metals and MetalloidsReceptor: AdultExposure Pathway: Inhalation of vapours and particulates (Carcinogenic Uptake for Adult)

MetalsQ

(g/s)Fv

Cyv(mg-s/g-m³)

Cyp(mg-s/g-m³)

Ca(mg/m³)

Arsenic 6.84E-02 6.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.17E-03Chromium (VI) 3.42E-02 0.00E+00 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 4.58E-03Cobalt 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.18E-03Nickel 6.84E-02 9.00E-03 1.52E-01 1.34E-01 9.18E-03

MetalsCa

(µg/m³)IR

(m³/hr)ET

(hrs/day)EF

(days/yr)ED

(years)0.001

(mg/µg)BW(kg)

AT(year)

365(days/yr)

ADI(mg/kg-day)

Arsenic 9.17E-03 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.70E-06Chromium (VI) 4.58E-03 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 8.48E-07Cobalt 9.18E-03 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.70E-06Nickel 9.18E-03 9.25E-01 1.40E+01 3.65E+02 4.90E+01 1.00E-03 7.00E+01 4.90E+01 3.65E+02 1.70E-06

Ca







Total metal air concentrationTable B-5-1 (US EPA, 2005) (assumes 50% of totalchromium is chromium VI)








Golder Associates

Sources of Metal and Metalloid Health Criteria Values

Inhalation Health Criteria ValuesTDI

(µg.kg-1 bw day-1) SOURCE OF VALUE MDI(µg.day-1) SOURCE OF VALUE

Inhalation InhalationAntimony 5.71E-02 USEPA IRIS web site - Chronic RfC for Antimony Trioxide 4.60E-01 WHO - Antimony in drinking water - background exposureCadmium 1.40E-03 TDI from EA Tox Science Report for Cadmium 2.00E-02 MDI from EA Tox Science Report for Cadmium

Copper 2.86E-01 TDI derived from Tolerable Concentration in Air from RIVM report 71170125, 2001 0.00E+00 FSA, EGVM 2003 state that the contribution from airborne copper is

negligible.

Chromium (III) 1.00E-01 MRL from ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Chromium (2008) 2.70E-01 Based on exposure of total chromium of 0.34 ug/day and assuming 80% in ambient air is CrIII (data from Defra, 2008)

Lead 5.71E-01 EA TOX Report for Lead (p 9. WHO report 1 ug/m3 = 5 ug/DL Pb. Blood lead TOX value is 10 ug/DL) 2.00E+00 Background exposure from EA TOX Report for

Lead (p 12)

Manganese 4.30E-02 EAL For vanadium (long term) from EA Report H1 (V6 2003) converted by FOS 100 (as per guidance in report) 1.40E+00 WHO Air Quality Guidelines, 2000, 2nd Edition, maximum of range

quoted for annual average (0.07 ug/m3)

Thallium 2.85E-01 EAL For thallium (long term) from EA Report H1 (V6 2003) converted by FOS 100 (as per guidance in report) 9.60E-03 ATSDR Tox profile for Thallium states that typical air concentration is

0.48 ng/m3

Vanadium 2.86E-02Inhalation TDI from WHO Air Quality Guidelines, 2000 modified by

an additional FOS of 10 to account for potential carcinogenic effects.

1.00E-01Food Standards Agency, EGVM 2003 provides a range of 0.5 to 5 ng/m3. The MDI has been derived based on the highest value of 5

ng/m3.

Nickel 6.00E-03 EA Tox Science Report - TDI (based on carcinogenicity or on non-cancer effects) 6.00E-02 EA Tox Science Report - MDI

Mercury 6.00E-02 EA Tox Science Report - TDI (elemental mercury) 5.00E-02 EA Tox Report - MDI (elemental mercury)

Dioxins and Furans 2.00E-06 EA TOX science Report - TDI WHO TEQ (oral exposure assumed to be protective of inhalation) 1.26E-04 EA TOX science Report - TDI WHO TEQ (all sources)

ID(µg.kg-1 bw day-1) SOURCE OF VALUE

InhalationArsenic 2.00E-03 EA Tox Science Report for Arsenic - ID

Chromium (VI) 1.00E-03 Derived from WHO Air Quality Guidelines 2000, 2nd Edition of 2.5 ng/m3 (referenced in EA TOX report on Chromum)

Cobalt 2.86E-02 Based on a chronic exposure MRL from a study in humans, quoted in WHO peer reviewed source.

Nickel 6.00E-03 EA Tox Science Report - TDI (based on carcinogenicity effects)

USEPA: United States Environmental Protection AgencyEA: Environment AgencyWHO: World Health OrganisationATSDR: US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease RegistryTOX: Environment Agency toxicological report - contaminant specificRfD: Reference DoseTDI: Tolerable Daily IntakeDefra: Department for Food and Rural AffairsID: Index DoseFOS: Factor of SafetyMRL: Minimal Risk LevelRIVM: National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, NetherlandsIRIS: Integrated Risk Information System

Chemical

Chemical

Golder Associates

Sources of Metal and Metalloid Health Criteria Values

Oral Health Criteria ValuesTDI

(µg.kg-1 bw day-1) SOURCE OF VALUE MDI(µg.day-1) SOURCE OF VALUE

Oral OralAntimony 6.00E+00 WHO - Antimony in drinking water TDI 7.00E+01 WHO - Antimony in drinking water - background exposureCadmium 3.60E-01 EA Tox Science Report for Cadmium - TDI 1.34E+01 EA Tox Science Report for Cadmium - MDI

Cobalt 2.30E+01 Based on lowest dose toxic effects observed in animals and UF of 1000, referenced in Food Standards Agency, EGVM, 2003. 3.20E+01 Food Standards Agency, EGVM 2003

Copper 1.60E+02 Food Standards Agency, EGVM, 2003. 4.00E+03 Data for food (ICPS, 2001) and water (Food Standards Agency EGVM, 2003)

Chromium (III) 1.50E+02 Food Standards Agency, EGVM, 2003, para. 59. 6.02E+01 EA TOX Report for Chromium (water and food) assuming 90% Total Cr in food/water is CrIII

Chromium (VI) 3.00E+00 USEPA IRIS RfD for chronic oral exposure. 6.70E+00 EA TOX Report for Chromium (water and food) assuming 10% of total Cr in food/water is CrVI.

Lead 1.00E+01 EA TOX Report for Lead (using 1 ug/kg day relates to 1 ug/DL. Blood lead TOX value is 10 ug/DL) 3.20E+01 EA TOX Report for Lead (food plus water p11 and p12)

Manganese 1.43E+01 USEPA IRIS value based on NOAEL from EGVM, 2003 5.00E+03 Food Standards Agency, EGVM 2003 P217. Food plus water included.

Mercuric chloride 2.00E+00 EA Tox Science Report - TDI (inorganic mercury based on mercuric chloride) 1.00E+00 EA Tox Science Report - MDI (inorganic mercury)

Methyl mercury 2.30E-01 EA Tox Science Report - TDI (methyl mercury) 5.00E-01 EA Tox Science Report - MDI (methyl mercury)Nickel 1.20E+01 EA Tox Science Report for Nickel - TDI 1.30E+02 EA Tox Science Report for Nickel - MDI

Thallium 1.42E-01WHO EHC for Thallium. Based on urinary concentration less than 5 ug/day having no adverse health effects and referenced to a 70 kg

adult.8.00E-01 Food Standards Agency, total diet study 2006

Vanadium 3.00E+00 MRL from ATSDR toxicological profile, 1992 2.30E+01 MDI from food and water exposure levels stated in Food Standards Agency, EGVM, 2003.

Dioxins and Furans 2.00E-06 EA TOX science Report - TDI WHO TEQ 1.26E-04 EA TOX science Report - TDI WHO TEQ (all sources)

ID(µg.kg-1 bw day-1) SOURCE OF VALUE

OralArsenic 3.00E-01 EA Tox Science Report for Arsenic

USEPA: United States Environmental Protection AgencyEA: Environment AgencyWHO: World Health OrganisationATSDR: US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease RegistryTOX: Environment Agency toxicological report - contaminant specificEGVM: Expert Group on Vitamins and MineralsTDI: Tolerable Daily IntakeID: Index DoseUF: Uncertainty FactorMRL: Minimal Risk LevelIRIS: Integrated Risk Information SystemRfD: Reference DoseICPS: International Programme on Chemical Safety

Chemical

Chemical

Golder Associates

TDI(a)

(µg.kg-1 bwday-1)

MDI(b)

(µg.day-1)

CFMDI (MDICorrection Factor

for 16 - 65 yearold (timeweightedaverage))

Weight Of 16 -65 year old

(time weightedaverage kg)

MDI(µg.kg-1 bw day-1))

Is MDI > 50% ofthe TDI(c)

HCV for 16 - 65year old (µg.kg-1

bw day-1)

HCV for 16 - 65year old (mg.kg-1

bw day-1)

Inhalation Inhalation from SR2 from SR2 Inhalation Inhalation Inhalation InhalationAntimony 5.71E-02 4.60E-01 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 6.57E-03 11.51% 5.05E-02 5.05E-05Cadmium 1.40E-03 2.00E-02 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 2.86E-04 20.41% 1.11E-03 1.11E-06Copper 2.86E-01 0.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 0.00E+00 0.00% 2.86E-01 2.86E-04Chromium (III) 1.00E-01 2.70E-01 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 3.86E-03 3.86% 9.61E-02 9.61E-05Lead 5.71E-01 2.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 2.86E-02 5.00% 5.43E-01 5.43E-04Manganese 4.30E-02 1.40E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 2.00E-02 46.51% 2.30E-02 2.30E-05Thallium 2.85E-01 9.60E-03 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.37E-04 0.05% 2.85E-01 2.85E-04Vanadium 2.86E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.43E-03 5.00% 2.72E-02 2.72E-05Mercury 6.00E-02 5.00E-02 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 7.14E-04 1.19% 5.93E-02 5.93E-05Mercuric Chloride 6.00E-02 0.00E+00 7.17E-01 7.00E+01 0.00E+00 0.00% 6.00E-02 6.00E-05Dioxins and Furans (WHO TEQ) 2.00E-06 1.26E-04 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.80E-06 90.00% 1.00E-06 1.00E-09

(b) Mean Daily Intake (MDI) taken from relevant EA Tox Science Report or from other sources as part of literature review.(c) If MDI>50% of the TDI and a value of 50% of the TDI has been used as the HCV (SR2, 2009).SR2: EA Science Report: Human Health Toxicological Assessment of Contaminants in Soil, Final, SC050021/SR2, 2009

HCV (ID)(a)

(µg.kg-1 bwday-1)

InhalationArsenic 2.00E-03Chromium (VI) 1.00E-03Cobalt 2.86E-02Nickel 6.00E-03(a) Index Dose (ID) taken from relevant EA Tox Science Report or from other sources as part of literature review.

Chemical

Health Criteria Values (HCV) - Inhalation Pathway for 16 - 65 Year Old Adult

(a) Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) taken from relevant EA Tox Science Report or from other sources as part of literature review.

Chemical

Golder Associates

TDI(a)

(µg.kg-1 bwday-1)

MDI(b)

(µg.day-1)

CFMDI (MDICorrection Factor

for 16 - 65 yearold (timeweightedaverage))

Weight Of 16 -65 year old (time

weightedaverage kg)


Is MDI > 50% ofthe TDI(c)

HCV for 16 - 65year old (µg.kg-1

bw day-1)

HCV for 16 - 65year old (mg.kg-1

bw day-1)

Oral Oral from SR2 from SR2 Oral Oral Oral OralAntimony 6.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.00E+00 16.67% 5.00E+00 5.00E-03Cadmium 3.60E-01 1.34E+01 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.91E-01 53.17% 1.80E-01 1.80E-04Cobalt 2.30E+01 3.20E+01 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 4.57E-01 1.99% 2.25E+01 2.25E-02Copper 1.60E+02 4.00E+03 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 5.71E+01 35.71% 1.03E+02 1.03E-01Chromium (III) 1.50E+02 6.02E+01 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 8.60E-01 0.57% 1.49E+02 1.49E-01Chromium (VI) 3.00E+00 6.70E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 9.57E-02 3.19% 2.90E+00 2.90E-03Lead 1.00E+01 3.20E+01 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 4.57E-01 4.57% 9.54E+00 9.54E-03Manganese 1.43E+01 5.00E+03 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 7.14E+01 499.50% 7.15E+00 7.15E-03Mercuric chloride 2.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.43E-02 0.71% 1.99E+00 1.99E-03Methyl mercury 2.30E-01 5.00E-01 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 7.14E-03 3.11% 2.23E-01 2.23E-04Nickel 1.20E+01 1.30E+02 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.86E+00 15.48% 1.01E+01 1.01E-02Thallium 1.42E-01 8.00E-01 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.14E-02 8.05% 1.31E-01 1.31E-04Vanadium 3.00E+00 2.30E+01 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 3.29E-01 10.95% 2.67E+00 2.67E-03Dioxins and Furans (WHO TEQ) 2.00E-06 1.26E-04 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.80E-06 90.00% 1.00E-06 1.00E-09

(b) Mean Daily Intake (MDI) taken from relevant EA Tox Science Report or from other sources as part of literature review.(c) If MDI>50% of the TDI and a value of 50% of the TDI has been used as the HCV (SR2, 2009)SR2: EA Science Report: Human Health Toxicological Assessment of Contaminants in Soil, Final, SC050021/SR2, 2009

ID(a)

(µg.kg-1 bwday-1)

HCV (ID)(a)

(mg.kg-1 bwday-1)

Oral OralArsenic 3.00E-01 3.00E-04(a) Index Dose (ID) taken from relevant EA Tox Science Report or from other sources as part of literature review.

Chemical

Health Criteria Values (HCV) - Oral Pathway for 16 - 65 Year Old Adult


Chemical

Golder Associates

TDI(a)

(µg.kg-1 bw day-1)

MDI(b)

(µg.day-1)

CFMDI (MDI Correction Factor for 0 - 6 year old (time weighted

average))

Weight of 0 - 6 year old (time

weighted average kg)


Is MDI > 50% of the TDI(c)

HCV for 0 - 6 year old (µg.kg-1 bw

day-1)

HCV for 0 - 6 year old (mg.kg-1 bw

day-1)

Inhalation Inhalation from SR2 from SR2 Inhalation Inhalation Inhalation InhalationAntimony 5.71E-02 4.60E-01 7.17E-01 1.33E+01 2.48E-02 43.41% 3.23E-02 3.23E-05Cadmium 1.40E-03 2.00E-02 7.17E-01 1.43E+01 1.00E-03 71.60% 7.00E-04 7.00E-07Copper 2.86E-01 6.80E-01 7.17E-01 1.33E+01 3.66E-02 12.81% 2.49E-01 2.49E-04Chromium (III) 1.00E-01 2.70E-01 7.17E-01 1.33E+01 1.45E-02 14.55% 8.55E-02 8.55E-05Lead 5.71E-01 2.00E+00 7.17E-01 1.33E+01 1.08E-01 18.86% 4.64E-01 4.64E-04Manganese 4.30E-02 1.40E+00 7.17E-01 1.33E+01 7.54E-02 175.44% 2.15E-02 2.15E-05Thallium 2.85E-01 9.60E-03 7.17E-01 1.33E+01 5.17E-04 0.18% 2.84E-01 2.84E-04Vanadium 2.86E-02 1.00E-01 7.17E-01 1.33E+01 5.39E-03 18.84% 2.32E-02 2.32E-05Mercury 6.00E-02 5.00E-02 7.17E-01 1.33E+01 2.69E-03 4.49% 5.73E-02 5.73E-05Mercuric Chloride 6.00E-02 0.00E+00 7.17E-01 1.43E+01 0.00E+00 0.00% 6.00E-02 6.00E-05Dioxins and Furans (WHO TEQ) 2.00E-06 1.26E-04 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.80E-06 90.00% 1.00E-06 1.00E-09

(b) Mean Daily Intake (MDI) taken from relevant EA Tox Science Report or from other sources as part of literature review. (c) If MDI>50% of the TDI and a value of 50% of the TDI has been used as the HCV (SR2, 2009)SR2: EA Science Report: Human Health Toxicological Assessment of Contaminants in Soil, Final, SC050021/SR2, 2009

HCV (ID)(a)

(µg.kg-1 bw day-1)

InhalationArsenic 2.00E-03Chromium (VI) 1.00E-03Cobalt 2.86E-02Nickel 6.00E-03(a) Index Dose (ID) taken from relevant EA Tox Science Report or from other sources as part of literature review.

Chemical


Chemical

Health Criteria Values (HCV) - Inhalation Pathway for 0 - 6 Year Old Child

Golder Associates

TDI(a)

(µg.kg-1 bw day-1)

MDI(b)

(µg.day-1)

CFMDI (MDI Correction Factor for 0 - 6 year old (time weighted

average))

Weight of 0 - 6 year old (time

weighted average kg)


Is MDI > 50% of the TDI(c)

HCV for 0 - 6 year old (µg.kg-1 bw

day-1)

HCV for 0 - 6 year old (mg.kg-1 bw

day-1)

Oral Oral from SR2 from SR2 Oral Oral Oral OralAntimony 6.00E+00 7.00E+01 6.62E-01 1.33E+01 3.48E+00 58.04% 3.00E+00 3.00E-03Cadmium 3.60E-01 1.34E+01 6.62E-01 1.33E+01 6.67E-01 185.18% 1.80E-01 1.80E-04Cobalt 2.30E+01 3.20E+01 6.62E-01 1.33E+01 1.59E+00 6.92% 2.14E+01 2.14E-02Copper 1.60E+02 4.00E+03 6.62E-01 1.33E+01 1.99E+02 124.37% 8.00E+01 8.00E-02Chromium (III) 1.50E+02 6.02E+01 6.62E-01 1.33E+01 2.99E+00 2.00% 1.47E+02 1.47E-01Chromium (VI) 3.00E+00 6.70E+00 6.62E-01 1.33E+01 3.33E-01 11.11% 2.67E+00 2.67E-03Lead 1.00E+01 3.20E+01 6.62E-01 1.33E+01 1.59E+00 15.92% 8.41E+00 8.41E-03Manganese 1.43E+01 5.00E+03 6.62E-01 1.33E+01 2.49E+02 1739.49% 7.15E+00 7.15E-03Mercuric chloride 2.00E+00 1.00E+00 6.62E-01 1.33E+01 4.97E-02 2.49% 1.95E+00 1.95E-03Methyl mercury 2.30E-01 5.00E-01 6.62E-01 1.33E+01 2.49E-02 10.82% 2.05E-01 2.05E-04Nickel 1.20E+01 1.30E+02 6.62E-01 1.33E+01 6.47E+00 53.90% 6.00E+00 6.00E-03Thallium 1.42E-01 8.00E-01 6.62E-01 1.33E+01 3.98E-02 28.03% 1.02E-01 1.02E-04Vanadium 3.00E+00 2.30E+01 6.62E-01 1.33E+01 1.14E+00 38.14% 1.86E+00 1.86E-03Dioxins and Furans (WHO TEQ) 2.00E-06 1.26E-04 1.00E+00 7.00E+01 1.80E-06 90.00% 1.00E-06 1.00E-09

(b) Mean Daily Intake (MDI) taken from relevant EA Tox Science Report or from other sources as part of literature review. (c) If MDI>50% of the TDI and a value of 50% of the TDI has been used as the HCV (SR2, 2009)SR2: EA Science Report: Human Health Toxicological Assessment of Contaminants in Soil, Final, SC050021/SR2, 2009

HCV (ID)(a)

(µg.kg-1 bw day-1)Oral

Arsenic 3.00E-01(a) Index Dose (ID) taken from relevant EA Tox Science Report or from other sources as part of literature review.

Chemical

Health Criteria Values (HCV) - Oral Pathway for 0 - 6 Year Old Child


Chemical

Golder Associates

Multi-Pathway Assessment - Human Health Risk Assessment Summary Tables For Exposure Via Ingestion (Oral) Pathways

Table A6.1: Adult Congener Daily Exposure Daily Exposure WHO TEF Daily Exposure (expressed as WHO TEQ)

(mg/kg-day) (µg.kg-1 bw.day-1) (µg.kg-1 bw.day-1)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 3.28E-11 3.28E-08 0.01 3.28E-101,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 9.97E-11 9.97E-08 0.01 9.97E-101,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 6.01E-12 6.01E-09 0.01 6.01E-111,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 5.69E-12 5.69E-09 0.1 5.69E-101,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 5.60E-11 5.60E-08 0.1 5.60E-091,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 5.97E-12 5.97E-09 0.1 5.97E-101,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.36E-11 1.36E-08 0.1 1.36E-091,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 4.79E-12 4.79E-09 0.1 4.79E-101,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 6.79E-13 6.79E-10 0.1 6.79E-111,2,3,7,8-PCDD 4.83E-12 4.83E-09 1 4.83E-091,2,3,7,8-PCDF 4.12E-12 4.12E-09 0.03 1.23E-102,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.46E-11 1.46E-08 0.1 1.46E-092,3,4,7,8-PCDF 1.03E-11 1.03E-08 0.3 3.08E-092,3,7,8-TCDD 2.18E-13 2.18E-10 1 2.18E-102,3,7,8-TCDF 2.14E-12 2.14E-09 0.1 2.14E-10OCDD 7.50E-11 7.50E-08 0.0003 2.25E-11OCDF 7.17E-11 7.17E-08 0.0003 2.15E-11

2.00E-08

Table A6.2: Child Congener Daily Exposure Daily Exposure WHO TEF Daily Exposure (expressed as WHO TEQ)


5.37E-08

Sum of ADE expressed as WHO TEQ µg.kg-1 bw.day-1


Golder Associates

Multi-Pathway Assessment - Human Health Risk Assessment Summary Tables For Exposure Via Ingestion (Oral) Pathways

Table A6.3: Infant Congener Daily Exposure Daily Exposure WHO TEF Daily Exposure (expressed as WHO TEQ)

(pg.kg-1 bw.day-1) (µg.kg-1 bw.day-1) (µg.kg-1 bw.day-1)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1.63E-03 1.63E-09 0.01 1.63E-111,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 4.95E-03 4.95E-09 0.01 4.95E-111,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 3.02E-04 3.02E-10 0.01 3.02E-121,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 2.83E-04 2.83E-10 0.1 2.83E-111,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 2.77E-03 2.77E-09 0.1 2.77E-101,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 2.96E-04 2.96E-10 0.1 2.96E-111,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 6.78E-04 6.78E-10 0.1 6.78E-111,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 2.38E-04 2.38E-10 0.1 2.38E-111,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 3.40E-05 3.40E-11 0.1 3.40E-121,2,3,7,8-PCDD 2.41E-04 2.41E-10 1 2.41E-101,2,3,7,8-PCDF 2.06E-04 2.06E-10 0.03 6.19E-122,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 7.29E-04 7.29E-10 0.1 7.29E-112,3,4,7,8-PCDF 5.12E-04 5.12E-10 0.3 1.54E-102,3,7,8-TCDD 1.12E-05 1.12E-11 1 1.12E-112,3,7,8-TCDF 1.10E-04 1.10E-10 0.1 1.10E-11OCDD 3.73E-03 3.73E-09 0.0003 1.12E-12OCDF 3.56E-03 3.56E-09 0.0003 1.07E-12

9.97E-10

Table A6.4: Comparison Of Daily Oral Exposure With HCV

Adult 2.00E-08 1.00E-06 2.00E-02 PassChild 5.37E-08 1.00E-06 5.37E-02 PassInfant 9.97E-10 1.00E-06 9.97E-04 Pass


(1) The risk assessment passes if the daily exposure is less than the HCV (i.e. the ratio of daily exposure to the HCV is less than or equal to 1)

ReceptorHCV

(WHO TEQ µg.kg-1 bw.day-1)

Daily Exposure/HCV(dimensionless) Pass/Fail(1)Total Daily Exposure


Golder Associates

Multi-Pathway Assessment - Human Health Risk Assessment Summary Tables For Exposure Via Inhalation Pathways

Table A6.5: Adult Congener Daily Exposure Daily Exposure WHO TEF Daily Exposure (expressed as WHO TEQ)


3.64E-10

Table A6.6: Child Congener Daily Exposure Daily Exposure WHO TEF Daily Exposure (expressed as WHO TEQ)


4.02E-10Sum of ADE expressed as WHO TEQ µg.kg-1 bw.day-1


Golder Associates

Multi-Pathway Assessment - Human Health Risk Assessment Summary Tables For Exposure Via Inhalation Pathways

Table A6.7: Comparison Of Daily Inhalation Exposure With HCV

Adult 3.64E-10 1.00E-06 3.64E-04 PassChild 4.02E-10 1.00E-06 4.02E-04 Pass


Pass/FailReceptorHCV


Daily Exposure/HCV(dimensionless)

Daily Exposure (WHO TEQ µg.kg-1 bw.day-1)

Golder Associates

Table A7.1: Adult Total daily intake

(mg/kg-day)Antimony 1.91E-04 1.91E-01 5.00E+00 3.82E-02 PassCadmium 4.37E-05 4.37E-02 1.80E-01 2.43E-01 PassCobalt 1.37E-04 1.37E-01 2.25E+01 6.09E-03 PassCopper 5.85E-04 5.85E-01 1.03E+02 5.68E-03 PassChromium (III) 4.62E-05 4.62E-02 1.49E+02 3.10E-04 PassChromium (VI) 4.65E-05 4.65E-02 2.90E+00 1.60E-02 PassLead 6.84E-04 6.84E-01 9.54E+00 7.17E-02 PassManganese 3.69E-04 3.69E-01 7.15E+00 5.16E-02 PassMercuric chloride 1.35E-05 1.35E-02 1.99E+00 6.80E-03 PassMethyl mercury 3.98E-06 3.98E-03 2.23E-01 1.79E-02 PassNickel 1.70E-04 1.70E-01 1.01E+01 1.67E-02 PassThallium 1.51E-05 1.51E-02 1.31E-01 1.15E-01 PassVanadium 5.33E-04 5.33E-01 2.67E+00 1.99E-01 PassArsenic 8.76E-05 8.76E-02 3.00E-01 2.92E-01 Pass

Table A7.2: Child Total daily intake

(mg/kg-day)Antimony 3.53E-04 3.53E-01 3.00E+00 1.18E-01 PassCadmium 1.04E-04 1.04E-01 1.80E-01 5.79E-01 PassCobalt 2.44E-04 2.44E-01 2.14E+01 1.14E-02 PassCopper 1.16E-03 1.16E+00 8.00E+01 1.46E-02 PassChromium (III) 9.35E-05 9.35E-02 1.47E+02 6.36E-04 PassChromium (VI) 9.40E-05 9.40E-02 2.67E+00 3.52E-02 PassLead 9.78E-04 9.78E-01 8.41E+00 1.16E-01 PassManganese 7.08E-04 7.08E-01 7.15E+00 9.90E-02 PassMercuric chloride 3.24E-05 3.24E-02 1.95E+00 1.66E-02 PassMethyl mercury 9.51E-06 9.51E-03 2.05E-01 4.64E-02 PassNickel 2.86E-04 2.86E-01 6.00E+00 4.76E-02 PassThallium 2.37E-05 2.37E-02 1.02E-01 2.32E-01 PassVanadium 6.43E-04 6.43E-01 1.86E+00 3.46E-01 PassArsenic 2.04E-04 2.04E-01 3.00E-01 6.81E-01 Pass

Multi-Pathway Assessment - Human Health Risk Assessment Summary Tables For Exposure To Metals and Metalloids Via Ingestion (Oral) Pathways

Health Criteria Value (HCV)(µg.kg-1 bw.day-1)

Pass/Fail(1)Daily Exposure/HCV(dimensionless)

Metal/Metalloid Daily Exposure(µg.kg-1 bw.day-1)




Pass/Fail(1)



Golder Associates

Table A7.3: Adult Daily Exposure

(mg/kg-day)Antimony 1.70E-06 1.70E-03 5.05E-02 3.36E-02 PassCadmium 1.70E-07 1.70E-04 1.11E-03 1.52E-01 PassCopper 1.70E-06 1.70E-03 2.86E-01 5.94E-03 PassChromium (III) 8.49E-07 8.49E-04 9.61E-02 8.83E-03 PassLead 1.70E-06 1.70E-03 5.43E-01 3.13E-03 PassManganese 1.70E-06 1.70E-03 2.30E-02 7.38E-02 PassThallium 1.70E-07 1.70E-04 2.85E-01 5.96E-04 PassVanadium 1.70E-06 1.70E-03 2.72E-02 6.24E-02 PassArsenic 1.70E-06 1.70E-03 2.00E-03 8.49E-01 PassChromium (VI) 8.48E-07 8.48E-04 1.00E-03 8.48E-01 PassCobalt 1.70E-06 1.70E-03 2.86E-02 5.94E-02 PassNickel 1.70E-06 1.70E-03 6.00E-03 2.83E-01 PassMercury 3.85E-10 3.85E-07 5.93E-02 6.49E-06 PassMercuric chloride 9.19E-08 9.19E-05 6.00E-02 1.53E-03 Pass

Table A7.4: Child Daily Exposure

(mg/kg-day)Antimony 1.88E-06 1.88E-03 3.23E-02 5.81E-02 PassCadmium 1.88E-07 1.88E-04 7.00E-04 2.68E-01 PassCopper 1.88E-06 1.88E-03 2.49E-01 7.54E-03 PassChromium (III) 9.38E-07 9.38E-04 8.55E-02 1.10E-02 PassLead 1.88E-06 1.88E-03 4.64E-01 4.05E-03 PassManganese 1.88E-06 1.88E-03 2.15E-02 8.73E-02 PassThallium 1.88E-07 1.88E-04 2.84E-01 6.60E-04 PassVanadium 1.88E-06 1.88E-03 2.32E-02 8.09E-02 PassArsenic 1.88E-06 1.88E-03 2.00E-03 9.38E-01 PassChromium (VI) 9.37E-07 9.37E-04 1.00E-03 9.37E-01 PassCobalt 1.88E-06 1.88E-03 2.86E-02 6.56E-02 PassNickel 1.88E-06 1.88E-03 6.00E-03 3.13E-01 PassMercury 4.25E-10 4.25E-07 5.73E-02 7.42E-06 PassMercuric chloride 1.02E-07 1.02E-04 6.00E-02 1.69E-03 Pass

Multi-Pathway Assessment - Human Health Risk Assessment Summary Tables For Exposure To Metals and Metalloids Via Inhalation Pathways


Pass/Fail(1)Health Criteria Value (HCV)(µg.kg-1 bw.day-1)


(1)The risk assessment passes if the daily exposure is less than the HCV (i.e. the ratio of daily exposure to the HCV is less than or equal to 1)

Daily Exposure/HCV(dimensionless) Pass/Fail(1)




Golder Associates


CHAPTER 4CARBON BALANCE

September 2009 --4- i - 09514690030.512 Carbon Balance B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE 4.0 CARBON BALANCE ................................................................................... 1

4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 4.1.1 Purpose of the Study ................................................................... 1 4.1.2 Life Cycle Assessment in relation to Waste Management ........... 1 4.1.3 The WRATE Model ...................................................................... 2 4.1.4 Information requirements for a WRATE model ............................ 3

4.2 Scope ...................................................................................................... 3 4.2.1 System (Study) Boundaries ......................................................... 3 4.2.2 Goal Setting ................................................................................. 4 4.2.3 Limitations .................................................................................... 4 4.2.4 Main Assumptions ....................................................................... 4 4.2.5 Method of Assessment ................................................................ 5

4.3 Scheme Model ......................................................................................... 7 4.3.1 Waste Flows ................................................................................ 7 4.3.2 Impact Assessment Method ........................................................ 8 4.3.3 Assumptions Regarding Individual Processes ............................. 9

4.4 Assessment Results ................................................................................ 9 4.4.1 Discussion of Results ................................................................ 11 4.4.2 Review of Sub-processes .......................................................... 11

4.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................... 12 LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5

List of Gases and Potency in Relation to Climate Change Energy Mix for 2015 and 2020 Waste Inputs Overall Performance of Different Scenarios for 2015 and 2020 Detailed Results (tonnes CO2 (eq))

LIST OF DRAWINGS Drawing No. 1 Drawing No. 2 Drawing No. 3

Baseline Scenario RCF Scenario eRCF Scenario

September 2009 - 4-1 - 09514690030.512 Carbon Balance B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

4.0 CARBON BALANCE

4.1 Introduction

Following the Regulation 19 Submission, an assessment has been completed of the carbon emissions and carbon balance as a result of using the evolution of Recycling and Composting Facility (eRCF) to treat the wastes accepted by it (i.e. assessing the climate change potential as defined by the emission of greenhouse gases). The assessment was completed using an Environment Agency computer software package called WRATE. WRATE is a ‘state of the art’ modelling package that allows the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of waste management systems to be undertaken. As well as examining the eRCF, two other scenarios were considered to provide a comparison: no development at Rivenhall and maintaining existing waste management practices (baseline scenario); and the operation of the Recycling and Composting Facility (RCF) (for which permission has been granted).

4.1.1 Purpose of the Study

The overall purpose of this study is to define the Climate Change assessment (Carbon Balance) for the eRCF, as defined by the emission of Greenhouse Gasses (GHGs) as a result of using the plant to treat the wastes accepted by it.

This Chapter provides the method of assessment and the results obtained from undertaking a LCA of the waste management system including the eRCF (plus other scenarios to allow comparisons to be made), but concentrates solely on the GHG emissions.

4.1.2 Life Cycle Assessment in relation to Waste Management

Government Policy, as set out in PPS 10 states: “The overall objective of Government policy on waste, as set out in the strategy for sustainable development, is to protect human health and the environment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource wherever possible. Through more sustainable waste management, moving the management of waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’ of reduction, reuse, recycling and composting, using waste as a source of energy, and only disposing as a last resort the Government aims to break the link between economic growth and the environmental impact of waste.”

Defra’s 2007 Waste Strategy sets out a number of challenges related to the management of waste within this country. Specifically it sets out the following:

“Better management of waste can contribute to:

• Reducing greenhouse gases – notably methane from landfill sites but also carbon dioxide emission (through re-use and recycling);

• Improving resource efficiency – saving energy and reducing material use through waste prevention, re-use, recycling and renewable energy recovery;


Golder Associates

• Protecting public health through safe management of potentially hazardous substances;

• Protecting ecosystems (soils, groundwater, emissions to air); and • Safeguarding social amenity – by ensuring household waste is collected, reducing

flytipping by households and businesses, and limiting local nuisances from waste facilities”.

The objective of reducing carbon emissions is also shared by Essex County Council in its Waste Management Strategy as set out in the Essex Joint Municipal Waste Strategy, Eunomia - Environmental Report, February 2008.

4.1.3 The WRATE Model

WRATE was developed by the Environment Agency to support Government Policy by providing a tool to waste managers and those charged with developing waste strategy, that will allow them to assess the environmental performance of an entire waste management strategy.

The WRATE model (published by the Environment Agency) is a LCA model specifically targeted at the waste industry. It has been built to comply with ISO140401. It contains a library of “processes” that represent a near full range of waste treatment and disposal processes from collection, transport, intermediate facilities, through treatment, recycling, recovery and final disposal. As such it contains processes that represent each stage of waste collection (such as the use of black refuse sacks or wheelie bins) and the environmental burdens associated with their manufacture, maintenance and disposal; details of refuse collection vehicles (including fuel type, fuel consumption and exhaust emissions); details of waste sorting and the environmental burdens (emissions) associated with the construction and operation of the plant (including energy usage and generation); through to complex treatment plants including energy recovery and the benefits (off-sets) gained from recycling.

In simple terms the model contains detailed information about waste processes and the chemical and physical properties of waste, that allow the user to design a waste management system from collection to ultimate disposal or recycling endpoints. Users can set up models that mimic the flow of waste from collection through treatment and recovery process and disposal of residues. WRATE is programmed such that that the mass of waste that enters the model as defined waste streams is dealt with in its entirety – only after all the waste is accounted for will it allow calculation of the results. The results of the assessment show a summation of the environmental performance in such a way that the overall emissions of (for instance) GHGs can be undertaken. Many other impact assessments can be undertaken but in this instance Golder has concentrated solely on GHG emissions.

1 ISO14040 (2006) Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Principles and framework. Essentially the model has been developed to be open and transparent in terms of the data it uses and the way in which the data are manipulated. All imported data is fully referenced and its origins noted within the software.


Golder Associates

Developed and published in 2007 (by the Environment Agency, supported by Golder and ERM) the model continues to be refined with a new version (upgrade) currently in development. The model is used extensively in the UK with a large number of Local Authorities, Regulators, Waste Management companies, and consultants using the software (around 170 users in total). There are a small number of users in other countries (both inside and outside of the EU). The software was written by Golder and populated with data collected and encoded by ERM, Golder and the Environment Agency, and peer reviewed by Surrey University and AEA.

4.1.4 Information requirements for a WRATE model

WRATE requires the following details in order to allow a model to be created:

a. Details of the wastes to be managed (quantities and composition);

b. The energy mix contributing to the National Grid; and

c. Details of the waste management scheme that is under investigation (from collection through transport, treatment, recovery, recycling and disposal).

It is good practice in any LCA to define the functional unit of the study, the system boundary and the goals and objectives of the study. These are set out in the following Section.

4.2 Scope

4.2.1 System (Study) Boundaries

Estimates of the waste that could be treated by the plant have been made based on information contained in the Joint Essex Waste Strategy (and the supporting documents it is based on) plus additional Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste streams. The upstream boundaries include all the locations where waste is transferred to the Site. The downstream boundary is defined by the ultimate disposal, recovery or recycling point for the materials that are exported from the plant or dealt with within the waste management system under investigation.

The functional unit is described as the totality of waste being treated within the eRCF within a given year. It can then be compared with the total emissions between scenarios as they will have dealt with identical quantities of waste (with identical composition).

Information on data sources used to compile the model will be referenced and (where appropriate) a comment on the data quality of the information and its usage for the purposes of the study.


Golder Associates

4.2.2 Goal Setting

The overall goal of this study is to define the carbon dioxide (equivalents) emissions resulting from the treatment of waste using the eRCF for a number of specific years during its operation. Running the model in different years allows changes to the national electricity generating system to be considered, in terms of both energy used by the plant, and energy generated by the plant that will reduce the use of generated supplies elsewhere. Comparative scenarios are also modelled during the same years to show equivalent emissions that might develop should the alternate waste strategies be pursued.

4.2.3 Limitations

Following the ISO 14040 guidelines for undertaking an LCA, it is necessary to undertake an assessment of the limitations of the study:

• The Market De-Ink Pulp Facility process is not a process that exists within the WRATE model such that some simplifying assumptions are required; and

• System Processes within WRATE for Heavy Goods Vehicles do not include the full range of carrying capacities to properly model the waste flows within Essex.

4.2.4 Main Assumptions

One of the main assumptions made in this study is that the waste anticipated to be attracted to the site will be delivered. To attract the MSW waste streams the operator would need to win an element of the County’s Waste Treatment contract. However, the plant would be able to deal with comparable waste generated from C&I waste streams.

Reasonable estimates have been made for the destination of current or anticipated recyclables generated within the current waste management scheme.

Some assumptions have been made relating existing system of waste management in order to provide a baseline. Only data that is available in the public domain has been used. In relation to the modelling of the RCF, the facility that currently has planning permission has been created with source separated dry recyclables and the use of a MRF to recover recyclable material.

In order to finalise the disposal of all of the wastes from the RCF scenario an incinerator has been included within the scheme to deal with the SRF.

The situation has been modelled in 2015 (giving adequate time for construction) and in 2020 (the last date into the future that the Environment Agency have estimated the UK electrical energy mix within WRATE).


Golder Associates

4.2.5 Method of Assessment

The system processes within WRATE have been modified to better mimic the anticipated performance of the actual processes used within the eRCF.

The process of undertaking the LCA involves looking at all of the environmental burdens associated with the construction, operation, maintenance and final disposal of the entire scheme, and will include calculation of the capital burdens (basically the construction) and process burdens (the emissions from each part of the plant).

Emissions from UK power generation plant used to provide electrical energy to the site from the National Grid, and the avoidance of environmental burdens resulting from recycling materials is included in the analysis. Electricity or heat that is put to beneficial use is included as an off-set against the process emissions. This ultimately results in a long list of emissions and burdens (both positive and negative) that are termed the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI). An LCI once developed for the entire modelled scenario can then be interrogated to determine the impact assessment.any mobile plant used).

The impact assessment method used examines the effects of gaseous emissions that can affect climate change. The main gases usually considered for climate change are carbon dioxide (from fossil sources), methane, carbon monoxide and NOx. However, a much longer list of GHGs has been considered and is shown in Table 4.1 along with their potency compared to the standard (CO2).

Table 4.1: List of Gases and Potency in Relation to Climate Change

Gas Potency

Compared to CO2

Gas Potency

Compared to CO2

Sulphur hexafluoride 22200 Methane, difluoro-, HFC-32 550 Methane, chlorotrifluoro-, CFC-13 14000 Nitrous oxide 296 Methane, trifluoro-, HFC-23 12000 Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-,

HCFC-140 140

Methane, dichlorodifluoro-, CFC-12 10600 Methyl chloroform [1,1,1-Trichloroethane]

140

Ethane, 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-, CFC-114

9800 Trichlorotoluene 140

Ethane, chloropentafluoro-, CFC-115 7200 Ethane, 1,1-difluoro-, HFC-152a

120

Methane, bromotrifluoro-, Halon 1301

6900 Ethane, 2,2-dichloro-1,1,1-tri-fluoro-, HCFC-123

120

Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro-, CFC-113

6000 Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)

120

Methane, tetrafluoro-, FC-14 5700 Chloroform [Trichloromethane]

30

Methane, trichlorofluoro-, CFC-11 4600 Hydrocarbons (unspecified) 23 Ethane, 1,1,1-trifluoro-, CFC-143a

4300 Methane, (unspecified) 23

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) 4241.825 Methane, biogenic 23


Golder Associates

Gas Potency

Compared to CO2

Gas Potency

Compared to CO2

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 4241.825 Methane, fossil 23 Ethane, pentafluoro-, HFC-125 3400 Methyl chloride

[Chloromethane] 16

Ethane, 1-chloro-1,1-difluoro-, HCFC-142

2400 Dichloromethane 10

Carbon tetrachloride [Tetrachloromethane]

1800 Methyl bromide [Bromomethane]

5

Methane, chlorodifluoro-, HCFC-22 1700 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1.53 Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoro-, HFC-134a

1300 Carbon monoxide, biogenic 1.53

Methane, bromochlorodifluoro-, Halon 1211

1300 Carbon monoxide, fossil 1.53

Ethane, 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoro-, HCFC-141b

700 Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1

Ethane, 2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetra-fluoro-, HCFC-124

620 Carbon dioxide, fossil 1

Note: this Impact Assessment is the Default GWP (100) assessment method recommended by the Environment Agency within Version 1.0 of WRATE.

Many of these gases will not be emitted directly from either the eRCF or from any other part of the waste management system, and are included simply because they represent a comprehensive list of GHGs. However, due to the comprehensive way that LCA works, it is possible that some of these gases may be associated with the extraction of raw materials, refining, manufacture, transport and energy generation of the construction elements of the plant (concrete, steel, copper, asphalt, chemicals used within the process, etc). It is therefore possible that some of these gases may be emitted at other locations in the world, and are therefore included in my assessment. LCA does not concentrate solely on the emissions from the facility under consideration, but will examine all emissions from all stages of the life cycle of all materials used. For example, the UK remains dependent upon coal for at least a quarter of its energy supplies (ref. WRATE energy mix database) and energy is likely to have been used in virtually all extraction, refining, and manufacturing stages for construction material. Burdens associated with the coal extraction (as well as the burdens associated with drawing energy from oil, gas, nuclear, wind and hydroelectricity) have all needed to be considered within my assessment.

The analysis has been repeated for a different year so that the effects of future energy generation policy can be assessed within my results. The Energy Mix used in my assessment (taken from the default values within WRATE) are shown in Table 4.2. The Base electricity generating mix is used in the model where energy is drawn from the grid, and the Marginal Mix is used where energy is exported to the grid (this is a common approach in LCA and one defined within the WRATE energy database by the Environment Agency).


Golder Associates

Table 4.2: Energy Mix for 2015 and 2020

Total (2015) Base Marginal Mix Total (2020) Base Marginal

Mix Coal 22.42 46.84 Coal 16.17 33.81 Oil 0.26 0 Oil 0.25 0.00 Gas 3.11 3.35 Gas 3.83 4.17 Gas CCGT 44.22 49.81 Gas CCGT 55.04 62.02 Nuclear 12.87 0 Nuclear 8.60 0.00 Waste 0.01 0 Waste 0.01 0.00 Thermal other 0.22 0 Thermal other 0.22 0.00 Renewable thermal 2.34 0 Renewable thermal 2.20 0.00 Solar PV 0 0 Solar PV 0.00 0.00 Wind 12.81 0 Wind 12.05 0.00 Tidal 0 0 Tidal 0.00 0.00 Wave 0 0 Wave 0.00 0.00 Hydro 1.73 0 Hydro 1.63 0.00 Geothermal 0 0 Geothermal 0.00 0.00 Renewable other 0 0 Renewable other 0.00 0.00 Note: Energy drawn from the grid uses the base mix of electrical generation, while energy supplied to the grid off-sets the marginal mix (energy generation that can readily be amended to suit demand rather than the base load). These defaults have been defined by the Environment Agency and are used with no modification.

A waste composition has been developed within WRATE that reasonably represents the waste composition appropriate to Essex for municipal wastes, and other waste streams to represent the other waste inputs to the site.

4.3 Scheme Model

4.3.1 Waste Flows

The model that has been developed has a number of different waste inputs including Household residual wastes, Household dry recyclables, Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) (civic amenity) wastes, C&I wastes and waste paper as set out in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Waste Inputs

Waste Quantity (tonnes) Residual Municipal Solid Waste 223,790 Dry Recyclables & Food and Green Waste (Collected) 129,674 Household Recycling Centre Recyclable Waste 32,178 Household Recycling Centre Residual Waste 25,184 Commercial and Industrial 23,148 Commercial and Industrial Residual Waste 1,026 Solid Recovered Fuel 87,500 Paper 331,000

Total 853,500


Golder Associates

Note: Data in this table (and used within the model to define the waste composition of the waste steams) drawn from Eunomia Environmental Report (2008) & MEL Analysis of the Composition of Waste Arising in Essex 2004. Three scenarios have been modelled so that comparisons between an approximation of the existing waste management system (called the baseline), one where the existing permission is implemented with the RCF, and one including the eRCF, can be made. Each scenario manages the same quantity and composition of waste which relates to the capacity of the eRCF.

Drawing No’s 1, 2 and 3 set out the waste maps showing the linkages between waste processes (within WRATE). The new (and as yet unpublished) Version 2 of WRATE was used due to the improvements in the way it shows the linkages. (Permission was obtained from the Environment Agency). As version 2 of the software has not yet been reviewed, the only use of this newer version was for the printing of the waste maps.

The starting point for the modelling is the collection of the waste via Refuse Collection Vehicles. The step defining the type of bin, sack, or box householders use to place their waste on the kerbside has been omitted as it is assumed that the method of waste collection will be identical between the all the scenarios modelled.

For the baseline scenario the waste has been modelled as being taken to the existing waste transfer stations, bulked up and forwarded to the disposal points that the Waste Disposal Authority uses. Mixed Recyclables are taken to a MRF and materials that can be recycled are sent to merchants for recycling.

For the RCF scenario, in addition to the processes that will occur within the permitted RCF plant, an “off-site” MRF has been modelled to sort and dispatch for recycling the dry recyclables that are collected within the Districts included within the model boundary (transported from transfer stations in Braintree, Colchester, Chelmsford, Epping Forest and Great Dunmore). An incinerator has been modelled to handle the SRF originating from Courtauld Road (assumed to enter the eRCF) as well as Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) that is generated from the RCF’s MRF.

Waste paper that is to be imported to the eRCF is dealt with in the baseline and RCF scenarios in the same manner, with transport to China for recycling.

4.3.2 Impact Assessment Method

The assessment method used is Global Warming assessed over a period of 100 years. This is one of the standard impact assessment methods recommended by the Environment Agency for use with WRATE.


Golder Associates

4.3.3 Assumptions Regarding Individual Processes

Operational differences between the proposed plant and those contained within the library have been listed in the assumptions made within the model when developing the User Defined Processes.

4.4 Assessment Results

The results of the analysis are presented in terms of tonnes of carbon dioxide (eq) emissions for waste management in Essex dealing with those wastes to be handled by the eRCF for the three scenarios modelled. The results are shown in the Table 4.4. Positive numbers mean an emission of CO2 (eq) (bad for the environment), whereas a negative number means that there is an avoided emission of CO2 (eq) (better for the environment). Avoided emissions are generated from energy recovery (landfill gas converted to energy, AD biogas converted to energy, energy from the CHP), and recycling of waste such that recycling results in less energy consumption compared with the manufacture of the raw (virgin) material.

Table 4.4: Overall Performance of Different Scenarios for 2015 and 2020

Scenario Description Emissions of CO2 (eq) (tonnes)

Baseline Case (without eRCF) (2015 energy Mix) -7,869 Inclusion of the RCF in the management of wastes (2015 energy mix) -34,439 Inclusion of eRCF in the management of wastes (2015 energy mix) -168,681 Baseline Case (without eRCF) (2020 energy Mix) -4,117 Inclusion of the RCF in the management of wastes (2020 energy mix) - 20,236 Inclusion of eRCF in the management of wastes (2020 energy mix) -125,888 The eRCF out performs the other scenarios for the two years that have been modelled. Given the large differences between the results from each individual scenario, it is considered that the overall results would similar for other years based on energy mix predictions into the future. Using the 2020 predicted energy mix, the eRCF would result in an annual net saving of 121,771 tonnes of CO2 (eq) compared to the baseline scenario (or 3 million tonnes of CO2 (eq) over a 25 year period).

Table 4.5 details the different stages and different destinations of wastes treated, recycled, recovered and disposed and sets out the underlying results that feed into the overall results shown above.


Golder Associates

Table 4.5: Detailed Results (tonnes CO2 (eq))

Sub-division Results for “Baseline

Case” RCF eRCF Comments

2015 Energy Mix

Transport 33,228 35,072 18,608 Fewer transport emissions due to changes in waste transportation destinations.

Intermediate Facilities (transfer stations)

3,263 5,382 2,133 RCF performs worse than other scenarios, but a very minor overall contributor to GHG emissions.

Recycling -110,502 -141,403 -179,443

All scenarios show the benefit of recycling of waste, with the best result stemming from the eRCF. Note that some of this benefit stems from the use of low carbon heat used in the MDIP plant and the use of low carbon electricity to power all the ancillary equipment contributing to the running of the site.

Treatment and Recovery 860 48,816 9,553

Savings in relation to CO2 emissions resulting from heat recovery at the CHP plant do not appear in this section as the benefit is accounted for in the manufacture of paper pulp.

Landfill 65,278 17,693 9,232

Greatly reduced emissions from landfill using eRCF, as less waste and less organic matter being sent to landfill.

2020 Energy Mix

Transport 33,228 35,072 18,608

Fewer transport emissions due to changes in waste transportation destinations (and identical to 2015 results as no grid electricity used in transport network).

Intermediate Facilities (transfer stations)

3,201 5,317 2,117

RCF performs worse that other scenarios, but a very minor overall contributor to GHG emissions. Minor reductions from 2025 energy mix reflecting a lower fossil fuel usage in future UK energy generation.

Recycling -110,615 -141,485 -179,516 Comparable results with the 2015 energy mix with the eRCF outperforming the other scenarios.

Treatment and Recovery 860 62,109 23,125

Reduction in benefit from eRCF due to reducing fossil fuel dependence of UK electrical grid. Similar response from the RCF with an increase in the emissions due to lower benefit from the exported energy from the AD plant.

Landfill 69,209 18,750 9,778 eRCF continues to out- perform with the reduced waste to landfill.


Golder Associates

4.4.1 Discussion of Results

The results indicate that there is a significant reduction of CO2 (eq) emissions if the eRCF was implemented compared to the current waste management arrangements, or compared to the permitted RCF scheme. Much of the benefit from the scheme comes from the reduction of waste sent to landfill (and the generation of methane from organic material) and the recovery and export of energy from the CHP plant.

While there will be CO2 emissions from the CHP plant, and from the AD plant (after the biogas has been used in a gas engine), it should be noted that the emissions from the CHP plant and AD plant off-set those from other electricity generation that use fossil fuel. It should also be noted that CO2 emissions resulting from the degradation or combustion of organic material are not regarded as GHGs by the IPCC. The reason for excluding carbon dioxide from biogenic sources is that these emissions stem from renewable resources (food, wood, and material made from material recently part of the biosphere) and hence an equivalent amount of CO2 will be used to replenish these resources.

CO2 from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) will not be replenished within a short time period and are regarded as contributing to the emissions of GHGs. Plastics burnt within the CHP will emit fossil fuel related CO2 emissions as the organic content of the plastic originated from crude oil (regarded as a non-renewable resource).

The results show that the plant will support the objectives of Defra’s Waste Strategy in reducing carbon emissions.

4.4.2 Review of Sub-processes

The eRCF has lower transport emissions of GHGs than the other scenarios. Much of the improvement stems from the limited options for the recycling of waste paper to make high quality graphic paper and that all the options include transport of the paper many hundreds (or even 1000s) of kilometres. The transport emissions for moving the paper pulp from the eRCF site to market are also embedded in the recycling emissions, rather than transport emissions.

GHG emissions resulting from the operation of intermediate facilities (transfer stations etc) look close for all scenarios and low when compared to the overall results. The eRCF has lower GHG emissions with greater intermediate facilities because those sited at Rivenhall will be powered by a lower fossil carbon energy source.

Recycling of wastes allows savings in energy that would be used to manufacture the equivalent amount of new material. However, the RCF and eRCF recycles more waste than is currently being recycled in the baseline scenario and one of the key benefits from the scheme (in terms of CO2 emissions reduction) is captured in the recycling efforts.


Golder Associates

In relation to waste treatment and recovery (AD, MBT, Composting, and CHP) the eRCF shows a carbon impact (rather than a saving). The carbon benefits from the CHP plant have essentially been transferred to the recycling benefits and intermediate facilities (such as the MRF). The savings in carbon emissions are therefore recognised within the pulp plant.

Comparison between the two years in which the assessment has been made shows that the benefits of adopting the eRCF are greater in 2015 than they are in 2020, albeit that the changes are only minor. The greatest change comes in the treatment and recovery sector where a lower reliance on fossil fuels for our energy generation as a nation, and the greater use of Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (which has a higher generating efficiency) mean that the off-sets gained from generating heat and power have a very slightly lower benefit.

4.5 Conclusions

A WRATE model has been developed to assess the emissions of GHGs from, and associated with, the eRCF. The proposed plant performance has been compared to an approximation of the existing waste management system and the currently permitted RCF by running similar scenarios dealing with comparable waste volumes.

The eRCF has a considerably greater environmental performance than either of the other scenarios modelled with an annual saving of over 120,000 tonnes of CO2 (eq) over existing waste management arrangements. Over a twenty five year period (typical for an MSW contract) this could amount to a reduction of emissions of 3 million tonnes of CO2 (eq).

To put these figures into context, the average emission of CO2 (eq) per person is 8.8 tonnes per year (this figure includes industrial emissions, domestic energy use, transport and air travel). The RCF would save enough CO2 (eq) to offset the emissions of 1,820 to 2,950 people, however the eRCF will save enough CO2 (eq) to offset the emissions of 13,600 people (i.e. more than the combined population of the parishes of Bradwell, Coggeshall, Kelvedon, Rivenhall and Silver End).

The performance of the RCF is better than that of the baseline scenario, saving typically 16,000 to 26,000 tonnes of CO2 (eq) per annum (some 0.5 million tonnes over a 25 year period).

The eRCF plant could achieve comparable performance managing either MSW waste streams or C&I waste streams.

The results show that the plant will support the objectives of Defra’s Waste Strategy in reducing carbon emissions.

September 2009 B.0 09514690030.512

Golder Associates

DRAWINGS


CHAPTER 5ECOLOGY

September 2009 - 5-i - 09514690030.512 Ecology B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 5.0 INVERTEBRATE SURVEY ......................................................................... 1

5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 5.2 Relevant Wildlife Legislation & Policy ...................................................... 1 5.3 Survey Methodology ................................................................................ 1

5.3.1 Desk Study .................................................................................. 1 5.3.2 Terrestrial Invertebrate Field Survey ........................................... 2

5.4 Survey Results ........................................................................................ 4 5.4.1 Desk Study .................................................................................. 4 5.4.2 Terrestrial Invertebrate Field Survey ........................................... 4

5.5 Summary and Conclusions of the Invertebrate Survey ......................... 10 5.6 References ............................................................................................ 11

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5-1 Species of Invertebrate Listed on the Essex BAP, with Notes on Habitat

Association Table 5-2 Number of Invertebrate Groups Recorded by Order Table 5-3 Number of Coleoptera Species Recorded by Family LIST OF DRAWINGS Drawing 1 Invertebrate Survey Plan LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 5-1 Letter from Buglife

September 2009 - 5-1 - 09514690030.512 Ecology B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

5.0 INVERTEBRATE SURVEY

5.1 Introduction

Gent Fairhead & Co Limited (GFC) has commissioned Golder Associates (UK) Ltd to develop an evolution of the planned Recycling and Composting Facility (the eRCF) at Rivenhall Airfield (the Site). The eRCF presents a further development of the permitted design of the original Recycling & Composting Facility (RCF) on the Site.

An Ecological Impact & Risk Assessment for the eRCF was undertaken by Golder Associates (UK) Ltd (Golder) on behalf of GFC and comprised part of the Environmental Statement August 2008 (ES August 2008). Further supportive ecological information was provided by the Regulation 19 Submission in response to a letter from Buglife dated 30 October 2008, that raised concerns over the impact of the development on invertebrate communities (Appendix 5-1). Following the Regulation 19 Submission, an invertebrate survey has been carried out across the Site of the proposed eRCF at Rivenhall Airfield, Essex.

This report is an Addendum Chapter for Ecological Impact & Risk Assessment and is part of the Addendum to the Environmental Statement, September 2009 (ES Addendum) which presents additional information for the public inquiry in respect of the eRCF. A Revised Non-Technical Summary, September 2009 (NTS 2009) has been produced to accompany the ES Addendum. Together, the four documents of the ES August 2008, Regulation 19 Submission, ES Addendum, and the NTS 2009 constitute the eRCF Environmental Statement (eRCF ES).

5.2 Relevant Wildlife Legislation & Policy

Certain species of invertebrate are of special interest, primarily on account of their rarity (i.e. the number of 10 km National Grid squares in which a species is estimated to occur). Accordingly, species of special importance include those listed under:

• UK list of priority species arising from the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (comprising 413 species of terrestrial/freshwater invertebrates);

• Red Data Book categories (Shirt, 1997); • Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations, 1994 (as amended); and • Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended). 5.3 Survey Methodology

5.3.1 Desk Study

The methods for the invertebrate survey desk study are given in ES 2008. However, in summary, this involved contacting organisations and individuals by letter or email in 2005 and again between 26 July and 9 August 2007 requesting the supply of ecological data from a


Golder Associates

search area of 2.5 km radius from the centre of the proposed development at OS Grid Reference TL824207. The Local (Essex) Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) was also consulted to provide information regarding the invertebrate species for which Species Action Plans (SAPs) have been developed.

5.3.2 Terrestrial Invertebrate Field Survey

5.3.2.1 Habitat Assessment

The entire Site was surveyed on 23 June 2009 and notes made on any important habitats present. These were assessed for their potential to support important invertebrate communities and supplemented with a photographic record. In particular, emphasis was placed on the assessment of the following habitats:

• Species-rich grassland especially that in association with scrub with a high proportion of plants, providing nectar and pollen and with a varied vegetation structure;

• Early successional habitat (e.g. cliff faces, abandoned quarry workings) especially on free-draining ground where there is a high proportion of exposed bare earth;

• Wetland including watercourses (e.g. ditches, flushes), standing water or waterbodies (e.g. ponds, lakes, swamp) and associated terrestrial habitat (e.g. marshy grassland);

• Mature open grown trees and old/ancient trees especially those with large volumes of standing dead wood; and

• Scrub extent, structure and species composition. The results of the habitat assessment revealed that habitats likely to support important invertebrate communities were limited. However, as a precautionary principle, a terrestrial invertebrate survey was designed to target key indicator groups identified as occurring at the Site (notably Coleoptera (beetles) and incidental recordings of other groups, see 5.3.2.2). The results of this survey will inform an assessment of the main species present and provide an indication of relative species diversity within targeted groups.

5.3.2.2 Targeted Survey of Coleoptera (and other groups)

The survey of invertebrates commenced on 23 June 2009, with pitfall traps remaining on the Site until 3 July 2009. Sampling was primarily aimed towards the Coleoptera (beetles) with recording of incidental species mostly from the Heteroptera (true bugs), Diptera (Syrphidae), and Hymenoptera (Aculeata).

The survey focused on different zones across the Site (as displayed on Drawing 1) which presented the most suitable habitat for invertebrates. This included:


Golder Associates

• Zone 1 - arable field margin, verging onto the runway edge, characterised by short perennial vegetation;

• Zone 2 – topsoil and subsoil bund with a mosaic of tall ruderal and short perennial vegetation across its surface;

• Zone 3 – species-poor semi-improved grassland characterised by a uniform grassland sward;

• Zone 4 – species-rich neutral grassland with invading bramble and hawthorn scrub; • Zone 5 – semi-natural broadleaved woodland edge habitat; and • Zone 6 - semi-natural broadleaved woodland interior habitat.

Within these zones methods of sampling employed included the following:

Pitfall Traps A total of twelve pitfall traps were set out at the locations displayed on Drawing 1. Pitfall traps involved the use of circular plant pot trays (to a maximum of 24 cm diameter x 5 cm depth) that were sunk into the ground using a spade to dig a circular hole. Once the rim is flush with the surrounding ground level the killing fluid (comprising 1 part ethylene glycol to 3 parts water) was poured into the trays until they were half full. A drop of detergent was used to break the surface tension and lastly, a layer of mesh (aperture size 2 cm x 1 cm) balanced over the tray to prevent capture of small mammals and amphibians. The traps were run for a 10-day period, from 23 June 2009 to 3 July 2009. Pitfall trapping is considered to be an effective method for the sampling of ground dwelling invertebrates, particularly beetles belonging to the Carabidae (ground beetles) and Staphylinidae (rove beetle) families.

Sweep Netting Sweep netting was carried out on 23 June 2009 across the areas with tall herbs and grasses; i.e. Zones 1 – 4; where it was possible to employ this method. This involved walking at a steady pace through the vegetation passing a heavy duty entomologist’s sweep net back and forth through medium to tall vegetation in a figure of eight motion. This method is particularly suitable for phytophagous (foliage-feeding) beetle families such as Curculionidae (weevils), Chrysomelidae (leaf or flea beetles), Nitidulidae (pollen beetles) and Cantharidae (soldier beetles); and various true bugs such as the Miridae (plant bugs).

Beating Beating was carried out on the 23 June in Zones 5 and 6, where woodland trees lent themselves to the successful application of this method. Beating is a useful technique for extracting beetles from overhanging tree branches. A beating tray is assembled beneath the branch and it is then given a sharp whack with a stout stick to dislodge the beetles.

This method may turn up a variety of beetle families, typically producing species associated with trees and dead wood, such as those belonging to the Cerambycidae (longhorn beetle) and Elateridae (click beetle) families.


Golder Associates

5.4 Survey Results

5.4.1 Desk Study

A record of one species of invertebrate, the shrill carder bee Bombus sylvarum was obtained from within the search area. This species was recorded (in 2003) from 1.3 km south of the Site. Bombus sylvarum is a species that favours large tracts of flower-rich grassland. It is a UK BAP species, which has been listed on the basis of major declines across Britain. The lack of large foraging areas which are needed for queens and workers (for nectar and pollen gathering) will limit the likelihood of this species occurring in a breeding metapopulation within the Site.

An assessment was made of the potential for the Site to support any of the species of invertebrate listed on the Essex BAP (See Table 5-1). It is reasonable to assume that there are no species included on the Essex BAP that could sustain a viable population at the Site.

Table 5-1: Species of Invertebrate Listed on the Essex BAP, with notes on Habitat Association

Vernacular Name Scientific Name Habitat Association Bright wave moth Idaea ochrata Coastal habitats Desmoulin’s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana Long established wetland sites of the

fenland Fisher’s estuarine moth Gortyna Borelli lunata Coastal habitats in association with

hog’s-fennel Heath fritillary Mellicta athalia Established, mature woodland, especially

that in coppice management Hornet robberfly Asilus crabroniformis Grazed pasture and dung Shining ramshorn snail Segmentina nitida Coastal grazing marsh Shrill carder bee Bombus sylvarum large areas of flower-rich habitat Stag beetle Lucanus cervus Habitats with a continuity of rotting wood,

especially in mature and ancient woodland and old hedgebanks

White-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes Calcareous streams and rivers It is possible that the open habitats at the Site are representative of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority Habitat - Open Habitat Mosaics on Previously Developed Land.

5.4.2 Terrestrial Invertebrate Field Survey

5.4.2.1 Habitat Assessment

The results of the habitat assessment revealed that habitats likely to support important invertebrate communities were limited both in quality and in area coverage. The following provides a rationale for the suitability of the main habitats within the Site. This is supplemented by photographs which are shown on Drawing 1.


Golder Associates

Arable fields –The majority of open habitats across the Site are intensively managed arable fields that are typically of low value for invertebrates. It is known that the farmer regularly applies pesticides on the arable fields, such as herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. This effectively sterilizes the arable fields. Arable field margins delineated by the runways – The field margins located to the north of the Site are generally fairly narrow. Barren brome Anisantha sterilis and false oat grass Arrhenatherum elatius are both abundant, with frequently occurring herbs which include poppy Papaver sp., nettle Urtica dioica, creeping cinquefoil Potentilla reptans, yarrow Achillea millefolium, hogweed Heracleum sphondylium, St. John’s-wort Hypericum sp. and ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata. Despite being narrow, the field margins do spill over onto the concrete lining of the former runways, where short perennial vegetation dominated by red fescue Festuca rubra and English stonecrop Sedum anglicum is also to be found in a narrow strip along the runway edges. A number of factors when considered in combination are likely to restrict the value of this habitat for invertebrates as follows: • As stated above, the farmer regularly applies pesticides on the arable fields and the

impact of spray drift can be damaging on non-target organisms, especially those in the immediate surrounds such as the arable field margins;

• The more botanically diverse arable field margins are geographically isolated, to the

north west of the Site, where they are distant from other semi-natural vegetation such as the scrub, woodland and grassland habitats;

• The fields are exposed to prevailing winds which can be limiting to the colonisation of

less mobile species; • The habitat lacks structural diversity; and • The habitat lacks species diversity (of flora). Accordingly, this habitat is likely to be of low value for invertebrates, typically supporting only a generalist species assemblage of more mobile species. Stands of tall ruderal and short perennial vegetation associated with raised topsoil and subsoil mounds - This vegetation on the tall mounds to the north of the Site has a patchy distribution of tall, robust biennials and perennials such as prickly sow thistle Sonchus asper bristly oxtongue Picris echioides, hemlock Conium maculatum, weld Reseda luteola, creeping thistle Cirsium arvense and spear thistle Cirsium vulgare; and areas of shorter herbs including mallow Malva sp., ribwort plantain, barren brome and red fescue. The value of this


Golder Associates

habitat is low; it is limited by its isolated location (surrounded by arable fields), lack of species and structural diversity (of the vegetation) and damaging effects of pesticide drift. Species-poor semi-improved neutral grassland – The largest area of this habitat is located north west of Woodhouse Farm. The habitat has low plant diversity, being dominated almost entirely by grasses (false oat grass, Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus and red fescue all abundant) and hence is of low value for invertebrates due to its lack of structural and species diversity. Species-rich neutral grassland – Only a small part of the Site (approximately 0.3 ha), immediately south and east of the large airfield hangar, is covered by this habitat, which is possibly one of the more interesting habitat features for invertebrates. This habitat is diverse, both structurally and floristically, with a greater proportion of forbs as opposed to grasses. Typical species present of this unimproved grassland habitat include: ribwort plantain, bird’s-foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus, selfheal Prunella vulgaris, lady’s bedstraw Galium verum, agrimony Agrimonia eupatoria, black meddick Medicago lupulina, and St. John’s wort Hypericum sp.. The presence of developing scrub, which includes hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, dog rose Rosa canina, bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. and dewberry Rubus caesius, further enhances the value of this small area for invertebrates (at a local level), especially those using the habitat to gather pollen and nectar. Semi-natural broadleaved woodland - The Site contains a several blocks of woodland, which are relatively young, being approximately 40 years old. Within this developing woodland are scattered mature trees (mostly pedunculate oak Quercus robur), although none of these are of particular antiquity, with the oldest trees being no more than 80 years old. The ground flora also demonstrates the fact that the woodland is still developing as it is sparse in most places and there are few species that are indicative of more established woodland soils. Scrub habitat (dominated by blackthorn Prunus spinosa) is generally compact and contained in discrete areas and does not form part of a habitat mosaic. Given that the woodland is still fairly young and developing, it has not yet attained the structural complexity and species diversity typical of a more established and mature woodland. Accordingly, this restricts its value for the more notable invertebrate communities which are more typically associated with large accumulations of standing and fallen dead wood, peeling bark and sap runs on mature trees, and a structurally diverse stratification of the woodland layers, with spreading canopies, diverse shrub layers and herb layers, and frequent glades where light penetrates. Accordingly, because the woodland blocks at the Site are young and not yet fully established, it is considered that this habitat is of value for invertebrates only at a local level. 5.4.2.2 Targeted Survey of Coleoptera (and other groups)

A total of 86 species of invertebrate were recorded at the Site, of which 52 were beetles. The full list of invertebrates recorded is displayed in Tables 5-2 and 5-3 (below). The results of


Golder Associates

the survey were analysed by measuring the number of locally rare, nationally notable and Red Data Book species. The Essex status of any beetle species of note was checked by contacting the county recorder, Peter Hammond, and looking at distribution data on the National Biodiversity Network website.

Table 5-2: Number of Invertebrate Groups Recorded by Order

Order Family Vernacular name Total

Isopoda – Woodlice Armadillidiidae Pill woodlice 1 Porcellionidae Sow bugs 1 Diplopoda –Millipedes Glomeridae Pill millipedes 1 Orthoptera – Grasshoppers / Crickets Acrididae Grasshoppers 2 Phaneropteridae Crickets 1 Dermaptera – Earwigs Forficulidae Earwigs 1 Heteroptera - True bugs Miridae Plant bugs 8 Nabidae Damsel bugs 2 Rhopalidae Rhopalid bugs 1 Homoptera - Planthopper bugs Membracidae Treehoppers 1 Coleoptera – Beetles Anobiidae Wood boring beetles 1 Apionidae Seed weevils 2 Cantharidae Soldier beetles 2 Carabidae Ground beetles 18 Chrysomelidae Leaf beetles 2 Coccinellidae Ladybirds 3 Curculionidae Weevils 4 Elateridae Click beetles 1 Hydrophilidae Water beetles 1 Leiodidae Round fungus beetles 1 Malachiidae Soft flower beetles 1 Nitidulidae Sap beetles 1 Oedemeridae False blister beetles 1 Sphindidae Slime mould beetles 1 Staphylinidae Rove beetles 13 Diptera – Flies Syrphidae Hoverflies 4 Hymenoptera - Bees, wasps and ants Apidae Bees 2 Formicidae Ants 3 Halictidae Sweat bees 3 Vespidae Wasps 3 Total 86


Golder Associates

Table 5-3: Number of Coleoptera Species Recorded by Family

Family Species Rarity Family Species Rarity1

Acrididae Chorthippus brunneus common Halictidae Halictus

rubicundus common

Acrididae Chorthippus parallelus common Halictidae Lasioglossum

parvulum common

Anobiidae Anobium inexspectatum Nb Halictidae Lasioglossum

punctatissimum common

Apidae Apis mellifera common Hydrophilidae Megasternum concinnum common

Apidae Bombus lapidarius common Leiodidae Colenis

immundus local

Apionidae Malvapion malvae common Melyridae Malachius

bipustulatus common

Apionidae Perapion violaceum common Membracidae Centrotus

cornutus local

Armadilidiidae Armadillidium vulgare common Miridae Anthocoris

nemoralis common

Cantharidae Malthodes minimus common Miridae Capsus ater common

Cantharidae Rhagonycha fulva common Miridae Closterotomus norwegicus common

Carabidae Abax parallelepipedus common Miridae Heterotoma

planicornis common

Carabidae Amara ovata common Miridae Leptopterna dolobrata common

Carabidae Brachinus crepitans Nb Miridae Leptopterna

ferrugata common

Carabidae Bradycellus verbasci common Miridae Lygocoris

pabulinus common

Carabidae Calathus fuscipes common Miridae Megaloceroea recticornis common

Carabidae Calathus rotundicollis common Nabidae Himacerus

apterus common

Carabidae Curtonotus aulicus common Nabidae Nabis rugosus common

1 For vascular plants and many invertebrate groups, species rarity has often been gauged by the number of national 10km grid

squares in which they occur. The fewer the “spots on a map”, the rarer it is. This, however, does not exactly equate with how

threatened a species is, since some species may be naturally confined to very few localities but are very abundant where they do

occur and under no immediate threat of extinction. The matter of how threatened the “rarest” species are is being addressed in a

series of Red Data Books (RDB), such as for insects (Shirt, 1987). Here, the listing as RDB1 (Endangered), RDB2 (Vulnerable)

and RDB3 (Rare) is an assessment of how threatened or endangered the species is in Britain, rather than how scarce it is in terms

of map spot counting. Below RDB status, less rare but still significant species can be defined as Nationally Scarce (formerly

called Nationally Notable), which is often sub-divided into Na (scarcer) and Nb (less scarce). This category, originally devised by

Ball (1986), is based on 10 kilometre square spot counting for the Great Britain grid system. The concept of ‘Local’ is less well

defined, but comprises species of distinctly limited or restricted distribution, with such limitations being brought about by climate

controls, dependency on a scarce habitat type, host (in the case of parasitic species) or similar ecological factor. In this present

study, the Local status of species is as per the Recorder database package developed by JNCC.


Golder Associates

Family Species Rarity Family Species Rarity1

Carabidae Harpalus affinis common Nitidulidae Meligethes aeneus common

Carabidae Harpalus rufipes common Oedemeridae Oedemera nobilis common

Carabidae Harpalus tardus local Phaneropteridae Leptophyes punctatissima common

Carabidae Leistus rufomarginatus local Porcellionidae Porcellio scaber common

Carabidae Microlestes maurus common Rhopalidae Rhopalus

subrufus local

Carabidae Nebria brevicollis common Sphindidae Aspidiphorus orbiculatus local

Carabidae Notiophilus palustris local Staphylinidae Anotylus

rugosus common

Carabidae Ophonus ardosiacus Nb Staphylinidae Ocypus olens common

Carabidae Pterostichus madidus common Staphylinidae Ocypus olens common

Carabidae Pterostichus melanarius common Staphylinidae Philonthus

addendus local

Carabidae Trechus quadristriatus common Staphylinidae Philonthus

decorus common

Chrysomelidae Chrysolina hyperici local Staphylinidae Philonthus

laminatus common

Chrysomelidae Gastrophysa polygoni common Staphylinidae Philonthus

splendens common

Coccinellidae Adalia bipunctata common Staphylinidae Quedius curtipennis common

Coccinellidae Propylea quattuordecimpunctata

common Staphylinidae Tachinus subterraneus common

Coccinellidae Tytthaspis 16-punctata local Staphylinidae Tachyporus

dispar common

Curculionidae Barypeithes pellucidus common Staphylinidae Tachyporus

nitidulus common

Curculionidae Dorytomus dejeani local Staphylinidae Tachyporus

pallidus local

Curculionidae Sciaphilus asperatus common Staphylinidae Tasgius

globulifer common

Curculionidae Trichosirocalus troglodytes common Syrphidae Helophilus

pendulus common

Elateridae Hemicrepidius hirtus local Syrphidae Sphaerophoria

scripta common

Forficulidae Forficula auricularia common Syrphidae Syritta pipiens common

Formicidae Lasius flavus common Syrphidae Xylota segnis common

Formicidae Myrmica rubra common Vespidae Vespula germanica common

Formicidae Myrmica scabrinodis common Vespidae Vespula rufa common

Glomeridae Glomeris marginata common Vespidae Vespula

vulgaris common


Golder Associates

5.4.2.3 Species Accounts

It can be seen from the species list (Table 3) that the majority of the species recorded are common or local, although three beetle species are of Nationally Scarce status. Some of the local species are associated with particular plants such as St John’s wort, in the case of Chrysolina hyperici and Rhopalus subrufus, or dry habitats (Harpalus tardus). An account of the Nationally Scarce species, including status, ecology, distribution and where it was recorded on the Site follows.

Carabidae Ophonus ardosiacus (Nb) - There are records for this species as far as the Humber estuary, but it is mainly confined to southern England. In the past decade or so, it has become increasingly widespread in south eastern Britain, along with various other ground beetles. There are recent records from coastal localities in Essex generally and some inland records from Vice County (VC) 19 (North Essex). Like the next species, it prefers chalk grassland, eating seeds, and there is probably a preference for those of wild carrot Daucus carota. This plant has become much more generally distributed, which may explain the rise in records of the beetle. At the Site, this species was taken from a pitfall trap within Zone 2.

Brachinus crepitans (Nb) ‘Bombadier beetle’ - This is very much a southerly insect, with the majority of records in the south east and a more localised presence in western England and south Wales. It is found in most parts of VC18 (South Essex) and is generally abundant in the East Thames corridor. In VC19 (North Essex) it is present in most coastal localities, but more sparsely recorded inland. It prefers sparsely vegetated chalk grassland, but is actually ectoparasitic on the pupae of various other beetles. At the Site, this species was taken from a pitfall trap within Zone 2.

Anobiidae Anobium inexspectatum (Nb) - This species is widely recorded in England, as far as Cumberland, and in Wales. It is normally found in woodland, as it was here, and is usually taken in Ivy Hedera helix.

There are several similar species, including the Woodworm beetle Anobium punctatum, and this, added to the difficulty of finding it, means it can easily be overlooked and is possibly not as scarce as the status suggests. There are several Essex records including at least two from VC19 (North Essex). At the Site, this species was taken from the tree canopy (via beating) within Zone 6.

5.5 Summary and Conclusions of the Invertebrate Survey

The majority of species recorded at the Site are found throughout the UK or widely in southern England and none are of known conservation concern. On present evidence the Rivenhall site would appear to be of low entomological interest.


Golder Associates

It is accepted that cumulatively, the Site comprises a range of habitats such as grassland, scrub, bare ground, perennial and ruderal vegetation. This would suggest that the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority Habitat, Open Habitat Mosaics on Previously Developed Land is applicable. However, the distribution and abundance of each of these individual vegetation types is such that only small patches exist, and where these exist they are discrete and separate from other patches. Indeed, much of the Site is intensively managed farmland with the next largest habitat type being developing woodland. Accordingly, the Site is judged to be of lower value when considering the BAP Priority Habitat. Such a range of habitats might exist elsewhere in other areas adjacent to the Site (e.g. the adjoining quarry).

Despite the fact that the Site is considered to be of low entomological interest, a number of opportunities are presented for habitat enhancement for invertebrates as follows:

• An Ecology Monitoring and Management Plan would be prepared in consultation with Natural England, Essex Wildlife Trust, Buglife and Braintree District Council. This will aim to maximise opportunities for invertebrates, in particular providing greater continuity of existing and proposed habitats across the Site, through new grassland, woodland and hedgerow creation and management. Existing habitats will also be managed to increase their biodiversity value, with potential for dead wood provision and glade creation in woodlands, and enhancements to grassland through sensitively designed cutting regimes that aim to provide a greater structural diversity. Pond management will also be designed with invertebrates in mind, through the establishment of permanent and seasonally wet waterbodies to benefit a greater diversity of aquatic invertebrates.

• Concrete removed from the aircraft runway will be retained and reused for the benefit of flora and fauna. Thus, crushed concrete will be spread over the roof of the eRCF. This is a lime rich substrate that over time will support a calcicolous community of plants, typical of impoverished soils. This would be a marked improvement on the existing situation whereby the concrete at the Site is consolidated into single strips along the runways and its impermeability means that it is less readily colonised initially by plants and secondarily by the invertebrate fauna that feed off such plants and within the shallow soil of decomposing plant material that starts to develop. Periodical disturbance of the habitat will be encouraged to ensure the persistence of pioneer communities of flora and fauna.

5.6 References

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. (2008) Planning Application and Environmental Statement for the proposed evolution of the Recycling and Composting Facility at Rivenhall Airfield, Essex.

Luff, M.L. (1998) Provisional atlas of the ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of Britain. Huntingdon: Biological Records Centre.


Golder Associates

Hyman, P.S. (revised Parsons, M.S.) (1992) A review of the scarce and threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain. Part 1. UK Nature Conservation: 3. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Shirt, D.B., ed. (1987) British Red Data Books: 2. Insects. Peterborough, Nature Conservancy Council.

September 2009 09514690030.512 Ecology B.0 Rivenhall Airfield eRCF

Golder Associates

DRAWINGS


Golder Associates

APPENDICES


Golder Associates

APPENDIX 5-1

Letter from Buglife

Golder Associates (UK) Ltdwrren.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/S4_Appendix-2-Golder-2009... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Golder Associates (UK) Ltdwrren.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/S4_Appendix-2-Golder-2009... ·...