NCD000813592_20000607_GA-Pacific Corp Hdwd Saw_FRBCERCLA RISK_Draft Baseline Riks Assessment for Human Health-OCR

g
u
ll
D
D
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
Response Action Contract .
For Remedial, Enforcement Oversight, and Non-lime
Critical Removal Activities at Sites of Release or
Threatened Release of Hazardous Substances
In EPA Region VIII
U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-WS-0022
Draft
Baseline Risk Assessment For
Human Health
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Plymouth, North Carolina
Work Assignment No.: 027-RICO-04RF
Document Control No.: 3280-027-RT-RISK-05358
June 7, 2000
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
Prepared by:
COM Federal Programs Corporation
2030 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 490
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
I
6
D
g,
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
Response Action Contract
For Remedial, Enforcement Oversight, and Non-time
Critical Removal Activities at Sites of Release or
Threatened Release of Hazardous Substances
In EPA Region VIII
U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-WS-0022
Draft
Baseline Risk Assessment for
Human Health
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Plymouth, North Carolina
Work Assignment No.: 027-
Prepared by,//{~ BiJ?-f Date: (, /1 loo
r1 Michael Profit
~ssessor /J .i . . +
Reviewed by: :-1. ! ' ~ I I,,'
Brenda eatty
T'al Reviewer /1 / •. __ . ·-
Approved by: D~ P. ~
Gary P. Clemons, Ph.D.
Region 4 Program Manager
Date:
Date:
II
D
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Contents
Section 1 Introduction
1.1
1.2
Site History .................................................... 1-1
Report Organization .............................................. 1-2
Section2
2.1
2.2
2.3
Section 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
Section 4
4.1
4.2
4.3
Section 5
Section6
Section 7
Section 8
Section 9
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.1
7.2
7.3
Appendices
Remedial Investigation and Confirmation Sampling Summary
Soil
Surface Water and Sediment ...................................... .
Groundwater .................................................. .
Data Evaluation
Data Quality Assessment ......................................... .
Data Grouping ................................................. .
Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern ...................... .
Exposure Assessment
Environmental Setting ........................................... .
Identification of Exposure Pathways ............................... .
Quantification of Exposure ....................................... .
Toxicity Assessment
Risk Characterization
Current Use Risk Summary ....................................... .
Future Use Risk Summary ........................................ .
Exposure to Lead ............................................... .
Exposure to Radionuclides ....................................... .
Un'certainty Analysis
Uncertainties Related to Groundwater Data ...........................
Uncertainties Related to Exposure Assessment ....................... .
Uncertainties Related to Toxicity Information ....... , ................ . . . . . ..
Remedial Goal Options
References
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
RAGS Part D Standard Format Tables
Example Calculations
Toxicological Profiles of Chemicals of Potential Concern
Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model Results
Calculations of Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options
CDM Federal Program1 Corporation
2-1
2-1
2-4
3-1
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-3
4-5
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-3
7-1
7-1
7-2
ii
0
D
m
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figures
2-1 On-Site Soil Sampling Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
2-2 Surface Water and Sediment Sample Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
2-3 Groundwater Sample Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
4-1 Conceptual Site Model ................................................. 4-4
Tables
I (a)
I (b)
II
III
IV
Chemicals of Potential Concern in Soil -Pre-Excavation 3-5
Chemicals of Potential Concern in Soil -Post-Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Chemicals of Potential Concern in Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Chemicals of Potential Concern in Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
Chemicals of Concern in Soil (Post-Excavation) and Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
CDM Federal Program, Co,poration iii
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·' I
I
i
I
I
I
I
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADD
ARAR
ATSDR
BRA-HH
CDMFederal
CERCLA
coc
COPC
CSF
EPA
HEAST
HI
HQ
IRIS
kg
L
LADD
MCL
mg
µg
NCEA
NCP
NPL
PAH
PCB
ppm
QA
RAGS
RI
RCRA
RID
RGO
RME
SESD
SMCL
SQL
SVOC
TAL
TCL
UCL
voe
Average daily dose
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Baseline Risk Assessment-Human Health
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
Chemical of Concern
Chemical Of Potential Concern
Cancer slope factor
Environmental Protection Agency
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
Hazard Index
Hazard Quotient
Integrated Risk Information System
Kilogram
Liter
Lifetime average daily dose
Maximum Contaminant Level
Milligram
Microgram
National Center for Environmental Assessment
National Contingency Plan
National Priority List
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
Polychlorinated biphenyl
Parts per million
Quality assurance
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
Remedial Investigation
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Reference dose
Remedial Goal Option
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Science and Ecosystems Support Division
Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
Sample quantitation limit
Semi-volatile organic compound
Target Analyte List
Target Compound List
Upper confidence limit
Volatile organic compound
CDM Fedcr.tl Progrnnu Co,poration iv
• I
I
I
I
I
I' ·,
I
I
I
I
Section 1
Introduction
This report is the Baseline Risk Assessment for Human Health (BRA-HH) for the
Georgia-Pacific (GP) Site in Plymouth, North Carolina. A screening-level ecological
risk assessment is presented as a separate document. The BRA-HH is an analysis of
the potential risks to human health caused by hazardous substances released from a
site in the absence of any additional actions to control or mitigate the releases.
Preparation of a BRA-HH is specified in the National Contingency Plan (NCP) which
states that the lead agency for a Superfund site shall conduct a site-specific BRA-HH
as part of the remedial investigation process (EPA 1990). Preparation of a screening-
level ERA is specified in EPA guidance for conducting ecological risk assessments
under Superfund (EPA 1997a). The screening-level ERA is a streamlined process that
has one of two outcomes: either the site poses no risk to ecological receptors or
further evaluation is necessary. If further evaluation is necessary, a scientific/
management decision point is reached. Stakeholders then meet, consider the
conclusions reached in the screening-level ERA, and determine the data that will be
gathered to prepare a Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment.
1.1 Site History
The Site was originally owned and operated by the Atlas Plywood Company. There
is no information regarding Atlas's operations and waste management practices.
Georgia-Pacific reportedly bought the facility in 1950, and operated the facility until
1980. Site operations involved debarking, sawing, and planing rough hardwood
timber from logs. Surface treatment of some finished lumber took place using a
conveyor belt and dip vat. The sawmill facility was permanently closed after a 1983
fire destroyed the sawmill. Georgia-Pacific sold the property to Decatur Partnerships,
and the Site was leased to Outerbanks Contractors who used a portion of the Site as
an asphalt plant.
The wood treating process at the Site involved passing wood through a dip vat
located on a conveyor system, where the wood was surface coated with preservatives
and/ or insecticides. After treatment, the wood was reportedly allowed to drip dry
directly onto the ground or onto concrete pads before being placed in the lumber
storage areas. The dip vat solutions contained pentachloropheneate, sodium
metaborate, lindane, and other chlorophenol compounds. Other process wastes
associated with the facility included spent oil containing metals (DOOl-ignitable,
D007-chromium, D008-lead) spent halogenated degreasing solvents (FOOl) spent non-
halogenated degreasing solvents (F003/F005), and bottom sediment sludge from the
treatment of wastewater from the wood treating process (KOOl). The amount of waste
generated on a yearly basis by Georgia-Pacific was estimated to be 20,000 pounds of
D001/D007 /DOOB waste, 375 pounds of F001/F003/F005 wastes, and 16,300 pounds
of KOOl waste.
In 1998, EPA's Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD), Environmental
Compliance Branch, Hazardous Waste Section conducted a remedial investigation
(Rl). The goals were to:
COM Federal Programs Corporation 1-1
I
a
II
i
I
I ,,
I
I . _,
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
•
•
•
Determine the nature of, and the areal and vertical extent of contamination
(waste types, concentrations, and distributions) in soils, sediments, surface
water, groundwater, and local biota at the Georgia-Pacific Site;
Locate the source(s) of contamination associated with the Site;
Determine the hydraulic characteristics and contaminant transport
mechanisms of the underlying aquifer at the Site;
• Evaluate the potential migration rates and pathways of Site contaminants;
and
• Determine the potential receptors of groundwater contamination by
performing a well/ water use survey within a 1-rnile radius of the Site.
1.2 Report Organization
This report builds on the findings of the RI and provides a quantitative and
qualitative understanding of the actual and potential risks to human health posed by
the Site if no further remediation or institutional controls are applied. Together with
the screening-level ecological risk assessment, it will be used to:
• Determine whether further remedial action is necessary, and
• Establish remediation goals if further remedial action is necessary .
This report follows the suggested outline for a baseline risk assessment report,
Exhibit 9-1 in U.S. EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human
Health Evaluation Manual, Interim Final (RAGS) (EPA 1989a). Tables are presented in
standard format according to U.S. EPA' s Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund,
Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting,
and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments) (EPA 1997b). Below is a brief description of
each section.
• Section 2 is the RI summary. The scope and the principal findings of the
investigation are discussed.
•
•
•
Section 3 is the data evaluation. Analytical data obtained from the
investigation are tabulated, showing the occurrence and distribution of
chemicals. From this list of organic and inorganic substances present at the
Site, the most significant in terms of toxicity, concentration, and frequency of
occurrence are selected as chemicals of potential concern (COPCs).
Section 4 is the exposure assessment. Potential exposure points and migration
pathways are identified. Exposure point concentrations and exposure doses
are calculated. Uncertainties associated with the exposure assessment are
discussed.
Section 5 is the toxicity assessment. EPA toxicity values for each of the CO PCs
are presented.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 1-2
•
•
•
•
Section 6 is the risk characterization. The results of the data evaluation,
exposure assessment, and toxicity assessment are combined to calculate an
estimate of the risks to human health posed by chemicals at the Site.
Section 7 is the uncertainty analysis .
Section 8 presents the Remedial Goal Options .
Section 9 is the list of references used in the human health evaluation .
CDM Federal Programs Co.-poration 1-3
I
I
j
I
I
I
'I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 2
Remedial Investigation and Confirmation
Sampling Summary
Data used in this risk assessment were obtained from the RI conducted by the EPA in
the summer and fall of 1998 and the confirmation sampling conducted by the PRP
following the Removal Action. The Removal Action took place from August through
November 1999. Summaries of these investigations are presented below.
2.1 Soil
EPA collected surface soil samples from 55 on-Site grids (Grids 1 through 13 and
Grids 15 through 56) and 14 off-Site grids. All samples were analyzed for volatile and
extractable organic compounds, pesticides, PCBs and metals. Approximately 80
percent of the surface soil samples and 20 percent of the subsurface soil samples were
analyzed for dioxin/ dibenzofuran. Sample locations may be found in Figure 2-1.
Subsequently, Georgia-Pacific Corporation planned and implemented an EPA-
approved Removal Action. Several Site structures were demolished and 13,096 tons
of soil and demolition debris were disposed of off-Site at RCRA Subtitle C or D land
disposal facilities. A description of the work may be found in the "Removal Action
Summary Report, Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site, Plymouth, North Carolina," (BBL
Environmental Services 1999).
Among the areas that were excavated were Grids 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, and 49.
Samples were collected from the surface of each excavated grid and analyzed for the
constituents of concern in that grid. The following is a list of the analyses that were
performed:
• Grid 39 -arsenic, chromium, and hexavalent chromium
• Grid 40 -polychlorinated dibenzo dioxins/ polychlorinated dibenzo furans
(PCDDs/PCDFs) and pentachlorophenol
• Grid 41 -PCDDs/PCDFs
• Grid 44 -polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
• Grid 46-PCDDs/PCDFs and lead
• Grid 47 -arsenic
• Grid 49 -arsenic
The excavations were backfilled with clean soil after the analytical results indicated
that the soil in the bottom of the excavated grid did not contain constituents
exceeding the Site-specific removal action levels.
2.2 Surface Water and Sediment
Sediment and surface water samples (where present) were collected at seven
locations from the drainage ditch that surrounds the Site. Samples were collected at
600 foot intervals as shown in Figure 2-2. Sediment samples were analyzed for
CDM Federal Program, Cmporation 2-1
I
I
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
/
'
. Roanoke River
' I
' I
19
15
I, B /l ,
' r ·L I' 11, , ,✓
I
I
/
23
North
A il
,00
SCALE IN FEET
.
I
22 I
• \""•-=•,-=,:;-.;;;---------------------2-1---------L-,g-,-•• -,--------~
Figure -
aiEPA Onsite Soil Sampling Locations
Georgia-Pacific Han:lwoods
Plymouth, North Carolina
• • • • R•lh,ad
RNd,
, ............ OUchH
,IQ TlffLln•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JI
I
Intermittent Draina9'1
Roa.noke.River
,
dook /
. )r ·. · ~···::; \·;~·.:~rr ~;·_.-✓,
. ;; ?i.1; ii\:-~/';' ·>,~ ~'."":f/,.,
. ¼ .-~
/
,
/
/
Boiler Hour.e ·~,ks
Machine Shop
~ r'.
ti[
Intermittent Drainage
,~
~; 1/~,,..·
~. 3
-~:..--~lntermrttentDrainage
,, NAorth
. .
0
SCALE IN FEET
200
,3l===:-------------~;::~;-------.:~~;;---·~ Logond,
' 2 2 ----'"'""'' "·-•·•-,-· Figure -. 'N"
Sediment and Surfa~e \Nater ............ Ditdsea ~EPA Sampling Locations fll Tr-..Lin•
Georgia-Pacific Ha~ods •
Plymouth, North Carolina
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 2
Remedial Investigation and Confirmation Sampling Summary
volatile and extractable organic compounds, pesticides, PCBs and metals and
dioxin/ dibenzofuran. Surface water samples were analyzed for volatile and
extractable organic compounds, pesticides, PCBs and metals.
2.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was collected from five temporary wells and nine permanent
monitoring wells as shown in Figure 2-3. Samples were analyzed for volatile and
extractable organic compounds, pesticides, PCBs and metals.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 2--4
0
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Intermittent Drainage
Roanoke River _ ·
19
0
dock ,,,
4,a -✓~o
0
0 1
/
:,,,,
.,,/ 62
/ 0
/
Boiler House
~SI""
Machine Shop
~
/
0
23
Intermittent Drainage
NAorth
. .
"' "" SCALE IN FEET
~L==;-,;;;;;------------------~~-:-::-:-:~:----------LL,;,.;.;;; ••• ,;-----------
---·-·-~ Figure 2-3 •••• '""'''
&EPA Temporary Well Locations
Georgia•Pacific Hardwoods
Plymouth, North Carolina
Road,
, ........... DHchH
r/'I Tr-Lin•
QI T1mp0ruy \A/911
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 3
Data Evaluation
This section details the steps that were taken to identify the chemicals that will be
quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment. This involves an assessment of data
quality, identification of the sample points that will be part of the assessment, and
screening the data set to identify COPCs.
3.1 Data Quality Assessment
The SESD of EPA conducted an RI in the summer and fall of 1998. This investigation
was designed to gather information to:
1) define the nature and extent of soil, surface water, sediment and groundwater
contarnination,and
2) aid in the development of remedial alternatives that may be necessary to
address any threat identified by the investigation.
To achieve these goals, a quality assurance (QA) plan was implemented, beginning in
the planning stage and continuing through sample collection, analyses, reporting and
final review. The RI report (in draft) discusses the QA protocols that were followed to
insure that samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with standard
operating procedures. Through these efforts, it may be concluded that the data that
were obtained are of sufficient quality to use in a baseline risk assessment
3.2 Data Grouping
It is often necessary to divide chemical data from a particular medium into
subgroups based on the location of the sample points and the potential exposure
pathways. For example, when evaluating data for the assessment of soil contact
exposures, samples collected from areas where direct contact is not realistic should •
not be considered when estimating exposure concentrations. For the assessment of
groundwater exposures, samples collected from distinct aquifers should be
considered separately. This section explains the groupings that were made for each
medium and the rationale for their selection.
3.21 Soil Subgroups
EPA's field work for the RI was conducted in the summer and fall of 1998. Surface
soil samples were collected from 55 on-Site grids (Grids 1 through 13 and Grids 15
through 56) and 14 off-Site grids. These samples represented the interval from 0
inches to 6 inches below ground surface and were collected as five-point composites.
Subsequently, Georgia-Pacific Corporation planned and implemented an EPA-
approved Removal Action. Several Site structures were demolished and 13,096 tons
of soil and demolition debris were disposed of off-Site at RCRA Subtitle C or D land
disposal facilities. A description of the work may be found in the "Removal Action
Summary Report, Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site, Plymouth, North Carolina," (BBL
Environmental Services 1999).
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 3-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 3
Data Evaluation
Among the areas that were excavated were Grids 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, and 49. As
described in the "Removal Action Summary Report," confirmation sampling was
conducted for a limited number of parameters in the excavated grids. Thus, for some
parameters in Grids 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, and 49, there are two results: one for pre-
excavation and one for post-excavation.
This document examines both the pre-and post-excavation Site conditions. For the
pre-excavation analysis, surface soil data from Grids 1 through 13 and Grids 15
through 56 were used to evaluate direct contact exposure in the former process area.
For the post-excavation analysis, the results from the confirmation sampling were
substituted for the pre-excavation results. Note that the confirmation sampling suite
of analytes was much reduced compared to the data collected for the RI; thus, for
most analytes, the pre-and post-excavation result is the same. This may tend to
overstate the degree of contamination in the post-excavation soil, but lacking
analytical evidence to the contrary, it was felt that this was the prudent choice.
Off Site grid locations were not included in the calculations in this assessment. The
reason for this is that too few samples were collected from these off Site locations (in
some cases, only a single sample) to know with confidence the levels (if any) of
contaminants in these areas. Despite their exclusion from the surface soil data set,
analytical results from all grids will be considered in the Feasibility Study where the
extent of contamination above clean-up goals is presented. At that time, potential
problem areas will be identified which may prompt an expansion of the
investigation to more fully characterize these off Site locations.
3.2.2 Groundwater Subgroups
According to EPA Region 4 guidance, exposure point concentrations for groundwater
are to be based on the results from wells in the center of the plume. However, in this
case there is no discemable plume, so all wells were considered. Exposure point
concentrations for future groundwater users were based on an average of the
concentrations in the following fourteen wells: permanent monitoring wells MWl-9
and temporary monitoring wells TW24, TW29, TW49, TW51, and TW54.
3.23 Surface Water Subgroups
Three surface water samples were collected from the drainage ditch that surrounds
the Site. Samples SW3, SW4, and SW7 comprise the data set that was used to
evaluate direct contact exposure to surface water. As indicated previously, human
exposure to sediment was not evaluated because the sediments are covered by water
most of the time. Contamination (if any) in sediment will be evaluated in the
screening-level ecological risk assessment.
3.3 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern
Chemicals of potential concern (CO PCs) are chemicals whose data are of sufficient
quality for use in the quantitative risk assessment, are potentially Site-related, and
represent the most significant contaminants in terms of potential toxicity to humans.
As noted above, except for a small number of samples, the laboratory analyses were
of sufficient quality for use in a Baseline Risk Assessment. The remaining steps in the
COPC identification process are described below.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 3
Data Evaluation
First, the data were summarized to show all inorganic and organic chemicals that
were positively identified in at least one sample. Included in this group were
unqualified results and results that were qualified with a "J" which means the
chemical was present but the concentration was estimated. These values were listed
as actual detected concentrations which may have the effect of under-or over-
estimating the actual concentration. Tentatively identified compounds (qualified with
an "N") were included if there was reason to believe that they were present. For
example, if a compound was positively identified in other locations, the tentative
identification was considered sufficient.
Next, the laboratory data were segregated by medium and tabulated to show the
occurrence and distribution of chemicals in surface soil, groundwater, and surface
water. Each table shows the range of detections above the sample quantitation limit
(SQL), the number of detections above the SQL, and the number of samples that were
collected.
Finally, these positively identified chemicals were screened to exclude chemicals that,
although present, are not important in terms of potential human health effects. The
screening criteria fall into two categories:
1. Inorganics that are essential nutrients or are normal components of human
diets were excluded. Calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium were
excluded because they are essential nutrients, with no known toxic effects at
any relevant dosage level; and
2. Inorganic and organic chemicals whose maximum concentration was lower
than a preliminary remedial goal concentration corresponding to an excess
cancer risk level of 1 x lo-6 or a Hazard Quotient (HQ) level of 0.1, as
determined by EPA Region IX toxicologists using residential land use
assumptions, were excluded (EPA 2000).
The screening criteria for surface water fall into two categories:
1. lnorganics that are essential nutrients or are normal components of human
diets were excluded. Calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium were
excluded because they are essential nutrients, with no known toxic effects at
any relevant dosage level; and
2. Inorganic and organic chemicals whose maximum concentration was lower
than the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Priority Toxic
Pollutants, Human Health for Consumption of Water and Organisms were
excluded (EPA 1999a). If no value was listed in this document, a PRG for
groundwater corresponding to an excess cancer risk level of 1 x lo-6 or a
Hazard Quotient (HQ) level of 0.1 was used as a screening tool. Constituents
whose maximum concentration were less than the Region IX PRG were
excluded (EPA 2000). Any member of a chemical class that has other members
that exceed the screening criteria (e.g., PAHs) were retained in the risk
assessment even if the concentration did not exceed the criteria.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 3-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·O
I
I
I
I
I
Section 3
Data Evaluation
Tables 2.1 through 2.3 show the screening level (if applicable) for each chemical, and
whether the chemical is a COPC for that medium. For each chemical, an explanation .
code is provided to indicate the reason for a chemical's inclusion or exclusion from
the COPC list. Note that for Table 2.1, which shows the occurrence and distribution
of contaminants in soil, an "a" and a "b" table were created. The "a" table represents
the pre-excavation results, and "b" represents post-excavation results. This same
convention is used for all other tables that display soil data or risk calculations.
Tables 2.1 through 2.3 may be found in Appendix A.
Tables I through III, numbered using Roman numerals to distinguish them from
standard format tables in Appendix A, summarize the COPCs in soil, surface water,
and groundwater. Tables in Appendix A are numbered according to a standard
scheme specified in EPA' s Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human
Health Evaluation Manual, (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of
Superfund Risk Assessments) (EPA 1997b).
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 3-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table I (a)
Chemicals of Potential Concern in Soil • Pre-Excavation
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Minimum Maximum Rationale for
Chemical Concentration/ Concentration/ Units Contaminant ,
Qualifier 1 Qualifier 1 Selection 2 I
I 40 J 1800 Benzo(a)anthracene J ug/kg ASL
! Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 41 J 2600 J ug/kg ASL I Benzo( a )pyrene 55 J 1600 J ug/kg ASL
Chrysene / 43 J 2300 -ug/kg Class
Dibenzo( a, h )anthracene 75 J 75 J ug/kg ASL I lndeno (1,2,3'cd) pyrene 68 J 540 J ug/kg Class
I 1100 J 12000 Pentachlorophenol -ug/kg ASL
I PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) 78 -1000 -ug/kg ASL
I PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 78 -1100 -ug/kg ASL I
Dioxin TEO 0.0016 -28 -ug/kg ASL
Aluminunf 1300 -9300 -mg/kg ASL
Arsenic I 0.94 J 59 -mg/kg ASL
Barium 8.2 -930 -mg/kg ASL
Chromium 2.2 -270 -mg/kg ASL
Iron / 2500 J 47000 -mg/kg ASL
Manganese 21 -2500 -mg/kg ASL
Nickel I 0.65 J 170 -mg/kg ASL
Silver 250 -250 -mg/kg ASL
Total Mercury 0.15 -0.86 -ma/ka ASL
Footnotes:
1. Minimum/maximum detected concentration in Grids 1 -13 and 15 -56. "J" is estimated value. "-"
is a result that did not require qualification.
2. Rationale Codes
ASL -Above screening level
Class -Member of class that is a COPC
CDM Federal Program, Coq,oration 3-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
Table I (b)
Chemicals of Potential Concern in Soil • Post-Excavation
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
I Minimum Maximum
Chemical/ Concentration/ Concentration/ Units
Qualifier' Qualifier'
I 40 J 1800 J ug/kg Benzo(a)anthracene I
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 41 J 2600 J ug/kg
Benzo( a )pyren/ 55 J 1600 J ug/kg
Chrysene 43 J 2300 -ug/kg
Dibenzo( a, h )anthracene 75 J 75 J ug/kg
I 68 J 540 J ug/kg lndeno (1,2,:lCcd) pyrene
I PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) 78 -1000 -ug/kg
PCB-1260/<Aroclor 1260) 78 -1100 -ug/kg
Dioxin TEQ 0.0016 -0.86 -ug/kg
Aluminufu 1300 -9300 -mg/kg
Arsenic/ 0.94 J 58 -mg/kg
Bariun{ 8.2 -930 -mg/kg
Chro~ium 2.2 -53 -mg/kg
Iron/ 2500 J 47000 -mg/kg
Manganese 21 -2500 -mg/kg
I Nickel 0.65 J 170 -mg/kg
I
Silver 250 -250 -mg/kg
Total Mercury 0.15 -0.86 -mg/ka
Footnotes:
Rationale for
Contaminant
Selection 2
ASL
ASL
ASL
Class
ASL
Class
ASL
ASL
ASL
ASL
ASL
ASL
ASL
ASL
ASL
ASL
ASL
ASL
1. Minimum/maximum detected concentration in Grids 1 -13 and 15 -56. "J" is estimated value. "-"
is a result that did not require qualification. Data from post-excavation confirmation samples for
Grids 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47 and 49 substituted for pre-excavation results.
2. Rationale Codes
ASL -Above screening level
Class -Member of class that is a COPC
CDM Federal Program, Corporation 3-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table II
Chemicals of Potential Concern in Surface Water
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Minimum Maximum
Chemical Concentration/ Concentration/ Units
Qualifier 1 Qualifier 1
Arsenic 27 -310 -ug/1
Bariu1 49 -260 -ug/1
Iron 7600 -14000 -ug/1
Manganese 360 -3000 -ug/1
I Acetone 160 J 160 J ug/1
Fo6tnotes:
Rationale for
Contaminant
Selection 2
ASL
ASL
ASL
ASL
ASL
1. Minimum/maximum detected concentration in: SW3, SW4, SW7. "J" is an
estimated value. "." is a result that did not require qualification.
2. Rationale Codes
ASL -Above screening level
Class -Member of class that is a COPC
CDM Federal Programs Coq,oration 3-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table Ill
Chemicals of Potential Concern in Groundwater
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Minimum Maximum
Chemical Concentration/ Concentration/
Qualifier 1 Qualifier 1
2-Methylnaphthalene 3 J 3 J
Aluminum 660 -24000 -
Arsenic 5 J 990 -
Barium 30 -590 -
Chromium 2 J 31 -
Iron 1400 -67000 -
Lead 28 -40 -
Manganese 62 -4700 -
Vanadium 3 J 52 -
Footnotes:
Rationale for
Units Contaminant
Selection 2
ug/1 ASL
ug/I ASL
ug/1 ASL
ugn ASL
ug/I ASL
ug/I ASL
ug/I ASL
ugn ASL
UQn ASL
1. Minimum/maximum detected concentration in: MW1-9; TW24, TW29, TW49, TW51,
TW54. "J" is an estimated value. "-" is a result that did not require qualification.
2. Rationale Codes
ASL -Above screening level
Class -Member of class that is a COPC
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 3-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 4
Exposure Assessment
An exposure assessment identifies pathways whereby receptors may be exposed to
Site contaminants and estimates the frequency, duration, and magnitude of such
exposures. Exposure assessment involves (1) characterization of the environmental
setting; (2) identification of exposure pathways; and (3) quantification of exposure.
These topics are presented below.
4.1 Environmental Setting
The information in this section was excerpted from the following document:
U.S. EPA, 1998. "Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Georgia-Pacific Hardwoods,
Plymouth, North Carolina.• August.
4.1.1 Site Description
The Site is approximately 24 acres in size, and is bounded to the north by the
Roanoke River, to the west by Atlantic Coast Railroad property, to the east by
residential properties, and to the south by the Plymouth High School and the Boy
Scouts of America property. The Site terrain is flat, low-lying with elevation
increasing south of the Site. Portions of the Site are exposed hard packed dirt, gravel,
asphalt, or concrete, while other areas are overgrown with grass, trees, and heavy
vegetation. The Site is presently unoccupied.
4.1.2 Population and Land Use
The principal land use in the immediate vicinity of the Site is residential and
institutional. The estimated population within a 4-mile radius of the Site is 7,002. The
nearest residence is located approximately 700 feet east of the Site. The Plymouth
High School is located 0.27 miles south of the Site. A Boy Scouts of America facility is
located adjacent to the Plymouth High School. The land to the north of the Site, and
immediately north of the Roanoke River, is classified as wetlands.
Access to the Site is restricted by a gate; however, there are no fences around the
property. A zone of dense woods separates the Site from the Plymouth High School,
the Boy Scouts of America facility, and residential properties. There is visual evidence
that people trespass on-Site and use the docks for recreational fishing in the Roanoke
River.
4.1.3 Area Water Use
The citizens of Plymouth have water supplied from one of three sources: the city of
Plymouth Public Works Water System, the Washington County system, or private
wells. The city and county water supplies are obtained from 4 municipal wells
located within 1-2 miles southwest of the Site. It is not known how many private or
community wells are currently being used within a four-mile radius of the Site. For
this reason, a well survey was conducted as part of the RI. There are no surface water
intakes located within a fifteen-mile surface water pathway downstream from the
Site.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 4-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.1.4 Climate
Section 4
Exposure Assessment
The climatological data for Washington County, North Carolina is representative of
the climate in the Plymouth area. Northwestern Washington County has a mean
annual precipitation of approximately 50 inches and a mean annual lake evaporation
of 41 inches. Therefore, the net annual precipitation is 9 inches. The 2-year, 24-hour
rainfall is approximately 4 inches.
4.1.S Geology
The regional geology of Washington County is characterized by complexly
interbedded sediments. The sediments are unconsolidated and consist primarily of
sand, silt, and clay transported by streams from the adjacent uplands of the
Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces. The surficial sediments at the Site are
approximately 25 feet thick, and are underlain by a confining layer which is 25 feet
thick. The primary geologic units in the Plymouth area are the Yorktown and Duplin
Formations. The Yorktown is generally characterized by fine-grained sands
interspersed with varying amounts of silt, clay, and shell beds, and sandy and silty
limestones, while the Duplin Formation contains fossiliferous sand, sandy limestone,
silty limestone, and calcareous silty sand.
On-Site soil is described as Tarboro sand. The soil in the adjacent wetlands is
described as Muckalee loams.
4.1.6 Hydrology
The Site is located immediately to the south of the Roanoke River. The Roanoke River
receives surface water from the Site through direct runoff from several on-Site
drainage ditches, as well as a drainage canal which encompasses the areas previously
used for the sawmill, wood treatment, and wood storage. The Roanoke River flows in
an northeasterly direction for approximately 6 miles, where it flows into the
Albemarle Sound, and ultimately, the Atlantic Ocean.
4.1.7 Hydrogeology
The surficial aquifer in the area of the Site is comprised of approximately 25 feet of
surficial deposits, underlain by a 25-foot confining layer. Recharge to the unconfined
surficiaJ.aquifer is from precipitation, while water discharges from the surficial
aquifer as seepage into nearby ditches, streams, estuaries, or the Atlantic Ocean.
Depth to the water table in the surficial aquifer at the Site typically varies from 3.5 to
5 feet below land surface (bis). The surficial aquifer and the 25-foot confining layer
are underlain by 40 feet of sand and marl of the Yorktown Formation. The Yorktown
Aquifer is a confined aquifer which serves as a major source of water for portions of
Washington County. The Yorktown Aquifer is underlain by the confined Pungo
Aquifer, which can be reached 90 feet below the land surface. The Yorktown Aquifer
is underlain by a 25-foot confining layer. Below this confining layer, the Castle Hayne
Aquifer can be reached at a depth of approximately 115 feet bis.
The Castle Hayne Aquifer serves as the principal source of groundwater in the
Plymouth area, and consists of porous and permeable limestone, sandy limestone,
and sand. Hydraulic conductivity values in the Castle Hayne Aquifer range from 15
COM Federal Program, Co,poration 4-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 4
Exposure Assessment
ft/ day to 200 ft/ day. The Castle Hayne Aquifer in the Plymouth area can be reached
from 150 to 180 feet bis.
4.1.8 Wildlife and Natural Resources
The Roanoke River is classified as a "Class C' river with an "Sw" supplemental
designation. Oass C waters are protected for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. A fish consumption advisory
has been in effect for a period of years along the lower Roanoke River due to elevated
levels of dioxin in fish tissue. There are extensive wetlands around the Site; however,
there are no known critical habitats of Federally-listed endangered species within the
vicinity of the Site. There are several endangered and threatened species in
Washington County, North Carolina, including the bald eagle as a state and
federally-designated endangered species, and the golden eagle and the Waccamaw
~h as state-designated endangered and threatened species.
~ Identification of Exposure Pathways
Exposure pathways are determined in a conceptual site model that incorporates
information on the potential chemical sources, release mechanisms, affected media,
potential exposure pathways, and known receptors to identify complete exposure
pathways. A pathway is considered complete if (1) there is a source or chemical
release from a source; (2) there is an exposure point where contact can occur; and (3)
there is a route of exposure ( oral, dermal, or inhalation) through which the chemical
may be taken into the body.
The conceptual site model for this assessment is presented in Figure 4-1. As seen in
Figure 4-1, the primary source of contamination at this Site is wood treating
preservatives that were released in the process area when the Site was active.
In terms of potential impacts to human health, the most significant contaminants
found were dioxins, P AHs, pentachlorophenol, and arsenic. In general, dioxins,
P AHs, pentachlorophenol resist degradation, which explains their presence several
years after operations ceased. In addition, they are relatively insoluble in water, and
thus become trapped in the soil matrix. _Once bound to soil particles in this way, they/
can be transported by storm water runoff and to a lesser extent by wind. Despite ":,
their relative insolubility, transport to groundwater is p,ossible,.as.evidenced by: the
_presence of severarCOPCs·found-intheRI~Based on this understanding of the fate
and transport of contaminants, and the potential for human contact the following
media/receptors were examined:
1. Surficial soil. Potential receptors are current and future Site visitors. In the
future, residents and/ or workers are potential receptors.
2. Air. Dust released from the soil may impact current and future Site visitors. In
the future, residents and/ or workers are potential receptors.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 4-3
---·--· -------------------
Figure 4-1
Conceptual Site Model
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Primary
Sources
Primary
Release
Process Area f---0 Leaks and ,_,.....
Spills
,
~
CDM F.deral Programs Co,poration
Secondary
Sources
Soil
Groundwater
_....,
i-,
'-I
Secondary
Release
Storm Water
Runoff
Intrusive
Actions
Fugitive Dust,
Vapors
f----t
f---+
i--
.
Media
Affected
Surface
Water/
Sediment
Soil
Air
Groundwater
I-<
I-----.
i--
f----t
Exposure
Routes
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
(Surface water)
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
Ingestion
1------t
1------t
1------t
1---t
Human
Receptors
Visitor
Visitor
Worker
Resident
Visitor
Worker
Resident
Resident
4-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 4
Exposure Assessment
3. Groundwater. Potential receptors are current nearby residents and future
residents.
4. Surface water. Potential receptors are current and future Site visitors who
wade in ditches adjacent to the Site.
Potentially complete exposure pathways examined in this risk assessment are:
• inadvertent ingestion of soil,
• dermal contact with soil,
• inhalation of dust,
• ingestion of groundwater,
• inadvertent ingestion of surface water while wading, and
• dermal contact with surface water while wading.
Note: The drainage ditches contain standing water most of the time. For this reason,
and in accordance with EPA Region IV guidance (EPA 1995), human exposure lo
sediments was not formally considered in this assessment. The COPCs in
groundwater are non-volatile; therefore, inhalation of volatiles released from
groundwater while showering was not a potentially complete exposure route. Table 1
in Appendix A graphically illustrates the exposure pathway selection process.
4.3 Quantification of Exposure
4.3.1 Exposure Point Concentrations
Reasonable maximum exposure (RME) point concentrations for soil and surface
water were calculated according to EPA Region IV guidance using the lesser of the 95
percent upper confidence limit (UCL) on the arithmetic average for a lognormal
distribution or the maximum detected value (EPA 1992 and 1995). Where a COPC
was not detected at a given location, one-half the SQL was used as a proxy
concentration; however, if both the proxy concentration and the UCL exceeded the
maximum detected value, the maximum detected value was used as the RME
concentration. The RME concentrations for CO PCs in surface soil and surface water
are presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2, respectively. An example RME calculation is
provided in Table B-1 of Appendix B. Example dose calculations for all exposure
routes may be found in Appendix B as well.
The RME concentrations for groundwater were also determined according to EPA
Region IV guidance. In this case, the arithmetic averages of the concentrations of
COPCs found in the contaminant plume were used as the RME concentrations (EPA
1995). The RME concentrations for COPCs in groundwater are presented in Table
3.3.
4.3.2 Human Intakes
Human intakes were calculated for each chemical and receptor using the RME
concentrations. Estimates of human intake, expressed in terms of mass of chemical
per unit body weight per time (mg/kg-day), were calculated differently depending
on whether the COPC is a non-carcinogen or a carcinogen. For non-carcinogens,
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 4-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 4
Exposure Assessment
intake was averaged over the duration of exposure and is referred to as the average
daily dose (ADD). For carcinogens, intake was averaged over the average lifespan of
a person (70 years) and is referred to as the lifetime average daily dose (LADD).
ADDs and LADDs were calculated using standard assumptions and professional
judgment The values used for daily intake calculations are presented in standard
format in Tables 4.lRME through 4.7RME in Appendix A.
As a measure of conservatism and to avoid redundancy, an effort was made to
identify the most sensitive receptor to calculate non-cancer hazards and excess cancer
risk levels. In the case of non-carcinogens, a child resident is the most sensitive
receptor, owing to its lower body mass relative to the amount of chemical intake. For
carcinogens, a lifetime resident (child through adult), is the most sensitive receptor
because the excess cancer risk for the child (exposure duration of six years) is
assumed to be additive to that of an adult (exposure duration of 24 years). For this
reason, no calculations of excess cancer risk are included for child residents and no
calculations of non-cancer hazards are included for lifetime residents.
CDM F<dcral Program, Cmporation 4-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 5
Toxicity Assessment
Toxicity assessment is a two-step process whereby the potential hazards associated
with route-specific exposure to a given chemical are (1) identified by reviewing
relevant human and animal studies; and (2) quantified through analysis of dose-
response relationships. EPA has conducted numerous toxicity assessments that have
undergone extensive review within the scientific community.
EPA toxicity assessments and the resultant toxicity values will be used in the baseline
evaluation to determine both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks associated with
each chemical of concern and route of exposure. EPA toxicity values that are used in
this assessment include:
•
•
reference dose values (Rills) for non-carcinogenic effects
cancer slope factors (CSFs) for carcinogenic effects
RfDs have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse health
effects from exposure to chemicals exhibiting non-carcinogenic (systemic) effects.
RfDs are ideally based on studies where either animal or human populations were
exposed to a given compound by a given route of exposure for the major portion of
the life span (referred to as a chronic study). The RID is derived by determining dose-
specific effect levels from all the available quantitative studies, and applying
uncertainty factors to the most appropriate effect level to determine an RID for
humans. The RfD represents a threshold for toxicity. Rills are derived such that
human lifetime exposure to a given chemical via a given route at a dose at or below
the RID should not result in adverse health effects, even for the most sensitive
members of the population.
CSFs are route-specific values derived only for compounds that have been shown to
cause an increased incidence of tumors in either human or animal studies. The CSF is
an upper bound estimate of the probability of a response per unit intake of a
chemical over a lifetime and is determined by low-dose extrapolation from human or
animal studies. When an animal study is used, the final CSF has been adjusted to
account for extrapolation of animal data to humans. If the studies used to derive the
CSF were conducted for less than the life span of the test organism, the final CSF has
been adjusted to reflect risk associated with lifetime exposure.
The Rills and CSFs used in this assessment were primarily obtained from EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database (EPA 1999b). Values that appear
in IRIS have been extensively reviewed by EPA work groups and thus represent
Agency consensus. If no values for a given compound and route of exposure were
listed in IRIS, then EPA's Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (EPA
1997c) were consulted. Where no value was listed in either IRIS or HEAST, EPA's
National Center for Environmental Assessment (formerly the Environmental Criteria
and Assessment Office) was consulted. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 summarize the toxicity
values for non-carcinogenic CO PCs. Tables 6.1 and 6.2 summarize the toxicity values
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 5-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 5
Toxicity Assessment
for carcinogenic COPCs. Brief toxicological profiles of the COPCs may be found in
AppendixC.
Neither a CSF nor an RID is available for lead. Instead, blood lead concentrations
have been accepted as the best measure of exposure to lead. Because children are the
most vulnerable to lead toxicity, EPA has developed an integrated exposure uptake
biokinetic model (IEUBK) to assess chronic, non-carcinogenic exposures of children to
lead. When this model is used, and the detected concentrations are shown to be
acceptable to the most vulnerable group in the population (children), it is not
necessary to address adult exposure.
To characterize risk associated with dermal exposure, the toxicity values presented in
Tables 5.1 and 6.1 and were adjusted from administered to absorbed toxicity factors
according to the method described in Appendix A to RAGS (EPA 1989a). The
absorption efficiencies used in the conversion were obtained from ATSDR
toxicological profiles, where available. In accordance with recent EPA Region IV
guidance, absorption efficiencies of 50% or greater were interpreted as 100% (EPA
1999c). For semi-volatile organics and metals for which absorption efficiency data
was not available, the following oral absorption percentages were employed: 50
percent for semi-volatile organics, and 20 percent for inorganics (EPA 1995).
COM Federal Program, Cmporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 6
Risk Characterization
The final step of the baseline risk assessment is the risk characterization. Human
intakes for each exposure pathway (Section 4) are integrated with EPA reference
toxicity values (Section 5) to characterize risk. Carcinogenic, non-carcinogenic, and
lead effects are estimated separately.
To characterize the overall potential for non-carcinogenic effects associated with
exposure to multiple chemicals, EPA uses a Hazard Index (HI) approach. This
approach assumes that simultaneous subthreshold chronic exposures to multiple
chemicals that affect the same target organ are additive and could result in an
adverse health effect. The HI is calculated as follows:
Hazard Index= ADDi/RID1 + ADD,/RID, + ... ADDJRID;
where: ADD,= Average Daily Dose (ADD) for the ith toxicant
RID, = Reference Dose for the ith toxicant
The term ADDJRID1 is referred to as the Hazard Quotient (HQ).
Calculation of an HI in excess of unity indicates the potential for adverse health
effects. Indices greater than one will be generated anytime intake for any of the
COPCs exceeds its RID. However, given a sufficient number of chemicals under
consideration, it is also possible to generate an HI greater than one even if none of the
individual chemical intakes exceeds its respective RID.
Carcinogenic risk is expressed as a probability of developing cancer as a result of
lifetime exposure. For a given chemical and route of exposure, excess lifetime cancer
risk is calculated as follows:
Risk= Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD) x Carcinogenic Slope Factor
(CSF)
These risks are probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific notation (i.e., 1 x
lo-6 or lE-6). An incremental lifetime cancer risk of 1 x lo-6 indicates that, as a
plausible upper-bound, an individual has a one-in-one-million chance of developing
cancer as a result of Site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime
under the specific exposure conditions at the Site. For exposures to multiple
carcinogens, EPA assumes that the risk associated with multiple exposures is
equivalent to the sum of their individual risks.
6.1 Current Use Risk Summary
The Site is in a commercial/ industrial area but is currently inactive; therefore, a Site
visitor is the only currently exposed receptor. Exposure routes potentially complete
are:
• inadvertent ingestion of soil,
CDM Federal Program, Co,poration 6-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• •
•
•
dermal contact with soil,
inhalation of dust,
inadvertent ingestion of surface water in the ditch, and
dermal contact with surface water in the ditch .
Section 6
Risk Characterization
Tables 7.l(a and b) and 9.l(a and b) summarize the cancer risk and noncancer
hazards for a Site visitor. The total incremental lifetime cancer risk estimate for both
the pre-and post-excavation condition is 8 x 10"6. Note that for this and all post-
excavation analyses, it was assumed that the clean fill that was placed in the
excavations was removed thereby exposing residual contamination. EPA's acceptable
target range for carcinogenic risk at Superfund sites is one-in-ten-thousand (1 x lo-')
to one-in-one-million (1 x 10"6). This estimate is within EPA's target range for
Superfund sites. Noncancer effects are not expected based on an HI less than one for
both the pre-and post-excavation condition.
6.2 Future Use Risk Summary
In the future, the Site may be redeveloped for either residential or commercial/
industrial use. Potential receptors would be Site visitors, Site workers, child residents,
and lifetime residents. Potentially complete exposure routes for Site visitors would be
the same as in the current use scenario. For Site workers, child residents, and lifetime
residents, the following exposure routes are potentially complete:
• inadvertent ingestion of soil,
• dermal contact with soil,
• inhalation of dust, and
• ingestion of groundwater.
6.21 Site Visitors
The risk for a Site visitor is assumed to be the same for both current and future use
scenarios. See Section 6.1.2.
6.22 Site Workers
Tables 7.2(a and b) and 9.2(a and b) summarize the cancer and noncancer risks for
Site workers. The total incremental lifetime cancer risk estimates are 4 x 10"6 for the
pre-excavation analysis and 2 x lo-5 for post-excavation. These are within EPA's
target range for Superfund sites. In both the pre-and post-excavation analysis,
ingestion of dioxin in soil accounts for the majority of the excess cancer risk. Pre-
excavation, dioxin ranged from 0.0016 to 28 µg/kg, with the highest concentration
found in Grid 41. Post-excavation, dioxin ranged from 0.0016 to 0.86 µg/kg, with the
highest concentration found in Grid 47. Noncancer effects are not expected based on
an HI less than one for both the pre-and post-excavation condition.
6.23 Child Residents
Tables 7.3(a and b) and 9.3(a and b) summarize the noncancer risks for child
residents. Noncancer effects are possible based on an HI of 35. Exposure to arsenic in
groundwater accounts for the majority of the potential non-cancer effects. Iron and
manganese in groundwater are the only other chemicals that had a HQs greater than
or equal to one in either soil or groundwater. Since the majority of the predicted non-
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 6-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 6
Risk Characterization
cancer hazard is due to exposure to groundwater, there is no difference between the
pre-and post-excavation condition.
6.24 Lifetime Residents
Tables 7.S(a and b) and 9.S(a and b) summarize the cancer risks for lifetime
residents. The total incremental lifetime cancer risk estimate is 6 x 10-3• This is above
EPA's target range for Superfund sites. Ingestion of arsenic in groundwater accounts
for the excess cancer risk. Since the majority of the predicted excess cancer risk is due
to exposure to groundwater, there is no difference between the pre-and post-
excavation condition.
6.3 Exposure to Lead
Lead was detected in groundwater at concentrations of 28 to 40 µg/1; the average
concentration was 5.8 µg/1. Lead was not detected above the screening threshold of
400 mg/kg in Site soils. The average concentration of lead in groundwater was input
into version 0.99d of EPA's Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model.
Default lead concentrations were used for the remaining parameters. The printout
from the model is provided in Appendix D. EPA uses a level of 10 µg lead per
deciliter (di) blood as the benchmark to evaluate lead exposure. As can be seen, the
projected blood lead levels for more than 95 percent of the population are below this
threshold, indicating that lead concentrations in groundwater are within the
acceptable range.
6.4 Exposure to Radionuclides
There are no radionuclides associated with this Site; Table 8.1 is included for
completeness only.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 6-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
n
0
Section 7
Uncertainty Analysis
The uncertainty analysis provides decision makers with a summary of those factors
that significantly influence risk results and discusses the underlying assumptions
that most significantly influence risk. This section discusses the assumptions that
may contribute to over-or underestimates of risk.
7.1 Uncertainties Related to Groundwater Data
The groundwater data that were used in this assessment contribute a significant
degree of uncertainty to the overall assessment. Among the factors that should be
considered are the use of a single sampling event to estimate risk in the future and
the use of data from groundwater samples collected from temporary wells where
turbidity may be an issue. Each of these issues is discussed briefly below.
The data used in the assessment represent only a single sampling round. The
presumption that contaminant concentrations will remain the same over time may
overestimate the potential risk because dispersion and other natural processes are not
accounted for.
Collection of groundwater samples using temporary wells may result in turbid
samples that may lead to erroneous conclusions. The problem occurs because
naturally-occurring metals contained in the suspended sediment are extracted from
the sediment as part of chemical analysis. Metal concentrations reported in a
groundwater sample under these conditions do not reflect the concentrations of the
metal dissolved in water and may overstate risk because they are unlikely to
represent actual exposure conditions.
7.2 Uncertainties Related to Exposure Assessment
The exposure scenarios contribute a considerable degree of uncertainty to the risk
assessment because they assume conditions that are unlikely to occur. Namely,
exposure to residual contamination in soil assumes that the clean fill will be removed.
There is little likelihood of this happening. Additionally, except for the limited
number of analytes that were selected for confirmation sampling, the data from the
post-excavation grids was the same as was found in EPA' s investigation. In other
words, it is likely that contaminants were removed during the excavations, but this is
not accounted for in this assessment because the confirmation sampling failed to
analyze for the same suite of chemicals as was done in EPA's investigation.
Further, exposure to groundwater contamination is unlikely since public water
supplies are available to most of the citizens of Plymouth. It is extremely unlikely
that a well would be constructed on Site as was envisioned in this assessment.
Assuming the exposure scenarios that were examined did occur, the exposure
frequencies are unknown; estimates were based on available guidance. Actual
exposure frequencies are unknown; estimates were based on available guidance.
Actual exposure is not expected to exceed the values presented but may be much
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 7-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
g
D
I
I
Section 7
Uncertainty Ane/ysis
lower. The use of conservative assumptions in the exposure assessment is believed to
result in a potential overestimate of risk. Actual Site risk may be lower than the
estimates presented here but is not likely to be greater.
7.3 Uncertainties Related to Toxicity Information
Rills and CSFs for the COPCs were derived from EPA sources. Rills are determined
with varying degrees of uncertainty depending on such factors as the basis for the
RID (no-observed-adverse-effect-level, NOAEL vs. lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level, LOAEL), species (animal or human) and professional judgment. The calculated
RID is therefore likely overly protective, and its use may result in an overestimation
of noncancer risk. Similarly, the CSFs developed by EPA are generally conservative
and represent the upper-bound limit of the carcinogenic potency of each chemical.
Some of the toxicity values used in this assessment have a large degree of uncertainty
associated with them. The oral slope factor for arsenic has been controversial. In
particular, there is considerable uncertainty concerning its ability to cause cancer at
very low exposure levels, especially the less soluble form that occurs in contaminated
soil. A reassessment of the arsenic cancer slope factor by the Risk Assessment Forum
(EPA 1989b) concluded that the most appropriate basis for an oral quantitative
estimate was a study that reported increased prevalence of skin cancer in humans as
a consequence of arsenic exposure in drinking water. Based on this study, the
Administrator of the EPA recommended that the Risk Assessment Forum's slope
factor be adopted, but noted that the slope factor for arsenic is as much as an order of
magnitude more conservative than other, similarly derived cancer slope factors. This
indicates that the arsenic risks, especially those associated with low-dose soil
exposure, may be overestimated. The estimates could be modified downwards as
much as an order of magnitude relative to risk estimates associated with most other
carcinogens.
The toxicity values for several other constituents have not achieved peer-reviewed
status and are therefore associated with a greater degree of uncertainty than those
that have. Included in this group are aluminum and iron which have provisional
Rills. When aluminum and iron are identified as chemicals of concern (COCs) in the
risk assessment, decision makers are advised to carefully examine the advisability of
implementing remedies that address these ubiquitous, naturally occurring elements.
CDM Federal Programs Cmpora<ion 7-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 8
Remedial Goal Options
Remediation goal options (RGOs) provide remedial design staff with long-term
targets to use during analysis and selection of remedial alternatives. Ideally, such
goals, if achieved, should both comply with applicable, relevant, or appropriate
requirements (ARARs) and result in residual risks that fully satisfy the NCP (EPA
1990) requirements for the protection of human health and the environment. RGOs
are guidelines and do not establish that cleanup to meet these goals is warranted.
RGOs were calculated for COCs only. COCs are the most significant contaminants in
an exposure scenario that exceeds an excess cancer risk level of 1 x lo-6 or an HI of 1.
More specifically, COCs have individual excess cancer risk levels of 1 x lo-6 or an HQ
of 0.1 in a given exposure scenario. COPCs that exceed a state or federal Applicable
or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are also COCs. Table IV lists
the COCs for soil (post-excavation) and groundwater.
Tables 10.l(a and b) through 10.4 (a and b) present a comparison of chemical-specific
risks due to exposure to soil and groundwater. These chemical-specific risks formed
the basis for the selection of COCs. Tables 10.1 (a and b) through 10.4 (a and b) are
subsets of Tables 9.1 (a and b) through 9.4 (a and b) with the chemicals that do not
contribute significantly to the overall risk eliminated. Note that there are no COCs
identified for the Site visitor, Table 10.1 (a and b), or the Site worker, Table 10.2.(a and
b). The reason for this is that the overall cancer and non-cancer risks are within or
below EPA' s acceptable target range.
RGOs are calculated by combining the intake levels of each COC from all appropriate
exposure routes for a particular medium and rearranging the risk equations to solve
for the concentration term (RGO). RGOs, calculated separately for cancer and non-
cancer effects, correspond to incremental cancer risk levels of 1 x lo-6, 1 x lo-5, and 1 x
lo-6 and HQs of 0.1, 1, and 3.
Table 11.1 presents the RGOs for soil based on residential land use. For carcinogens,
RGOs are based on lifetime resident exposure assumptions; for non-carcinogens,
RGOs are based on child resident exposure assumptions. This combination (RGOs for
cancer effects based on lifetime exposure assumptions and RGOs for non-cancer
effects based on child resident exposure assumptions) yields the lowest (most
protective) set of RGOs. Spreadsheets showing the RGO calculations are presented in
AppendixE.
Table 11.2 presents the RGOs and ARARs for groundwater based on residential land
use. As with soil, RGOs for carcinogens are based on lifetime resident exposure
assumptions and RGOs for non-carcinogens are based on child resident exposure
assumptions. Spreadsheets showing the RGO calculations are presented in Appendix
E.
CDM f<dcral Program, Cmporation 8-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table IV
Chemicals of Concern in Soil (Post-Excavation) and Groundwater
G P "fi H d d s·t eora1a-ac1 1c ar woo I e
Detections ' Chemicals of Detections '
Chemicals of Concern In Soll m /k11 Concern In u /I
Min Max Groundwater Min Max
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.04 1.8 Aluminum 660 24,000
Benzo(b &/or k)fluoranthene 0.041 2.6 Arsenic 5 990
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.055 1.6 Barium 30 590
Dibenzo( a, h )anthracene 0.075 0.075 Chromium 2 31
lndeno(1,2, 3-cd)pyrene 0.068 0.54 Iron 1,400 67,000
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) 0.078 1 Lead 28 40
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 0.078 1.1 Manganese 62 4,700
Dioxin TEQ 0.0000016 0.00086 Vanadium 3 52
Aluminum 1300 9,300
Arsenic 0.94 58
Iron 2500 47,000
Manganese 21 2,500
Notes:
1. Minimum/maximum detected concentration in Grids 1 -13 and 15 -56. "J" is estimated value."-" is a result
that did not require qualification. Data from post-excavation confirmation samples for Grids 39, 40, 41, 44, 46,
47 and 49 substituted for pre-excavation results.
2. Minimum/maximum detected concentration in: MW1-9; TW24, TW29, TW49, TW51, TW54.
CDM Federal Programs Corporadon 8-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 9
References
Section 9
References
BBL Environmental Services. 1999. "Removal Action Summary Report, Georgia-
Pacific Hardwood Site, Plymouth, North Carolina." December.
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part A), Interim Final, December.
U.S. EPA. 1989b. Special Report on Ingested Inorganic Arsenic. Prepared by Risk
Assessment Forum, Washington, D.C. EPA/625/3-87 /013.
U.S. EPA. 1990. "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
Final Rule." 55 Federal Register, No. 46, March 8, 1990, pp.8666-8865.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term,
May.
U.S. EPA. 1995. "Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins. Human
Health Risk Assessment." November.
U.S. EPA. 1997a. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for
Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim Final. June 5.
U.S. EPA. 1997b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health
Evaluation Manual, (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of
Superfund Risk Assessments). December.
U.S. EPA. 1997c. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables FY-1997 Update. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA/540/R-97-036, PB97-921199, July.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Georgia-Pacific Hardwoods, Plymouth,
North Carolina. August.
U.S. EPA. 1999a. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria-Correction. Office of
Water, EPA 822-Z-99-001. April.
U.S. EPA. 1999b. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Online. Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria & Assessment Office,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. EPA. 1999c. Personal Communication between Glenn Adams, Risk Assessment
Specialist, EPA Region IV Office of Technical Services, and Michael Profit,
COM Federal Programs Corporation, re: Absorption Efficiencies for COPCs
for the Brunswick Wood Preserving Site. May 19, 1999.
CDM F-ederal Programs Corporation 9-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 9
References
U.S. EPA. 2000. EPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goal Table, Obtained online,
May 22, 2000.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 9-2
I
I Appendices
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A
B
C
D
E
RAGS Part D Standard Format Tables
Example Calculations
Toxicological Profiles of Chemicals of Potential Concern
Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model
Results
Calculations of Risk-based Remedial Goal Options
CDM Fedcnl Pmgr.un, Coq,oradon
•
I
This page intentionally left blank. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
CDM F<dcral Program, uxporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix A
RAGS Part D Standard Format Tables
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
This page intentionally left blank.
CDM Fed<nl f'rosranu Coq,oration
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Standard Format Tables
Tables
1
2.l(a)
2.l(b}
2.2
2.3
3.l(a)RME
3.l(b}RME
3.2RME
3.3RME
4.lRME
4.2RME
4.3RME
4.4RME
4.5RME
4.6RME
4.7RME
5.1
5.2
6.1
6.2
7.l(a)
7.l(b}
Selection of Exposure Pathways ....................................... A-1
Occurrence and Distribution of Chemicals of Potential Concern -
Pre-Excavation Soil ................................................. A-2
Occurrence and Distribution of Chemicals of Potential Concern -
Post-Excavation Soil ................................................ A-4
Occurrence and Distribution of Chemicals of Potential Concern -
Surface Water .................................................... A-6
Occurrence and Distribution of Chemicals of Potential Concern -
Ground water .................................................... A-7
Exposure Point Concentrations Summary Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Pre-Excavation Soil .............................................. A-8
Exposure Point Concentrations Summary Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Post-Excavation Soil ............................................. A-9
Exposure Point Concentrations Summary Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Surface Water .......................................... A-10
Exposure Point Concentrations Summary Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ground Water .......................................... A-11
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations: Visitor/Trespasser Scenario -
Ingestion and Dermal Contact with Soil; Inhalation of Dust ............... A-12
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations: Visitor/Trespasser Scenario -
Ingestion and Dermal Contact with Surface Water ....................... A-13
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations: Child Resident Scenario -
Ingestion and Dermal Contact with Soil; Inhalation of Dust ............... A-14
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations: Lifetime Resident Scenario -
Ingestion and Dermal Contact with Soil; Inhalation of Dust ............... A-15
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations: Worker Scenario -
Ingestion and Dermal Contact with Soil; Inhalation of Dust ............... A-16
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations: Child Resident Scenario -
Ingestion of Ground water .......................................... A-17
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations: Lifetime Resident Scenario -
Ingestion of Ground water .......................................... A-18
Non-Cancer Toxicity Data -Oral/Dermal .............................. A-19
Non-Cancer Toxicity Data -Inhalation ................................. A-20
Cancer Toxicity Data -Oral/Dermal .................................. A-21
Cancer Toxicity Data -Inhalation ..................................... A-22
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards -
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Visitor/Trespasser Current/Future Use Scenario ....................... A-23
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards -
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Visitor/Trespasser Current/Future Use Scenario ....................... A-26
CDM Federal Programs Corporation A-i
Standard Format Tables (continued)
Tables
7.2(a) Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards -
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Adult Worker Future Use Scenario .................................... A-29
7.2(b) Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards -
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Adult Worker Future Use Scenario .................................... A-32
7.3(a) Calculation of Chemical Non-Cancer Hazards -
Pre-Excavation
7.3(b)
7.4(a)
7.4(b)
8.lRME
9.l(a)
9.l(b)
9.2(a)
9.2(b)
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident Future Use Scenario ................................... A-35
Calculation of Chemical Non-Cancer Hazards -
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident Future Use Scenario ................................... A-37
Calculation of Chemical Non-Cancer Hazards -
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Lifetime Resident Future Use Scenario ................................. A-39
Calculation of Chemical Non-Cancer Hazards -
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Lifetime Resident Future Use Scenario ................................. A-41
Calculation of Radiation Cancer Risks -
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (N/ A) ................................ A-43
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs -
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Visitor/Trespasser Current/Future Use Scenario ....................... A-44
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs -
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Visitor/Trespasser Current/Future Use Scenario ....................... A-45
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs -
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Adult Worker Future Use Scenario .................................... A-46
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs -
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Adult Worker Future Use Scenario .................................... A-47
CDM Fed,ral Program, Coq,oration A.;;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Standard Format Tables (continued)
Tables
9.3(a) Summary of Receptor Hazards for COPCs -
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident Future Use Scenario ................................... A-48
9.3(b) Summary of Receptor Hazards for COPCs -
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident Future Use Scenario ................................... A-49
9.4(a) Summary of Receptor Risks for COPCs -
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Lifetime Resident Future Use Scenario ................................. A-50
9.4(b) Summary of Receptor Risks for COPCs -
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Lifetime Resident Future Use Scenario ................................. A-51
10.l(a) Risk Assessment Summary -
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Visitor/Trespasser Current/Future Use Scenario ....................... A-52
10.l(b) Risk Assessment Summary -
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Visitor/Trespasser Current/Future Use Scenario ....................... A-53
10.2(a) Risk Assessment Summary -
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Adult Worker Future Use Scenario .................................... A-54
10.2(b) Risk Assessment Summary -
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Adult Worker Future Use Scenario .................................... A-55
10.3(a) Risk Assessment Summary -
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident Future Use Scenario ................................... A-56
10.3(b) Risk Assessment Summary -
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident Future Use Scenario ................................... A-57
10.4(a) Risk Assessment Summary -
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Lifetime Resident Future Use Scenario ................................. A-58
CDM Federal Program, Coq,oratlon A-iii
Standard Format Tables (continued)
Tables
10.4(b) Risk Assessment Summary -
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Lifetime Resident Future Use Scenario ................................. A-59
11.1 Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Surface Soil-
Post-Excavation
Residential Land Use Assumptions ................................... A-60
11.2 Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options and ARARs for Ground water -
Residential Land Use Assumptions ................................... A-61
COM F«laal Program, Coq,oration A.;v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-
I
I
I
------- - - --- --
Table 1
Selection Of Exposure Pathways
Georgia.Pacific Hardwood Site
Scenario Medium Exposure El<posu,oPoln1 Tlmeframe Medium
Soil ProcessArea
Soil
Air ProcessAn,a
Current/Future Soil Off-site Areas
Soil
Air Off-site Areas
Surface Surface Ditch Water Water
Soil ProcessAn,a
Air ProcessArea
Soll ProcessAn,a
Soil
Air Process An,a
Soll Process An,a
Future
Air Process An,a
Ground-Tap wate,
Air Showerhead
Ground-Ground-Tap water water
Air s-
Ground-Tap water
CDM Fedcn.1 Preer-ms Corporatm
-Poputatlon
Trespasser/ -
Trespasser/
visitor
Trespasser/
visitor
Trespasser/
\1Sitor
Trespasser/ -
Worlcer
Worlcer
Resident
R_,.
R_,.
Resident
R_,.
Resident
R_,.
Rea/dent
Worlcer
-Exposure 0n-Sl1ol Typo ol Rationale tar 8electlon o, bduslon of Exposure Pathway Ago -Off-$fto Analysls
Ingestion ClrHile Quant Process Area Is accessible to site visitors who may accidentally ingest soil. -Oemlal ClrHile Quant Process Area is accessible to aite visihn who may come Into contact with soil.
Adolescents lnhalafun On-aite Quant Process Area is accessible to aite visitors who may inhale dust released from soil.
Ingestion Off-oile Qua/. Pathway not evaluated quantitatively due to Insufficient charactertzatlo data.
Adolescents
Dem,al Off-site Qua/. Pathway not evaluated quantitatively due to Insufficient charactertzatlo data.
Adolescents lnhalafun Off-site Qua/. Pathway not evaluated quantltatively due to Insufficient characterization data.
Ingestion Off-site Quant Ditch Is acx:esslble to site Yisitors who may oome Into contact with water.
Adolescents
Oemlal Off-oile Quant Ditch Is accessible to site Wlitofa who may come Into contact with water.
Ingestion ClrHile Quant Site worker& may accidentally Ingest Proceaa Area aoll.
Adult
Dem,al ClrHile Quant Site wor1<ers may come Into contact with Process Area soil.
Adult lnhalafun On-6ile Quant Site workers may inhale dust released from Process Area soil.
Ingestion ClrHile Quant Site residents may accidentally Ingest Process Area 80d
Child
Dem,al On-... Quant. Site resident& may come into contact with Process Area soil.
Child Inhalation ClrHile Quant Site residents may Inhale dust released from Process Area soil.
Ingestion ClrHile Quant Site residents may accidentally ingest Process Area soil.
Adult
Oemlal ClrHile Quant Site residents may come into contact with Process Area aoil.
Adult Inhalation ClrHile Quant Site residents may Inhale dust released from Procesa Area soil.
Chik:l Ingestion ClrHile Quant Groundwater may be used as a drinking water aouroe In the Mure.
Child Inhalation/ On-<Mte None Chemicals of Potential Concern are non-YOlatile. [)em,al
Adult Ingestion ClrHile Quant Groundwater may be used aa a drinking water aouroe In the _Mure.
Adult lnhalatlon/ ClrHile None Olemlcals of Potential CorQm are nori->tOlatile. [)em,al
Adult Ingestion ClrHile Quant Groundwater may be used as a drinking water aourc:e in the Mure.
A-1
-fr. (}._D ~-'~:11" Table 2.1(a) Occurrence, Distribution and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern • Pre-Excavation Lf,17 ~5'3 ( 2. '7j) GP 81.t,CSl 11 (. ~5':, C PcJo~;; L fJ Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Soil Georaia..Paclhc Harctwood site t:.xnosure M, Minimum Mulmum Loe.tkN1 of eone.ntnt!on ScrMnlng Pountlal PotantJ.I COPC =• fot Exposura CAB N_.., C1Mmk:a1 ConcentraUonl Coneentn.Uonl Units llaxlnun o.tectlon I Range of UMd for Bac:kground Todctty Value ARARfTBC ARAR1T9C Flag n.nt Point Qualffler1 Quf,llfier1 Coneentnltlon Fr.quenq o.tec::tionLlmfts lcrwnlng Value (ndca)u Yalu. Sourc. (YIN) 8elec:t1onor / -· Sta 75-15-0 '\,. c.t,orrOSUl!de-. 97 J 120 -ug,tcg ◄7SLA 2 I 54 10 / 240 120 NA 35,534..... nc NA NA N BSl. SHe 7~~ ....._ Ma!t¥ef¥knlna 11 J 11 J ~ 1SlA 1 / 54 10 / 120 11 NA 732,53&--'./nc NA NA N 8SL S11e 127-18-4 ~ Tehdboel••· 4 J 4 J ug4(g 5SLA 1 I 54 10 / 120 4 NA 5,686./ ca NA NA N BSL Sta 10&-88-3 Touenll-1 J 7 J ui>4qj 13SlA 4 / 54 10 / 120 7 NA !52,ooo✓ nc NA NA N BSL Site 79--01-8 ~ Trtcuon.ele11" 2 J 2 J ug4qj 5SlA 1 / 54 10 / 120 2 NA 2.~ ca NA NA N BSL Site 121-14-2 ~ 2,+.0i~ 780 J 1700 J. ug,1qj 48SLA 2 I 55 340 / 6700 1,700 NA 12,221_/ nc NA NA N BSt Site 91-57-8 12-M~ 43 J 91 \\ dS" J ~ 51SlA 3 I 55 340 / 6700 91 NA s,592.,./" nc NA NA N 8Sl Site 120-12-7 ~ M'h'ac«loi/ 41 J 250)Qt(J ug,1cg 15SlA 7 I 55 340 / 6700 250 NA 2,189,612--nc NA NA N BSl Site 56-65-3 .... fs.na,f.,.._j. / -.0 )t J 1800t~j\ ug,tcg 15SlA 13 / 55 340 / 3900 1,800 NA 621_..-, ca NA NA Y ASL Sita ~2fl07.()8....?_, Ben1x(lu1ndtrt)~ 41 J 2600 J ug,tQ 15SlA 15 / 55 3◄0 I 6700 2,600 NA 621~ca NA NA Y ASL Sita 191-24-2 ...._ Benzo(5'11pel)WMI -◄9 J 440 J ug,1(Q 15SlA II I 55 3◄0 I 6700 440 NA 230,~ nc NA NA N BSl Site 50-32-B ...._' s.tuo(.,,,,,,_,.;, 5!'.i J 1600 J ug,1(Q 15SlA 11 I 55 3◄0 I 6700 1,600 NA 627 _...,,ca NA NA Y ASL SIie 86-74-8 "le.rt..-74 J 74 J ugA(g 16SI.A 1 I 55 3◄0 I 6700 74 NA 24,311V' ca NA NA N BSL Sita 21&-01-9 ...._ c,,ry..,e~ ◄3 J 2300· -ug,tcg 15SI.A 13 I 55 3◄0 I 3900 2,300 NA 82,1◄8_....,. ca NA NA Y Ons Site 53-70-3 ,:!"""''°1'~ 75 J 75 · J ~ 17SlA 1 / 55 3◄0 I 6700 75 NA 62_.. ca NA NA Y ASL SIie 206-44-0 ~ ◄O J 3900 -ug,ttg 15SlA 18 / 55 3◄0 I 6700 3,1100 NA 229,381..,...--nc NA NA N BSL Site 86-73-7 ...., FtJor-. 41 J 41 • J ug,ttg 38SlA 1 / 55 3◄0 / 6700 41 NA 26◄,381,...-nc NA NA N BSL Site 193-39-5--..... lndeno(1,t..kd),,,,.,.. 68 J 5◄0' J ug,t.;g 15SLA II I 55 3◄0 I 6700 5◄0 NA en,/ ca NA NA Y ans Site 91-20-3 .._--. NaphtJaJene 5◄ J 82 J ug,tcg 51SLA 2 / 55 3◄0 I 3900 82 NA 5.592/ nc NA NA N BSl She 87-86-6 _ 1100 J 12000 -ug,tcg ◄0SLA 2 / 5!'.i 860 I 17000 12.000 NA 2,979 /Cli NA NA Y ASL Site B5-01-3 ..::::: Ptiermntnne"""" ◄3 J 6◄0 ' J ug,t.;g 15SlA 12 I 55 3◄0 / 6700 640 NA 230,868 nc NA NA N BSl Site 129-00-0 P,rene ◄6 J 7200 -ug,tcg 15SLA 18 / 55 3◄0 I 3900 7,200 NA 230,868~ nc NA NA N BSL SIio n-54-8 ..:::: 4,4'-000 (p.p'-000) 3.8 J 3.8 J ug,tcg 16SI.A 1 / 14 3 / 21 4 NA 2.◄37:::::ca NA NA N 8SL Stte n-55-9 ...._ 4,4'-DOE (p,p'-DOE) 0.67 J 21 -ug,l(g 5◄SLA 3 / 14 1 / 21 21 NA 1.720 C1i NA NA N 8SL Site 50-29-3 ..:::: 4,4'-0DT(p,p'-OOT) 69 -69 -ug,ttg 195:LA 1 I 5◄ 3 / 80 89 NA 1,720~ca. NA NA N BSL Site 319-8◄-6 :'-... .,._eHC 0.9 J 17 J ug,1(Q 41SLA 2 / 55 2 / 38 17 NA 90:"" t11 NA NA N BSL Sita 31~7-........ Be1a-BHC 2.9 -73 -ug,tcg ◄OSLA 3 / 5◄ 2 / 11 73 NA 318:.,./ t11 NA NA N 8Sl Sita 319-8&8 Deb-BHC 23 -110 -ug,tcg ◄OSI.A 2 / 55 2 / 11 110 NA ◄3r-C1i NA NA N BSl Site 959-98-3"' Endod'an I( .. ) 2.2 J 2.2 J ug,tcg 51SLA 1 / 16 2 / 11 2 NA 36,662/ nc NA NA N BSl Sito n-:zo.a ...._ EnctW1 32 J 6.5 ug,tcg 41SLA 2 / 55 3 / 21 7 NA 1,833-nc NA NA N BSL Site 7421-93--4 ......... Enctinaldehyde 1 J 31 -ug,ttg ◄5SlA 4 / 55 3 / 60 31 NA 1,833/ nc NA NA N BSL Sito ~9 'o.m.-BHC(lndenl) 0.48 J 18 ug,4(g ◄OSI.A 2 / 55 2 / ◄O 18 NA ◄37/ca NA NA N 8Sl Site 15103--74-2 -...._ Gamr.a-OLlldl.• fl. 2.5 32 ugA(g 54SLA 2 / 55 2 / 11 32 NA 1,624 ca NA NA N BSl Site 7&-44-8 Hepta(Nor" 4.8 J 4.8 J , .. &.n 54SLA 1 / 55 2 / 11 5 NA 108 --t11 NA NA N BSL COM h<loni Ptcpms Co.pcndoa A-2 -- -_, ------- -----.. lllill
--... ---- -
Table2.1(a)
Occurrence, Distribution and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern -Pre-Excavation
Georaia..Pacific Hardwood Site
Minimum ........ Location of -....... ~ """""'""" Chomlcal Con<ontmlonl c:o.-rtmlonl Uolts ........ ..... FJ'9qu.nc,I QuaUfMf1 au.1m.,• Conconhtlon
Site 1024-57-3
__ ..
••• . " . -54SlA 3 I ,. ... n..,_.-Melm,ctu 28 . 28 . -41SI.A 1 I ,. ... 11097-69-1 ~ PCB-flM (Alodor tlS,,,fJ 78 . 1000 . -39SLA • I ,.
Sl1o 11096-82-5 .., J>CB.UtlO (Alodor tnoJ 78 1100 -44SI.A 3 I ,.
s .. 1746-01-6 ~""' 0.0016 28 -41SI.A 47 I 0
Sl1o 7◄29-90-5 . ......_ 1300 9300 -06SlA ,. I ,.
Sl1o 7440-38-2 -0.94 J .. . -49SLA .. I ,.
Sl1o 7~ -'2 930 . -58SlA ,. I ..
Site 7440-41-7 -~ 008 J 0.5 J -22SI.A 13 I ,.
Sl1o 7-,,.9 -0.23 . 3.2 . -49SLA 7 I ,. ... 7440-70-2 """"'" 520 . 130000 . -48SLA .. I .. -1 ...... ,,... """""""" 22 270 . -39SLA ,. I ,. -7""'8-4 ~ o.n J 18 . -15SLA 51 I ,. ... 7~ """"" 28 J 260 . -39SLA .. I .. ... 7 ........ ..., 2500 J 471>00 . -06SlA .. I ,.
Sl1o 7439-92.1 , ... 2.9 J 260 J -49SLA .. I ,. ... 7_ .... -180 . .... . -'6SLA .. I ,. ... 7-96-5 -21 . 2500 . -06SlA ,. I ..
Sl1o 7440-02--0 .,.... 0.65 J 170 . -39SLA 20 I ,.
Sl1o 7440--09-7 -80 . 17000 J -'6SLA .. I ,. -TT82""9-2 -1,4 J 16 . -32SI.A 2 I ,. -7440-22--4 -250 . 250 . -35SLA 1 I .. -7440-23-5 ...... 100 . .... . -'6SLA 10 -, .. -7439-97-6 T--0.15 . 0.86 . -47SI.A • I .. -7440-62-2 -2.8 J 21 . -06SlA " I .. -7~ ""' 82 J ... . -•OSI.A 53 I ..
Footnotn:
--
Conconhtlon ........ --"" UNdlM DotoctJonLimfl, ... ~ .._, ..
1.1000 / 11 24 NA
17 I 110 28 NA
" I 100 1,000 NA
" I 210 1,100 NA
NA NA 28 NA
NA I NA 9,300 NA o., I 2 .. NA
NA I NA 930 NA
0.1 I 1 0.5 NA
0.1 I 2 3.2 NA
NA I NA 130.000 NA
NA I NA 271> NA
0.7 I 1 18 NA
1.0 I • 260 NA
NA I NA ◄7,000 NA
NA I NA 280 NA
NA I NA , .... NA
NA I NA 2,500 NA
0.7 I 10 170 NA
80.0 I 80 17,000 NA
0.6 I 1 2 NA
02 I 2 250 NA
800 I 200 ..... NA
0.1 I 0.1 o., NA
NA I NA 21 NA
34.0 I " ... NA
----
-Ing
ToaddlJYalue
(nda.) ...
53~ /Cl ,....,/"' 2221/'"
222 " 0.0039/ Cl
1,e1<' nc o...--.. .,,,_. "' .. ..... "' 3.7--"' NA NA
'/"' ... "' 291/ nc
2.346...--nc 400_..,.,
NA::--NA
17 "' 156/ nc
NA/NA " "' ,,_.., "' NA,-NA
0.81/ nc .. /"' 2,346 nc
Scenario Timeframe: Cumtntlfuture
Medium: Soil
Ex -sure Medium: Soll
RatloMS.for ......... , ...... ,.. COPC Contamloant ARARITBC ARAR/TBC .... -M . .. ~ -(YIN) -· NA NA N BSI.
NA NA N BSI.
NA NA y ....
NA NA y ....
NA NA y ....
NA NA y ....
NA NA y ....
NA NA y ....
NA NA N BSI.
NA NA N BSI.
NA NA N ...
NA NA y ....
NA NA N BSI.
NA NA N BS1.
NA NA y ....
NA NA N BSI.
NA NA N ...
NA NA y ....
NA NA y ....
NA NA N ...
NA NA N BSI.
NA NA y ....
NA NA N ...
NA NA y ....
NA NA N BSI.
NA NA N BSl
1. Mlrirn.mhnulrru de1ecCad concen1n1ton h Q1ds 1 -13 and 1!5 -!56. •r Is nlma1ed ....__•-•II • 1'1111.A I-et dd not raqJr1i IJAlllcdcn. Deflntooc NA• Not~
2. Nlm:ler al Nn1)la taken ■nd ..tyzed for,_ OQnSftJlnt. s■rrpi rurt,er WlrMIS based en ,_ rUTtl■r al uut. RISIJts.
3. Risk-based eoneenlr■ lons for IOI obllllned tn::m: EPA Region IX, Pniiln..-y Remedatcn Goal T■bl■, oblBlned on-lnl 5'22.()0. lxits
■re 1¢g for orgm;cs end ffM for lnorganCI.
◄. TOlddtyVWltsurogatls:
ga,rma-BHC (lndan■) ~ for doltt-8HC
wene used for benro(g.h.i.,..,,._..,~ '"'•n•~•"'•"",."
met¥ rnera.y used for total n.ary
naphlh■len■ used for 2~
5. Rdonala COdes
Seledlon Reuon: ASL-1bole 5Cteering leYII
a■ss-Menil« al class I-et Is ■ COPC
De1eUon Reaon: NIA-Euall■I ld"1ef1
BSL-Below 5Cnlering leYII
SQL. s■rrpl 0.anltdon l..lmt
COPC • C,,.,.,. af Polenlal Concwn(1ndbl,,db)" bold blk:..)
ARAR/TBC • ~c■bl■ or R■IIMn: ■nd~ ReqJrenwltff o Be Q::inadnd
MCL • Federal Mntnun Contamnenl LeWII
SMCl • 6econdWy Mulrrun ccnwrn,-c LM
c•O..c:li...s,ak
re • Non-C■rc:lnogenc
TEa Tc:odc Eq.MientV... al 2,3,7,&-Te•ikJbodb& '.
-)
·-·.... l ~ i~~-
Occurrence. Diabibution and Setection of Chemicals of Potential Concern -Post-Excavation / Georaia.Paclfic Hardwood Site
Chomca}/ Minimum ........ Localonot Dotoctlon Exposur11 -·-Concontmlon/ Coneentrstk>N u ... ........ Point frequency• ; Qullllfiw1 Qu•lm.t' c.nc.ntmlon ,
Sito 75-15-0 Carbon clS1111de • ffT J 120 . -47SlA 2 I 54 ... 78-93-3 Mmyletr,1~ 11 J 11 J -15'A 1 I 54
Sito 127-18-4 Tfflad ... oeD.e.16 4 J 4 J -..... 1 I 54 ... 10U3-3 r....,,_/ 1 J 7 J -13SLA 4 I 54 ... 79-01-.8 Trldlk.coel..W16 2 J 2 J -..... 1 I 54 ... 121-14-2 2,4-DlritotDurrna 780 J 1700 J -4BSLA 2 .. ... 91-57-S 2~ 43 J 91 J -615'A 3 ., ... 120-12-7 ....,._ 41 J 250 J -1 ...... 7 .. ... _, /i-,al-40 J 1800 J -1 ...... 12 ., ... 205-99-2/207-06-9 8-nzo(b-,xM:rkJ~ " J 2800 J -1 ...... 15 ., ... 191-24-2 (= .. J 440 J -1 ...... • .. ... = .. .. J 1600 J -1 ...... 11 .. ... ...7 ... """"°"' 74 J 74 J -16SIA 1 .. ... 2,a.-01-e -43 J 2300 -165'A 12 .. ... 03-J0.3 --75 J 75 J -17SlA 1 .. ... 20<>44-0 =~WW-40 J 3900 -1 ...... 16 .. ... 86-73-7 41 J 41 J -38SLA 1 .. ... 193-39-5 .. J ... J -15SLA • ..
Sito 91-20-3 -54 J 82 J -61SlA 2 ..
""" 65-01 .. -43 J 640 J -15SLA 12 .. ... 129-00-0 ,,,,.... .. J 7200 . -165'A 16 .. ... n ..... 4,4'-000 (p,p'-000} 3.6 J 3.6 J -16SIA 1 I 14
Sito n~ <1,4'-0DE (p,p'-ODE) 0.67 J 21 . -54SlA 3 I 14
Sito 50-20-3 4,4'-0DT(p,p'-DOT) .. . .. . -19SlA 1 I 54 ... 31 ...... -BHC 0.9 J 17 J -415'A 2 I ..
Sito 319-85-7 ....... c 2» . 73 . -405lA 3 I 54
""" 310,S, Oelta-BHC 23 . 110 . -40SLA 2 I ..
stte --EnclostAl'anl{q,ha) 2.2 J 22 J -i51SlA 1 I 16 ... n-20-a ...... 32 J 6.5 . -41SlA 2 I .. ... 7-421-93-4 --1 J 31 . -46SlA 4 I ..
""" ....... Ganma-BHC (lndlne} 0.48 J " -40SLA 2 I ..
Sl1e 5103-74-2 _,, 25 . 32 -54SlA 2 I .. ... 7 ....... -4.8 J 4.8 J -545lA 1 I ..
Sito 1024-57-3 --'' . 24 _,, .... 54SlA 3 I ..
COM m1cn.1Pqn, .... Coq,onooa. --.. ----
.,__,......, ....... UMdl« Dotoctlonl.Jmlb _, ..
10 I 240 120
10 I 120 11
10 I 120 4
10 I 120 7
10 I 120 2
340 / 6700 1,700
330 I~ / " 330 I 6700 250
340 , ....,. 1,800
340 / <siiiii> ZflOO
330 I~ 440
330 / 6700 1,1100
340 I 6700 74
340 / 3900 2,300
330 , le7oo. 75
340 I 6700 3,900
330 / 6700 41
330 I (imii' ...
330 I 3900 82
330 I 6700 640
340 I 3900 7,200
3 I 21 4
1 I 21 21
3 I 80 ..
2 I 38 17
2 I 11 73
2 I 11 110
2 I 11 2
3 I 21 7
3 I 60 31
2 I 40 16
2 I 11 32
2 I 11 • 2 I 11 24
- -
_, ..
&.dtground Toxicity V•lu. Yalu. ,....,,u I
NA ...... "' ' NA =;= NA
NA 52,000 "'
NA 2,770 ca
NA 12.221 nc
5,592 nc NA
NA 2,189,612 "' NA .,. I "' NA 1,:,i I " NA 230 .... "' NA .,, " NA 24,3,19 " NA 82,148 " NA .;, " NA ~'.381 "' NA ~.381 "' NA 821 " NA .:.., "' NA rjo.• "' NA ~--"' NA Z437 " NA 1,720 " NA 1,720 " NA 90 " NA 316 " NA 437 " NA 36,082 "' NA U33 "' NA 1,633 "' NA 437 " NA , 1,62-4 " NA 10, " NA ., "
Scenario Timeframe: Currentffuture
Ex -........ ,
ARAR/T8C ARARIT8C ... ~ --NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
nsure Medium: Soi
Medium: Soil
')
RationaS.fol COPC ConwniMnl ""' .......... « cYIN) -· N BSL
N BSL
N BSL
N BSL
N BSL
N BSL
N BSL
N BSl
y ASL
y ASL
N BSL
y ASL
N BSL
N """ y ASL
N BSf.
N BSL
(9 a,,.
N BSL
N BSf.
N BSl
N BSL
N BSf. ,
N BSl
N BSl
N BSl
N BSL
N BSL
N BSL
N BS!.
N BSf.
N BSL
N BSL
N BSL
- ---... -
- -------
Table 2,1(b)
Occurrence, Distribution and Se~ of Chemicals of Potential Concern • Post-Excavation
Georaia.Paclfic Hardwood Site
■lnlmum lluJmum """"°""' ....... ~ CASN..._ c-, Conc::entratlonl eonc.ntmlonl Unit, -Point Quatin.r' Qualtfler1 eo.-n1m1on ... n~ ~ ,. 28 -41SlA ... 11097~1 PCB-1:tM (Atodor flfWJ " 1000 -39SlA ... 11096-12-5 PCB-1ltl0 (Alodor 1ltl0) " 1100 -'4SlA ... 1746-01-6
.....,_
0.0016 , ([E:) -"""' ... 7429-90-5 -1300 9300 -OOSlA
Ste 7440-38-2 ·-0.94 J .. -3SlA ... 7440-31h1 ....... 82 , 930 -'6SlA
Ste 7440,.41-7 -0.08 J 0.5 J -22SIA ... 744Q-0.9 ea-.. 023 , 3.2 -49SlA
Ste 7440-70-2 CeJam ,,. , 130000 -'8SlA ... 1954029<1 Clwunua 2.2 -® -39SlA ... 7 ....... Cot,d o.n J 16 -15SlA ... 7«0-,0,. eo,p« 2, J 260 --39SlA ... 7-.... 2500 J 47000 -'6SLA ... 7439-92-1 ,,.,, 2.9 J 260 J -49SlA
Site 7439-954 -160 9500 --'6SlA ... 7439-96-5 -21 2500 -OOSlA ... 7«0-02-0 ·-0.65 J 170 -39SLA ... 7440-09-7 -.. 17000 J -'6SlA ... n82--49-2 -1,4 J 1.6 --32SlA ... 7440-22◄ ..... 250 -250 -35SlA ... 7«0-23-0 ...... 100 -4500 --OOSlA ... 7439-97-6
, __
0.15 -086 --47SIA ... 7440-82-2 v ......... 28 J 21 -"""" ... 7 ....... ""' ,.2 J 900 _,_ 49SlA -· 1. Mifim.rntnaldnu de'eded ccwm11aaa, ~, Grids 1-13 end 15-!56. "J' Is allrrnld-.. •-•is• twit ht eta notreq.h
qJalflcdon. 0.1a from po5HIXCIIYdOn eonnm-.ton MIT"'8S torG1dl 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47 encl 49 abdUea ror pnt-m:avdon .......
2. Nu'Ti>m'" of All1)les lakM erd ar--,zed rortw condlMlt sen--. rurmer venes beNO on ht rurber of usable,___
3. Rlsl<-tleM(I concenln.tons for soil obCalr.:I from: EPA Region IX, PrW!'11'WY Retr'l8ddon Goll Tlltl6e, ct,tmnea on-h 5122CJO. l.Wt:I
ere Uij/1ql tor orgarics encl ~ for lnorgenlca.
4. T oxlcity vekJe SlfiOQl.llls:
garm-m-BHC {lndane) used tor dela-8HC
wane used for benZo(g.h,lper,4ene, ••~•n.,.,.,n,aw••
rne1hyl men:uy used for IDtlll mera,y
naptdhalene used for 2~
5. Re1lorale Codes
5e1ec1on Reason: ASl-NxNe lla"Ml1l'lg 1Mi1
Ous-Merma-of dass hi Is e COPC
DeletonReeson: Nul-Essenlell"LGierC
8Sl -BekM' lla"Ml1l'lg ......
----
-C-lmlon ........ UNdf« --Fr9qu,mq'I Dffldlon Un,lt, YahMI -.., ...
1 I .. 17 I 110 28 NA • I .. 34 I 190 1,000 NA
3 I .. 34 I 210 1,100 NA .. I " 0.30 @ 088 NA
55 I 55 NA I NA 9,300 NA .. I .. 0.1!2 I~ .. NA .. I .. NA I NA 930 NA
13 I 55 0.08 I 1.00 I NA
7 I .. 0.14 I 240 3 NA .. I .. NA I NA 130,000 NA .. I .. NA I NA " NA
51 I .. 0.66 I o.n " NA
50 I .. 1.00 I 5.00 260 NA .. I .. NA I NA 47,000 NA
55 I 55 NA I NA 260 NA .. I .. NA I NA 9,500 NA .. I 55 NA I NA ~500 NA
20 I .. o.n I 10.00 170 NA .. I .. 9000 I 80.00 17,000 NA
2 I .. 059 I 1.40 2 NA
1 I .. 0.23 I 200 250 NA
to I .. 80.00 I 290.00 <,500 NA • I .. 0.05 I 0.14 1 NA .. I .. NA I NA 21 NA
53 I .. 34.00 I 34.00 900 NA
----
_,.,.
ToldcJtyValue
(ndcalu , ,..,., "' ' y= 0.0039 ca
7,614 nc
0.39 ca
037 no
15 no
3.7 "' "" NA
/3 "' ,: "' "' 2,346 "' "' NA NA
176 "' 156 "' NA NA
39 "' 39 "' NA NA
0.61 "' .. "' 2,346 "'
Scenario Tlmeframe: Cummttfuture
Medium: Soil
Exnnsure Medium: Soil
Rat ...... fDf' ........ , ......... COPC c.m.minam AAARITBC AAARITBC .... -« Y•lue --(YIN) -· NA NA N BSl
NA NA y .,,._
NA NA y .,,._
NA NA y .,,._
NA NA y .,,._
NA NA y .,,._
NA NA y .,,._
NA NA N BSl
NA NA N BSl
NA NA N ...
NA NA y .,,._
NA NA N BSl
NA NA N BSl
NA NA y .,,._
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N ...
NA NA y .,,._
NA NA y .,,._
NA NA N ...
NA NA N BSl
NA NA y .,,._
NA NA N ...
NA NA y .,,._
NA NA N BSl
NA NA N BSt. _,
NA■ Not~
SQL ■ Serrpe 0Janlteton lint
COPC• ChMJlcalolPowntbtl eon.:.n{lntlbl9dby bald #alt;:aJ
ARARfTBC •~or Rei911ert lnCIAppraprte1e Req..nnw,((ro Be Considered ,-~
no•,.,.,,,._
TEQ Toxic~ Veua of 2.3,7,8-TllhlcHorodbenmc
COM hd....t l'tuJn.m, Cocpon,ion A-5
-
Table 2.2
Occurrence, Dlstrtbutton and Selectlon of Chemicals of Potentlal Concern
Georgia.Pacific Hardwood Site
Minimum Maximum Location of CAS Exposura Chemical Concentration/ Conc-nbattoul Units Maximum Point Number Qualtflar1 Qui.Iffier 1 Concentmlon
Ditch 7429-90-5 Aluminum 770 . 1000 . ug/1 &N4
Ditch 7440-38-2 -27 . 310 ug/1 &N4
Ditch 7440-39-3 ......,, 49 . 2ro . ug/1 &N4
Ditch 7440-70-2 Calcium 18000 . 80000 ug/1 &N4
Ditch 7439-89-6 -7600 . 14000 ug/1 &N3
Drtch 7439-92-1 Lead 4 . 4 . Ug/1 &N4
Ditch 7439-95-4 Magnesium 3400 . 12000 ug/1 &N4
Ditch 7439-96-5 -· 360 . 3000 ug/1 &N4
Ditch 7440-09-7 Potassium 8400 . 13000 . ug/1 &N4
Ditch 7440-23-5 Sodium 13000 . 21000 . ug/1 &N7
O0ch 7440-66-6 Zinc 24 . 36 . ug/1 &N4
Ditch 87-64-1 Acetone 160 J 160 J ug/1 &N7
Footnotes:
1. Minimum/maximum detected concentration In: &NJ, Sl/tl4, &,NT. •J' is an estimated value .• _ .. is a
result that did not require qualification.
2. Number d samples taken and analyzed for the constituent. Sample number varies based on the
number of usable results.
3. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, Human Health for Consumption of Water and
Organism. Unit& are ug/1.
4. Risk-based concentrations for tap water obtained from: EPA Regloo IX, Preliminary Remediation Goal
Table, obtained on-line 5122JOO. Units are ug/1.
5. Treatment Technique Action Level
6. Rationale Code&
Selectioo Reason: ASl. -Abow screening level
Deletion Reason: Nut -Essential nutrient
BSL -Below screening level
CDM f~,.J.Proer-Ccrponli<>CI
Concantmlon Detoctlon Range cf Background UMdfa< Fr.quenc:yi DetactionUmlb Screening Value
2 I 3 50 I 50 1,000 NA
@ ~ 3 I 3 27 I -310 NA
3 I 3. . 49 I 49 2ro NA
3 I 3 18CXXJ I 1800J 89,000 NA
3 I 3 7600 ,@ 14,000 NA
1 I 3 2 I 3 4 NA
3 I 3 3400 I 3400 12,CXX> NA
3 I 3 360 I @ 3,000 NA
2 I 3 3000 I 3000 13,000 NA
2 I 3 8900 I 8900 21.000 NA
2 I 3 5 I 5 36 NA
1 I 3 20 I 20 160 NA
ScrMnlng
Toxicity Value
(nc:/co)
3,650 ......... nc
0.018 C
255/ nc
NA /NA
1,095 / nc
. 15 NA :/ NA
nc
NA NA
NA NA
9,1~ N
61 nc
Scenarto Tlmeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface water
Exposure Medium: Surface water ...... _. ...... _. COPC Rationale tor
Contaminant ARAR/TBC ARAR/TB Flag
Value CSourca (YIN) Saledlon.,
Deletion I
3,650 4 N BSI.
0.018 3· y ASL
255 4 y ASL
NA NA N Nut
1,095 4 y ASL
15 5 N BSI.
NA NA N Nut
88 4 y ASL
NA NA N Nut
NA NA N Nut
9,100 3 N BSI.
61 4 y ASL
Definitions: NIA., Not Applicable
SOL= Sample Cluantitatlon Limit
COl'C • ""°""""'°'-Concom--by--.J
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered
Ma..= Federal Maximum Contaminant Level
SMa. = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
C = carcinogenic
nc = Non-Carcinogenic
TT= Treatment technique action level
A-6 -- ----·--------... -
-- - --- - -------
Table2.3
Occurrence, Distribution and Selectlon of Chemicals of Potentlal Concern
Georgia.Pacific Hardwood Site
lllnlnwn --.__,., ........ OAS ........ Ccww.c1Jiatkw1' Conoe-Unlls --.... --· -· Conc:e11bdan
Well 108-88-3 Toluene 1 J 1 J ug/1 01MW
Well 91-57~ ,.,.~ 3 J 3 J ug/1 541W
Well 83--32-9 Aoenaphlhene 1 J 1 J ug/1 541W
WeU 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 1 J 1 J ug/1 541W
Well BS-73-7 Floo,ene 2 J 2 J ug/1 541W
Well 85-01-8 Phenamlvena 2 J 2 J ug/1 541W
Well 7429-~5 -660 . 24000 . ug/1 547W
Well 7440-38--2 -5 J 990 . """ 4MW
Well 7440-39-3 -30 . 500 . ug/1 '97W
Well 7440-70-2 calcium 45000 220000 . ug/1 241W
Well 1~29-9 C/womlum 2 J 31 . ug/1 541W
Well 7-Cobalt 4 J 48 J ug/1 541W
Wea 7440-50-8 Coppel' 2 J 30 ug/1 '91W
Well 7439-89-<l -1400 . 67000 . ug/1 241W
wen 7439-92-1 LNd 28 . 40 ug/1 '91W
Well 7439-95-4 Magnesium 4300 . 46000 ug/1 · 24TW
Well 7439-96-5 -82 . '700 ug/1 3MW
Well 7440-09-7 Potassium 2700 J 72000 J """ 9MW
Well 7440-23-5 Sodium 4400 . 50000 """ 511W
Well 7440-62-2 v..-.. 3 J 52 ug/1 547W
Well 7440-<6-<l z;no 15 J 89 """ '91W
Footnotes:
1. Minimum/maximum detected concentration In: MW1-9; TW2◄, 1W29, 1W49, 1W51, TW54. •.r Is an
estimated value. • -• is a result that did not require qualification.
2. Number d samples taken and analyzed for the constituent. Sample number varies based on the number d
usable results
3. Risk-based concentrations for tap water obtained from: EPA Region IX, Preliminary Remediation Goal
Table, obtained on-line 5'Z2IOO. Units are ugll.
4. Toxicity value surrogate5:
pyrene used for phenanthrene
naphthalene used for 2-methylnaphthalene
5. Rationale Codes
Selection Reason: ASl. AbcNe saeening level
Class • Member d class that is • COPC
Deletion Reason: Nut • Essential nutrient
BSl • Below screening 19Y8!
CDN N<leral ~ Corpora.non
-..... ., C..WAiab.tliuu -....... -· ............... v--1 I 14 10 I 10 1 NA
1 I 14 10 I ,o5 (v NA
1 I 14 10 I 10 V 1 NA
1 I 14 10 I C®' 1 NA
1 I 14 10 I 10 2 NA
1 I 14 10 I 10 2 NA
7 I 14 30 I 240 24,000 NA
11 I 14 4 I ~ 990 NA
14 I 14 30 I 500 NA
-Taxic~Yalua _ ..
n-nc
0.8/ nc
37'< nc
2.4..-nc
24_... nc
18/ no
3,650/ nc
/ 0.045 _,./''
250 no
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exnc sure Medium: Groundwater ........... --COPC Cuuta.11iua.d. --.... .._.,, -...... (YIN) .,. ......
1.000 MCl N BSl
NA NA y ASL
NA NA N BSl
NA NA N BSl
NA NA N BSl
NA NA N BSl
200 SMCl y ASL
50 MCl y ASL
2000 MCl y ASL
14 I 14 45000 / 220000 220,000 NA NA NA
11/ no
NA NA N N"1
3 I " 2
4 I 14 2
14 I 14 2
14 I 14 1400
2 I 14 2
14 I 14 4300
14 I 14 82
14 I 14 2700
14 I 14 4400
4 I 14 2
" I 14 15
Definitions:
I 2 31 NA 100 MCl
I 2 48 NA 219/no NA NA
I 30 30 NA 1300 TT 138 .,,....-nc ,em 67,000 NA 1,095 no 300 SMCl
15/ NA I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3 40 NA
46000 48,000 NA
@p 4,700 NA
72000 72000 NA
50000 50,000 NA
2 52 NA
89 89 NA
NIA :c: Not Appl"lcable
SCIL = Sample Quantitation Limit
COPC = Chemical at Potential eonc.m
15 TT
NA NA NA NA
ss/ no 50 SMCl
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
28,....... ri NA NA
1,~no 5000 SMCl
ARARITBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriata Requlrement/To--Be-Considere
MCI.= Federal Maximum Contaminant leYel
SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Lewi
C = C&rcinogenic
nc = Non-Carcinogenic
TT = Treatment technique action I8Y81
y ASL
N BSl
N BSl
y ASL
y ASL
N N"1
y ASL
N N"1
N N"1
y ASL
N BSl
A-7
-
Table 3.1(a)RME
Exposure Point Concentrations Summary -Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
/ Exposure Arithmetic Chemical of Potentlal Concern Units Mean 1 Point I
Site Benzo(a)anthracene / mg/kg 0.503
Site Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.613
Site Benzo(a)pyren1 mg/kg 0.559
Site Chrysene mg/kg 0.516
Site Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.550
I Site lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene mg/kg 0.534
I 1.601 Site Pentachlorophenol mg/kg
I
Site PCB-125f (Arocior 1254) mg/kg 0.061
Site PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) mg/kg 0.056
I Site Dioxin/EC mg/kg 0.001
Site Aluminum mg/kg 4,216
Site Ar&<inic mg/kg 8.2
Site B /. mg/kg 113.9 anum
I
Site Chromium I
mg/kg 13.0
Site Iron mg/kg 7,333
Site/
Manganese mg/kg 285
Site Nickel mg/kg 7.0
Site Silver mg/kg 4.8
s~ Total Mercury mg/kg 0.1
Footnotes:
1. Calculated using one-haW the sample quantitation limlt for non-detects.
2. • -• is a result that did not require qualification.
3. 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T)
4. Maximum detected value when UCL is greater than maximum
TEQ Toxic Equivalent Value of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
CDM Federal Programs Corporacion
95% UCLoflog
Transformed
Data
0.673
0.838
0.722
0.678
0.676
0.668
1.939
0.049
0.046
0.001
4,751
12.4
153.0
12.0
8,205
376
6.6
0.6
0.076
- - ----------
Maximum
Concentration/
Quallfler2
Value
1.800 J 0.673
2.600 J 0.838
1.600 J 0.722
2.300 -0.678
0.075 J 0.075
0.540 J 0.540
12.000 -1.939
1.000 -0.049
1.100 -0.046
0.028 -0.0005
9,300 -4,751
59 -12
930 -153
270 -12
47,000 -8,205
2,500 -376
170 -7
250 -0.592
0.86 -0.076
Scenario Tlmeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soll
Exposure Point Concentration
Units Statistic.,. Ratlonale
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg N Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg N Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg N Guidance
mg/kg . 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg Maximum Reg N Guidance
mg/kg Maximum Reg N Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg N Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg N Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg N Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg N Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg N Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg N Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg N Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg N Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg N Guidance
A-8 ----·--- ---
iili ---- - - -_, --· ---- -- - -
Table 3.1(b)RME
Exposure Point Concentrations Summary -Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Exposure Artthmetlc 95% UCL of Log
Chemlcal of Potentlal Concern Units Transformed Point Mean 1
Data
Site Benz.o(a)anthracene / mg/kg 0.505 0.652
Site Benzo(b and/or k)fluorantheru: mg/kg 0.616 0.621
Site Benz.o(a)pyrene / mg/kg 0,558 0.721
Site Cluysene / mg/kg 0.518 0.670
Site Dibenzo(a,h)anthnicene mg/kg 0.549 0.676 , I
Site lndeno (1,2,3-<Xl)pyrene mg/kg 0.534 0.668 ,
Site PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) mg/kg 0.061 0.049
Site PCB-.1260 (Ar6cior 1260) mg/kg 0.056 0.046
Site DioxinTEQ/ mg/kg 0.0001 0.0002
Site Afunrinmn/
mg/kg 4,216 4,751
Site Arsenic mg/kg 6.0 8.6
Site Barimn mg/kg 114 153
Site Chromimn mg/kg 8 10
Site Iron I mg/kg 7,333 8,205
Site Manganbse mg/kg 285 376
Site Nickel/ mg/kg 7 7
Site Silver mg/kg 5 0.6
Site Total Mercnn, mg/kg 0,1 0.1
Footnotes:
Maximum
Concenb'atlon/
Quallfler2
1.B00 J
2.600 J
1.600 J
2.300 .
0,075 J
0.540 J
1.000 .
1.100 .
0.00086 .
9,300 .
58 .
930 .
53 .
47,000 .
2,500 .
170 .
250 .
1 .
Value
0.652
0.821
0.721
0,670
0.075
0.540
0.049
0.046
0.0002
4,751
8.6
153
10
8,205
376
6,6
0.6
0.1
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure Point Concentration
Units Statistic'-' Rallonale
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg Maximum Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg Maximum Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg IV Guidance
1. Calculated using one-ha~ the sample quantitation limlt for ncn-detects, Data from post-excavation ecnfirmation samples for Grids 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47 and 49 substituted for pre--
excavation results.
2. • -• is a result that did not require qualification.
3. 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T)
4. Maximum detected value when UCL is greater than maximum
TEQ Toxic Equivalent Value of 2,3, 7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
CDM Federal Programs Corporation A-9
-
Table 3.2RME
Exposure Point Concentrations Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Exposure Chemical of Potential Arithmetic
Point Concern Units Mean 1
/
Dttch Arsenic/ ug/1 127
Dttch Ba( Ug/1 150
Dttch Iron ug/1 10,533
Dttch Manganese ug/1 1,753
\ ug/1 58 Dttch Acetone
Footnotes:
95% UCLof
Log-
Transformed
Data
472,074,580
530
26,026
70,224,950
1.E+15
1. Calculated using one-haWthe sample quanlitation limtt for non-detects.
Maximum
Concentration/
Qualifier2
Value
310 . 310
260 . 260
14,000 . 14,000
3,000 . 3,000
160 . 160
Scenario Tlmeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface water
Exposure Medium: Surface water
Exposure Point Concentration
Units Statistic •·• Rationale
Ug/1 Maximum Reg IV Guidance
ug/1 Maximum Reg IV Guidance
ug/1 Maximum Reg IV Guidance
ug/1 Maximum Reg IV Guidance
Ug/1 Maximum Reg IV Guidance
2. Maximum detected concentration in: SW3, SW4, SW7. "J" is an estimated value."." is a result that did not require qualification.
3. 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T)
4. Maximum detected value when UCL is greater than maximum
CDM Federal Pmgram.< Coq,oradon A-10 - - --··-- - -_, --· - - - - - - - -
- - - -------------- --
Table 3.3RME
Exposure Point Concentrations Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
95% UCLof Maximum•
Exposure Point Concentration
Chemical of Potentlal Arithmetic Log-Exposure Point Concern Units Mean 1 Transformed Concentration/
Data Qualifier• Value Units Statistic•·•
Tap 2-Methylnaphthalene ug/1 5 NA 3 J 3 ug/1 Maximum
Tap Aluminum ./ ug/1 3,339 NA 24,000 -3,339 ug/1 Mean-N
Tap Arsenic I Ug/1 111 NA 990 -111 ug/1 Mean-N
Tap Barium / Ug/1 258 NA 590 -258 ug/1 Mean-N
Tap Chromi\Jm ug/1 4 NA 31 -4 ug/1 Mean-N
Tap Iron/ ug/1 28,150 NA 67,000 -28,150 ug/1 Mean-N
Tap Lead ug/1 6 NA 40 -6 ug/1 Mean-N
I
Tap ~anganese ug/1 1,444 NA 4,700 -1,444 Ug/1 Mean-N
Tap Vanadium Ug/1 7 NA 52 -7 ug/1 Mean-N
Footnotes:
1. Calculated using one-haW the sample quantitation limlt for non-detects.
2. Maximum detected concentration in: MW1-9; TW24, TW29, TW49, TW51, TW54. "J" is an estimated value."." is a result that did not require qualification.
3. "-" is a result that did not require qualification.
4. Mean of Normal Data (Mean-N)
5. Maximum used as the exposure point concentration when the mean exceeds the maximum. This is possible when one-half the sample
quantltation limlt is used for non-detects when calculating the mean.
CDM F<deral Program, Coq,oration
Rationale
Reg IV Guidance
Reg IV Guidance
Reg IV Guidance
Reg IV Guidance
Reg IV Guidance
Reg IV Guidance
Reg IV Guidance
Reg IV Guidance
Reg IV Guidance
A-11
-
Table 4.1RME
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Exposure Receptor Receptor Age Exposure Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Route Population Point Code
Trespasser/ Process cs chemical concentration In soil See Table/ mg/kg
Ingestion Adolescent V,sltor Area IR, ingestion rate (oral) 100 mg/day
CF conversion factor 0.000001 kg/mg
Fl fraction Ingested from eource 1/ unitless
EF exposure frequency 50 days/year I
ED exposure duration
0:f:
years
BW bodyweight kg
AT-C averaging tima (cancer) daye
AT-N averaging time (non-cancer) days
Trespasser/ Process cs chemical concentration In soil See~ble/ mg/kg Dermal Adolescent VISltor Area SA exposed skin surface area crn2/day
AF adherence factor 1/ mg/cm2
ABS absorption factor Chem/Spec. unltless
EF exposure frequency 50 days/year
ED exposure duration /10 years
CF conversion factor 0.000001 kg/mg
BW bodyweight {:I kg
AT-C averaging time (cancer) days
AT-N averaging time (nmH:Bncer) days
Trespasser/ Process cs chemical concentration in soil See Table 3 mg/kg
Inhalation Adolescent I VISltor Area IRi inhalation rate 17 m3/day I PEF particulate emlsslor,s factor 1.32E+09 m'lkg
EF exposure frequency /: days/year
ED exposure duration years
BW bodyweight kg
AT-C averaging time (cancer) '. 25550 days
AT-N averaging time (non-cancer) 3650 days
U.S. EPA.· 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) December. Append,xA.
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Rationale/ Intake Equation/Model Name Reference
SeeTable3 Chronic daily Intake = CS x IR, x CF x Fl x EF
EPA 1991a x ED X 1/BW X 1/AT
-
Judgment
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1995
EPA 1989a
EPA 1989a
See Table 3 Chronic daily intake • CS X CF X SA X AF x
EPA 1997 ABS x EF x ED X 1/BWx 1/AT
EPA 1995
EPA 1995
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
-
EPA 1995 ' EPA 1989a
EPA 1989a
SeeTable3 Chronic daily Intake • CS X IRi X ED X EF x
EPA 1997 (1/PEF) x 1/BW x 1/AT
EPA1991b
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1995
EPA 1989a
EPA1989a
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Default Exposure Factors," OSWER Directive 9285.6-03, March 25.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B: Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals," OSWER Directive 9285.7-01B, December 13.
U.S. EPA. 1995. "Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins. Human Health Risk Assessment." November •.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1, General Factors. Prepared by the Office of Research and Development. August.
CDM Faleral Program,C.Xpomlon ---· -- - -- ------A-12 ---
- ------·--- -
Table 4.2RME
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Parameter Parameter Definition Value / Units Route Pollulatlon Aae Point Code
Trespasser/ cw chemical cot ice 1batlo.1 In water See Tabi</J ug/1 Ingestion Adolescent Ditch Visitor IR, Ingestion rate ( oraQ 0:1 liteni/hour
ET exposure ttme hours
EF exposure frequency 12 days/year I ED exposure duration 10 years I
CF conversion factor 0.001 mg/ug
BW bodyweight las kg I
AT-C averaging ttme 25550 I days
I
AT-N averaging time (non-cancer) ,3650 I days
Dermal Trespasser/ Adolescent Ditch cw chemical concentration In waler See Table 3 ug/1
Visitor CF1 conversion factor 1 =I mg/ug
SA surface area per day cm2/day
PC permeability constant Chem. Spec. cm/hr
ET exposure time , 2/ hours
CF2 conversion factor 2 0.001 Vcm3
I
EF exposure frequency 12 days/year
I
ED exposure duration 10 years
BW bodyweight !is kg I AT-C averaging time (cancer) 25550 days
averaging time (non-cancer) I AT-N /3650 days
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Risk l'ssesoment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) December. Appendix A.
U.S. EPA. 1995. "Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins. Human Health Risk Asses:rrent." November.
-- ---
Scenario Timeframe:Current/Future
Medium: Surface water
Ex cosure Medium: Surface water
Rationale/ Intake Equation/Model Name Reference
See Table 3 Chronic dally Intake = CW x IR, X ET X EF
EPA 1995 xEDxCFx 1/BWxl/AT
Judgment
Judgment
EPA 1995
-
EPA 1995
EPA 1989a
EPA 1989a
See Table 3 Chronic dally Intake = CW X CF1 x SA x PC
-xETx CF2 x EFx ED x 1/BWx I/AT
EPA 1997c
-
Judgment
-
Judgment
EPA 1995
EPA 1995
EPA 1989a
EPA 1989a
U.S. EPA. 1997c. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1, General Factors. Prepared by the Office of Research and Development. August.
CDM f<d=I p_..,. Co,po,ation A-13
-
-
Table 4.JRME
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Georgia-Pacific Ha rd d s· woo 1te
Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Route Population Age Point Code
Process cs chemical concentration in soil SeeTable3' mgJ1(g Ingestion Resident Child 200/ Area IR. ingestion rate ( oral) mg/day
CF conversion factor 0.000001 kg/mg
Fl fraction inges1ed from source ,j unltless
EF exposure frequency 350 days/year
ED exposure duration /,65 years
BW bodyweight kg
AT-C averaging time (cancer) 25550 days
AT-N averaging time (non-<:ancer) / 2190 days
Process cs chemical concentration in soil See Table3/ mgJ1(g Dermal Resident Child ~1 Area SA exposed skin surface area crn2/day
AF adherence factor mg/cm'
ABS absorption factor Chem. fpec. unrtless
EF exposure frequency 350 days/year I ED exposure duration 6 years I CF conversion factor 0.000001 kg/mg
BW bodyweight j,s kg
AT-C averaging time (cancer) r:: days
AT-N averaging time (non-O!ncer) days
Process cs chemical concentration in soil See Table3 mg/kg Inhalation Resident Child ,of Area IR1 inhalation rate m3/day I
PEF particulate emissions factor 1.32E+ll9 m'/kg I
EF exposure frequency 350 days/year ,
ED exposure duration ,s years
BW bodyweight ,1s kg
AT-C averaging time (cancer) 25550 days I AT-N averaging time (non-<0ancer) _2190 days
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance fa, Supe,fund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) December. Appendix A.
Scenario Timeframe:Current/Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Rationale/ Intake Equation/Model Name Reference
SeeTable3 Chronic daily Intake = CS x IR., X CF x Fl x EF
EPA 1991a X ED X 1/BW X 1/AT
-
Judgment
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1995
EPA 1989a
EPA 1989a
See Table3 Chronic dally Intake = CS X CF X SA X AF x
EPA 1997c ABSx EF x ED x 1/BWx 1/AT
EPA 1995
EPA 1995
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
-
EPA 1995
' EPA 1989a
EPA 1989a
See Table3 Chronic dally Intake= CS x lffi x ED x EF X
EPA 1997c (1/PEF) x 1/BW x 1/AT
EPA 1991b
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1995
EPA 1989a
EPA 1989a
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Default Exposure Factora." OSWER Directive 9285.6-03, March 25.
U.S. EPA. 1991 b. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B: Developmant of Risk-Based Prelimina,y Remediation Goals." OSWER Directive 9285.7-01 B, December 13.
U.S. EPA. 1995. "Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins. Human Health Risk Assessment." November.
U.S. EPA. 1997c. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1, General Factors. Prepared bylhe Office of Research and Development. August.
CDM Federal Prognilll.$ Corporation ----------·-- - ----A-14 ---
- - - ---- -- - -
Table 4.4RME
Values Used for Dally Intake CalculaUons
Geornla.Paclflc Hardwood Site
Exposu,. Roca--Exposu,. .... ..-Parameter Deftnfflon Val&» Units Ratlonalal
Routo Populatlon .,,. l'olnt ~ --
Ingestion Resident Olild to Process cs chemical concentration In sot! See Table 3 mg./kQ See Table 3
Adult Area IF, Ingestion ractor (&oil) ,,. mg.yr/kg-day EPA 1991b
BW, body weight, child 15/ kg EPA 1995
BW, body weight, adult 70 kg EPA 1995
IR, ingestion rate. child 200 mg/day EPA 1991a
IR, ingestion rate. adult 50 mg/day EPA 1991a I
ED, exposure duration, child 6 I
,.. .. EPA 1991a
EO,. exposure duration, total 30 ,.. .. EPA 1991a I CF conversion factor 0.000001 kg/mg -
Fl fraction Ingested from aource
i:o
unitless Judgment
EF exposure frequency dayslyeat EPA 1991a
AT-C awraglng time (cancer) days EPA 1989a
Dermal Resident Child to Process cs chemical concentration In &Oil -3:13 mg/kg See Table 3
Adult Area OF dermal factor cm2 .yr/kg.day EPA 1991b
BW, body weight, child 15 kg EPA 1995
BW, body 'Height, adult 70 kg EPA 1995 ' SA, surface area, child 2650 cm2/day EPA 1997c ' cm2/day SA, surface area, adult 5800 EPA 1997c
ED, exposure duration, child 4 ,.. .. EPA 1991a
EO,. exposure duration, total ,.. .. EPA 1991a
AF adherence ractor mg/cm' EPA 1995
EF exposure frequency dayslyeat EPA 1991a
ABS absorption ractor Clem. Spec. unitless EPA 1995
CF '°"""""" factor 0~000001/ kg/mg -
AT-C averaging time (cancer) 125550' days EPA 1989a
Inhalation Resident Olild to Process cs chemical concentration in 1011 See Table 3 mg/kg See Table 3
Adult Area ' m1-yr/kg-day IF, Inhalation factor (air) 10.9 EPA 1991b ' BW, body weight, child 15
'
kg EPA 1995
BW, body weight, adult 70 kg EPA 1995 ' IR, inhalation rate, child
/0
m1/day EPA 1997c
IR, inhalation rate, adult 20 m1/day EPA 1997c
ED, exposure duration, child 6 ,.... EPA 1991a
EO,. exposure duration, tatal 30 ,.. .. EPA 1991a
PEF particulate emi8&ions factor t.32E+09 m'lkg EPA 1991b ' EF exposure frequency I 350 days/year EPA 1991a
AT-C averaging time (cancer) / 25550 days EPA 1989a
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) December. Appendix A.
-- -- -
Scenario Tlmeframe:Current/Future
Medium: Soll
Ex-sure Medium: Soll ·-Eq--
IF, = (ED, X IR,/ BWJ + (EO,. · EDJ x (IRJBWJ
auonlc dally intake = cs X IF X CF X Fl X EF X 1/AT
OF = (ED, x SA,/ BWJ + (EO,. • EDJ x (SA,IBWJ
O,ronlc daily intake= CS x OF x CF x AF x ABS x EF x 1/AT
IF, = (EDc x !Ref BWJ + (EO..,. • EOJ x (IRJBW.)
Olronic daily Intake = CS x IF x EF x (1/PEF) x 1/A T
@x,o/,sJ+(-y;-~) X
(::i.oho)
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: •Standard Default Exposure Factors.• OSWER Directive 9285.6-03, March 25.
U.S. EPA. 1991b.
U.S. EPA. 1995.
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B: Development cl Risk-Based Prellmlnary Remediation Goals,• OSWER Directive 9285. 7-01 B. December 13.
•supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins. Human Health Risk Assessment• November.
CDM Fder:11 Procrzii,>Ca<pcnti<,ft
--
-
Table 4.5RME
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
"fi H rd d s·t Georgia.Pac, ,c a woo ,e
Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Route Population Age Point Code
Process cs chemical concentration In soil See Table3 mg/kg Ingestion Worker Adult I Area IRo ingestion rate (oraQ 50 mg/day
CF conversion factor 7 kg/mg
Fl fraction Ingested from source unitless
EF exposure frequency days/year
ED exposure duration years
BW bodyweight 70 kg I AT-C averaging time (cancer) 25550 days I AT-N averaging time (non-cancer) _9125 days
Process cs chemical concentration In soil ~~/ mg/kg Dermal Worker Adult Area SA exposed skin surface area cm2/dirf
AF adherence factor mg/cm2
ABS absorption factor
Che;,·
unitless
EF exposure frequency days/year
ED exposure duration years
CF conversion factor 0.000001 kg/mg I BW bodyweight 70 kg I AT-C averaging time (cancer) 25550 days
AT-N averaging tima (non-<:ancer) /9125 days
Process cs chemical concentration in soil See Table3 mg/kg Inhalation Worl<er Adult Area Ill, inhalation rate 20 / m3/day
PEF particulate emissions factor 1.32Et°9 m'/kg
EF exposure frequency 250 days/year I ED exposure duration 25 years
BW bodyweight /10 kg
AT-C averaging time (cancer) 25550 days
AT-N averaging time (non-cancer) /9125 days
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) December. AppendD< A.
Rationale/
Reference
See Table3
EPA 1991a
-
Judgment
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1995
EPA 1989a
EPA 1989a
See Table3
EPA 1997c
EPA 1995
EPA 1995
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
-
EPA 1995
EPA 1989a
EPA 1989a
See Table3
EPA 1997c
EPA 1991b
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1995
EPA 1989a
EPA1989a
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Intake Equation/Model Name
Chronic dally Intake • CS x lflo x CF x Fl x EF
x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
Chronic dally Intake= CS x CF x SA x AF x
ABS x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
.
Chronic dally Intake= cs x lR,. ED. EF.
(1/PEF) x 1/BW x 1/AT
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Default Exposure Facloni," DSWER Directive 9285.6-03, March 25.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B: Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals," OSWER Directive 9285.7--01 B, December 13.
U.S. EPA. 1995. "Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins. Human Health Risk Assessment." November.
U.S. EPA. 1997c. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1, Genersl Factors. Prepared by the Office of Research and Development. August.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation - -- --· --------- --A-16 -- -
--· ----· ----- -
Table 4.6RME
Values Used for Dally Intake calculations
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Parameter Parameter Definition Value Route Population Age Point Code
Ingestion Resident Child Tap cw chemical COi iCE-i 1b ation In water See Table :i
IR,_ ingestion -groundwater. child ~I EF exposure frequency
ED exposure duration
CF conversion factor 0.001 I
FNJ bodyweight 15
I
AT-C averaging time (cancer) 25550
I AT-N averaging time (non-cancer) 2190
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluatm Manual (Part A) December. Appendix A.
-
Units
ug/1
liter/day
day8/year
yea111
mg/ug
kg
daya
days
- - - - --
Rationale/
Reference
SeeTable3
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1989a
EPA 1989a
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium· Groundwater
Intake Equation/Model Name
Chronic daily intake = CW x IR...-= x EF x
ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Defautt Expoaure Fact0111," OSWER Directive 9285.6-03, March 25.
CDM Feder.it Proerams Corporation A-17
-
Table 4.7RME
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
G . -P ifi H rd ood Site eorg1a ac 1c a w
Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Parameter Parameter Definition Route Population Age Point Code
Ingestion Resident Child to Tap cw chemical concentration In water
Adult IF., ingestion factor, groundwater
BW, body waighl. ohlld
BW, body walghl. adult
I~ ingestion rate groundwater, chUd
IRg. ingestion rate groundwater, adutt
ED, exposure duration, child
EO,.. exposure duration, total
EF exposure frequency
CF --AT-C averaging time (cancer)
Value Units
See Table 3 ug/1
1.09 IJtars..yrlkg-day
15 kg
70 kg
1 liter/day
2 liters/day
6 year.,
I
30 yaars I
350 days/year I 0.001 mg/ug I
25550 days
Rationale/
Reference
Seo Table3
EPA 1991a. b
EPA 1995
EPA 1995
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991■
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a -
EPA 1991a
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
tDOSUre 1um: roun wa Ex Med" G d te r
Intake Equa-Name
IF., • (ED, x I~/ BWJ + (EO,.. • EDJ x 0Ro-/BWJ
. Chronic dally Intake (mg/kg-day)• CW x IFwx EF x CF x 1/AT
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Suppkm,ental Guidance: •standard Default Exposure Factors.■ OSWER Directive 9285.8-03, March 25.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. Human Health Evaluation Manual. Part B: Davalcpment al Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals," OSWER Dlrac:ti-,,e 9285.7-01B. Dacembar 13.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation A-18 - -- -
---- --- -- ------
-- - ----- - --------
Table 5.1
Non-Cancer Toxicity Data -OraUDennal
Geornla~aclllc Hardwood Site --Abs -_ ....... ~ _, __ ,
ct.meal af Palanllal Concem -""""""' Cb
_, __ ,
Uiwww~ ---· --v ... Units v .. Unlls _, -· 2-Methylnaphthalene 4 Chrome 2E-02_.... mg/kg/day "'"" 2E-02 mg/kg/day Oecntasacl body weight 3000 IRIS 9117198
Benzo(a)anthraoene =~ NA mg/kg/day 100% NA mg/kg/day NA NA IRIS ........
Benzo(b &Jar k)tlUOfanthene Chnm~ NA mg/kg/day 100% NA mg/kg/day NA NA IRIS ........
Benzo(a)pyrene Chronic NA mg/kg/day 100% NA mg/kg/day NA NA IRIS ........
Ch"""'° Chronic NA mg/kg/day 100% NA mg/kg/day NA NA IRIS ........
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Chronic NA mg/kg/day 100% NA mo,'kg/day NA NA IRIS ........
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Chronic NA /mg/kg/day 100% NA mg/kg/day NA NA IRIS ........ --Chronic ,e-02/ mg/kg/day 100% 3E-02 mg/kg/day liver, kidney 100 IRIS ........
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) Chronic 2E-05/' mg/kg/day 1""" 2E-05 mg/kg/day Eyes, Meibomian glands, nails 300 IRIS 3/11'ifl
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) Chronic NA mg/kg/day 100% NA mg/kg/day NA NA NA NA
Dioxin TEQ Chronic NA ' mg/kg/day 1""" NA mg/kg/day NA NA IRIS ........
Acetone Chn>n~ 1E--O)j mg/kg/day 100% 1E-01 -y Liver, kidney 1000 1 811193
Aluminum Chn>n~ 1E+OO./ mg/kg/day ""' 2E--01 mg/kg/day CNS~ 100 NCEA 8113199 -~ =~ 3E--04 mg/kg/day 100% 3E--04 -Skin (Hyperplgmentatlon, kemosis) 3 IRIS 4110/98
Barium Chrome 7E-02/ mg/kg/day 5" E--03 mg/kg/day .......... """" 3 IRIS 1/21199
Chromium Chrome SE......,, mg/kg/day ,.. 1E--04 -.......... """" 900 IRIS """' -Iron Chrome 3E--01 mg/kg/day ""' SE-02 mg/kg/day .......... """" 1 NCEA 1999
Lead Chron~ NA mg/kg/day ""' NA mg/kg/day CNS(Neu-NA NA NA
Manganese (soil) 5 Chronic 7E-02/ mg/kg/day 5" E--03 mg/kglday CNS (Neurotcxicity) 3 Region IV 1995
Manganese (watar) 5 Chrome 2.4E-02-mg/kg/day 5" 1 E--03 mg/kg/day CNS(Neu-3 Region IV 1995
Nickel Chronic 2E-02~ --y ""' E--03 mg/kg/day Decreased body and organ weights 300 IRIS ........
"'""" Chronic 5E--03-L-mg/kg/day ""' 1E--03 mg/kg/day Skin (A,gyrla) 3 IRIS ........
Vanadium Chronic 7.0E-03--mg/kg/day 3" 2E--04 mg/kg/day Oecreased hair cystine uok HEAST 1995
Mercury• Chronic 1E-04/ mg/kg/day ""' 2E-05 mg/kg/day CNS (Neurotcxicity) 10 IRIS ........
I I I\ &le----N-r 'W'~ \e~fjL ~ATSOR toxicological profiles consulted. When abs«ption efficiency exceeded 50% in the tcxicological profile, EPA Region IV policy Is to default to 100% (EPA 1999). Where no data were awilable, the following
\......! :; L1'iautts were used: 20% inofganics, 50% Mmlvolatiles, 80% volatiles . .(\ ~ (J/',f\J 2. EPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superlund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) December. Appendix A.
'J-') (}.J O e} J 3. Equation used for derivatioo: R1D x oral to dermal adju5trnent factor ~ / 4. Naphthalene used for 2-methylnaphthalene toxicity ! ~ c't<:_ 5. The RtDofor manganese in IRIS is 1.4E-1 mg/kg/day based on the NOA8.. of 10 mg/day. For soil exposure, Region IV policy Is to 5Ubtractthe awrage dallydieta,y axposure (5 mgfday) from the N0AEL to VJ . Y detefmine a~ R!Do. When this is done, a "&oir RfDo clTE.-2 mglkglday results. Forwatar, a neonate is considered a sensitive receptDrforthe neurological effects of manganese. Thus, caution [m the form ota
modifying factof) is wanantBd until more data are available. Using a modifying factor of3 rasutts in a "Watet" RtDo d 2.4E-2 mgfl(g/day.
6. Methylmercury used for mMCUry toxicity
Acronyms:
ATSOR -Aoencyfor Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
IRIS -Integrated Risk Information Sys.tam
HEAST -Health Effeds Assessment Summary Tat.es
COM ttdttal Pqrama Coq,oratlon.
NCEA • National Center for ErMrorunental Assessment
TEQ-Toxic Equivalent Value d2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
RfD -Reference close
- -
A-19
Table 5.2
Non-Cancer Toxicity Data•· Inhalation
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Inhalation RfC
Chemical of Potential Chronic/
Concern Subchronlc Values Units
Barium Chronic 5E-04 mg/m3
Chromium Chronic 1E-04\ mg/m3
Manganese (soil) Chronic 5E-05 mg/m3
Mercury 2 Chronic 3E-04 ' mg/m3
Adjusted Rm 1
Values Units .,,
1E-04_, mg/kg/day
3E-05 mg/kg/day 1.4E-O✓ mg/kg/day
8.SE-05/' mg/kg/day
Combined RfC: Target Organ(s)
Primary Target Uncertainty/
Organ Modifying Source{s) Oate{s)
Factors
Fetus 1000 HEAST 1995
Lung 300 IRIS 9/3/98
CNS 1000 IRIS 5/5/98
CNS 30 IRIS 5/5/98
~-
0
~:~ation used for derivation: RfC divided by 70 kg ~ssumed human body weight) multiplied by 20 m3/day (assumed human intake rate).
2. Inorganic mercury used for mercury toxicity. \~ · ' ,o .
Acronyms: t-
lRIS -Integrated Risk Information System
HEAST -HeaHh Effects Assessment Summary Tables
RfD -Reference dose
RfC -Reference ccncentration
CNS -Central nervous system
CDM Federal Pmgram, Coq,oration - - -- - - - -- --------A-20 - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 6.1
Cancer Toxicity Data -Oral/Dermal
G la-Pacifl H dwood Site eorg1 C ar
Weight of
ChemlcaJ of Potentlat Oral Cancer Slope Factor Absorption Adjusted Cancer Slope Factor (for Evidence/ Oral CSF: Absorption
Concern Efficiency (lot Dermal)1.J cancer Efficiency
Dermal) Guldellne
Value Units Value Units Description"' Source(•) Date(•I
2-Methylnaphthaleno NA (mg/kg/day)-100'11, NA (mg/11g/day)-0 IRIS 9117/98
Benzo(a)anthracene 7.JE-01 (mg/leg/day)-' 100'11, 7.JE-01 (mg/11g/day)-' 82 RHPA 1995
Benzo(b &/o, k)nuoranthene 7.JE-01 (mg/kg/day)-' 100'11, 7.JE-01 (mg/leg/day)-, B2 RHPA 1995
Benzo(a)pyrene 7.3E+OO (mg/kg/day)-' 100'11, 7.3E+OO (mg/leg/day)-, B2 IRIS 5/5198
Chryaene 7.JE-03 (mg/leg/day)-' 100'11, 7.JE-03 (mg/11g/day)-' B2 RHPA 1995
Olbenzo(a,h)anthracene 7.3E+OO (mg/leg/day)•' 100'11, 7.3E+OO (mg/kg/day)-' B2 RHPA 1995
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 7.JE-01 (mg/leg/day)-' 100'11, 7.JE-01 (mg/leg/day)-, 82 R4EPA 1995
Pentachlorophonol 1.2E-01 (mg/kg/day)-' 100'11, 1.2E-01 (mg/kg/day)-' 82 IRIS 5/5198
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) 2.0E+OO (mg/leg/day)•' 100'11, 2E>OO (mg/leg/day)-' 82 IRIS 811/97
PCB-1260 (Aroclo< 1260) 2.0E+OO (mg/kg/day)-' 10Q'II, 2E+OO (mg/11g/day)-' 82 IRIS 611/97
Dioxin TEQ 1.5E+05 (mg/kg/day)-' 100'11, 1.5E+05 (mg/leg/day)·' B2 HEAST 1995
Aluminum NA (mg/kg/day)-' 20'11, NA (mg/kg/day)-' 0 NA NA
Anlenlc 1.SE+OO (mg/leg/day)•' 100'11, 1.SE+OO (mg/kg/day)-, A IRIS 4/10/98
Barium NA (mg/kg/day)-' 5'11, NA (mg/kg/day)•' 0 IRIS 1/21199
Chromium NA (mg/leg/day)-, 2'11, NA (mg/kg/day)-' 0 IRIS 913198
Iron NA (mg/kg/day)-' 20% NA (mg/kg/day)•' 0 NA NA
Laad NA (mg/kg/day)-' 20'11, NA (mg/leg/day)-, B2 IRIS 5/5198
Manganese (soil) NA (mg/kg/day)-' 5'11, NA (mg/kg/day)·, 0 IRIS 5/5198
Manganese (water) NA (mg/leg/day)-' 5'11, NA (mg/leg/day)-' 0 IRIS 5/5198
Nickel NA (mg/leg/day)-, 20'11, NA (mg/kg/day)-' NA IRIS 5/5198
Sliver NA (mg/kg/day)-' 20'11, NA (mg/kg/day)-' 0 IRIS 5/5198
Vanadium NA (mg/kg/day)-' 3'11, NA (mg/kg/day)-' NA NA NA
Mercury• NA (mg/leg/day)•' 20'11, NA (mg/leg/day)-' C IRIS 5/5198
Acetone NA (mg/kg/day)-' 100'11, NA (mg/kg/day)-' 0 IRIS 1216/89
Noles:
1. ATSOR toxicological profUes conaulted. When absorption efficiency exceeded 50% in the toxicological profile, EPA Region IV policy la to default to 100% (EPA
1999). Where no data were available, the following defautta were uaed: 20% lnorganlca, 50% semivolatlles, 80% volatiles.
2. EPA 1989. Riak Aaaesament Guidance for Supetfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual {Part A) December. Appendix A.
3. Equation uaed for derivation: CSF divided by oral lo dermal adjustment factor
4. Weight of Evidence:
Known/Ukaly
Cannot be Determined
Not Likely
5. EPA Group:
A -Human carclnogen
B1 -Probable human carcinogen -Indicates that limited human data are available
B2 -Probable human carcinogen -Indicates aufflclent evidence in animals and
Inadequate or no evidence in humans
C -Possible human carcinogen
O -Nol claaatf1&ble u a human carcinogen
E -Evidence or nonc;:arclnogeniclty
e. Methylmercury used for mercury carcinogenicity
CDM ,...,.1 ,...,..,, c.,.,,,.,,,.
Acronyms:
ATSOR -Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
IRIS -Integrated Risk lnfonnation System
HEAST -Health Effect& Asseaament Summary Tables
NCEA -National Center for Environmental Aaaesament
TEQ -Toxic Equivalent Value of 2,3, 7 ,8-Telrachloroclibenzodloxin
CSF -Cancer Slope Factor
A-21
Table 6.2
Cancer Toxicity Data -Inhalation
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Unlt Risk
Chemical of Potential
Concern
Value Unlts
Benzo(a)anthracene 8.SE--02 mglm·
8enzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 8.SE--02 rng/m'
8enzo(a)pyrene 8.SE--01 rng/m'
Chrysene 8.SE--04 mg/m3
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 8.SE--01 rng/m'
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 8.SE--02 mg/m3
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) unk ug/m3
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) unk ugtm'
Dioxin TEQ 3.3E--05 ,pgtm'
Araenlc 4.3E--03 ugtm'
Chromium 1.2E--02 ug1,;,'
Notes:
Adjustment 1
3.5.E+OO
3.5.E+OO
3.5.E+OO
3.5.E+OO
3.5.E+OO
3.5.E+OO
3.S.E+03
3.S.E+03
3.S.E+09
3.5.E+OO
3.S.E+03
Inhalation Cancer Slope Weight of
Factor Evidence/
Cancer Source{•> Date(•>
Guideline
Value Units Description t> /
3.1 E--01' (mg/kg/day)"· B2 R4EPA 1995 / 3.1 E--01 , (mg/kg/day)"' B2 R4EPA 1995
3.1E+OO/, (mg/kg/day)"1 B2 NCEA 11/18/94
3.1 E--03" , (mg/kg/day)"' 82 R4EPA 1995
3.1E+OO/ , (mg/kg/day)"' 82 R4EPA 1995
3.1E--01" (mg/kg/day)"1 B2 R4EPA 1995
2.0E+OO~ . (mg/kg/day)"1 B2 IRIS 8/1/97
2.0E+oo-::. (mg/kg/day)"' B2 IRIS 8/1/97
1.2E+05/ (mg/kg/day)"1 82 HEAST 1995
1.SE+01 /Cmg/kg/dayr' A IRIS 4110/98
4.2E+01/ (mg/kg/day)"1 A IRIS 9/3/98
1. Adjustment: 70 kg (assumed human body weight) dMded by 20 m3/day (assumed human lnlake rate) multiplied by 1,000 ug/mg or 1,000,000,000
pg/mg (convenilon factors).
2. Weight of Evidence:
Known/likely
Cannot be Determined
Not Likely
3. EPA Group:
A -Human carclnogen
B 1 • Probable human carcinogen • indicates that lilnlted human data are available
B2 -Probable human carcinogen -indicates sufficient evidence In animals and
Inadequate or no evkfence In humans
C -Possible human carcinogen
D • Not classifiable as a human carcinogen
E -Evidence of noncarclnogenlclty
Acronyms:
ATSDR • Agency for TolClc Substances and Disease Reglsby
IRIS• Integrated Risk lnfonnatlon System
HEAST • Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
NCEA -National Center for Environmental Assessment
TEQ. Toxic Equivalent Value of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodloxin
CSF • Cancer Slope Factor
CDM F<,l=I Proe,am,Coq,ontion A-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--- ------
Table 7.1(a)
Calculallon of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non.Cancer Hazards -Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
la-P 1ft H rd ood Site Geora ac C a w
Medium Exposu,. Exposun Exposun
Medium Point -
Soil SoU Site
,_
CDM '°""''.......,Coq.ntioa
EPC
Chtmlcal of Potential Concam Value Units
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.673/ -Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 0.838 ' -Benzo(a)pyrene 0.722
' -Clvyuene 0.678 -' Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.075 • -lndeno (1,2,:kd) pyrene 0.5-40 -' Pemachlorophenol 1.939 -' PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) 0.049 -' PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 0.046 ' -Dioxin TEO 0.0005 • -Aluminum 4,751 • mg/kg -12 I -Barium l53 -Chromium 12 -Iron r;~ -Manganese -Nick21 -Silwf 0.592 -Total Mercury 0.076 -
-- - --
cancer Rfsk calculatlons
lmau/Exposun CSF/UnttRlsk ea,-Concentration -Value Units Yalu. Units
3E-08 mg/kg/day 7.3E-01 (mglkg/d)"' 2E-08
4E-08 mg/kg/day 7.3E-01 (--• 3E-08
3E-08 mg/kg/day 7.3E+OO (mglkg/d)"' 2E-07
3E-08 -7.3E-03 (mglkg/d)"' 2E-10
3E-09 mg/kg/day 7.3E+OO (mglkg/d)"' 2E-08
2E-08 mg/kg/day 7.3E-01 (mglkgld)"' 2E-08
BE-08 mg/kg/day 1.2E-01 (mglkgld)"' 1E-08
2E-09 mg/kg/day 2.0E.+00 (mglkg/d)"' 4E-09
2E-09 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mglkgld)"' 4E-09
2E-11 mg/kg/day 1.5E+05 (mg/kg/dr1 3E-08
2E-04 -NA (mg/kg/dr1 NA
SE-07 mg/kg/day 1.SE+OO (mglkgld)"' BE-07
7E-06 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)", NA
SE-07 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/df1 NA
4E-04 mg/kg/day NA (mglkgld)"' NA
2E-05 mg/kg/day NA (mglkg/d)"' NA
3E-07 mg/kg/day NA (mglkg/d)", NA
3E-08 mg/kg/day NA (--· NA
3E-09 mg/kg/day NA (mglkg/d)"' NA
Total Risk .....
--- --
Scenario Tlmetrame: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Visitor
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Non-Cancer Hazard calculations
lmau/Exposun R!DIRIC Hmnl Conanbatk,u a.-nt
Value Units Value Units
2E-07 mg/kg/day NA -NA
3E-07 mg/kg/day NA -NA
2E-07 mg/kg/day NA -NA
2E-07 mg/kg/day NA -NA
2E-08 -NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-07 mg/kg/day NA -NA
BE-07 mg/kg/day 3E-02 -0.00002
2E-08 mg/kg/day 2E-05 mg/kg/day 0.001
1E-08 mg/kg/day NA -NA
2E-10 mg/kg/day NA -NA
1E-03 mg/kg/day 1E+OO mg/kg/day 0.001
4E-08 mg/kg/day 3E-04 -0.01
SE-05 -7E-02 -0.001
4E-06 mg/kg/day SE--03 -0.001
2E-03 -3E-01 -0.01
1E-04 -7E-02 mg/kg/day 0.002
2E-06 mg/kg/day 2E-02 -0.0001
2E-07 mgllqj/day SE-03 mg/kg/day 0.00004
2E-08 mg/kg/day 1E-04 mg/kg/day 0.0002
Total Hazard lndu: 6.03
A-23
Table 7.1(a)
Calculation of Chemlcal Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards -Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
G I -P Ill H rd ood Site eora1a ac C a w
EPC
Medium ex....,. ex....., .. ex....., .. Chemical of Potantlal Concern lladlum Point Routo Value
' Units
Soil Soil Site Dem,aJ Benzo(a)anthracene 0.673
,_
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
0838 / mg/lqj
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.722 mg/kg
Chrysene 0.678 mg/lqj ,
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.075 mg/lqj ,
lndeno (1,2,3-od) pyrene 0.540 mg/kg ' --1.939 mg/kg ' PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) 0.049 mg/lqj
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) o'046 mg/kg
Dioxin TEQ c!_rxxy; mg/kg
Aluminum ~.751 mg/lqj
An;enlc 12 mg/lqj
Barium 153 mg/kg
Chromium 12 -lrnn 8,205 mg/lqj
Manganese 376 -"""" 7 mg/kg
"'""' ~592 -' Total Mercury 0.076 mg/kg
\
CDM Fdenl Pf'Cllr[&fDf Corporation ----

-
-

-
--
Cancer Risk Calculations
lntaka/Exposura CSF/Untt Ris1c Coucenbatlou
Valua Units Yalu• Units
2E-08 mg/kg/day 7.3E-01 <-r•
2E-08 mg/kg/day 7.3E-01 <-r•
2E-08 mg/kll/day 7.3E+OO (mg/kg/d)"1
2E-08 mg/kll/day 7.JE-03 <-r•
2E-09 mg/kg/day 7.3E+OO (mglkgld)"'
1E-08 rr,glko/day 7.3E-01 (mglkgld)"'
1E-08 mg/kg/day 1.2E-01 1-r•
1E-09 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mglkgld)"'
1E-09 mg/kll/day 2.0E+OO (rnglkg/d)"'
1E-11 mg/kll/day 1.5805 (mglkgld)"'
1E-05 mg/kg/day NA (mglkgld)"'
3E-08 mg/kg/day 1.SE+OO (mglkgld)"'
4E-07 mg/kll/day NA (mg/kg/df1
3E-08 mg/kg/day NA <-r•
2E-05 mg/kg/day NA (mglkgld)"'
9E-07 mg/kll/day NA (mglkgld)"'
2E-08 mg/kll/day NA <-r•
1E-09 mg/kg/day NA <-r•
2E-10 ~day NA (mg/kg/dr 1
Total Risk
---

-
cancer
Risk
1E-08
2E-08
1E-07
1E-1D
1E-08
1E-08
1E-07
2E-09
2E-09
2E-08
NA
SE-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2S-08
Scenario Tlmeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Visitor
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Non.Cancer Hazard Calculations
lntaka/Exposura IIIDIRIC Hazard Concantnotion
Quotient Value Units Value Units
1E-07 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-07 mg/1<g/day NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-07 mg/1<g/day NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-07 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-08 mg/1<g/day NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-07 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
BE-08 -3E-02 -0.0003
9E-09 mg/1<g/day 2E-05 mg/kg/day 0.0004
BE-09 mg/1<g/day NA mg/kg/day NA
9E-11 mg/1<g/day NA mg/kg/day NA
BE-05 mg/1<g/day 2E-01 mg/kg/day 0.0004
2E-07 mg/1<g/day 3E-04 mg/kg/day 0.001
3E-08 mg/kg/day •E-03 mg/kg/day 0.001
2E-07 mg/1<g/day 1E-04 mg/kg/day 0.002
1E-04 mg/kg/day SE-02 mg/kll/day 0.002
7E-08 mg/1<g/day 4E-03 mg/kg/day 0.002
1E-07 mg/1<g/day 4E-03 mg/kll/day 0.00003
1E-08 mg/1<g/day 1E-03 -0.00001
1E-09 mg/1<g/day 2E-05 mg/kg/day O.OXl1
Total Hazard Index 0.01
A-24 ------
---- -----
Table 7.1(a)
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards --cavadon
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georg la-Pacific Hardwood Site
EPC
Medium Exposure Exposure Exposure Chemkal of Potantlal Concern Medium Point -Valllll Units
Soil Soil Sile Inhalation Benzo(a)anthracene 0:1:
mg/kg
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 0. mg/kg I Benzo(a)pyrene 0.7'Z2
I
mg/kg
Chlysene 0.678
'
mg/kg
Oibenzo(a,h)Zlnthracene o.ov, mg/kg
lndeno (1,2,:><0] pyrene 0.540 '
mg/kg --nol 1.939 I
mg/kg
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) 0.049
'
mg/kg
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 0.046
'
mg/kg
Dioxin TEO 0.0005 ' mg/kg
Aluminum 4,751
'
mg/kg -12 ' mg/kg
Barium 153 ' mg/kg
Chromium 12 ' mg/kg
Iron 8,205 mg/kg
' Manganese 376 mg/kg
Nickel /1 mg/kg
Sitver 0.592 '
mg/kg
Total MefCUry 0.076 mg/kg
Medium Total
SUrtace SUrtace Ditch Ingestion Araenic 310 ug/1 water . water ug/1 Barium 260
Iron 14,0CNJ ug/1
Manganese 3,000 ug/1
Acetone 160 ug/1
surtace surtace Ortell ~ Araenic 310 ug/1 water water Barium 260 ug/1
loon 14,0CNJ Ug/1
Manganese 3,000 ug/1
Acetone 160 ug/1
Medium Total
-----
cancer Risk Calculations
lntake/Exposu,. caF/Unlt Risk Conce-ca.--Value Units Value Units
4E-12 mg/l<g/day 3.1E-01 (mg/lqj/d)"' 1E-12
SE-12 mg/lqj/day 3.1E-01 (mg/lqj/d)"' 1E-12
-CE-12 -3.1E+OO (mg/kgldr1 1E-11
4E-12 mg/lqj/day 3.1E-03 (mg/kg/d)"' 1E-14
4E-13 mg/kg/day 3.1E+OO (mg/kg/d)"' 1E-12
3E-12 mg/kg/day 3.1E-01 (mg/kg/d)"' BE-13
1E-11 mg/l<g/day NA (mg/kg/d)"' NA
3E-13 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mglkgldr' 6E-13
3E-13 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mglkgldr' 5E-13
3E-15 mg/kg/day 1.2E+05 <-r• 3E-10
3E-08 mg/lqj/day NA (.-i"' NA
7E-11 mg/lqj/day 1.5E+01 (rng/kg/d)"' 1E-09
BE-10 mg/lqj/day NA <-r• NA
7E-11 mg/lqj/day 4.2E+01 (rng/kg/d)"' 3E-09
SE-08 -NA (mg/kg/d)"' NA
2E-09 mg/lqj/day NA (mglkgld}"' NA
4E-11 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d}"' NA
3E-12 mg/kg/day NA (rng/kg/d)"' NA
4E-13 mg/kg/day NA (mg/lqj/d)"' NA
Total Risk .....
Total Risk 7E-o&
6E-07 mg/kg/day 1.5E+OO (mglko/'d)"1 1E-06
SE-07 mg/kg/day NA (rng/kg/d)"' NA
3E-05 mg/kg/day NA (rng/kg/d)"' NA
6E-06 mg/lqj/day NA (mg/kg/d)-1 NA
3E-07 mg/lqj/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
Total Risk 1E-o&
6E-08 mg/kg/day 1.5E+OO (mg/kg/d)"1 BE-08
SE-08 mg/lqj/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
3E-06 mg/kg/day NA (-·• NA
6E-07 mg/kg/day NA (rng/kg/d)·' NA
2E-07 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
Total Risk OE-08
Total Rfsk 1E-06
Total Rtslt Across All lledia BE-06
-----
Scenario Tlmeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Populallon: Visitor
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Non-Cancer Hazard Catculatlons
lntaka/Exposur. RID/RIC -Cance--Value Units Value Units
3E-11 -NA mg/lqj/day NA
3E-11 -NA -NA
3E-11 -NA mg/kg/day NA
3E-11 mg/l<g/day NA mg/kg/day NA
3E-12 -NA mg/lqj/day NA
2E-11 mg/kg/day NA mg/lqj/day NA
SE-11 -NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-12 mg/kg/day NA mg/lqj/day NA
2E-12 -NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-14 -NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-07 mg/lqj/day NA mg/kg/day NA
SE-10 mg/lqj/day NA mg/kg/day NA
6E-09 mg/lqj/day 1E-04 mg/kg/day 0.00004
SE-10 mg/lqj/day 2.9E-05 mg/kg/day 0.00002
3E-07 mg/lqj/day NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-08 mg/lqj/day 1.4E-05 mg/lqj/day 0.001
3E-10 mg/lqj/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-11 mg/lqj/day NA mg/kg/day NA
JE-12 mg/kg/day 8.6E-05 mg/kg/day 0.00000003
Total Hazard Index 0.001
T otat Hazard Index O.N
SE-06 mg/lqj/day 3E-04 mg/kg/day 0.02
4E-06 mg/lqj/day 7E-02 mg/lqj/day 0.00)1
2E-04 mg/lqj/day 3E-01 --0.001
•E-05 -2E-02 -0.002
2E-06 mg/kg/day 1E-01 mg/kg/day 0.00002
Total Hazard lndu 0.02
4E-07 mg/lqj/day 3E-04 mg/kg/day 0.001
4E-07 mg/lqj/day 4E-03 mg/kg/day 0.OCNJ1
2E-05 mg/kg/day 6E-02 mg/kg/day 0.0003
4E-06 mg/lqj/day 1E-03 mg/lqj/day 0.003
1E-06 mg/lqj/day 1E-01 mg/kg/day 0.CXXXJ1
Total Hazard Index 0.01
Total Hazard Index 0.02
Total Hazard Index Across All llldia 0.1
A-25
-
Table 7.1(b)
Calculatlon of Chemlcal Cancer Risks and Non.Cancer Hazards • Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georala-Paclflc Hardwood Site
EPC
Medium Exposura ExposUN ..,... ... Chemk:al of Potential eonc.m Medium Point Routa Value Unlta
I
Soil Soil Srte Ingestion Benzo(a)anthracene 0.652 """"" Benzo(b and/or k)ftuorenthene o~'/ -Benzo(a)pynone 0.721 -OVysene 0.670 -Oibenzo(a,h}anthracene 0.075 -lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pynone O.S.O -• PCS-125'1 (Aroclor 125'1) -0.""9
' -PCS-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 0.1>16 ' -Dioxin TEO 0.0002 mg/lqj ' ' Aluminum 4,751 -• Arsenic 8.6 -' Barium 153 • -Chromium 10 -Iron s!20s -' Manganese 376 -Nk,kel
/66 -Silvef 0.6 -Total Mercury 0.1 -
COM Federal Pn:vnn,o Corp::,ntlcm - - -- - - --
Cancer RJsk Calculations
lntaktt/Exposura CSFAJnlt Risk ca,-Concentration -Value Unlta Value Unlta
3E-08 mg/kg/day 7.3E-01 (mglkg/d)"' 2E-08
•E-08 mg/kg/day 7.JE-01 (mg/lqj/d)"' 3E-08
3E-08 mg/kg/day 7.3E•OO (mg/lqj/d)"' 2E-07
3E-08 mg/lqj/day 7.3E-03 {mg/kg/d)·, 2E-10
3E--09 mg/lqj/day 7.3E+OO (mg/lqj/d)"' 2E-08
2E-08 mg/lqj/day 7.3E-01 (mg/lqj/d)"' 2E-08
2E--09 mg/lqj/day 2.0E+OO (mg/lqj/d)"' E-09
2E--09 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mg/lqj/d)"' E-09
BE-12 mg/kg/day 1.5E+05 (mg/lqj/d)"' 1E-06
2E-<>I mg/lcij/day NA (mglkgld)"' NA
4E--07 mg/lqj/day 1.5E+OO (mg/kg/dr1 6E-07
7E-06 mg/lqj/day NA (mg/kg/d)"' NA
E-07 mg/lqj/day NA (mg/kg/d)"' NA
•E-<>< mg/lqj/day NA frn;/kg/dr1 NA
2E-05 mg/kg/day NA (mg/lqj/d)"' NA
3E-07 mg/kgl'day NA (mg/lqj/d)"' NA
3E-08 mg/kg/day NA (mg/lqj/d)"' NA
3E--09 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"' NA
Total Risk 2E-06
-----
Scenario Tlmeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Visitor
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Non-Cancer Hazard calculattons
ln1au/Exposu,. -Huard Couunbatto.,
Quotient
Value Unlta Value Unlta
2E-07 -NA -NA
3E-07 mg/kg/day NA -NA
2E-07 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-07 mg/kg/day NA mg/lqj/day NA
2E-08 mg/kg/day NA -NA
2E-07 mg/lqj/day NA -NA
2E-08 -2E-05 -0.001
1E-08 -NA mg/lqj/day NA
6E-11 mg/kg/day NA mg/lqj/day NA
1E-03 mg/kg/day 1E+OO -O.CX>1
3E-06 mg/lqj/day 3E-<>I -0.01
SE-05 -7E-02 -0.001
3E-06 -SE-03 -0.001
2E-03 -3E-01 -0.01
1E-<>I mg/kg/day 7E-02 -0.002
2E-06 mg/kg/day 2E-02 -O.CXXJ1
2E-07 mg/kg/day 5E-03 -0.0000.
2E-06 mg/kg/day 1E-<>I mg/kg/day 0.0002
Total Hazard Index 0.02
A-26 ---- -
-- -- ---- -
Table 7.1(b)
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non~ancer Hazards -Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
I Georala.Paclflc Hardwood S le
EPC
Madlum Exposurw Exposurw Exposurw Chemlcal ol Pob:ntlal Concern Medium Point -Y■luo Units
Soll Soil Sito Dennal Benzo(a)anthracene 0.652 ' mg/kg
8enzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 0.821 ' mg/kg
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.721 ' mg/kg
Chry&eno 0.670 mg/kg I Oibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.075 mg/kg ' lndeoo (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 0.540 mg/kg I
f'CB.1254 (Aroclol 1254) 0.049
'
mg/kg
f'CB.1260 (Aroclol 1260) 0.046 ' mg/kg
Dioxin TEQ 0.0002 " mg/kg
Aluminum t mg/kg -mg/kg
Barium 153 mg/kg • Chromium 10 mg/kg ' Iron 8,205 mg/l(g
" Manganese 378 mg/kg
" N-6.6 mg/kg ' Si""' 0.6 ' mg/kg
TOO!IMera.iry I 0.1 mg/1cg
I
-- - --
Cancer Risk Calc:ulations
lntab/Exposura CSF/UnltRlsk ea.-eon..-. Risk
Value Units Valua Units
2E-08 mgllqj/day 7.3E-01 ,_r' 1E-08
2E-08 ,_ .. , 7.3E-01 ,_r' 2E-08
2E-08 -day 7.3E+OO (,_d)"' 1E-07
2E-08 mgllqj/day 7.3E-03 (,_d)"' 1E-10
2E-09 -7.3E+OO 1.-•r' 1E-08
1E-08 mgllqj/day 7.3E-01 ,-r• 1E-08
3E-08 mgl1qj/day 2.0E+OO (rnglkg/d)"' SE-08
1E-09 mg/lqj/day 2.0E+OO (,_d)"' 2E-09
5E-12 mgllqj/day 1.5E+05 (-d)"' 7E-07
1E-05 ,_ .. , NA ,-r• NA
2E-08 ,_ .. , 1.SE+OO (m;lkg/d)"I 3E-08
4E-07 mgl1qj/day NA ,,_d)., NA
3E-08 ,_ .. , NA (rnglkg/d)·'. NA
2E-05 ,_ .. , NA (rnglkgld)"' NA
9E-07 mgllqj/day NA (mg/kg/d)"' NA
2E-08 ,_ .. , NA (mglkg/'dr1 NA
1E-09 -day NA (m;lkgld)"' NA
2E-1D -NA (mglkg/d)" 1 NA
Total Risk .....
- - - - -
Scenario Tlmeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Visitor
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Non-Cancer Hazard Calc:u!aUons
lntau/Exposurw AID/RIC Hanni ---Value Units Value Units
1E-07 -NA mgllqj/day NA
1E-07 -NA -NA
1E-07 -NA mgllqj/day NA
1E-07 -NA mgllqj/day NA
1E-08 -NA -NA
1E-07 -day NA -NA
2E-07 -2E-05 mgllqj/day 0.01
BE-09 -NA ,_ .. , NA
3E-11 -NA -NA
BE-05 -2E-01 -0.0004
2E-07 -3E-04 mgllqj/day 0.0005
3E-06 -4E-03 -0.001
2E-07 -1E-04 mgllqj/day 0.002
1E-04
_,
SE-02 ,_ .. , 0.002
7E-06 -4E-03 -day 0.002
1E-07 -4E-03 -· 0.00003
1E-08 -1E-03 -day O.COJJ1
1E-09 -2E-05 ,_ ... O.COJ1
Total Hazard Index 0.02
A-27
Table 7.1(b)
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards -Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georala.Paclflc Hardwood Site
EPC
Medium Exposu .. Exposu .. Exposu .. Chemlcal of Pobtntial Concern Medium Point Routo Value Units
l
Soll Soll Site Inhalation Benzo(a)anthracene o~y mg/kg
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 0.821 mg/kg
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.721 mg/kg
Chrysene 0.670
I
mg/kg
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.075 I mg/kg
lndeno (1,2,3-<:d) pyrene 0.540 I mg/kg
PCS.1254 (Aroclor 1254) 0.049 ' mg/kg
PC~ 1260 (Aroclor 1260) 0.046 I mg/kg
Dioxin TEO 0.0002 mg/kg
I Aluminum 4,751
'
mg/kg -8.6 • mg/kg
Barium 153 mg/kg I Chromium 10 mg/kg ' Iron 8,205 • mg/kg
Manganese 376 mg/kg ' Nickel 6.6 mg/kg ' Silver 0.6 mg/kg • Total Mercury 0.1 mg/kg
Medium Total
Surface Surtace Ditch
water water
Ingestion Arsenic 310 ug/1
Barium 260 ug/1
Iron 14,00J ug/1
Manganese 3,000 ug/1
Acetone 160 ug/1
Sulface Surface Ditch Dennal Arsenic 310 ug/1 water water Barium 260 ug/1
Iron 14,00J ug/1
ManltJSnese 3,000 ug/1
Acetone 160 ug/1
Medium Total
CDM f.edcn1l Pqams O:xporwon -- - -- - -- -
Cancer Risk CalculaUons
lntablExposura CSF/Untt Rb11: Concanbatt\lfl
Value Units Value Units
4E-12 mg/kg/day 3.1E-01 (mglkg/d)"'
5E-12 mg/kg/day 3.1E--01 (mg/kg/d)"'
4E-12 mg/kg/day 3.1E+OO (mg/kg/dr'
4E-12 mg/kg/day 3.1E-03 (mg/kg/dr'
4E-13 mg/kg/day 3.1E+OO <-r•
3E-12 mg/kg/day 3.1E--01 (mg/kg/dr'
3E-13 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mg/kg/d)·'
3E-13 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mg/kg/dr'
tE-15 mg/kg/day 1.2E+05 (mglkg/dr'
3E-08 mg/kg/day NA (mglkg/dr'
5E-11 mg/kg/day 1.5E+01 (mglkg/dr'
9E-10 mg/kg/day NA ,-r•
6E-11 mg/kg/day 4.2E+01 (mg/kg/d)·'
SE-08 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/dr'
2E-09 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/dr'
4E-11 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/dr'
JE-12 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/dr'
4E-13 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/dr'
Total Risk
Total Risk
6E-07 mg/kg/day 1.5E+OO (mg/kg/dr'
5E.07 mg/kg/day NA (mg/lqj/dr'
3E-05 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)·'
6E-08 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/dr'
3E-07 mg/kg/day NA (mglko/dr1
Total Risk
6E-08 mg/kg/day 1.5E+OO (mg/l<Q/d)"1
SE-08 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kgfd)"1
3E-06 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"I
6E-07 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg:/dr1
2E-07 mg/kg/day NA {mg/kgfd)"1
Total Rtsk
Total Rtsk
Total Risk Actou All Media
-- --
cancor
Rlsll
1E-12
1E-12
1E-11
1E-1◄
1E-12
9E-13
6E-13
5E-13
tE-10
NA
7E-10
NA
2E-09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
:se ...
:,e...,
1E-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
1E...,
9E-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
OE.OS
"'""" 4E-<JI
-
Scenario Tlmeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Visitor
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
lntau/Exposu .. RID/RIC Conc1111batlo .. Huard -Value Units Value Units
3E-11 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
3E-11 -NA mg/kg/day NA
3E-11 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
3E-11 -y NA mg/kg/day NA
3E-12 -NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-t 1 -y NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-12 -NA -NA
2E-12 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
7E-15 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-07 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
3E-10 -NA -y NA
6E-09 -1E-04 -0.lro'.l4
4E-10 -3E-05 mg/kg/day O.IXXXJ1
3E.07 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-08 mg/kg/day 1.4E-05 mg/kg/day 0.001
3E-10 -y NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-11 -y NA mg/kg/day NA
3E-12 -y 8.6E-05 mg/kg/day O.llOOCXXXJ3
Total Hazard Index 0.001
Total Hazard lndax ....
5E-06 mg/kg/day JE-04 -y 0.02
4E-06 mg/kg/day 7E-02 mg/kg/day 0.CXXJ1
2E-04 mg/kg/day 3E.01 mg/kg/day 0.001
4E-05 mg/kg/day 2E-02 mg/kg/day 0.002
2E-06 mg/kg/day 1E-01 mg/kg/day 0.00002
Total Hazard Index D.02
4E-07 mg/kg/day 3E-04 mg/kg/day 0.001
4E-07 mg/kg/day 4E-03 -y 0.OOJ1
2E-05 mg/kg/day 6E-02 mg/kg/day 0.0003
4E-08 mg/kg/day 1E-03 mg/kg/day 0.003
1E-08 mg/kg/day 1E-01 mg/kg/day O.CXXX>1
Total Hazard Index D.01
Total Hazard Index D.02
Total Hazard Index Across All Media D.1
-----
- --------
Table 7.2(al
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non.Cancer Hazards • P-cavatlon
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia.Pacific Hardwood Site
- ------- -
Scenario Timelrame: Future
Receptor Population: Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
EPC cancer RIA catculatlons Nort-Cancer Huard ca1culatlons .... , .... ......... -......... Chamical ol Potential Concern --CSFIUnltRIN ........_ .. Rt0IRtC Medium Point ·-Value Units Colteentnrtlon C.,-Rlak CO.leetibdoii Hmnl -Value Units Value Uolls V.lue Uolls Value Uolls
""'' Soil ... ,_
Benzo(■}anthtllCe!Mt om! -1E-07
_,
7.3E-01 (n~r' OE-08 3E-07 -NA -NA
Benm(b and/or kJfluonanthene 0.838 -1E-07
_,
7.3E-01 (mglkgld)"' 1E-07 <E-07 -NA -NA
Benzo(a)pynme 0.722 -1E-07 m_, 7.3E+OO (mg/lcgld)"' OE-07 <E-07 -NA -NA
Ch,,..... 0.678 -1E-07
_,
7.3E-03 (mg/lcgld)"' 9E-10 3E.Q7
_,
NA -NA ' Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.075 -1E-08 mg/kg/<lay 7.3E+OO (mglkg/d)"1 1E-07 <E-08
_,
NA
_,
NA ' (mglkgld)"1 lndeno (1,2,3-cd') py,w,e 0.5"' -OE-08
_,
7.3E-01 7E-08 3E.Q7 -NA -NA ' (mg/lcgld)., -1.039 -3E-07
_,
1.2E-01 <E-08 OE-07 -3E-02 -O.ll0003 • (mg/lcgld)", PCB-1254 (Atocl0I' 1254) 0.049 -OE-00
_,
20E.00 2E-08 2E-08 -2E-05 -0.001 ' (mg/lcgld)"1 PCB-1260 (Aroc:lof 1260) O.O<e -5E-OO
_,
2.0E+OO 2E-08 2E-08 -NA -NA
' (mglkg/d)"1 Dioxin 1EQ 0.0005 -SE-11
_,
1.5E+05 1E-05 3E-10 -NA
_,
NA
' cm;lkgld)·1 Aluminum ◄,751 -5E-04 ......... , NA NA 2E-03 -1E.oo ...,.., .. , 0.002 • (mg/kgld)·1 -~ 12 -2E-08
_,
1.SE+<Xl 3E-08 5E-08 -3E-04 -0.02 • (mg/lcgld)·1 Barium 153 -3E-05
_,
NA NA 7E-05 -7E-02 -0.001 • (mglkg/d)"1 Chromium 12 -2E-08 mg/kg/<lay NA NA 5E-08 -SE-03
_,
0.001
' (mglkgld)"1 '""' 8,205 m""" 1E-03
_,
NA NA <E-03 -3E-01
_,
0.01
' (n•1gl1tgldr1 ....... _ 378 -7E-05
_,
NA NA 2E-04 -7E-02 -0.003 ' (mglkafd)"1 """" 1 -1E-08
_,
NA NA 3E-08 -2E-02
_,
0.0002 ' (m;lk;/d)", Silver 0.592 -1E-07
_,
NA NA 3E-07 -SE-03 -0.00()1
' m"""' -· (mglkg/d)", -mo/kn/day T Cltal Mercury 0.076 1E-08 NA NA <E-08 1E-04 0.0004
Total Risa 2E-OO Total Hazard Index 0.04
COM r~Prosr-Corpond,,a. A-29
-
-
Table 7.2(a)
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non.Cancer Hazards -Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
EPC
Medium
.._,. .._,. .._,.
Chemical Oil Potential Concern Madlum Point --Vall.Ml """" I
Soil Soil Sits Oemuol Bonzo(a}anthracene 0,673 / -Benzo(b andlor k)fluoranthene 0.838 -Benzo(a)pyrene 0.722 -• Ch.,...,. 0.678 -,
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.075 -• lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 0.540 • m""'1 --1.039 -• PCS-1254 (Aroclor 125C) 0."'9 -' PCS-1260 (Arocior 1260) 0,"'8 -' Dioxin TEQ 0.0005 -' Aluminum 4,751 -Arsenic 112 -Barium 153 -Chromium 112 -,-8,205 -Ma .... -S1e -""""' 11 -s,,-0.502 -Total Mercurv 0~076 '""""' l
COM Federal~ Cocpc,radc,a
cancer Risk ca1cu1atton11 ... _,_. .. CSFIUnft Risk Coocaut1atlui1
Value """" Value """" 1E-07
_,
7.3E-01 (mg/kgld)"'
2E.07
_,
7.3E-01 (mg/kg/d)"'
1E-07
_,
7.3E+OO (mg/kQld)"1
1E.Q7
_,
7.3E-03 (mg/kgld)"1
2E.Q8
_,
7.3E+OO (mg/kg/dr'
1E-07
_,
7.3E-01 (mg/kgld)",
OE.QI!
_,
1.2E-01 (n,g/kQ/d)"1
1E-08
_,
2.0E+OO (mg/kQ{d)",
OE.00
_,
2.0E+OO (rn;lkgld)"'
1E-1O
_,
1.SE<OS (rng/kQ/d)"I
1E-04
_,
NA (mglkQld)"1
3E-07
_,
1.SE<OO (mg/kQ{d)",
3E.()6 -NA (rng/kg/l:tr1
2E.07 -NA (mglkgfd)·I
2E-04
_,
NA (mg/kQ{d)",
BE-06
_,
NA (mg/kg/dr1
1E.Q7 -NA (mg/kg/d)"1
1E.Q8 -NA (rnglkgld)"'
2E-08 NA (mglkgfd)"1
Total Rtsk
-•lsk
1E-07
1E-07
1E-06
1E.OO
1E-07
BE.OS
1E-06
2E-08
2E.Q8
2E-05
NA
4E.Q7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2E ...
Scenario Tlmelrame: Future
Receptor Population: Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Non-Cancer Hazard C.lculatlons --"""""' CollC9:ldratloti --Value """" v.1 .. """" 4E.07
_,
NA
_,
NA
SE.07 -NA
_,
NA
4E.07
_,
NA
_,
NA
<E-07
_,
NA
_,
NA
4E.Q8 -NA mg/kg/day NA
3E.07 mg/l<Q/day NA
_,
NA
3E-05
_,
3E-02 -0.001
3E.()O
_,
2E-05
_,
0.001
3E.Q8
_,
NA
_,
NA
3E-10
_,
NA
_,
NA
3E-04
_,
2E-01
_,
0.001
7E-07
_,
3E-04 -· 0.002
OE.00 -4E.Q3 -0.002
7E-07 -1E-04 -· 0.01
SE-04
_,
OE-02 -· 0.01,
2E-05
_,
,e.o, -0.01
4E-07 -,e.o, -· 0.0001
3E.Q8
_,
1E.Q3
_,
0.00003 ..... -&.w •• 2E-05 -&•W•y 0.0002
Total Hazard Index 0.03
A-30 - - -- - -- - - - -- ------
i.
--------- ---
Table 7.2(a)
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards • Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
.P lfl H rdwood SH Georala ac C a e
Madlum Exposura ........ .........
Medium Paint ·-
Soil Soil ... Inhalation
Medium Total
COM Fcdcnl Prtic<-Corporamn.
Chemical ol Potantlal Concern
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)ftuoranthene
Benzo(•)~ -Oibenzo(a,h)anth.--ne
lndeno (1,2.3-<:d) pyr.ne --PCB-1254 (Atoclor 1254)
PCB-1280 (Atoclor 1260)
Dimin TEQ
Aluminum -Barium
Chromium
"°" -Nickel
"'""' Total Mercurv
EPC cancer Risk calculations --.. CSF/Untt Riu: V.hle unns Cooce111ret1ou
Value unns Value Untt,
M13/ -4E-11 -y 3.1E-01 (mglkgld)·1
os,/ -4E-11 -y 3.1E-01 (mg/kgld)"1
0.722 · -4E-11 rng/kQ/day 3.1E+OO (mg/kQldr1
o.,/,s -4E-11 -y 3.1E~ (mg/kQldr1
' (mg/kQldr1 0.075 -4E-12 -•Y 3.1E+OO
' (mg/kQldr1 0.5<0 -3E-11 mg/kQ/day 3.1E-01
,/939 -1E-1O mglkglday NA (mg/kgld)"1
' (rng/k{lld)"1 0.0<9 -3E-12 mglkg/day 2.0E+OO ' (mg/kgld)-1 0J)<6 -2E-12 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO ' (mglkQldr1 0.0000 -3E-U -•Y 1.2E+05 ' (mglkgld)", 4,751 -3E-07 -y NA
' 1.5E+01 (mglkald)"1 ,12 -7E-10 -y ' (mgll•t;ld)"1 153' -BE-00 -y NA ' (mg/kQld)"1 12 ' -8E·10 -y 4.2E+01 ' (mglkQldr1 8,205~ -<E-07 -y NA
' (mg/kgld)., 376 -2E-OB -•Y .. ,, m,,.. 4E-10 -y NA (mglkgld).,
0.592 """"' 3E-11 -y NA (mglkgld).,
' -&• -&•Ma, (mglkQ/d)·1 0.078 4E•12 NA
Total Risk
Total Risk
Total Risk Acron All Media
-
--
1E-11
1E-11
1E-1O
1E-13
1E-11
GE-12
NA
!5E-12
!5E-12
3E-OO
NA
1E-08
NA
OE-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ..... ..... .....
-- -- -
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Worker
Receptor Age: AduH
Non-Ganeer Hazard ca1cu1attons ............... R1DIRtC Hanni Co1ant18lti0i1 -v .... Untt, v .... unns
1E-10 -NA -NA
1E-1O -y NA -NA
1E-1O -y NA -y NA
1E-1O -y NA
_,
NA
1E-11 -y NA -NA
BE-11 -y NA
_,
NA
3E-10 -y NA -y NA
7E-12 -NA -NA
7E-12 -y NA -y NA
BE-14 -y NA -y NA
7E-07 -y NA -y NA
2E-OO -NA
_,
NA
2E-08 -1E..,. -0.0002
2E-00 -2.0E.00
_,
0.0001
1E-08 -NA
_,
NA
6E-08 -UE-05 -0.00<
1E-OO -y NA -y NA
ge:.11 -y NA mg/kg/day NA
1E·11 -· 8.8E-05 -&•M•y O.OOOOJ01
Total Haurd Index o.oo,
Total Hazard Index 0.1
Total Hazard Index Acton All Media 0.1
A-31
-
-
Table 7.2(b)
Calculation of Chemical cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards -Post-Excavation
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Populatlon: Worker
Receptor Age: AduH Reasonable Maximum Exposure
G I P 1ft H rdwood sn eom1a-ac C a e
EPC cancer Risk ca1cu1at1ons Non-Cancer Hazard CalculaUOn•
Medium -.......... .......... ChemleaJ ol Potantial Concern lntakelexposure CSFAJntt Risk
,_ ..
ll1DIRtC -Medium Point R-Yah• Units Concentration ca-Risk Co11cetdlatloi1 _ ..
YallNI Uolts Value Units Value Units .. , .. Units
Soil Soil -·-Benzo(a}anthraoene 0.652/ --1E-07 _ .. y 7.3E-01 (rng/kQ/d)"' SE-08 3E-07 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 0.821 --1E-07 mg/kg/day 7.3E-01 (mglkgld)"' 1E-07 4E-07 mg/kg/day NA -NA
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.721 --1E-07 _ .. y 7.3E+OO (mgfKgld)·' 9E-07 4E-07 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA • (rnglkgld)"' Ch..,.... 0.670 --1E-07 n¢g/day 7.3E-03 SE-10 3E-07
_,
NA
_,
NA • (mg/kg/cf)·' Dibenzo(a,h)anttuacene 0.075 --1E-08 n¢g/day 7.3E+OO 1E-07 4E-08
_,
NA
_,
NA • (mg/l(Qld)"' lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene o.s.co --9E-08 -y 7.3E-01 7E-08 3E-07
_,
NA
_,
NA • (rngll(ald)"' PCS-1254 (Aroclor 1254) 0.049 --OE-09 n¢g/day 2.0E+OO 2E-08 2E-08
_,
2E-05
_,
0.001 • (mg/k;/d)"' PCB-1280 (Aroclor 1260) 0.0<8 --SE-OIi -y 2.0E+OO 2E-08 2E-08
_,
NA
_,
NA • (rngll(Qld)"' DioxinTEQ 0.0002 --3E-11 n¢g/day 1.SE+OS SE-08 SE-11
_,
NA
_,
NA ' (mg/kQld)"1 Aluminum 4,751 --BE-04 _ .. y NA NA 2E-03
_,
moo
_,
0.002 ' 1.SE+OO (rng/kg/d)" 1 2E-08 4E-06 -~ 8.8i --2E-08 n¢g/day
_,
3E-04
_,
0.01
Barium 153 --3E-05 n¢g/day NA (mgllitQld)"' NA 7E-05
_,
7E-02
_,
0.001
Chmmium 10~ --2E-06
_ .. ,
NA (rngllitwd)"' NA SE-08
_,
SE-03 -0.001 • (mglkgld)"' ,-8,205 --1E-03 n¢g/day NA NA 4E-03 -3E-01 mg/kg/day 0.01 • (mglkQld)"' Ma .... -378 --7E-05 n¢g/day NA NA 2E-04 mg/kg/day 7E-02
_,
0.003 ,
(mg/l(Q/d)"'. Nickel 8.8 --1E-06 n¢g/day NA NA 3E-08 mg/kg/day 2E-02 mg/kg/day 00002 • (mg/kQ/d)"' SiMII' 0.8 --1E-07 n¢g/day NA NA 3E-07 -SE-03 mg/kg/day 0.0001 • _,,, .. , (mg/kg/dr' """"-Total Mercury 0.1 --1E-08 NA NA 4E-08 1E-04
_,
0.0004 , Total Risk .,, ... Total Hazard Index 0.04
COM F~dml f'tocramsCorpontl<JI!. A-32 - --- ---- -- - -------
- ------- - - - - ----- - -
Table 7.2(b)
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards -Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georola-Paclllc Hardwood Site
EPC Cancer Risk Ca.lculatlons
Medium
......,,. ......,,. ......,,.
Chemical ol Patantlal Concern ............... CSFAJnlt Risk Medium -,._ Value """' """'"""""°
~ Yah,o """' ·-"""' Sail Sail Site Donnal Benzo(a)anthraeone o.652 mg/kg 1E-07
_,
7.3E-01 (rn;lkafd)"1
' (m;lkgld)-1 Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 0.821 mg/kg 'JE-07
_,
7.3E-01
' (mDlkgld)-1 Benzo(a)pyrene o.n1 mg/kg 1E-07
_ .. ,
7.3E+OO
' (rnglkg/d)"t Ch.,..... 0.670 mg/kg 1E-07
_,
7.3E-03
' (mgfi(gld)., Oibenm(a,h)anthrac:ene 0.075 mg/kg 'JE-08
_,
7.3E+OO
' (mg/kQ/d)-1 lndeno (1,2,3-od) pyrene 0.540 mg/kg 1E-07 -7.3E-01
' (m;ltgld}"1 PCB-1254 (Atoclot 1254) 0.049 mg/kg 'JE-07 '"""""""' 20E+OO ' (mg/l(gld)"t PCB-1280 (Aroclof 1260) 0.048 mg/kg OE-09 '""""""' 20E+OO ' (mglqld)"1 OiaxinTEQ 0.0002 mg/kg 4E-11 _ .. ,
1.SE+05 • (m;lk;fd)"1 Aluminum .,751 mg/kg 1E-04
_,
NA • (mglkgld)", -8.8 mg/kg 'JE-07
_ .. , 1.5E+OO • (mgfi(gld)-1 Barium 153 mg/kg 3E-08
_,
NA • (rnglkQldr' Chromium ,10 mg/kg 'JE-07
_,
NA
I"'" 8,205 mg/kg 'JE-04
_,
NA (mglkgld)-1 .,.,..._ 31e mg/kg OE-00 '"""""""' NA (mgll<Qldr1
Nd<el t· mg/kg 1E-07
_,
NA (mg/kg/d)"1 -0.0 mg/kg 1E-08
_,
NA (mglkgld)"t
TctalMercurv 0.1 -·" 'JE-09 -· NA (rnglkgld)"'
I Total Risk
)
COM Fotd.ral Prcp-aa,aCorpar.lorl.
can-Risk
1E-07
1E-07
1E-08
1E-09
1E-07
OE-08
SE-07
'JE-08
OE-00
NA
3E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA .....
Scenario Timelrame: Future
Receptor Population: Worker
Receptor Age: Adun
N~ncer Huard Calculations ... _,. --Coocaub atk..1 -...... Unl1s Yalue Units
<IE-07
_,
NA
_,
NA
SE-07
_,
NA -NA
<IE-07
_,
NA
_,
NA
4E-07
_,
NA
_,
NA
<IE-08
_,
NA
_,
NA
3E-07
_,
NA -NA
7E-07 -'JE-05
_,
0.03
3E-08
_,
NA
_,
NA
1E-10
_,
NA
_,
NA
3E-04
_,
'JE-01
_,
0.001
SE-07
_,
3E-04
_,
0.002 ..... -<IE-03 -0.002
BE-07
_,
1E-04 -0.01
SE-04
_,
OE-02
_,
0.01
'JE-05
_,
<IE-03
_,
0.01
<IE-07 -<IE-03
_,
0.0001
3E-08 -1E-03
_,
0.00003 ..... -"M•• 'JE-05 -· 0.0002
Total Hazard Inda 0.1
A-33
-
Table 7.2(bl
Calculatlon of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non.Cancer Hazards -Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georala-Paclflc Hardwood Site
EPC cancer Risk ca1culations
Medium ......... Exposura ......... Chemical r;t Potential Concern lntakelEXposure CSFIUnlt Risk Medium Point ·-....... , """' Cooeewation
Yalue """' Value """' ""' ""' """ Inhalation -·-0.6521 -3E-11 -3.1E-01 (mg/kgldr1
8enzo(b and/or k)ftuoranthene 0.821, -4E-11 -y 3.1E-01 (mg/'kglc(r1
I
(mg/l<Q/dr~ Benzo(a)pyrene o.nl m""" 4E-11 -y 3.1E+OO
Ch<ysene 0.670 -4E-11 -y 3.1E-03 {mg,1(g/d)•I
I Oibenzo(a,h}anthracene 0.075 -4E-12 -day 3.1E+OO (mg/kg/dr'
lndeno (1,2,3-c:d) pyrene oow) -3E-11 -y 3.1E-01 (mglkgfd)-1
PCS-1254 (AIDdor 1254) 0."'9 -3E-12 -y 2.0800 (mglkgfd}"1
PCS-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 0.046 -2E-12 -y 2.0E<OO (mg/kQ/d)-1
Dioxin TEQ 0.0002 -1E-14
_,
1.2E+05 (mglkgkt)"1
Aluminum 4,751 -3E-07
_,
NA (mglkglcl)"1 .,_,., 8.8 -SE-10
_,
1.5801 (mglkglcl)-1
Barium 153 -BE-OIi rng/kg/day NA (mg/kQ/d)"I
Chromium 10 -SE-10
_,
-i.2E+01 (mglkglcl)"'
I= s.ips -4E-07
_,
NA (mglkgldr1
MangaMA 378 -2E-08 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/cf)"'
Nickel ti.8 -4E-10
_,
NA (mg/kg/cf)",
' (mglkg/d)"1 ,.,_ 0.8 -SE-11
_,
NA ' Total u-r,,_tN 0.1 -&• 4E-12 """"""'"" NA (m;/k;ld)"l
Total Risk
Medium Total Total Risk
Total Risk Acrma All Mod.la
CDM Fedtta1 Progr;,rm Ccrpondon.
C.-Rlsk
1E-11
1E-11
1E-10
1E-13
1E-11
SE-12
SE-12
SE-12
1E-OO
NA
7E-OO
NA
2E-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3E-OS
2E-05 .....
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Non-Cancer Hazard calculations __ ,.
"""""' -Col icentratlon -Value """' Yalu. """' 1E-10 -NA -y NA
1E-10 -y NA -y NA
1E-10 -y NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-10 -NA -y NA
1E-11 -y NA mg/kg/day NA
8E-11 -y NA -NA
7E-12 -NA -NA
7E-12 -NA -y NA
3E-14 -NA
_,
NA
7E-07 -NA
_,
NA
1E-OO -NA
_,
NA
2E-08 -1E-04 -0.0002
1E-OII -3E-05 -0.0001
1E-08 -NA -y NA
OE.QB
_,
1.4E-05
_,
0.004
1E-OO -NA
_,
NA
9E-11
_,
NA
_,
NA
1E-11 -8.SE-05
_,
0.0000001
Total Hazard Index o.ooc
Total Hazard Index 0.1
Total Hazard lnHX Acron All Mod.la 0.1
..... - - -- - ---- - -- ------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 7.3(a)
Calculatlon of Chemical Non-Cancer Hazards -Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Geornla.Paclflc Hardwood Site -.. _ --Cherical olPotlnllll Concern ---
&,;I Soil ... Ingestion Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)flooranthene
Benzo{a)pyrene
Ch.,.....
Dlbenzo{a,h)anthracent
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrane --PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Dioxin TEO
Aluminum -Barium
Chromium
lmn
Manganese
N<l<al
"'"'"' Total Mercury
Soil Soil ... Dem,~ Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)j))'r'aM
Ch.,....
Dlbenzo(a,h)anthracene
lndeno (1,2,3-«I) pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Dioxin TEQ
Aluminum
Alwnic
Barium
Chromium
lmn
Mangano,e
Nickel
"'""'' Total Mercury
CDII ..... ,.,_..ea,,.,..,.
l!PC
v .... u ...
0.873 7'°""' 0.838 mg/kg
0.722 (mg/kg
0.678 mg/kg
0.075 mg/kg o~I mg/kg
1.939 mg/kg
0.049 mg/kg
0.046 mg/kg
0.0005 • mg/kg
4,751 mg/kg
12' ...... ' 153 ...... I 12 mg/kg I 8,205 mg/kg
' 376 mg/kg ,, I mg/kg
0.592 mg/kg
'o.01e-mg/kg
I
0.873 mg/kg I 0.838 mg/kg I 0.722 ' mg/kg
0.678 ...... ,,
0.075 " ...... o.~ ...... I' 1!939 ...... '' 0.049 ' ......
0.046 ...... ' ' 0.0005 ......
(1' mg/kg
mg/kg
153 ...... ' 12 ...... ' 8,205 ...... ' 376 ' ......
7 ...... ' 0.592 I ......
0.076 ......
I
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Receptor Populatlon: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Non-Cancer Hazard calcu1116ons -...... ---_,.
v .... Unb v .... -9E-06 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-OO mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
9E-06 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
SE-06 mg/kg/day NA mg/l(glday NA
1E-06 mg/kg/day NA mglkglday NA
7E-06 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-OO mg/kg/day 3E-02 mg/kg/day 0.001
6E-07 mg/kg/day 2E-OO mg/kg.lday 0.03
6E-07 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
7E-09 mg/kg/day NA mglkglday NA
6E-02 mg/kg/day 1E+OO mg/kg/day 0.1
2E-04 mg/l<glday 3E-04 mg/kg/day , 0.5
2E-03 mg/kg/day 7E-02 mg/kg/day 0.03
2E-04 mg/kg/day 5E-03 ml)l'kg/day 0.03
1E-01 mg/kg/day 3E-01 m;lkgfday '0.3
5E-03 mg./kij/day 7E-02 mg/kg/day 0.1
SE-00 mg/kg/day 2E-02 mg/kg/day 0.004
SE-06 mg/kg/day SE-03 -•Y 0.002
1E-06 mg/kg/day 1E-04 mg/kg/day 0.01
Total Hazard Index 1
1E-06 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-06 mg/kg/day NA mg/l(olday NA
1E-06 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-06 m;lkg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-07 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
SE-07 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
SE-05 mg/kg/day 3E-02 mg/kg/day 0.003
SE-08 mg/kg/day 2E-05 mg/kglday 0.004
SE-08 mg/kg/day NA mg/kglday NA
9E·10 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
SE-04 mg/kg/day 2E--01 mg/kg/day 0.004
2E-06 mg/kglday 3E-04 mg/kg/day 0.01
3E-05 mg/kg/day 4E-03 mg/kg/day 0.01
2E-06 mg/kg/day 1E-04 mglkg/day 0.02
1E-03 mg/kg/day SE-02 mg/kg/day 0.02
SE-05 mglkglday 4E-03 mg/kg/day 0.02
1E-06 mg/kg/day 4E-03 mg/kglday 0.0003
1E--07 mg/kg/day 1E-03 mg/kg/day 0.0001
1E-08 mg/kglday 2E-05 mg/kglday 0.001
Total Hazard lndax 0.1
A-35
Tabla 7.3(a)
Calculation of Chemical Non-Cancer Hazards -Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georala-Paclfic Hardwood Site
........ ........ .. _ ... .. _ ...
Chemical of Potllntlal Cancun ....... -.....
Soll Soil Si1II Inhalation Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
en.,....
Dlbenzo(a,h)anthracene
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) p,..,,. -~1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Dioxin TEQ
Aluminum -~ Barium
Chromium
'"'" Manganese
Nickel
SU-
Total Mercury
Mtdlwn Total
Ground-Ground-Tap Ingestion 2-Methylnaphthalena wa..,. _..,. Aluminum -~ Barium
Chromium
'"'" , .. a
Manganese
Vanadium
Mldlum Total
CDM,., .. ,_...ea,on ....
l!PC
Value Units
0.673 mg/kg
0.838 mg/kg
0.722 mg/kg
0.878 mg/kg
0.075 mg/kg
0.540 mg/kg
1.939 mg/kg
0.049 mg/kg
0.046 mg/kg,
0.0005 mg/kg
4,751 mg/kg
12 mg/kg
153 mg/kg
12 mg/kg
8,205 mg/kg
378 mg/kg
7 mg/kg
0.592 mg/kg
0.076 mg/kg
3 Ug/1
3,339 ug/1
111 ug/1
208 ug/1
4 Ug/1
28,150 ug/1 • ug/1
1,444 ug/1
7 Ug/1
I
I
Scenario Tlmeframa: Future I
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Non-Cancer Hazard cakwatkJnl I --... Cone•---_ ..
Value ..... Value .....
3E-10 mgllqj/day NA mgllqj/day NA
4E-10 mgfKg/day NA mgllqj/day NA I
3E-10 mglkglday NA mgllqj/day NA
3E-10 m;lkg/day NA mgllqj/day NA
4E-11 m;lkg/day NA mgllqj/day NA
3E-10 -y NA mg/kg/'day NA
SE-10 mgllqj/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2€-11 mg/Kg/day NA mglkg/day NA
2E-11 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-13 mg/kg/day NA mg/kQ/day NA
2E-08 fflO/ko/day NA mgllqj/day NA
SE-09 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
7E-08 mg/kg/day 1E--04 mg/kg/day 0.001
SE-09 mg/kg/day 2.9E--05 mg/kg/day 0.0002 I
4E-08 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-07 mg/kg/day 1.4E-05 mg/kg/day 0.01
3E-09 mg/kg/day NA mglkglday NA I 3E-10 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
4E-11 mg/kg/day 8.6E-05 mg/leg/day 0.0000004
Total Hazard Index 0.01
Total Hazard Index 1 I
2E--04 mg/kg/day 2E-02 mg/kg/day 0.01
2E-01 mg/kg/day 1E+OO mg/kg/day 0.2
7E-03 mg/kg/day 3E--04 mglkglday " 2E-02 mg/kg/day 7E-02 mg/lqJ/day 0.2 I
3E--04 mg/kg/day 5E-03 mg/l(Qlday 0.1
2E+OO mg/kg/day 3E-01 mg/kg/day • 4E--04 mg/kg/day NA mgllcolday NA
9E-02 mgllqj/day 2E-02 mg/kg/day ' I
5E--04 mgllqj/day 7E-03 mg/kg/day 0.1
Total Hazard Index 34
Total Hazard Index 34
Total Haz.-d Index Acron All Med&a .. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A-36
I
I
I Table 7.3(b)
Calculation of Chemical Non.Cancer Hazards • Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
G I.P 1ft H d dSII eora a ac C ar woo e
I EPC -......... --Cbemlcal al Putllntial eonc.m ---Vllue
I Soll Soil ... Ingestion BenzO(ll)lnthraceM 0.652
Benzo(b and/Of k)fluoranthene 0.821
Benzo(a)pyrene o.n1
I Chryune 0.670
Olbenl1>(a,h)anthracena 0.075
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrane o.sco
PCB-125' (M>Cio< 125') 0.0<9
I PCB-1200 (A,ocl« 1200) 0.0<6
Dioxin TEQ 0.0002
Aluminum .t,751 -~ 8.8
I Barium 153
Chromium 10
lmn 8.205
Man;anese 376
I Nickel 8.8 -0.8
Total Mercury 0.1
I Soil Soil S'8 Dermal Benzo(a)anthracene 0.652
Benzo{b and/or k)fluoranthene 0.821
Benzo(a)pyrane o.n1
I
Chrysene 0.670
Dit»nzo(a,h)anthracena 0.075
lndano (1,2,3-cd) pyrena o.sco
PCB-125-1 (Aroclor 125-1) 0.0<9
I PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 0.0<6
Ok»dnTEQ 0.0002
Aluminum -4,751
""°"~ 8.8
I Barium 153
Chromium 10
I""' 8.205
Manganese 378
I Nlcl<,1 8.6 .,,_ 0.8
Total Mercury 0.1
I
I
I
I
I
CDM fdrn.l Pmsruru Cotpcnuon
Unb
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Scenarlc Tlmeframe: Future
Receptor Populallon: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Non-Cancer Hazard Calcula:tlons --. ... ""'""" Cone--..,_ ..
Valuo Unb va1 .. Unb
BE-06 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-05 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
9E-06 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
9E-08 mg/kg/day NA mglkglday NA
IE-06 m;fkolday NA mg/kg/day NA
7E-08 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
6E-07 mg/kg/day 2E-05 mg/kg/day 0.03
BE-07 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-09 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
SE-02 mg/kg/day 1E.OO mg/kg/day 0.1
1E-04 mglkglday 3E-04 mg/kg/day o.,
2E-03 mg/kglday 7E-02 mg/kg/day 0.03
IE-04 mg/kg/day 6E-03 mg/kg/day 0.03
1E-01 mg/kg/day 3E-01 mg/kg/day 0.3
5E-03 mg/kg/day 7E-02 mg/kg/day 0.1
BE-05 mg/kg/day 2E-02 mg/kg/day 0.004
8E-08 mglkglday 5E-03 mg/kg/day 0.002
IE-08 mg/kg/day IE-04 mg/kg/day 0.01
Tobi Hazard Index 1
IE-06 mg/kglday NA mg/kglday NA
IE-06 mg/kglday NA mg/kg/day NA
IE-06 mg/lq;j/day NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-06 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-07 rnglkolday NA mg/kg/day NA
9E.07 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-06 mg/kg/day 2E-05 mg/kg/day 0.1
BE-08 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
3E-10 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
BE-04 mg/kg/day 2E-01 mg/kg/day 0.004
1E-06 mg/kg/day 3E-04 mg/kg/day 0.005
3E-05 mg/kg/day 4E-03 mg/kg/day 0.01
2E-06 mg/kg/day 1E-04 mg/kg/day 0.02
1E-03 mg/kg/day OE-02 mg/kglday 0.02
BE-05 mg/kglday 4E-03 mg/kg/day 0.02
1E-06 mg/kg/day 4E-03 mg/kg/day 0.0003
1E-07 mg/kg/day 1E-03 mg/kg/day 0.0001
1E-08 m!Vkg/day 2E-05 mg/kg/day 0.001
Total Hazard lnmx 02
A-37
Table 7.3(b)
CalculaUon of Chemical Non.Cancer Hazards -Post-ExcavaUon
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
llodlum -.. _... .. _...
Chamkal d Potantial Concern --.....
Soll Soll ... Inhalation Benzo(a)anthrac.ne
Benzo(b and.lor k)fluorantheM
Benzo(a)P)flne -Olbenzo(a,h)anthracene
lndeno {1,2,3-cd) pyrene
~1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Dioxin TEO
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
s,,-
Total Mercury
Madlum Total
Ground-Ground• Top 1nge&tion 2-Methylnaphthalene
watar ,,. ... Aluminum _,,~
Barium
Chromium
Iron , ...
Manganese
Vanadium
Medium Total
!PC .... Units
0.652 mg/kg
0.821 mg/kg
o.n, mg/kg
0.870 mg/kg
0.075 mg/kg
0.5'0 mg/kg
0.IM9 mg/kg
0.046 mg/kg
0.0002 mg/kg
4,751 mg/kg
8.8 mg/kg
153 mg/kg
10 mg/kg
8.205 mg/kg
378 mg/kg
8.8 mg/kg
0.8 mg/kg
0.1 mg/kg
3 Ug/1
3.339 vg/1
111 Ug/1
258 Vg/1
4 ug/1
28,150 vg/1
8 vg/1
1,W vg/1
7 vg/1
I
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Receptor PopulaUon: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Non-Cancer Manrd Cakulatlons -RID/RIC -eon.-_ .. .... Units .... .....
3E-10 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
4E-10 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
3E-10 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
3E-10 mg/kg/day NA mg/kQ/day NA
4E-11 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
3E-10 m;llcolday NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-11-mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-11 mg/lc;lday NA mg/kg/day NA
9E-14 mg/kg/day NA mg/kglday NA
2E-06 mg/kglday NA mg/kgfday NA
4E-09 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
7E-06 mg/kg/day 1E-04 mg/kg/day 0.0005
SE-09 mg/kg/day 3E-05 mg/kg/day 0.0002
•e.oe mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E--07 mg/kg/day 1.4E-05 mg/kg/day 0.01
3E-09 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
3E-10 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
4E-11 mg/kg/day 8.SE-05 mg/l<ofday 0.0000004
Total Hazard Index 0.01
Tomi Hazard Index 1
2E-04 mg/kg/day 2E--02 mg/kg/day 0.01
2E--01 mg/kg/day 1E+OO mg/kg/day 0.2
7E--03 mg/kg/day 3E-04 mg/kg/day 2,
2E--02 mg/kg/day 7E--02 mg/kg/day 0.2
3E-04 mg/kg/day SE--03 mg/kg/day 0.1
2E.OO mg/kg/day 3E-01 mg/kg/day 8
4E-04 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
8E--02 mg/kg/day 2E--02 mg/kg/day •
SE-04 mg/kg/day 7E--03 mg/kg/day 0.1
Total Hazard Index 3'
Total Hazard lnde:x 3'
Total Hazard 1nmx Acron All Mldla ,.
A-38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 7.4(a)
CalculaUon of Chemical Cancer Risks -Pre-ExcavaUon
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georala-Paclflc Hardwood Site
Medium ex...., .. ex...., .. exposuro Chemical of Potential Concern Medium Polnl -
SoU Soll &le Ingestion Benzo(a}anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dlbenzo(a,h)anthracene
lndeno (1,2,3-ed) pyn,ne
Pentachlorophenol
PCS-1254 (Arockv 1254)
PCB-1260 (Atoclor 1260)
Dioxin TEQ
Aluminum
Anaenic
Barium
O,romlum
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Sl'-
Total Mercury
Soll Soll &le Dermal Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chryeeno
Oibenzo(a,h}anthracene
lndeno (1.2,3-cd) pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCS-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Dioxin TEO
Aluminum
Araenic
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
N~kel
Sl'-
Total Mercury
EPC
Value
0.673
0.838
0.722.
0.678
0.075
0.540
1.939
0.049
0.046
0.0005
4,751
12
153
12
8,205
376
7
0.592
0.076
0.673
0.838
0.722
0.678
0.075
0.540
1.939
0.049
0.046
0.0005
4,751
12
153
12
8,205
376
7
0.592
0.076
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Receptor PopulaUon: UfeUme Resident
Receptor Age: Child to Adult
cancer Risk C.lculatlons
lntakll/Exposure CSF/Unlt Risk ~ C.ncarRIU
V1lu1 Units V■lue Units
2E-06 mg/kg/day 7.3E-01 (mg/kg/df1 2E-06
3E-06 mg/leg/day 7.3E-01 (mgllcg/d)"' 2E-06
3E-06 mo/kg/day 7.3E+OO (mg/kg/d)"' 2E-05
2E-06 mg/kQlday 7.3E-03 (mg/kg/d)"1 2E-08
3E-07 mg/leg/day 7.3E+OO (mgllcg/d)"' 2E-06
2E-06 mg/kg/day 7.3E-01 (mg/kgld)"1 1E-06
7E-06 mg/kg/day 1.2E-01 (mg/kg/d)"' 9E-07
2E-07 mg/leg/day 2.0E+OO (mgllcg/d)"' 4E--07
2E-07 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mg/kg/d)"1 3E-07
2E-09 mg/leg/day 1.5E+05 (mg/kg/d)"' 3E-04
2E-02 mg/kg/day NA (mgllcg/d)"' NA
5E-05 mg/kQ/day 1.5E+OO (mgllcg/d)"' 7E-05
6E-04 mg/kglday NA (mgllcg/d)"' NA
4E-05 mg/kij/day NA (mo/kg/d)"' NA
JE-02 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
1E-03 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
2E-05 mg/kg/day NA (mgllcg/d)"' NA
2E-06 mg/kglday NA {mg/kgld)"' NA
3E-07 mg/kg/day NA {mg/kg/d)"1 NA
Total RJsk ,e..,.
7E-07 mg/kg/day 7.3E-01 (mg/kg/d)"1 5E-07
BE-07 mg/leg/day 7.3E-01 (mgllcgld)"' 6E-07
7E-07 mg/kg/day 7.3E+OO (mg/kg/d)-1 5E-06
7E-07 mg/kg/day 7.3E-03 (mg/kg/d)"1 5E-09
7E-08 mg/kg/day 7.3E+OO (mgllcg/d)"' 5E-07
5E-07 mg/kg/day 7.3E-01 (mgllcg/d)"' 4E-07
5E-05 mg/kg/day 1.2E-01 (mg/kg/d)"1 5E-06
5E-08 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mg/kg/d)"1 1E-07
5E-08 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mo/kg/d)"' 9E-08
5E-10 mg/kg/day 1.5E+05 (mg/kg/d)"1 SE-05
5E-04 mg/kg/day NA {mg/kg/d)"1 NA
1E-06 mglko/day 1.5E+OO (mg/kg/d)"1 2E-06
1E-05 mg/kg/day NA (mgllcg/d)"' NA
1E-06 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
BE-04 mg/leg/day NA (mgllcg/d)"' NA
4E-05 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"' NA
6E-07 mg/kg/day NA (mgllcg/d)"' NA
6E-08 mo/kg/day NA (mgllcg/d)"' NA
7E-09 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
Total RJsk 9E-05
A-39
Table 7.4(a)
CalculaUon of Chemical Cancer Risks -Pre-ExcavaUon
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georala-Paclflc Hardwood Site
Medium Elq>osura Exposura Elq>osura Ch•mk:al of Potential Concern Medium Point Row
Soll Sojl Site Inhalation Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)ftuoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chryaene
Dlbenzo(a.h}anthracene
lndano (1,2,:kd) py,ene
Pentachlorcphenol
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1200 (Arocior 1200)
Dioxin TEO
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Niclcel
Sliver
Total Mercury
Medium Total
Ground-Ground-Tep Ingestion 2-Methylnaphthalene
wa1er wa18f Aluminum
Arsenic
8ar1um
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Medium Total
COM """"'-""''"'"1ao
EPC
Value Units
0.673 mg/kg
0.838 mg/kg
0.722 mg/kg
0.678 mg/kg
0.075 mg/kg
0.540 mg/kg
1.839 mg/kg
0.049 -0.046 mg/kg
0.0005 mg/kg
4,751 mg/kg
12 mg/kg
153 mg/kg
12 mg/kg
8,205 mg/kg
376 mg/kg
7 mg/kg
0.592 mg/kg
0.076 mg/kg
3 Ug/1
3,339 ug/1
111 ug/1
258 Ug/1
4 ug/1
28,150 ug/1
8 ug/1
1,444 ug/1
7 Ug/1
I
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future I
Receptor PopulaUon: LlfeUme Resident
Receptor Age: Child to Adult
Cancer Risk CllculaUons I
lntako/Exposura CSF/Untt Risk ConcentnUon I Cancer Risk
Value Units Value Units
2E-10 mg/kg/day 3.1E-01 (mg/kg/dr' 5E-11 I I
2E-10 mg/kg/day 3.1E-01 (mg/kg/dr' 7E-11
2E-10 mg/kg/day 3.1E+OO (mglkgldr' 6E-10
2E-10 mg/kg/day 3.1E-03 (mg/kg/dr' 6E-13
2E-11 mg/kg/day 3.1E+OO (mg/kg/d)"1 SE-11 I
1E-10 mg/kg/day 3.1E-01 {mg/kg/d)"1 4E-11
SE-10 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/dr' NA
1E-11 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mg/kg/dr' 3E-11 I
1E-11 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mg/kg/dr' 2E-11
1E-13 mg/kg/day 1.2E+05 (mg/kg/dr' 2E-08
1E-06 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/dr' NA
3E-09 mg/kg/day t5E+01 (mg/kg/dr' 5E-08 I
4E-08 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/dr' NA
3E-09 mg/kg/day 4.2E+01 (mglkg/d)"' 1E-07
2E-08 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/dr' NA
1E-07 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/dr' NA I
2E-09 mg/kg/day NA (mglkg/dr' NA
2E-10 mg/1(;/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
2E-11 mg/kQ/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA I
Total Risk 2E-07
Total Risk .. ..,.
1E-04 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
1E-01 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA I
4E-03 mg/kg/day 1.5E+OO (mg/kg/d)"1 6E-03
9E-03 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/dr' NA
2E-04 mg/kg/day NA (mglkg/dr' NA
1E+OO mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA I
2E-04 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
5E-02 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
3E-04 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA I Total Risk SE-<>3
Total Risk SE-<>3
Total Risk Across All Media 8E-03 I
I
I
I
I
I
A-40
l!J
I
I Table 7.4(b)
CalculaUon or Chemical Cancer Riska • Post-ExcavaUon
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
G I.P lfl H d dSII eoraa ac C ar woo e
I Medium ........... ........... ........... Chemlclll of Potential Concern lladlum Point Routa
I Soll Soll Site Ingestion Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)ftuoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
I CluyMne
Olbenzo(a,h)anthracene
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) PY'"""
I PCB-12S. (Aroclor 12S.)
PCB-12SO (Aroc:lor 12S0)
Dioxin TEO
Aluminum
I Alsen~
Barium
Chromium
Iron
I Manganese
Nickel
Sl"9r
I Total Mercury
Soll SoU Site Dermal Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
I Benzo(a)pyrene
C!uyaene
Dibenzo(a,h}anthracene
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
I PCS-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Dioxin TEO
I
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
I Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Sl"9r
I Total Mercury
I
I
I
I
CDM ,....,1 "'-" °""""'""'
I
EPC
Value Units
0.652 mg/kg
0.821 mg/kg
0.721 mg/kg
0.670 mg/kg
0.075 mg/kg
0.5'0 mg/kg
0.049 mg/kg
0.048 mg/kg
0.0002 mg/kg
4,751 mg/kg
8.6 mg/kg
153 mg/kg
10 mg/kg
8,205 mg/kg
376 mg/kg
6.6 mg/kg
0.6 mg/kg
0.1 mg/kg
0.652 mg/kg
0.621 mg/kg
0.721 mg/kg
0.670 mg/kg
0.075 mg/kg
0.5'0 mg/kg
0.049 mg/kg
0.048 mg/kg
0.0002 mg/kg
◄,751 mg/kg
8.6 mg/kg
153 mg/kg
10 mg/kg
6,205 mg/kg
376 mg/kg
6.6 mg/kg
0.6 mg/kg
0.1 mg/kg
Scenario Tlmerrame: Future
Receptor PopulaUon: ureume Resident
Receptor Age: Child to Adult
Cancer RIA caJculations
lntaka/Exposu,. CSF/Unlt Risk ConcentraUon Cancer Risk
Value Units Yalu• Units
2E-06 mg/kQ/day 7.3E-01 (mglkg/d)"' 2E-06
3E-06 mg/kg/day 7.3E--01 (mglkg/d)"' 2E-06
3E-06 mg/kg/day 7.3E+OO {mg/kg/d)"' 2E-05
2E-06 mg/kg/day 7.3E-03 (mglkg/d)"' 2E-08
3E-07 mg/kg/day 7.3E+OO (mg/kg/d)"1 2E-05
2E-06 mg/kg/day 7.3E--01 (mglkg/d)"' 01E-06
2E--07 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mglkg/d)"' 4E-07
2E-07 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mg/kg/d)"' 3E-07
7E-10 mg/kg/day 1.5E+05 (mg/kg/d)"' 1E-04
2E-02 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"' NA
3E-05 mg/kQ/day 1.SE+OO (mg/kg/d)"1 SE-05
6E-04 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
4E-05 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
3E-02 mg/kg/day NA (mglkgld)"' NA
1E-03 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"' NA
2E-05 mglku/day NA (mglkgld)"' NA
2E-05 mW1<ofday NA (mglkg/d)"' NA
3E-07 mg/kg/day NA {mg/kg/d)"' NA
Total Risk 2E-04
6E-07 mg/kg/day 7.3E--01 (mg/kg/d)"1 SE-07
6E-07 mg/kg/day 7.3E-01 (mg/kg/d)"1 6E-07
7E-07 mg/kg/day 7.3E+OO (mg/kg/d)"' SE-05
7E-07 mg/kg/day 7.3E-03 (mg/kg/d)"' SE-OB
7E-08 mg/kg/day 7.3E+OO (mglkg/d)"' 5E-07
SE-07 mg/kg/day 7.3E-01 (mg/kg/d)"' ◄E.07
1E-06 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mg/kQ/d)"' 2E-06
SE-06 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mglkgld)"' 9E-08
2E-10 mg/kg/day 1.5E+05 (mg/kg/dr1 3E-05
SE-04 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
6E-07 mg/kg/day 1.5E+OO (mglkg/d)"' 1E-06
1E-05 mg/kQ/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
1E-05 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
6E-04 mg/kQ/day NA (mglkg/d)"' NA
4E-05 mg/kQ/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
6E-07 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"' NA
6E-08 mg/kg/day NA (mglkg/d)"' NA
7E-08 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
Total Risk 4E-<15
A-41
Table 7.4{b)
Calculatlon of Chemlcal Cancer Risks -Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Geornla-Paclflc Hardwood Site
Medium Exposur11 Exposura Exposuro Chemical of Potantlal Concam -lum Point Routa
Soll SoU SIie Inhalation Benzo(a}anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benza(e)pyrene
ChryMne
DibenZo(~h)anthracene
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Dioxin TEO
Aluminum -~
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Nlcicel
Sliver
Total Mercury
Medium Total
Ground-Ground-Tap Ingestion 2-Methylnaphthalene
water water Aluminum
Araenlc
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Leed
Manganese
Vanadium
Medium Total
CDM , .... 1>ro,,,m,Co,pon,1on
El'C
Value Units
0.652 mg/kg
0.821 mg/kg
0.721 mg/kg
0.670 mg/kg
0.075 mg/kg
0.540 mg/kg
0.049 mg/kg
0.046 mg/kg
0.0002 mg/kg
4,751 mg/kg
8.6 mg/kg
153 mg/kg
10 mg/kg
8,205 mg/kg
376 mg/kg
8.6 mg/kg
0.6 mg/kg
0.1 mg/kg
3 ug/1
3,339 Ug/1
111 Ug/1
258 ug/1
4 Ug/1
28,150 ug/1
6 Ug/1
1,444 ug/1
7 ug/1
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Receptor Populatlon: Ufetlme Resident
Receptor Age: Child to Adult
cancar Risk C.lculatlons
lntake/Exposuf9 CSF/Unlt Risk Concentration cancer RIA
Value Units Yah1• Units
2E-10 mg/kg/day 3.1E-01 (mglkg/d)"' SE-11
2E-10 mg/kg/day 3.1E-01 (mglkg/d)"' 7E-11
2E-10 mg/kg/day 3.1E+OO (mg/kg/d)"1 6E-10
2E-10 mg/kg/day 3.1E-03 (mg/kg/d)"1 5E-13
2E-11 mg/kg/day 3.1E+OO (mglkg/d)"' 6E-11
1E-10 mg/kg/day 3.1E-01 (mg/kg/d)"1 4E-11
1E-11 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mglkg/d)"' 3E-11
1E-11 mg/kg/day 2.0E+OO (mglkg/d)"' 2E-11
5E-14 mg/kg/day 1.2E+05 (mglkg/d)"' BE-09
1E-06 mg/kg/day NA (mglkg/d)"' NA
2E-09 mg/kg/day 1.5E+01 (mglkg/d)"' 3E-08
4E-08 m-y NA (mglkg/d)"' NA
3E-09 mg/kg/day 4.2E+01 (mg/kg/d)"1 1E-07
2E-06 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
1E-07 mg/kg/day NA (mg/\(g/d)"' NA
2E-09 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
2E-10 mg/kg/day NA (mg/\(g/d)"' NA
2E-11 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
Total Risk 2E-07
Total Risk .....
1E-04 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
1E-01 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
4E-03 mg/\(g/day 1.SE+OO (mg/kg/d)"1 BE-03
9E-03 mg/kg/day NA (mglkg/d)"' NA
2E-04 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
1E+OO mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
2E-04 mg/kg/day NA (mglkg/d)"' NA
SE-02 mg/\(g/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
3E-04 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
Total Risk .....
Total Risk .....
Total Risk Across All Media 8E_..
A-42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 8.1 RME
Calculation Of Radiation Cancer Risks
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
There are no radiation hazards associated with this site; therefore, completion of this table is not
applicable.
CDM f<dcral Programs Corporation A-43
-
Table 9.1(a)
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs -Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
G I P lfi H d ood Sit eors;; a-ac 1c ar w e
Carclnogenk: Risk
Exposure Exposure Chemical of Potential Exposure Medium Medium Point Concern l~on Dermal Inhalation Routes
Total
Soil Soil Site Benzo(a)anthracene 2E-08 1E-08 1E·12 3E-08
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 3E-08 2E-08 1E-12 41,-08
Benzo(a)pyrene 2E-07 1E-07 1E-11 4E-07
Chrysene 2E-10 1E-10 1E-14 3E-10
Oibenzo(a,h)anthracene 2E-08 1E-08 1E-12 4E-08
tndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 2E-08 1E-08 9E-13 3E-08
PentachJorophen 1E-08 1E-07 NA 2E-07
PCB-1254 (_, 1254) 41,-09 2E-09 &E-13 7E-09
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 4E-09 2E-09 SE-13 &E-09
Dioxin TEQ 3E--06 2E-06 3E-10 SE--06
Aluminum NA NA NA NA
Anlenic SE-07 SE-08 1E-09 9E-07
Barium NA NA NA NA
Chromium NA NA 3E-09 3E-09
Iron NA NA NA NA
Manganeoa NA NA NA NA
Nicbl NA NA NA NA
Sitver NA NA NA NA
Total Mercury NA NA NA NA
Total 5E-06 2E-06 4E-09 7E-08
Surface Surface Dttch Arsenic 1E--06 9E-08 NA 1E--06
waler waler Barium NA NA NA NA
Iron NA NA NA NA
Manganese NA NA NA NA
Acetone NA NA NA NA
Total 1E-DB BE-08 NA 1E-06
Total Risk Across All Med la and All Exposure Routes BE-08
Conclusk,ns:
1. The hazard Index is less than one, Indicating l'IOIH:8llcer effects are not expected
2. The excess cancer risk level I& below EPA'a acceptable range (10--<4 and 10-6).
Chemical ot Potential
Concern
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Oibenzo(a,h)anthracene
lndano (1,2,3-<,d) pyrene
Pentachk:N ophenol
PCB-1254 (Aroclo< 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclo< 1260)
Dioxin TEQ
Aluminum
Anlenic
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Manganeoa
Nickel
Sliver
Total Men:u!y
Anlenic
Barium
Iron
Manganese
Acelona
Scenario Tlmeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Visitor
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Exposu,e
Primary Target Organ Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Routes
Total
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
u-, kidney 0.00002 0.0003 NA 0.0003
Eyoa, Molbomian glands, nallo 0.001 0,0004 NA 0.001
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
CNS (Neurotoxlclty) 0.001 0.0004 NA 0.002
S~n (Hyporplgmentatlon, -) 0.01 0.001 NA 0.01
No adverse effect 0.001 0.001 0.00004 0.001
No adverse effect 0.001 0.002 0.00002 0.003
No adverse effect 0.01 0.002 NA 0.01
CNS (Neurotoxlclty) 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.005
DaCfeased body and o,gan -Ida 0.0001 0,00003 NA 0.0001
S~n (Argyria) 0.00004 O.<XXJ01 NA 0.00005
CNS (Neurotoxlclty) 0.0002 0.0001 0.00000003 0.0003'
Total 0,03 0.01 0.001 0.04
Skin (Hyperplgmentation, keratosis) 0.02 0.001 NA 0.02
Noadvefseeffoct 0.0001 0.0001 NA 0.0002
No adverse effect 0.001 0.0003 NA 0.001
CNS (Neurotoxiclly) 0.002 0,003 NA 0.005
U-,~dney 0.00002 0.00001 NA 0.00004
Total 0.02 0.005 NA 0.02
Total Hazard Index Across AU Media and All Exposure Routes 0.1
...... -- - - - ---- - - --- --- -
--- - - - - - -
Table 9.1(b)
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs -Pos1-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Geornia-Paciflc Hardwood Site
Carclnogenk: Risk
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical or Potential
Medium Point Concern Ing-Oennal Inhalation
Soil Soll Sito Benzo(a)anthracene 2E--08 1E--08 1E·12
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 3E--08 2E--08 1E·12
Benzo(a)pyn,ne 2E-07 1E-07 1E-11
Chrysene 2E-10 1E-10 1E-14
Dlbenzo(a,h)anthraoene 2E--08 1E--08 1E-12
lndono (1.2.3-cd) pynme 2E--08 1E--08 9E-13
PCll-1254 (Amclc< 125,0) 4E-09 6E--08 6E-13
PCll-1280 (Aroclof 1260) 4E-09 2E-09 SE-13
Dlmdn TEQ 1E-06 7E-07 1E-1D
Aluminum NA NA NA
Anenlc SE-07 3E--08 7E-10
Barium NA NA NA
Chromium NA NA 2E-09
Iron NA NA NA
Manganese NA NA NA
Nlcksl NA NA NA
Sliver NA NA NA
Total Mercury NA NA NA
Total 2E--06 1E--06 3E-09
Surface Surface Di!ch ""'8nic 1E-06 9E--08 NA ....... ....... Bariwn NA NA NA
Iron NA NA NA
Mango ...... NA NA NA -NA NA NA
Total 1E--06 9E--08 NA
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Conclusions:
1. The hazard index Is less than one, Indicating non-cancer effects are not expected
2. The excess cancer risk level ta below EPA'a acceptable range (10-4 and 10-6).
CDM Fedcnl rrcwa,na Coq,ooa,ticn.
Exposure
Routu
Total
3E--08
4E--08
4E-07
3E-10
4E--08
3E--08
6E--08
SE-09
2E-06
NA
SE-07
NA
2E-09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3E--06
1E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
1E-06
4E--06
-- ---- - --
Chemlcel of Potential
Concern
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pynme
Chrysene
llibenzo(a.h)anthraceno
lndono (1.2,3-cd) pynme
PCll-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCll-1280 (Aroclor 1280)
llimanTEQ
Aluminum -Barium
Chromium
lrnn
Mana---
Nlcbl
Silver
Tolai Mercury
Anwmic
Barium
Iron
Mana----
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Visitor
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Non-Cardnogenlc Hazard Quotient
Exposure
Primary Target Organ lngeollon Dennal lnhalallon Roulee
Total
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
Eyn, Molbomlan glands, nails 0.001 0.01 NA 0.01
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
CNS (Neurolo>dcity) 0.001 0.0004 NA 0.002
Skin (Hyperpig...-, kera1osls) 0.01 0.0005 NA 0.01
No adverse effect 0.001 0.001 0.00004 OJXJ1
Noadwmleeffect 0.001 0.002 0.00001 0.002
No adverse effect 0.01 0.002 NA 0.01
CNS (Neurolo>dcity) 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.005
Decn,ased -and .._ weights 0.0001 0.00003 NA 0.0001
Skin (Argyrla) 0.00004 0.00001 NA 0.00005
CNS (Neurolo>dcity) 0.0002 0.0001 0.00000003 0.0003
Total 0.02 0.02 0.001 O.CM'
Skin {Hypefpigmentatlon, keratosia) 0.02 0.001 NA 0.02
No adwHsa effect 0.0001 0.0001 NA 0.0002
No adverse effect 0.001 0.0003 NA 0.001
CNS (Neurotoxictty) 0.002 0.003 NA 0.005
Liver, kidney 0.00002 0.00001 NA 0.00004
Total 0.02 0.0015 NA 0.02
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 0.1
-
Table 9.2(a)
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs -Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georala-Pacific Hardwood Site
carcinogenic Risk
Exposure Exposure Chemical of Potential Medium Medium Point Concern Ingestion Dermal Inhalation
Soil Soil Sita Benzo(a)anthracene 9E-08 1E.()7 1E·11
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 1E.()7 1E.()7 1E-11
Benzo(a)pyrene DE-07 1E-06 1E-10
Chrysene 9E-10 1E.()9 1E-13
Oibenzo(a ,h)anthracene 1E-07 1E.()7 1E-11
I-no (1,2,3-<d) pyrene 7E-08 BE-08 9E-12
Pen-olE-08 1E-06 NA
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) 2E-08 2E-08 SE-12
PCB-1260 (Arneb-1260) 2E-08 2E-08 SE-12
Dioxin TEQ 1E-05 2E-05 3E.()9
Aluminum NA NA NA
Anenic 3E-06 olf.()7 1E-08
Barium NA NA NA
Chromium NA NA 3E.()8
Iron NA NA NA
Manga.-NA NA NA
Nicka! NA NA NA·
Silver NA NA NA
Total Mercury NA NA NA
Total · 2E-46 2E-<15 4E.()8
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Conclusions:
1. The hazard index is less than one, Indicating norK:Bncer effects are not expected
2. The excess cancer risk le\lel is within EPA'a acceptable range (10-4 and 10-6).
CDM Fiedmil Ptoemns Corponiion. - --- - - --
Exposure
Routes
Total
2E.()7
2E.()7
2E-06
2E.()9
2E.()7
1E.()7
1E-06
olE-08
olE-08
3E-05
NA
olE-06
NA
3E-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4E-<15
4f.()6
-
Chemical ol Potential
Concem
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
lndono (1,2.3-<d) pyrene
Pen1achlorophenoi
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Dioxin TEQ
Aluminum
Anenic
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
Total Mercury
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Exposure
Primary Target Organ Ingestion Dermal lnhalatfon Routes
Total
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
Uver, kidney 0.00003 0.001 NA 0.001
Eyes, Melbomian glands, nails D.001 0.001 NA 0.003
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
CNS (Neurotoxicity) 0.002 0.001 NA 0.004
Skin (Hyperpigmenta!lon, keratosis) 0.02 0.002 NA 0.02
No adverse effect 0.001 0.002 0.0002 0.004
No adverse effect 0.001 0.01 0.0001 0.01
No adverse effect 0.01 0.01 NA 0.02
CNS (Neurotoxicity) 0.003 0.01 0.004 0.01
Decreased body and organ weights 0.0002 0.0001 NA 0.0003
Skin (Argyria) 0.0001 0.00003 NA 0.0001
CNS (Neurotoxicity) 0.0004 0.0002 OJX)00001 0.001
Total O.IM 0.03 0.004 0.1
Total Haza.rd Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 0.1
A-46 ---- - -- -- -
--- -- ----
Table 9.2(b)
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs -Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood s· ite
Carcinogenic Risk
Exposure Exposure Chemic.I of Potential Exposure Medium Medium Point Concern Ingestion Dermal lnhaLatlon Routes
Total
Soil Soil Site Benzo(a)anlhracene SE-08 1E-07 1E-11 2E-07
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 1E-07 1E-07 1E-11 2E-07
Benzo(a)pyrene 9E-07 1E-06 1E-10 2E-06
Ch,ysene 9E-10 1E-09 1E·13 2E-09
Oibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1E-07 1E-07 1E-11 2E-07
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyn,ne 7E-08 SE-08 9E-12 1E-07
PCB-1254 (Aroctor 1254) 2E-08 SE-07 SE-12 SE-07
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 2E-08 2E-08 SE-12 4E-08
Dioxin TEQ SE-06 SE-06 1E-09 1E-05
Aluminum NA NA NA NA
Arsenic 2E-06 3E-07 7E-09 3E-06
Barium NA NA NA NA
Chromium NA NA 2E-08 2E-08
ln,n NA NA NA NA
Manganese NA NA NA NA
Nickel NA NA NA NA
Silver NA NA NA NA
Total Mercury NA NA NA NA
Total SE-06 SE-06 3E-08 2E-05
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 2E-06
Conclusions:
1. The hazard Index is less than one, indicating nofK:8ncer effects are not expected
2. The excess cancer risk kwel la within EPA'a acceptable range (1M and 10-6).
CDM Fder:al. Prov,nm C-orpon[icn
- - -- - - -- -
Chemic.II of Potential
Concern
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Ch,ysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anlhracene
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyn,ne
PCB-1254 (An>clor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Dioxin TEQ
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
ln,n
Manganeoe
Nclel
Silver
Total Mercury
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Exposure
Primary Target Organ Ingestion Denna! Inhalation Routes
Total
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
Eyes, Meibomlan glanda, nails 0.001 0.03 NA 0.03
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
CNS (Neurolmdclly) 0.002 0.001 NA 0.004
Skin (Hyperplgmen1ation, keratosls) 0.01 0.002 NA 0.02
No adverse effect 0.001 0.002 0.0002 0.004
No adverse effect 0.001 0.01 0.0001 0.01
Noadverweffoct D.01 0.01 NA 0.02
CNS (Neuroloxlci1y) 0.003 0.01 0.004 0.01
Decreased body and organ weights 0.0002 0.0001 NA 0.0003
Skin (Argyria) 0.0001 0.00003 NA 0.0001
CNS (Neurnloxlclly) 0.0004 0.0002 0.0000001 0.001
Total O.CM 0.1 0.004 0.1 '
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and AU Exposure Routes 0.1
A-47
-
Table 9.3(a)
Summary of Receptor Hazards for COPCs
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georaia-Paciflc Hardwood Site
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical of Potential
Medium Point Concern
Soil Soil Site Benzo(a}anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
lndeno (1,2,3-<:d) pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
PCB-1254 (Arock>r 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Dioxin TEQ
Aluminum
Anionic
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
Total Mercury
Total
Ground- Ground-Tap 2-Methytnaphthalene
water water Aluminum
Anionic
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
\
Manganeae
Vanadium
Total
Conclusions:
I
Scenario Timeframe: Future I
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Non.Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient I
Primary Target Organ Ingestion Dermal Inhalation
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
Liver, kidney 0.001 0.003 NA
Eyes, Melbomlan glands, nails 0.03 0.004 NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
CNS (Neurotoxicily) 0.1 0.004 NA
Skin (Hyperplgmentation, keratosla) 0.5 0.01 NA
No adverse effect 0.03 0.01 0.001
No adverse effect 0.03 0.02 0.0002
No adverse effect 0.3 0.02 NA
CNS (Neurotoxicily) 0.1 0.02 0.01
Decreased body and organ weights 0.004 0.0003 NA
Skin (Argyrla) 0.002 0.0001 NA
CNS (Neurotoxlcily) 0.01 0.001 0.0000004
Total 1 0.1 0.01
Decreased body weight 0.01 NA NA
CNS (Neurotoxicily) 0.2 NA NA
Skin (Hyperplgmentatlon, keratosla) 24 NA NA
No adverse effect 0.2 NA NA
No adverse effect 0.1 NA NA
No adverse effect 6 NA NA
CNS (Neurotoxlcily) NA NA NA
CNS (Neurotoxicily) 4 NA NA
Decreased hair cystlne 0.1 NA NA
Total 34 NA NA
Total Hazard Index Acroaa All Media and All Exposure Routes
Total akin HI Across All Media
Exposure
Routes
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.003
0.04
NA
NA
0.1
0.5
0.04
0.05
· 0.4
0.1
0.005
0.002
0.01
1
0.01
0.2
24
0.2
0.1
6
NA
4
0.1
34
35
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. The hazard index Is greater than one, Indicating non-cancer effects are possible. Total CNS HI Across All Media 4
I
I
I
CDM F«kral -Co,pon,ion A-48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 9.3(b)
Summary of Receptor Hazards for COPCs
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
G I P lfl H d d s· eora a-ac C ar woo 1te
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical of Potentlal
Medium Polnl Concern
Soll sou Site Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dlbenzo(a,h)anthracene
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Dioxin TEQ
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Sliver
Total Mercury
Total
Ground-Ground-, Tap 2-Methytnaphthalene
water water Aluminum
Araenlc
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Total
Conclualons:
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Exposure
Primary Target Organ Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Routes
Total
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
Eyes, Meibomlan glands, nails 0.03 0.1 NA 0.1
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
CNS (Neurotoxlclty) 0.1 0.004 NA 0.1
Skin (Hyperplgmentation, keralosla) 0.4 0.005 NA 0.4
No adverse effect 0.03 0.01 0.0005 0.04
No adverse effect 0.03 0.02 0.0002 0.04
No adverse effect 0.3 0.02 NA 0.4
CNS (Neuroloxlclty) 0.1 0.02 0.01 0.1
Decreased body and organ weights 0.004 0.0003 NA 0.005
Skin (Argyria) 0.002 0.0001 NA 0.002
CNS (Neuroloxlclty) 0.01 0.001 0.0000004 0.01
Total 1 0.2 0.01 1
Decreased body weight 0.01 NA NA 0.01
CNS (Neuroloxlclty) 0.2 NA NA 0.2
Skin (Hyperplgmentation, keratosla) 24 NA NA 24
No adverse effect 0.2 NA NA 0.2
No adverse effect 0.1 NA NA 0.1
No adverse effect 6 NA NA 6
CNS (Neuroloxlclty) NA NA NA NA
CNS (Neuroloxlclty) 4 NA NA 4
Decreased hair cystlne 0.1 NA NA 0.1
Total 34 NA NA 34
Total Hazard Index AcroH All Media and All Exposure Routes 35
Total skin HI AcroH All Media 24
1. The hazard Index la greater than one, lndlcatlng non-cancer effects are possible. Total CNS HI Acroaa All Media 4
CDM Fedcnl Propam1 C.Orpor.uion A-49
Table 9.4(a)
Summary of Receptor Risks for COPCs
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical of Potential
Medium Point Concern
Soil Soil Site Benzo( a )anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenzo( a, h )anthracene
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Dioxin TEO
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
· Nickel
Silver
Total Mercury
Total
Ground- Ground-Tap 2-Methylnaphthalene
water water Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Total
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child to Adult
Carcinogenic Risk
Exposure
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Routes
Total
2E-06 5E-07 5E-11 2E-06
2E-06 6E-07 7E-11 3E-06
2E-05 5E-06 6E-10 2E-05
2E-08 5E-09 6E-13 2E-08
2E-06 5E-07 6E-11 3E-06
1E-06 4E-07 4E-11 2E-06
9E-07 5E-06 NA 6E-06
4E-07 1E-07 3E-11 5E-07
3E-07 9E-08 2E-11 4E-07
3E-04 BE-05 2E-08 4E-04
NA NA NA NA
7E-05 2E-06 5E-08 7E-05
NA NA NA NA
NA NA 1E-07 1E-07
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
4E-04 9E-05 2E-07 SE-04
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
6E-03 NA NA 6E-03
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
6E-03 NA NA 6E-03
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 6E-03
Conclusion:
1. The excess cancer risk level is above EPA's acceptable range (10-4 and 10-6).
CDM Federal Programs Corporation A-50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 9.4(b)
Summary of Receptor Risks for COPCs
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood s ite
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical of Potential
Medium Point Concern
Soil Soil Site Benzo( a )anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo( a )pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Dioxin TEQ
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
Total Mercury
Total
Ground-Ground-Tap 2-Methylnaphthalene
water water Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Total
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child to Adult
Carcinogenic Risk
Exposure
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Routes
Total
2E-06 SE-07 SE-11 2E-06
2E-06 BE-07 7E-11 3E-06
2E-05 SE-06 6E-10 2E-05
2E-08 SE-09 SE-13 2E-08
2E-06 SE-07 6E-11 3E-06
1E-06 4E-07 4E-11 2E-06
4E-07 2E-06 3E-11 3E-06
3E-07 9E-08 2E-11 4E-07
1E-04 3E-05 6E-09 1E-04
NA NA NA NA
SE-05 1E-06 3E-08 SE-05
NA NA NA NA
NA NA 1E-07 1E-07
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
2E-04 4E-05 2E-07 2E-04
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
6E-03 NA NA 6E-03
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
6E-03 NA NA 6E-03
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 6E-03
Conclusion:
1. The excess cancer risk level is above EPA's acceptable range (10-4 and 10-6).
CDM Federal Program, Cm-poration A-51
Table 10.1(a)
Risk Assessment Summary
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Conclusions:
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Visitor
Receptor Age: Adolescent
·1. The excess cancer risk level is within EPA's acceptable range (10-4 and 10-6).
2. The hazard index is less than one, indicating non-cancer effects are not likely.
3. Based on these conclusions, there are no Chemicals of Concern and preparation of Table 10 is not applicable.
CDM Federal Prngrams Corporation A-52
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 10.1(b)
Risk Assessment Summary
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Conclusions:
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Visitor
Receptor Age: Adolescent
1. The excess cancer risk level Is within EPA's acceptable range (10-4 and 10-6).
2. The hazard index is less than one, indicating non-cancer effects are not likely.
3. Based on these conclusions, there are no Chemicals of Concern and preparation of Table 10 is not applicable.
"CDM Federal Programs Corporation A-53
Table 10.2(a)
Risk Assessment Summary
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Concluslons:
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
1. The excess cancer risk level is within EPA's acceptable range (10-4 and 10-6).
2. The hazard index is less than one, indicating non-cancer effects are not likely.
3. Based on these conclusions, there are no Chemicals of Concern and preparation of Table 10 is not applicable.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation A-54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 10.2(b)
Risk Assessment Summary
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Conclusions:
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
1. The excess cancer risk level is within EPA's acceptable range (10-4 and 10-6).
2. The hazard index is less than one, indicating non-cancer effects are not likely.
3. Based on these conclusions, there are no Chemicals of Concern and preparation of Table 1 0 is not applicable.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation A-55
Table 10.3(a)
Risk Assessment Summary
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
I
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future I
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
I
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemlcalof Exposure Medium Point Concern Primary Target Organ Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Routes
Total
Soil Soil Site Aluminum CNS (Neurotoxicity) 0.1 0.004 NA 0.1
Arsenic Skin (Hyperpigmentation, keratosis) 0.5 0.01 NA 0.5
Iron No adverse effect 0.3 0.02 NA 0.4
Manganese CNS (Neurotoxicity) 0.1 0.02 0.01 0.1
Total Total 1 0.1 0.01 1
Ground- Ground-Tap Aluminum CNS (Neurotoxicity) 0.2 NA NA 0.2
water water Arsenic Skin (Hyperpigmentation, keratosis) 24 NA NA 24
Barium No adverse effect 0.2 NA NA 0.2
Chromium No adverse effect 0.1 NA NA 0.1
Iron No adverse effect 6 NA NA 6
Lead CNS (Neurotoxicity) NA NA NA NA
Manganese CNS (Neurotoxicity) 4 NA NA 4
Vanadium Decreased hair cystine 0.1 NA NA 0.1
Total Total 34 NA NA 34
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 35
Conclusions: Total skin HI Across All Media 24
1. The excess cancer risk level is above EPA's acceptable range (10-4 and 10-6). Total CNS HI Across All Media 4
2. The hazard index is greater than one, indicating non-cancer effects are possible.
COM Foden>I Programs Corporation A-56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 10.3(b)
Risk Assessment Summary
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
G I P lfl H d d Sit eorg a-ac C ar WOO e
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical of
Medium Point Concern
Soil Soil s~e Aluminum
Arsenic
Iron
Manganese
Total
Ground-Ground-Tap Aluminum
water water Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Total
Conclusions:
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quottent
Exposure
Primary Target Organ lngestton Dermal lnhalatton Routes
Total
CNS (Neurotoxicity) 0.1 0.004 NA 0.1
Skin (Hyperpigmentation, keratosis) 0.4 0.005 NA 0.4
No adverse effect 0.3 0.02 NA 0.4
CNS (Neurotoxicity) 0.1 0.02 0.01 0.1
Total 1 0.1 0.01 1
CNS (Neurotoxicity) 0.2 NA NA 0.2
Skin (Hyperpigmentation, keratosis) 24 NA NA 24
No adverse effect 0.2 NA NA 0.2
No adverse effect 0.1 NA NA 0.1
No adverse effect 6 NA NA 6
CNS (Neurotoxicity) NA NA NA NA
CNS (Neurotoxicity) 4 NA NA 4
Decreased hair cystine 0.1 NA NA 0.1
Total 34 NA NA 34
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 35
Total skin HI Across All Media 24
1. The excess cancer risk level is above EPA's acceptable range (10-4 and 10-6). I 2. The hazard index is greater than one, indicating no~ancer effects are posslble.
Total CNS HI Across All Media 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM Fwcral Program, c;,,,poration A-57
Table 10.4(a)
Risk Assessment Summary
Pre-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical of Concern Medium Point
Soil Soil Site Benzo( a )anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenzo( a, h )anthracene
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Dioxin TEQ
Arsenic
Total
Ground-Ground-Tap Arsenic
water water Total
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child to Adult
Carcinogenic Risk
Exposure
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Routes
Total
2E-06 SE-07 SE-11 2E-06
2E-06 6E-07 7E-11 3E-06
2E-05 SE-06 6E-10 2E-05
2E-06 SE-07 6E-11 3E-06
1E-06 4E-07 4E-11 2E-06
9E-07 SE-06 NA 6E-06
4E-07 1E-07 3E-11 SE-07
3E-07 9E-08 2E-11 4E-07
3E-04 SE-05 2E-08 4E-04
7E-05 2E-06 SE-08 7E-05
4E-04 9E-05 7E-08 5E-04
6E-03 NA NA 6E-03
6E-03 NA NA 6E-03
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 6E-03
Conclusion:
1. The excess cancer risk level is above EPA's acceptable range (10-4 and 10-6).
CDM Federal Programs Corporation A-58
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 10.4(b)
Risk Assessment Summary
Post-Excavation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical ofConcern Medium Point
Soil Soil Site Benzo( a )anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
Dioxin TEQ
Arsenic
Total
Ground-Ground-Tap Arsenic
water water Total
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child to Adult
Carcinogenic Risk
Exposure
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Routes
Total
2E-06 SE-07 SE-11 2E-06
2E-06 BE-07 7E-11 3E-06
2E-05 SE-06 BE-10 2E-05
2E-06 SE-07 6E-11 3E-06
1E-06 4E-07 4E-11 2E-06
4E-07 2E-06 3E-11 3E-06
3E-07 9E-08 2E-11 4E-07
1E-04 3E-05 6E-09 1E-04
SE-05 1E-06 3E-08 SE-05
2E-04 4E-05 4E-08 2E-04
6E-03 NA NA 6E-03
SE-03 NA NA SE-03
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes SE-03
Conclusion:
1. The excess cancer risk level is above EPA's acceptable range (10-4 and 10-6).
CDM Federal Programs Corporation A-59
Table 11.1
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Surface Soil -Post-Excavation
Residential Land Use Assumptions
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Chemicals Detections 1 Cancer Risk Level 2 Hazard Quotient Level'
of m, /ka ma/ka ma/ka
Concern Min Max 1E-6 1E-S 1E-4 HQ• 0.1 HQ• 1 HQ•3.
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.040 1.8 1 7 69 NA NA NA
Benzo(b &/or k)fluoranthene 0.041 2.6 1 7 69 NA NA NA
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.055 1.6 0.1 1 7 NA NA NA
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.075 0.075 0.1 1 7 NA NA NA
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.068 0.540 1 7 69 NA NA NA
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) 0.078 1.0 0.3 3 25 0.1 1 4
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 0.078 1.1 0.3 3 25 NA NA NA
Dioxin TEO 0.0000016 0.00086 0.000003 0.00003 0.0003 NA NA NA
Aluminum 1,300 9,300 NA NA NA 7,335 73,355 220,064
Arsenic 1 58 0.4 4 42 2 23 69
Iron 2,500 47,000 NA NA NA 2,201 22,006 66,019
Manaanese 21 2,500 NA NA NA 377 3,775 11,324
Notes:
1. Minimum/maximum detected concentration in Grids 1 -13 and 15 -56. "J" is estimated value. "-" is a result that did not
require qualification. Data from post-excavation confirmation samples for Grids 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47 and 49 substituted for
pre-excavation results.
2. Remediation goals based on oral, inhalation and dermal contact using Lifetime Resident land use exposure assumptions.
3. Remediation goals based on oral, inhalation and dermal contact using Child Resident land use exposure assumptions. The
combination of Lifetime Resident exposure assumptions for carcinogens and Child Resident exposure assumptions for non-
carcinogens results in the lowest (most protective) risk-based concentrations.
Acronyms:
NA: Not applicable
HQ: Hazard quotient (noncancer risk)
CDM Federal Programs Corporation A-60
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 11.2
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options and ARARs for Groundwater
Residential Land Use Assumptions
G P "fi H d d s·t eorara-ac, 1c ar woo 18
Chemlcals Detections 1 Cancer Risk Level 2 Hazard Quotient Level' ARAR/TBC 4
of (u 1/1) (ug/1) (ug/1)
Concern Min Max 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 HQ=0.1 HQ=1 HQ=3 (ug/1)
Aluminum 660 24.000 NA NA NA 1,564 15,643 46,929 200 SMCL
Arsenic 5 990 0.04 0.4 4 0.5 5 14 50 MCL
Barium 30 590 NA NA NA 110 1,095 3,285 2000 MCL
Chromium 2 31 NA NA NA 8 78 235 100 MCL
Iron 1,400 67,000 NA NA NA 469 4,693 14,079 300 SMCL
Lead 28 40 NA NA NA NA NA NA 15 TT
Manganese 62 4,700 NA NA NA 38 375 1,126 50 SMCL
Vanadium 3 52 NA NA NA 11 110 329 NA NA
Notes:
1. Minimum/maximum detected concentration in: MW1-9; TW24, TW29, TW49, TW51, TW54.
2. Remediation goals based on ingestion of groundwater using Lifetime Resident Exposure Assumptions
3. Remediation goals based on ingestion of groundwater using Child Resident land use exposure assumptions.
The combination of Lifetime Resident exposure assumptions for carcinogens and Child Resident exposure
assumptions for non-carcinogens results in the lowest (most protective) risk-based concentrations.
4. ARAR/TBC: Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequiremenVTo-Be-Considered
MCL: U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Level
SMCL: U.S. EPA Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
TT: Treatment Technique Action Level
Acronyms:
NA: Not applicable
HQ: Hazard quotient (noncancer risk)
CDM Federal Programs Corporation A-61
This page intentionally left blank.
CDM F«lml Program., Coqx,ra-
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM Federal Progr.,m.s Coq,ontlon
Appendix B
Example Calculations
This page intentionally left blank.
/
CDM Fodera! Program, Co,pora1ion
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AppendixB
Example Calculations
Tables
B-1 Equation and Example Calculation for Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Concentration
B-2 Calculation of Age-Adjusted Intake Factors
B-3 Equations and Example Calculations for Ingestion Exposure to Soil
B-4 Equations and Example Calculations for Dermal Exposure to Soil
B-5 Equations and Example Calculations for Inhalation Exposure to Dust
B-6 Equations and Example Calculations for Ingestion Exposure to Surface Water
B-7 Equations and Example Calculations for Dermal Exposure to Surface Water
B-8 Equations and Example Calculations for Ingestion Exposure to Soil -Lifetime
Resident Scenario
B-9 Equations and Example Calculations for Dermal Exposure to Soil -Lifetime
Resident Scenario
B-10 Equations and Example Calculations for Inhalation Exposure to Dust -Lifetime
Resident Scenario
B-11 Equations and Example Calculations for Ingestion Exposure to Groundwater
CDM F«loral Program, Coq,oration
I
This page intentionally left blank. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM Fodera! Program, Coqxuatlon
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table B-1
Equation and Example Calculation for
Reasonable Maximum Exposure Concentration
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Equation Definition:
- 2 sH (x+O.Ss +--)
UCL=e ✓,i::-r
where:
UCL = upper confidence limit
e = constant (base of the natural log, equal to 2.718)
-X = mean of the transformed data
s = standard deviation of the transformed data
H = H-statistic (e.g., from table published in Gilbert)
n = number of samples
Example calculation for aluminum in soil
Appendix B
Example Calculations
UCL= e (8.2+0.S(0.s)2 +o.s(l.876)t✓ss-l)
UCL=4,751mg/kg
Source: EPA, Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term, OSWER Publication
9285.7-08, May 1992.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation 8-1
Table B-2
Calculation of Age-Adjusted Intake Factors
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Parameter Definition
EOc exposure duration, child (yrs)
EDtot exposure duration, total (yrs)
BWc body weight, child (kg)
BWa body weight, adult (kg)
IRSc ingestion rate soil, child (mg/day)
IRSa ingestion rate soil, adult (mg/day)
IRGWc ingestion rate groundwater, child (I/day)
IRGWa ingestion rate groundwater, adult (I/day)
SAc2 surface area per day, child (cm2/day)
SAa 3 surface area per day, adult (cm2/day)
IRAc inhalation rate, child (m3/day)
IRAa inhalation rate, adult (m3/day)
IF soil/adj ingestion factor soil, age-adjusted (mg-yr/kg-day)
IF gw/adj ingestion factor groundwater, age-adjusted (I-yr/kg-day)
IF air/adj inhalation factor air, age-adjusted (m3-yr/kg-day)
OF dermal factor for soil, age-adjusted (cm2-yr/kg-day)
Value
6
30
15
70
200
100
1
2
2650
5800
10
20
Intake Factors
IF soil/adj ' I IF gw/adj I IF air/adj
114 I 1.09 I 10.9
Equations:
Appendix B
Example Calculations
I OF
I 3049
IF soil/adj= (EOc x IRSc / BWc) + (EDtot -EDc) x (IRSa/BWa)
IF gw/adj = (EOc x IRGWc / BWc) + (EDtot -EOc) x (IRGWa/BWa
IF air/adj = (EOc x IRAc / BWc) + (EDtot -EDc) x (IRAa/BWa)
OF= (EOc x SAc / BWc) + (EDtot -EOc) x (SAa/BWa)
1 IF soil/adj taken from Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B, Development of Risk-based Remediation Goals, December 1991; all others by analogy.
2 Surface area is 25% of the 95th percentile total surface area of a 6<7 male child (25% of 10,600 cm2)
3 Surface area is 25% of the 95th percentile total surface area of an adult male (25% of 23,000 cm2)
CDM Federal Programs Corporation B-2 - ------------ - - - - --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table B-3
Equations and Example Calculations for
Ingestion Exposure to Soil
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Equation Definition:
ADD= C x IR x CF x Fl x EF x ED I BW x AT
Parameter Definition
ADD average daily dose
LADD lifetime average daily dose
C chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg)
IR ingestion rate (mg soil per day)
CF conversion factor (kg/mg)
Fl fraction ingested from contaminated source (unitless)
EF exposure frequency (days/year)
ED exposure duration (years)
BW body weight (kg)
AT averaging time (70 yr for cancer risk; exposure
duration for noncancer risk)
Example Calculations
Site visitor exposed to benzo(a)anthracene in surface soil
Noncancer Risk
ADD= 0.7 mg/kg x 100 mg/day x 1E-6 kg/mg x 1 x 50 dlyr x 10 yrs I
45 kg x 10 yrs x 365 d/yr
ADD= 2E-7 mg/kg/day
Cancer Risk
LADD= ADD x ED 170 yr
LADD= 2E-7 mg/kg/d x 10 yr/ 70 yr
LADD = 3E-8 mg/kg/d
Source:
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual
(Part A), December 1989.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
Appendix B
Example Calculations
Value
Calculated
Calculated
Chem. spec.
100
1E-06
1
50
10
45
70 or 10
B-3
Table B-4
Equations and Example Calculations for
Dermal Exposure to Soil
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Equation Definition:
ADD= C x CF x SAxAFxABS x EF x ED/BWxAT
Parameter
ADD
LADD
C
CF
SA
AF
ABS
EF
ED
BW
AT '
Definition
average daily dose
lifetime average daily dose
chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg)
conversion factor (kg/mg)
surface area per event (cm2/d)
adherence factor (mg/cm2)
absorption factor (1.0% for organics, 0.1 % for inorganics)
exposure frequency (d/yr)
exposure duration (yr)
body weight (kg)
averaging time (70 yr for cancer risk; exposure
duration for noncancer risk)
Example Calculations
S~e vis~or exposed to benzo(a)anthracene in surface soil
Noncancer Risk
ADD = 0. 7 mg/kg x 1 E-6 kg/mg x 5,800 cm2/d x 1.0 mg/cm2 x 0.01 x 50 d/yr x 10 yr/
45 kg x 10 yrs x 365 d/yr
ADD = 1 E-7 mg/kg/d
Cancer Risk
LADD= ADD x ED /70 yr
LADD = 1 E-7 mg/kg/d x 10 yr/ 70 yr
LADD = 2E-8 mg/kg/d
Toxicity Value Adjustments
Toxicfy values were adjusted from an administered to an absorbed dose
according to the method described in EPA 1989.
Examples: RfD(oral) for manganese x 0.05 = RfD(absorbed)
7E-2 mg/kg/day x 0.05 = 4E-3 mg/kg/day
Sources:
CSF(oral) for benzo(a)anthracene / 1.0 = CSF(absorbed)
7.3E-1 (mg/kg/day)"1 / 1.0 = 7.3E-1 (mg/kg/day)"1
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual
(Part A), December 1989.
Dermal Exposure Assessment Principles and Applications, January 1992.
CDM Federal Programs Coq,oration
Appendix B
Example Calculations
Value
Calculated
Calculated
Chem. spec.
1E-06
5,800
1
50
10
45
70 or 10
8-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 8-5
Equations and Example Calculations for
Inhalation Exposure to Dust
G P .fi H d d s·t eorg1a-ac1 1c ar woo I 8
Equation Definition:
ADD= C x ED x EF x IR x 11/PEFl / BW x AT
Parameter Definition
ADD average daily dose
, LADD lifetime average daily dose
C chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg)
ED exposure duration (yr)
EF exposure frequency (d/yr)
IR inhalation rate (m3/d)
PEF 1 particulate emissions factor (m3/kg)
BW body weight (kg)
AT averaging time (70 yr for cancer risk; exposure
duration for noncancer risk)
Example Calculations
Site visitor exposed to benzo(a)anthracene in dust released from surface soil
Noncancer Risk
ADD= 0, 7 mg/kg x 10 yr x 50 dlyr x 17 m3/d x 111,32 E+9 m3/kg I
45 kg x 10 yrs x 365 d/yr
ADD = 3E-11 mg/kg/d
Cancer Risk
LADD = ADD x ED / 70 yr
LADD= 3E-11 mg/kg/d x 10 yr /70 yr
LADD= 4E-12 mg/kg/d
Sources:
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B, Development of Risk-based
Preliminary Remediation Goals, December 1991.
1 PEF obtained from Soil Screening Guidance, 1996
CDM Federal Program, Coq,oration
Appendix B
Example Calculations
Value
Calculated
Calculated
Chem, spec.
10
50
17
1.32E+09
45
70 or 10
8-5
Table B-6
Equations and Example Calculations for
Ingestion Exposure to Surface Water
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Equation Definition:
ADD= C xCR xCFx ETx EF xED/BWxAT
Parameter Definition
ADD average daily dose
LADD lifetime average daily dose
C chemical concentration in water (ug/L)
CR contact rate (Uhr)
CF conversion factor (mg/ug)
ET exposure time (hr/event)
EF exposure frequency (events/yr)
ED exposure duration (yr)
BW body weight (kg)
AT averaging time (70 yr for cancer risk; exposure duration for noncancer risk)
Example Calculations
Site visitor exposed to arsenic in surface water
Noncancer Risk
ADD= 310 ug/L x 0.01 Uhr x 0.001 mg/ug x 2 hr/day x 12 d/yr x 10 yr I
45 kg x 10 yrs x 365 d/yr
ADD = 5E-6 mg/kg/d
Cancer Risk
LADD= ADD x ED/ 70 yr
LADD = 5E-6 mg/kg/d x 10 yr I 70 yr
LADD= 6E-7 mglkgld
Source: \
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual
(Part A), December 1989.
CDM Federal Program, Cmporation
Appendix B
Example Calculations
Value
Calculated
Calculated
Chem. spec.
0.01
0.001
2
12
10
45
70 or 10
8-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table B-7 Appendix B
Example Calculations
Equations and Example Calculations for
' Dermal Exposure to Surface Water
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Equation Definition:
ADD= C X CF x SA x PC x ET x EF x ED X CF/ BW X AT
Parameter
ADD
LADD
C
CF
SA
PC
ET
EF
ED
CF
BW
Definition
average daily dose
lifetime average daily dose
chemical concentration in water (ug/L)
conversion factor (mg/ug)
skin surface area available for contact (cm2)
dermal permeability constant (cm/hr)
exposure time (hr/d)
exposure frequency (d/yr)
exposure duration (yr)
volumetric conversion factor for water (Ucm3)
body weight (kg)
AT averaging time (70 yr for cancer risk; exposure duration for noncancer risk)
Example Calculations
Site visitor exposed to arsenic in surface water
Noncancer Risk
Value
Calculated
Calculated
Chem. spec.
0.001
5800
Chem. spec.
2
12
10
0.001
45
70 or 10
ADD= 310 ug/L x 0.001 mg/ug x 5,800 cm2/d x 1.6E-4 cm/hr x 2 hr/d x 12 d/yr x 10 yr x 0.001 Ucm3 /
45 kg x 10 yrs x 365 d/yr
ADD= 4E-7 mg/kg/d
Cancer Risk
LADD = ADD x ED / 70 yr
LADD= 4E-7 mg/kg/d x 10 yr 170 yr
LADD = 6E-8 mg/kg/d
Toxicity Value Adjustments
Toxicity values were adjusted from an administered to an absorbed dose
according to the method described in EPA, 1989.
Examples: RfD(oral) for manganese x 0.05 = RfD(absorbed)
2E-2 mg/kg/day x 0.05 = 1 E-3 mg/kg/day
Source:
CSF(oral) for arsenic/ 1.0 = CSF(absorbed)
1.5E+0 (mg/kg/day)"1 / 1.0 = 1.5E+0 (mg/kg/day)"1
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A),
December 1989.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation B-7
Table B-8
Equations and Example Calculations for
Ingestion Exposure to Soil
Lifetime Resident Scenario
G H S eorg1a-Pacific ardwood ite
Equation Definition:
LADD= RME x IF x CF x Fl x EF / AT x 365 (day/yr)
Parameter Definition
LADD Lifetime average daily dose
RME Reasonable Maxium Exposure concentration in soil (mg/kg)
IF ingestion factor soil, age-adjusted (mg-yr/kg-day)
CF conversion factor (kg/mg)
Fl fraction ingested from contaminated source (unilless)
EF exposure frequency (days/year)
AT averaging time (yrs); equal to exposure duration which is incorporated into IF
Example Calculations
Lifetime resident exposed to benzo(a)anthracene in surface soil
Cancer Risk
LADD= 0.7 (mg/kg) x 114 (mg-yr/kg-day) x 1E-6 (kg/mg) x 1 x 350 (days/yr)/
30 (yrs) x 365 (days/yr)
LADD= 2E-6 (mg/kg/day)
.
Source:
Appendix B
Example Calculations
Value
Calculated
Chem. spec.
114
1E-06
1
350
30
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals,
December 1991.
CDM Federal Program, Cmporation B-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table B-9 Appendix B
Example Calculations
Equations and Example Calculations for
Dermal Exposure to Soil
Lifetime Resident Scenario
G P "fi H d d s·t eorg1a-ac1 1c ar woo I e
Equation Definition:
LADD= RME x CF x DF x AF x ABS x EF / AT x 365 (day/yr)
Parameter Definition
LADD Lifetime average daily dose
RME Reasonable Maxium Exposure concentration in soil (mg/kg)
CF conversion factor (kg/mg)
DF dermal factor soil, age-adjusted (cm2-yr/kg-day)
AF soil to skin adherence factor (mg/cm2)
ABS absorption factor (1.0% for organics, 0.1% for inorganics)
EF exposure frequency (days/year)
AT averaging time (yrs); equal to exposure duration which is incorporated into DF
Example Calculations
Lifetime resident exposed to benzo(a)anthracene in surface soil
Cancer Risk
LADD= 0.7 (mg/kg) x 1E-6 (kg/mg) x 3,049 (cm2-yr/kg-day) x 1 (mg/cm2) x 0.01 x 350 (days/yr)/
30 (yrs) x 365 (days/yr)
LADD= 7E-7 (mg/kg/day)
Source:
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals,
December 1991.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
Value
Calculated
Chem. spec.
1E-06
3,049
1
Chem. spec.
350
30
B-9
Table 8-10
Equations and Example Calculations for
Inhalation Exposure to Dust
Lifetime Resident Scenario
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Equation Definition:
LADD= RME x IF x PEF x EF / AT x 365 {day/yr)
Parameter Definition
LADD Lifetime average daily dose
RME Reasonable Maxium Exposure concentration in soil {mg/kg)
IF inhalation factor air, age-adjusted {m3-yr/kg-day)
PEF particulate emissions factor {m3/kg)
EF exposure frequency (days/year)
AT averaging time {yrs); equal to exposure duration which is incorporated into IF
Example Calculations
Lifetime resident exposed to benzo{a)anthracene in dust released from surface soil
Cancer Risk
LADD= 0.7 {mg/kg) x 10.9 {m3-yr/kg-day) x 1/1.32E+9 {m3/kg) x 350 {days/yr)/
30 {yrs) x 365 (days/yr)
LADD= 2E-10 {mg/kg/day)
Source:
Appendix B
Example Calculations
Value
Calculated
Chem. spec.
10.9
1.32E+09
350
30
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals,
December 1991.
COM Federal Program, Cmporation B-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table B-11
Equations and Example Calculations for
Ingestion Exposure to Groundwater
Lifetime Resident Scenario
G P "fi H d d s· eorgIa-acIIc ar woo Ite
Equation Definition:
LADD= C x IF x CF x EF x ED I AT
Parameter Definition
LADD Lifetime average daily dose
C chemical concentration in water (ugll)
IF ingestion factor (L-yr/kg-d)
CF conversion factor (mg/ug)
EF exposure frequency (dlyr)
ED exposure duration (yr)
AT averaging time (yrs); equal to exposure duration which is incorporated into IF
Example Calculations
Lifetime resident exposed to arsenic
Cancer Risk
LADD= 111 ug/L x 1.09 L-yrlkg-d x 0.001 mglug x 350 d/yr x 30 yr I
30 yrs x 365 dlyr
LADD = 4E-3 mglkgld
Source:
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual
(Part A), December 1989.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
Appendix B
Example Calculations
Value
Calculated
Chem. spec.
1
0.001
350
30
10950
8-11
I
This page intentionally left blank. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM F«lcnl Programa Co,poradon
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AppendixC
Toxicological Profiles of
Chemicals of Potential Concern
CDM Fed,ral Program, Coq,oradon
This page intentionally left blank.
CDM Federal Program, Coq,oration
I
I
I I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
I
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
ALUMINUM -Aluminum is not thought to be harmful to humans in the forms
normally encountered (e.g., via cooking utensils, antacids, and antiperspirants).
However, exposure to aluminum is not beneficial and excess exposure may be
harmful to certain people. Sensitive subpopulations may include pregnant women
and Alzheimer's patients. The potential health risks associated with exposure to
aluminum include respiratory problems from breathing the dust, and possibly
neurological, teratogenic, and skeletal problems from drinking water containing high
levels of aluminum. Inhalation and dermal exposure of healthy subjects are not
associated with adverse health risks.
Aluminum is not known to cause cancer in humans. Some workers in the aluminum
industry have had a higher than expected incidence of cancer, but this is probably
due to the other potent carcinogens to which they are exposed, such as polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons and tobacco smoke. The few animal studies that were
available were designed to study noncancer endpoints, but they also do not indicate
that aluminum is carcinogenic (ATSDR, 1991a).
Studies of interactions of aluminum with other materials that may be found at
hazardous waste sites show that aluminum has a protective effect against the toxic
effects of some other chemicals. For example, aluminum hydroxide, commonly
found in antacids, can decrease the intestinal absorption of fluoride in humans.
Aluminum has been used in the prevention and treatment of silicosis, but its utility
in this regard is questionable. Aluminum lactate has been shown to decrease the
adverse effects of quartz in the sheep lung (ATSDR, 1991a).
ARSENIC -Arsenic is a potent toxicant that may exist in several valence states and in
a number of inorganic and organic forms. Most cases of arsenic-induced toxicity in
humans are due to exposure to inorganic arsenic, and there is an extensive database
on the human health effects of the common arsenic oxides and oxyacids. Although
there may be some differences in the potency of different chemical forms (e.g.,
arsenites tend to be somewhat more toxic than arsenates), these differences are
usually minor.
Exposure to arsenic via inhalation is a great public health concern due to the
increased risk of lung cancer, although respiratory irritation, nausea, and skin effects
may also occur. Several studies have shown an increased risk of lung cancer in
workers occupationally exposed. Based on the risk of lung cancer, EPA has assigned
inorganic arsenic to Group A (known human carcinogen) via the inhalation route.
By the oral route, the effects most likely to be of human health concern are GI
irritation, peripheral neuropathy, vascular lesions, anemia, and a group of skin
diseases, including skin cancer. Based on epidemiological studies which have shown
an increased risk of skin cancer in populations exposed to elevated levels of arsenic in
drinking water, EPA has placed inorganic arsenic in Group A (known human
carcinogen) by the oral route of exposure.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation C-1
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
Relatively little information is available on effects due to direct dermal contact with
inorganic arsenicals, but several studies indicate the chief effect is local irritation and
dermatitis, with little risk of other adverse effects (ATSDR, 1992a).
BARIUM -Humans exposed to acute levels of barium have shown respiratory,
gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, renal, and neurological effects. Respiratory effects of
benign pneumonoconiosis have been observed in workers exposed occupationally by
inhalation to barium. Respiratory weakness and paralysis were seen in humans
following ingestion of barium. Acute ingestion of barium has also lead to
cardiovascular effects of increased blood pressure, changes in heart rhythm,
myocardial damage, and changes in heart physiology and metabolism and
gastrointestinal effects of hemorrhaging, pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. Renal effects
of degeneration and failure and neurological effects of numbness and tingling of the
mouth and neck, partial and complete paralysis, and brain congestion and edema
were reported in the human case studies.
Barium has not been evaluated by EPA for human carcinogenic potential
(ATSDR, 1991b).
CHROMIUM -Most of the toxic effects associated with chromium compounds are
attributed to the more highly soluble, irritating hexavalent form of chromium.
Trivalent chromium is considered one of the least toxic of the trace metals. Inhalation
exposures to hexavalent chromium compounds have been associated with nasal
damage, such as perforated septa, nosebleeds, and inflamed mucosa. Skin contact
with high levels of chromium compounds has been reported to produce an eczema-
like condition.
Hexavalent chromium is suspected of being responsible for mutagenic and cell
transforming effects of chromates in various test systems. These adverse effects
appear to be prevented in the presence of liver enzymes or gastric juice, but are
unaffected by lung enzymes.
Hexavalent chromium is classified as a Group A human carcinogen by inhalation,
based on sufficient evidence of human carcinogenicity. Results of epidemiologic
studies are consistent across investigators and locations. Studies of chromate
production facilities in the U.S., Great Britain, Japan, and Germany have established
an association between chromium exposure and lung cancer. Three studies of the
chrome pigment industry in Norway, England, and the Netherlands found an
association between occupational chromium exposure and lung cancer (ATSDR,
1992b).
ffiON -Iron is a metal belonging to the first transition series of the periodic table.
The inorganic chemistry of iron is dominated by compounds in the +2 and +3 valence
states. The primary examples of iron in the O valence state are metal and alloys and
the carbonyl compounds.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation C-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
Chronic toxicity to iron usually results from prolonged accumulation of iron in the
tissues (siderosis). Excessive amounts of iron stored in the tissues results in a
condition called hemochromatosis, a pathological general tissue fibrosis. Most cases
of hemochromatosis probably result from source of iron intrinsic to the tissues after
hemolytic anemias or repeated blood transfusions. Idiopathic or primary
hemochromatosis is a genetic disorder of iron metabolism that is characterized by
deposition of unusually large amounts of iron in the tissues. Absorption of iron from
the gut is greatly in excess of body requirements, therefore, increasing tissue
deposition over several years. The liver and pancreas may typically contain stores of
iron that are 50-100 times the normal levels. The thyroid, pituitary, heart, spleen, and
adrenals are other sites of unusually high iron deposition. Males are 10 times more
frequently affected than females; the disease is typically manifested in the fifth or
sixth decade of life.
.Chronic inhalation exposure of man to iron or its compounds is likely to result from
occupational exposures. Epidemiological studies of mortality among steel workers
have not indicated an association with exposure to iron oxide. In lung function
studies on workers in these occupations, no relationship was found between the
incidence of chronic bronchitis and emphysema and exposure to iron oxide dusts
although the respirable fraction never exceeded a mean level of 2 mg/3•
Esophageal carcinoma has been associated with either iron deficiency or iron
overload, although a causal relation has not been established. One report on
inhalation exposure to iron mining dusts described an association with excess deaths
from lung cancers. More recently, it has been found that the presence of radon gas
was a more likely cause of the reported excess of lung cancers. !ARC briefly
summarized the early reports of lung tumors associated with exposure to iron-ore
dusts or fumes from hot metals (i.e., from welding operations). In these cases,
reports of excess lung tumors from exposure to iron have not been corroborated.
Exposure to alcohol, tobacco, silica, soot, and fumes of other metals confound the
validity of association of lung cancers with iron and its compounds. No other reports
of cancers in humans or animals associated with oral exposure to iron (and
compounds) have been located in the available literature; hence, no slope factors for
oral or inhalation exposure can be calculated.
LEAD -At high exposure levels, lead produces encephalopathy, gastrointestinal
effects, anemia, nephropathy, and electrocardiographic abnormalities. These effects
are primarily seen in children or from occupational exposure. Lower level exposure
to lead in all humans can affect the synthesis of heme, which in tum affects metabolic
processes and decreases vitamin D circulating in the body which reduces calcium
stability in the body.
Effects of great concern from low-level lead exposure are neurobehavioral effects and
growth retardation in infants exposed prenatally and children exposed postnatally.
Increased blood pressure from low-level lead exposure in middle-aged men has also
CDM Fodera! Program, Co,poration C-3
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
been observed. Based on blood lead concentrations, no clear threshold of effect has
been shown from low-level lead exposures resulting in blood lead levels < 10 ug/ dL.
Lead has also been shown in a number of DNA structure and function assays to
affect the molecular processes associated with the regulation of gene expression, and
under certain conditions, may induce chromosomal aberrations in vivo and in tissue
cultures. No reproductive effects from human oral exposure to lead have been
reported; however, occupational inhalation exposures have been linked to altered
testicular function, increases in spontaneous abortion, premature delivery, and early
membrane rupture.
The EPA has classified lead as a Group B2 carcinogen. Data concerning the
carcinogenicity of lead in humans are inconclusive. There is no evidence that oral
exposure produces a tumor response. Although studies of occupational inhalation
exposure have produced negative results, increases in cancer of the digestive organs
and respiratory system have been reported (ATSDR, 1992c).
MANGANESE -Most studies in humans and animals indicate that manganese
exposure does not cause significant injury to the heart, stomach, blood, muscle, bone,
liver, kidney, skin, or eyes. However, if manganese is in the Mn (+7) valence state (as
in potassium permanganate), then ingestion or dermal contact may lead to severe
corrosion at the point of contact.
Inhalation exposure to manganese dusts often leads to an inflammatory response in
the lungs in both humans and animals. This generally leads to increased incidence of
cough and bronchitis, and can lead to mild to moderate injury to lung tissue, along
with minor decreases in lung function. In addition, susceptibility to infectious lung
disease may be increased, leading to increased prevalence of pneumonia.
Information on the carcinogenic potential of manganese is limited, and the results are
difficult to interpret with certainty. Inhalation exposure of humans to manganese
dusts has not been identified as a risk factor for lung cancer, although intra peritoneal
injection of mice with manganese sullate led to an increased incidence of lung
tumors. Preliminary data indicate that chronic oral exposure of rats to manganese
sullate may lead to increased incidence of pancreatic tumors (adenomas plus
carcinomas). These data are not adequate to reach a firm conclusion regarding the
carcinogenicity of manganese, but suggest that the potential for carcinogenic effects
in humans is small (ATSDR, 1991c).
MERCURY -Mercury and all compounds of mercury affect the central nervous
system (CNS) and kidneys. Exposure to low levels over prolonged periods produces
symptoms that can vary widely from individual to individual. These can include
weakness, loss of appetite, weight loss, insomnia, indigestion, diarrhea, metallic taste
in the mouth, increased salivation, mouth or throat soreness, inflammation of the
gums, black line on the gums, loosening of teeth, irritability, loss of memory, and
tremor in fingers, eyelids, lips, or tongue. Extensive exposure produces behavioral
CDM Federal Programs Corporati~n C-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
changes such as irritability, excitability, anxiety, delirium with hallucinations,
melancholy, or manic depressive psychosis. This is known as erethism or Mad
Hatter syndrome.
The target tissue for organic mercury effects is the central nervous system, especially
the brain. Severe poisoning may produce irreversible brain damage resulting in loss
of higher functions. The effects of chronic poisoning with alkyl mercury compoun?s
are progressive. Initially there are fine tremors of the hands, and in some cases, of
the face and arms. Tremors become coarse and convulsive, speech becomes
moderately slurred and difficulty with pronunciation may occur with continued
exposure. Development of an unsteady gait, can progress to severe ataxia of the
arms and legs. Common sensory disturbances include tunnel vision, blindness, and
deafness. A symptom that occurs later in exposure is the constriction of the visual
field, which is rarely reversible and may be associated with loss of understanding
and reason which makes the person completely out of touch with their environment.
There are no reliable human or animal studies which indicate that inhalation or oral
exposure to mercury causes cancer (ATSDR, 1989a).
NICKEL -In humans, acute exposure to nickel commonly results in contact
dermatitis, atrophic dermatitis, and allergenic sensitization. Other signs and
symptoms of exposure to nickel include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, central nervous
system depression, coughing, shortness of breath, chest pain, fever and weakness.
Chronic occupational inhalation exposures may result in respiratory effects such as
asthma and chronic respiratory tract infections. Nickel has not definitely been shown
to be genotoxic or mutagenic. Studies have shown nickel to induce chromosomal
aberrations in cultured mammalian cells and sister chromatid exchange in both
mammalian cells and human lymphocytes, as well as the induction of morphological
cell transformation in vitro. Ingested nickel may cause reproductive and
developmental toxicity in animals. Reproductive effects in male rats include
degenerative changes in the testes, epididymis and spermatozoa. Studies in female
rats and hamsters suggest an effect on embryo viability and the implantation process.
Animals exposed to nickel before implantation have shown delayed embryonic
development and increased resorptions, although there are problems associated with
the interpretation of these studies. Nickel may also be teratogenic.
Nickel is classified as a human carcinogen, in EPA Group A. Inhalation of nickel has
been associated with lung and nasal cavity tumors in humans exposed to nickel
refinery dusts. Evidence of carcinogenicity via inhalation is consistent in several
epidemiologic studies from various countries. The findings are characterized by lung
and nasal cancers, high relative risks, and a dose-response relationship by length of
exposure. The nickel compounds which have been most strongly implicated as
carcinogens are metallic nickel, nickel subsulfide, and nickel carbonyl (ATSDR,
1992d).
CDM Federal Programs Cmporation C-5
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
PENTACHLOROPHENOL -Evidence was found in the reviewed literature that
pentachlorophenol is toxic to both humans and experimental animals. The major
target organs for both humans and animals were the liver, kidney, central nervous
system, and the immune system. The adverse health effects of pentachlorophenol
generally resulted from an uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation. Humans are
generally exposed to technical grade pentachlorophenol which usually contains such
toxic impurities as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. Animal
studies with both technical and purified pentachlorophenol have demonstrated that
many, but not all, of the toxic effects attributed to pentachlorophenol were actually
due to the impurities.
There is no convincing evidence from epidemiological studies that indicates that
pentachlorophenol produces cancer in humans. Case reports suggest a possible
association between cancer (Hodgkin's disease, soft tissue sarcoma, and acute
leukemia) and occupational exposure to technical pentachlorophenol. However, in
all of these cases, the possibility of concurrent exposure to other toxic substances
cannot be excluded. EPA classified pentachlorophenol as B2-probable human
carcinogen-based on the results of the NTP (1988) study (ATSDR, 1989b).
POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHS) -Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbors (PAHs) are generally categorized into two groups: carcinogens and
noncarcinogens. Those that have been shown to be carcinogenic to animals by the
oral route are: benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene.
Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene have been shown to be
carcinogenic by the dermal route. For many of the carcinogenic PAHs, it would
appear that the site of tumor induction is generally the point of first contact, i.e.,
stomach tumors are observed following ingestion, and skin tumors following dermal
exposure.
Evidence exists to indicate that certain PAHs are carcinogenic in humans. PAHs
express their carcinogenic activity through biotransformation to chemically reactive
intermediates which then covalently bind to cellular macromolecules (i.e., DNA)
leading to mutation and tumor initiation. The evidence of carcinogenicity in humans
comes primarily from occupational studies where workers involved in such
processes as coke production, roofing, oil refining or coal gasification are exposed to
mixtures containing PAHs (e.g., coal tar, roofing tar, soot, coke oven emissions, soot,
and crude oil). P AHs have not been clearly identified as the causative agent,
however. Cancer associated with exposure to PAH-containing mixtures in humans
occurs predominantly in the lung and skin following inhalation and dermal
exposure, respectively. Some ingestion of PAHs is likely due to swallowing of
particles containing PAHs subsequent to mucociliary clearance of these particulates
from the lung.
Noncancer adverse health effects associated with noncarcinogenic PAHs
(acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, phenanthrene,
CDM Federal Program, Coqx,rat;on C-6
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
and pyrene) exposure have been observed in animals, but (with the exception of
adverse hematological and dermal effects) generally not in humans. Animals studies .
demonstrate that PAHs tend to affect proliferating tissues such as bone marrow,
lymphoid organs, gonads and intestinal epithelium. Thus, although P AHs are
distributed extensively throughout the body, their major target organs appear to be
the hematopoietic and lymphoid systems in animals.
The lymphoid system, because of its rapidly proliferating tissues, is susceptible to
PAH-induced toxicity. The mechanism of action for this effect is most likely
inhibition of DNA synthesis. No adverse effects on this system associated with PAH
exposure have been reported in humans, but several accounts of lymphoid toxicity in
animals were observed. Lymphoid effects in animals from PAH exposure include an
increase in reticulum cells, accumulation of iron, reduced lymphoid cells, and dilated
lymph sinuses.
The skin is susceptible to P AH-induced toxicity in humans. Regressive verrucae
were reported following subchronic application of benzo(a)pyrene to human skin.
Although reversible and apparently benign, these changes were seen to represent
neoplastic proliferation. Benzo(a)pyrene application also apparently exacerbated
skin lesions in patients with pre-existing skin conditions (pemphigus vulgaris and
xeroderma pigmentosum). Workers exposed to substances that contain PAHs (e.g.,
coal tar) experienced chronic dermatitis and hyperkeratosis.
Anthracene has been associated with gastrointestinal toxicity in humans. Humans
that consumed laxatives that contained anthracene (anthracene concentration not
specified) for prolonged periods were found to have an increased incidence (73.4 % )
of melanosis of the colon and rectum as compared to those who did not consume
anthracene-containing laxatives (36.5% ).
The developmental effects of PAHs, especially benzo(a) pyrene, have been
investigated in animals using the parenteral route of administration. Injections of
benzo(a)pyrene to pregnant mice produced stillbirths, resorptions, and
malformations, testicular changes including atrophy of seminiferous tubules with
lack of spermatoids and spermatozoa in males; immunosuppression; and tumor
induction (ATSDR, 1990b).
The mobility of P AHs in the environment is dependent in large part on their water
solubility and sorption potential. The physical properties of PAHs may be broken
into two categories: diaromatics such as naphthalenes and methylnaphthalenes and
all other PAHs (three or more condensed rings). Diaromatics have moderate water
solubility and soil sorption potential and, thus, their movement through the
subsurface tends to be less than the monoaromatics (benzene, toluene, xylenes and
ethylbenzene), but substantial movement can still occur. When released into surface
water bodies, these materials have moderate to high toxicity to aquatic organisms.
PAHs with three or more condensed rings have very low solubility (typically less
than 1 mg/L) and sorb strongly to soils. Thus, their movement in the subsurface is
CDM Federal Program, Coqx,ra,;on C-7
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
minimal. In addition, materials containing four to six ring P AHs are poorly
biodegradable and, coupled with the potential to bioaccumulate in tissues of aquatic
organisms, these materials have the potential to bioconcentrate (be found at levels in
living tissue higher than present in the general surroundings) in the environment
(ATSDR, 1990b).
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS) -Hepatic, dermal, and ocular effects
are relatively well-established in case studies of PCB exposure. There are also reports
of respiratory, gastrointestinal, hematological, muscular and skeletal, developmental,
and neurological effects related to PCB exposure, but the effects can not be positively
attributed to PCBs.
Hepatic effects include an increase in serum levels of enzymes and cholesterol,
hepatocellular damage, neurosis, and lipid accumulation in humans and animals.
Dermal lesions including skin irritation, chloracne, and pigmentation of nails and
skin have been observed in humans following occupational exposure to relatively
low-levels of PCB. Eye irritation, burning sensation, conjunctivitis, and eye discharge
were also reported by occupationally exposed individuals.
Case studies of exposed workers have reported respiratory effects of tightness in the
chest, impaired lung function and upper respiratory tract irritation; gastrointestinal
effects of loss of appetite, nausea, epigastric distress and pain and intolerance to fatty
foods; and neurological effects of dizziness, headaches, depression and fatigue.
Human developmental effects are seen in lower birth weights and a shortened
gestational age. Evaluations of blood samples from women who aborted, miscarried,
or delivered prematurely showed associations between those effects and
concentrations of PCBs.
Occupational studies suggest possible PCB-related liver, gastrointestinal tract,
hematopoietic system, and skin carcinogenicity. In animal studies, PCB exposure
caused cancerous liver tumors. PCBs as a group have been classified as probable
human carcinogens by IARC and by EPA. These classifications are based on
sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals, and as evaluated by IARC, limited
evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. NTP has concluded that PCBs are reasonably
anticipated to be carcinogenic in humans based on sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity in animals. Because there is insufficient information about which
constituents of the PCB mixtures are carcinogenic, it is assumed that PCB mixtures
of any composition are potentially carcinogenic. This assumption has uncertainty
since it can not be verified with present knowledge (ATSDR, 1992e).
SILVER -The one clinical condition that is known in humans to be attributable to
long term exposure to silver and silver compounds is a gray or blue-gray discoloring
of the skin (argyria). Argyria may occur in an area of repeated or abrasive dermal
contact with silver or silver compounds, or more extensively over widespread areas
of skin and the conjunctiva of the eyes following long-term oral or inhalation
exposure.
CDM Federal Program, Cmporation C-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
Studies in humans and animals indicate that silver compounds are absorbed readily
by the inhalation and oral routes and poorly by the dermal route, and are distributed
widely throughout the body. Evidence from both human and animal studies
indicates that inhalation of silver compounds can irritate the respiratory pathway.
Case reports where individuals have accidentally swallowed solutions of silver
nitrate show that it may cause gastric discomfort as well.
No studies were located regarding cancer in humans or animals following inhalation,
oral, or dermal exposure to silver or silver compounds. Both positive and negative
results for tumorigenesis have been reported following injection of subcutaneous
colloidal silver in rats. However, the relevance of this route of exposure to humans is
not clear. Animal toxicity and human occupational studies using normal routes of
exposure have not provided any indications of carcinogenicity, and silver is not
expected to be carcinogenic in humans (ATSDR, 1990c).
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORO-DIBENZO-P-DIOXIN -Results of extensive investigations
of the acute lethality of 2,3,7,8-TCDD indicate that this chemical is toxic at very low
levels in all species tested. Species differences in lethality cover 4 orders of
magnitude in dose level. LD50 values, after gavage administration in lipophilic
solvents, were reported to range from 0.6 to 2.1 ug/kg in Hartley guinea pigs, 20 to
60 ug/kg in rats, 100 to 600 ug/kg in mice, and 1000 to 5000 ug/kg in hamsters.
Rhesus monkeys have also been studied, but the lowest dose tested, 70 ug/kg was
lethal. Reproductive toxicity studies indicate that female rhesus monkeys are very
sensitive to the lethal effects of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Eight of 16 pregnant monkeys died
after treatment with a total dose of 1.0 ug/kg over a 9-day period during gestation,
toxic effects, as indicated by abortion, were ob.served at a total 2,3,7,8-TCDD dose of
0.2 ug/kg. Following acute administration, death is generally observed only after an
extended period of time that ranges from 5 to 40 days; this lag time appears to be, to
some extent, independent of dose after a threshold is reached.
Since the turn of the century, chloracne has been observed in humans after a few
days from the time of accidental exposure to a variety of chlorinated aromatic
compounds. 2,3,7,8-TCDD is known to be one of the most potent compounds in
producing chloracne; however, sufficient data on exposure are not available to define
the doses necessary to produce this lesion. It is known that chloracne appears prior
to any other visible effects related to 2,3,7,8-TCDD exposure. The lesions usually
appear on the face and upper trunk area. These lesions can be very disfiguring and
can be persistent, lasting many years after exposure.
Additional signs of toxicity have been reported in case studies of small groups of
people exposed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. These signs include aching muscles, loss of
appetite, weight loss, digestive disorders, easy fatigability, insomnia, loss of libido,
headache, neuropathy, sleep disturbance, sensory changes, and uncharacteristic
bouts of anger. Many of these symptoms are commonly observed with acute
exposure to chemicals, and since the exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD is always a mixed
exposure, with 2,3,7,8-TCDD being only a minor component (on a percentage basis),
CDM Federal Programs Corporation C-9
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
it is difficult to state with certainty that these symptoms are produced from 2,3,7,8-
TCDD.
The evidence from human epidemiology studies that 2,3,7,8-TCDD is carcinogenic is
difficult to assess because (1) exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD is poorly documented and (2)
exposure occurred to other potentially active materials. The strongest evidence is
from the induction of soft-tissue sarcomas at various sites, and it has been questioned
whether combining tumor data from various sites is appropriate. With regard to the
observed increase in stomach cancer, the two groups of workers studied were
relatively small, and similar increases in stomach tumors have not been reported in
other more extensive studies.
The animal data, however, clearly indicate that 2,3,7,8-TCDD is carcinogenic,
although there is some disagreement in the scientific and international regulatory
community as to whether 2,3,7,8-TCDD acts as a complete carcinogen or as a
carcinogen promoter. Based on available evidence, EPA has classified 2,3,7,8-TCDD
in Group B2, a probable human carcinogen (ATSDR, 1988).
The EPA has formally adopted an interim procedure for estimating risks associated
with exposures to mixtures of the 210 chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and chlorinated
dibenzofuran (CDD/CDF) congeners, including 2,3,7,8-TCDD (EPA, 1987). The
procedure, based upon data available through 1985, uses a set of derived toxicity
equivalent factors (TEFs) to convert the concentration of any CDD/CDF congener
into an equivalent concentration of 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD. The approach simplifies the
assessment of both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks involving exposures to
mixtures ofCDDs/CDFs.
Dioxin/ dibenzofuran analyses reported from the CLP include analyses of both
individual CDD/CDFs and a TEF for the mixture. The TEF value reported by the
CLP converts the toxicities of the individual CDDs/CDFs into a single TEF based on
2,3,7,8-TCDD. The reported TEF values were used in the risk assessment to calculate
the risks due to CDD/CDF exposure in soils and dust.
V ANADWM -The only significant, clearly documented, effect of vanadium
exposure in humans is mild to moderate respiratory distress and mucosa! irritation
from exposure to vanadium dusts. Vanadium workers may have coughs, chest pain,
sore throats, or eye irritation, which can last for several days after exposure. These
effects are common to many kinds of dust exposures. The effects are no more severe
than those experienced during a routine upper respiratory tract infection and can
sometimes be delayed for several hours after exposure. Chronic effects are not
reported with regularity. Chest x-rays and urine and blood analyses in these people
are normal. These workers often develop a green color on their tongues from direct
accumulation of vanadium.
CDM Federal Programs Cmporation C-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AppendixC
Toxicological Profiles
Studies in animals support the findings that vanadium primarily affects the
respiratory system. The respiratory system responds to the particulate matter by
increasing the number of leukocytes which are used to clear away the foreign matter.
A few animal studies have shown renal effects from parenteral injection of
vanadium. These include increased lipid peroxidation and decreased tubular
reabsorption. It is difficult to determine the potential for renal toxicity in humans
exposed by normal exposure routes. Renal effects have not been observed upon
urinalysis in occupationally exposed workers.
Workers who have been exposed to vanadium dust did not show any large increases
in cancer deaths, although detailed studies were not performed. Studies designed to
test effects other than cancer in animals have not noted any increases in tumors
resulting from inhalation or oral exposure to vanadium. To date, studies are
inadequate to perform an acceptable assessment of the carcinogenic potential of
vanadium. Vanadium has not been assigned a weight of evidence class for human
carcinogenicity (ATSDR, 1991d).
CDM Federal Program, Cmporation C-11
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1988. Toxicological
Profile for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-Dibenzo-p-Dioxin. U.S. Public Health Service.
Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1989a. Toxicological
Profile for Mercury. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1989b. Toxicological
Profile for Pentachlorophenol. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public
Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1990a. Toxicological
Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). U.S. Public Health Service.
Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (J\TSDR), 1990b. Toxicological
Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). U.S. Public Health Service.
Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1990c. Toxicological
Profile for Silver. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1991a. Toxicological
Profile for Aluminum. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1991b. Toxicological
Profile for Barium. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1991c. Toxicological
Profile for Manganese. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1991d. Toxicological
Profile for Vanadium. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1992a. Toxicological
Profile for Arsenic. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1992b. Toxicological
Profile for Chromium. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1992c. Toxicological
Profile for Lead. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation C-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1992d. Toxicological
Profile for Nickel. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1992e. Toxicological
Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). U.S. Public Health Service. Draft
for Public Comment.
U.S.EP A, 1984. Health Effects Assessment for Iron (and Compounds). Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio. September.
CDM Federal Program, Coq,oration C-13
I
This page intentionally left blank, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM Fedonl Program, Co,por.nion
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
AppendixD
Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model
· Results
CDM F«lcnl Prng,anu Coq,oration
I
This page intentionally left blank. I
I
I
I
I
,;t•· I ,1,/ .-:;,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,!,) I ,. ;'
'\~,,, "'{, I \~~ "·\t, ' I
I
I CDM Fodera! Program, C0<poratlon
I
I
I
I
I
I ,..
:II .,Q ... a. ...
Ill "d
I C 0
Ill 0 i:i ..
.,Q
:II " I ... .... ... .. C ... 0 .,Q ... .. ...
I .,Q 0
0 C $, ::I a. "' I
I
I
I LEAD 0.99d
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 2 4 6 8 i0 i2
Cu~o~~: i0.0 ug/dL
Y. Above: i.87
Y. Below: 98 .i3
G. Mean: 3.8
i4 i6 is
BLOOD LEAD CONCENTRATION (ug/dL)
i2 ~o 84 Mon~hs
I
This page intentionally left blank. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix E
Calculations of Remedial Goal Options
CDM F.d=l Program, Cmporation
I
This page intentionally left blank. I
I
I
I
_,, I ,.
~V I ,.
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·,. + l I
CDM Fodual Program, Co,por.,tion
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AppendixE
Calculations of Risk-based Remedial Goal
Options
Tables
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Surface Soil Based on Cancer Risk -
Lifetime Resident Land Use Assumptions
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Surface Soil Based on Non-Cancer Hazards
Child Resident Land Use Assumptions
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Groundwater Based on Cancer Risk -
Lifetime Resident Land Use Assumptions
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Groundwater Based on Non-Cancer
Hazards -Child Resident Land Use Assumptions
CDM Federal Program, Coq,oration
I
This page intentionally left blank. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM Federal Program., Coq,oration
I
I
-------------------
Table E-1
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Surface Soil Based on Non-Cancer Risk
Lifetime Resident Land Use Assumptions
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Equation Definition: Chemical of ABS CSFo
C = (TR x AT x 365 days/yr V EF x [(CSFo x IF'°'' x CF ) + Potential (mg/kg.<f)"'
(CSFi x IF.,,x 1/PEF) + (CSFd x CF x DF x AF x ABS)] Concern
Parameter Definition Value Benzo(a)anthracene 0.01 7.3E-01
C chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg) Benzo(b &/or k)fluoranthene 0.01 7.3E-01
TR target risk 1E-06 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.01 7.3E+00
AT averaging time (yrs) 70 Cnrysene' 0.01 7.3E-03 ·--EF exposure frequency ( d/yr) 350 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.01 7.3E+00
CSFo cancer slope factor ( oral) Chem. spec. lndeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.01 7.3E-01
IF'°" ingestion factor (mg-yr/kg-d) 114 PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) 0.01 2.0E+00
CF conversion factor (kg/mg) 0.000001 PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 0.01 2.0E+00
CSFi cancer slope factor (inhalation) Chem. spec. Dioxin TEO 0.01 1.5E+05
IF air inhalation factor (m3-yr/kg-d) 10.9 Aluminum 0.001 NA
. PEF particulate emissions factor (m3/kg) 1.32E+09 Arsenic 0.001 1.5E+00
CSFd cancer slope factor ( dermal) Chem. spec. ~ 0.001 NA
dermal factor ( cm2 -yr/kg-d)
I
DF 3,049 Chromium 0.001 NA ---AF adherence factor (mg/cm2) 1.0 Iron 0.001 NA
ABS dermal absorption factor Chem. spec. Manganese 0.001 NA
~i~J
0.001 NA I Silver 0,001 NA
Mercu 0.001 NA
'----"
Remediation goals based on oral, inhalation and dermal contact exposure
CDM Federal Program, Co,poration
AppendiK E
RGO Calculations Ot>
V 'e,l u s: I t'\G_s
CSFI CSFd Cancer Risk Level
(mg/kg.<f)"' (mg/kg-<1)"1 mg/kg
1E-6 1E-5 1E-4
3.1E-01 7.3E-01 .o,r 7 69
3.1E-01 7.3E-01 Jl,7' 7 69
3.1E+00 7.3E+00 9.-1' 1 7
3.1E-03 7.3E-03 .69-692 6,921
3.1E+00 7.3E+00 0,1' 1 7
3.1E-01 7.3E-01 of 7 69
2.0E+00 2.0E+00 _0,3• 3 25
2.0E+00 2.0E+00 ,0,3 --3 25 .,,,
1.2E+05 1.5E+05 0.000003 0.00003 0.0003 -NA NA _]A-NA NA
1.5E+01 1.5E+00 0.4" 4 42
NA NA NA' NA NA
@ -2,105 4.2E+01 NA 21,04,8
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
E-1
-
Table E-2
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Surface Soll Based on Non-Cancer Risk
Child Resident Land Use Assumptions
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
EquaUon DeflnlUon: Chemical of ABS
C = THlx BW x AT x 365 d/yr / EF x ED x [(1/R!Do x IRo x CF x PotenUal
Fl) + (1/R!Di x IRi x 1/PEF) + (1/R!Dd x CF X SAX AF X ABS)] Concern
Parameter Definition Value Benzo(a)anthracene 0.01
C chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg) Benzo(b &/or k)fluoranthene 0.01
THI target hazard index 1 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.01
BW body weight (kg) 15 Chrysene 0.01
AT averaging time (yrs) 6 Dibenzo(a,h)anlhracene 0.01
EF exposure frequency (d/yr) 350 lndeno(1,2,3-<Xf)pyrene 0.01
ED exposure duration (yrs) 6 PCB-1254 (Aroc:lor 1254) 0.01
R!Do reference dose (orsl) PCB-1260 (Aroc:lor 1260) 0.01
IRo ingestion rate (mg/d) 200 Dioxin TEQ 0.01
CF conversion factor (kg/mg) 1E-06 Aluminum 0.001
Fl fraction ingested from source (unitless) 1 Arsenic 0.001
R!Di reference dose (inhalation) Barium 0.001
IRi inhalation rate (m3/d) 10 Chromium 0.001
PEF particulate emissions factor (m3/kg) 1.32E+09 Iron 0.001
R!Dd reference dose (denmal) Manganese 0.001
SA surface area per event (cm2/d) 2,650 Nickel 0.001
AF adherence factor (mg/cm2) 1 Silver 0.001
ABS dermal absomtum factor Merourv 0.001
Remediation goals based on oral, inhalation and dermal contact exposure
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
RfDo RfDI RfDd
mg/kg-d mg/kg-d mg/kg-d
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
2E-05 NA 2E-05
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
1E+OO NA 2E--01
3E--04 NA 3E--04
7E--02 1 E--04 4E--03
5E--03 3E-05 1E--04
3E--01 NA SE--02
7E--02 1E-05 4E--03
2E--02 NA 4E--03
5E--03 NA 1 E--03
1 E--04 9E-05 2E-05
- -------------
Appendix E
RGO Ca/culstions
Hazard QuoUent Level
mg/kg
HQ=0.1 HQ=1 HQ=3
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA ....
0.1 ..-1" 4
NA NA NA
NA NA NA -· 7,335 !,3;355 220,064
2 ,23· 69
427 4.265". 12,796
23 •234. -703
2,201 izoos ... 66,01~
377 f:11s. . 11,324
147 1A61 ... . 4,401
' 37 367, 1,100 .
1 ... -7 .. 22 .
E-2 - - --
-------------------
Table E-3
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Groundwater Based on Cancer Risks
Child Resident Land Use Assumptions
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Equation Definition: Chemical of
Cs TR x BW x AT x 365(d/yr) x CF/ EF x [(SFI x IFw) + (SFo x IFw)) Potential
_c:_oncern
Parameter Definition Value 2-Methylnaphthalene 4
C chemical concentration in water (ug/1) Aluminum
TR target risk 1E-06 Arsenic
AT averaging time (yr) 70 Barium
CF conversion factor (ug/mg) 1000 Chromiu~
EF exposure frequency (d/yr) 350 Iron
SFo oral cancer slope factor ((mg/kg-dayr' ) Chem. spec. Lead
IFw ingestion factor (I-yr/kg-day) 1.09 Manganese
SFi inhalation cancer slope factor ((mg/kg-dayr' ) Chem. spec. Vanadium
Remediation goals based on ingestion of groundwater.
CDM Federal Program< Cmporation
SFo SFI
1E-S
J NA NA NA
NA NA NA
1.5E+OO NA 0.04
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
Appendix E
RGO Calculations
Cancer Risk Level
(ug/l)
1E-5 1E-4
NA NA
NA NA
0,4--4
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
E-3
Table E-4
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Groundwater Based on Non-Cancer Hazards
Child Resident Land Use Assumptions
Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site
Equation Definition: Chemical of
C = THI x BW x AT x 365(d/yr) x CF/ EF x ED x (1/RIDo x IRw) Potential
Concern
Parameter Definition Value 2-Methylnaphthalene 4
C chemical concentration in water (ug/I) Aluminum
RfDo oral reference dose (mg/kg-day) Chem, spec. Arsenic
BW body weight (kg) 15 Barium
AT averaging time (yr) 6 Chromium
EF exposure frequency (d/yr) 350 Iron
ED exposure duration (yr) 6 Lead
THI target hazard index 1 Manganese
IRw daily water ingestion rate (I/day) 1 Vanadium
CF conversion factor {ua/mn\ 1000
Remediation goals based on ingestion of groundwater
CDM Federal Program, Coq,oration
Rmo
2E-02
1E+00
3E-04
7E-02
5E-03
3E-01
NA
2E-02
7E-03
AppendixE
RGO Calculations
Hazard Quotient Level
(ug/L)
HQ=0.1 HQ=1 HQ=3
31 313 939
1,564 15,643' 46,929
0.5 5 I 14
110 1,095 3,285
8 781 235 • 469.3 4,693 14,079
NA NA NA • 38 375 1,126
11 1110 329
E-4
-- - - - - - - - - - - - ---- -l!l!!!I