Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
20 May 2008
Rose Energy Biomass Fuelled Power Plant
Health Impact Assessment with
Human Health Risk Assessment
FINAL
Report prepared by: Dr Salim Vohra, Director, Centre for Health Impact Assessment
Yvette Christopher, Research Scientist, CHIA
Report reviewed by: Dr Alison Searl, Director, Clinical Services
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
The IOM is a major independent centre of scientific excellence in the fields of occupational
and environmental health, hygiene and safety. We were founded as a charity in 1969 by the
UK coal industry in conjunction with the University of Edinburgh and became fully
independent in 1990. Our mission is to benefit those at work and in the community by
providing quality research, consultancy and training in health, hygiene and safety and by
maintaining our independent, impartial position as an international centre of excellence. The
IOM has more than seventy scientific and technical staff based in Edinburgh, Chesterfield,
London, and Stafford. Consultancy work is undertaken through IOM Consulting Limited
which is a wholly owned subsidiary.
Dr Salim Vohra is the Director of the IOM’s Centre for Health Impact Assessment based in
London. Yvette Christopher is a Research Scientist based in IOM’s HQ in Edinburgh. Dr
Alison Searl is Director of Clinical Services and also based in Edinburgh.
Page i
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Page i
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Introduction ...................................................................................................1
2
Health Impact Assessment and Human Health Risk Assessment ...............2
3
Methodology ..................................................................................................8
4
Background Context.................................................................................... 12
5
Community Concerns .................................................................................. 16
6
Policy Context.............................................................................................. 18
7
Baseline and Community Profile................................................................. 21
8
Health Impacts of Waste Incineration ......................................................... 34
9
Social Determinants of Health..................................................................... 61
10
Risk Perception ........................................................................................... 66
11
Health Risk Assessment of Emissions from the Proposed Power Plant ... 70
12
Health Impacts of the Proposed Power Plant ............................................. 94
13
Conclusion ................................................................................................. 104
Page ii
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Health Risk Assessment Details for Maximally Exposed Receptor106
Appendix B: Health Impact Matrices..................................................................... 132
Page iii
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
1
Introduction
1.1.1
This Health Impact Assessment incorporating a Human Health Risk Assessment (HIA
and HHRA, hereafter referred to as the HIA) has been commissioned by Rose
Energy in order to address community concerns about the potential negative health
impacts of their proposed biomass fuelled power plant.
1.1.2
The aim of the HIA was to:
• assess the potential positive and negative health impacts on the residents around
the proposed plant;
• quantify, where possible, the potential negative health impacts of the emissions
likely to be generated by the proposed plant; and
• identify measures to remove or mitigate any potential negative health impacts on
the local community.
1.1.3
The HIA draws on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that has been carried
out in parallel to this assessment particularly the air quality, noise, visual and traffic
impact assessments.
Page 1
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
2
Health Impact Assessment and Human
Health Risk Assessment
2.1
Health Impact Assessment
2.1.1
The international Gothenburg consensus definition of HIA is: “A combination of
procedures, methods and tools by which a policy, program or project may be judged
as to its potential effects on the health of a population, and the distribution of those
effects within the population.”1
2.1.2
HIA is the key systematic approach to identifying the differential health and wellbeing
impacts, both positive and negative, of plans and projects.
2.1.3
HIA uses a range of structured and evaluated sources of qualitative and quantitative
evidence that includes public and other stakeholders' perceptions and experiences as
well as public health, epidemiological, toxicological and medical knowledge. It is
particularly concerned with the distribution of effects within a population, as different
groups are likely to be affected in different ways, and therefore looks at how health
and social inequalities might be reduced or widened by a proposed plan or project.
2.1.4
The aim of HIA is to support and add value to the decision-making process by
providing a systematic analysis of the potential impacts as well as recommending
options, where appropriate, for enhancing the positive impacts, mitigating the
negative ones and reducing health inequalities.
2.1.5
HIA uses both a biomedical and social definition of health, recognising that though
illness and disease (mortality and morbidity) are useful ways of understanding and
measuring health they need to be fitted within a broader understanding of health and
wellbeing to be properly useful (See Fig 2.1).
1
WHO European Centre for Health Policy; Health impact assessment: main concepts and suggested approach;
Gothenburg consensus paper; WHO Regional Office for Europe; 1999.
Page 2
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Fig 2.1: The determinants of health and wellbeing2
2.1.6
HIA therefore use the following World Health Organization psycho-social definition of
health in our work: Health is “the extent to which an individual or group is able to
realise aspirations and satisfy needs, and to change or cope with the environment.
Health is therefore a resource for everyday life, not the objective of living; it is a
positive concept, emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical
capacities.”3
2.1.7
This definition builds on and is complementary to the longer established World Health
Organization definition that “Health is a state of complete physical, social and mental
wellbeing and not simply the absence of disease or infirmity”4.
2.1.8
The general methodology is based on established good practice guidance on HIA
developed by the Department of Health and the Devolved Regions.
Screening
2.1.9
This stage assesses the value of carrying out a HIA by examining the importance of a
plan or project and the significance of any potential health impacts.
2
Adapted by Salim Vohra and Dean Biddlecombe from Dahlgren G and Whitehead, Policies and strategies to
promote social equity in health; Institute of Future Studies; Stockholm; 1991.
3
World Health Organization; Health Promotion: A Discussion Document on the Concepts and Principles; WHO
Regional Office for Europe; Copenhagen; 1984.
4
World Health Organization; Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the
International Health Conference, New York, 19-22 June 1946, and entered into force on 7 April 1948
Page 3
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Scoping
2.1.10 This stage sets the ‘terms of reference’ for the HIA i.e. the aspects to be considered,
geographical scope, population groups that might need particular focus, what will be
excluded from the HIA, how the HIA process will be managed and so on.
Baseline assessment and community profile
2.1.11 This stage uses routine national and local datasets e.g. national census, local
surveys, area profiles, and other demographic, social, economic, environmental and
health information to develop a community profile with a strong focus on health and
wellbeing issues, and identification of vulnerable groups, as a baseline from which to
assess the potential positive and negative impacts and any health inequalities.
Stakeholder consultation and involvement5
2.1.12 This stage applies to intermediate and comprehensive HIAs where no previous
consultation on a development has taken place. It uses workshops, questionnaires,
interviews, surveys and other methods of consultation and involvement to engage key
stakeholders, in particular local people, in the identification and appraisal of the
potential health and wellbeing impacts, in the development of mitigation and
enhancement measures; and in developing options for monitoring and evaluating the
identified impacts.
Evidence and analysis
2.1.13 This stage involves the collation of key evidence and the systematic analysis of the
potential impacts, their significance, the groups likely to be most affected and the
strength of the evidence for these impacts through the use of matrices and models.
Mitigation and enhancement measures
2.1.14 This stage involves the identification of a range of measures to minimise the potential
negative health effects and maximise the positive health benefits identified in the
previous stages.
Health impact statement
2.1.15 This stage produces the final HIA report or health statement,.
5
Rapid HIAs are rapid desktop analyses that take days or weeks to carry out. Intermediate HIAs are
detailed desktop analyses with some focussed stakeholder consultation or feedback, e.g. stakeholder
workshops and interviews, that take weeks and months to carry out. Comprehensive HIAs are
exhaustive analyses involving comprehensive consultation of stakeholders through representative
surveys, workshops and interviews that take a year or more to carry out.
Page 4
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
2.1.16 It involves summarising the key conclusions, options and recommendations emerging
from the assessment including identifying, where appropriate, monitoring indicators to
ensure that health and wellbeing are maintained during the whole lifecycle of a
project or plan.
Follow up
2.1.17 This stage involves the active follow up of the project or plan to monitor and/or ensure
that mitigation and enhancement measures have been put in place after a project or
plan is approved.
2.1.18 It can also involve: a) presentation of the findings to key professional stakeholders; b)
the development and implementation of a health impact communication plan to
ensure that local communities fully understand the findings of the HIA and how and
why it was carried out; and c) the evaluation of the effectiveness and value of the HIA
process itself.
2.2
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
2.2.1
Human health risk assessment is the quantitative estimation of the potential negative
health impacts of a proposed development. In the context of the Rose Energy
Biomass Fuelled Power Plant this relates to the potential impacts of the residual air
pollutants that are likely to be emitted by the plant when it is operational.
2.2.2
As there is no specific UK model for undertaking human health risk assessment for
organic compounds and heavy metals this risk assessment has used the Human
Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) for Hazardous Waste Combustion
Facilities, developed by US EPA (USEPA, 1998a). It is important to note that the
Rose Energy Biomass Fuelled Power Plant is not a Hazardous Waste Combustion
Facility but the US EPA Protocol has been selected as the most robust methodology
available.
2.2.3
The US EPA protocol evaluates both the direct and indirect risks to human health.
Direct exposure results from the direct inhalation of vapours and dusts, whereas
indirect exposure results from contact of human receptors with soil, plants, meat or
water on which emissions may have been deposited. The protocol is made up of four
elements: facility characterisation; air dispersion and deposition modelling; exposure
assessment; and risk and hazard characterisation.
Page 5
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Facility Characterisation
2.2.4
Facility characterisation consists of compiling basic information on the site, the
proposed facility, and its operations; identifying emission sources and estimating
emission rates; identifying compounds of potential concern (COPCs) and sensitive
receptors; and evaluating background levels of air, water and soil pollution.
Air Dispersion and Deposition
2.2.5
The burning of waste materials produces residual amounts of pollution that are
released into the environment. Estimation of potential human health risks associated
with these releases needs information on atmospheric pollutant concentrations and
annual deposition rates in the areas around a combustion facility where people are
likely to be exposed. This comes from the air quality impact assessment (AQIA).
Exposure Scenario Selection
2.2.6
Exposure scenarios are evaluated in the risk assessment to estimate the types and
magnitude of human exposure to COPC emissions from a proposed facility.
Identification of the exposure scenarios to be evaluated includes characterising the
exposure setting, identifying recommended exposure scenarios, and selecting
exposure scenario locations.
2.2.7
Exposure to COPCs can occur via a range of exposure pathways. Each exposure
pathway is made up of four fundamental components:
• an exposure route;
• a source and mechanism of COPC release;
• a retention medium or a transport mechanism and subsequent retention medium in
cases involving media transfer of COPCs (air, water, soil, food, etc); and
• a point of potential human contact with the contaminated medium, which is
referred to as the exposure point and consists of a specific human receptor
exposed at a specific exposure point.
Estimation of Media Concentrations
2.2.8
The
estimation
of
media
concentrations
involves
calculating
the
COPC
concentrations in air, soil, plant, meat, dairy products, surface water, sediment and
fish. All the equations for calculating media concentrations are documented in the
USEPA HHRAP manual.6
6
US Environmental Protection Agency, Human health risk assessment protocol for hazardous waste
combustion facilities, 2005
Page 6
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Quantifying Exposure
2.2.9
The calculation of COPC-specific exposure rates for each exposure pathway involves
the estimated:
• media concentrations
• inhalation/consumption rate
• receptor body weight
• frequency and duration of exposure.
• This calculation is repeated for each exposure pathway included in an exposure
scenario.
Risk and Hazard Characterisation
2.2.10 The final step of the risk assessment is the calculation of lifetime cancer risks and
non-carcinogenic hazards for each of the pathways and receptors identified. Risks
and hazards are then summed for specific receptors, across all applicable exposure
pathways, to obtain an estimate of total individual risk and hazard quotients for
specific receptors. These can then be compared against accepted guidelines, target
levels or thresholds.
2.2.11 The carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic hazards are calculated using the
predicted media (air, soil, vegetables, meat or surface water) concentrations and
toxicity factors of the potential emissions.
2.2.12 Actual or estimated (modelled) media concentrations are used to calculate pollutant
intake (mg/kg/day) for each pollutant and exposure route. The calculated intake is
then compared to applicable health risk standards.
Page 7
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
3
Methodology
3.1
Introduction
3.1.1
The following sections outline the methodology applied to this HIA. They concern the
following: a definition of the study area and study population; sources of information
consulted; consultation and consultee feedback; assessment criteria and assessment
framework.
3.1.2
This HIA used existing data and information from earlier and concurrent technical
studies and consultations as well as routine data sources.
3.1.3
The methodology and methods used were based on existing good practice guidance
in the UK.
3.1.4
The assessment was largely qualitative except where data was available to enable
quantification or where quantification of health impacts has already been undertaken
in the EIA.
3.2
Study area
3.2.1
The proposed site is wholly within the Glenavy ward in the district of Lisburn.
3.2.2
The geographical scope of this HIA was the development site and a 20km square grid
with the development site at the centre. The HHRAP protocol requires that the
assessment should consider impacts within 10km of the site. The assessment needs
to extend out this far so that the potential impacts from bio-accumulation in water
bodies can be considered. Most of the receptors considered within the health risk
assessment element and indeed the air quality impact assessment (AQIA) are within
a few kilometres of the site, as these are predicted to experience the greatest
potential exposures. The major settlements within the area are the villages of
Glenavy and Crumlin. Therefore both the wards of Glenavy in Lisburn and Crumlin in
Antrim were considered.
Page 8
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
3.3
Study population
3.3.1
The population scope of this HIA was the resident population in the geographical area
described above. The key sensitive groups considered were children and young
people, women, older people, people with disabilities and/or chronic conditions,
people on low incomes/unemployed, minority groups and employees (both working in
the area and of the proposed Biomass Fuelled Power Plant).
3.4
Sources consulted
3.4.1
Planning documents to be submitted as part of the planning application.
3.4.2
Information and data from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency,
Ireland and Northern Ireland’s Population Health Observatory, Institute of Public
Health in Ireland; Lisburn City Council, Antrim Borough Council as well as previous
relevant HIA reports, databases and reviews of health impact evidence were used.
3.4.3
No
specific
HIA-related
wider
stakeholder or
community
consultation
and
engagement was undertaken because there was ongoing consultation and
engagement with local residents during the development of this report which the lead
assessor was involved in.
3.5
Analysis and assessment criteria
3.5.1
The HIA was based on a document analysis and desk-top health impact analysis
using a matrix table to analyse the potential positive and negative health and
wellbeing impacts. The categories used in the matrix table were: physical and mental
health; employment and enterprise; housing and accommodation; transport and
connectivity; learning and education; crime and safety; health and social care; shops
and retail amenities; social capital and community cohesion; culture and leisure;
lifestyle and daily routines; energy and waste; and land and spatial.
3.5.2
The identified impacts were then classified using the levels defined in Table 3.1.
3.5.3
We compared the potential impacts to a ‘Do Nothing’ option for the construction, short
term operation and long term operational phases of the proposed development.
Page 9
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
3.5.4
The HHRA element of the HIA used the USEPA HHRAP Model to quantify the
potential increase in risk and hazard from air pollutants due to the proposed Biomass
Fuelled Power Plant on people living and working in the area.
Table 3.1: Definition of the levels of potential impact
Significance Level
Criteria
Major +++/---
Health effects are categorised as major if the effects could lead
directly to mortality/death or acute or chronic disease/illness.
The exposures tend to be of high intensity and/or long duration
and/or over a wide geographical area and/or likely to affect a
large number of people e.g. over 500 or so and/or sensitive
groups e.g. children/older people. They can affect either or both
physical and mental health and either directly or through the
wider determinants of health and wellbeing. They can be
temporary or permanent in nature. These effects can be
important local, district, regional and national considerations.
Mitigation measures and detailed design work can reduce the
level of negative effect though residual effects are likely to
remain.
(positive or negative)
Moderate ++/-(positive or negative)
Minor/Mild +/(positive or negative)
Neutral/No Effect ~
3.5.5
Health effects are categorised as moderate if the effects are
long term nuisance impacts from odour and noise, etc or may
lead to exacerbations of existing illness. The exposures tend to
be of moderate intensity and/or over a relatively localised area
and/or of intermittent duration and/or likely to affect a moderatelarge number of people e.g. between 100-500 or so and/or
sensitive groups. The negative impacts may be nuisance/quality
of life impacts which may affect physical and mental health
either directly or through the wider determinants of health. The
cumulative effect of a set of moderate effects can lead to a
major effect. These effects can be important local, district and
regional considerations. Mitigation measures and detailed
design work can reduce and in some/many cases remove the
negative and enhance the positive effects though residual
effects are likely to remain.
Health effects are categorised as minor/mild if they are
generally nuisance level/quality of life impacts e.g. noise, odour,
visual amenity, etc. The exposures tend to be of low intensity
and/or short/intermittent duration and/or over a small area
and/or affect a small number of people e.g. less than 100 or so.
They can be permanent or temporary in nature. These effects
can be important local considerations. Mitigation measures and
detailed design work can reduce the negative and enhance the
positive effects such that there are only some residual effects
remaining.
No effect or effects within the bounds of normal/accepted
variation.
For each potential health impact ten key issues were considered
•
Which population groups are affected and in what way?
•
Is the effect reversible or irreversible?
Page 10
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
•
Does the effect occur over the short, medium or long term?
•
Is the effect permanent or temporary?
•
Does it increase or decrease with time?
•
Is it of local, regional, national or international importance?
•
Is it beneficial, neutral or adverse?
•
Are health standards or environmental objectives threatened?
•
Are mitigating measures available and is it reasonable to require these?
•
Are the effects direct, indirect and or cumulative?
Page 11
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
4
Background Context
4.1
Proposed development7
4.1.1
Rose Energy is proposing to develop a 30 megawatts electrical output (100Mw
thermal input) bio-mass power station at a site on Land off Ballyvannon Road, Nr
Glenavy, Crumlin, County Antrim.
4.1.2
The power station is to be fuelled with poultry bedding – a mixture of wood shavings
and chicken droppings – and meat and bone meal (MBM), which is processed
material that is derived from rendering animal by-products, less the tallow which is
extracted from the initially rendered material. The power station will burn an
equivalent of 300,000 tonnes of poultry bedding made up from mixing poultry bedding
and MBM.
4.1.3
The poultry bedding will be delivered direct, by road, from a large number of poultry
producing farms spread throughout Northern Ireland but predominantly clustered
around Dungannon and Ballymena. The meat and bone meal will be delivered by
vehicles from the adjoining Ulster Farm By-Products rendering plant.
4.2
Background to Project
4.2.1
Poultry bedding has reasonable calorific value and its use in power stations is tried
and tested; there are a number of plants burning it as a fuel established elsewhere in
the UK, such as at Westfield (Scotland), Eye (England) and Thetford (England). Meat
and bone meal is also increasingly being used as a fuel source now that it no longer
utilised as an agricultural feed; it is also of reasonable calorific value, and is currently
used in a plant at Glanford (England).
4.2.2
The poultry producing and processing industries are an important part of the Northern
Ireland economy. Traditionally poultry bedding has been spread on agricultural land
as a fertiliser. This activity contributes to the eutrophication of lakes and rivers in
nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZ), with a resultant negative impact upon flora and fauna
and ultimately upon water abstraction for human consumption; the overloading of
7
Information sourced from the Pre-application Consultation document dated December 2007.
Page 12
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
land with phosphorous derived from spreading poultry bedding is a less well known
but equally difficult problem to resolve. Under the EU Nitrates Directive the current
practice and extent of spreading of poultry bedding will no longer be possible and the
Water Directive has also brought a requirement for improved quality and security of
water supplies for human consumption.
4.3
Built form and operation of the proposed development
4.3.1
The built form of the power station will consist of:
4.3.2
•
a reception building incorporating storage and mixing bins
•
a boiler house to the rear of the reception building – this is the tallest building
(42m)
•
a turbine hall to one side of the boiler house
•
external dust arrestment equipment, ash silos and handling gear
•
a stack for the dispersion of emissions (estimated at 80m in height)
•
cooling towers (15m in height)
•
switch gear yard
•
ancillary plant and equipment
•
a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) for cooling waters and surface water
run-off
The whole development will cover an area of approx. 5 ha (12.36 acres). See Fig.4.1
and Fig. 11.1
4.3.3
The proposed power station will operate seven days a week with planned down-time
to allow for maintenance and replacement of equipment as necessary. Imported
poultry bedding and removal of ash, would only take place on Monday to Friday and
Saturday mornings within limited hours – the plant will have holding facilities for
several days supplies of poultry bedding and MBM feedstock.
4.3.4
Exportable electricity will be approximately 25Mw. This will be transmitted from the
plant via buried cables and then to overhead poles (not pylons).
4.3.5
The proposed site consists of grazing land bounded by hedgerows, including a few
hedgerow trees, which slope downwards from east to west towards the River
Glenavy, which it abuts on the northern west side, in the direction of Lough Neagh.
Page 13
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
4.4
Rationale for the proposed development8
4.4.1
There is little alternative to spreading poultry bedding other than its use as a fuel or
disposal at landfill. Landfilling is not a sustainable option and the EU Landfill Directive
effectively limits the potential for landfill particularly as poultry bedding would be a
new waste stream when the emphasis is on reducing existing waste streams going
into landfill. The EU Waste Directive also stipulates that all waste is treated – to
reduce its volume and hazardous properties - in some way before being sent to
landfill. MBM has traditionally been used as an animal feed but that use has been
banned since the advent of the BSE crisis and while some MBM is likely to go back
into animal feed, the majority will not. Use as a fertiliser (for certain categories of
material only), as fuel or sending to landfill are the only options.
4.4.2
The majority of the proposed fuel feedstock, poultry bedding, will come from a large
number of wide ranging poultry farms in the Province. However, though there are
concentrations of poultry farms around Ballymena and Dungannon, in the interests of
bio-security a plant using poultry bedding as a fuel, and storing it in large quantities
prior to use, is precluded from operating close to these farms.
4.4.3
This location accords with the Waste Strategy and the emerging guidance within Draft
Planning Policy Statement 18, Renewable Energy to site renewable energy plants at
the source of, or close to, the producer of the waste or fuel. In identifying a site it was
also vital to have a nearby water source, for abstraction cooling water.
8
Information sourced from the development framework documents and the environmental impact
assessment for the proposed development.
Page 14
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Fig. 4.1 Site map of the proposed biomass fuelled power plant (detail has been lost on this plan as the original size of this is very large, please environmental statement for a detailed plan)
Page 15
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
5
Community Concerns
5.1
Introduction
5.1.1
This chapter summarises the key issues raised by local people both via meetings with
Rose Energy as well as other sources such as community websites and other media.
5.1.2
Three meetings have been undertaken with local residents: a local community
meeting, a meeting with some local residents and a meeting with community
representatives (lead members of the Communities Against the Lough Neagh
Incinerator).
5.1.3
The key community websites that were reviewed were: www.rosetintedenergy.com,
www.glenavy.com and http://www.ulsterfarm.com.
5.2
Key community concerns
5.2.1
A number of concerns have been raised by local residents. These are the:
5.2.2
Potential health effects of emissions from the plant: the potential for cancer, infant
mortality, respiratory illness e.g. asthma, cardiovascular disease (particularly on
children).
5.2.3
Atmospheric conditions in the area i.e. an area of temperature inversion and the
potential for emissions to stay in the area and not disperse.
5.2.4
Potential odour from the plant and from the associated lorry traffic.
5.2.5
Potential noise from the plant and the associated lorry traffic.
5.2.6
Potential increase in lorry traffic on the roads potentially leading to road traffic injuries
and disruption to daily routines i.e. using and crossing roads on foot/bicycle would
become more difficult especially given the difficulties of getting roads repaired in the
area.
5.2.7
Proximity of the site to areas designated as Sites of Local Nature Conservation
Importance and Areas of High Scenic Value.
Page 16
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
5.2.8
Potential to affect flora and fauna in local rivers and Lough Neagh due to the intake
and discharge of water coolant in the plant.
5.2.9
Disposal of bottom and fly ash.
5.2.10 Potential negative effect on house prices and farming land in the area and
consequent difficulty in moving away from the area.
5.3
Range of residents concerned
5.3.1
Residents living adjacent to the site are particularly concerned but there is also
concern in both Glenavy and Crumlin about the potential negative impacts of the
proposed Biomass Fuelled Power Plant.
Page 17
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
6
Policy Context
6.1
Introduction
6.1.1
This chapter summarises the key policy context in relation to the proposed biofuels
Biomass Fuelled Power Plant.
6.2
European policy
Directive on the Incineration of Waste, 2000, 2000/76/EC
6.2.1
The Waste Incineration Directive aims to prevent negative effects on human health
and the environment from incineration, through air, soil, surface water and
groundwater pollution by setting guidelines on the type and levels of emissions and
the kinds of waste/fuels that are used.
Directive Concerning Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), 1996, 96/61/EC
6.2.2
The IPPC Directive applies to major industrial and waste sites with the potential for
heavy pollution, specifically air, water and land pollution. It aims to provide a high
level of protection for the environment and health, extending to the inclusion of
energy use, waste minimisation, vibration and noise.
Directive on Waste (Waste Framework Directive), 1975, 75/442/EEC
6.2.3
The Directive establishes a framework for the management of waste across the
European Community, defining key terms to enable its uniform implementation.
Importantly the Directive requires that Member States: ‘ensure that waste is
recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using
processes which could harm the environment.’
Nitrates Directive, 1991/676/EEC
6.2.4
The Nitrates Directive aims to reduce or prevent the pollution of waters caused by the
application and storage of inorganic fertiliser and manure on farmland. It is designed
both to safeguard drinking water supplies and to prevent wider ecological damage.
Page 18
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
The Directive requires that farmers must implement an action programme of
mandatory measures to reduce the level of nitrates being washed into waterways.
Groundwater Directive, 1976/464/EEC
6.2.5
The Groundwater Directive aims to protect groundwater from pollution by controlling
discharges and disposals of certain dangerous substances to groundwater.
6.3
Northern Ireland policy
The Northern Ireland Waste Management Strategy 2006 – 2020
6.3.1
This is Northern Ireland’s strategic plan for managing waste sustainably and in a way
that protects both the environment and human health in Northern Ireland.
6.3.2
It states that energy from waste can contribute to meeting Northern Ireland’s nonfossil fuel obligations and the Government’s policies on renewable energy, as well as
helping Northern Ireland to meet its landfill diversion targets.
Industrial Pollution Control (NI) Order 1997
6.3.3
Certain industrial processes must be authorised under the Industrial Pollution Control
(NI) Order 1997. The processes with the greatest pollution potential are known as
Part A processes. For Part A processes (egg: power stations, cement factories and
chemical processes) a single authorisation covers releases to air, water and land this is known as 'integrated pollution control'. In Northern Ireland there are two other
categories of process - Part B and Part C processes. Authorisations for Part B and
Part C processes cover releases to air only. The Chief Inspector of IPRI is the
enforcing authority for part A and part B processes, while district councils are
responsible for regulating part C processes. Authorisation of existing processes under
the Order is being carried out under a phased programme, while new prescribed
processes need to apply before starting operation.
Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999
6.3.4
Under the terms of the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, the EHNS Operations
Team is responsible for taking action to prevent or minimise the effects of polluting
discharges made to waterways and for instigating enforcement action where
Page 19
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
appropriate. The team is split into three distinct units: Pollution Prevention, Pollution
Response and Enforcement & Prosecution
6.3.5
For the purpose of water pollution management, Northern Ireland has been divided
into nine areas. Each of the nine areas is staffed by an Environmental Health (Rivers)
Officer (EHRO) or Senior Water Quality Inspector (SWQI) and a number of Water
Quality Inspectors (WQIs) who act as field agents on behalf of EHS. The Fisheries
Conservancy Board (FCB) and the Loughs Agency (LA) also undertake pollution
investigation and collect evidence on behalf of EHS for use in Water Order
prosecution cases.
6.4
Health and social care policy
Eastern Health and Social Services Board Health and Well-being Investment Plan 20072008
6.4.1
The key health and wellbeing targets for 2007-08 are reducing smoking prevalence,
diabetes screening, reducing teenage pregnancies, reducing alcohol binge drinking,
reducing illicit drug taking, monitoring childhood obesity levels, improving primary
care mental health services and increasing the uptake of the MMR (Mumps, Measles
and Rubella) vaccination.
Northern Health and Social Services Board Corporate Plan 2007- 2008
6.4.2
A key goal of the Plan is to promote health and well being, tackle health inequalities &
safeguard children and vulnerable adults. This involves taking forward the
implementation of the Investing for Health Strategy and the Health and Well Being
strategies such as: alcohol and drugs, smoking, physical activity, mental health
promotion, suicide, home accident prevention, sexual health, teenage pregnancy and
food and nutrition.
Page 20
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
7
Baseline and Community Profile
7.1
Introduction
7.1.1
This chapter describes the key baseline conditions as they relate to the direct and
indirect determinants of health for the wards of Glenavy and Crumlin, in the context of
Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern Ireland as a whole. The proposed
development is situated wholly within Glenavy ward with Crumlin being the closest
adjacent ward that is near the site of the proposed Biomass Fuelled Power Plant. The
information in this chapter has been gathered from the range of sources described in
Chapter 4.
7.1.2
This profile provides a summary of the current social, economic and environmental
conditions as they relate to health and wellbeing. It is from this baseline
understanding that the predictions on the potential health and wellbeing impacts of
the proposed power plant on local residents are developed.
7.2
Population characteristics
7.2.1
The resident population of Glenavy and Crumlin wards in relation to Lisburn and
Antrim districts and Northern Ireland as a whole are approximately 4,305 and 3855; in
comparison to 108,700, 48,000 and 1,685,000 respectively9.
7.2.2
In Glenavy, just under 27% of the population is under 16 years and just under 14%
are over 60 years old. Similarly in Crumlin just under 29% of the population is under
16 years and 11.5% are over 60 years old.
7.2.3
The average age in Glenavy is 33.6 years and 31.4 years in Crumlin, compared to
35.1 years in Lisburn district, 34.7 years in Antrim district and 35.8 years in Northern
Ireland. Glenavy therefore has an older population than Crumlin but both wards are
considerably younger than their respective districts and Northern Ireland as a whole.
9
Except where explicitly stated, for the sake of consistency 2001 ONS Census figures are quoted
even though in some cases more up to date estimates are available. This is because though
population in all these areas is likely to have increased the relative differences between the areas is
Page 21
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
7.3
Ethnic profile
7.3.1
Glenavy and Crumlin wards both have a similar ethnic profile with 99% of the resident
population being White. This is similar to their respective districts and to Northern
Ireland as a whole.
7.3.2
The majority of the residents in Glenavy and Crumlin, about 93%, have been born in
Northern Ireland and this is slightly higher than their respective districts and Northern
Ireland as a whole.
7.4
Religion
7.4.1
Just under 51% of residents of Glenavy ward are Catholic, 14% are Presbyterian
Church of Ireland, 15% are Church of Ireland, 3% are Methodist Church of Ireland
and 4% are from other Christian denominations. This compares to Crumlin where just
under 73% of residents are Catholic, 8% are Presbyterian Church of Ireland and 8%
are Church of Ireland. This is in contrast to Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern
Ireland as a whole where 30%, 35% and 40% of the population are Catholic; 20%,
28% and 21% are Presbyterian Church of Ireland; and 21%, 12% and 15% are
Church of Ireland.
7.5
Family structure
7.5.1
Marital status and household composition provide a good indication of the family
structure and the likely personal and social care networks that residents of an area
have. 62% of Glenavy ward residents are married or re-married compared to 57% in
Crumlin ward. This is higher than the average for Lisburn and Antrim districts and
Northern Ireland with 54%, 56% and 51% respectively. The proportion of single
people is similar in Glenavy (26%) and Crumlin wards (25%) and is in line with
Lisburn and Antrim districts (27% and 26%) but lower than the Northern Ireland
average of 30%.
likely to have remained the same and this is the important element of this profile.
Page 22
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Page 23
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Fig. 7.1 Household composition in Glenavy and Crumlin wards compared to Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern Ireland as a whole
[Source: NISRA]
40%
35%
30%
Glenavy
25%
Crumlin
Lisburn
20%
Antrim
15%
Northern Ireland
10%
5%
0%
One person: One person:
Pensioner
other
All
pensioners
Married
couple: no
children
Page 24
Married
couple:
dependent
children
Married
couple: nondependent
children
Cohabiting
couple: no
children
Cohabiting
couple:
dependent
children
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Cohabiting Lone parent: Lone parent:
Other
couple: non- dependent
nonhouseholds:
dependent
children
dependent
dependent
children
children
children
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
7.5.2
The proportion of pensioner and all pensioner households is lower in Glenavy and
Crumlin wards (14% each) compared to Lisburn district (18%), Antrim district (16%)
and Northern Ireland as a whole (20%).
7.5.3
The average household size in Glenavy and Crumlin wards are 3.12 and 2.91
respectively. This compares to a Northern Ireland average of 2.65.
7.5.4
The proportion of married couples with dependent children in Glenavy ward is 37%
and 35% in Crumlin ward which is significantly higher than Lisburn and Antrim
districts (26% and 27% respectively) and Northern Ireland as a whole (24%).
7.5.5
The proportion of cohabiting couples is similar in both Glenavy and Crumlin wards;
Lisburn and Antrim districts; and Northern Ireland as a whole.
7.5.6
The proportion of lone parent households with children is 8% in Glenavy ward and
13% in Crumlin ward compared to 13% in Lisburn district, 11% in Antrim district and
13% in Northern Ireland as a whole.
7.6
Health status
7.6.1
93% of residents in Glenavy ward described their health as either good or fairly good
compared to 91% of residents in Crumlin ward. This is slightly better than the average
for Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern Ireland at 90%, 91% and 89%.
Fig. 7.2 Perceived health status and long term limiting illness in Glenavy and Crumlin
wards compared to Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern Ireland,[Source: NISRA]
90%
80%
70%
60%
Glenavy
Crumlin
50%
Lisburn
40%
Antrim
Northern Ireland
30%
20%
10%
0%
General health:
good
General health: General health:
failry good
not good
Page 25
Limiting long
term illness
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
7.6.2
Only 14.5% of Glenavy ward and 17% Crumlin ward residents have a long term
limiting illness. This compares to Lisburn district, Antrim district and Northern Ireland
averages of 18%, 18% and 20% respectively.
7.6.3
Glenavy and Crumlin both have healthier residents than their respective districts and
Northern Ireland as a whole.
7.7
Deprivation and social cohesion
7.7.1
The Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure 2005 (NIMDM 2005) is a measure
of multiple deprivation experienced by individuals living in an area at the ward and
small area level. Deprivation refers to problems caused by a general lack of
resources and opportunities and not just a lack of money. It is a wider concept than
poverty and includes health status, level of education, access to services, living
conditions and the state of the local environment. People may be counted in one or
more of the domains, depending on the number of types of deprivation that they
experience. The overall MDM is conceptualised as a weighted area level aggregation
of these specific dimensions of deprivation. The NIMDM 2005 contains seven
domains of deprivation: Income; Employment; Health and Disability; Education, Skills
and Training; Proximity to Services; Living Environment; and Crime and Disorder.
7.7.2
All the wards in Northern Ireland are ranked from 1 (most deprived, Shankill ward in
Belfast) to 582 (least deprived, Hillfoot in Castlereagh).
Fig. 7.3 NIMDM of Glenavy and Crumlin wards in relation to the other wards in Northern
Ireland [1=highest rank, most deprived 582=lowest rank, least deprived] [Source: NISRA]
600
500
400
Glenavy
300
Crumlin
200
100
0
Overall
Income
Living
Crime and
Employment Health and Education, Proximity to
disability
skills and
services Environment disorder
training
Page 26
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
7.7.3
Overall, both Glenavy and Crumlin wards are among the least deprived wards in
Northern Ireland. However, both seem to have an issue in relation to proximity to
services and crime and disorder. Glenavy is less deprived than Crumlin except in the
domain of proximity to services e.g. health and social care, amenities, etc. (See Fig.
7.3 previous page).
7.8
Housing
7.8.1
In Glenavy ward, 90%, and in Crumlin ward, 81%, of residents own their own homes
with 39% in Glenavy ward and 18% in Crumlin ward owning their homes outright.
This compares to 70% of residents owning their own homes in Lisburn and Antrim
districts and Northern Ireland as a whole.
7.8.2
In Glenavy ward, 76% of the homes are detached, 17% are semi-detached with 7.3%
being terraced and 0.2% being apartments. This compares to 37% of homes being
detached, 32% semi-detached, 25% being terraced and 7% being apartments in
Crumlin ward.
7.8.3
11% of residents in Glenavy ward live in rented housing and of these only 5% rent
from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) or other social housing provider.
17% of residents in Crumlin ward live in rented accommodation and of these 11%
rent from NIHE and 3% from other social housing providers. This is in contrast to
Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern Ireland as a whole where 29%, 28% and
32% of people live in rented accommodation with 18-20% renting from NIHE.
7.8.4
Currently, the average house price in Lisburn and Antrim districts is £285,000 and
£222,000; with detached houses going for £453,000 and £308-348,000; semidetached house going for £290,000 and £220,000; terraced houses going for
£217,000 and £160-170,000; and flats going for £230,000 and £170,000. There has
been a 39% rise in house prices over the last 12-18 months.10
7.9
Employment and unemployment
7.9.1
In Glenavy ward, 42% of residents are in full-time employment and 13% are in selfemployment while 49% of Crumlin ward residents are in full-time employment and
10
BBC website from figures provided by the University of Ulster in partnership with Bank of Ireland.
Page 27
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
7% are in self-employment (See Fig. 7.4). This compares to 41% and 8% in Lisburn
district, 45% and 9% in Antrim district and 38% and 8% in Northern Ireland as a
whole.
7.9.2
As shown above both Glenavy and Crumlin wards have a higher proportion of fulltime employed residents. They also have a lower proportion of people who are
permanently sick or disabled and retired than Lisburn and Antrim districts and
Northern Ireland as a whole.
7.9.3
The unemployment rate is 2% in Glenavy ward and 3.5% in Crumlin ward compared
to a rate of 3% in Lisburn district, 3% in Antrim district and 4% in Northern Ireland as
a whole. Glenavy has a higher rate of unemployment particularly among those aged
16-24 years compared to Crumlin whose unemployment rate is higher among those
aged 50 and over.
7.9.4
In Glenavy ward, 4% of residents aged 18-59 years are claiming Income Support;
6.5% of 16-59/64 year olds are claiming Incapacity Benefit and 2% of those over 16
years were claiming Housing Benefit.11 In Crumlin ward, 6% of residents aged 18-59
years are claiming Income Support; 7% of 16-59/64 year olds are claiming Incapacity
Benefit and 5.5% of those over 16 years were claiming Housing Benefit.
7.9.5
Residents of Glenavy and Crumlin wards are employed in a diverse range of
occupations and industries, with the top three dominant industries being: wholesale
and retail trade repairs, manufacturing, and health and social care.
7.9.6
In Glenavy ward, 18% of residents are employed in skilled trade occupations, 15% in
managerial or senior official occupations, 14% in administrative and secretarial
occupations, 12% in associate professional and technical occupations, 11% as
process plant and machine operatives and 10% in professional occupations. While in
Crumlin ward, 12% of residents are employed in skilled trade occupations, 17% in
administrative and secretarial occupations, 12% in associate professional and
technical occupations, 12% as process plant and machine operatives and 12% in
elementary occupations.
11
Based on claimant figures for 2004.
Page 28
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Fig. 7.4 rates of employment and unemployment in Glenavy and Crumlin wards compared to Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern
Ireland,[Source: NISRA]
60%
50%
40%
Glenavy
Crumlin
30%
Lisburn
Antrim
Northern Ireland
20%
10%
0%
Employee full-time
Employee part-time
SelfEconomically Economically
employed
active:
active: FullUnemployed time student
Page 29
Retired
Economically Looking after Permanently Ecomically Unemployed Unemployed Unemployed Unemployed
inactive home/family sick/disabled inactive: people aged people aged people who people long
term
student
Other
16-24
50 and over have never
unemployed
worked
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
7.9.7
There are approximately 780 jobs in Glenavy ward and 650 in Crumlin ward.12
7.10
Education
7.10.1 36% of Glenavy ward and 33% of Crumlin ward residents have no qualifications. This
compares to the Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern Ireland averages of 37%,
39% and 42% respectively13.
7.10.2 Approximately a fifth have Level 1 and Level 2 qualifications with 19% of residents in
Glenavy and 16% in Crumlin having a level 4/5 degree level qualifications (See Fig.
6.7). This compares to the Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern Ireland averages
of 17%, 14% and 16% respectively.
7.10.3 Both Glenavy and Crumlin have higher levels of educational achievement than their
respective districts and Northern Ireland as a whole with Glenavy have a higher
proportion than Crumlin.
Fig. 6.7 Proportion of residents in Glenavy and Crumlin wards who have qualifications
compared to Lisburn and Antrim districts and Northern Ireland as a whole [Source:
NISRA]
45%
40%
35%
30%
Glenavy
Crumlin
25%
Lisburn
20%
Antrim
Northern Ireland
15%
10%
5%
0%
No qualifications
12
13
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Based on 2005 data.
No Qualifications: No academic, vocational or professional qualifications.
Level 1: 1+‘O’ level passes, 1+CSE/GCSE any grades, NVQ level 1, Foundation GNVQ
Level 2: 5+‘O’ level passes, 5+CSEs (grade 1). 5+GCSEs (grades A- C), School Certificate, 1+’A ’ levels/AS
levels, NVQ level 2, Intermediate GNVQ
Level 3: 2+‘A’ levels,4+AS levels, Higher School certificate, NVQ level 3, Advanced GNVQ
Level 4/5: First degree, Higher degree, NVQ levels 4 and 5, HNC, HND, Qualified Teacher status, Qualified
Medical Doctor, Qualified Dentist, Qualified Nurse, Midwife, Health Visitor
Other qualifications/level unknown: Other qualifications (e.g. City and Guilds, RSA/OCR, BTEC/Edexcel), Other
Professional Qualifications.
Page 30
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
7.11
Transport and connectivity
7.11.1 Public transport in Glenavy and Crumlin wards is poor.
7.11.2 In Glenavy ward, 93% of households have access to a car or van with 77% of
employed residents usually travelling to work by car or van. In Crumlin ward, 83% of
households have access to a car or van and 76% of employed residents usually
travel to work by car or van. This compares to Lisburn and Antrim districts and
Northern Ireland average of 71% who have access to a car or van.
7.12
Crime and safety
7.12.1 The main police and fire brigade stations are in Lisburn City and Antrim Town.
7.12.2 In 2005-06, Glenavy ward had 387 recorded offences in four major categories of
crime: 29% theft, 23% criminal damage, 17% offences against the person, and 14%
burglaries. Similarly, Crumlin had 314 recorded offences with 28% theft, 23%
offences against the person, 19% criminal damage and 18% burglaries. Crime in both
wards is at moderate levels compared to other wards in Northern Ireland.
7.13
Health and social care
7.13.1 Primary care in Glenavy ward is commissioned by the Eastern Health and Social
Services Board and there is one GP practice in Glenavy village. Primary care in
Crumlin ward is commissioned by the Northern Health and Social Services Board and
there is one GP practice in Crumlin village with a branch in Glenavy village.
7.13.2 For Glenavy ward, the main hospital in the area is the Lagan Valley Hospital in
Lisburn. For Crumlin ward, the main hospital is the Antrim Area Hospital.
7.13.3 The main causes of death in Glenavy and Crumlin wards, based on Northern Ireland
figures, are cancer; heart and circulatory disease; respiratory disease and
cerebrovascular disease (strokes). The commonest cancers are for: skin, breast,
lung, colorectal and colon.
Page 31
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
7.14
Shops and retail amenities
7.14.1 Glenavy and Crumlin villages have some shops however the majority of shops and
retail amenities are concentrated in the main urban areas such as the Cities of
Lisburn and Belfast.
7.15
Culture and leisure
7.15.1 Local churches in the area are a focus for a range of religious, cultural and leisure
activities including Junior Church, Soul Rock, Girls Brigade, Badminton Club, Parish
Choir, Ladies Guild, Mothers Union and bowling.
7.15.2 Both Glenavy and Crumlin have youth projects targeting local young people and are
overseen by key local agencies including the local churches and the police service
7.16
Land and spatial
7.16.1 The area around the development site is rural with farming being an important land
use. Some parts of the locality have been assigned as ‘Areas of High Scenic Value’
and ‘Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance’.
7.16.2 In Glenavy ward, 180 farms are registered to addresses in the ward with a total
agricultural labour force of 355 employed in the area.14 In Crumlin ward, 13 farms are
registered to addresses in the ward with a total agricultural labour force of 25
employed in the area.
7.17
Conclusion
7.17.1 Overall the population of the local area around the proposed power plant are healthy
or very healthy and health and social inequalities (deprivation) are low. The resident
population is long established with strong family/social networks and high levels of
home ownership. The area has generally higher levels of education and employment
than the Northern Ireland average and key deprivation issues in the area are access
to services and amenities and crime.
14
Based on 2006 data.
Page 32
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
7.17.2 Public health issues are in line with those in other parts of Northern Ireland with
improving sexual health and reducing teenage pregnancies; reducing smoking,
alcohol binge drinking and reducing illicit drug taking; monitoring childhood obesity
levels, increasing physical acitivity generally and improving food and nutrition; and
improving primary care mental health services and mental health promotion being the
key challeneges.
Page 33
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
8
Health Impacts of Waste Incineration
8.1
Introduction
8.1.1
Ambient air in both urban and rural areas contains a large number of chemicals. Heat
and power generation, transport exhaust, cooking, bonfires and smoking are
examples of social combustion processes. Forest fires and volcanic eruptions are
examples of natural combustion processes. All combustion processes generate many
different airborne chemicals and many of these processes are essential to modern
life.
8.1.2
There has been and is considerable public concern, particularly among people living
near such facilities, on the potential negative health impacts from the emissions
generated by these facilities that are deposited onto air, water and soil.
8.1.3
Conversion of bio-waste to energy is a carefully controlled burning process. The
process aims to achieve a substantial reduction in the volume of waste; eliminate or
reduce any potential harmful agents such as harmful micro-organisms and organic
chemicals; and generate useful energy. The chemicals emitted from biomass fuelled
power plants are similar to those emitted from coal-fired power stations, metal
smelting plants and municipal waste incinerators. Advances in the technology of
modern waste to energy plants have enabled the introduction of tighter regulation on
emission levels compared to other types of combustion plants.
8.1.4
The main outputs from power plants and incinerators tend to be:
•
Energy (as heat and electricity).
•
Gases emitted into the air.
•
Fly ash which is the residue within the abatement and control systems in
place to reduce the amount of emissions into the air.
•
Bottom ash which is the non-combustible material, such as metals contained
in the original fuel or waste stream, that remains in the boiler.
•
8.1.5
Cooling water discharges where water is used as a coolant.
The principle sources of data to assess the potential health effects of the chemicals
that may be emitted from the stack of the power plant are:
Page 34
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
•
epidemiological studies on individuals living near incinerators
•
toxicological studies in laboratory settings
•
exposure studies on individuals living near incinerators
8.1.6 All waste whether classified as non-hazardous or hazardous, particularly biological
(e.g. food, drink, animal remains); radioactive and chemical waste (e.g. domestic
cleaning fluids, batteries, industrial chemicals, plastics) can be hazardous if not
collected and managed appropriately. The potential human health impacts associated
with the accumulation and decay of both non-hazardous and hazardous waste
include15:
•
emissions into the air, water and soil;
•
odour;
•
dust;
•
an increase in pests and vermin;
•
detraction from the visual aesthetics of the local environment;
•
impacts on greenspace;
•
impacts on flora and fauna;
•
fire hazard;
•
infectious diseases (both directly and from transmission by, for example,
flies and rats); and
•
chronic diseases e.g. pneumonia, diarrhoea, bronchitis.
8.1.7 If waste remains uncollected and untreated (a ‘do nothing’ approach) there will be
significant and demonstrable negative consequences for health and wellbeing. It is
against this background that potential health impacts of waste treatment needs to be
compared. 16
8.1.8
The following sections describe the evidence on the health impacts of municipal solid
waste (domestic and commercial waste) and hazardous waste incinerators as these
have been the most closely studied. In general biofuels such as poultry bedding and
meat and bonemeal are less hazardous than municipal and hazardous waste.
15
Leonardi G., Waste and Health in London: a brief overview, London School of Hygiene & Tropical
Medicine, 2001 (Part of the HIA of the London Mayor’s draft Municipal Waste Strategy 2001)
16
Williams P, Waste treatment and disposal, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1999.
Page 35
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
8.2
Interpretation of epidemiological, toxicological and exposure studies
8.2.1
Epidemiological studies are very important sources of direct information on the
relationship between exposure to chemicals and the possible human health effects
especially in terms of long term effects. However, epidemiological studies particularly
in relation to combustion or incineration plants and other low levels of environmental
pollution are often difficult to interpret because the low level exposure over long time
periods is very difficult to disentangle from the other exposures and factors (termed
confounding factors), for example exposures in the home from domestic cleaning,
decorating and garden chemicals, that can contribute to the development of an
adverse health effect.17 18
8.2.2
Some of the key issues to consider when interpreting the health evidence and
epidemiological studies in particular are:
•
The likely nature and levels of emissions from the plant under investigation
since it came into operation. Most of the facilities studied have been older in
design and poorly performing by current standards. Often these epidemiology
studies have involved hazardous waste incinerators, for which the levels of
emissions and therefore exposure of the local population, tended to be much
higher than for modern facilities. These old waste to energy facilities had poor
environmental performance because they did not have the advanced pollution
abatement technology that is an integral feature of modern incinerators. The
published data should therefore be viewed as describing a ‘worst case’
situation.
•
What other sources of emissions are present in the area (for example,
smelting works, power stations, crematoria, heavy vehicle traffic, etc.). Health
studies have tended not to separate out the effects of other sources of
emissions which makes it difficult to unambiguously attribute effects solely to
the incinerator.
•
The degree of deprivation in the area as there is an association between
levels of deprivation and poorer health. Incinerators are often sited in areas of
social deprivation and it is difficult to separate effects that may be due to the
incinerator from those associated with poverty.
17
Franchini M, Rial M, Buiatti E, Bianchi F. Health effects of exposure to waste incinerator emissions:
a review of epidemiological studies. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2004;40(1):101-15. Review.
18
Hu SW, Shy CM. Health effects of waste incineration: a review of epidemiologic studies. J Air Waste
Manag Assoc. 2001 Jul;51(7):1100-9. Review.
Page 36
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
•
The health endpoints considered in many studies are also uncommon,
affecting 1 in a 1,000 or less of the general population. In order to detect
changes in the number of cases you therefore need to study at least 100,000
people, whereas the population in the area around any individual incinerator is
likely to be less than 10,000. If one case of a particular cancer that normally
arises in 1 in 20,000 people arises by chance within that local population, then
it would appear to be twice as common as in the general population. This
would not be a statistically significant finding, but can be widely quoted as
evidence of an excess cancer risk for that particular type of cancer.
•
Some studies have increased the statistical power of investigations by looking
at a wider area around plant but this gives a real problem in assessing
whether observed effects could plausibly be associated with incinerator
emissions. Studies have included populations that live distances of up to 10
km from an incinerator where the air quality effects would be vanishingly small
at distances more than 1km from a plant and where pollution from other
sources tends to account for 99% of population exposure to air pollution.
•
Many clusters of disease do arise purely by chance. Often the media will
report apparent associations between some unwelcome development (mobile
phone masts, nuclear power station, landfill sites) and adverse health effects
without considering whether the findings are “statistically significant”, i.e.
unlikely to be a chance event. Even if findings do appear to be “statistically
significant”, there is still likely to be a 1 in 20 chance that the findings have
arisen by chance rather than being a real cause.
8.2.3
Normally, if a health effect is causally linked with some factor such as exposure to
emissions from an incinerator, then associations between effect and potential cause
would be expected to arise in a number of studies. Where the results of different
studies are inconsistent, then there is a high probability that at least some of the
health effects reported in individual studies have arisen either by chance or as a
result of a confounding factor. This relates to a wider set of criteria for causation that
are termed the Bradford-Hill Criteria which is accepted by public health professionals
as the standard for judging causal relationships between an exposure and a health
effect.19 The eight key criteria are:
19
Hill, B.A. (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal
Society of Medicine, 58, 295-300.
Page 37
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
•
Consistency –the association between exposure and health effect is
replicated in different studies using different methods.
•
Strength – the strength of the association is strong as determined by statistical
tests.
•
Specificity –a single exposure produces a specific health effect.
•
Dose-response relationship –an increasing dose/exposure increases the
likelihood of a health effect.
•
Temporal relationship – the exposure always precedes the health effect.
•
Biological plausibility – there is a reasonable biological mechanism by which
the exposure generates the health effect in humans.
•
Coherence – the association fits with other existing health knowledge
•
Experiment – the health effect can be affected (e.g. prevented or ameliorated)
by appropriate experimental intervention.
8.2.4
Toxicological studies allow the effects of both pure chemicals and mixtures to be
determined under very carefully controlled conditions (i.e. confounding factors are
minimised). In the past these studies have been carried out using several species of
laboratory animals, at different exposure levels. This enables the characterisation of
the great majority of the hazardous properties. Several thousand chemicals have
been studied in this way. A particular purpose of such studies is to identify the
exposure levels at which each effect can be considered insignificant in humans.
Rarely are such studies carried out in humans. It is therefore not always possible to
extrapolate such information from laboratory animals to humans. Where uncertainty
exists in this extrapolation it is generally addressed as follows: the findings in the
most sensitive species are used for extrapolation purposes and safety factors are
introduced to allow for uncertainties in the extrapolation from animals to man and
possible differences in sensitivity between humans. Thus, estimates of what
constitutes a safe level in humans tend to err on the side of caution. Typically the
estimated safe levels in humans are 1000 times smaller than the ‘no effect level’ in
animals.
8.2.5
Exposure studies involve taking blood measurements from residents living near
incinerators and assessing their blood levels compared to a control group of residents
that do not live near an incinerator. Exposure to chemicals can come from very many
sources. All of the chemicals of interest that are emitted from incinerators are also
Page 38
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
produced from many other sources. It is therefore necessary to identify the
contribution of the stack emissions to the total exposure of the local community. If the
proportion of the chemical coming from the stack is very small compared with other
sources of exposure it is most unlikely that it will have any significant effect on health.
8.2.6
In the following sections epidemiological and exposure studies along with key reviews
of the health evidence are presented.
8.3
Reviews of the epidemiological literature
8.3.1
The following extracts are provided in chronological order from the key reviews that
have taken place over the last ten years.
8.3.2
The National Public Health Service in Wales produced a briefing report on ‘Health
Effects of Waste Management Technologies in 2007. The report states that:
“For the reasons outlined above, all three reviews agree that no firm conclusions can
be drawn on the health effects of waste management technologies. SWPHO
summarise the situation by stating that the most studies are ‘hypothesis-generating’
rather than ‘hypothesis-testing’. Bond et al state that the “…generic lessons…can be
summarised as follows: Most epidemiological investigations reported in this area have
been “ecological” studies based on spatial patterns of morbidity or mortality. Exposure,
which may be over protracted periods involving multiple confounding factors, such as
deprivation, have been insufficiently quantified to permit scientifically robust
conclusions concerning causation. Emissions and exposures from landfill and
composting operations are much less well characterised than those from incineration.
Emissions of bioaerosols from composting, landfill and waste recycling plants are a
potential concern. Robust epidemiological data concerning health risks associated with
exposure to bioaerosols are very sparse.” (Executive summary pg.i)” (Section 6
Conclusion, Page 6)
8.3.3
A World Health Organization workshop in 2007 ‘Population Health and Waste
Management: scientific data and policy options’ in the chapter on the health impacts
of incinerators has this to say in terms of policy implications:
“In short, the current state of knowledge is inconclusive. There is reasonable evidence
of some adverse health effects from older plants. There is little or no relevant data from
Page 39
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
more modern plants. Future studies will be harder to do, and even harder to interpret,
than older studies, as the levels of emissions are likely to be lower. Epidemiology may
not be the most suitable tool, as it is unlikely to be possible to reduce the uncertainties
fast enough for current policy needs.
A reasonable basis for future action might be this. Decisions to proceed with the
construction of new plants should observe the precautionary principle, and each plant
and each site should be rigorously evaluated for potential harm. There is no present
evidence of harm from modern facilities, but it will be necessary to do some systematic
large scale studies, focusing on the health effects identified so far, to monitor the
impact of present and future industrial activities across Europe. Every effort should be
made to support less developed countries in upgrading and/or phasing out
unsatisfactory facilities.” (Section A3. Overview of health effects – incinerators, Section
A3.5 Policy implications, Pages 32-33)
8.3.4
The Institute of Public Health in Ireland in their 2005 introductory paper ‘Health
Impact Assessment and Waste Management with particular reference to Incineration’,
have this to say:
“The relationship between waste incineration and health has been the subject of much
debate. Reviews of epidemiological studies that explored the potential health risks to
employees and to people living or working nearby found many results inconclusive due
to a number of difficulties including: Where no evidence can be found of a relationship
between adverse health effects and proximity to incineration sites this may mean that
there is no relationship or that a relationship exists but may not be detectable using
available methods and data sources. The fact that ill-health may occur infrequently or
take years to appear make it difficult to establish cause and effect. Other confounding
factors such as socio-economic variables, exposure to toxic substances from other
sources, population variables and spatial and temporal issues make causality difficult
to assess. Further limitations with the evidence base include: The fact that many
studies conducted to date have concentrated on the effects of exposure to emissions
from the older generation of incinerators, which have been phased out since the
introduction of stricter emission controls. Many studies have concentrated on the
physical health outcomes, however a more holistic interpretation of health would also
include psychological and social wellbeing.” (Section 2.3 Waste management and
health, Page 4)
Page 40
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
8.3.5
The Health Protection Agency published a Position Statement on ‘Municipal Solid
Waste Incineration’ in 2005 which states that:
“Health Studies
Studies in the UK have principally focused on the possible effects of living near to the
older generation of incinerators, which were significantly more polluting than modern
plant. The Agency has considered studies examining adverse health effects around
incinerators and is not aware of any consistent or convincing evidence of a link with
adverse health outcomes.
However it is accepted that the lack of evidence of adverse effects might be due to the
limitations regarding the available data.
A number of comprehensive reviews on incineration have been published. The
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have recently commissioned a
review of the effects of waste management, which was peer reviewed by the Royal
Society. Cancer, respiratory disease and birth defects were all considered, and no
evidence was found for a link between the incidence of the disease and the current
generation of incinerators. It concluded that although the information is incomplete and
not ideal, the weight of evidence from studies so far indicates that present day practice
for managing solid municipal waste has, at most, a minor effect on human health and
the environment, particularly when compared to other everyday activities.
An earlier report by the Medical Research Council’s Institute for Environment and
Health on the ‘’Health Effects of Waste Combustion Products’’ also concluded that
’epidemiological studies on people who work at or live near incinerators have shown no
consistent excess of any specific disease’.
The Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and
the Environment has reviewed a large study by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit
that examined 14 million people living within 7.5 km of 72 municipal solid waste
incinerators, which operated up to 1987. The Committee concluded that, ‘any potential
risk of cancer due to residency (for periods in excess of ten years) near to municipal
solid waste incinerators was exceedingly low and probably not measurable by the most
modern techniques’. We agree with this view.
Conclusion
Page 41
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Incinerators emit pollutants into the environment but provided they comply with modern
regulatory requirements, such as the Waste Incineration Directive, they should
contribute little to the concentrations of monitored pollutants in ambient air.
Epidemiological studies, and risk estimates based on estimated exposures, indicate
that the emissions from such incinerators have little effect on health. The Agency, not
least through its role in advising Primary Care Trusts and Local Health Boards as
statutory consultees for Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC), will continue to work
with regulators to ensure that incinerators do not contribute significantly to ill-health.”
(Pages 3-4)
8.3.6
The British Society for Ecological Medicine published a report on ‘The Health Effects
of Waste Incinerators’ in 2005.20 This stated that:
“1) Large epidemiological studies have shown higher rates of adult and childhood
cancers and of birth defects around incinerators. Smaller studies and a large body of
related research support these findings, point to a causal relationship, and suggest that
a much wider range of illnesses may be involved.
2) Recent research has confirmed that particulate pollution, especially the fine
particulate (PM2.5) pollution which is typical of incinerator emissions, is an important
contributor to heart disease, lung cancer, and an assortment of other diseases, and
causes a linear increase in mortality. Incinerators are in reality particulate generators,
and their use cannot be justified now that it is clear how toxic and carcinogenic fine
particulates are.
3) Other pollutants emitted by incinerators include heavy metals and a large variety of
organic chemicals. These substances include known carcinogens, endocrine
disruptors, and substances that can attach to genes, alter behaviour, damage the
immune system and decrease intelligence. The dangers of these are self-evident.
Some of these compounds have been detected hundreds to thousands of miles away
from their source.
20
The Health Protection Agency have formally and publicly critiqued this review stating: “The BSEM
report is not a systematic review of the literature and there is no critical assessment of the quality of
the included studies. Consequently the report presents a selective and limited use of the scientific
literature. For example the report has not considered important reviews such as the DEFRA review of
environmental and health effects of waste management, the Committee on Carcinogenicity (COC)
statement on cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators in Great Britain or the Royal
Society critique of the DEFRA review.”
Page 42
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
4) Additional dangers arise from radioactive particulates emitted from incinerators
licensed to deal with hazardous waste.
5) Incineration only reduces the volume of waste by 30-50%. Modern incinerators
produce far more toxic fly ash (air pollution control residues) than older incinerators;
these pose important long term health risks. No adequate methods exist for the
disposal of this ash.
6) The greatest concern is the long-term effects of incinerator emissions on the
developing embryo and infant, and the real possibility that genetic changes will occur
and be passed on to succeeding generations. Far greater vulnerability to toxins is
documented for the very young, particularly foetuses, causing cancer, spontaneous
abortion, birth defects or permanent cognitive damage. A worryingly high body burden
of pollutants has recently been reported in two studies of cord blood from new-born
babies.
7) Waste incineration is prohibitively expensive when health costs are taken into
consideration. The EC Commission figures indicate that a single incinerator could cost
the tax payer up to £50 million a year. Recent American data showed that strict air
pollution control has saved tens of billions of dollars a year in health costs.
8) Waste incineration is unjust because its maximum toxic impact is on the most
vulnerable members of our society, the unborn child, children, the poor and the
chemically sensitive. It contravenes the United Nations Commission on Human Rights,
the European Human Rights Convention (the Right to Life), and the Stockholm
Convention, and violates the Environmental Protection Act of 1990 which states that
the UK must prevent emissions from harming human health..” (Section 14.
Conclusions, Pages 40-41)
8.3.7
The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) commissioned
the report ‘Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management:
municipal solid waste and similar wastes’ produced by Enviros Consulting and the
University of Birmingham in 2004. In relation to the research literature this concluded
that:
“We looked at evidence for ill-health in people who might possibly be affected by
emissions from municipal solid waste processes. For most of the municipal solid waste
facilities studied, we found that health effects in people living near waste management
Page 43
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
facilities were either generally not apparent, or the evidence was not consistent or
convincing. However, a few aspects of waste management have been linked to health
effects in local people. We would need more research to know whether or not these are
real effects. We also investigated the health effects of emissions of some important
airborne pollutants from waste management facilities. Although the data was of
moderate or poor quality, we found that these emissions are not likely to give rise to
significant increases in adverse health effects.” (Chapter 7 Conclusions, Summary,
page 249).
8.3.8
The Republic of Ireland’s Department of the Environment and Local Government
commissioned the Health Research Board to produce a report on ‘Health and
Environmental Effects of Landfilling and Incineration of Waste – A Literature Review’
in 2003. This stated that:
“There is some evidence that incinerator emissions may be associated with respiratory
morbidity. Acute and chronic respiratory symptoms are associated with incinerator
emissions. A number of well-designed studies have reported associations between
developing certain cancers and living close to incinerator sites. Specific cancers
identified include primary liver cancer, laryngeal cancer, soft-tissue sarcoma and lung
cancer. It is hard to separate the influences of other sources of pollutants, and other
causes of cancer and, as a result, the evidence for a link between cancer and proximity
to an incinerator is not conclusive. Further research, using reliable estimates of
exposure, over long periods of time, is required to determine whether living near landfill
sites or incinerators increases the risk of developing cancer. Studies of specific
environmental agents and specific cancers may prove more definitive in the future.”
(Executive Summary, Health Effects of incineration, Page 6)
8.3.9
An Environment Agency commissioned report by the Centre for Research into
Environment and Health at the University of Wales in 2003 stated that:
“Epidemiology
Research evidence, to date, does not prove increased incidence of disease related to
exposure to incineration emissions. The majority of studies are retrospective, use
routinely collected data and are particularly reliant on inadequate exposure estimates.
Page 44
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Most studies lack the statistical power needed to show a statistically significant excess
of disease and/or are weakened by poor control for confounding factors.
There is no consistent or convincing evidence to support the view that emissions from
modern waste incinerators are associated with ill health such as cancer and respiratory
problems. It is reassuring that retrospective studies around the older generation of
incinerators do not provide convincing evidence of a link with ill health and where
health effects have been reported, they typically disappear once potential confounding
factors are taken into account (i.e. deprivation, ethnicity, smoking etc). Where some
evidence of possible health effects remains, it cannot be directly linked with incinerator
emissions only.
The strength of many studies is weakened by poor estimates of exposure. Many still
simply use distance from the incinerator as a proxy measure of exposure. The use of
concentric circles to identify “at risk” populations does not take into account the
influence of meteorological conditions or process characteristics (e.g. stack height,
efflux velocity, plume temperature) and the zones of influence used (which can be up to
7.5 km distance) introduce considerable possibilities for confounding exposures.
Improved studies using dispersion modelling and/or environmental monitoring will add
to the scientific literature and we recommend spatial epidemiology should be based on
dispersion modelling of emissions and/or air monitoring data.” (Chapter 7 Conclusions,
Section 7.3 Incineration, Page 64)
8.3.10 A South West England Public Health Observatory commissioned report ’Waste
Management and Public Health: the state of the evidence’ produced by the Centre for
Research in Environmental Systems. Pollution and Remediation at the University of
West England in 2002 stated that:
“5.3.1 Reviews and primary studies
The literature search yielded 5 reviews, 24 discussion papers and at least 51 primary
studies of the health impacts of incineration (Appendix 4 and Table 11).
Incineration is a method of processing waste during which major portions of the waste
stream are physically and chemically transformed. Incineration produces energy, gases
which are emitted into the atmosphere and solid residues which must be disposed of.
The main hazards arising from incineration are toxic metals (such as lead, cadmium,
arsenic and mercury), dioxins and particulates. Metals are not destroyed by
Page 45
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
incineration but are liberated from their immobilised state in waste materials and are
released by combustion as highly bioavailable forms. They leave the incinerator in
particles of respirable size, in particulates which are deposited on soils, water, food and
dust, and in readily confounding factors inherent in these types of epidemiological
study (described in section 4.2) rule out any definitive statement of causality. The lack
of consistency in finding associations could mean that incineration does not cause the
adverse health effects or it could mean that the health effects are not detectable using
existing epidemiological methods and the available data.
5.3.2 Judgement
Incineration and any health outcomes - insufficient.” (Chapter 5 Summarising the
evidence, Section 5.3 Incineration, Page 31)
8.3.11 A Greenpeace commissioned report ’Incineration and Human Health’ produced by
the Greenpeace Research Laboratories at the University of Essex in 2001 states that:
“No matter how modern an incinerator is, these facilities inevitably result in the release
of toxic emissions to air and the production of toxic ashes and residues. This leads to
contamination of the environment and to potential exposure of animals and humans to
hazardous pollutants. Many hazardous compounds are released from incinerators
including organic chemicals such as chlorinated and brominated dioxins, PCBs and
PCNs, heavy metals, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. Furthermore, innumerable
substances are emitted which are of unknown toxicity. The entire impact on human
health of exposure to the whole mixture of chemicals emitted from incinerators is
unknown. However, studies imply that individuals who work at waste incinerators and
who live near incinerators have suffered from increases in the rate of mortality as well
as many other diseases and effects that diminish the quality of their lives. Moreover, a
prestigious scientific body has recently expressed "substantial" concern about the
impacts of incinerator-derived dioxin releases on the health and well-being of broader
populations, regardless of the implementation of maximum achievable control
technology (NRC 2000).” (Chapter 6: The Solution: reduce, re-use and recycle and
phase out incineration, Section 6.1 Problems with Incineration, Section 6.1.1
Environment and Health, Page 59)
Page 46
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
8.3.12 The US National Research Council’s (NRC) Committee on Health Effects of Waste
Incineration (part of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology) produced a
report on ‘Waste Incineration and Public Health in 2000 which stated that:
“Few epidemiologic studies have attempted to assess whether adverse health effects
have actually occurred near individual incinerators, and most of them have been
unable to detect any effects. The studies of which the committee is aware that did
report finding health effects had shortcomings and failed to provide convincing
evidence. That result is not surprising given the small populations typically available for
study and the fact that such effects, if any, might occur only infrequently or take many
years to appear. Also, factors such as emissions from other pollution sources and
variations in human activity patterns often decrease the likelihood of determining a
relationship between small contributions of pollutants from incinerators and observed
health effects. Lack of evidence of such relationships might mean that adverse health
effects did not occur, but it could also mean that such relationships might not be
detectable using available methods and data sources.”
Pollutants emitted by incinerators that appear to have the potential to cause the largest
health effects are particulate matter, lead, mercury, and dioxins and furans. However,
there is wide variation in the contributions that incinerators can make to environmental
concentrations of those contaminants. Although emissions from newer, well-run
facilities are expected to contribute little to environmental concentrations and to health
risks, the same might not be true for some older or poorly run facilities.
Studies of workers at municipal solid-waste incinerators show that workers are at much
higher risk for adverse health effects than individual residents in the surrounding area.
In the past, incinerator workers have been exposed to high concentrations of dioxins
and toxic metals, particularly lead, cadmium, and mercury.” (Executive Summary,
Health Effects Section, Page 6)
8.3.13 The Medical Research Council’s Institute for Environment and Health at the
University of Leicester produced a report on the ‘Health Effects of Waste Combustion
Products’ in 1997. They stated that:
“A few epidemiological studies have analysed mortality (mostly as a result of cancer) in
people who work in incineration plants, but no consistent excess incidence of any
specific disease has emerged. The ability of such investigations to detect adverse
Page 47
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
effects, however, is limited by their relatively small size, the difficulty in taking account
of potentially confounding exposures such as smoking and socio-economic factors, and
uncertainties about the extent of any healthy worker effect. Furthermore, health risks
for working adults may be different from those for other groups of the population such
as children or the elderly.
Other studies have examined mortality and morbidity in communities living near
incinerators. Again, interpretation is complicated by the possibility of confounding,
particularly by social deprivation, especially when the observed relative risks are less
than 1.5.
A further limitation is the use of distance of residence from an incinerator as an index of
exposure. Airborne concentrations of pollutants are determined by variables such as
wind speed and direction as well as distance from the point of release, and in any case
people often spend much of their time away from their places of residence. Exposure
by routes other than inhalation will depend on personal habits such as the consumption
of home-grown vegetables. Again, this may not relate to distance from the incinerator
in a simple fashion.” (Section 4.2 Evaluation of health effects associated with
incinerator emissions, Page 132)
8.3.14 Overall, there is consensus among the majority of the reviews that modern welldesigned, well-operated and well-managed facilities such as modern waste or
biomass fuelled power plants have little or no negative health impacts on people
living near them.
8.4
Workplace studies
8.4.1
Workplace exposures to incinerator emissions are likely to be at least 100-1000 times
higher than the exposures experienced by local residents. Levels of workplace
exposure to hazardous substances in a modern incinerator in the UK would not be
expected to be associated with adverse health effects, provided that work practices
and systems were in conformance with relevant health and safety legislation.
8.4.2
Health effects that have been reported to be associated with work place exposure to
incinerator emissions include:
• increased risk of lung and oesophageal cancer;
• increased risk of gastric cancer;
Page 48
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
• increased mortality from ischaemic heart disease;
• immune system effects;
• altered sex ratio among offspring;
• proteinuria, hypertension, abnormal blood chemistry;
• chloracne.
8.4.3
A French study on ill health among municipal waste incinerator workers found only
two adverse effects, skin irritation and cough.21
8.4.4
Excess risks of lung cancer and heart disease were detected in a Swedish study of
workers employed between 1920 and 1985.22 The study results were not statistically
significant although as the risks of heart disease increased with increasing duration of
employment, this result should probably be treated as causal. Levels of exposure are
likely to have been much higher than for modern plant, but no exposure data are
presented. There are also no data on smoking or other risk factors for lung cancer
and heart disease. The study does not provide strong evidence for an adverse effect
associated with waste incineration.
8.4.5
Excess risks of oesophageal cancer were detected in a Swedish study of workers
exposed to combustion products rather than specifically associated with waste
incineration.23 The study population was dominated by chimney sweeps and they
showed clear excess risks of oesophageal cancer. The number of waste incineration
workers included in the study was small and the risks of oesophageal cancer were
not significantly raised in this group.
8.4.6
A Japanese study of an incinerator that was subsequently shut down because of high
levels of dioxin emissions showed that workplace exposure to dioxins was correlated
with greater body burdens of dioxin.24 Associations were found between blood fat
levels of dioxin and potential immune system effects and also increased risks of
hyperlipidema (excess levels of fat within the blood) and allergy (this finding was of
marginal statistical significance). There was also an association between dioxin
21
Hours M, Anzivino-Viricel L, Maitre A, Perdrix A, Perrodin Y, Charbotel B, Bergeret A. Morbidity
among municipal waste incinerator workers: a cross-sectional study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health.
2003 Jul;76(6):467-72.
22
Gustavsson P (1989) Mortality among workers at a municipal waste incinerator. American Journal of
Industrial Medicine 15, 245-253
23
Gustavsson P, Evanoff B, Hogstedt C (1993) Increased risk of esophageal cancer among workers
exposed to combustion products. Archives of Environmental Health 48, 243-5
24
Kitamura K, Kikuchi Y, Watanabe S, Waechter G, Sakurai H, Takada T (2000) Health effects of
chronic exposure to polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD), dibenzofurans (PCDF) and coplanar
PCB (Co-PCB) of municpal waste incinerator workers. Journal of Epidemiology 10, 262-70
Page 49
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
exposure and increased proportion of female offspring, but this finding was not
statistically significant.
8.4.7
Excess risks of hypertension and proteinuria (elevated levels of protein in urine
reflecting kidney dysfunction) were found in a US study of incinerator workers, but
neither hypertension nor proteinuria were related to levels of exposure to dust or
metals.25 This suggests that workplace exposure to emissions was not the major
factor leading to adverse health effects. Other factors such as smoking and heat
stress are likely to have been more important.
8.4.8
A single case of chloracne (skin condition specifically associated with exposure to
dioxin) has been reported for a worker who had been exposed to extremely high
levels of dioxin.26 This case is of little relevance to understanding the effects of
environmental exposure to dioxins.
8.4.9
A Japanese study has looked at the mental health status of municipal solid waste
incinerator workers compared with local government office workers (health
administration workers).27 They found that health administration workers had poorer
mental health than the incinerator workers.
8.4.10 A Spanish study monitoring levels of metals and organic compounds in the blood of
hazardous waste incinerator workers found no differences in levels between the
various groups of workers and their baseline concentrations prior to working at the
facility.28
8.4.11 Overall there is no consistent association between workplace exposure to incinerator
emissions and adverse health effects. Poor industrial hygiene (failure to implement
adequate dust control measures) has led to increased risks of respiratory system
cancers, heart disease and other adverse effects in a small number of workers.
8.4.12 Levels of workplace exposure to incinerator emissions are several orders of
magnitude greater than the highest levels of exposure that might arise in local
25
Bresnitz EA, Roseman J, Becker D, Gracely E (1992) Morbidity among municipal waste incinerator
workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 23, 363-378
26
Cited in Allsopp M, Costner P, Johnson P (2000) Incineration and human health. A report produced
for Greenpeace – bibliographic details not known.
27
Nakayama O and Ohkuma K, Mental health status of municipal solid waste incinerator workers
compared with local government office workers. Ind Health 2006 Oct;44(4):613-8
28
Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL, Agramunt MC, Bocio A, Müller L. Biological monitoring of metals and
organic substances in hazardous-waste incineration workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2002
Sep;75(7):500-6.
Page 50
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
communities. Any associated risk to health in local communities would therefore be
several orders of magnitude smaller than for plant workers.
8.5
Community studies
8.5.1
Health effects in the general population that have been reported to be associated with
incinerators include:
• increased risk of a range of cancers
• increased respiratory symptoms
• increased risk of reproductive disorders e.g. congenital malformations, increased
multiple births, change in sex ratio of newborn
• changes in blood levels of some thyroid hormones.
• Early biomonitoring studies of some populations living near incinerators have
found higher slightly blood or hair levels of dioxins and mercury than in control
populations in rural areas. Other similar studies done later have found no
significant difference between biological markers for exposure to dioxins and other
substances between populations living near incinerators and control populations
not exposed to incinerator emissions.
8.5.2
A recent Spanish study investigated the concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in milk from women living in the
vicinity of a new hazardous waste incinerator (HWI) in Catalonia, Spain.29 The study
was performed after 4 years of regular operation and the present PCB levels were
compared with baseline concentrations obtained in a pre-operational program. The
study suggested that dietary intake is more relevant for human exposure to PCBs and
PBDEs than living near the HWI. An earlier report on the same study population also
suggested that the HWI did not cause additional risks to the environment or to the
population living in the vicinity.30
8.5.3
A recent Portuguese study, as part of two wider environmental health surveillance
programs, on heavy metals exposure – lead, cadmium and mercury - in the vicinity of
29
Schuhmacher M, Kiviranta H, Vartiainen T, Domingo JL. Concentrations of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in milk of women from Catalonia,
Spain. Chemosphere. 2007 Apr;67(9):S295-300. Epub 2007 Jan 17.
30
Ferré-Huguet N, Nadal M, Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL. Environmental impact and human health
risks of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in the vicinity of a new hazardous waste
incinerator: a case study. Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Jan 1;40(1):61-6.
Page 51
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
a solid waste municipal incinerator found that source control measures within
incinerators are effective in reducing exposure and that there was a general
significant reducing trend in exposure to heavy metals.31
32 33
In particular, there were
reduction in blood lead levels in maternal and umbilical cord blood during the
monitoring period. However, there were no clear patterns in blood levels for children
with 3% of children showing relatively high blood lead levels. The authors suggest
further investigation both of the incinerator emissions and also of other sources of
lead emissions.
8.5.4
The Portuguese study also looked at dioxin exposure and levels in human breast
milk. They found that there was no increase of dioxins in the breast milk of women
living near these facilities.34
8.5.5
A Belgium study found that blood and urine samples of children near two waste
incinerators showed evidence of exposure to lead, cadmium, PCBs and dioxins.35
The waste incinerators were only one of several local sources of industrial pollution in
each of the two areas studied and children were also likely to have been exposed to
high levels of pollution arising from vehicle emissions on local motorways. The
elevated levels of exposure lead, cadmium and PCBs were probably associated with
other industrial sources but dioxins were likely to be associated with the incinerators,
particularly as the incinerators were subsequently closed down because of their
failure to meet emissions limits for dioxins.
8.5.6
A German study found no significant difference between biological markers for
exposure to dioxins and other substances between populations living near
31
Reis MF, Sampaio C, Brantes A, Aniceto P, Melim M, Cardoso L, Gabriel C, Simão F, Miguel JP.
Human exposure to heavy metals in the vicinity of Portuguese solid waste incinerators - Part 1:
biomonitoring of Pb, Cd and Hg in blood of the general population. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2007
May;210(3-4):439-46.
32
Reis MF, Sampaio C, Brantes A, Aniceto P, Melim M, Cardoso L, Gabriel C, Simão F, Segurado S,
Miguel JP. Human exposure to heavy metals in the vicinity of Portuguese solid waste incinerators Part 2: biomonitoring of lead in maternal and umbilical cord blood.
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2007 May;210(3-4):447-54.
33
Reis MF, Sampaio C, Brantes A, Aniceto P, Melim M, Cardoso L, Gabriel C, Simão F, Miguel JP.
Human exposure to heavy metals in the vicinity of Portuguese solid waste incinerators - Part 3:
biomonitoring of Pb in blood of children under the age of 6 years. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2007
May;210(3-4):455-9.
34
Reis MF, Sampaio C, Aguiar P, Maurício Melim J, Pereira Miguel J, Päpke O. Biomonitoring of
PCDD/Fs in populations living near portuguese solid waste incinerators: levels in human milk.
Chemosphere. 2007 Apr;67(9):S231-7.
35
Staessen JA, Nawrot T, den Hond E, Thijs L, Fagard R, Hoppenbrouwers K, Koppen G, Nelen V,
Schoeters G, Vanderschueren D, van Hecke E, Verschaeve L, Vlietinck R, Roels HA (2001) Renal
function, cytogenetic measurements, and sexual development in adolescents in relation to
environmental pollutants: a feasibility study of biomarkers. The Lancet 357, 1660-1669
Page 52
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
incinerators and control populations not exposed to incinerator emissions (Deml et al,
1996).36
8.5.7
A long term monitoring study in Spain looked at levels of dioxins in the vicinity of an
old municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) that had later undergone modernisation
and the health risks of those living near it.37 The study found that the environmental
levels of dioxins showed that the MSWI was not the main source of dioxin pollution
and that the human health risks for the population living in the vicinity of the facility
after introduction of modern technology were negligible in comparison with the dietary
exposure to dioxins.
8.5.8
Another Spanish study found that dioxin levels in blood rose slightly after the start of
incineration in people living close to and distant from the incinerator.38 In the absence
of a clear relationship between increased dioxin levels in blood and the distance
people lived from the plant, the authors concluded that the rise was not associated
with the incinerator. Blood levels of lead decreased after the start of incineration and
no effects were seen on blood levels of mercury, cadmium and chromium, suggesting
that incineration had little effect on exposures to heavy metals.
8.5.9
A US study found that levels of dioxins in blood serum actually fell after the start of
incineration.39
8.5.10 An older Finnish study found elevated levels of hair mercury in a population living
near a hazardous waste incinerator.40 Levels of mercury exposure remained small in
relation to relevant health guidelines.
8.5.11 A number of recent studies have used computer modelled levels of exposure to
dioxins and other emissions to assess the incidence of cancer in those living near the
facility compared to those living elsewhere. A study in Venice, Italy found that there
36
Deml E, Mangelsdorf I, Greim H (1996) Chlorinated dibenzodioxins and difenzofurans (PCDD/F) in
blood and human milk of nonoccupationlly exposed persons living in the vicinity of a municipal waste
incineratory. Chemosphere 33, 1941-50
37
Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL. Long-term study of environmental levels of dioxins and furans in the
vicinity of a municipal solid waste incinerator. Environ Int. 2006 Apr;32(3):397-404.
38
Gonzalez Ca, Kogevinas M, Gadea E, Huici A, Bosch A, Bleda MJ, Papke O (2000) Biomonitoring
study of people living near of working at a municipal solid-waste incinerator before and after two years
of operation. Archives of Environmental Health 55, 259-67
39
Evans RG, Shadel BN, Roberts DW, Clardy S, Jordan-Isaguirre D, Patterson DG, Needham LL
(2000) Dioxin incinerator emissions exposure study Times Beach, Missouri. Chemosphere 40, 106374
40
Kurttio P, Pekkanen J, Alfthan G, Paunio M, Jaakkola JJ, Heinonen OP (1998) Increased mercury
exposure in inhabitants living in the vicinity of a hazardous waste incinerator: a 10 year follow-up.
Archives of Environmental Health 53, 129-37.
Page 53
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
was support for an association between modelled dioxin exposure and the risk of
sarcoma.41 In contrast, a study in Taranto, Italy found that individual risks were well
below maximum acceptable levels and created a very small incremental cancer risk
compared with background levels.42 A French study assessed the public health
benefits of compliance with current EU emissions standards for municipal waste
incinerators using modelled exposure.43 It found that before compliance the average
dioxin exposure attributable to the incinerator was 25% of the average total exposure
from traffic and other combustion activities, with a hazard ratio less than 1 and a
lifetime excess risk assuming no change in emissions of 0.0002. After compliance all
hazard ratios and future individual lifetime excess risks appeared minimal.
8.5.12 The results of monitoring of agricultural produce have suggested that emissions from
some incinerators have led to higher levels of metals and dioxins in produce. A
Spanish study between 1998 and 2003 looked at the levels of heavy metals in forty
soil and forty vegetation samples near a new hazardous waste incinerator (HWI).
They found that arsenic, beryllium, chromium, nickel and vanadium levels showed
increases in soils while there were decreases in cadmium, mercury and selenium. In
vegetation, levels of chromium, manganese and vanadium increased while there was
a decrease in arsenic levels. A health risk assessment of these increases was
undertaken with only the increase in levels of arsenic in soils exceeding regulatory
limits. The authors concluded that the HWI had minimal influence on heavy metal
exposure compared to other metal pollution sources in the area. Another earlier
Spanish study comparing dioxin levels in soil and vegetation from samples taken in
1996-97 and two years later found that dioxin levels had decreased in vegetation
while there was no difference in levels in soil.44 The authors also noted that the
potential intake of polluted soils was not a significant health risk to the local
population. A UK study found that egg and poultry meat samples from small holdings
near incinerators in England and Wales had higher dioxin concentrations than those
41
Zambon P, Ricci P, Bovo E, Casula A, Gattolin M, Fiore AR, Chiosi F, Guzzinati S. Sarcoma risk
and dioxin emissions from incinerators and industrial plants: a population-based case-control study
(Italy). Environ Health. 2007 Jul 16;6:19.
42
Cangialosi F, Intini G, Liberti L, Notarnicola M, Stellacci P. Health risk assessment of air emissions
from a municipal solid waste incineration plant - A case study.
Waste Manag. 2008;28(5):885-95.
43
Glorennec P, Zmirou D, Bard D. Public health benefits of compliance with current E.U. emissions
standards for municipal waste incinerators: a health risk assessment with the CalTox multimedia
exposure model. Environ Int. 2005 Jul;31(5):693-701.
44
Domingo JL, Schuhmacher M, Granero S, de Kok HA. Temporal variation of PCDD/PCDF levels in
environmental samples collected near an old municipal waste incinerator. Environ Monit Assess. 2001
Jun;69(2):175-93.
Page 54
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
from more rural locations.45 Fruit and vegetables grown in areas impacted by
emissions from incinerators also showed slightly elevated levels of dioxins and PCBs
although concentrations were not significantly different from those in produce from
more rural locations.46 Studies of dioxin concentrations in dairy products have shown
inconsistent results. A US study found that the start of incineration at a new plant had
no effect on dioxin levels in locally produced milk.47 The inconsistency between the
results of studies of dioxin contents in food produced near incinerators probably
reflects the very different levels of emission from different incinerators. It may also
reflect local climatic factors and differences in agricultural practice which affect the
potential for emissions to affect the human food chain.
8.5.13 A French study showed that there was a significant increase in soft tissue sarcoma
and non-Hodgkins lymphoma in residents living close to an incinerator.48 Locally
produced dairy produce, including milk, was believed to have been an important
source of exposure to dioxins. A recent Italian study however found no excess of
lympo-haematopoietic cancers (cancers of the lympthatic system and blood) in a
population living near a waste incinerator, despite evidence of a poor pollution control
record at the plant.49
8.5.14 A study of a heavily industrialised town in north-east Italy identified an apparent
excess risk of developing lung cancer associated with living downwind from an
incinerator, though the incinerator was only one of a number of sources of industrial
pollution that would have affected local air quality.50 Studies of other incinerators in
45
Lovett AA, Foxall CD, Creaser CS, Chewe D (1998) PCB and PCDD/DF concentrations in egg and
poultry meat samples from known urban and rural locations in Wales and England. Chemosphere 37,
1671-85
46
Lovett AA, Foxall CD, Creaser CS, Chewe D (1997) PCB and PCDD/DF congenors in locally grown
fruit and vegetable samples from known urban and rural locations in Wales and England.
Chemosphere 37, 1671-85
47
Eitzer BD (1995) Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in raw milk samples from
farms located near a new resource recovery incinerator. Chemosphere 30, 1237-48
48
Viel JF, Arveux P, Baverel J, Cahn JY (2000) Soft-tissue sarcoma and non-hodgkin's lymphoma
cluster around a municipal solid waste incinerator with high dioxin emission levels. American Journal
of Epidemiology 152, 13-9
49
Michelozzi P, Fusco D, Forastiere F, Ancona C, Dell’Orco V, Percucci CA (1998) Small area study
of mortality among people living near multiple sources of air pollution. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine 55, 611-615
50
Biggeri A, Barbone F, Lagazio C, Bovenzi M, Stanta G (1996) Air pollution and lung cancer in
Trieste, Italy: spatial analysis of risk as a function of distance from sources. Environmental Health
Perspectives 104, 750-4
Page 55
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Italy and the UK, however, have failed to find an excess lung cancer risk associated
with living close to an incinerator.28 51
8.5.15 A UK study found a small increased risk of liver cancer among residents living within
1 km of an incinerator.52
53
The study did no specifically examine the population living
downwind of incinerators so that the effect may not have been associated with
exposure to incinerator emissions but could reflect some other factor in the siting of
incinerators. The DoH Committee on Carcinogenicity concluded that it was not
possible to conclude that the excess risk was due to emissions from the incinerators
as residual socio-economic confounding could not be excluded.54 The Italian study of
a single incinerator, mentioned earlier, found no excess risk of liver cancer, despite
the plant’s poor pollution control record.28
8.5.16 A UK study of people living near ten incinerators of waste solvents and oils failed to
find an association between cancers of the larynx and living near an incinerator.55 An
apparent cluster of cancers of the larynx near one of the incinerators examined was
not associated with proximity to the incinerator. The Italian study of an incinerator
with, mentioned earlier, did find an association between the laryngeal cancer and
distance of residence from the incinerator.28 The overall risks of laryngeal cancer
were not, however, raised above those for the general population. The incinerator
was situated close to a petrochemical refinery and the relative importance of the
impacts of the two plants on local air quality and health is unclear.
8.5.17 A series of studies of children dying of cancers between 1953 and 1980 in the UK
have found no consistent relationships with incineration.56
57
The earliest study found
an association between childhood cancers and industrial emissions, namely
51
Elliott P, Hills M, Beresford J, Kleinschmidt I, Jolley D, Pattenden S, Rodrigues L, Westlake A, Rose
G (1992) Incidence of cancers of the larynx and lung near incinerators of waste solvents and oils in
Great Britain. Lancet 339, 854-8.
52
Elliot P, Shaddick G, Klienschmidt I, Jolley D, Walls P, Beresford J, Grundy C (1996) Cancer
incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators in Great Britain. British Journal of Cancer 73, 702710
53
Elliott P, Eaton N, Shaddick G, Carter R. Cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators
in Great Britain. Part 2: histopathological and case-note review of primary liver cancer cases. British
Journal of Cancer. 2000 Mar;82(5):1103-6.
54
Committee on Carcinogenicity, Cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators in Great
Britain, COC statement COC/00/S1, Department of Health, UK, March 2000.
55
Elliott P, Hills M, Beresford J, Kleinschmidt I, Jolley D, Pattenden S, Rodrigues L, Westlake A, Rose
G (1992) Incidence of cancers of the larynx and lung near incinerators of waste solvents and oils in
Great Britain. Lancet 339, 854-8.
56
Knox EG, Gilman EA (1997) Hazard proximities of childhood cancers in Great Britain from 1953-80.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 51, 151-9.
57
Gilman EA, Knox EG (1998) Geographical distribution of birth places of children with cancer in the
UK. British Journal of Cancer 77, 842-9.
Page 56
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
petroleum derived volatiles and emissions from kilns, furnaces and internal
combustion engines.34 A concurrent study of the same children, but on a broader
scale, however, showed no excess of cancers in industrialised areas.35 A subsequent
study found an apparent association between childhood cancer and birth within 5 km
of an incinerator, but could not separate the effects of incinerators from those of other
sources of industrial pollution.58 The risks were greatest for children born nearest the
oldest incinerators and the excess risk disappeared when these old facilities were
excluded from the analysis. The study compared the number of children with cancer
who had been born near an incinerator and then moved away with the number of
children with cancer who had been born far from an incinerator and then moved
closer. The effect of any overall change in the numbers of children in the UK (with or
without cancer) living close to or far from an incinerator was not taken into account.
Some of the apparent excess cancer risk, therefore, could in fact represent a general
movement of young families out of industrial areas where incinerators are situated to
more distant locations. In addition, as the study only considered children dying of
cancer that had either moved away from or closer to an incinerator since birth, it was
not necessarily representative of all children who develop cancer. Finally, this study
did not specifically consider the effects of living downwind of an incinerator so it can
be assumed that the airborne concentrations of incinerator emissions are likely to
have been negligible for a high proportion of the children born within 5km of an
incinerator.
8.5.18 Studies of respiratory symptoms in Australian children and adults in North Carolina
undertaken in the early 1990s failed to find an association between residence near an
incinerator and increased respiratory symptoms.59
60 61
In both investigations, the
incinerator did not have a measurable effect on air quality. A more recent
investigation of the North Carolina population found an association between living
near a hazardous waste incinerator and self-reported respiratory symptoms.62 Similar
58
Knox E (2000) Childhood cancers, birthplaces, incinerators and landfill sites. International Journal of
Epidemiology 29, 391-7.
59
Gray EJ, Peat JK, Mellis CM, Harrington J, Woolcock AJ (1994) Asthma severity and morbidity in a
population sample of Sydney school children: Part 1 Prevalence and effect of air pollutants in coastal
regions. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine 24, 168-75.
60
Lee DS, Dollard GJ, Derwent RG, Pepler S (1999) Observations on gaseous and aerosol
components of the atmosphere and their relationships. Water Air and Soil Pollution: 113; 175-202.
61
Shy CM, Degnan D, Fox DL, Mukerjee S, Azucha MJ, Boehlecke BA, Rothenbacher D, Briggs PM,
Devlin RB, Wallace DD (1995) Do waste incinerators induce adverse respiratory effects? An air quality
and epidemiological study of six communities. Environmental Health Perspectives 103, 714-24.
62
Mohan AK,, Degnan D, Feigley CE, Shy CM, Hornung CA, Mustafa R, Macera CA (2000)
Comparison of respiratory symptoms among community resdients near waste disposal incinerators,
International Journal of environmental Health research 10, 63-75.
Page 57
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
relationships were not found for a municipal waste or hospital waste incinerator.
There is uncertainty in interpreting the results of studies based on self reported
symptoms. People who are concerned about their health in relation to a specific
facility may be more likely to report symptoms than individuals of similar health status
who are less concerned. A further study of the same North Carolina population found
no association between lung function and municipal waste incineration.63
64
An earlier
Taiwanese study that showed adverse effects on children’s lung function associated
with waste incineration concluded that the effect was due to air pollution generally
and not specifically with the incinerator.65 A study of Belgium children found an
increased incidence of common cold which was coupled with increased complaints
about health in general.42
8.5.19 A Japanese study of a municipal waste incinerator with high levels of dioxin
emissions (above 80ng TEQ/m3 compared to current EU incineration maximum
values of 0.1ng TEQ/m3) found increased risk of infant mortality and infant deaths
with congenital malformations.66 However, the authors suggest caution in interpreting
the results and the need for further investigation.
8.5.20 A French study looked at congenital abnormalities/birth defects around 70
incinerators operating for at least one year between 1988 and 1997.67 The study
found that though both incinerators and road traffic plausibly explained some of the
excess risks observed, several alternative explanations including exposure
misclassification, ascertainment bias, and residual confounding could not be
excluded. The authors also concluded that some of the effects observed, if real, might
be attributable to old-technology and the persistent pollution they have generated. An
English study also looked at lethal congenital abnormalities/birth defects around
incinerators and crematoria and found and increased risk (specifically spina bifida
and heart defects) in relation to proximity to incinerators. The authors caution that in
view of the scarcity of published data and their use of a distance function to represent
63
Hu SW, Hazucha M, Shy CM (2001) Waste incineration and pulmonary function: an epidemiologic
study of six communities. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 51, 1185-94.
64
Hazucha MJ, Rhodes V, Boehlecke BA, Southwick K, Degnan D, Shy CM. Characterization of
spirometric function in residents of three comparison communities and of three communities located
near waste incinerators in North Carolina. Arch Environ Health. 2002 Mar-Apr;57(2):103-12.
65
Cited in Allsopp M, Costner P, Johnson P (2000) Incineration and human health. A report produced
for Greenpeace – bibliographic details not known.
66
Tango T, Fujita T, Tanihata T, Minowa M, Doi Y, Kato N, Kunikane S, Uchiyama I, Tanaka M,
Uehata T. Risk of adverse reproductive outcomes associated with proximity to municipal solid waste
incinerators with high dioxin emission levels in Japan. J Epidemiol. 2004 May;14(3):83-93.
67
Cordier S, Chevrier C, Robert-Gnansia E, Lorente C, Brula P, Hours M (2004) Risk of congenital
anomalies in the vicinity of municipal solid waste incinerators. Occup Environ Med. Jan;61(1):8-15.
Page 58
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
potential exposure it is difficult to assess whether the statistical associations reflect a
causal effect.68
8.5.21 Studies undertaken in Belgium and the Netherlands have shown an association
between an increased probability of congenital malformations and living near an
incinerator, although the findings were only of “statistical significance” in the Dutch
studies.55 Effects in the Belgium study were only significant for parents who had
moved into the study area and therefore there may have been some other factor
giving rise to birth defects. Studies in the UK of hazardous waste incinerators in
Wales and in Scotland failed to find an association between incineration and birth
defects.69 The above studies were of all hazardous waste incinerators with poor
pollution control records.
8.5.22 One Scottish study of incinerators has suggested that there may be an increased
proportion of twin birth in the area and another that there may be an increase in
female births in the area most likely to be effected by emissions.70
68
However, a
Swedish study failed to find any increase in the rate of twins with only one of fourteen
sites showing an significant increase and one showing a decrease.71
8.5.23 A Belgian study, mentioned earlier, found that children living near two waste
incinerators reached sexual maturity at a later age than typical of the general
population.20 A correlation was found between serum levels of dioxin-like compounds
in girls and delay in reaching sexual maturity. The incinerators were closed down
because of their high levels of dioxin emissions.
8.5.24 A German study of children living in highly industrialised areas demonstrated small
changes in thyroid hormone concentrations in blood in children from industrialised
areas compared with those from less polluted areas.72 Hazardous waste incinerator
emissions were only a component of local industrial emissions, but were identified as
68
Dummer TJB, Dickinson HO, Parker L (2003) Adverse pregnancy outcomes around incinerators
and crematoriums in Cumbria, north west England, 1956–93 Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health 57:456-461
69
Williams FL, Lawson AB and Lloyd OL (1992) Low sex ratios of births in areas at risk from air
pollution from incinerators , as shown by geographical analysis and 3-dimensional mapping,
International Journal Of Epidemiology 21(2), 311- 319.
70
Lloyd OM, Lloyd MM, Williams FLR and Lawson A ( 1988) Twinning in human populations and
cattle exposed to air pollution from incinerators , Br J Ind Med. 45, 556- 5 0
71
Rydhstroem, H (1998) No obvious spatial clustering of twin births in Sweden between 1973 and
1990, Environmental Research 76, 27-31
72
Osius N, Karmaus W (1998) Thyroid hormone level in children in the area of a toxic waste
incinerator in South Essen. Gesundheitswesen 60, 107-12 – English abstract available on Medline.
Page 59
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
being potentially important because of a previously found association between
reduced thyroid hormones and exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins.
8.5.25 Overall, the results of different studies of the general population are highly
inconsistent and there is no clear picture of what health effects, if any, are associated
with domestic/municipal waste incineration. Many studies show no adverse health
impacts while others show associations between incineration and different health end
points. The failure to find associations with similar health end points in different
studies suggests that the reported associations could well be chance findings and
due to other local and community factors.
8.6
Conclusions
8.6.1
Overall, the evidence to date is strongly suggestive that modern well designed, well
managed and well regulated waste facilities have little or no negative health
impacts.73
8.6.2
Possible negative health impacts have been reported in populations exposed to
emissions from older incinerators before the advent of lower emission standards such
as the EU Waste Incineration Directive. The evidence for these negative health
outcomes is, however, weak and it is not possible to exclude the reported adverse
effects have arisen by chance or as a result of some confounding factor such as
deprivation or occupational exposures associated with local sources of employment.
Emissions from modern incinerators are tiny in comparison to those from older plant
and technology. The associated risks to health, if any, are therefore a tiny fraction of
those associated with the older plants that have been the subject of epidemiological
investigation.
73
Rushton, L (2003) Health hazards and waste management British Medical Bulletin 68:183-197
Page 60
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
9
Social Determinants of Health
9.1
Introduction
9.1.1
This is a summary overview of the key social determinants of health and the
development pathways by which they can positively and negatively affect health. The
aim is to give a flavour of how the health and wellbeing of existing and new residents
can be affected by a range of direct and indirect effects that are generated by land
developments. This evidence has been taken from a number of key reviews.
74 75 76 77
78
9.2
Employment and economy
9.2.1
Unemployment generally leads to poverty and a reduction in personal and social
esteem and a sense of hopelessness about the future and ongoing stress and
anxiety.
9.2.2
Poverty excludes people from: being able to afford quality and variety of foods,
engaging in opportunities for leisure and physical recreation, enhancing their
education and learning, having warm and comfortable homes. It also increases their
difficulties in travelling and therefore accessing other services and amenities and
levels of stress.
9.2.3
All of these lead to poorer childhood physical growth and development, reduced
general immunity to disease and reduced physical and mental health wellbeing.
9.2.4
It affects all age groups but has the greatest effects on those already on low incomes,
those with disabilities and children.
9.2.5
The pathways by which employment can be affected by developments is by reducing
or enhancing employment opportunities, local people’s social and welfare
74
Wilkinson R and Marmot M (Eds), Social determinants of health, Oxford University Press, 2006.
Health impacts of the built environment: a review, National Institute of Public Health in Ireland,
Ireland, 2006.
76
Healthy sustainable communities: what works?, NHS Milton Keynes Health and Social Care Group,
England, UK 2004.
77
World Health Organization, Social determinants of health: the solid facts, 2nd Edition, 2003.
78
Evans R, Barer ML and Marmor TR (Eds). Why are some people healthy and others not? The
determinants of health of populations. Aldine Transaction. 1994.
75
Page 61
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
entitlements, the viability of the organisations they work for, their opportunities for
education and training, their ability to travel and access and access to employment
and services and their perception of their local environment.
9.2.6
Mitigation involves developing measures to ensure that existing employment,
education, training, amenities and public transport are not reduced but maintained or
enhanced. Enhancement involves developing measures to increase and promote the
range of employment opportunities, education, training, amenities, public transport
and welfare.
9.3
Housing and accommodation
9.3.1
Poor housing that is damp, cold with poorly maintained water, electric and gas
appliances has an effect on physical growth and development, reduced immunity to
infections and mental health and wellbeing.
9.3.2
Housing affects all age groups but the greatest effects are on older people, those with
disabilities and children.
9.3.3
The pathways by which housing can be affected by developments include vibration
and subsidence in existing homes during construction; housing demand and potential
for overcrowding and levels of investment in property maintenance and repair.
9.3.4
Mitigation involves developing measures to ensure housing meets ‘decent homes’
standards especially social housing, building more affordable homes and improving
the access to housing maintenance services.
9.4
Education and learning
9.4.1
Access to education improves the life chances and opportunities of people in terms of
access to employment, uptake of health promotion and disease prevention
information and being able to articulate need and hence access services more
effectively. Education can also enhance wellbeing by improving people’s feeling of
self worth and reducing poverty as a result of increased skills levels and
employability.
9.4.2
It affects all age groups but the greatest effects are on children and young people.
Page 62
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
9.4.3
The pathways by which education can be affected by developments is through direct
changes to an education or training programme e.g. closure of a school and move to
a new one, disruption to access to an education or training facility or disruption of
their ability to deliver e.g. construction or investment in local schools and colleages to
enable them to provide an appropriately trained workforce and/or improve community
relations.
9.4.4
Mitigation involves developing measures to ensure that existing education and
training opportunities are not reduced or affected. Enhancement involves developing
measures to increase educational opportunities.
9.5
Transport and connectivity
9.5.1
Transport can lead to increased traffic which leads to poorer outdoor air quality which
in turn leads to respiratory and cardiovascular problems. Increased traffic levels may
be associated with increased risk of traffic-related injury and decreased levels of
physical activity if walking and cycling are perceived to have become more
hazardous.
9.5.2
Improved connectivity arising from transport improvements can lead to improved
access to employment, services and amenities e.g. health and social care, parks,
leisure centres, etc. and generate local business expansion and employment
opportunities, all of which lead to increased health and wellbeing.
9.5.3
It affects all age groups but has the greatest effects on older people, children, those
with disabilities and carers of young children.
9.5.4
The pathway by which transport can be affected by developments is through the
building of roads, greater flows of traffic because of new or denser housing
developments, or greater flows of heavy traffic because of new or expanded
business/industrial facilities.
9.5.5
Mitigation involves developing measures to reduce the outdoor air pollution caused
by motor vehicles and factories, ensuring that residential and outdoor play areas are
not built near roads with heavy motor traffic.
9.5.6
Enhancement involves developing measures to increase walking, cycling and public
transport provision wherever possible.
Page 63
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
9.6
Crime and safety
9.6.1
Fear of crime causes stress which reduces immunity to disease and mental
wellbeing. Actual experience of crime causes stress and physical injury which
reduces physical and mental health and wellbeing.
9.6.2
It affects all age groups but fear of crime is greatest among women.
9.6.3
The pathways by which crime and safety can be affected by developments is through
change that they make to neighbourhoods that bring in new people and new routines
in a community making crime easier to commit and less easy to notice.
9.6.4
Mitigation involves developing measures where buildings have natural surveillance
from neighbours and using ‘designing out crime’ building design principles.
9.6.5
Enhancement involves developing measures to improve local people’s relationships
with the Police, building neighbourhood community networks e.g. neighbourhood
watch, ensuring that schools, youth facilities and others are brought together to
develop a collaborative strategy to engage young people.
9.7
Health and social care
9.7.1
Reduced access to health services leads to ill-health becoming worse, less amenable
to treatment and more likely to lead to a permanent physical or mental impairment.
Reduced access to social care services leads to stable chronic conditions becoming
worse and the loss of independent living skills which in turn lead to greater physical
and mental impairment.
9.7.2
It affects all age groups but the greatest effects are on children and older people.
9.7.3
The pathways by which health and social care can be affected by developments is
through disruption to or reduction of public transport, locating facilities in remote
locations and not making people aware of the services available to them, closure of
local facilities or disruption during a move to a new facility or increasing demand for
services.
Page 64
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
9.7.4
Mitigation involves appropriate planning and communication about disruption to
access and ensuring alternatives are developed.
9.8
Social capital and community cohesion
9.8.1
Disruption and reduction in the quality of the social relationships and social networks
that local people and communities have can lead to feeling isolated and excluded
which in turn can lead to depression and poor mental wellbeing. It can also make
individuals more vulnerable to crime and to reduce their access to health and social
care services.
9.8.2
It affects all age groups.
9.8.3
The pathways by which social capital and cohesion can be affected by developments
are through raising strong concerns where a development is not wanted by local
people or it benefits some people at the expense of others.
9.8.4
Mitigation involves developing measures to ensure that there is acceptance of an
initiative by local people and affected groups and ensuring that everyone benefits and
those that do not are compensated.
9.9
Environment
9.9.1
Dirty and poor quality built environments as well as little or poor quality green space
have a negative effect on mental wellbeing.
9.9.2
It affects all age groups.
9.9.3
The pathways by which environment can be affected by developments are where
there is a change in street cleaning amenities and park officers, provision of litter
bins, maintenance of streets and street furniture, maintenance of public and private
buildings and availability and quality of greenspace.
9.9.4
Mitigation involves developing measures to ensure that there is an appropriate plan to
manage and maintain greenspace and other public spaces.
Page 65
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
10 Risk Perception & Risk Management
10.1
Introduction
10.1.1 People see risk as multi-dimensional, rather than being captured in a single numerical
measure. Risks are generally seen to be more worrying and less acceptable if they
are perceived to be involuntary (e.g. exposure to pollution) rather than voluntary (e.g.
dangerous sports or smoking). Risks that are avoidable by taking personal
precautions are more likely to be acceptable. They are considered more worrying if
some people appear to benefit while others suffer the consequences. They are less
likely to be acceptable if they threaten a form of death arousing particular dread such
as cancer, or pose some particular danger to small children, pregnant women or
future generations. Human sources are more likely to be worrying than natural
sources, particularly if they arise from an unfamiliar or novel technology. Media
coverage and pressure groups can amplify the public’s concern but seldom creates it.
10.2
Acceptable/tolerable levels of risk
10.2.1 It is accepted practice in risk management to develop thresholds below which
negative health effects are extremely unlikely. These are termed safe, acceptable or
tolerable levels of risk. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in
considering the health risks associated with incineration suggested that a risk of 1 in
a million represents a reasonable upper bound beyond which measures to achieve a
further reduction in risk would not be justified in terms of the benefit gained. 79 The
source reference for this comment indicates that this refers to an annual rather than
lifetime risk.
10.2.2 This is also generally seen by most regulatory bodies e.g. the US EPA, Health &
Safety Executive as a reasonable risk threshold by which to assess potential negative
health impacts on local communities and has been used in other health risk
assessments.80
81
The level has been set taking account of the factors described
79
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1993), Seventeenth Report: Incineration of Waste.
Calow PP (editor). Handbook of environmental risk assessment and management, WileyBlackwell,
London. 1997.
81
Roberts RJ, Chen M. Waste incineration-how big is the health risk? A quantitative method to allow
comparison with other health risks. J Public Health (Oxf). 2006 Sep;28(3):261-6.
80
Page 66
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
above. This level is equivalent to a lifetime risk of 1 in 13,500 for a lifetime of 74 years
(i.e. 74 in 1 million).
10.2.3 An annual risk of death of one in a million is equivalent to that associated with any of
the following:82
• smoking 1.5 cigarettes;
• spending one hour in a coal mine;
• living 2 days in Boston;
• travelling 10 miles by bicycle;
• flying 1000 miles by jet;
• one chest X-ray in a good hospital.
10.2.4 Another way to see this is by looking at the risks of deaths from other causes in any
given year:83
Example
Risk of death in any 1 year
Smoking 10 cigarettes a day
1 in 200
All natural causes, age 40
1 in 850
All violence and poisoning
1 in 3,300
Influenza
1 in 5,000
Accident on the road
1 in 8,000
Leukaemia
1 in 12,000
Accident at home
1 in 26,000
Accident at work
1 in 43,000
Murder
1 in 100,000
Accident on railway
1 in 500,000
Hit by lightning
1 in 10 million
Radiation from nuclear reactor
1 in 10 million
82
Wilson R. (1979). "Analysing the Daily Risks of Life" Technology Review. 81(4), 40-46.
403-415. Cited in UK Department of Health. (2000). Communicating about risks to public health:
pointers to good practice.
83
Calman K. (1996). On the state of the public health. Health Trends 1996;28:79–88. Cited in Roberts
RJ, Chen M. Waste incineration--how big is the health risk? A quantitative method to allow comparison
with other health risks. J Public Health (Oxf). 2006 Sep;28(3):261-6.
Page 67
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
10.3
Background rates of cancer in Northern Ireland
10.3.1 The background context of cancer rates in Northern Ireland is one of a slow increase
as life expectancy has grown and the chronic diseases of old age appear. The
number of cancer cases has increased by 907 between 1993 and 2004 (from 8,399
to 9306).
10.3.2 Table 11.6 shows the cancer rates for 2004, the latest year for which there are
publicly available. It shows that the most common cancers are skin, breast, colorectal
and trachea/bronchus/lung cancers.
Table 11.6 Cancer cases in Northern Ireland in 2004
[Source: Ireland and Northern Ireland Public Health Observatory (INIsPHO) eData Northern Ireland
Cancer Registry – cancer incidence rates (1993-2004)]84
All
persons
Number_of_Cases
Female
Male
All Cancers (C00-C97)
9306
4662
4644
All Cancers Excluding Non-Melanoma Skin (C00-C97 ex
C44)
7021
3593
3428
Bladder (C67)
210
62
148
Brain (C71)
89
45
44
Breast (C50)
1119
1117
0
Cervix Uteri (C53)
67
Childhood Cancer (C00-C97 in 0-14 year olds)
38
21
17
Colon (C18)
598
298
300
Colorectal (C18-C21)
954
447
507
Corpus Uteri (C54)
156
Hodgkin's Lymphoma (C81)
40
17
23
Kidney (C64-C66, C68)
187
79
108
Leukaemia (C91-C95)
145
58
87
Lip, Oral Cavity & Pharynx (C00-C14)
154
48
106
Liver & Intrahepatic Bile Ducts (C22)
46
16
30
Malignant Melanoma (C43)
258
146
112
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (C82-C85)
282
147
135
Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (C44)
2285
1069
1216
Oesophagus (C15)
155
49
106
Ovary (C56)
205
Pancreas (C25)
153
82
71
Prostate (C61)
757
Rectum, Rectosigmoid Junction & Anus (C19-C21)
356
149
207
Stomach (C16)
203
80
123
Testis (C62)
69
Trachea, Bronchus & Lung (C33-C34)
932
361
571
84
http://www.inispho.org/phis/indicators/results.php?rvoption=rvtable&quickselectwholetable=yes
Page 68
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
10.3.3 Table 11.7 shows the likelihood in terms of odds of getting cancer for 2004 in
Northern Ireland. There is a 1 in 3 lifetime chance of adults up to the age of 74 year
getting some form of cancer. Of the most important cancers mentioned above; the
chances of getting skin cancer are 1 in 13, for breast cancer (women) 1 in 30, for
colorectal 1 in 24, and for trachea/bronchus/lung 1 in 27.
Table 11.7 Lifetime chances/odds of getting cancer in Northern Ireland in 2004
[Source: Ireland and Northern Ireland Public Health Observatory (INIsPHO) eData Northern Ireland
Cancer Registry – cancer incidence rates (1993-2004)]
All
persons
Odds 1 in
Female
Male
All Cancers (C00-C97)
3
3
3
All Cancers Excluding Non-Melanoma Skin (C00-C97 ex
C44)
4
4
4
Bladder (C67)
127
215
86
Brain (C71)
234
244
222
Breast (C50)
21
11
9310
Cervix Uteri (C53)
179
Childhood Cancer (C00-C97 in 0-14 year olds)
617
541
713
Colon (C18)
40
45
36
Colorectal (C18-C21)
24
30
20
Corpus Uteri (C54)
71
Hodgkin's Lymphoma (C81)
520
620
436
Kidney (C64-C66, C68)
117
159
90
Leukaemia (C91-C95)
171
253
125
Lip, Oral Cavity & Pharynx (C00-C14)
133
236
90
Liver & Intrahepatic Bile Ducts (C22)
457
756
316
Malignant Melanoma (C43)
89
79
103
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (C82-C85)
87
96
78
Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (C44)
13
16
11
Oesophagus (C15)
176
454
105
Ovary (C56)
58
Pancreas (C25)
166
187
149
Prostate (C61)
16
Rectum, Rectosigmoid Junction & Anus (C19-C21)
60
86
44
Stomach (C16)
127
210
88
Testis (C62)
175
Trachea, Bronchus & Lung (C33-C34)
27
37
20
Page 69
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
11 Health Risk Assessment of Emissions from
the Proposed Power Plant
11.1
Introduction
11.1.1 This chapter analyses the potential health effects from the likely emissions generated
by the proposed Biomass Fuelled Power Plant into the air, water and soil.
11.1.2 The estimations have been produced from Lakes Environmental’s Industrial Risk
Assessment Program Human Health (IRAP-h View version 3.2) computer modelling
package. This package implements the US EPA’s Human Health Risk Assessment
Protocol (HHRAP).
11.1.3 Methods used in assessing risk generally acknowledge the uncertainties in health
effects data and in the estimation of the exposure experienced by members of the
public. The slope factors developed to estimate the level of risk associated with unit
exposure are all upper bound estimates of the risk determined from the available
data, taking account of data uncertainties. Furthermore the assessment of exposure
has in general been based on cautious assumptions (i.e. ones that are likely to
generate the highest realistic estimates of potential risk). This approach is expected
to lead to considerable overestimation of the risks.
11.2
Facility characterisation
11.2.1 The intended operating life of the proposed Rose Energy Biomass Fuelled Power
Plant is 25 years. However, as a cautious approach we have used the USEPA default
of the facility running for 30 years to calculate the potential risk and hazard.
11.2.2 The emission rates for the power plant described in Table 12.1 are derived from the
chemical analysis of the poultry bedding and the emissions from other similar
facilities. The European Union Waste Incineration Directive (WID, Directive on the
Incineration of Waste 2000/76/EC) limits are also provided for information and they
are the maximum emission limits of the proposed facility.
Page 70
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Table 11.1: Compounds of Potential Concern (COPC) included in the risk assessment (WID =
EU Waste Incineration Directive)
COPC
WID env. limit
values
(milligram/m3)
Likely
emission rate
(milligram/m3)
Likely emission
rate in grams
per second
Treated as
carcinogen
COPC
Treated as
noncarcinogen
COPC
Arsenic
0.5
0.125
0.00853
Yes
Yes
combined
0.255
0.01739
Yes
Yes
0.05
0.05
0.00341
Yes
Yes
Dioxins
0.0000001
0.0000001
0.0000000728
Yes
Yes
Mercury
0.05
0.002
0.00014
No
Yes
Lead
Cadmium
11.2.3 The above compounds were selected because a) dioxins represent the potentially
most harmful emissions that could be emitted from the power plant during the
combustion process, b) these are the likely levels of heavy metals to be found in
poultry bedding and meat and bonemeal (MBM) following fuel analysis and c) they
can be assessed using the US EPA HHRAP.
11.2.4 The likely emission rates have been developed from a mass balance analysis of the
poultry bedding and meat and bone meal and the Waste Incineration Directive (WID)
environmental emission limits. Abatement control will ensure that emissions are at or
below WID limits. The assumption is that emissions below this level will all pass
through the chimney stack. This is a worst case scenario in relation to the metals
emissions as a significant proportion of the metals will remain in the bottom ash which
is the residue remaining in the boiler system after the combustion of the poultry
bedding and MBM.
11.3
Air dispersion and deposition
11.3.1 Dry deposition occurs when matter deposits from the plume to the ground, or other
surface, with a certain deposition velocity. This deposition changes the airborne
concentration of pollutant.
11.3.2 The rate of dry deposition is assumed to be proportional to the near-ground/surface
concentration and is represented by the formula F = V x C. Where V is the deposition
velocity, C the airborne concentration and F is the rate of deposition per unit area per
unit time.
Page 71
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Figure 11.1: Map of the receptors included in the risk assessment
Site of the
proposed
biomass fuelled
power plant
Page 72
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Table 11.2: Distance of the receptors included in the risk assessment from the proposed
chimney stack of the power plant (stack centred on OS 313037, 372529)
Receptor
Name
x
y
Delta x (m)
Delta y (m)
Distance
from stack
(metres)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Ashvale
2a Ingrams Rd
2B Ingrams Rd
21 Ballyvannon
25 Ballyvannon
28 Ballyvannon
32 Ballyvannon
102 Lurgan Rd
96 Lurgan Rd
96a Lurgan Rd
92 Lurgan Rd
Pigeontown
Lakeview
Glenville
Non specific
22 Ballyvannon
18 Ballyvannon
16 Ballyvannon
106 Lurgan Rd
110 Lurgan Rd
116 Lurgan Rd
118 Lurgan Rd
Glenview
8 Edenturcher
Elm Hill
Mount Pleasant
Devlins Hill
Janevale
23 Pigeontown
Glen Road
Bally School
6 Ingrams Rd
28 Ingrams Rd
Bellbrook Hse
Bellgrove
Springfield
Pigeontown Rd
Pigeontown Rd
Bellslane Ends
Crumlin Rd
Mater Dei PS
Crumlin HS
Ederowen
Glenavy
Derrachrin
Bessfield
The Bleary
Greenhills
Strandgrove
Thistleborough
313071
313163
313218
313285
313354
313524
313544
313847
313829
313849
313861
314098
313487
313260
313012
313215
313197
313155
313799
313783
313703
313680
314102
314163
313468
313800
313628
314722
315013
315026
314976
312335
312383
312565
313488
313796
314081
314042
314076
315042
314700
315038
314095
315490
312076
313799
314798
315632
314704
313272
372262
372246
372222
372277
372343
372365
372359
372325
372403
372440
372472
372913
372728
372732
372144
372149
372111
372017
372236
372093
372063
372014
372360
372491
371974
371971
371765
373040
373039
372414
371577
372678
372910
373632
373569
373462
373276
373424
373823
373750
375618
375900
374976
373117
371575
370930
370843
372314
375114
374611
-34
-126
-181
-248
-317
-487
-507
-810
-792
-812
-824
-1061
-450
-223
25
-178
-160
-118
-762
-746
-666
-643
-1065
-1126
-431
-763
-591
-1685
-1976
-1989
-1939
702
655
472
-451
-759
-1044
-1005
-1039
-2005
-1663
-2001
-1058
-2453
961
-762
-1761
-2595
-1667
-235
267
283
307
252
186
164
170
204
126
89
57
-384
-199
-203
385
380
418
513
293
437
466
516
169
38
555
558
764
-511
-510
115
952
-149
-381
-1103
-1040
-933
-747
-895
-1294
-1221
-3089
-3371
-2447
-588
954
1599
1686
215
-2585
-2082
269
310
356
353
367
514
535
835
802
817
826
1128
492
301
386
420
447
526
816
865
813
824
1078
1127
702
945
966
1761
2040
1992
2160
718
757
1200
1134
1203
1284
1346
1659
2348
3508
3920
2666
2522
1354
1771
2438
2603
3076
2095
11.3.3 In dry weather deposition only happens at the surface. This ‘dry deposition’ changes
the airborne concentration by reducing the strength of the emissions plume from the
stack with distance and the vertical profile of the concentration.
Page 73
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
11.3.4 In wet weather (rain, sleet or snow) deposition is actively washed out of the plume
from the stack. This ‘wet deposition’ is dependent on the nature of the pollutant, the
rainfall/snowfall rate and the size of the raindrops/snowflakes.
11.4
Exposure Scenarios and assumptions
11.4.1 This section presents information regarding the adjacent off-site land use. This was
used to develop the detailed exposure scenarios, including the identification of
potential receptors and exposure routes and the assumptions used in the risk
assessment.
Land uses in the area
11.4.2 The area is generally dominated by agricultural land. The adjacent land use is part
industrial with the adjacent rendering plant and part agricultural.
11.4.3 Fifty individual receptors were identified in all (see Figure HHRA 12.1 and Table
12.2). The key receptors included residents adjacent to the site i.e. in Ashvale,
Ingrams Road, Ballyvannon Road and Lurgan Road; residents of Glenavy village;
and residents of Crumlin village.
Key receptors and exposure routes
11.4.4 Based on the land use and surface and groundwaters the following key receptors
were identified.
• Adult and child residents
• Farmers and their families
• Fishermen/women (adults and children) fishing in the Rivers Glenavy and Crumlin
and in Lough Neagh
11.4.5 The likely exposures therefore are:
• Direct inhalation for all adult and child receptors
• Consumption of locally reared chicken and eggs for all residential receptors
Page 74
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
• Consumption of locally reared beef and pork for all residential receptors85
• Consumption of locally reared beef and pork for farming families
• Consumption of locally grown vegetables for all residential receptors
• Dermal contact86 (absorption through the skin) for all adult and child receptors
• Soil ingestion for all adult and child receptors
11.5
Estimation of Media Concentrations
11.5.1 Calculation of COPC concentration in air for direct inhalation
11.5.2 COPC concentrations in air are calculated by adding the vapour phase and particle
phase air concentrations of COPCs using unitised yearly air parameters. Air
concentration was used in the analysis of long-term and acute exposure via direct
inhalation for the identified receptors.
Calculation of COPC Concentration in Meat
11.5.3 COPC concentrations in beef and pork are estimated on the basis of the amount of
COPCs that animals are assumed to consume through their diet. The animal’s diet is
assumed to consist of:
• Forage (primarily pasture grass and hay);
• Silage (forage that has been stored and fermented), and
• Grain or other imported feed
• Additional contamination may occur through the animal’s ingestion of soil. The
total COPC concentration in the feed items is calculated as a sum of
contamination occurring through the following mechanisms:
• Direct deposition of particles – wet and dry deposition of particle phase COPCs
onto forage and silage;
85
US EPA HHRAP does not include data or assessment of lamb intake.
Whilst dermal contact and soil ingestion have been included for all receptors the real-life levels of
exposure for most individuals, including children, via these pathways is so small as to be negligible.
86
Page 75
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
• Vapour transfer – uptake of vapour phase COPCs by forage and silage through
foliage and
• Root uptake – root uptake of COPCs available from the soil and their transfer to
the aboveground portions of forage and silage
11.5.4 Contamination of exposed feed items, including forage and silage, is assumed to
occur through all three mechanisms.
11.5.5 Estimation of the COPC concentrations in chicken and eggs are based on the amount
of COPCs that chickens consume through ingestion of grain and soil. The uptake of
COPCs via inhalation and via ingestion of water is assumed to be insignificant.
Calculation of COPC Concentration in Vegetables
11.5.6 Indirect exposure to COPCs as a result of eating vegetables depends on the total
concentration of COPCs in the leaf, fruit, and tuber portions of the plant. Because of
general differences in contamination mechanisms, the consideration of indirect
exposure separates vegetables into two broad categories – above ground and below
ground vegetables.
11.5.7 Above ground exposed vegetables are assumed to be potentially contaminated by
three possible mechanisms:
• Direct deposition of particles – wet and dry deposition of particle phase COPCs on
the leaves and fruits of plants;
• Vapour transfer – uptake of vapour phase COPCs by plants through their foliage;
and
• Root uptakes – root uptake of COPCs available from the soil and their transfer to
the above ground portions of the plant.
11.5.8 The total COPC concentration in above-ground exposed vegetables is calculated as
a sum of the contamination occurring through all three of these mechanisms.
However, the edible portions of certain above ground produce, such as peas, are
covered by a protective covering; hence they are to some extent protected from
contamination through deposition and vapour transfer. Therefore root uptake of
COPCs is the primary mechanism through which aboveground protected produce
and root vegetables are exposed.
Page 76
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Calculation of COPC Concentration in Surface Water, Sediment and Fish
11.5.9 The COPC concentration in surface water and sediment was calculated to evaluate
the impact on human health through eating fish or drinking potentially exposed water.
11.5.10 Mechanisms considered for the determination of COPC loading of the water column
include:
• Direct deposition;
• Runoff from impervious surfaces within the catchment;
• Runoff from pervious surfaces within the catchment;
• Soil erosion over the total catchment; and
• Direct diffusion of vapour COPCs into the surface water.
Calculation of COPC concentration in soil
11.5.11 COPC concentrations in soil are calculated by adding the vapour phase and particle
phase deposition of COPCs in the soil. Wet and dry deposition of particles and
vapours are considered, with dry deposition of vapours calculated from the vapour air
concentration and the dry deposition velocity.
11.5.12 The values of vapour and particle phase concentrations and dry and wet deposition
rates at each receptor are used in the calculation of the deposition term for farms,
residential areas, and the Rivers and Lough catchment.
11.5.13 The calculation of soil concentration incorporates a term that accounts for loss of
COPCs by several mechanisms, including leaching, erosion, runoff, and volatilisation.
These loss mechanisms lower the soil concentration associated with the deposition
rate.
Page 77
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Table 11.3 Exposure parameters and consumption rates used in the risk calculation (All are
USEPA default values which are conservative/cautious assessments)
Description
Resident
Adult
Resident
Child
Farmer
Adult
Farmer
Child
Fisher
Adult
Fisher
Child
Units
Averaging time for carcinogens
Averaging time for noncarcinogens
Consumption rate of BEEF
70
70
70
70
70
70
yr
30
6
40
6
30
6
yr
0.0
0.0
0.00122
0.00075
0.0
0.0
kg/kg-day
FW*
Body weight
Consumption rate of POULTRY
70
15
70
15
70
15
kg
0.0
0.0
0.00066
0.00045
0.0
0.0
kg/kg-day
FW
Consumption rate of ABOVEGROUND
PRODUCE
Consumption rate of BELOWGROUND
PRODUCE
Consumption rate of DRINKING
WATER
Consumption rate of PROTECTED
ABOVEGROUND PRODUCE
Consumption rate of SOIL
Exposure duration
Exposure frequency
Consumption rate of EGGS
0.00032
0.00077
0.00047
0.00113
0.00032
0.00077
kg/kg-day
DW
0.00014
0.00023
0.00017
0.00028
0.00014
0.00023
kg/kg-day
DW
1.4
0.67
1.4
0.67
1.4
0.67
L/day
0.0015
0.00064
0.00157
0.00061
0.00150
kg/kg-day
DW
0.0001
0.0002
0.0001
0.0002
0.0001
0.0002
kg/d
30
6
40
6
30
6
yr
350
350
350
350
350
350
day/yr
0.0
0.0
0.00075
0.00054
0.0
0.0
kg/kg-day
FW
Fraction of contaminated
ABOVEGROUND PRODUCE
Fraction of contaminated DRINKING
WATER
Fraction contaminated SOIL
Consumption rate of FISH
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
--
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
--
Fraction of contaminated FISH
Inhalation exposure duration
Inhalation exposure frequency
Inhalation exposure time
Fraction of contaminated BEEF
Fraction of contaminated POULTRY
Fraction of contaminated EGGS
Fraction of contaminated MILK
Fraction of contaminated PORK
Inhalation rate
Consumption rate of MILK
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
--
30
6
40
6
30
6
yr
350
350
350
350
350
350
day/yr
24
24
24
24
24
24
hr/day
1
1
1
1
1
1
--
1
1
1
1
1
1
--
1
1
1
1
1
1
--
1
1
1
1
1
1
--
1
1
1
1
1
1
--
0.83
0.30
0.83
0.30
0.83
0.30
m3/hr
0.0
0.0
0.01367
0.02268
0.0
0.0
kg/kg-day
FW
Consumption rate of PORK
0.0
0.0
0.00055
0.00042
0.0
0.0
kg/kg-day
FW
Time period at the beginning of
combustion
Length of exposure duration
0
0
0
0
0
0
yr
30
6
40
6
30
6
yr
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
--
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00125
0.00088
kg/kg-day
FW
* kg/kg-day FW/DW = typical daily intake by kilogram of produce per kilogram of body weight per day, FRESH WEIGHT or DRY
WEIGHT of plant or animal foodstuff
Page 78
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
11.5.14 For carcinogenic COPCs, health risks are associated with total exposure as a
function of both time and concentration. The average soil concentration over the
period of deposition was calculated by integrating the instantaneous soil
concentration equation over the period of deposition (25 years). For non-carcinogenic
COPCs, health hazards are evaluated in relation to maximum potential levels of
exposure over a period of months to years.
11.6
Quantifying Exposure
11.6.1 The calculation of COPC-specific exposure rates for each exposure pathway involves
the estimated:
• media concentrations
• inhalation/consumption rate
• receptor body weight
• frequency and duration of exposure.
11.6.2 This calculation is repeated for each exposure pathway included in an exposure
scenario.
11.7
Risk and Hazard Characterisation
11.7.1 As described previously the final step of the risk assessment is the calculation of
lifetime cancer risks and non-carcinogenic hazards for each of the pathways and
receptors identified. Risks and hazards are then summed for specific receptors,
across all applicable exposure pathways, to obtain an estimate of total individual risk
and hazard quotients for specific receptors. These can then be compared against
accepted guidelines, target levels or thresholds.
11.7.2 The carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic hazards are calculated using the
predicted media (air, soil, vegetables, meat or surface water) concentrations and
toxicity factors of the potential emissions.
Page 79
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
11.7.3 Actual or estimated (modelled) media concentrations are used to calculate pollutant
intake (mg/kg/day) for each pollutant and exposure route. The calculated intake is
then compared to applicable health risk standards.
11.7.4 The carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic hazards are calculated using the
predicted media (air, soil, vegetables, meat or surface water) concentrations and
toxicity factors, the most important of which are described below:
11.7.5 Reference Doses (RfDs) for non-carcinogenic effects. The RfD is expressed in “mg of
substance” per “kg of body weight” per “day” (mg/kg/day). The RfD is defined as an
estimate of a daily exposure level for the human population, that is likely to be without
an appreciable level of deleterious effects during the considered exposure period.
11.7.6 Cancer Slope Factors (CSFs) for carcinogenic effects. The CSF is expressed in
(mg/kg/day)-1. Cancer slope factor is a plausible upper-bound estimate of the
probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of a lifetime (or shorter
defined period) of exposure to a particular level of a potential carcinogen (USEPA,
1989).
11.7.7 Actual or estimated (modelled) media concentrations are used to calculate
contaminant intake (mg/kg/day) for each contaminant and exposure route. The
calculated intake is then compared to applicable health risk standards (i.e. UK RCEP
guidance, US EPA RfDs and CSFs).
11.7.8 Risk characterisation for non-carcinogenic effects is completed by comparing an
exposure level (chronic daily intake) over a specified period (e.g., time on site) with a
Reference Dose (RfD). This ratio of exposure to toxicity is referred to as a Hazard
Quotient.
11.7.9 In the case of simultaneous exposures to multiple substances, the chronic risk is
generally assumed to be additive by the US EPA in the absence of specific
supporting information to assume otherwise. This is a precautionary approach and
assumes that the “same” individual or population receives exposure to multiple
contaminants with similar toxicological effects. The Hazard Index or Total Hazard
Quotient is the sum of more than one Hazard Quotient for multiple substances and/or
multiple exposure pathways.
Hazard Index = Hazard Quotient A + Hazard Quotient B + etc.
Page 80
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
11.7.10 If the Hazard Quotient or ratio of exposure/RfD exceeds 1.0 or the hazard index
exceeds 0.25, there may be concern for potential non-cancer toxicological effects (US
EPA, 1998).
11.7.11 Cancer risks were estimated as the incremental probability of an individual
developing cancer over a lifetime as the result of exposure to the potential
carcinogen.
11.7.12 In the case of simultaneous exposures to multiple substances, the cancer risk is
assumed to be additive by the US EPA.
11.7.13 There has been no official UK acceptable lifetime cancer risk level. However, the
target lifetime cancer risk of 7x10-5 (equivalent to an annual risk of 1x10-6) was
recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and is used for
comparison in this study. This level also falls within the target cancer risk range of
between 10-4 and 10-6 generally considered acceptable by the US EPA for the
assessment of human health risks.
11.8
Assumptions and justification for the approach used
11.8.1 The approach adopted in the air quality assessment for this proposed installation has
been to predict air quality concentrations and deposition and compare these to
relevant criteria. The criteria used within the air quality impact assessment for the
proposed installation rely on statutory air quality limit values and objectives, World
Health Organisation criteria. At present, there are statutory criteria for a limited
number of substances. The UK Environment Agencies have developed provisional
benchmarks for substances released to each environmental medium from a variety of
published UK and international sources. These are known as “Environmental
Assessment Levels” (EALs) as published in Environment Agency Guidance H1.
These EALs provide an indication of the upper range for a concentration of substance
in the environment that is considered tolerable.
11.8.2 For some substances with persistent, bio-accumulative or highly toxic effects, it is
difficult to establish thresholds below which it could be considered “no harm” takes
place. The risk to human health from the proposed installation will depend on
adjacent land uses and needs to consider the combined exposure to relevant
Page 81
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
substances and their cumulative burden over the design life of the plant.87 In its
review of environmental and health effects of these types of installations DEFRA
concluded that a direct measurement of exposure attributable to facilities cannot be
made due to the complexity of the pollutant mixture, the possibility of exposure
through multiple pathways and, wider environmental and lifestyle influences.88
11.8.3 For certain persistent pollutants, such as trace metals, dioxins and furans, the main
exposure pathway is through ingestion of contaminated foods. The impact
assessment therefore needs to take account of these exposure pathways, as well as
the standard air quality impact assessment.
11.8.4 Throughout this assessment, where there is some uncertainty in respect of the data,
a conservative/cautious approach has been used to estimate the possible risks from
exposure to emissions from the proposed facility. The rationale is to ensure that full
allowance is made for any uncertainties in the interpretation of the data provided in
order to protect human health.
11.8.5 For the purpose of assessing potential health impact associated with the effect of
emissions from the proposed installation only mercury and cadmium are likely to be
significant, based on H1 assessment levels. However lead and arsenic have been
included as a precautionary measure. The risk assessment therefore considers these
metals, along with the impacts from dioxins and furans, which do not have
appropriate EALs.
11.8.6 The annual rates of air concentrations and depositions of the metals and
dioxins/furans were estimated through air dispersion modelling using the most
conservative data for the prediction model. Generally the predictions from AERMOD
are the most optimistic, with ADMS in the middle and ISCT3 being the most
pessimistic. The isomers used to estimate exposure are presented in Table 11.4.
These are based on typical emission rates from a poultry bedding power plant. The
emissions for mercury arsenic, lead and cadmium are based on mass balance
calculated values, based on tests conducted on poultry bedding and MBM with
abatement control of emissions above Waste Incineration Directive (WID) emission
limits.
87
Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management (July 2001). DETR, Environment
Agency, Institute of Environmental Health, The Stationery Office.
88
DEFRA (2004) Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid
Waste and Similar Wastes.
Page 82
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Table 11.4 Estimated emissions of the various isomers of the Compounds of Potential Concern
(COPC) where E=10 i.e. 1.47E-09 = 1.47 x 10-9 = 0.00000000147
Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS) NO.
COPC Name
Emission rate
(grams per second)
7440-38-2
Arsenic
0.00853
7440-43-9
Cadmium
0.00341
35822-46-9
HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
1.47E-08
67562-39-4
HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
6.05E-09
55673-89-7
HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-
9.23E-10
39227-28-6
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8-
1.56E-09
57653-85-7
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8-
4.07E-09
19408-74-3
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9-
1.77E-09
70648-26-9
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8-
2.58E-09
57117-44-9
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8-
4.18E-09
72918-21-9
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9-
1.02E-09
60851-34-5
HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8-
4.83E-09
7439-92-1
Lead
0.01739
7487-94-7
Mercuric chloride
6.72E-05
7439-97-6
Mercury
2.80E-07
3268-87-9
OctaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
1.17E-08
39001-02-0
OctaCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
3.51E-09
40321-76-4
PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8-
1.59E-09
57117-41-6
PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8-
3.62E-09
57117-31-4
PentaCDF, 2,3,4,7,8-
6.41E-09
1746-01-6
TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8-
5.00E-10
11.8.7 Emissions have been modelled using five years of hourly sequential meteorological
data (Aldergrove 1997- 2001). The results are based on the most conservative
dispersion model - ISCT3.
Scope of Risk Assessment
11.8.8 The level of exposure to trace metals, dioxins and furans emitted from the proposed
facility has been quantified at selected sensitive receptors. These are intended to
Page 83
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
represent worst case exposure. These worst case receptors have been selected
using the information within the air quality impact assessment.
11.8.9 Risk assessment is a time consuming process, and it is important to concentrate
resources so that the most critical issues are examined at an appropriate level of
detail. The risk assessment methodology includes estimates of risk and hazard
associated with ingestion surface water and fish. This study examines the impacts for
the Glenavy and Lough Beg catchments, on the basis that these are likely to be most
affected and that if impacts for this these catchments are acceptable, then the
impacts on Lough Neagh, are also likely to be acceptable.
11.8.10 All categories of exposure Scenarios are included for each location. All Scenarios
consider adult and child exposure levels to take account of different body mass and
food intake.
Exposure Scenarios
11.8.11 In most cases for people living around the proposed installation, the actual exposure
pathways are likely to be limited to residential exposure, the Residential Category
Exposure Scenario, which includes inhalation, the ingestion of soils, drinking surface
water from the catchment, and eating homegrown produce. The agricultural and
fisher exposure categories are based on subsistence type diets, where all food
consumed is produced on the farm or caught locally.
11.8.12 The Agricultural Exposure Scenario includes ingestion of food grown on the
premises including home grown produce, ingestion of beef, milk, pork, poultry, eggs,
in addition to those exposure categories considered in the Residential Exposure
Scenario above.
11.8.13 The Fisher Exposure Category Scenario includes inhalation, the ingestion of soils,
drinking water from the catchment, home-grown produce and fish caught in the
Glenavy River. This includes for the consumption of fish based on a subsistence
lifestyle where all fish products consumed are taken from the Glenavy catchment. In
practice this is likely to be an unrealistic exposure scenario. The site specific site
parameters used in the assessment are set out in Table 11.5.
Page 84
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Table 11.5 Key site parameters used in the risk assessment
Site parameter
Value
Units
Evapotranspiration89
50
Centimetres per year (cm/yr)
Irrigation
0
Centimetres per year (cm/yr)
Precipitation (rain/sleet/snow)
86
Centimetres per year (cm/yr)
Water runoff
31
Centimetres per year (cm/yr)
Ambient temperature
283
Kelvin (K) [9.85 ˚C]
Annual wind speed
4.5
Metres per second (m/s)
11.8.14 The meteorological data used is based on the same data used to model
atmospheric dispersion, Aldergrove 1997 – 2001. The hydraulic conditions in the
Glenavy River are based on the data from the Leap Bridge gauging station and
assume an average daily flow of 0.465m3/s with a average velocity of 0.1m/s, 0.5m
deep. The flow into Lough Begg is based on the Glenavy, factored by 1.6 to take
account of the larger catchment, where the current is 0.0001m/s through the Lough.
Risk and Hazard Model Outputs
11.8.15 The results from the exercise estimate the total risk and hazard arising from multiple
exposure to emissions from the proposed installation.
11.8.16 Risk from exposure to these emissions is the probability that a human receptor will
develop cancer based on a unique set of exposure, model, and toxicity assumptions
as a result of exposure to a particular level of a COPC. For example, a risk of 1 x 105 is interpreted to mean that an individual has up to a 1 in 100,000 chance of
developing cancer during their lifetime from the exposure being evaluated.
11.8.17 In contrast, hazard is the potential for developing non cancer health effects as a
result of exposure to COPCs. A hazard is not a probability but, rather, a comparison
(calculated as a ratio) of a receptor’s potential exposure relative to a standard
exposure level i.e. the level of exposure which poses no appreciable likelihood of
adverse health effects.
89
Evaporation of water from the ground and transpiration of water from plants into the atmosphere.
Page 85
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
11.9
Safe or acceptable/tolerable levels of additional risk and hazard
11.9.1 As discussed in the previous chapter the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution suggested that when estimating additional risks of cancer that a 1 in 1
million chance per year was a reasonable level at which there were likely to be no
negative health risks. In lifetime terms this 1 in 1 million yearly chance equates to a
lifetime risk threshold (up to 70 years of age) of 70 in 1 million chance which is equal
to 0.000074 (7.4 x 10-5) or 1 in 13,500 lifetime chance. Comparing this to the above
tables the most unlikely cancer to occur is breast cancer in men which has a lifetime
cancer risk (up to 74 years of age) of 1 in 9,310.
11.9.2 In relation to hazard, a total hazard index of 1, a ratio comparing exposure to known
safe levels of a substance, is deemed safe or tolerable/acceptable. In general, a level
of 0.25 - a quarter of the safe level - is used as a general good practice guidance
level to ensure that a particular development does not expose residents to a
cumulative hazard, taking into account other existing levels of exposure from other
sources, that is greater than 1.
11.10 Maximally exposed receptor
11.10.1 Receptor 16, 22 Ballyvannon Road, was identified as potentially having the greatest
exposure of all the fifty receptors assessed.
11.10.2 It was cautiously assumed that all three classes of individuals were present at the
sites – resident adult and child; farmer adult and child; and fisher adult and child.
11.10.3 The potential risks were assessed for this receptor for inhalation, soil ingestion,
dermal contact and ingestion of food.
11.10.4 In assessing these risks, the following key assumptions have been made:
11.10.4.1 For the inhalation pathway: exposure time for adults is 24 hours per day,
350 days per year for a total of exposure period of 30 years. The exposure
time for children is 24 hours per day, 350 days per year for a total
exposure period of 6 years. The USEPA default values for inhalation rates
are 0.63 and 0.3 m3/hour for adults and children respectively.
11.10.4.2 For dermal contact and soil ingestion: it is assumed that adults and
children have contact with soils at home for 50 events per year for 30
Page 86
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
years for adults and 6 years for children (40 years for farmers). Soil
ingestion rates are the USEPA default values of 0.0001 and 0.0002 kg/day
for adults and children respectively.
11.10.4.3 Exposure periods for carcinogen risks is for 70 years for all adults and
children and non-carcinogen hazard are 30 years for adults (40 years for
farmers) and 6 years for children.
11.10.4.4 Consumption rates for locally produced vegetable, beef, pork, chicken and
eggs US EPA default values (See Table 11.4).
11.10.4.5 Where local foodstuffs are consumed it is cautiously assumed to be 100%
contaminated.
11.10.5 The detailed risk estimates from the risk assessment are provided in Appendix A
and summarised below (all figures have been rounded up to the nearest whole
number).
Maximally exposed receptor
Total
cancer risk
RCEP
target
risk
level
Resident Adult total carcinogen risk
Resident Adult total non-carcinogen risk
0.000002
0.00007
Resident child total carcinogen risk
Resident child total non-carcinogen risk
0.0000005
Farmer Adult total carcinogen risk
Farmer Adult total non-carcinogen risk
0.000004
Farmer child total carcinogen risk
Farmer child total non-carcinogen risk
0.0000008
Fisher Adult total carcinogen risk
Fisher Adult total non-carcinogen risk
0.000002
Fisher child total carcinogen risk
Fisher child total non-carcinogen risk
0.0000005
Total
hazard
quotient
US EPA
guidance
hazard
level
0.03
0.25
0.04
0.25
0.04
0.25
0.07
0.25
0.18
0.25
0.15
0.25
0.00007
0.00007
0.00007
0.00007
0.00007
11.10.6 The highest lifetime odds of getting cancer for adults (resident only, farmer
residents, fisher residents) at Receptor 16 is 4 in 1 million (1 in 250,000) and the
lifetime odds for children is 8 in 10 million (1 in 1,250,000). This compares to lifetime
odds of 1 in 3 for all types of cancers. The hazard or toxicity level is a maximum of
Page 87
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
0.18 for adults and 0.15 for children and is below the 0.25 (25% of the safe dose
level) which the US EPA considers to be the threshold above which further
investigation would be worthwhile.
11.11 Closest receptor
11.11.1 Receptor 1, 1 Ashvale, was the closest residence to the stack with a distance from
the proposed stack (not the facility) of 269 metres.
11.11.2 Here also, it was cautiously assumed that all three classes of individuals were
present at the sites – resident adult and child; farmer adult and child; and fisher adult
and child.
11.11.3 The potential risks were assessed for this receptor for inhalation, soil ingestion,
dermal contact and ingestion of food.
11.11.4 In assessing these risks, the following assumptions – similar to the maximally
exposed receptor - have been made:
11.11.4.1 For the inhalation pathway: exposure time for adults is 24 hours per day,
350 days per year for a total of exposure period of 30 years. The exposure
time for children is 24 hours per day, 350 days per year for a total
exposure period of 6 years. The USEPA default values for inhalation rates
are 0.63 and 0.3 m3/hour for adults and children respectively.
11.11.4.2 For dermal contact and soil ingestion: it is assumed that adults and
children have contact with soils at home for 50 events per year for 30
years for adults and 6 years for children (40 years for farmers). Soil
ingestion rates are the USEPA default values of 0.0001 and 0.0002 kg/day
for adults and children respectively.
11.11.4.3 Exposure periods for carcinogen risks is for 70 years for all adults and
children and non-carcinogen hazard are 30 years for adults (40 years for
farmers) and 6 years for children.
11.11.4.4 Consumption rates for locally produced vegetable, beef, pork, chicken and
eggs US EPA default values (See Table 11.4).
Page 88
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
11.11.4.5 Where local foodstuffs are consumed it is cautiously assumed to be 100%
contaminated.
11.11.5 The risk estimates are summarised below.
Closest receptor
Total
cancer risk
RCEP
target
risk
level
Resident Adult total carcinogen risk
Resident Adult total non-carcinogen risk
0.0000004
0.00007
Resident child total carcinogen risk
Resident child total non-carcinogen risk
0.0000002
Farmer Adult total carcinogen risk
Farmer Adult total non-carcinogen risk
0.000001
Farmer child total carcinogen risk
Farmer child total non-carcinogen risk
0.0000003
Fisher Adult total carcinogen risk
Fisher Adult total non-carcinogen risk
0.0000007
Fisher child total carcinogen risk
Fisher child total non-carcinogen risk
0.0000002
Total
hazard
quotient
US EPA
guidance
hazard
level
0.007
0.25
0.01
0.25
0.01
0.25
0.02
0.25
0.16
0.25
0.12
0.25
0.00007
0.00007
0.00007
0.00007
0.00007
11.11.6 The highest lifetime odds of getting cancer for residents (resident only, farmer
residents, fisher residents) at Receptor 1 is 1 in 1 million and the lifetime odds for
children is 3 in 10 million (1 in 3,333,333). The hazard or toxicity level is a maximum
of 0.16 for adults and 0.12 for children and is below the 0.25 (25% of the safe dose
level) which the US EPA considers to be the threshold above which further
investigation is worthwhile.
11.12 Glenavy village receptor
11.12.1 Receptor 44 was located in Glenavy village. A range of other receptors were also
considered around Glenavy village.
11.12.2 Here also, it was cautiously assumed that all three classes of individuals were
present at the sites – resident adult and child; farmer adult and child; and fisher adult
and child.
Page 89
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
11.12.3 The potential risks were assessed for this receptor for inhalation, soil ingestion,
dermal contact and ingestion of food.
11.12.4 In assessing these risks, the following assumptions – similar to the maximally
exposed receptor - have been made:
11.12.4.1 For the inhalation pathway: exposure time for adults is 24 hours per day,
350 days per year for a total of exposure period of 30 years. The exposure
time for children is 24 hours per day, 350 days per year for a total
exposure period of 6 years. The USEPA default values for inhalation rates
are 0.63 and 0.3 m3/hour for adults and children respectively.
11.12.4.2 For dermal contact and soil ingestion: it is assumed that adults and
children have contact with soils at home for 50 events per year for 30
years for adults and 6 years for children (40 years for farmers). Soil
ingestion rates are the USEPA default values of 0.0001 and 0.0002 kg/day
for adults and children respectively.
11.12.4.3 Exposure periods for carcinogen risks is for 70 years for all adults and
children and non-carcinogen hazard are 30 years for adults (40 years for
farmers) and 6 years for children.
11.12.4.4 Consumption rates for locally produced vegetable, beef, pork, chicken and
eggs US EPA default values (See Table 11.4).
11.12.4.5 Where local foodstuffs are consumed it is cautiously assumed to be 100%
contaminated.
11.12.5 The detailed estimates are summarised below.
Glenavy village receptor
Total
cancer risk
RCEP
target
risk
level
Resident Adult total carcinogen risk
Resident Adult total non-carcinogen risk
0.0000005
0.00007
Resident child total carcinogen risk
Resident child total non-carcinogen risk
0.0000001
Farmer Adult total carcinogen risk
Farmer Adult total non-carcinogen risk
0.000001
Farmer child total carcinogen risk
0.0000002
Page 90
Total
hazard
quotient
US EPA
guidance
hazard
level
0.007
0.25
0.01
0.25
0.01
0.25
0.00007
0.00007
0.00007
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Glenavy village receptor
Total
cancer risk
RCEP
target
risk
level
Farmer child total non-carcinogen risk
Fisher Adult total carcinogen risk
Fisher Adult total non-carcinogen risk
0.0000007
Fisher child total carcinogen risk
Fisher child total non-carcinogen risk
0.0000002
Total
hazard
quotient
US EPA
guidance
hazard
level
0.02
0.25
0.16
0.25
0.12
0.25
0.00007
0.00007
11.12.6 The highest lifetime odds of getting cancer for residents (resident only, farmer
residents, fisher residents) depending on how much local produce they eat is 1 in 1
million and the lifetime odds for children is 2 in 10 million (1 in 5 million). The hazard
or toxicity level is a maximum of 0.216 for adults and 0.12 for children and is below
the 0.25 (25% of the safe dose level) which the US EPA considers to be the threshold
above which further investigation is worthwhile.
11.13 Crumlin village receptor
11.13.1 Receptor 42 was located in Crumlin village. A number of other receptors were also
considered around Crumlin village.
11.13.2 Here also, it was cautiously assumed that all three classes of individuals were
present at the sites – resident adult and child; farmer adult and child; and fisher adult
and child.
11.13.3 The potential risks were assessed for this receptor for inhalation, soil ingestion,
dermal contact and ingestion of food.
11.13.4 In assessing these risks, the following assumptions – similar to the maximally
exposed receptor - have been made:
11.13.4.1 For the inhalation pathway: exposure time for adults is 24 hours per day,
350 days per year for a total of exposure period of 30 years. The exposure
time for children is 24 hours per day, 350 days per year for a total
exposure period of 6 years. The USEPA default values for inhalation rates
are 0.63 and 0.3 m3/hour for adults and children respectively.
Page 91
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
11.13.4.2 For dermal contact and soil ingestion: it is assumed that adults and
children have contact with soils at home for 50 events per year for 30
years for adults and 6 years for children (40 years for farmers). Soil
ingestion rates are the USEPA default values of 0.0001 and 0.0002 kg/day
for adults and children respectively.
11.13.4.3 Exposure periods for carcinogen risks is for 70 years for all adults and
children and non-carcinogen hazard are 30 years for adults (40 years for
farmers) and 6 years for children.
11.13.4.4 Consumption rates for locally produced vegetable, beef, pork, chicken and
eggs US EPA default values (See Table 11.4).
11.13.4.5 Where local foodstuffs are consumed it is cautiously assumed to be 100%
contaminated.
11.13.5 The risk estimates are summarised below.
Crumlin village receptor
Total
cancer risk
RCEP
target
risk
level
Total
hazard
quotient
Resident Adult total carcinogen risk
Resident Adult total non-carcinogen risk
0.0000008
0.00007
0.01
Resident child total carcinogen risk
Resident child total non-carcinogen risk
0.0000002
Farmer Adult total carcinogen risk
Farmer Adult total non-carcinogen risk
0.000002
Farmer child total carcinogen risk
Farmer child total non-carcinogen risk
0.0000003
Fisher Adult total carcinogen risk
Fisher Adult total non-carcinogen risk
0.000001
Fisher child total carcinogen risk
Fisher child total non-carcinogen risk
0.0000002
US EPA
guidance
hazard
level
0.25
0.00007
0.02
0.25
0.02
0.25
0.03
0.25
0.17
0.25
0.13
0.25
0.00007
0.00007
0.00007
0.00007
11.13.6 The highest lifetime odds of getting cancer for residents (resident only, farmer
residents, fisher residents) is 2 in 1 million (1 in 500,000) and the lifetime odds for
children is 3 in 10 million (1 in 3,333,333). The hazard or toxicity level is a maximum
of 0.17 for adults and 0.13 for children and is below the 0.25 (25% of the safe dose
Page 92
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
level) which the US EPA considers to be the threshold above which further
investigation is worthwhile.
11.14 Overall findings from the risk assessment
11.14.1 The worst case lifetime cancer risks (up to age 74 years) to local residents
associated with the emissions from the power plant stack are estimated to be very
small – 1 in 250,000 for an adult and 1 in 1,250,000 for a child. These risks are
extremely low in the context of Northern Ireland’s general rates of cancer where the
current lifetime odds of getting cancer is 1 in 3 for adults (up to the age of 74 years)
and that for children is 1 in 38 for leukaemia (up to the age of 14). It is also well below
the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution target risk level of 1 in 13,500
(7.4x10-5 or 0.000074) and.
11.14.2 The worst case non-carcinogen hazard ratio from inhalation, ingestion of food, soil
ingestion and dermal contact pathways are also very small with the worst case
hazard of 0.18 for an adult and 0.15 for a child which is below the 0.25 (25% of the
safe dose level) which the US EPA considers to be the threshold above which further
investigation would be worthwhile.
11.14.3 Given the very cautious/conservative assumptions made in relation to emissions
from the stack and inhalation, ingestion and skin exposure the actual levels of risk
and hazard for local residents are likely to be lower.
Page 93
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
12 Health Impacts of the Proposed Power
Plant
12.1
Introduction
12.1.1 All change involves uncertainty and uncertainty generates worries and fears about
the future in existing residents. This is the context within which the health impacts of
the proposed development need to be understood.
12.1.2 For a detailed assessment of the health impacts compared to no development see
Appendix B – the health impact matrix.
12.1.3 The analysis in the following sections analyses health and wellbeing.
12.2
Impact analysis – construction phase
12.2.1 The construction phase will be approximately three years long.
Positive health impacts – construction phase
12.2.2 There are likely to be two main potential positive health and wellbeing impacts of
the construction phase of the proposed power plant:
12.2.3 There are likely to be employment and economy effects. These are likely to be
through the creation of direct construction-related and indirect jobs for people at a
local and regional level through the stimulation of the wider economy from increased
passing trade for local shops and other retail amenities and the potential for
increased rents from providing accommodation to the construction workers who come
from outside the local area. It is also dependant on how many local people are able to
access the newly created jobs and business opportunities. Given the specialist nature
of the construction this is likely to be a minor positive health impact at local and
regional levels.
12.2.4 There are likely to be education and learning effects. These are likely to be through
the on-the-job construction training opportunities and construction experience as well
Page 94
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
as the potential for linking into construction courses and apprenticeship schemes.
This is likely to be a minor positive health impact at local and regional levels.
Negative health impacts – construction phase
12.2.5 There are likely to be six main potential negative health and wellbeing impacts
during the construction phase of the proposed power plant.
12.2.6 There are likely to be physical injury effects. These are likely to be through the
potential effects on the health and safety of construction workers and, to a much
lesser extent, nearby residents due to construction activities e.g. fall, injuries from
equipment failure or failure to follow health and safety guidelines. This is likely to be a
minor negative health impact at local level.
12.2.7 There are likely to be mental health and wellbeing effects. These are likely to be
during the planning as some/many residents see it as an unwanted and dangerous
development. This will be in relation the worry, concern and anxiety generated by the
proposed power plant. This is likely to be a minor to moderate negative health impact
at local level and largely dependent on how close local residents are to the proposed
site.
12.2.8 There are likely to be transport and connectivity effects. These are likely to be
through the movement of the construction lorries which may generate more
congestion of key routes and increase the risks of road traffic injuries to local
residents. This is likely to be a moderate to major negative health impact at local level
and largely dependent on how close local residents are to the proposed power plant
and key routes for traffic to and from the proposed site.
12.2.9 There are likely to be housing and accommodation effects. These are likely to be
through construction workers moving into the area and renting local accommodation
which may make accommodation in the area harder to come by for local people. This
is likely to be a minor negative health impact at local level.
12.2.10 There are likely to be lifestyle and daily routine effects. These are likely to be
through nuisance effects associated with the construction activities on the site e.g.
traffic, noise and dust. This is likely to be a minor to moderate negative health impact
at local level and largely dependent on how close local residents are to the proposed
power plant and key routes for traffic to and from the power plant.
Page 95
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
12.2.11 There are likely to be land and spatial effects. These are likely to be through making
the development site visually unattractive and compacting and degrading the land in
and around the proposed site. This is likely to be a minor to moderate negative health
impact at local level and largely dependent on how close local residents are to the
proposed power plant.
Uncertain health impacts – construction phase
12.2.12 There may be two main uncertain potential health impacts that could be either
positive, no effect or negative during the construction phase of the proposed power
plant.
12.2.13 There may be social capital and community cohesion effects. These are likely to be
through the concern, worry and anxiety generated by the planning process. This can
have negative effects on social capital and community cohesion depending on how
the planning and siting process is managed and how early communities are consulted
and involved in the decision-making process. Well managed planning and siting
processes can have positive effects and poorly managed ones can have negative
effects. In the short term local people coming together to protest can have positive
effects on social capital and community cohesion however over the long term such
processes can have negative effects. This could range from a neutral to moderate
negative health impact at local level.
12.2.14 There may be energy and waste effects. These are likely to be through the way
energy and waste are managed on the development site i.e. whether sustainable
energy sources are used, whether materials are reused, recycled and whether
contaminated soil and hazardous materials are disposed of appropriately. This could
range from a minor negative to a minor positive health impact at local and regional
levels.
12.3
Impact analysis – operation phase
Positive health impacts – operation phase
12.3.1 The operational life of the facility will be 25 years.
12.3.2 There are likely to be two main potential positive health impacts during the
operation phase of the proposed power plant:
Page 96
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
12.3.3 There are likely to be employment and economy effects. These are likely to be
through the creation of direct power plant-related jobs and indirect jobs for people at a
local and regional level through the stimulation of the wider economy from increased
passing trade for local shops and other retail amenities and the safeguarding of jobs
in the poultry industry as the cost of disposal will be met from the income from
electricity generation. It is also dependant on how many local people are able to
access the newly created jobs and business opportunities. This is likely to be a minor
positive health impact at local level and moderate positive impact at regional level.
12.3.4 There are likely to be energy and waste effects. These are likely to be through the
further energy recovery from the poultry bedding and meat and bone meal (MBM)
that the power plant will enable. This will also have a small positive mitigating
influence on climate change. This is likely to be a moderate to major positive health
impact at regional level.
Negative health impacts – operation phase
12.3.5 There are likely to be five main potential negative health impacts during the
operation phase of the proposed power plant:
12.3.6 There are likely to be physical injury effects. These are likely to be through the
potential effects on the health and safety of power plant workers and, to a much
lesser extent, nearby residents due to operation activities e.g. fall, injuries from
equipment failure or failure to follow health and safety guidelines. This is likely to be
no effect or a minor negative health impact at local level.
12.3.7 There are likely to be mental health and wellbeing effects. These are likely to
continue from planning process as some/many residents continue to see it as an
unwanted and dangerous development. This is likely to be a minor to moderate
negative health impact at local level and largely dependent on how close local
residents are to the proposed site.
12.3.8 There are likely to be transport and connectivity effects. These are likely to be
through the movement of the waste lorries they generate more congestion of key
routes and increase the risks of road traffic injuries. Given the estimates of vehicular
traffic as there is some substitution of existing traffic to the rendering plant this is
likely to be a minor negative health impact at local level and largely dependent on
how close local residents are to the proposed power plant and key routes for traffic to
and from the power plant.
Page 97
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
12.3.9 There are likely to be lifestyle and daily routine effects. These are likely to be through
nuisance effects associated with the power plant and related traffic e.g. traffic, noise
and dust. This is likely to be a minor to moderate negative health impact at local level
and largely dependent on how close local residents are to the proposed power plant.
12.3.10 There are likely to be land and spatial effects. These are likely to be through the size
and design of the power plant and its surroundings. This is likely to be a moderate to
major negative health impact at local level and largely dependent on how close local
residents are to the proposed power plant.
Uncertain health impacts – operation phase
12.3.11 There are likely to be three main uncertain potential health impacts that could be
either positive or negative during the operation phase of the –proposed power plant.
12.3.12 There may be social capital and community cohesion effects. These are likely to be
through continuing concern, worry and anxiety about the power plant and its related
traffic. This is likely to continue for at least the first five years of operation after which
any potential negative effects are likely to lessen. This depends on how the power
plant liaises and builds a relationship with the local community and listens to acts
promptly on complaints. This could range from neutral to a moderate negative health
impact at local level.
12.3.13 There may be housing and accommodation effects. There be some impact on local
house and land prices however there is an existing the rendering plant and quarry in
the area. This is likely to be a neutral to a minor negative health impact at local level.
12.3.14 There may be education and learning effects. These are likely to be through the
education, training and learning opportunities available to power plant workers and
school and group visits to the power plant. This is likely to be neutral or a minor
positive health impact at local level depending on whether such activities are put in
place.
12.4
Impact analysis – refurbishment/decommissioning phase
12.4.1 Depending on what happens over the lifespan of the power plant it may either be
refurbished or decommissioned at some time.
Page 98
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
12.4.2 Any decommissioning will be influenced by what the site will be used for after and
whether it is returned to a similar state to what it originally was before the
development.
12.4.3 The level of impact in the case of refurbishment is likely to be similar to that of the
construction phase if old machinery and equipment is dismantled and new machinery
is put in place in and around the site.
12.4.4 The level of impact in the case of decommissioning is largely dependant on what the
subsequent use of the land is though the act of cleaning up the site and generally
improving the land is, in itself, likely to be a positive health and wellbeing impact. If
there is another industrial facility planned for the site then there are likely to continue
to be a similar set of negative health impacts as described previously.
12.5
Cumulative effect
12.5.1 Taking account of all the impacts discussed to date and the current background level
of industrial activities, before any mitigation and enhancement measures are
considered there is likely to be a minor cumulative positive health impact at local level
and a moderate cumulative positive health impact at a regional level from the benefits
to employment, the economy and the sustainable management of waste and a
moderate cumulative negative health impact at local level from the worry and anxiety
about the power plant and nuisance impacts from affects on visual amenity, noise,
odour and some emissions from the facility and traffic most prominent during the
construction than the operation phase of the power plant.
12.6
Mitigation and enhancement measures
12.6.1 Design of the site and facility
12.6.1.1
The site should be sensitively, imaginatively and aesthetically designed so
that it reduces the negative effects on visual amenity and noise and odour
levels.
12.6.1.2
The site should be surrounded by a green buffer zone that softens and
enhances the industrial aesthetic of the power plant, for example there
could be landscaped areas with scented flowers, shrubs and trees.
Page 99
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
12.6.2 Consultation and engagement
12.6.2.1
Continuing engagement with local people is likely to develop greater trust
and reducing the long term mental health and wellbeing and social capital
and community cohesion impacts even though in the short term it may
generate greater concern, protest and anxiety.
12.6.3 Health and safety in and around the construction site
12.6.3.1
Develop and agree on a site specific Code of Construction Practice
(CoCP) to deal with potential nuisance issues resulting from the
construction site and its operation. This should include a clear line of
communication, for example a dedicated helpline phone number provided
by the power plant operator to enable local people to report issues, and
clear responsibilities for how power plant operators will respond to these
issues. The setting up of a group that meets on a regular basis can also
help to reassure communities.
12.6.3.2
Ensure adherence to Buildsafe Northern Ireland guidance and the
Construction (Design & Management) Regulations Northern Ireland 1995.
12.6.3.3
Secure the perimeter of the construction site and consider regular patrols
after dark either by local police/community wardens or a private security
company.
12.6.3.4
Have a good community liaison ideally with a named person responsible
to deal with any community issues as they arise.
12.6.3.5
Ensure that best practice is used in dealing with construction related
noise, dust and materials.
12.6.3.6
Ensure appropriate remediation of any agriculture or industry-related
contaminated land on the site.
12.6.4 Recruitment of construction workers:
12.6.4.1
Ensure recruitment for the construction jobs starts locally through job
centres and recruitment agencies in the local area and the surrounding
villages before being advertised more widely. This will also reduce the
Page 100
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
potential pressures on local housing and be more sustainable in transport
terms.
12.6.4.2
Develop a plan for dealing with the accommodation and healthcare needs
of construction workers moving into the area from elsewhere. This will
need to be developed once construction recruitment has started and there
is a clearer idea of the number of workers likely to move into the area.
Housing construction workers in existing permanent dwellings is always
preferable to temporary ‘portacabin’ type accommodation even for a short
while.
12.6.5 Construction skills training and apprentice programme:
12.6.5.1
Before and during the construction phase, a training and skills programme
should be set in place to enable local people, both those already involved
in construction and those who are unemployed, to access the construction
job opportunities. Alongside this there could be employment or work
experience-linked apprenticeship building and construction programmes
for young people.
12.6.6 Construction traffic:
12.6.6.1
Develop a construction traffic route and timing plan, in consultation with
local people, so that construction traffic avoids peak times on the key
routes in and around the facility and the local area. Ensure that local
people are aware of the plan so that they can be proactive in avoiding
those routes and those times when possible. The routes taken by
construction vehicles are likely to change over the course of the
development so the plan will need to be reviewed and updated regularly. It
will be important to ensure that local people are made aware of all
updates.
12.6.6.2
The construction programme should also aim to encourage construction
workers to walk, cycle and use public transport, where available, to get to
work through a construction worker active travel plan.
Page 101
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
12.6.7 Improving roads:
12.6.7.1
Local roads should be regularly reviewed in light of construction traffic to
ensure that the roads are not damaged by the construction and where
necessary elements of the road are enhanced in consultation with the
Northern Ireland Roads Service e.g. changes to junctions, putting in place
of safe crossing points, etc.
12.6.8 Residents committees and representatives
12.6.8.1
A residents committee or a community representative could be actively
involved in the operational issues of the power plant. This would start
during the planning process so that the committee/representatives are
already involved in the design and operational details of the proposed
facility e.g. the working hours, the proposed route through residential
areas, etc.
12.6.9 Pollution monitoring
12.6.9.1
Regular public air, water and soil pollution monitoring where the results of
the monitoring are actively fed back to local residents should be
considered as it is likely to do much to reassure local people.
12.6.10 Operation Traffic
12.6.10.1 Just as construction traffic should be planned, so an operation traffic route
and timing plan should be developed, in consultation with local people, so
that operation traffic avoids peak times on the key routes in and around
the facility and the local area. Ensure that local people are aware of the
plan so that they can be proactive in avoiding those routes and those
times when possible. The routes taken by operation vehicles are unlikely
to change over the course of the development but should they do so then
the plan will need to be reviewed and updated. It will be important to
ensure that local people are made aware of all updates.
12.6.10.2 Any Safe Routes to School should be protected.
12.6.10.3 Power plant workers should be encouraged to, where appropriate,
carpool, walk and cycle and or a company bus service could set up. A
wider active/sustainable travel plan should also be considered.
Page 102
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
12.6.10.4 Low emission vehicles and the use of liquid petroleum gas should be
considered.
12.6.11 Education and learning
12.6.11.1 Developing an active environmental education and awareness programme
in partnership with local school and local environmental groups will also
help to show the power plant in a more positive way to local communities.
12.6.12 Health and safety of power plant workers
12.6.12.1 The health and safety of power workers through good facility design, good
training, access to high quality washing facilities, availability of enough
protective clothing and the active nurturing of an organisational culture
where worker and community health and safety are paramount will ensure
that worker injury and health problems will be at a minimum.
12.7
Residual effects
12.7.1 The above mitigation measures if properly applied and reviewed will ensure that the
majority of the negative health impacts of the development are much reduced. The
above mitigation measures will also ensure that health and social inequalities are not
widened in the area.
12.8
Overall Conclusion
The proposed development has some positive and some negative health impacts.
The positive impacts are largely at the regional level though there are some potential
employment benefits locally. The negative impacts are almost wholly at the local
level. Both the overall positive and the negative health impacts are of a minor to
moderate nature. It is likely that the proper implementation of the mitigation measures
described above, and in the EIA, is likely to make reduce the effects of the potential
negative impacts towards the minor end of the range.
Page 103
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
13 Conclusion
13.1.1 Power plants and incinerators are in a class of developments that are almost
universally unwanted by local residents.
13.1.2 The major settlements of Glenavy and Crumlin villages are 1km from the site of the
proposed power plant though there are a small number of residents within 250m and
a slightly larger number between 250m-1km of the site.
13.1.3 The cumulative lifetime cancer risks from the emissions of the power plant, through
direct and indirect exposures, are so extremely small as to be effectively zero when
considered alongside the other more important personal, lifestyle and social factors
that influence health and wellbeing. Similarly the cumulative hazard levels from the
emissions of the power plant, through direct and indirect exposures, are less than
25% of the safe or tolerable/acceptable exposure level.
13.1.4 The plant is likely to have a moderate positive impact at regional level and a minor to
moderate negative impact at the local level. The intensity of the negative impacts will
be dependent on both the proximity of residents to the proposed site and how well the
mitigation measures identified in this report, and in the EIA, are implemented.
13.1.5 Overall, the major negative health impacts on local people are likely to be nuisance
level and quality of life impacts. These are important considerations but they are not
effects that are likely to cause disease or ill health in local residents.
Page 104
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Page 105
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Appendix A:
Health Risk Assessment Details
for Maximally Exposed Receptor
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
A
Page 106
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Emission Inventory - Poultry bedding & MBM - Scenario - Project Description - February 2008 - High Flow - Emissions for HHRA
item
description
volume of
release at
273K, dry.
11%O2
(1)
pg
in
sample
(2)
pollutant
proportion
WHO
TEQ
proportion
of
WHO
TEQ
m3/s
1
flue
68.2
2,3,7,8-TCDD
factor to
convert
to
0.1ng/m3
WHO TEQ
Pollutant
Concentration
(dry
gas)
WHO TEQ
pollutant
emissionrate
WHO TEQ
pollutant
emission
rate
actual
ng/m3
ng/m3
g/s
g/s
32.661
0.007
1.0000
6.86E-03
7.33E-03
6.86E-03
5.001E-10
5.001E-10
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
103.838
0.022
1.0000
2.18E-02
2.33E-02
2.18E-02
1.590E-09
1.590E-09
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
101.999
0.021
0.1000
2.14E-03
2.29E-03
2.14E-04
1.562E-10
1.562E-09
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
115.719
0.024
0.1000
2.43E-03
2.60E-03
2.43E-04
1.772E-10
1.772E-09
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
266.107
0.056
0.1000
5.59E-03
5.97E-03
5.59E-04
4.075E-10
4.075E-09
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
960.055
0.202
0.0100
2.02E-03
2.16E-03
2.02E-05
1.470E-10
1.470E-08
1.173E-08
OCDD
766.002
0.161
0.0001
1.61E-05
1.72E-05
1.61E-09
1.173E-12
2,3,7,8-TCDF
248.946
0.052
0.1000
5.23E-03
5.59E-03
5.23E-04
3.812E-10
3.812E-09
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
418.556
0.088
0.0500
4.40E-03
4.70E-03
2.20E-04
3.204E-10
6.409E-09
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
236.230
0.050
0.5000
2.48E-02
2.65E-02
1.24E-02
1.809E-09
3.617E-09
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
168.568
0.035
0.1000
3.54E-03
3.78E-03
3.54E-04
2.581E-10
2.581E-09
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
66.329
0.014
0.1000
1.39E-03
1.49E-03
1.39E-04
1.016E-10
1.016E-09
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
272.874
0.057
0.1000
5.74E-03
6.13E-03
5.74E-04
4.178E-10
4.178E-09
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
315.551
0.066
0.1000
6.63E-03
7.08E-03
6.63E-04
4.832E-10
4.832E-09
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
395.000
0.083
0.0100
8.30E-04
8.87E-04
8.30E-06
6.048E-11
6.048E-09
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
60.280
0.013
0.0100
1.27E-04
1.35E-04
1.27E-06
9.230E-12
9.230E-10
229.156
0.048
0.0001
4.82E-06
5.14E-06
4.82E-10
3.509E-13
3.509E-09
4757.871
1.000
-
0.100000
4.462E-02
6.820E-09
7.285E-08
OCDF
Total
0.093614
Metals (3)
mg/m3
g/s
Cd
0.050
0.00341
Group 1
Hg
0.002
0.00014
Group 2
As
Pb
0.125
0.255
0.00853
0.01739
Notes
1
2
3
Based on flow conditions in Table 7.1 High Flow 220,000 Nm3/hr @273K ( 5.56% O2 wet)
Dioxins and furans as per typical poultry litter emissions (Westfield Fife) and Waste Incineration Directive Limits
Emission rates based on Mass Balance calculations Engreen 2008
Page 107
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Air Parameters for Receptor 16 – 22 Ballyvannon UTM X: 313215.00 UTM Y: 372149.00
Air parameter description
Value
Symbol
Units
Hourly air concentration - particle phase
4.53087
chp
ug-s/g-m^3
Hourly air concentration - particle bound
4.53087
chp_pb
ug-s/g-m^3
Hourly air concentration - vapor phase
3.91288
chv
ug-s/g-m^3
ug-s/g-m^3
Hourly air concentration - vapor phase hg
2.84672
chv_hg
Air concentration - particle phase
0.05801
cyp
ug-s/g-m^3
Air concentration - particle bound
0.05801
cyp_pb
ug-s/g-m^3
Air concentration - vapor phase
0.06094
cyv
ug-s/g-m^3
Air concentration - vapor phase hg
0.05087
cyv_hg
ug-s/g-m^3
Dry deposition - particle phase
0.02707
dydp
s/m^2 year
Dry deposition - particle bound
0.02707
dydp_pb
s/m^2 year
Dry deposition - vapor phase
0.00938
dydv
s/m^2 year
0.04541
dydv_hg
0.04119
dywp
0.04311
dywp_pb
Wet deposition - vapor phase
0
dywv
s/m^2 year
Wet deposition - vapor phase hg
0
dywv_hg
s/m^2 year
Dry deposition - vapor phase hg
s/m^2 year
Wet deposition - particle phase
s/m^2 year
Wet deposition - particle bound
s/m^2 year
Page 108
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Risk and hazard estimates by pathway of exposure and compound of potential
concern (COPC) from the chimney stack (STCK 1) for Receptor 16
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
1.1662E-006
1.0558E-006
5.8623E-007
0.0000E+000
1.4328E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
2.9772E-007
0.0000E+000
1.4992E-013
3.1203E-006
1.9519E-007
1.0671E-007
3.5519E-009
1.6425E-012
1.4776E-009
4.3917E-014
0.0000E+000
3.2570E-009
1.1053E-010
9.7268E-013
3.1030E-007
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.5821E-002
4.1060E-003
2.2798E-003
0.0000E+000
5.5734E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.1578E-003
0.0000E+000
7.7735E-010
2.3420E-002
9.4885E-004
1.2289E-003
4.0896E-005
2.5214E-008
1.7111E-005
6.7416E-010
0.0000E+000
3.7499E-005
1.2728E-006
1.4932E-008
2.2746E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
1,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
1,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,9-
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,8-
Page 109
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
No 16
farmer_adult
STCK1
HexaCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.6855E-010
4.6808E-015
2.2170E-014
7.8630E-017
1.4877E-017
5.1058E-017
0.0000E+000
7.1810E-014
2.2728E-015
5.7275E-016
1.6865E-010
7.3241E-011
2.0513E-015
9.2976E-015
3.4584E-017
6.5494E-018
2.2457E-017
0.0000E+000
2.9961E-014
9.8225E-016
2.5192E-016
7.3283E-011
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,8-
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,9-
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,8-
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,8-
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,9-
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
2,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,8-
Page 110
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No 16
farmer_adult
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
Pathway
COPC
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
Total
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
Mercury
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
Page 111
1,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,8-
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
0.0000E+000
6.6355E-009
1.2204E-008
1.0153E-009
0.0000E+000
1.6947E-010
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.4321E-008
0.0000E+000
1.6539E-012
3.4348E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
6.4512E-004
5.8601E-003
4.8731E-004
0.0000E+000
8.1921E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
6.8738E-003
0.0000E+000
1.0583E-006
1.3949E-002
3.0427E-006
2.3983E-004
4.2080E-005
3.8840E-006
6.7731E-007
4.4136E-006
0.0000E+000
2.0221E-004
7.8274E-008
1.4727E-005
5.1094E-004
4.5527E-008
4.5527E-008
3.9588E-005
1.4319E-006
3.7457E-008
3.5857E-007
4.2565E-008
0.0000E+000
9.6198E-006
8.9287E-010
8.7902E-007
5.1958E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
farmer_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
Pathway
COPC
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
1,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,8-
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
2,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,8-
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
2,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,8-
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
2,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,8-
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Page 112
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
6.9101E-009
6.0488E-008
1.4325E-010
5.5911E-011
9.3016E-011
0.0000E+000
2.0330E-007
4.9915E-009
7.0314E-010
2.7668E-007
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.7494E-007
3.8077E-007
5.4058E-008
0.0000E+000
4.8011E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
7.4093E-008
0.0000E+000
2.7984E-013
6.8866E-007
2.9279E-008
3.8494E-008
3.2755E-010
2.2397E-013
4.9789E-010
6.3239E-015
0.0000E+000
8.1058E-010
1.2663E-011
1.8156E-012
6.9424E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.0160E-004
7.6011E-004
2.5690E-006
8.8151E-007
1.6682E-006
0.0000E+000
2.4860E-003
7.9232E-005
1.2610E-005
3.4447E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.5821E-002
9.8718E-003
1.4015E-003
0.0000E+000
1.2447E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.9209E-003
0.0000E+000
7.2552E-009
2.9140E-002
9.4885E-004
2.9546E-003
2.5141E-005
1.7191E-008
3.8215E-005
4.8539E-010
0.0000E+000
6.2216E-005
9.7197E-007
1.3936E-007
4.0301E-003
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
1,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
1,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,9-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,9-
No 16
farmer_child
STCK1
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8-
Page 113
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
2.5283E-011
1.5747E-015
1.9971E-015
7.1521E-018
4.7170E-018
4.9043E-018
0.0000E+000
1.7616E-014
2.3721E-016
7.1314E-016
2.5305E-011
1.0986E-011
6.8988E-016
8.3658E-016
3.1458E-018
2.0767E-018
2.1571E-018
0.0000E+000
7.3439E-015
1.0234E-016
3.1367E-016
1.0995E-011
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,9-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
2,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No 16
farmer_child
STCK1
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
Total
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercury
Page 114
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
9.9533E-010
4.4035E-009
9.3635E-011
0.0000E+000
5.7184E-011
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
3.5645E-009
0.0000E+000
3.0863E-012
9.1172E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
6.4512E-004
1.4089E-002
2.9958E-004
0.0000E+000
1.8296E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.1404E-002
0.0000E+000
9.8773E-006
2.6630E-002
3.0427E-006
5.3351E-004
2.5869E-005
2.6482E-006
1.5127E-006
3.1778E-006
0.0000E+000
3.3548E-004
5.9773E-008
1.3745E-004
1.0428E-003
4.5527E-008
4.5527E-008
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No 16
No 16
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
1,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,8-
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
1,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,8-
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
2,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,8-
TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8TetraCDD, 2,3,7,8-
Page 115
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
2.2942E-009
8.7903E-005
8.8025E-007
2.5539E-008
8.0082E-007
3.0647E-008
0.0000E+000
1.5960E-005
6.8183E-010
8.2042E-006
1.1381E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
2.3382E-004
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
2,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
farmer_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
2,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No 16
No 16
No 16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
1,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9HeptaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-
Page 116
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
5.4988E-009
1.3205E-011
1.7522E-011
9.0547E-012
0.0000E+000
5.0147E-008
5.3390E-010
8.8729E-010
5.9400E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
8.7468E-007
5.3914E-007
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.0749E-008
0.0000E+000
7.6585E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.4992E-013
1.5012E-006
1.4639E-007
5.4521E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.1147E-009
0.0000E+000
6.3188E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
9.7266E-013
2.6522E-007
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
4.6728E-004
1.7516E-006
1.9687E-006
1.2011E-006
0.0000E+000
4.1245E-003
6.0505E-005
1.1770E-004
5.0087E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.5821E-002
2.7955E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
5.5734E-005
0.0000E+000
3.9711E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
7.7735E-010
1.9070E-002
9.4885E-004
8.3695E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.7111E-005
0.0000E+000
9.6999E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.4932E-008
2.7729E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
1,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,9-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,9-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,8-
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,9-
Page 117
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.2641E-010
2.4612E-015
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.0561E-017
0.0000E+000
2.2737E-014
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
3.8204E-016
1.2644E-010
5.4931E-011
1.0787E-015
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
4.6493E-018
0.0000E+000
1.0010E-014
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.6804E-016
5.4942E-011
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,9-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
2,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No 16
fisher_adult
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
Total
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
Mercury
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
Page 118
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
4.9766E-009
6.2383E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.2802E-010
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.6534E-012
1.1345E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
6.4512E-004
3.9918E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
8.1921E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.0583E-006
4.7199E-003
3.0427E-006
1.9833E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
6.7731E-007
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.4727E-005
2.1678E-004
4.5527E-008
4.5527E-008
3.1583E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
3.5857E-007
0.0000E+000
1.5239E-001
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
8.7902E-007
1.5243E-001
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
fisher_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
1,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,8-
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
1,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,8-
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
2,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,8-
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
2,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,8-
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
2,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,8-
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Page 119
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
3.7068E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
3.9227E-011
0.0000E+000
6.0091E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
4.7533E-010
6.4312E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.7494E-007
2.5946E-007
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
4.8011E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
7.8378E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
8.8151E-007
0.0000E+000
1.3504E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.2610E-005
1.4422E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.5821E-002
6.7268E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.2447E-004
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
0.0000E+000
1.0783E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
2.7984E-013
4.4998E-007
2.9279E-008
2.6238E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
4.9789E-010
0.0000E+000
8.8968E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.8156E-012
6.4914E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
2.5283E-011
1.1434E-015
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
4.7170E-018
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
2.7956E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
7.2552E-009
2.2952E-002
9.4885E-004
2.0139E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
3.8215E-005
0.0000E+000
6.8287E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.3936E-007
3.6840E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
1,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
1,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,9-
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,8-
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,8-
Page 120
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,9-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,9-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
2,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Page 121
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
3.2013E-015
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
7.1314E-016
2.5288E-011
1.0986E-011
5.0106E-016
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
2.0767E-018
0.0000E+000
1.4094E-015
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
3.1367E-016
1.0988E-011
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
9.9533E-010
3.0021E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
5.7184E-011
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
6.4512E-004
9.6048E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.8296E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
No 16
No 16
No 16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
Lead
Lead
Lead
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No 16
fisher_child
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
Total
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
3.0863E-012
4.0577E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
9.8773E-006
1.0443E-002
3.0427E-006
4.4239E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.5127E-006
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.3745E-004
5.8440E-004
4.5527E-008
4.5527E-008
7.0069E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
8.0082E-007
0.0000E+000
1.0729E-001
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
8.2042E-006
1.0736E-001
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
Mercury
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
1,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,8-
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
1,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,8-
Page 122
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
No 16
No 16
No 16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8PentaCDF, 1,2,3,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
fisher_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.7204E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.7522E-011
0.0000E+000
8.4608E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
8.8729E-010
1.1086E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
8.7468E-007
5.3914E-007
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.0749E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.4992E-013
1.4246E-006
1.4639E-007
5.4521E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.1147E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
9.7266E-013
2.0203E-007
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.8017E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.9687E-006
0.0000E+000
9.5065E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.1770E-004
1.2505E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.5821E-002
2.7955E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
5.5734E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
7.7735E-010
1.8672E-002
9.4885E-004
8.3695E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.7111E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.4932E-008
1.8029E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
2,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,8-
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
2,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,8-
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
2,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,8-
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
Page 123
1,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,8-
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
No 16
No 16
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8HeptaCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.2641E-010
2.4612E-015
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.0561E-017
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
3.8204E-016
1.2642E-010
5.4931E-011
1.0787E-015
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
4.6493E-018
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.6804E-016
5.4932E-011
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
1,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
1,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,9-
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,8-
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,8-
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,9-
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,8-
Page 124
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
No 16
resident_adult
STCK1
HexaCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No 16
resident_adult
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
Total
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
4.9766E-009
6.2383E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.2802E-010
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.6534E-012
1.1345E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
6.4512E-004
3.9918E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
8.1921E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.0583E-006
4.7199E-003
3.0427E-006
1.9833E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
6.7731E-007
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.4727E-005
2.1678E-004
4.5527E-008
4.5527E-008
3.1583E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
3.5857E-007
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,8-
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,9-
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
2,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,8-
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
Mercury
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Page 125
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
No 16
resident_adult
STCK1
Methyl mercury
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
3.7068E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
3.9227E-011
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
4.7533E-010
8.7902E-007
3.2821E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
7.8378E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
8.8151E-007
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.2610E-005
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
1,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,8-
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
1,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,8-
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
2,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,8-
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
2,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,8-
Page 126
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
resident_adult
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
Pathway
COPC
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
2,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,8-
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
HeptaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
1,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,81,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
HeptaCDF,
1,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,91,2,3,4,7,8,9-
Page 127
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
4.2214E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.7494E-007
2.5946E-007
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
4.8011E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
2.7984E-013
4.3920E-007
2.9279E-008
2.6238E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
4.9789E-010
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.8156E-012
5.6017E-008
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
9.1870E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.5821E-002
6.7268E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.2447E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
7.2552E-009
2.2672E-002
9.4885E-004
2.0139E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
3.8215E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.3936E-007
3.0011E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
HexaCDD,
1,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,9-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,81,2,3,4,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,81,2,3,6,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
1,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,91,2,3,7,8,9-
No 16
resident_child
STCK1
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
HexaCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8-
Page 128
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
2.5283E-011
1.1434E-015
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
4.7170E-018
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
7.1314E-016
2.5285E-011
1.0986E-011
5.0106E-016
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
2.0767E-018
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
3.1367E-016
1.0987E-011
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
HexaCDF,
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No 16
resident_child
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
No 16
resident_child
STCK1
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
Total
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
2,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,82,3,4,6,7,8-
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
Mercuric
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
chloride
Mercury
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
Methyl
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
mercury
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
OctaCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
OctaCDF,
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,91,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
PentaCDD, 1,2,3,7,8-
Page 129
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
9.9533E-010
3.0021E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
5.7184E-011
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
3.0863E-012
4.0577E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
6.4512E-004
9.6048E-003
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.8296E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
9.8773E-006
1.0443E-002
3.0427E-006
4.4239E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.5127E-006
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.3745E-004
5.8440E-004
4.5527E-008
4.5527E-008
7.0069E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
8.0082E-007
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
8.2042E-006
7.9074E-005
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Receptor
Individual
Scenario
Source
Pathway
COPC
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
PentaCDD,
1,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
1,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,81,2,3,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
PentaCDF,
2,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,82,3,4,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
TetraCDD,
2,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,8-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
resident_child
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
STCK1
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
air_crisk_inhale
intake_crisk_ag
intake_crisk_beef
intake_crisk_chick
intake_crisk_dw
intake_crisk_eggs
intake_crisk_fish
intake_crisk_milk
intake_crisk_pork
intake_crisk_soil
Total
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
TetraCDF,
2,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,82,3,7,8-
Page 130
Total cancer
risk
Total hazard
quotient
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.7204E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.7522E-011
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
8.8729E-010
2.6252E-009
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.8017E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.9687E-006
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
1.1770E-004
2.9984E-004
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
0.0000E+000
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Page 131
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Appendix B:
Health Impact Matrices
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
Page 132
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Page 133
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Health impact matrix for the construction and operation phases of the development compared to no development taking place
Legend
+ positive health impact
- negative health impact
~ no identified health impact
+++
++
+
major
moderate
minor
----
Definition of the levels of potential impact
Significance Level
Criteria
Major +++/---
Health effects are categorised as major if the effects may lead directly to mortality/death or acute or chronic
disease/illness. The exposures tend to be of high intensity and/or long duration and/or over a wide
geographical area and/or likely to affect a large number of people e.g. over 500 or so and/or sensitive groups
e.g. children/older people. They can affect either or both physical and mental health and either directly or
through the wider determinants of health and wellbeing. They can be temporary or permanent in nature.
These effects can be important local, district, regional and national considerations. Mitigation measures and
detailed design work can reduce the level of negative effect though residual effects are likely to remain.
(positive or negative)
Moderate ++/-(positive or negative)
Minor/Mild +/(positive or negative)
Neutral/No Effect ~
Health effects are categorised as moderate if the effects are long term nuisance impacts from odour and
noise, etc or may lead to exacerbations of existing illness. The exposures tend to be of moderate intensity
and/or over a relatively localised area and/or of intermittent duration and/or likely to affect a moderate-large
number of people e.g. between 100-500 or so and/or sensitive groups. The negative impacts may be
nuisance/quality of life impacts which may affect physical and mental health either directly or through the
wider determinants of health. The cumulative effect of a set of moderate effects can lead to a major effect.
These effects can be important local, district and regional considerations. Mitigation measures and detailed
design work can reduce and in some cases remove the negative and enhance the positive effects though
residual effects are likely to remain.
Health effects are categorised as minor/mild if they are generally nuisance level/quality of life impacts e.g.
noise, odour, visual amenity, etc. The exposures tend to be of low intensity and/or short/intermittent duration
and/or over a small area and/or affect a small number of people e.g. less than 100 or so. They can be
permanent or temporary in nature. These effects can be important local considerations. Mitigation measures
and detailed design work can reduce the negative and enhance the positive effects such that there are only
some residual effects remaining.
No effect or effects within the bounds of normal/accepted variation.
Page 134
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Construction Phase (3 years)
Only construction and associated activity impacts are assessed in this table.
Construction Phase
Overall
No development
ƒ No change from existing trends in health
and wellbeing.
Impact
~
ƒ These are positive and better than the
district and Northern Ireland average.
Power plant development
ƒ Given the rural nature of the area, construction impacts are
likely to be more pronounced than for a similar urban area.
Impact
without
mitigation
--/---
ƒ This is linked to the road infrastructure and the likelihood of
construction traffic coming to and from the development site by
road..
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
ƒ The positive trends will continue but the construction phase,
without mitigation measures, will have nuisance impacts - noise
from the development site, new people in the area and an
increase in noise and movement of construction lorry traffic - on
local residents particularly those living within 250m of the
development site.
ƒ Mitigation measures are likely to significantly reduce the
potential negative impacts to
Infectious diseases
ƒ Levels of infectious disease are low and
likely to remain so though there sexual
health is a priority area for the local health
and social services boards.
~
ƒ The construction is unlikely to cause or spread infectious
diseases to local residents or construction workers.
ƒ Workers coming into contact with sewage and contaminated
water can be affected by micro-organisms.
ƒ The extent of the hazard to workers will depend on the
management of the construction; adherence to health and
safety protocols; and availability and use of safety equipment
and protective clothing.
ƒ Construction workers moving into the area, particular those who
are single, can lead to a rise in sexually transmitted diseases.
Page 135
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
~
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Construction Phase
Non-infectious/chronic
diseases
No development
ƒ Levels of chronic disease are in line with
the Northern Ireland rates, and in some
cases better with lower rates of long term
limiting illness among residents..
Impact
~
Power plant development
ƒ The construction is unlikely to cause non-infectious/chronic
diseases to local residents or construction workers.
Impact
without
mitigation
~
ƒ There is likely to be some dust generated by the construction
but the levels of these are unlikely to lead to respiratory or other
health problems.
ƒ The extent of the hazard to construction workers will depend on
the management of the construction; adherence to health and
safety protocols; and availability and use of safety equipment
and protective clothing.
Physical injury and poisoning ƒ Levels of physical injury and accidental
poisonings are low.
ƒ Levels of traffic collisions and traffic
injuries is low. See traffic assessment for
more details. At the junction of
Ballyvannon Road, Lurgan Road and
Edenturcher Road there has been 1 slight
collision involving a slight injury during the
3 year period between April 2004 and
March 2007.Between Ingrams Road and
Lurgan Road junctions there have been no
collisions over the same 3 year period.
~
ƒ The construction of the power plant is unlikely to cause physical
injury or poisoning to local residents.
ƒ There is a potential for the additional heavy construction lorry
traffic to result in an increase in road traffic collisions which may
lead to injury. However, this will depend on the route, the driver
and whether a route strategy and timetable for major traffic
movements is developed.
ƒ Local children could potentially gain access to the power plant
construction site and get injured.
ƒ Some workers may be injured on the construction site from falls,
falling objects, collisions, etc.
ƒ Construction sites can and do have hazardous substances onsite. This again is likely to be a greater hazard for construction
workers than for residents in the surrounding area.
ƒ The extent of the hazard to construction workers will depend on
the management of the construction of the power plant; the
adherence to health and safety protocols; safe storage and
usage of chemical; and availability and use of safety equipment
and protective clothing.
ƒ The hazard to residents, especially children ingesting or coming
into contact with hazardous chemicals, will depend on the
secure storage and security measures to ensure no
unauthorised access to the site.
Page 136
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
~/-
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Construction Phase
No development
Mental health and wellbeing ƒ There is an existing rendering plant which
has caused some nuisance impacts
particularly in relation to odour and noise
among residents living immediately
adjacent to the plant.
Impact
~/-
ƒ Levels of mental health and wellbeing are
good, perceived good health is high and
deprivation is low.
Power plant development
ƒ The construction period is likely to last 3 years and this is likely
to give rise to some nuisance effects for people living close to
the site e.g. noise, dust, traffic and visual impacts. See EIA - air
quality; traffic; noise and vibration; and landscape & visual
impact assessments.
Impact
without
mitigation
-/--
ƒ Additionally, there is worry, anxiety, anger in some residents
these and, in the longer term, stigma can lead to psycho-social
stress and mental health and wellbeing effects which in turn
leads to significant psycho-social stress at a level to generate
physical symptoms. This would be in the context of already
having an industrial facility in the area the existing rendering
plant which has been operating for many years.
ƒ The design of the site does include creating flora and fauna
barriers to reduce the visual impact of the plant and to increase
the biodiversity of the site after the construction phase. Though
there will be an 80m stack.
ƒ Workers on the site can have psycho-social stress related to
their work depending on the quality of the contractors used and
the terms and conditions under which they are employed.
Population profile
ƒ The population of Northern Ireland is
predicted to grow by 4% between 2006 ad
2011 however the Greater Belfast area is
likely to grow by only 0.4% with the West
and South of Northern Ireland growing
fastest at a rate of 8%.
~
ƒ The construction of the power plant may lead to some increase
in population in the local area if construction workers are
recruited from outside the local area and outside commuting
distance (within 1 hours travel or so).
ƒ As this is a rural area any influx of new people is likely to be
more disruptive.
ƒ It is likely that the population around the
proposed development site will grow at the
rate of the Greater Belfast area.
Page 137
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
~/-
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Construction Phase
Employment & economy
No development
ƒ Employment in Northern Ireland has been
on a slightly rising trend over the last fivesix years with unemployment also on a
declining trend. However over the last year
unemployment has started to increase and
employment rates have plateaued.
Impact
~/-
ƒ It is likely that only some of the construction related employment
will go to people in the locality of the power plant because of the
specialist nature of the facility.
+
ƒ The major beneficial impact is likely to be on those in the local
area with construction skills and experience and those who are
currently unemployed or under-employed.
ƒ Employment in the area is high though
there is some persistent unemployment in
some age groups.
ƒ How much the local area benefits is also dependent on whether
there is a local recruitment policy in place that gives priority to
local people.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
~
ƒ Given the specialist nature of some of the construction it is likely
that some construction workers will come from outside the local
area.
ƒ There are no major housing developments
planned in the area but small scale new
housing is likely to continue in the area.
ƒ This could be a potential economic opportunity for private
landlords but also put pressure on accommodation for local
people.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
ƒ It is unlikely that the construction of the power plant will disrupt
utility services – water, gas, electricity, waste and sewage
disposal for local housing.
ƒ Traffic lorries may cause some vibration but the traffic
assessment estimates indicate that this is unlikely to be
significant. See EIA - noise and vibration assessment.
Page 138
Impact
without
mitigation
ƒ There is likely to be some increase in passing trade for existing
shops and retail amenities from construction workers going to
and from the development site.
ƒ It is likely that trends in Glenavy and
Crumlin wards will follow national trends.
Housing and accommodation ƒ Housing and accommodation are of good
quality and there is a high proportion of
home owners in the area.
Power plant development
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
-
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Construction Phase
Transport and connectivity
No development
ƒ The road network is relatively poor and the
public transport network is also poor.
Impact
~
Power plant development
ƒ There is unlikely to be any direct effects on people’s access to
private and public transport.
ƒ Access to services is particular issue
though most people in the area have, or
have access to, a car or van.
ƒ There will be construction traffic and this will have some
negative impact on the movement of private and public
transport vehicles.
ƒ No major transport infrastructure is
planned in the area.
ƒ This may cause some physical severance and a reduction in
physical activity and time spent outdoors for older people and
children as local roads are, or are seen to be, dangerous and
difficult to cross.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
Impact
without
mitigation
--/---
ƒ There maybe some negative nuisance impacts from the noise
and vibration. Continuous noise and vibration effects can also
give rise to psycho-social stress among these residents.
ƒ Peaks in concentration can exacerbate the symptoms of those
with existing respiratory and cardiovascular difficulties
especially in older people and children. Though the increase in
construction traffic will increase the amount of vehicle emissions
these are unlikely to cause physical health effects on existing
residents. See EIA – air quality and traffic assessments.
Education and learning
ƒ There are a number of schools in the area.
ƒ There are high numbers of young people
but the projections for population growth
are low.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
Page 139
ƒ There is unlikely to be any disruption to existing local schools.
~
ƒ Construction workers employed on the site, particularly local
ones, are likely to gain experience and on-the-job training.
ƒ Linking into local colleges and construction training schemes is
likely to increases the chances of local people being recruited
for construction jobs as well as young people gaining work
experience on employment-linked apprenticeship-type training
schemes.
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
~/+
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Construction Phase
Crime and safety
No development
Impact
ƒ Crime in the area is relatively low.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
~
Power plant development
ƒ There is unlikely to be any significant increases in crime
because of the construction as access to the construction site
will be limited.
Impact
without
mitigation
~/-
ƒ However, construction sites with their store of materials and the
influx of new construction-related people can make an area
more vulnerable to crime or, at least, to be perceived as more
vulnerable to crime and less safe. This may mean that police
and community guardian/warden patrols may need to be
undertaken in and around the site to reassure the local
community.
Health & social care services ƒ Health and social care services are good.
ƒ Access to services is an issue for some
local people.
ƒ There is unlikely to be any effects on access to health and
social care services.
~
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
Shops and other retail
amenities
ƒ There are some shops and retail amenities
in Glenavy and Crumlin villages.
ƒ These are likely to continue to operate.
Page 140
~
~
ƒ There may be some minor effects on local health and social
care services as injured or unwell construction workers on site
will use local hospitals and primary care centres.
ƒ There is likely to be some positive impact on local shops and
amenities from passing trade from construction workers.
ƒ
Some shops or retail amenities may be set up or be expanded
specifically to serve the construction workers.
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
~/+
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Construction Phase
No development
Social capital and community ƒ Social capital and community cohesion are
relatively good in the area.
cohesion
Impact
~
ƒ There are a diverse range of community
activities and social clubs in the area for
younger and older people.
Power plant development
ƒ The construction of power plant could have a positive or
negative impact on the social capital and community cohesion
of local residents in the area.
Impact
without
mitigation
~/-/--
ƒ Over the short term social capital and community cohesion can
rise in concerned communities as they come together to protest
however over the long term the concern and protests tends to
have a negative effect on social capital for a number of years
until people begin to accept or tolerate a development or move
away.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
ƒ The two important negative effects on social capital tend to be:
ƒ A sense of unfairness, inequity and helplessness in having to
live with the costs/negatives of the facility while the wider
society/community benefits.
ƒ The sense of stigma that they and their communities are
‘rubbish’ because they have a facility using waste near them.
This can create a sense of ‘us’ who live with the negatives of
facility and ‘them’ who do not and cuts people off both from
other residents, especially those who may support or don’t mind
the facility, and the wider society/community.
ƒ This will depend on the nature and level of consultation and
involvement of local communities in the siting and planning
process for the power plant.
Culture and leisure
ƒ There are some cultural and leisure
amenities in the area. The main focus for
these however is in the major urban
centres of Lisburn, Antrim and Belfast.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
Page 141
~
ƒ Existing culture and leisure facilities are unlikely to be affected
by the construction activity and associated traffic.
ƒ Construction traffic may lead to a reduction in children’s outdoor
play as parents/guardians see local roads as more dangerous.
Though there is existing and long standing lorry traffic moving
into and out of the area around the proposed development site.
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
~/-
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Construction Phase
Lifestyle and daily routines
No development
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
Impact
~
ƒ No other major developments are being
proposed in the area at the moment.
Power plant development
ƒ There is likely to be some disruption of movement due to the
construction traffic.
Impact
without
mitigation
-/--
ƒ This will be dependent on the amount of construction traffic and
the days and hours of construction.
ƒ It will also be dependent on how the construction site and
associated traffic are managed and the adherence to the
constructor’s code of conduct by the contractors and subcontractors working on the site.
ƒ Children and older people are likely to be the most affected.
Energy and waste
ƒ Current energy generation and distribution
and waste disposal methods will continue
to be in place. There is likely to be a
greater move towards energy efficiency
and more recycling in the future.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends..
Page 142
ƒ This will depend on:
~
ƒ Whether waste from the site is reused and recycled and the
amount of demolition and construction waste sent elsewhere. It
is envisaged that much of the material excavated on the site will
be used on the site as banking and other works.
ƒ The types of construction vehicles used.
ƒ The energy and waste strategy developed for the construction
phase of the power plant.
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
-/+/++
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Construction Phase
Land and spatial
No development
ƒ No other developments are projecte3d at
this time.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
Impact
~
Power plant development
ƒ The construction activity is likely to make the site visually
unattractive. See EIA – landscape and visual impact
assessment.
ƒ Construction can compact soils and affect local flora and fauna.
ƒ Demolition and removal of solid waste will need to be managed
carefully especially if it is contaminated with heavy metals,
asbestos or other chemicals. The flow of materials entering and
exiting the site during the construction phase can be significant
and will depend on how much can be re-used and recycled on
the site. The key effects are likely to be the increase in
construction traffic flows on the road and the potential for
spillage and throwing up of materials outside the site and
thereby creating new hazards for other vehicles and adult and
child pedestrians.
ƒ The local utility companies will need to be involved to ensure
that there is no accidental disruption to the site because cables
and pipes are dug through.
ƒ The design of the site does include creating flora and fauna
barriers to reduce the visual impact of the plant and to increase
the biodiversity of the site after the construction phase.
.
Page 143
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Impact
without
mitigation
-/--
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Operation Phase (0-25 years after the construction phase)
Operation Phase
Overall
No development
ƒ No change from existing trends in health
and wellbeing.
Impact
~
ƒ These are positive and better than the
district and Northern Ireland average.
Power plant development
ƒ Once the power plant is operational there are likely to be direct
nuisance impacts on residents in the local area. The major ones
are likely to be noise, traffic and smell.
Impact
without
mitigation
++/--
ƒ The major positive impacts will be the new jobs created in the
power plant, the recovery of energy, the safe disposal of poultry
bedding and meat and bone meal and the diversion of waste
from landfill and from land spreading.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
ƒ In relation to the activities associated with the operation of the
power plant proposed there will be a small number of additional
heavy vehicle traffic compared to current levels. See EIA – air
quality; traffic; noise and vibration; and landscape and visual
impact assessment.
ƒ If there is sustained community concern and protests this is
likely that this will remain for up to 5 years gradually ebbing
away over that time as people accept/tolerate the site or move
away.
ƒ This will be dependent on the how well run the power plant is
and how well community complaints are handled.
Infectious diseases
Non-infectious/chronic
diseases
ƒ Levels of infectious disease are low and
likely to remain so though there sexual
health is a priority area for the local health
and social services boards.
ƒ Levels of chronic disease are in line with
the Northern Ireland rates, and in some
cases better with lower rates of long term
limiting illness among residents..
Page 144
~
ƒ The operation of the power plant is unlikely to cause or spread
infectious diseases to local residents.
~/-
ƒ The extent of the hazard to power plant workers will depend on
the management of the operation of the power plant; the
adherence to health and safety protocols; and availability and
use of safety equipment and protective clothing.
~
ƒ The operation of power plant is unlikely to cause noninfectious/chronic diseases to local residents.
ƒ The extent of the hazard to power plant workers will depend on
the management of the operation of the power plant; the
adherence to health and safety protocols; and availability and
use of safety equipment and protective clothing.
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
~/-
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Operation Phase
No development
Physical injury and poisoning ƒ Levels of physical injury and accidental
poisonings are low.
ƒ Levels of traffic collisions and traffic
injuries is low. See traffic assessment for
more details. At the junction of
Ballyvannon Road, Lurgan Road and
Edenturcher Road there has been 1 slight
collision involving a slight injury during the
3 year period between April 2004 and
March 2007.Between Ingrams Road and
Lurgan Road junctions there have been no
collisions over the same 3 year period.
Impact
~
Power plant development
ƒ The operation of power plant is unlikely to cause physical injury
or poisoning to local residents.
ƒ There is a potential for the additional lorry traffic to result in an
increase in road traffic collisions. This will depend on whether a
route strategy and timetable for major traffic movements is
developed for each proposed new residual treatment power
plant. Children are likely to be the most vulnerable group.
ƒ Some workers may be injured during the operation of the power
plant from falls, falling objects, collisions, etc.
ƒ There are also likely to be some hazardous substances on-site.
This again is likely to be a greater hazard for power plant
workers than for residents in the surrounding area.
ƒ The extent of the hazard to power plant workers will depend on
the management of the operation of the power plant; the
adherence to health and safety protocols; safe storage and
usage of chemical; and availability and use of safety equipment
and protective clothing.
ƒ There is a potential for an operational failure leading to an
increase in emissions. The facility is designed to fail-safe so that
plant failure leads to the whole process being stopped and there
will also be continual internal monitoring and regular inspections
by the Environment and Heritage Service.
ƒ A serious incident plan for an operational failure event would be
important in dealing with any such eventualities. This should
involve the emergency services and the Environmental and
Heritage Service.
Page 145
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Impact
without
mitigation
~/-
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Operation Phase
No development
Mental health and wellbeing ƒ There is an existing rendering plant which
has caused some nuisance impacts
particularly in relation to odour and noise
among residents living immediately
adjacent to the plant.
Impact
~/-
Power plant development
ƒ The operation of the power plant is likely to give rise to some
nuisance effects for people living close to the site e.g. noise,
dust, traffic and visual impacts.
Impact
without
mitigation
-/--
ƒ Additionally, there is worry, anxiety, anger in some residents
these and, in the longer term, stigma can lead to psycho-social
stress and mental health and wellbeing effects which in turn
leads to significant psycho-social stress at a level to generate
physical symptoms. This would be in the context of already
having an industrial facility in the area the existing rendering
plant which has been operating for many years.
ƒ Levels of mental health and wellbeing are
good, perceived good health is high and
deprivation is low.
ƒ The design of the site does include creating flora and fauna
barriers to reduce the visual impact of the plant and to increase
the biodiversity of the site after the construction phase. Though
there will be an 80m stack.
ƒ This is likely to be exacerbated if the power plant is poorly
managed and complaints are not handled well.
ƒ Power plant workers can have psycho-social stress related to
their work depending on the quality of the contractors used and
the terms and conditions under which they are employed.
Population profile
ƒ The population of Northern Ireland is
predicted to grow by 4% between 2006 ad
2011 however the Greater Belfast area is
likely to grow by only 0.4% with the West
and South of Northern Ireland growing
fastest at a rate of 8%.
ƒ It is likely that the population around the
proposed development site will grow at the
rate of the Greater Belfast area.
Page 146
~
ƒ The operation of the power plant may lead to a small increase in
population in the local area if power plant workers are recruited
from outside the local area and outside commuting distance
(within 1 hours travel).
ƒ However, the overall number of likely new jobs is small and
therefore any population increase will be negligible.
ƒ Increases in population can be seen as either a positive or a
negative depending on the local community and the
characteristics and behaviour of the incoming residents.
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
~
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Operation Phase
Employment & economy
No development
ƒ Employment in Northern Ireland has been
on a slightly rising trend over the last fivesix years with unemployment also on a
declining trend. However over the last year
unemployment has started to increase and
employment rates have plateaued.
Impact
~/-
ƒ In relation to the wider economy the plant will become a new
source of renewable energy, provide safe disposal at no cost to
local and regional poultry farmers of poultry bedding and avoid
potential fines from the European Commission.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
~
ƒ It is unlikely that there will be pressure on local housing and
accommodation because of the operation of the power plant
from workers being recruited from outside the local area and
moving nearer to the facility.
ƒ There may be some downward pressure on local house prices
for houses immediately adjacent to the proposed power plant
however given the existing rendering plant this is likely to be
small. The predominant influence on house prices is likely to be
regional and national trends.
ƒ Given the overall rise in house prices across Northern Ireland
any reduction is unlikely to impact on the economic wellbeing of
local residents. It is more likely that prices will not rise at the
same rate as previously.
Page 147
+/++
ƒ There will also be additional passing trade for existing shops
and retail amenities from power plant workers. This is likely to
be small.
ƒ Employment in the area is high though
there is some persistent unemployment in
some age groups.
ƒ There are no major housing developments
planned in the area but small scale new
housing is likely to continue in the area.
ƒ It is likely that only some of the operation related employment
will go to people in the locality of the power plant.
Impact
without
mitigation
ƒ The above will depend on the availability of local people with the
relevant skills and whether the recruitment drive proactively
focuses on recruiting locally.
ƒ It is likely that trends in Glenavy and
Crumlin wards will follow national trends.
Housing and accommodation ƒ Housing and accommodation are of good
quality and there is a high proportion of
home owners in the area.
Power plant development
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
~/-
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Operation Phase
Transport and connectivity
No development
ƒ The road network is relatively poor and the
public transport network is also poor.
Impact
~
ƒ Access to services is particular issue
though most people in the area have, or
have access to, a car or van.
Power plant development
ƒ There is unlikely to be any direct effects on people’s access to
private and public transport.
Impact
without
mitigation
-
ƒ There will be lorry traffic and this will have some impact on the
movement of private and public transport vehicles. The
estimated increase in lorry traffic is small though the lorries are
likely to be larger. See EIA – traffic assessment
ƒ No major transport infrastructure is
planned in the area.
ƒ There may be some physical severance and a reduction in
physical activity and time spent outdoors for older people and
children as local roads are seen to be dangerous and difficult to
cross.
It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
ƒ The lorry traffic will increase the amount of vehicle emissions
however to a small extent but these are unlikely to cause
physical health effects on local residents or power plant
workers.
ƒ This will also be dependent on whether the lorries are using
engines that use alternative fuels such as liquid petroleum gas.
Education and learning
ƒ There are a number of schools in the area.
ƒ There are high numbers of young people
but the projections for population growth
are low.
ƒ There is unlikely to be any disruption to existing local schools.
~
ƒ Crime in the area is relatively low.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
Page 148
~/+
ƒ There is an opportunity for wider education of the local
community on waste issues if environmental awareness and
education programmes are developed for local residents and
school children.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
Crime and safety
ƒ Power plant workers employed on the site are likely to gain
experience and on-the-job training.
~
ƒ There is unlikely to be any increase in crime because of the
operation of the power plant.
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
~
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Operation Phase
No development
Impact
ƒ There is unlikely to be any disruption to access to health and
social care services.
Health & social care services ƒ Health and social care services are good.
ƒ Access to services is an issue for some
local people.
Power plant development
~
It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
Impact
without
mitigation
~/-
ƒ There may be some minor effects on local health and social
care services as injured or unwell construction workers on site
will use local hospitals and primary care centres.
ƒ Women who are pregnant and women/couples trying to become
pregnant may become concerned about the possible health
effects of the power plant and its emissions on their unborn
child. They may raise these issues with their
GP/obstetrician/midwife.
Shops and other retail
amenities
ƒ There are some shops and retail amenities
in Glenavy and Crumlin villages.
ƒ These are likely to continue to operate.
Page 149
~
ƒ There is likely to be a no or a very small positive impact on local
shops and amenities from passing trade from power plant
workers.
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
~
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Operation Phase
No development
Social capital and community ƒ Social capital and community cohesion are
relatively good in the area.
cohesion
ƒ There are a diverse range of community
activities and social clubs in the area for
younger and older people.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
Impact
~
Power plant development
ƒ The operation of power plant given that there is local protest
and concern about the facility could have a positive or negative
impact on the social capital and cohesion of local residents in
the area.
ƒ Over the short term, community protest can bring people
together and increase social capital and cohesion however over
the longer term the negative context, the different views of
residents and the sense of helplessness tends to breakdown
social capital and cohesion.
ƒ Around 5 years into the operational phase it is likely that local
people will have come to a) accept the facility because the
impacts are not as great as they feared; b) tolerate the facility in
the sense that they still dislike it and don’t want it in their
neighbourhood but having no choice except to move out have
learnt to live with the facility; and c) have moved out of the area.
ƒ The two important negative effects on social capital tend to be:
ƒ A sense of unfairness, inequity and helplessness in having to
live with the costs/negatives of the facility while the wider
society/community benefits.
ƒ The sense of stigma that they and their communities are
‘rubbish’ because they have a facility using waste near them.
This can create a sense of ‘us’ who live with the negatives of
facility and ‘them’ who do not and cuts people off both from
other residents, especially those who may support or don’t mind
the facility, and the wider society/community.
ƒ This will depend on:
ƒ how well complaints are handled and dealt with and
ƒ how much influence local residents have over the operation of
the facility.
Page 150
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Impact
without
mitigation
-/--
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Operation Phase
Culture and leisure
No development
ƒ There are some cultural and leisure
amenities in the area. The main focus for
these however is in the major urban
centres of Lisburn, Antrim and Belfast.
Impact
~
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
~
ƒ No other major developments are being
proposed in the area at the moment.
Energy and waste
ƒ Current energy generation and distribution
and waste disposal methods will continue
to be in place. There is likely to be a
greater move towards energy efficiency
and more recycling in the future.
ƒ Existing culture and leisure facilities are unlikely to be affected
by the operation of the power plant and associated traffic.
ƒ There is unlikely to be any disruption of movement due to the
traffic. See EIA – traffic assessment.
~
-/--
ƒ This will be dependent on a how the traffic is managed and the
development of a route strategy for power plant traffic.
~
ƒ Poultry bedding and meat and bone meal will be disposed of in
a safe way.
ƒ Energy will be recovered from a renewal energy source.
ƒ There will be a reduced need for landfills and land spreading.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends..
Page 151
Impact
without
mitigation
ƒ Operation traffic may lead to a reduction in children’s outdoor
play as parents/guardians see local roads as more dangerous.
Though there is existing and long standing lorry traffic moving
into and out of the area around the proposed development site.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
Lifestyle and daily routines
Power plant development
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
++/+++
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Operation Phase
No development
Land and spatial
ƒ No other developments are forecast at this
time.
ƒ It is likely that there will be no change from
existing trends.
Impact
~
Power plant development
ƒ The power plant will reduce the visual amenity and aesthetic of
the neighbourhood immediately adjacent to the power plant.
See EIA – landscape and visual impact assessment.
ƒ Prices for local farmland could be reduced. Though this is
difficult to assess it is likely to be in line with the patterns for
local house prices and the national and international prices for
agricultural produce. It is unlikely that reductions would be
significant given the longstanding existence of the rendering
plant.
ƒ Some greenfield land will be used.
ƒ Water from the local river is likely to be used as coolant.
ƒ Proximity to areas designated as Sites of Local Nature
Conservation Importance and Areas of High Scenic Value.
ƒ Potential to affect flora and fauna in local rivers and the Lough
due to the intake and discharge of water coolant in the plant.
See EIA – ecology assessment.
ƒ The disposal of bottom and fly ash will need to be appropriately
disposed of e.g. to landfill.
ƒ The design of the site does include creating flora and fauna
barriers to reduce the visual impact of the plant and to increase
the biodiversity of the site after the construction phase.
Page 152
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Impact
without
mitigation
--/---
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Decommissioning Phase (25 years after the construction phase)
Decommissioning Phase
Overall
No development
ƒ Difficult to predict changes in health and
wellbeing 25 years into the future.
ƒ Likely to be similar to current trends.
ƒ With advances in health living, health and
social care, etc life expectancy and health
and wellbeing are likely to remain high.
ƒ Climate change would be an important
factor.
Impact
~/+
Power plant development
ƒ This is dependent on whether another facility is built of a similar
nature.
ƒ If the plant is decommissioned and the land returned back to
pasture with the appropriate remediation of the land then this
will be a positive.
ƒ If the plant is refurbished or re-built then the impacts will be
similar to the operational phase.
ƒ It is likely that technology will have moved on as will have
agricultural practice.
ƒ Having a clear plan of what will be done in either scenario would
be important to ensure health and wellbeing are safeguarded.
Page 153
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200
Impact
without
mitigation
~
Rose Energy Project: Health Impact Assessment with Human Health Risk Assessment
Page 154
Strategic Consulting Report: 644-00200